If a carbon tax raised prices for meat, how much of an increase would be costly enough (to you personally or to populations you care about, e.g. lower income families) that you would be uncomfortable supporting it?
Grassfed beef and many other more humane/natural animal husbandry practices are actually substantially worse wrt carbon emissions than factory farming — in large part because the animals tend to require much more time to reach slaughter weight
-
-
I'm not sure how this is an issue, since it's mostly a loop. Cattle growth and gaseous emissions is fueled by grass, which is carbon pulled from the atmosphere. Here's a chart
@GHGGuru tweeted:pic.twitter.com/34j9OU60sK
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Probably true, though the political ramifications for increasing wealthy & upper middle class folks' carbon emissions while forcing lower income people onto a second-class diet is probably prohibitive re: practicality
- Show replies
-
-
-
I don't think so. CAFOs mostly require feed to be imported or carbon expelling harvest equipment. Animals on pasture, although they take much longer to fatten, sequester some carbon through grazing--probably at least as much as they fart. What else do you do with grasslands?
-
In the humid regions, it is better than burning the grasslands. In arid regions, fire would be a natural part of the regeneration of grasslands to restart the process of sequestration.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.