Bovine flatulence is more of a problem than you might think.
In fact, it's turned out to be more of a problem than even the experts had originally thought, with environmental scientists recently discovering that methane emissions from cattle were 11% higher than original estimates. Add to that the fact that methane is 85 times more effective at trapping heat than the infamous CO2, and it's easy to see how the global livestock industry alone is responsible for 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Things are equally apocalyptic in the public health arena. Gone are the days when meat was a luxury to be consumed once or twice a week, or on special holidays. Multiple meaty meals now dominate in the UK - and so do all the health problems associated with them, such as obesity and certain cancers.
But we 're not going to surrender our steaks willingly, so it should come as no surprise that analysts working on behalf of the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return Initiative have today concluded that a tax on meat products is practically 'inevitable' if we want to face these problems. Experts suggested that a 'sin tax' similar to those on cigarettes and alcohol in order to increase environmental and public health prospects. “Behavioural taxes are increasingly common. That’s why we’ve seen 16 countries adopt a sugar tax in recent years.' says Jeremy Coller, Founder of the FAIRR Initiative in a press release. "The damage the meat industry causes to our health and environment make it very exposed to similar levies, and it is increasingly probable we’ll see meat taxes become a reality."
It's a prospect that has already been debated in the super-civilized kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark, but is unlikely to be approved in Old Blighty without a fight. I'm probably the least appropriate proponent of the idea - as a meat-eater with a limited budget, any proposed tax would probably hit people like me hardest - but here's why even I can see the benefits of paying extra.
**1) It's the environment, stupid **
I've never actually disputed the environmental carnage caused by cattle rearing, but after several (albeit half-hearted) attempts to remove meat from my diet, my discipline has always failed me (and the planet). Where the discipline has failed many of us, the taxes will surely succeed. If buying those chicken thighs is the difference between paying the rent and not paying it, I'm not going to buy them, regardless of how desperate I am to make a Chicken Kiev.
Of course, there is the point to be made that these taxes will disproportionately affect the poor and not affect the amount of meat consumed by wealthier segments of the population. My rusty Economics A Level suggests that this is how it would actually turn out (unless the financially impaired decide that meat is so important that they buy roughly the same amount and forgo other luxuries instead). But ultimately more expensive meat will force us to consider the alternatives as well - and potentially reduce our greenhouse emissions.
2) We might get Instagram bodies (kinda)
The jury is still out as to whether I can get abs from tofu alone, but the idea of reducing my risk of heart disease, obesity, stroke and kidney disease definitely appeals to me. (The list of diseases partially caused by eating excessive amounts of red meat is even longer than that, but I didn't want to scare you.)
But while the idea is perfectly acceptable, having to make the effort is a much more difficult affair. After all, I know that exercise is practically a lifesaver but I don't exercise nearly as much as I should. I also know that going meat-free for most of the week is good for me health-wise but it's all too easy to ignore that (not-quite-chicken) nugget of wisdom. Just as being forced to cut down my meat habit could help the environment, it could help me live a longer and healthier life as well.
3) We might take the idea of lab-grown meat more seriously
Test tube meat is already a thing. In 2013, scientists amazed and repulsed us in equal measure when they devised a burger made entirely of lab-grown meat. Then it cost $325,000 to make, and neither the cost nor the prospect of in-vitro veal made consumers particularly hungry to try it for themselves. More appropriately priced meat may well encourage us to explore an option which could make a huge difference on the environmental front. Who knows, it may not be that bad, and it would certainly be better than environmental catastrophe.
4) It could save us from having to go full-blown vegetarianism later down the line
You may not be convinced by my arguments at this point. (Well, what did you expect from a meat-eater who's trying to advocate for vegetarianism?) But even the most committed carnivore has to admit that reducing our meat consumption now means we'll be less likely to end up in a situation where we'd have to scrap meat altogether, or actually enforce legal restrictions on the amount of meat we eat. I'm happy to skip meat every other day, but if we can avoid compulsory vegetarianism, I'll be first to sign up to a meat tax.
So even if the idea makes you cringe at first, give the meat tax a thought. I like a burger too, but if we can avoid a future of compulsory tofu, I'll be first to sign up to a meat tax.
You might also be interested in...
Flexitarian - Why Being A Part Time Vegetarian Is Still Better Than Not At All
Our Obsession With All Things Glitter Is Harming The Environment
This article originally appeared on The Debrief.