Ban Meat? Never!!!!!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And unless I missed something, he seemed to suggest that societal pressure and peer pressure would lead to a significant decrease in meat consumption, without ever coming close to insinuating that it would be "banned" or even that he thinks it should be "banned."

when he was quoted, "Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

This is no 'deal' as he puts it, but yet another tax that will be solely paid by meat consumers and providers. Indirectly it acts as a ban if meat is taxed enough. IMO

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

when he was quoted, "Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

This is no 'deal' as he puts it, but yet another tax that will be solely paid by meat consumers and providers. Indirectly it acts as a ban if meat is taxed enough. IMO

Well they tax the crap out of other things like cigarettes and alcohol and gas, yet those are not "banned."

It's not that I don't completely understand the idea of high taxation as a deterrent, but it's nothing close to a "ban" and to call it one is totally misleading. Banned things are actually illegal...not just discouraged.

[dellinger63]

But discouragement is often the start in the process that eventually leads to banishment. Remember when restaurant/bar owners were assured they would be able to ultimately make the decision to smoke or not smoke?

When seat belt fastenng was a 'secondary offense' and not a sole reason to make a stop or be cited at a roadblock (safety check)?

Why not go about this meat reduction thing in a logical manner like producing dishes that are tastier than a T-Bone or a rack of baby backs etc. Not even to mention bacon

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

But discouragement is often the start in the process that eventually leads to banishment. Remember when restaurant/bar owners were assured they would be able to ultimately make the decision to smoke or not smoke?

When seat belt fastenng was a 'secondary offense' and not a sole reason to make a stop or be cited at a roadblock (safety check)?

Why not go about this meat reduction thing in a logical manner like producing dishes that are tastier than a T-Bone or a rack of baby backs etc. Not even to mention bacon

Well when they actually start trying to ban meat, then let's talk about the meat ban, okay?

In the meantime, let's talk about possible taxes, possible deterrents, and the honestly high cost of meat production from an environmental perspective, which are in fact, what this article is ACTUALLY about, Dell, not banning meat.

Meat is not something that could, or would, ever be banned barring some catastrophic worldwide disease outbreak in meat products. Seriously.

[Antitrust32]

For some reason this thread sounds strangely similar to one occuring in the paddock right now.

Just substitute meat and takeout.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

For some reason this thread sounds strangely similar to one occuring in the paddock right now.

Just substitute meat and takeout.

What, someone wants to ban takeout?

I love it!

In that case, I fully accept Dell's misreading of the article.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

What, someone wants to ban takeout?

I love it!

In that case, I fully accept Dell's misreading of the article.

that would be amazing. But it was equivalent to banning meat = raising takeout.