Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps • Hacker News Board

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#71

Post by avar » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

sparrc wrote: post #67

theptip wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is correct, but you can apply it in the other direction; adding a sin tax also has knock-on effects and often produce unexpected market distortions. I think your point just argues for pricing in more externalities, rather than abandoning the goal of pricing them and using even more opaque sin taxes instead.

True but I think some of these issues are also fundamentally harder to tax. Everything uses land and water, the problem is how much cattle use per calorie produced. I suppose you're saying we should tax usage of these things based on calorie produced?

Nothing needs to be taxed based on calorie produced. For the purposes of sustainability you tax externalities. Whether that's releasing carbon into the atmosphere, or whatever it costs to fix the land or water you're polluting.

If you're polluting as much as your neighbor but producing fewer calories you'll make less money, so market forces will take care of that and you'll be more likely to go out of business. There's no need to tax anything based on caloric production for the purposes of taxing pollution.

That of course assumes that you're producing the same product as your neighbor, but maybe he's making dogfood and you're making Kobe beef. Then it's OK for your business if you're producing fewer calories per unit of pollution.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#72

Post by aplummer » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

sparrc wrote: post #64

aplummer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was ops point, if you tax the emissions only people can innovate and reduce emissions in all these areas to the same effect.

But how do you tax the potential land usage? Are you saying we should tax farmers based on how many acres it takes them to produce a calorie? This could also have a knock-on affect of encouraging _more_ cruelty (if that's even possible at this point).

I think we should tax them based on emissions which includes deforestation / clearing yes. Separately I would definitely like to see animals regulated with X land per animal like free range chickens are regulated. Given the current state of pig farming I don’t think we can physically go worse than status quo.

I understand “tax emission” has many edge cases and will be tough to nut out without a general rule being possible, but it’s really important the cost of polluting is actually paid for with dollars and this is what we pay politicians to do every day (despite what it looks like).

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#73

Post by msg » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 9:52 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #55

jakobegger wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat. [1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

What about letting people make their own choices without trying to social engineer them, which is essentially forcing our values onto them?

"But temperance also can be created by coercion. Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased options are what we offer him. A Madison Avenue man might call this persuasion; I prefer the greater candor of the word coercion."

-- The Tragedy of the Commons

I recommend the whole paper as a good think on the unintended consequences of not biasing the options of people away from collective irresponsibility.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#74

Post by beachy » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #60

LoSboccacc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this news has made the run once a year since I was in high school https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257589662_Methane_p... so there's something to it that doesn't add up. either the economics of producing enough algae make it infeasible, or other factors come into play like milk/meat taste or even what to do with pastures if they aren't used for pasturing, it's not like you can grow stuff there.

Basic economics. There's no reason why farmers should switch to more expensive feed even if its better for the environment or cows. At least near term they will end up selling the same meat for a higher price to compensate for the feed, will sell less meat due to the price, ultimately hurting profits, and the plan will be scorned until it's abandoned. It doesn't even matter that seaweed is cheap and resource-light to…

Perhaps this is why we might lose the battle on climate change. Its the ultimate tragedy of the commons and we are genuinely all in it together.

It takes not government action, but global action. Why would producers in e.g. Germany put up with a carbon tax (or a methane tax) if producers in the US have their fingers in their ears, denying that climate change is a thing at all?

I believe the only way action will ever happen is if a global enforcement agency imposes environmental taxes on the world and backs it up with force. Its hard to even imagine what the world would look like as something like that comes to pass.

At the same time its a good thing to be preparing some solutions, e.g. carbon capture, seaweed eating cows. Just in case the world comes to its senses and decides to actually deploy/enforce said solutions.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#75

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

jakobegger wrote: post #53

avar wrote: post #30

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (greenhouse gas emissions), not an activity which currently causes such emissions, because then you don't have any incentives left (such as in this case) for industries to reduce those emissions. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax... 2. h…

Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat. [1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

What? We most certainly can introduce a tax on cancer. Don't you know anything about US health care? We can make cancer in remission a pre-existing condition, and make those who have it practically uninsurable, so that their next major health-impacting event bankrupts them, or kills them, or both.

If someone with cancer dies, their cancer also dies. Net result: less cancer. (Unless it is important to research, such as HeLa. In that case, the cancer can go on living with all expenses paid, and the human it came from can be forgotten, and their estate uncompensated.)

~ (Poe's law: insincere.)

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#76

Post by zwieback » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 10:32 PM UTC

notable_user wrote: post #54

jayalpha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure it does. People in Europe pay a premium for "high mountains cow milk" ("Alpenmilch"). I had the impression that US milk has no taste but always thought it's just in my mind. But when I was in Colombia I met a guy from Switzerland who studied in Canada and said:"Oh wow, the milk here really tastes good like in Europe. Not like in Canada." So the milk in Europe and North America must indeed taste different. It…

Milk is pasteurized differently in the US vs Europe. I’d bet that has the most impact on taste.

Are you referring to UHT (shelf-stable) vs. "normal" pasteurization? Both types are available in the US and Europe but probably to different degrees. In southern Europe I definitely encountered more UHT than in my native Germany.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#77

Post by LoSboccacc » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

beachy wrote: post #39

LoSboccacc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this news has made the run once a year since I was in high school https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257589662_Methane_p... so there's something to it that doesn't add up. either the economics of producing enough algae make it infeasible, or other factors come into play like milk/meat taste or even what to do with pastures if they aren't used for pasturing, it's not like you can grow stuff there.

As to your last point, pastures could be used to plant forestry, which locks up carbon in timber.

There are lot of pastures that can't grow anything because they're too hig, I was taking about those kind of fields.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#78

Post by LoSboccacc » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 11:09 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #60

LoSboccacc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this news has made the run once a year since I was in high school https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257589662_Methane_p... so there's something to it that doesn't add up. either the economics of producing enough algae make it infeasible, or other factors come into play like milk/meat taste or even what to do with pastures if they aren't used for pasturing, it's not like you can grow stuff there.

Basic economics. There's no reason why farmers should switch to more expensive feed even if its better for the environment or cows. At least near term they will end up selling the same meat for a higher price to compensate for the feed, will sell less meat due to the price, ultimately hurting profits, and the plan will be scorned until it's abandoned. It doesn't even matter that seaweed is cheap and resource-light to…

Personally I'd prefer to tax pollution instead of rewarding good behavior with subsidies or cuts, hate to see tax dollars go to increase margins of private entities just because they're marginally less worse than the next one.

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#79

Post by sparrc » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 12:12 AM UTC

avar wrote: post #71

sparrc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but I think some of these issues are also fundamentally harder to tax. Everything uses land and water, the problem is how much cattle use per calorie produced. I suppose you're saying we should tax usage of these things based on calorie produced?

Nothing needs to be taxed based on calorie produced. For the purposes of sustainability you tax externalities. Whether that's releasing carbon into the atmosphere, or whatever it costs to fix the land or water you're polluting. If you're polluting as much as your neighbor but producing fewer calories you'll make less money, so market forces will take care of that and you'll be more likely to go out of business. There…

Right, my point is that producing any type of meat consumes excessive amounts of land vs other forms of producing food, I guess what I'm asking is: how do you classify 'land' as an externality?

Re: Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps

#80

Post by jakobegger » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 6:40 AM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #55

jakobegger wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat. [1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

What about letting people make their own choices without trying to social engineer them, which is essentially forcing our values onto them?

Because their choices have consequences for others.

You might not care about some health risk, but when you get sick, your family is going to be affected, your coworkers are going to be affected, and society has to pay for you to get well (by paying more for health insurance).

And we're social animals. We care about one another. And caring sometimes means that we nudge people into a direction that makes them healthier.

(I don't actually know if red meat is dangerous enough to justify a tax, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is)