“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.

“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” a World Bank official said, as red meat and dairy drive CO2 emissions.

Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.

In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.

The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

…

The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.worldEnglish
      24·
      6 months ago

      Everything should have a carbon tax. Someone once told me, “but who would pay for that tax?” Implying that we will be the ones to pay it. Thats the freaking idea.

      • NazEnglish
        13·
        6 months ago

        The rich have problems paying just their regular owed taxes, nothing even exceptional; they draft legislation to lower their own tax rates while keeping taxes on labor the same.

        Why is capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income? Is sitting on a pile of money and watching it grow somehow more noble than sweating and hard work?

        I think a carbon tax is necessary but I think getting the responsible parties in our industrial world to actually pay it, would be extremely difficult. You’d never see such bipartisan cooperation in various governments until someone threatens the subsidies for the liquid black gold.

      • rusticus@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        6 months ago

        There seems to be an awareness void concerning the concept of who uses the most carbon and the creative non regressive ways in which those taxes can be distributed. I’m sure that’s a coincidence though…

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Carbon taxes need a caveat that prices cannot change due to the tax. Otherwise it’s just another way for big business to profit.

        “We had to raise our prices because of the carbon tax!”

        “But the tax is 8% and your prices have gone up 20%”

        shrugs “Dunno. Carbon tax.”

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      The impossible love of fossil fuel companies for carbon taxes - ScienceDirect

      Economists agree that carbon taxes are the most effective solution for climate change mitigation. But where do fossil fuel companies stand on carbon taxes? I analyse how the 100 largest oil and gas companies communicate on carbon taxes. Surprisingly, I find that 54% of companies that have a policy on carbon taxes support them (78% for the 50 largest). This is puzzling as an effective carbon tax should reduce the revenues and reserve value of fossil fuel companies. To understand this paradox, I offer non-mutually exclusive reasons why fossil fuel companies might support carbon taxes. Oil and gas companies could use a carbon tax to get rid of the competition from coal, create a level playing field and remove regulatory uncertainty. Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise. A carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.