Expecting poor people to voluntarily give up on the opportunity to make money because you are threatened about your children's future but can't even be arsed to reduce your own consumption of beef is wishful thinking at best.
So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses.
If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.
I've spent years of my life trying to change things but it is defeatists like you that are part of the problem - spreading "we're fucked anyway" memes is corrosive because it induces the exact attitude and behaviour you say will happen.
Let me be clear, if the world dies we die with it and you die too - got it? So please get off your butt, stop trying to look so worldly-wise, and do something. I know, I know, it takes more effort than posting on HN. Tricky, that.
> people living in the amazon basin
are the ones producing all the beef or rather some big land lords?
I concur with the taxation but not paying the money to some other country - rather invest in alternatives.
It might helpful to introspect on why you'd rather have the money spent on one side of an imaginary line the ground rather than another.
But if the income they're receiving is coming from a tax on beef, wouldn't they want to produce more?
Why not, but there are so many factors contributing to climate change that it's "suspicious" when people target one specific thing. It's quite difficult to be heard. Why should I renounce to eat beef, while other people have the right to have 3 kids, or to drive a SUV, or to fly to the other side of the world.
If it was possible, it would be best to integrate the cost of externalities in what we consume, so that everyone can choose to sacrifice what they value less. But maybe if we really had to pay for externalities, they wouldn't much that we could still afford.
It is going to be really difficult to convince people to consume less meat, increase tax on meat etc.
Not saying we shouldn't try, but it is a tough problem to take on.
Wouldn’t this incentivise beef production? They would be indirectly paid for beef. Or am I reading this wrong?
It's obvious which one we need to focus on. Stop it with the beef already. We need data driven approach. We really really don't need hysteria based approach where something (like beef) is declared sinful.
(see https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...)
> Much of the deforestation binge is being driven by farming pressure: The Amazon basin is the largest exporter of beef in the world, with about 200 million heads of cattle. And all those cows need a lot of space to spread out.
Did you not read before telling us we need a "data-driven approach"?
Methane emissions from beef cattle account for about 2% of GHG potential. Tropical deforestation contributes to about 10% of our climate impact, most of which is driven by beef farming. There are also significant non-climate impacts of deforestation in terms of biodiversity.
Beef is a big deal. It's not the biggest deal, but it's one of many things we need to address. Electricity generation and transport are being rapidly decarbonized thanks to new technology, but there's no technological replacement for old-growth rainforest. We can generate electricity with PV panels, we can run a car or a ship on batteries, but we don't have any sustainable option for things like jet aviation and beef; for the foreseeable future, the only option is to drastically reduce our consumption.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/bee...