Sender: 1.4 (spamval) -- NONE
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608082106260.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <20060807210021.96844.qmail &AElig web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608082106260.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <bfe45c0ec291d0a272c45ac2f22247f0 &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:08:27 -0400
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Dave Morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: An Unfortunate Omission
Status: O

Yah, but you won't get very far running on a platform of increasing  
taxes. :-) People prefer to pay their prices in much more indirect  
emotionally un-impactful ways. In fact, they prefer to avoid paying at  
all if they could.

I agree with this argument in theory on an environmental basis. I wish  
they'd tax food, gas, and any other commodity enough to cover the  
environmental impact that commodity causes- to provide funds to undo  
that much damage, which is easily technologically possible if we had  
the money to pay for it.

The thing you can't pay for, of course, is the suffering of animals in  
factory farms, the things we do to them that would be felony level  
offenses if we did them to our pets, the things they do to save a buck.  
It's illustrative that many of these things are already technically  
illegal, but because they save so much money, people ignore them and  
let it slide. I suspect they would also ignore any rules adding price  
to compensate for environmental damage as you propose here.

The best charity you can throw money at in order to help fight this  
problem is to buy vegan food, buy vegetarian options at restaurants,  
and otherwise make it clear to the industry that there is a market  
demand for ethical (environmentally and otherwise) foods, such that  
industry responds through capitalist competition providing more,  
better, and eventually even cheaper, such options such that more and  
more people switch over, even if they are blind to the ethical reasons,  
because it becomes economically motivated and, probably most  
importantly especially in this country, so convenient that it's just as  
easy if not easier to be vegan than not. It doesn't even require  
perfection, just force pushing along that direction, and eventually  
we'll get there. That's the path to a reasonable solution that I  
recommend.

Dave

On Aug 9, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> That animal consumption has an environmental impact means that it  
> should be taxed so as to make the long term costs immediate.  It's a  
> similar principle to paying a recycling deposit on cans and bottles.
>
> That animal consumption costs a lot of resources is by no means a  
> reason not to consume animals [1].  The price of meat reflects those  
> costs. Unless the government is subsidizing it which is a very bad  
> idea in terms of social efficiency [2].
>
> Perhaps a less extreme solution than becoming vegan is to make a pact  
> to pay the true cost of the animal products you consume.  For every  
> serving of animal, donate $X to an appropriate charity.  Erica and  
> Rob, I nominate you two to estimate a lower bound on X, including  
> government farm subsidies and environmental impact, but excluding  
> health factors and animal suffering (since we're looking for a lower  
> bound and the latter are less easily quantifiable).
>
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] Erica, Rob, Karen, Dave, Julie, and other veg(etari)ans on  
> improvetheworld can chime in with many other reasons not to eat  
> animals.
>
> [2] For the same reason it's a bad idea for an airline to use your  
> airfare to serve you a meal on a plane -- you eat it even if the cost  
> of producing it far exceeds your utility for eating it, as long as  
> your utility is positive.  (Those who don't grok the notion of sunk  
> cost may even eat if their utility is *negative* because "Hey, I paid  
> for it; I better eat it".)
>
>
> --- \/   FROM Erica O'Connor AT 06.08.07 14:00 (Yesterday)   \/ ---
>
>>     I was disappointed that the film about global
>> warming, An Inconvenient Truth, failed to mention that
>> a change to a more plant-based diet can reduce
>> emissions--more so, in fact, than any one of the other
>> actions suggested.  For instance, recycling saves
>> about 2,400 lbs of carbon dioxide per year per
>> household, while a diet change saves 3,000 lbs per
>> year per person.  Cows also emit a staggering amount
>> of methane, the second largest greenhouse gas.
>>     A third of our fossil fuels are consumed by
>> agriculture, so in general it makes sense to look
>> critically at our eating habits for the sake of the
>> environment.  Eating lower on the food chain,
>> seasonally, locally, and organically (with minor
>> exceptions) makes a huge difference.
>>     For those with some doubts about the health of
>> plant-based diets I've listed a couple of key facts
>> below.  It is also interesting to note that the winner
>> of the badlands ultramarathon (the 135 mile footrace
>> through extreme conditions) is a strict vegan.
>>     Veganism is a privilege, not a privation.  There
>> is pleasure in eating what's right that no slab of
>> bacon can possibly match.
>> -Erica
>>
>> Veggie facts:
>> -Vegetarians tend to have lower weight, total serum
>> cholesterol levels, and blood pressures and lower
>> rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes,
>> and prostate and colon cancer than omnivores with
>> comparable lifestyles.
>> -Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional
>> benefits including higher levels of carbohydrates,
>> fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants
>> such as vitamins and antioxidants such as vitamins
>> C and E and phytochemicals.
>> -A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can easily meet
>> current recommendations for all essential nutrients
>> including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D,
>> riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids,
>> and iodine.
>> - Vegetarians have lower mortality than the population
>> at large, attributable primarily to lower death rates
>> from ischemic heart disease and certain cancers.
>> -At present, vegetarians appear to make up less than
>> 2% of the population, but substantial public health
>> and environmental benefits would likely result from a
>> more widespread adoption of vegetarianism.
>>
>> Two of many references:
>> -Position of the American Dietetic Association and
>> Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets (attached)
>> -http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do? 
>> prodId=ITOF&userGroupName=lom_umichanna&version=1.0&type=retrieve&docI 
>> d=A15430528&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it."
>   -- Oscar Wilde
>
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
morris &AElig edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235