Thursday, August 04, 2016
The latest of many examples of the contempt felt by climate alarmists for the minds of everyone else comes from the United Nations, whose International Research Panel has just recommended taxing meat at the wholesale level to deter consumption:
"I think it is extremely urgent," said Professor Maarten Hajer of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, lead author of the report. "All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products."Easier? Than what, and for whom? If there were a strong case for catastrophic climate change that could so easily be averted, it would appear to me to be easier to lay it out for the public to draw its own conclusions, along with the suggestion that abstaining from meat could avert the disaster. It was likewise that the political institution of slavery, which looked like it could never be abolished, disappeared within a few decades of people making arguments against it to others, and without all the advantages of mass communication we have today.
Rather than taxing the meat at the retail level (in supermarkets and shops), Hajer recommended taxing it at the wholesale level. "We think it's better to price meats earlier in the chain, it's easier," said Hajer.
Something must be missing, and it would appear, from my reading so far of Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, to be solid evidence and a proper perspective on the problem: The same "experts" have, like leaders of a doomsday cult, been predicting imminent disaster for decades and demanding the government force people to live according to their predictions. At the same time, these "activists" have regarded nature as intrinsically good, leaving unasked the question of whether the alleged causes of the alleged disaster might offer benefits to man, which they do.
It is telling that climate alarmists would feel the need to be sneaky about helping us preserve the planet on which we live. It is as if there is nothing in it for us.