Carbon Footprint for Brazil's Beef

Catch 22 people have to eat.

If we clear land so that the animals exist in a more natural setting we get people jumping up and down about the carbon foot print.

If we raise them pinned up we get people jumping up and down about animal cruelty.

The EU demand for beef has caused the problem. I do not know if it's the lack of area to produce it themselves or the desire for it cheaper. More inclined to say it's because it's cheaper then they can produce it. Because in similar articles there is also the complaint about Labor Issues in Brazil to produce it or hoof and mouth disease.This maybe be motivated by their own beef industry to buy domestic.

But why should some one in Switzerland be tell the the people of Brazil how they should utilize their land. How does one justify blaming others for what they have caused. Then twist the issue that Brazilian beef produce a larger CO² foot print. A cows a cow it generally produces the same CO² foot print where ever it's raised in the world.

mm, sounds like the implication here is that the exportation of beef across international line should have a substantial carbon tax attached. That would reduce the demand for foreign beef in the EU and make them more likely to try and be more self sufficient at home on such products. In addition, the tax monies could be used for reforestation and land reserves.

Why is it that people want to automatically tax a product, i.e. raise the prices, in order to try and limit the use of something? Especially to give the money to some government agency so it can do some good with it ("the tax monies could be used for reforestation and land reserves"). The only people who get hurt are the consumers when they have to pay more for a product because of some stupidly imposed tax for a non-existent problem, read "global warming".

Let the markets dictate the price, not some government beauracrat who think he knows better than 50 million consumers.

You have a point. As we already know that deregulation of banks and investment firms over the last 20 years has worked out so well. It is not like a business oriented to quarterly profit/loss statements isn't going to consider the long term impacts of business practices they undertake. Obviously, the 20,000,000 or so people who lost their homes, consumers in the housing markets, made good sound long-term investment decisions.

Maybe there should be no regulations at all. If people can be convinced to buy something, then the market drives the prices alone. Imposing limitations or regulations of the sales of products just makes them cost more.

Bear in mind as an example patents and copyrights are all regulations to keep the prices up and the returns to those who invest in discoveries. Dog fighting and chicken fighting are highly regulated businesses, regulated from taxation (in term of a fine) to the most extreme point prison. However there is a market for this still. Murder for hire is a business that is regulated both through taxation (you still have to pay your income tax even if you are an assassin) and potential prison terms. Still seems to be a market for that, which keeps it viable.

With regards to waste, landfill operations are forced to establish a fund for closure before they can begin operation, chemical facilities pay into the superfund program to clean up chemical waste sites. All wastes operations are regulated and fined for mismanagement (failure to meet regulations). CO2 is just another waste product, though deforestation effects precipitation and fertility besides the CO2 issue. So maybe CO2 isn't the only consideration.

So maybe the alternative is to establish licensure for any operation limiting production like a dairy has to be licensed for a specific maximum head count, then they have to set aside more than sufficient land to manage their waste. So beef is then managed more like a dairy and less like the chemical industry, which is taxed on sales. Then you also gain more people in enforcement and people for approval of facilities waste system design. However, this systems seems more complicated than a simple waste tax on sales.

The idea of taxation of exports is really so the poor people in south america don't have to pay increased cost for food, but rather those who can afford to imports food can pay the cost for poor management of their own countries resources (yes this subsidizes the equivalent waste cost for the locals, but then again they have to live under those condition needed to provide cheap food to europe).

I will take care not to have emissions after I eat Brazilian beef.

It's not much, but every little bit helps.

Why can't they just give Beano to the cows?