Is there no end to the liberals misguided, selfish, agenda? How many small ranchers and farmers would you like to knock out of business? Your concerned about cows farting and what that does to the environment, but you have no problem with homeless drug addicts pooping on city sidewalks. Taxing is always the liberals answers to any problem. The tide is turning, and America is getting tired of the liberals playbook, as crime infested cities are making our citizens realize common sense policies, not extreme liberal policies, are what keep our citizens safe and allow business to thrive. Anyone who even suggest a "meat tax" is a "meat-head".

A meat tax is unnecessary. We're taxed to death already. It would burden the poor. They buy meat too. I don't consume too much meat, but consumption (like anything else) is a personal choice. If you're worried about a carbon footprint, do what you have to do yourself and let others live and let live.

How about taxing homeless drug addicts for peeing and pooping on public sidewalks, to help the environment? Or is not really the environment you are concerned about, but rather using taxes to further your own selfish political agenda?

"I am intrigued by this idea. Price signals are effective and I agree that we would be better off eating less meat. That is not only for climate and health reasons, but also because of the impact on water quality of some of the large cattle lots and because of the ethical issues with confining and slaughtering so many animals. I don't see much downside if the tax is designed well."

I'm not. It's more micromanaging and "I know what is best for you" behavior from coastal elites - who can easily afford/are personally unaffected about items they want to impose on others. Some of us still like living in a free nation and having the ability to make choices.

"Not much downside" from higher taxes on food (of any type) given the already high tax burden in this state combined with current inflation rates? Speaking of the "wealthier households" that will pay the tax to be redistributed accordingly, many are already leaving the state - because of high taxes.

The tax game. They play it, and we react. Introduce a little tax here, and a little tax there and we comply. Small increments so as to fool the masses. When is enough, enough? Now our beef, which though we have cattle, they import from other countries. Like oil. I like eating meat. It's good for you, but ‘they' want you to eat less, because of the climate hoax. So, what power do you have? Your vote was one that should have given you a sense of power, but not now. Speaking truth is the only power you have at this point, and you better use it because they are coming for that too. If they can get you to believe that the border is secure, men can have babies, and the riots of 2020 were peaceful, then God help us, because the socialists have now achieved the downhill run to communism. Many people have a quality of ‘low information, that is they don't read very much or deeply, they sit and wait for the talking idiots in mainstream news to guide them. Remember what they told you about the ‘experimental gene therapy,' how did that turn out?

This is more than tax increases, it's a divergence to what is really happening.

Meat is a protein. We all need protein. Fruits and veggies are not protein. Making fruits and veggies cheaper than meat will not give us protein.

Fake meat is not something I would want to eat as it is highly processed food usually made in a factory with ingredients I don't trust and are transported far distances, definitely not something I eat or would want to be expected to eat.

Now this is basically a suggestion of taxing protein which we all need. Will they next tax fresh air?

I believe that any tax on carbon is a step in the right direction - sort of. I know I'll sound like a broken record, but we should not be looking at taxing carbon; rather, a carbon fee and dividend:
Web Link
If the price of meat goes up, the extra money goes back to individual citizens, not to the government. This can allay the concerns about the regressive nature of taxes.
The production of red meat is bad for the planet. One can have a healthy, affordable, protein-filled diet without red meat. No one is saying to ban red meat - just eat a little less of it.

A meat tax, for all of its economic, environmental, and health benefits, tries to change overtly people's eating habit and, as we see in previous comments, generates visceral reactions against it. Tax policies are used all the time to change behaviors. The same people who complain about tax increases on them have no problem with tax benefits they receive (e.g., mortgage interest deduction) and that require compensating taxes on other people. I wonder whether a slightly more indirect approach, such as extending California's emission credit trading system to the agriculture sector, and limited to big agribusiness, would be easier to gain approval and to implement. It would achieve similar some of the same goals.

By taxing meat, we rsimply equire those who choose to consume it to pay a fraction of the externalized costs that we all bear - climate change, higher health insurance costs (since meat makes people sick), and antibiotic resistance, to say nothing of the ethical issues including immigrant exploitation and unthinkable animal suffering.

Several years ago I learned about laws in Chile to combat obesity. In 2016 a sugar tax of 13% to 18% was added on sugary drink purchases, the amount dependent on the sugar content. Purchasing habits changed. At the same time, mandatory warning labels, front and center, were required on packaging for any foods high in added sugar, in sodium, in saturated fats etc. Follow up studies, including one in Lancet (Vol 5, Issue 8, August 2021) suggest that these policies have helped to bring down obesity, reduce consumption of these unhealthy foods, and I suspect have also helped the environment. Perhaps making people directly aware of the effect of their meat purchases is one way to start.

Cows provide milk for us, which also is used for butter, cream, whipped cream, ice cream, etc. Are. you also suggesting taxing all these products? What will all our children drink instead of milk?

Sherry provided many references, but we are all busy and may not have time to read the "transitive closure" of references.

I think this chart, showing the GHG impacts of different kinds of food, warrants a direct link:

Web Link

The difference between beef/mutton/cheese/dairy and poultry/fish/eggs is gigantic.

It's not all or nothing, but it's how much of each item. We can make small changes that will have a big impact (per CarbonBrief's graph). Why not?

Ole, already have mad cow disease so I don't need to eat anymore beef (just kidding, but I actually lived in England back then)

"The difference between beef/mutton/cheese/dairy and poultry/fish/eggs is gigantic."


Know what else is "gigantic"? Activists/politicians (communists) that want to impose climate fees/restrictions/surcharges/taxes on everything people buy/eat/do/use when they are already struggling to (or can't) make ends meet. Or when the economy takes a dive, people lose their jobs, and the standard of living declines just so we can be "carbon free" and/or "net zero".

"Saving the planet" is just another feel good government spending/vote buying program (like "helping the less fortunate" or "fighting poverty") that won't solve problems and never comes to an end. Criticize nations like China, India, and Russia all you want but at least their leaders are looking out for the well-being of their own nation and citizens. They are not going to cripple their economies/put millions of their own people out of jobs just to get rid of fossil fuels like the "progressives" in our nation want to do.

Extreme liberal politicians would love a meat tax because: their political opponents are meat eaters. Plain and simple. Protecting the environment has nothing to do with it. If protecting the environment was the real goal, they would also tax homeless drug addicts who pee and poop on public sidewalks, which does real and immediate harm to the environment.

As to the "we know better" attitude of liberals, "meat" is bad, but marijuana is good, so lets tax the hell out of meat, but encourage the use of marijuana. They ignore the numerous scientific and medical studies that clearly show marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs like heroin and fetanel, and studies that show regular marijuana use causes brain development problems in learning, memory, coordination, reaction time and judgment. They ignore the numerous scientific and medical studies that found marijuana use can cause long term depression and anxiety issues. They ignore the studies that found that states that legalized marijuana use had a large increase in automobile and fatal automobile accidents. If you want to use taxes as a way to encourage people not to do something, than marijuana taxes should be tripled, but once again liberals are selfish and only advocate policies that their members like.

A healthy diet should include some regular meat. I am not talking about eating Big Macs every single day, but several days a week for dinner have some steak, some pork, some chicken, which gives your body required proteins. I follow this and my doctor always is amazed at my annual check up that someone my age is healthier than most 20 years younger than I am. Most of the vegetarians I know are quite sickly, weak, and in poor health, and should have had more meat during their lives.

Taxing meat is simply a political move by liberals, similar to the failed Defund the Police, and the more liberals push their misguided agenda the more independents will vote for Republican candidates.

In lieu of a statewide meat tax, our state lawmakers should consider levying higher corporate taxes on Silicon Valley corporations and Hollywood studios.

@ Ole The Web link you provided is blocked

Maybe we could tax poor people so that there would be less poor people.

Maybe we could tax x and get less of x. See how that works.

The consumption of various meat products is also based on cultural considerations and preferences.

A proposed meat tax would only create further internal conflicts and disunity depending upon where one stands on this issue.

Humans for the most part are omnivores and should have the option of being vegans, carnivores, or both.

If there were fewer people in Earth, we would not be having climate change/global and global warming debates and discussions.

Significant increases in global population have created unsustainable needs for energy, food, and medical care at the ecological expense of our planet.

Compare today with the 1950s-1960s. There were far fewer people on Earth and plenty of natural resources to go around.

"What will all our children drink instead of milk?" While I'm not sure about the meat tax, I will point out - Asian culture, with widespread lactose intolerance, does not give milk and dairy products the same prominence as American culture; and even for western culture, the use of dairy products is way, way up from the 20th century onward ... refrigeration plus other developments had a profound impact. As a grandson of a dairy farmer and proud cheesehead from Wisconsin, I realize our habits are just a reflection of our times.

Yes, we should be mindful of the production of the greenhouse gases in the foods we eat, and make choices that are responsible. However, different meat cultivation practices can have a huge impact on GHG production. It has been argued that cattle grazing in the proper way can cause grasslands to sequester more carbon, and become a net carbon sink (I don't know how valid these arguments are). You would need to reward such behavior, not tax it. Furthermore, it's good to have a bit of skepticism on how well these things genuinely impact behavior. Resentment (as we see here), and unintended consequences lurk. I'm not entirely against a carbon tax (not explicitly a meat tax, but which may effect the price of meat), but any such law should be done very carefully and with hesitation. There's only so far public behavior can or should be "tamed".

As far as getting enough protein, there is no problem with a plant-based diet. There are many top pro athletes that are vegan including Arnold Schwarzenegger: Web Link (or Google “top vegan athletes" and look for yourself), so I think we can put this argument aside and this includes dairy as well.

The health benefits of a plant-based diet are also well documented, ask any cardiologist or oncologist. So if there were a tax on meat, we would probably save on taxes overall as we would not need to spend so much on healthcare.

Perhaps before we consider a tax on meat we should stop the $59 billion in subsidies going to livestock: Web Link I guess all the meat eating no-tax people don't seem to have a problem with this, but I do. I don't want to pay for their meat or their healthcare.

The problem is, as someone stated, with such a large population, 8 billion, we can't just choose to do anything we want and think it has no affect or harm to others.

PS A tax on carbon that is then returned to the people: Web Link is probably the way to go as Eddie suggests. This fee and dividend system is well thought out and is not regressive and would address other sources of carbon as well.

David, thanks for pointing out that so many top athletes avoid meat.
In a similar vein, Blue Zones are locations/communities around the world where people have abnormally long life-spans. Many people in these zones live past 100. One of the factors they have in common: the people who live in these zones typically have a diet low in meat, and high in other protein sources, including beans / legumes / nuts.

Even though reduced meat consumption has so many positive benefits, I'd prefer a general carbon-fee-and-dividend, to address all sources of greenhouse gases, rather than one specifically targeting meat.

Regarding fossil fuels, mentioned in one of the comments above, I'm always puzzled that people love them so much. Renewable energy is less expensive, cleaner, won't eventually run out, and it doesn't smell! Unlike oil, renewables are not susceptible to price manipulation by foreign entities, such as OPEC or Russia. The countries that can transition quickly to renewable energy, in a well-organized way that addresses reliability, will have a competitive advantage: cheaper energy that's stable in price.

Note from Sherry: Comment removed. I apologize for not monitoring the tenor of these comments more carefully. I will weigh in on that later today.

In the meantime, @D, you make some good points, but please make them without name-calling, without tribal politics, and with links to your sources. That would help the rest of us to listen better and to learn more. Thank you.

Politically, GOP/Maga would love California to try to pass one, literally a "red meat" issue for their base :)

As expected, censorship from Sherry.... in reality she does not want to hear any opinions that differ from hers.

Note from Sherry: I am removing the rest of this post because it is not responsive to my request, it is repetitive, and I don't have time to do more careful selection. I am looking for a thoughtful discussion of a meat tax. Agree or disagree, all is fair.

Re: " the extra money goes back to individual citizens, not to the government"

This flies in the face of experience.

I'm curious - are there subsidies for meat producers?

People such as athletes who do not eat meat are not vegans, but usually vegetarian. It is important to clarify that milk, cheese, butter, eggs, etc. if eaten are not a vegan diet.

Meat taxes are the topic being discussed. Will it subsequently follow that a dairy tax is suggested.

If we all reduce our intake of red meat by eating meat free a couple of days a week, is commendable, but if a meat free day means extra cheese pizza or cheese stuffed omlets with home fries, it can't be called a healthy alternative.

Thank you for reading the post and for commenting. Before I address specific points, I will say that I’m disappointed in the tenor of some of the comments. I anticipated that this topic would be unpopular with some readers, but I held out hope that nevertheless we could have a productive discussion. I believe that it is important to be able to do so. So I’d ask all of you to try a little harder, take the time to be informed, and make your point(s) respectfully. Write as if you were using your own name or, better yet, talking to the other readers in person.

Here are a few comments on some of the points made.

Some question whether meat is an essential part of a healthy diet. As readers point out, you can be healthy with or without eating meat -- it depends on what you are eating and how much. Keep in mind that Americans eat more than the recommended dietary guidelines of meat, eggs, and nuts, and more per capita than most other countries.

A few readers say we are already over-taxed, and warn that if this is too progressive then wealthier people will leave the state/country.

Some readers suggest that since this is such a sensitive issue, it would be better to more generally tax emissions, not specifically meat. That is a fair point, though I’m not sure that is any easier. In fact, I would expect a carve-out for meat, and dairy, and …

Some readers point out that our overconsumption of meat has costs that all of us bear, and a tax on meat would help to allocate those costs more fairly.

There were some suggestions that a meat tax would eliminate meat, that it is akin to taxing fresh air, would be like taxing poor people to get rid of poor people, is communist, would cripple the economy. These suggestions are misleading at best. A meat tax just raises the price of meat and, if desired, returns that money to consumers.

One reader is upset that some people who support a meat tax also support legalizing marijuana, saying that is a hypocritical stance. I’m not sure what to make of this, but would prefer to focus on the meat tax in this post rather than discuss the much larger and more complex world of political platforms.

One reader says that his/her experience is that money will not be returned to consumers. I’m not sure what to make of that either. There are plenty of policies where the revenue is returned to the consumer. Here is one. But it is true that awareness of the returned money can be low. I vaguely recall reading that is a problem with Canada’s carbon fee and dividend program.

On this post and on an earlier one, a few readers caution that because some people will react so viscerally and emotionally and aggressively to certain topics (turning off the gas, taxing meat), attempting to discuss them will do more harm than good and we should not bring them up. I’m curious to hear more thoughts on that.

Again, thank you for the thoughtful comments.

@KOhlson: I was intrigued by David's comment also. He provides a link (kudos to David for always providing references!), but I wasn't convinced by it because I didn't understand it. For example, "traditional subsidies" have gone to zero and I don't know what "commodity purchases" are. I did find a relevant recent writeup here, but haven't read it yet. Since one author is local, maybe I can try to talk with him...

FWIW, for anyone interested in learning more about meat taxes, there is a survey article here.

Re: "There are plenty of policies where the revenue is returned to the consumer. Here is one" (refers to Calif. Climate Credit)

As far as I can tell, (1) this does not apply to Palo Alto Utilities and (2) does not return anything like the full amount of tax collected. Perhaps I am mistaken, as Sherry has an excellent track record researching policy...

I know that in WA State, the new carbon market proceeds have been used to reward the ruling Democrats' political supporters rather than being distributed to the citizens. This seems to be typical.

2020 EPIC-Oxford study found vegans had much higher risk of hip fractures, main site fractures than meat eaters, a whopping 20 more broken bones for every 1,000 people.

Note from Sherry: Web Link

2022 article published in medical journal Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases found vegans, unlike meat eaters, had serious nutritional deficiencies in vitamin B12, Omega 3 Calcium, zinc iron, magnesium, and high quality protein.

Note from Sherry: Web Link

A 2020 study by Grant Tinsley, PH.D, concluded that there is no definitive link between veganism and meat eaters life expectancy.

Note from Sherry: Web Link

There are literally thousands of other studies that also show health problems for vegans, just like there are health studies that show health problems for meat eaters.

So if your premise allegedly justifying a meat tax is based on veganism being the cure all for health, you are wrong.

A 2023 study found that only 4 percent of the US is Vegan. What is "Democratic" about forcing the beliefs of 4 percent of our citizens on the beliefs of 96 percent of our citizens.

I think what you say Sherry about the amount of meat and sizes of meat portions in the American diet is hitting the right idea.

Palo Alto, and Silicon Valley generally, are areas where we eat much less unhealthy food compared to elsewhere in the country. It may be cultural, but also to do with wealth and education on the subject. Outside our immediate area this is very different. Interesting that size of portions in restaurants often leads consumers to think that this is the amount we should eat and often the more meat on a restaurant plate the more we eat on our plate at home.

Thinking about a couple of American diner type restaurant meals I have been forced to consume outside the area in recent memory, I was struck by how poor the menus are for eating healthy (the only salad was very limited and bland) and the amount of meat, bread and fries on the portion was huge. Texas is famous for its steak (and rightly so), but finding vegetables on the menus or even in grocery stores can be hard work.

When opting for a typical fast food meat option and comparing the price against the salad or fruit options, a budget conscious consumer will go for as much food for the buck and the health aspect is secondary. When a double or triple cheeseburger value meal costs less than the chicken salad which is mainly lettuce with a few chunks of chicken and perhaps one slice of cucumber and a slice of tomato with loads of croutons and dressing, what message does that send?

I think that rather than a meat tax (which is basically a tax on protein and makes as much sense as trying to tax fresh air which we also need) we should be looking at ways to make our chain restaurants in particular and others who follow their lead, make the healthy options more attractive and more affordable to those who need to eat there regularly and are more price conscious than health conscious.

@Mondoman, please include a reference for your claim about WA State. I see a lot of information about the pricing -- high revenues, relatively quick increases in prices, relatively slower rollout of benefits -- but do not see corruption accusations, so am interested to learn more.

You are right, the CA climate credit reflects only a portion of cap-and-trade revenue, and does not apply to PA Utilities. I was just saying that when a policy says it will return money, it does. I thought that was your concern. Instead it sounds like you are saying "Lawmakers will not agree to a policy that returns all/most of the revenue to consumers." I don't see why not, though allocation is always a question. Canada's carbon pricing is close. More info on Wikipedia.

Thank you to D above who was posting while I was writing my post. You raise excellent points and I concur on your summing up at the end.

@D: THANK YOU for bouncing back and adding a productive comment. I love that.

FWIW, the key point that I see in your comment is this one: "So if your premise allegedly justifying a meat tax is based on veganism being the cure all for health, you are wrong."

I don't acknowledge that premise. But I do appreciate your thinking through your reasoning and specifically calling that out as a conditional. And I understand where you are coming from.

@Bystander, thanks for the suggestions. I would love healthier options at those places, but I get a sense that they don't sell, and businesses don't want their menu dictated by the government. But worth thinking about. I read recently that 50% of beef is eaten by 12% of the population. So maybe figuring out where that is happening (fast food chains?) and addressing that would be a start.

"So if your premise allegedly justifying a meat tax is based on veganism being the cure all for health, you are wrong. A 2023 study found that only 4 percent of the US is Vegan. What is "Democratic" about forcing the beliefs of 4 percent of our citizens on the beliefs of 96 percent of our citizens."


Climate change activists (who promote/support meat taxes) are anything but democratic.

They are the ones that want to force you to retrofit your homes, purchase cars you can't afford/do not want, tell you what food you should be eating, what jobs will be created, what kind of energy you are allowed to use, etc. for theoretical "benefits" in the future. Or obedience to international bureaucrats.

Never mind the consequences of higher prices, increased unemployment, reduced economic growth, inflation from government overspending, and loss of Constitutional rights.

Sherry, perhaps they don't sell, but are they marketed to sell?

How about a deal with a burger and salad rather than a burger and fries? How about buy one salad, get one free so that two dining together can get one each or else someone can perhaps take one home for later. I don't know what might work, but I just don't see the marketing to make the healthy options frontrunners.

Re: " "Lawmakers will not agree to a policy that returns all/most of the revenue to consumers."

Yes, that was my point, as that was what Eddie and David were suggesting. In WA state (where I have personal experience in the past decade), a recent initiative to implement carbon pricing in a non-regressive way by returning the revenues to the residents was actually opposed(!) by the ruling Democratic establishment.

A few years later, that establishment implemented a pricing scheme that instead paid out the new tax revenues to their political supporters (the Climate Commitment Act or CCA). Examples include 10% to (federally recognized?) tribes, construction projects required to employ supporting union members, and non-road transportation projects like bike lanes and advertising public transit that were prohibited from using traditional gas tax revenues.

Another example is a plan to fund state ferry building costs from Act revenues by making them hybrid instead of traditional funding. This has become a boondoggle as shipbuilding bids came in much higher than expected and critical emissions-reduction technology needed to rapidly recharge docked ferries may not be practical, so is being foregone.

Of course this is not corruption, but it IS regressive. It now seems more likely than not that the CCA will be repealed later this year by a November ballot initiative.

(link from the WA governor's office on planned near-term spending Web Link ; one description of ferry issues Web Link )

I would like to inform you that the carbon emitted by cow farts and belches was the previous day contained in a plant that extracted that carbon from the atmosphere. Cow farts don't contribute to climate change. Zero.

I believe another tax is not needed especially on meat. If you were a small beef
farmer, how would you feel if your livelihood was taken from you?
I think you need to rethink your process. This is America and many avenues have
been taken from us. Why another tax? Pretty soon, I too, will think about moving
to a state that has more common sense for their residents. California is not the
place to live now. I am definitely against a meat tax. To be truthful we have
so many taxes it is becoming difficult to remain in California.

Perhaps you should rethink your idea and maybe have a FREE cookbook on meals you think appropriate.

Merie, the problem with cow belches isn't carbon dioxide, but methane. Over a 100 year horizon, methane has a GWP of 28-34 (vs. one for carbon dioxide).

Web Link

Dairy products are just as bad as some types of meat, so the tax would have to be on dairy products, too.

@Ole
Methane is gone from the atmosphere after 12 years, while CO2 probably remains for 300 years or more, so GWP should be for a 300 year period for an apples to apples comparison. Methane is also much lighter at about molecular weight of 18 vs 44 for CO2.

Thus, the correct methane GWP vs CO2 on a per-molecule basis over 300 years is about 14 on weight basis x 18/44 = about 6 on a per molecule basis. Definitely sounds much scarier uncorrected!

Ref Web Link

Yes, CH4's half-life in the atmosphere is 12 years (it eventually oxidizes into CO2 and water). The problem is that we keep putting more methane into the atmosphere. So even if half of what we injected 12 years ago is now gone, the methane level is still rising:

Web Link

Methane is estimated to be responsible for 30% of global warming and it is probably the easier gas to bring under control (along with NOx) because the concentration is much lower than CO2:

Web Link

It's great to worry about 300 years from now, but we need to get through 2050 and 2100 first. A 300-year GWP number doesn't really help us much with that.

Aside, 300 years from now I'm sure some smart folks will have long ago solved this problem. We just need to solve for our time frame.

And we aren't doing that very well, as the above graph shows.

@Ole
300 years is the time frame science tells us that CO2 will exert warming, so if we're going to compare methane to CO2 for its "warming potential", that's the apples to apples comparison. The claim for these policies is after all that they are based on science, and diverging from that just generates rational suspicion that other science has also been "adjusted" to sell policies.

There's nothing in this comparison that says we have to *act* over 300 years. Trying to boil warming effects down to a single number is oversimplification anyway. For example, even if the large ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica do end up melting, that will take many hundreds to thousands of years, which as you note is out of our "time frame".

Mondoman you seem to suggest we don't need to do worry about sea level rises or other global warming effects for 300 years or more.

Or at least, this is one way to read your notes. Is that really what you mean? I'm having a hard time thinking it is, but then we still have no connected and understood each other.

What do you want us to do today? By 2030? By 2050?

Can I buy you a copy of this book? Would you read it? Is Michael Mann to be trusted or not?

Web Link

P.S.: 30% of global warming isn't caused by methane today? Is that the claim?

Or: methane lives for only 12 years, so: (1) I think we should stop emitting it so that warming will be reduced by 30% as the current methane decays away. (2) you suggest we can continue to emit methane at today's rates because we should compare its effect vs. CO2 over a 300 year time frame?

I apologize for being unable to come to the conclusion that you have seemingly come to: that methane is not a concern for this century.

[Portion removed] All I wrote is that (a) we should be scientifically accurate in discussing global warming potentials of different gases and (b) any large-scale melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will happen hundreds to thousands of years in the future, so it's well out of our "time frame" as you noted.

As far as methane emissions go, it certainly makes sense to do the easy things like avoiding intentional release, detecting and fixing leaks, and so forth. Agricultural emissions will be harder. Also, with the vast majority of methane emissions being outside the US, we are not going to make a big impact on global levels from actions in the US.

As I've written before, if we want to spend X dollars on reducing greenhouse emissions, we should spend it where we get the most bang for the buck (which is almost certain to be outside Palo Alto). Palo Alto Utilities natural gas is supposedly fully offset anyway (or we are being cheated).

As an aside, it's worth looking into Dr Mann's history of repeated statistical and data errors in his publications before lending his pronouncements too much credence.

@MichaelB: You forgot "and where you live" in your list of changes that are being suggested. Climate change is happening and it has serious implications for the planet and for everyone and everything that lives on it. You may not believe that, but I do. So I applaud efforts to both mitigate the harm (e.g., change the energy we use) and adapt to things like drier forests and rising seas (e.g., move away from repeatedly flooding or burning areas). I cannot imagine what future you are promoting with no such changes.

@Mondoman: As you suggest, I think it's important to pay attention to what's going on in Washington State. There is a backlash to the carbon pricing, but is it enough to overturn the policy? It is hard when the benefits lag the costs. We will see.

@Bystander and @cartom3247: I love that you are trying to think more about incentives than taxes, ways to encourage people to move away from meat. I am not as hopeful about "carrots" like free books and marketing, which is why policies evolve to contain "sticks" as well. But it's good to think about.

@TimR: If it turns out that people substitute cheese for meat, then I expect you are at least partly right. I personally often eat veggie meals with cheese on top! On the plus side, it's a lot less cheese than meat.

@Mondoman/@Ole: Thank you for clarifying the role of methane. It is a powerful, short-lived greenhouse gas. The recent COP focused on it so much because it has an undue impact on warming today and is often easier/cheaper to reduce than CO2, at least with tools we have today. In fact, one approach to removing methane is to flare (burn) it, which produces CO2. As you note, to some degree that is moving the problem into the future, but it exchanges a 25x gas for a 1x gas, and moves it into a time when we will hopefully have more tools. As to @Mondoman's contention that we do not need to worry about ice sheets until they are fully melted, I don't understand it. Even partial melting will impact the livability of coastal areas, which is why researchers are exploring expensive technical solutions to slow down melting (see e.g., here).

@Mondoman contends that there is little to be achieved ("we are not going to make a big impact") in reducing US methane emissions because there are more methane emissions elsewhere. I strongly disagree. We produce a significant amount, especially from our gas operations. My take is that (a) we should do our part because not doing so would have a big negative impact on momentum, and (b) by learning how to do so, we can develop tech that we can share with the much less developed countries with methane emissions.

Finally, @Mondoman, you recommend that Palo Alto fund CO2 removal elsewhere rather than clean up our own, because it's cheaper. We should continue to burn gas in our homes and drive gas cars while paying for others to stop, or perhaps just planting trees. I would keep in mind that offsets have well-documented issues, actual carbon sequestration is quite expensive, and housing stock has a long lifetime. So think through your proposal. I'd also keep in mind that wealthy people have higher emissions than anyone else, and we are among the wealthiest. If you recommend that we not clean up our own emissions, then consider what proposal the less wealthy, or those in low-lying countries, would applaud. I want to keep the comments here focused on a meat tax, but just some thoughts.

"@MichaelB: You forgot "and where you live" in your list of changes that are being suggested. Climate change is happening and it has serious implications for the planet and for everyone and everything that lives on it. You may not believe that, but I do. So I applaud efforts to both mitigate the harm (e.g., change the energy we use) and adapt to things like drier forests and rising seas (e.g., move away from repeatedly flooding or burning areas). I cannot imagine what future you are promoting with no such changes."


I don't applaud micromanaging behaviors by activists/politicians who want more government control (not suggestions) over people's lives and don't care about what happens/what it costs the average person.

Ever consider what the future will be like afterward? We won't be living in a free society anymore. The government will control/dictate/ration everything for the so called "collective good". Just getting by with what you "need" will be the new "normal" or "prosperity". Anyone wanting more and/or to do better will be deemed "unfair","risky", or "unnecessary" - because of climate change. How convenient!

We need a reliable, low cost, and abundant energy source for economic and national security reasons. Windmills and solar panels are not going to do it. The United States has already realized substantial reductions to emissions by the usage of natural gas vs. coal. We have ample sources that could be used to export LNG to European allies and developing nations that could realize further progress. It would also neutralize the influence of Russia (Putin) who makes money by currently providing this resource to Europe.

This is not "doing nothing" and is infinitely preferable for economic prosperity/personal freedoms for our citizens vs. the managed decline/government control agenda from climate change activists (unreliable sources, energy rationing, banning gas cars, meat taxes, costly home retrofits, forcing people on to public transit, etc.).

Meat does not contain oxalates. Excess oxalate intake has been found in many people to build up in most parts of the body, aside from kidneys. Meat replacements seem full of soy which is said to be a estrogen stimulator. Many older women have been told to avoid consuming estrogen stimulators. Taxing food is such a unfair slippery slope.

@Sherry
Re: "We should continue to burn gas in our homes and drive gas cars while paying for others to stop, or perhaps just planting trees."

Yes, I would slightly rephrase it to "we should not prohibit people from continuing" instead of "continue", and planting trees is a good policy on its own, not an alternative.

Re: "I would keep in mind that offsets have well-documented issues, actual carbon sequestration is quite expensive, and housing stock has a long lifetime."

Yes, that's why my suggestion is to avoid all that by e.g. directly funding conversion of existing coal plants to natural gas, whether here or abroad. I think that would have more momentum or moral suasion than anything we're doing in PA. Of course, moral suasion tends to lose out to economics as we see in China or Germany recently.

Re: "...wealthy people have higher emissions than anyone else, and we are among the wealthiest."

I'd request that you reconsider this reasoning. We each have individual emissions profiles, and individual financial profiles, even in Palo Alto. Such unexamined reasoning is being used to force me to spend tens of thousands of dollars (a significant personal impact) for claimed emissions reductions that could be achieved at 10x or 100x or even lower cost elsewhere. It's all one big atmosphere, so location of reductions shouldn't matter.

As I've mentioned earlier, this type of deviation from objective engineering analyses just supports the political narrative that claims emissions reduction policy is driven by social engineering objectives rather than science.

@Mondoman: I think it's appalling that you are being forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to reduce your emissions. I'd be surprised if that's even legal. Or maybe you are just anticipating that happening? If so, I'm not sure on what basis. BAAQMD has a cost provision. The state tends to have them as well, iirc even has to have them. So ... ?? Also, I'm not sure, assuming you are talking about some kind of draconian building electrification mandate, what that has to do with a meat tax, which is a pretty different policy with different basis and different aims. But anyway, I certainly agree with you that tens of thousands of dollars is a huge amount for virtually anyone, and that some electrification projects cost more than others. I am pretty confident that any legislation wrt residential electrification HVAC retrofits will need to account for that. Maybe your idea of an offset exemption can work, maybe coal to gas if it can be shown that it wouldn't have happened without the funding. The one place where I'd push back some is that imo we are all very wealthy when compared with the people who are most at risk from climate change.

@MichaelB: You paint an alarming picture, a locked-down society where our freedoms are taken away. But I view laws, which I guess are restrictions on freedom, as essential to a functioning democracy. And I value laws that will help to protect us from the worst harms of climate change. Of course they need to be done carefully so they are equitable, fair, etc. But they will drive change. That is not easy. But we have tried doing much less for decades and the atmosphere has shown no mercy.

You guys have seen this chart, right?



Source: NY Times

It is better to get government out of our lives so good people can take the right actions instead of those we have in office today representing this state.

Reality check time.

Note from Sherry: Your reality claim would be stronger if you included links to your references. China is not taking climate action? Beef is essential to our health? Vegan food kills everything where it's grown? Really?

1. China and India have no interest in taking action to address any climate narrative with the former building coal fired power plants just as fast as they can. With the Pacific jet stream, guess where that air goes?
2. California has a weak power grid focusing on solar and windmills and has to buy oil from wonderful places like Venezuela and purchase electricity from other states since we lack much of it.
3. Chevron, one of the leading energy companies globally, has filed a notice to the SEC that will will write down its investments in California so the last two years have spent $220m less in our state that last two years. California is defined as not a good place to invest due to the massive new regulations.
4, Beef is one of the staples that have enables Americans to grow healthy progressively the last 200 years. Can the stockyards be improved? yes. But the the nutrition is essential to our future. And for those interested in how our food is derived, the creation of Vegan foods is quite bad for the environment killing everything in the area where grown.

@Sherry
Just to clarify, I was referring to the ban on gas-fired water heaters by the BAAQMD. Because of electrical and physical space limitations, to install a hpwh we would have to have an electrical service upgrade, one or more new circuits run the length of the house, reconstruction of two or more walls in the laundry room to make enough physical space for the hpwh, etc. That's tens of thousands of dollars.

If I'm missing something, I'd love to be wrong on this, but I have been following the issue and options fairly closely these past years, helped in no small part by your research and presentations. The already-adopted BAAQMD Reg. 9 Rule 6 includes no cost cap, only requiring that a report will be made this year including "...the projected costs of purchase and installation of such technology, including any ancillary costs, as applicable; any incentive programs available to reduce these costs; and infrastructure readiness associated with rule compliance."

Web Link

"@MichaelB: You paint an alarming picture, a locked-down society where our freedoms are taken away. But I view laws, which I guess are restrictions on freedom, as essential to a functioning democracy. And I value laws that will help to protect us from the worst harms of climate change. Of course they need to be done carefully so they are equitable, fair, etc. But they will drive change. That is not easy. But we have tried doing much less for decades and the atmosphere has shown no mercy.
You guys have seen this chart, right?"


You've seen this, right?

Web Link

[Portion removed] From Gerard's web pages:

https://sanmateo.cleanhotwater.info
https://santaclara.cleanhotwater.info

Gerard presents this calculus:

Initial Cost $7,000
SVCE rebate $2,000
TECH rebate $3,800
Golden State rebate $900
Cost after rebates $300
30% IRA tax credit $100
Net Cost $200

[Portion removed]

Indeed, paying $200 for a new water heater is amazing especially considering that the average old methane water heater is surely half burnt out (and it cost more than $200/0.5 = $400 up front, not to mention today's replacement cost). This calculation doesn't even factor in the air quality improvements. (Fossil fuels kill 8M people/year each year, world wide.)

In summary:

There's never been a better time to step forward into the future. Now is the time and it may not last. You don't want to wait too long, but rather should consider getting the clean electric heat-pump water heater now.

It's cheaper than ever.

It's as clean as ever.

It's the right move for kids and grand-kids, to move away from methane, CO2, NO2, benzene, asthma, and ... the list of things we are inhaling, stemming from fossil fuels is too long to list in full.

Ole

There is a great documentary on eating meat and the environmental damage caused by this. This really covers all the bases. While not advocating for a tax on meat, it makes the case for why we need to switch to a plant based diet; Eating our Way to Extinction: Web Link
Again, one of the main reasons, collectively, that we need to switch it that there are just too many people.

David Coale, your name must drive you nuts! LOL!

But seriously, if we follow your logic the best way we can really reduce our carbon footprint is to shut down all ranches, and all manufacturing, and why not all industries and jobs altogether? We could live in tents, no electricity, no meats, and nibble on mushrooms and wild berries. My point is your analysis does not factor in quality of life issues at all. Besides necessary for essential proteins, meats are delicious and bring joy to so many people. An August 24,2023 Gallup Poll showed only 4% of Americans are vegetarians, and only 1% are vegan. So when you say that "we need to switch to a plant based diet", how is that "Democratic" to ignore the wishes of 96% of Americans?

@Mondoman, yes, I'm referring to that report. Many of the commissioners who gave their approval indicated it was conditional on findings in that report. I am confident that the compliance date will be pushed back until the report is good. That said, even then there will be exceptions and your home may be one. Maybe there will be an appeals process, or a lack of enforcement in such problem cases. The point of BAAQMD is to build the heat pump industry, which is what the area is very focused on now, getting contractors and equipment manufacturers on board and ramped up. It's not about squeezing tens of thousands of dollars from the likes of you. Instead, what is likely to happen is that over time it will be possible but more expensive to keep your home running on gas. The price of gas will go up as everyone else switches over and you have to pay for more of the gas infrastructure to your house. Workers and equipment will be less available. Perhaps technology will be developed to make it easier for you to switch. At some point an offer will come along for the last stragglers, and that will help you over the finish line. I expect substantial funds to be available for low-income households as well. I don't know if this helps. The transition is happening, and it sure sounds like you have a difficult house. But the transition will take time and there will be help available. That is my take.

@David, thanks for sharing a link to that video. It looks worth watching.

@MichaelB, thanks for sharing the link. One thing I have found is that many people who promote nuclear energy aren't aware that it is delivered through electricity lines and subject to all of the issues -- transmission, distribution, security -- that power is subject to. I do understand that you do not believe climate change is a significant enough problem to merit transitioning our energy systems, and you will continue to point out the risk in doing so. FWIW, the biggest risk to our power system imo is from the warming-related impacts on our forests.

@D, thank you for a comment that is actually about a meat tax! FWIW, the goal of a meat tax is not no meat, it is just less meat, and you make a strong point that for many/most that is a more realistic goal than no meat. Strangely, I'm not sure which one "plant-based" refers to. This reference suggests that a plant-based diet does include meat...

A meat tax probably would have a positive climate impact because people would likely adjust by eating less meat. The biggest problem I see with it is that it is a very regressive tax. Wealthier people will probably just pay more and eat the same amount of meat and poorer people will have fewer cheap sources of protein and pay a higher portion of their income toward the tax.

You said:

"people who promote nuclear energy aren't aware that it is delivered through electricity lines and subject to all of the issues -- transmission, distribution, security -- that power is subject to."

I don't know of anyone who promotes nuclear that aren't aware that it delivers power through electricity lines. Of course we need to harden our electrical lines against forest fires, storms, and other hazards. What we don't need to do, in my opinion, is to accept blackouts because we have prematurely shut down gas fired power plants before we have a reliable replacement. That was what was being promoted in the link MichaelB, and I've seen it suggested elsewhere. I don't think the public will accept that, and any politician suggesting it will be run out of office in short order.

If the gas replacement can be done with wind/solar/hydro/storage without reduction in reliability, I think most people would be happy with that. There are also many advantages to adding more nuclear energy to the mix. There are many outdated myths pushed by nuclear opponents, such as that it is too slow or expensive. This video addresses that:

Web Link

Also that it is to dangerous:

Web Link

Or that nuclear waste is a problem:

Web Link

FWIW, I watched the video that David referenced. It goes over in some detail the damage that animal agriculture is doing to the planet -- both on land and in the oceans. Big issues are (1) land use/destruction, with animal ag being the biggest cause of biodiversity loss (some awful scenes of Amazon destruction to grow cattle feed); (2) water use, with animal ag responsible for 1/3 of our water use (largely for crops to feed animals); (3) antibiotic resistance, with 75% of all antibiotics given to animals (lots of awful scenes of crowded animals); (4) ever-larger dead zones along coastal areas in the ocean from fertilizer run-off (so. many. dead. and. diseased. fish., plus marine life tangled in nets); (5) microplastics and heavy metals accumulating in fish that we eat.

The video notes that the US government gives annual subsidies worth about $20 million for fruit/veg farming, and $38 *billion* for meat/dairy farming. Yet animal agriculture is the "most destructive industry on the planet" (quoted statement from the video).

It's hard to watch the whole thing -- not just the disturbing content, but it's also one of those sad music, British voices, vast panorama type of movies. But if you want to see one part that's not like that, but may turn you off meat forever, listen to some butchers talking. Don't say I didn't warn you.

"Yet animal agriculture is the most destructive industry on the planet."

How in the world is that measured? What are the metrics? How does it compare with other industries?

@BobB: Sorry, I love that question. It's from the video (I just made that clearer). I don't know how they quantified it, though I expect land impact (habitat removal, degradation) alone would work, or a combination of that and water impact (use, degradation).

Also, thanks for the various links above, will take a look. I've been reading a lot of doom-and-gloom about nuclear lately (e.g., big problems at NuScale) and just read this a few hours ago. IMO we should keep investing in it but be pragmatic about costs and the risks of new nuclear tech. I still have fingers crossed about fusion...

I think farmers all over the world are complaining and need subsidies. In Germany they are protesting by blocking the roads. Web Link

Likewise, farmers in other places are receiving fuel subsidies for their tractors, harvestors diesel so that they can actually get into the fields to harvest crops.

I have been searching, but unable to find, how much fuel is needed to harvest a field from plowing, sowing and harvesting versus how much fuel is needed to raise a cow from say birth to slaughter.

The more fuel that is needed to grow and harvest our food is part of the equation. Plants of all types are very dependent on modern farming methods and modern farming require fuel for the machinery as well as the transport to market, be it a local market or the other side of the country!

It is easy to say that eating plants are better for the environment, but are fuels taken into account? Almonds are reportedly destroying bees and that is another cost of farming.

Surf and turf, eating from the sea or the animals that graze the land, have been human foods for as long back as we know. We are omnivores and our teeth are varied for both meat and plants. Regardless of present day choices, humans are meat eaters and a diet including meat is natural for us.

I am not saying how much meat, but eating meat, dairy and plants (grains and vegetables including fruits) is the natural, normal human diet.

Most recent Gallup Poll.

What is the most pressing issue facing the US today?

Economy/Inflation: 39%?
Immigration: 10%?
Health care: 3%?
President Biden: 3%?
Budget: 3%?
Climate Change: 3%

******
How much would you personally be willing to pay each year to address global warming? (Name a number in dollars.)

Mean Response: $348?
Median Response: $10

Things are not going the way the green zealots planned.

Another way of looking at the impact of raising domestic livestock to eat, and why people should consider reducing meat consumption:

“ Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent.
The same holds true for birds. The biomass of poultry is about three times higher than that of wild birds."

Web Link

Regarding the negative effects of raising plants for food, Big Agriculture has been found to degrade the environment in many ways (loss of forests, pesticide and fertilizer run-off, loss of topsoil fertility, use of fossil fuels by farm equipment, impact to bees, etc.) BUT- this just becomes another argument for people to eat less meat and more plants. It can take about 20 pounds of grain (i.e. plants) to develop 1 pound of edible beef. So it's more efficient for people to eat plants directly, rather than to feed plants to cows in order to produce beef.
Web Link

Regarding the relative cost of meat vs. plant-based proteins, beans and legumes are reasonably priced.
At Safeway on-line just now:
1 lb hamburger: $6.99
1 lb dried lentils: $1.99
15 oz. Canned organic lentils: $2.29