Apparently this was an actual discourse going around.

  • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Similarly, we shouldn’t just ban meat, but have its price reflect its environmental impact so that can be dealt with and reduced rather than externalized like the profit motive would dictate. It’s absurd and unnatural for corn and beef to be so cheap and subsidized in the US. It’s far more reasonable for a burger to be $50 like in Venezuela than $5 in the US.

    • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But this shouldn’t then apply only meat. Items like almonds and alfalfa should also reflect their absurd environmental impact and detriment to the world.

      • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And also the price should be increased for unhealthy items that cause more usage of the healthcare system and cause social issues like alcohol and tobacco

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Makes sense, though that could also be mitigated through a consumption tax rather then a direct price increase. A price increase would just go straight to the producer.

          • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely. Discouraged through gradual price increases or decreasing availability and the taxes go to paying for the issues that the item causes. Honestly, this could also work in a capitalist society or a socialist one where the people may still be resistant to giving up that item (like the prevalence of smoking in China)

      • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, as such it’s only natural for it to be more economical rather than less to buy local. Only a fossil fuel addicted world can find outsourcing and externalizing more “efficient” and profitable.

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I was referring mostly to how those plants require absurd and absolutely unsustainable amounts of water and nutrients. They shouldn’t even be grown locally, they should not be grown at all or made extraordinary expensive to reflect their cost.

          • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That too, for many places with “nutrient poor” soil it’s unnatural and unhealthy to have great amounts of nitrogen, thus fertilizer ends up being bad overall, and only non-native plants are grown further harming native ecology. Don’t grow water loving plants in a dry place, nor graze cows where forest is better and ruminants haven’t evolved with the soil. In addition it’s absurd that great fleets of honey bees are driven across the country for almonds, when honey bees aren’t even native anyway. Then the media starts crying they’re gonna go extinct but don’t give a shit about native pollinators.