Germany Considers a 19% Meat Tax to Combat Global Warming

New York Hot Dog
Monks Hot Dog, author Mark H. Anbinder

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Anyone here believe that global warming zealots want to stop at 19%?

Germany may introduce ‘meat tax’ to protect the environment

Currently meat has reduced tax rate of 7 per cent but politicians say it should increase to 19

Phoebe Weston Science Correspondent @phoeb0
1 day ago
 
Germany could introduce a “meat tax” to protect the climate and improve animal welfare.

Currently meat in the country has a reduced tax rate of seven per cent but the Social Democrat party and the Greens are arguing that this should increase to the standard 19 per cent, with additional revenue spent on improving animal welfare. 

“I am in favour of abolishing the VAT reduction for meat and earmarking it for more animal welfare,” Friedrich Ostendorf, agricultural policy spokesperson for the Greens told The Local website.

He said it mad “no sense” that meat was taxed at seven per cent while oat milk is taxed at 19 per cent. 

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/german-meat-tax-environment-animal-welfare-a9045271.html

While most people think of Germans as wealthy, there is a lot of poverty in Germany. According to a DW article in 2018, around 20% of Germans are struggling to pay their bills and heat their homes. This new meat tax if passed will simply add to their already intolerable burden.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
194 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 8, 2019 2:10 pm

Brilliant!! It will have ZERO effect on CO2 or anything climate related.

Reply to  Dave
August 8, 2019 3:26 pm

As selling of indulgences ever had an effect ?? 😀 😀

Reply to  Dave
August 8, 2019 3:38 pm

It is a malnutrition tax, as the goal is to have a vegan population that is permanently and disabilitatingly weak. The old adage from India is that “red meat causes war.” A malnourished person has not the energy to resist the oppressor. A nourished person, with the nutritional benefits of (red) meat, is able to resist the oppressor.

This is all about suppression of the general population and a major aspect would be to weaken their health. Simply educating them to be properly subservient, socialist, and poorly-educated servants is not good enough if a few bright bulbs stir up the masses. If they are both weak and stupid, a revolution is very unlikely.

Loydo
Reply to  Charles Higley
August 8, 2019 8:24 pm

Total nonsense. Your views are straight out of the (red) meat industry play book. A vegetarian diet is healthier and cheaper and doesn’t cause this:comment image

Novak Djokovic,
Venus and Serena Williams,
Mac Danzig,
Scott Jurek,
Martina Navratilova,
Joe Namath,
Ricky Williams,
Carl Lewis,
Mike Tyson,
David Carter,
John Salley,

All vegetarian of vegan.

Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 4:19 am

Loydo

Don’t know about you guys, but I have 4 teeth in my mouth which are there for eating meat.

I guess I was born that way:)

Cheers

Roger

Dan Cody
Reply to  Roger Surf
August 9, 2019 4:36 am

A man walks into the psychiatrist’s office with a cucumber up his nose,a carrot in his left ear,and a banana in his right ear.He says,”What’s the matter with me?”
The psychiatrist says,”you’re not eating properly”.

ATheoK
Reply to  Roger Surf
August 9, 2019 9:01 am

MODS:
Why is this allowed to continue?

“Dan Cody August 9, 2019 at 4:36 am
A man walks into the psychiatrist’s …”

It seems to me that this commenter is abusing the site and mocking the comments.

Dan Cody
Reply to  ATheoK
August 9, 2019 9:19 am

Wrong A. If you would of been paying more attention today,I’ ve been commenting on various topics just now.Once in a while I crack a joke.Big deal! A, Your making a problem of something that’s not a problem.Your overreacting and exaggerating on an issue that’s all in your mind.Take a deep breath and relax and focus on the topics at large.Don’t preoccupy yourself with all this because you’re wasting your time by doing it.I’m trying to give you some good advice.please be receptive about it.Feel better and Enjoy your day.

Loydo
Reply to  Roger Surf
August 9, 2019 3:21 pm

You’ve also got nipples Roger.

Donald Boughton
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 5:01 am

You forgot Adolf Hitler(deceased)

Mumbles McGurick
Reply to  Donald Boughton
August 9, 2019 6:56 am

Or is he????

Just kidding. Hitler was also vigilantly anti-smoking. No one was allowed to smoke in his presence, and that was in the 1930s!!!

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 5:46 am

So what? I don’t want to any of these people. I’m happy as myself.

Celebrity endorsements are for credulous fools like you.

Have you ever wondered why poor people start eating more meat when they become wealthier?

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
August 9, 2019 3:15 pm

I refuted Charles Higley’s patently ignorant opinion with some familiar examples: strong, fit, elite athletes.
You go straight to the insults?

Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 8:32 am

Loydo, you forgot to tell us, ….. just how old was:

Novak Djokovic,
Venus and Serena Williams,
Mac Danzig,
Scott Jurek,
Martina Navratilova,
Joe Namath,
Ricky Williams,
Carl Lewis,
Mike Tyson,
David Carter,
and John Salley,

when they decided to become “non-protein” ingesting vegetarians?

Was it in their late 30s, …… 40s, …… 50s, …… when?

Loydo
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 9, 2019 3:17 pm

Probably same as me. Meat-eater for decades.
There is no such thing as a “non-protein” ingesting vegetarian, btw.

ATheoK
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 8:59 am

Nonsense.
Listing advocates and activists fails to prove anything.

USDA’s nutritional database fails to find vegetarianism healthier.
History clearly and repeatedly marks the points where humans living mostly of plants increased their meat intake.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 9:15 am

The dean at my granddaughter’s medical school told them that half you learn here is wrong.
This tells you why—“While this study doesn’t prove that red meat causes breast cancer or that chicken prevents it, its lead author suggests the switch is worth considering.” Don’t matter, but do it anyway. https://consumer.healthday.com/cancer-information-5/breast-cancer-news-94/red-meat-may-raise-breast-cancer-risk-749127.html

Roger Bournival
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 10:07 am

Loydo -I just got off my road bike, a 23 mile ride. In addition to my normal daily calorie intake, that effort burned an additional 1,400 calories. Other than the consumption of meat, there is no efficient way for me to ingest that many calories.

I’d love to see the list of active vegetarian athletes – I wager you could fit them into a few phone booths.

Loydo
Reply to  Roger Bournival
August 9, 2019 3:20 pm

You should probably do a cursory check before risking your hard-earned.

marque2
Reply to  Roger Bournival
August 9, 2019 8:52 pm

You can eat a can of Crisco – vegetable animal versions – doesn’t matter.

marque2
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 8:47 pm

Wait until you get older. Lifelong vegetarians ruin their bodies and end up with blood pressure and cholesterol problems normally attributed to meat eaters. I have an elderly life long vegetarian relative going through these problems now. Not pleasantm

Loydo
Reply to  marque2
August 10, 2019 1:33 am

“Vegetarians ruin their bodies and end up with blood pressure and cholesterol problems”
Rubbish. You’re mistaking anecdotal heresay as evidence. If I know a healthy elderly vegetarian does that negate your story?

marque2
Reply to  Loydo
August 10, 2019 4:48 pm

There is enough information on the subject of vegetarian diets and poor health – where my relative story is more than just ancedotal. Now let’s talk about anorexia and vegetarianism which are strongly linked.

Sarah Wiggs
Reply to  Charles Higley
August 8, 2019 11:58 pm

I wish this statement did seem so credible.

Alien
Reply to  Charles Higley
August 9, 2019 2:11 am

I think you’re right. Only the well-to-do will enjoy meat and remain healthy. The poor always pay for the follies of the left.

Cube
Reply to  Alien
August 9, 2019 6:18 am

Loydo aka Griff thinks he will be part of the elite. Perhaps as a pet dog eating by-products.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Charles Higley
August 9, 2019 2:26 am

“If they are both weak and stupid, a revolution is very unlikely.”
Well that at least means we are safe from any revolting Greens…

Jim
Reply to  Dave
August 8, 2019 4:54 pm

But it WILL reduce grain prices 63%.

War on coal is so 2009.

War on farming

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Jim
August 8, 2019 6:19 pm

I dunno… if they keep milking oats…
I surely hope that was a typo. Oat milk?? My wife buys ground up watery almond paste labeled as “almond milk”. As if any white-ish watery goo is milk.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Rocketscientist
August 8, 2019 7:46 pm

Milk only comes from teats. It is oat and almond juice. But, as Lewis Black pointed out, nobody will buy it if it is labeled juice. Here’s a suggestion, when the carton is empty, look in the bottom and see the residue from the coagulants that they put in there to thicken it up. And you voluntarily drink that crap.

UBrexitUPay4it
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 8, 2019 9:11 pm

But it’s vegan crap, so must be good for you.

Once again, someone is trying to steal from you, whilst claiming that the theft is “for your own good”. Why is taking yet more of my money a benefit to me? How?

Just remember, vegans are pasture-fed long pork, and come the fall they will be a sought after delicacy. (Perhaps I should mention to our American friends that by “fall”, I don’t mean this coming autumn…or do I?)

Editor
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 8, 2019 10:33 pm

There was a court case some years ago (sorry I don’t know which country and don’t have a link) in which the dairy industry sued a company selling sun protection products for calling them “cream” and “milk” (as in “sun cream”). They lost, with the judge saying that the words “cream” and “milk” had passed into general usage and could not be protected.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 9, 2019 3:45 am

I laugh at soy milk ready made buyers
1cup of soy flour in a litre of water heat cool strain ..done
diy is a few cents
premade is near 3$ in aus
why the hell anyone bothers drinking it beats me
its foul
like Tofu the supposed tasty protien replacer
one bite was enough to spit n never do that again

funny the amazons being cleared for gmo soy
that needs a lot more fertiliser than their soils have
rainforest soils tend to be poor for much else than limited trees n vines etc
one crop wonders.
theyd be better allowing cows to graze and fertilise, but I fugure the cows would be hungry with little grasses and understory of use to them

marque2
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 9, 2019 8:56 pm

It isn’t really juice either since the almonds,soybeans, oats whatever separate from the liquid and sink to the bottom and leave a rough feel on the mouth as well.

So to make it palitable the add.salts sugars and especially gums and emulsifiers. These stabilize the product and give it a milk like drink feel. The stuff is more processed than soda or artificial fruit punch.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Rocketscientist
August 8, 2019 11:54 pm

Maybe “goat milk”, not “oat milk”?

Disputin
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
August 9, 2019 2:16 am

No, I’m afraid that wasn’t a typo. It really was ‘oat milk’.
I’m guessing that your first language isn’t English, so it’s entirely forgivable that you don’t realise how debased English has become.

Marty
Reply to  Rocketscientist
August 9, 2019 8:22 am

Rocket – Something you might be over-looking. I’m not a vegan or anything like that and I eat meat. But I’m lactose intolerant. I can eat cheese or yogurt but if I drink more than about half a cup of real milk I get sick. The last time I drank real milk was two years ago and afterwards I was sick all afternoon. Yet I like the taste of milk.

When I get a craving for milk I drink almond milk or soy milk. It’s a poor substitute for the real thing. But if you pretend real hard it tastes vaguely like milk.

DonM
Reply to  Marty
August 9, 2019 5:57 pm

how many ground up almonds are a full glass of almond milk?

(if you guessed more than one, you were wrong)

Too bad you can’t drink the real stuff, it’s good food.

Does goat milk work …? I’ve never tried it. When I was given a few jars of goat cheese I smiled politely and said thanks (a few miles down the road I realized they were still on the bumper, pulled over and put them in car, then into the fridge). After a month or so, when I had ran out of real snacks, I tried using the goat cheese as chip dip … ate the whole pint. Goat cheese is good food too … it just costs too much. (and I had no luck with getting more free cheese when I stopped by the cheese givers’ house to “check on the long term outcome of the project”)

Reply to  Marty
August 14, 2019 8:30 am

Boy do I understand that. Within 30 days of my 17th birthday, I became highly lactose intolerant, and, as far as I know, the only one so affected among my closest relatives. I learned that the hard way. I am so highly intolerant that much more than a tablespoon (15 cc) results in gas, cramps and diarrhea. Milk must be fermented enough for me to handle it. Cottage cheese, yogurt, buttermilk or any cheese is fine. I’d rather drink buttermilk (it is an acquired taste) than having lactaid added to it. I’ve never tried goat’s milk; but given how lactose intolerant I am, I’d rather not do that experiment on myself.

August 8, 2019 2:18 pm

The “progressive” left loves regressive taxes.

kokoda
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 8, 2019 4:21 pm

Excellent phrase

Latitude
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 8, 2019 5:42 pm

..and he thinks it’s unfair…what’s unfair is why not lower the other taxes down to 7%

LdB
Reply to  Latitude
August 8, 2019 7:58 pm

They obviously hate the poor in Germany which is who this change will most effect.

Andy Espersen
August 8, 2019 2:19 pm

They are mad – they will ruin the economy of Germany and of Europe. China will love this because it leaves her clear to pursue her competitive capitalism. We think Chinese communism must necessarily fail eventually. But communistic capitalism will probably work better that our democratic capitalism.

commieBob
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 8, 2019 3:12 pm

People will argue that what we have isn’t real capitalism.

Jim
Reply to  commieBob
August 8, 2019 4:55 pm

It isn’t.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 8, 2019 3:21 pm

“Communistic capitalism” is an oxymoron.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 8, 2019 4:04 pm

China is proving it is not.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 9, 2019 11:24 pm

2/3 of China’s GDP is owned by the Chinese Communist party. The other 1/3 is the part of the economy that sells to the west. That 2/3 CCP ownership is highly inefficient and drags the economy down. In the long run it can’t be sustained. Hitler realized that and was a major reason for his war expansion plans which of course led to disaster. The 1/3 that is capitalistic has cheated its way to success by stealing and hacking technology and by forcing technology transfer from foreign firms that wanted to break into the largest world market. Trump is fighting back and China is hurting. Their latest survival tactic is a devaluation of the yen. This only works for so long until inflation becomes a huge problem. There are no easy answers to economics. What the Chinese have going for them like all Asians is they are extremely hard workers. I see the Chinese families in Canada who put a hell of a lot of pressure on their kids. 80% end up getting higher education, a number far higher than Caucasians.

Blackcap
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 8, 2019 5:24 pm

Maybe maybe not. I think it is referring to a capitalist system of economy but a social system of communism. The 2 can live side by side.

Patrick
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 8, 2019 3:46 pm

The technical term is “fascism”. That leftists love China is natural – they just love totalitarianism.

Lee L
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 8, 2019 5:00 pm

There is much that should shock us over in China. Just ask Hong Kong.

The most shocking thing, to me, is that President Xi has managed to manipulate things so that there no longer are limits to the term of the President. That is to say, he is President of China for LIFE.

Some democracy. Some freedom.

Of course every time you bring up China as an example of Marxist doctrine in practice, the lefty proponent will say ‘that’s not the way it’s supposed to be’.

Don Adamson
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 8, 2019 5:31 pm

But every cow,pig and edible bird will get a monthly allowance.

Cube
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 9, 2019 6:21 am

Get rid of the population and let the country go back to wilderness. It is the perfect plan… for Loydo / Griff and the self-styled elite.

Geo
Reply to  Andy Espersen
August 9, 2019 7:18 am

“communistic capitalism” will work for a while. But as the business owners get wealthy and increase power the government must subdue them to maintain control. More and more control by the government, then total take over, and you end up with totalitarian communism. You won’t end with free-market capitalism because the nature of communism total control.

Reply to  Geo
August 9, 2019 8:55 am

I think it is better described as ………as the business owners get wealthy and increase power the government must get bigger with more dysfunctional employees that want more control, salaries and entitlements than the business owners or their employees and thus more and more Laws must be passed for control by the government employees.

Earthling2
August 8, 2019 2:23 pm

We have fake news, fake science and now fake meat. A 19% tax on real meat will just be another tax grab that the politicians get used to that will probably never end, just like the carbon tax. It is the poor and middle class that absorbs the bulk of price increases for basic necessities and a 19% German tax on meat will still include the inefficiencies of carbon taxation, along with exorbitent electricity pricing that is also fostered upon the bulk of the population in the name of ‘carbon’. The tax on meat will be felt by the poor and middle class who spend more of their disposable income on basic survival and just like the carbon tax, it introduces inflation into the economy for basic survival for which the poor pay the ultimate price. After paying more for meat and electricity in the name of ‘carbon’ it just means there will be less money by the poor and middle class to purchase other basic necessities to survive, not to mention less money to spend on non essential items like tourism which also is under direct attack unless you are flying to a climate conference.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Earthling2
August 8, 2019 7:19 pm

Get a backbone Germans. Overturn this slow tightening of the screws. Save your culture, save your innovativeness, save your industry, save your economy. Surely you don’t buy into the climate bull. When they have you in the bag, you are there for generations and nothing bad is going tohappen to the planet. But when you realize that, it will be too late.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 8, 2019 11:58 pm

I beg your pardon? Germany is the most ardent “climate saving” nation in Europe. That’s why they have not reduced their co2 emissions for the last ten years.

Joe Lynch
Reply to  Earthling2
August 9, 2019 12:32 am

The effect (and intent?) of this tax will be to drive the less well off to using “meat substitute”, which mirabile dictu, will not be subject to the tax. Just like “renewable energy” is being imposed on the masses! Vegan meat loaf anyone?

Andre Lauzon
August 8, 2019 2:39 pm

They tax food?????????? so they can have windmills ???????

LdB
Reply to  Andre Lauzon
August 8, 2019 8:00 pm

It is just a PR excercise ahead of todays IPCC report release
https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/

D. Anderson
August 8, 2019 2:59 pm

I’d be ok with a meat-head tax but only if I get to decide who gets charged.

D. Anderson
Reply to  D. Anderson
August 8, 2019 3:13 pm

I would impose a 50% tax on any meat-head who tells me a VAT is a great idea.

a_scientist
August 8, 2019 3:01 pm

Germany’s cuisine is heavily meat based.

Do these fools learn nothing from Frances attempt to tax diesel to stop AGW?

Germans will breaking out their yellow vests…street protests in short order !

Reply to  a_scientist
August 8, 2019 3:25 pm

@a_scientist

Germans will breaking out their yellow vests…street protests in short order !

I hope they will, but as I know “my” Germans, I fear they wont.
They are in general to obedient. They change maybe the party they elect the next time.

Dnalor
Reply to  a_scientist
August 8, 2019 3:28 pm

More room to grow biomass if we stop greedy people eating meat!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  a_scientist
August 8, 2019 3:58 pm

Probably more “Black Shirts “than Yellow Vests! Facisism arises from a bullying guvment, rather than a truly democratic one!

Loydo
Reply to  a_scientist
August 8, 2019 8:35 pm

Germany has one of the higher proportion of vegetarians at about 10% and increasing fast.
https://vebu.de/veggie-fakten/entwicklung-in-zahlen/anzahl-veganer-und-vegetarier-in-deutschland/

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
August 8, 2019 11:35 pm

It it peaks and fads out like the fad it is. Vegetarian did the same thing it spiked and then dropped back.

Trendy fads do have that sort of behaviour 🙂

Loydo
Reply to  LdB
August 9, 2019 1:03 am

You made that up.

Gwan
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 2:40 am

All that you post here loydo is made up .
Well most is, get a life .
Methane from farmed livestock is a non problem ,
If greenhouse gasses are a problem then blame the problem which is the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels that have been locked up for millions of years.
That is adding a small portion of the rising levels of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere.
Hey loydo do you see that capital C that is one carbon atom .
Animals eat carbohydrates and cellulose that has absorbed C carbon from the air.
A small amount of CH4 is emitted through belching as the animals are digesting the vegetation .
Now in about 8 years that CH4 breaks down in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and H2O.
Then the cycle continues with the vegetation absorbing the CO2 and the animals eating it .
Now here is the Question loydo .
How much C (that is carbon loydo)is added to the atmosphere .
The answer is none, not any ,nothing to worry your little head about .
Methane from livestock is a red hot herring .
Pushed by political activists .
Lay the blame were it should be coal ,oil and gas extraction via fugitive emissions and leave farmed livestock alone .

Cube
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 6:25 am

You made yourself up…Griffo

Mumble McGuirck
Reply to  a_scientist
August 9, 2019 7:06 am

Germany’s cuisine is heavily meat based.

Why, even their potato salad has bacon in it!

All I want to say is if this 19% tax is passed, that just means more bratwurst for me!

Wiliam Haas
August 8, 2019 3:07 pm

The tax cannot possibly have any effect on climate. The animals involved eat plants and not fossil fuels. For those that believe in greenhouse gas theory there will be no net effect on CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So decreasing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will have no effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.

R Shearer
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
August 8, 2019 4:18 pm

A significant fraction of plant protein comes from nitrogen based fertilizers that were produced using natural gas.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  R Shearer
August 8, 2019 7:50 pm

And who is gonna eat the grass and cattle feed if we get rid of cows?

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
August 8, 2019 4:38 pm

Probably they are concerned about the methane produced, by cows for example. But yes, it is idiotic.

Gwan
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
August 9, 2019 2:52 am

Well said William Haas

Sunny
August 8, 2019 3:11 pm

So they will tax meat so the animals can have better lifes before they are killed…. How does his save the planet?

yarpos
August 8, 2019 3:16 pm

Nobody has said it yet so I will. Wurst idea EVAH!

Flight Level
August 8, 2019 3:22 pm

The Third Reich achieved progressively a very creative tax system. Including a “guillotine (fallbeil) wear and tear tax” for the families of the executed.

Then B-29’s, Mosquitoes and other Yak’s took care of business.

Ted Getzel
Reply to  Flight Level
August 8, 2019 6:28 pm

B-29s were only used in the Pacific theater. B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters were the heavies used against Germany.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Ted Getzel
August 8, 2019 11:56 pm

May I add the Halifax?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
August 9, 2019 2:38 am

There is a quiet irony in the fact the Halifax did so much damage to the German war machine when it was Halifax, the appeasing foreign secretary who wanted to strike a pact with Germany, before Churchill took control.
The urge to call the bouncing bombs Moseley’s was a joke too far.

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  Ted Getzel
August 9, 2019 3:07 am

Given it’s effective payload on a mission over Germany generally 4000 lbs give or take… the B-17 wasn’t really a heavy bomber.. given that you could get a 4000 Lb “cookie” into a Mosquito “light” bomber…

Gerry, England
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
August 9, 2019 5:54 am

The Lancaster was the only one that could carry the 5 and 10 ton earthquake bombs – with a bit of weight trimming tis true – because of the single bomb bay.

John Tillman
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
August 9, 2019 11:15 am

B-17 had the payload of a medium bomber, but range of a heavy. However, it needed less tonnage to achieve the same results as night bombers, since bombing by day was more accurate.

Its heavy defensive armament naturally reduced its payload.

Even a Corsair fighter-bomber could carry three bombs totaling 4000#, after Lindbergh figured out how to do it. But not very far. Same for Hellcat.

Thunderbolt could deliver 2500#; Tiffy and Tempest 2000#.

Had B-29 not been available in August 1945, 20th Air Force would have had to drop atomic bombs from Lancs.

Flight Level
Reply to  Ted Getzel
August 9, 2019 2:45 pm

No matter the numbers, they (we ?) got the message. For some time at least.

How will the climate war end is another ball game. And this is what really matters.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Flight Level
August 8, 2019 8:17 pm

What Ted said.

Honestly, if more students studied aviation history and not liberal arts we wouldn’t be having this problem.

People will be telling me they can’t tell the difference between an A, B and C wing in a Spitfire next!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Craig from Oz
August 8, 2019 9:18 pm

They probably would not know what a Spitfire is.

Alien
Reply to  Craig from Oz
August 9, 2019 2:09 am

And they probably have no idea that Hitler escaped to Agentina and then to a cavern under the South Pole. How easy they forget.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Craig from Oz
August 9, 2019 4:52 am

Spitfires are easy, Hurricanes had A, B, C and D variants plus fabric or metal.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Richard of NZ
August 9, 2019 7:13 am

Because of climate change, our children won’t know what Hurricanes were.

Chris Hagan
August 8, 2019 3:26 pm

It used to be taboo to tax food when I was young. Soon all people will have to pay a breathing tax for the CO2 we emit. The money will be spent on camps where the enviro fascist enact their final solution.
Remember Hitler was a socialist.

Michael Ozanne
Reply to  Chris Hagan
August 9, 2019 3:09 am

In the UK food unless it is prepared and served is zero rated for VAT

Cube
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
August 9, 2019 6:28 am

Today…

Marmocet
August 8, 2019 3:33 pm

German policy makers really seem intent on going after the least effective and least cost-effective measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions first.

One of the big ironies to their “Energiewende” is that if they had spent as long and as much as they have building out wind and solar on nuclear power instead, they’d have decarbonized their entire electric power sector by now and they could be moving on to decarbonizing other sectors of their economy. Instead, their per capita CO2 emissions, for all their effort, have done no better than decline at the same rate as they have in other developed nations.

August 8, 2019 3:35 pm

Seems not to be accepted by all politicians here in Germany.

Marmocet
August 8, 2019 3:39 pm

I do agree that if food is going to be taxed, there’s no good reason to create price distortions by taxing it at different rates.

LdB
Reply to  Marmocet
August 8, 2019 7:55 pm

Wrong there is a very good reason if you want a fair tax system … you make higher taxes on discretionary spending. That way it affects the rich more than the poor because they have more discretionary spending.
Play with the numbers lets say a poor person with 4 kids earns 100 Euro a pay period and spends 40 Euro on food. Meanwhile the rich person earns 1000 Euro a pay period and spends 100 euro on food. Now increase the tax and the poor persons food bill goes to 44.4 Euro (4.4% rise) meanwhile the rich persons food bill went to 111 Euro (1.1%) rise.

That is why you avoid taxing essentials for life because it disproportionately affects the poorest in your country its basic economics 101 … always tax discretionary spending because it will target the rich who can afford it.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 8, 2019 3:45 pm

I don’t see anywhere in the linked article which claims raising the tax on meat will have any effect on global warming (not that others haven’t made that claim elsewhere; I just don’t see it here). The justification is it will improve “animal welfare”.

Where tax policy is concerned, there is never any sanity.

When I lived in Connecticut food at the grocery store was not taxed but prepared meals were, on the premise that lower-income people would eat mostly home-cooked meals and therefore mostly avoid the tax.

Seems reasonable, but one absurd result was a $40 cut of filet cost nothing in tax but a $3 meal at Burger King did.

Connecticut also did not tax any single clothing item costing less that $75, on the same premise. Again, good in theory but it meant there was no tax on a $74 pair of luxury suede gloves, but there was on a pair of $1.99 work gloves (“work gloves” are not “clothing items”).

My preference would be no tax at all on food, but if you are going to tax food, I don’t see anything unfair about taxing all kinds of food at the same rate.

As I said, don’t ever expect sanity in tax policy.

Lee L
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 8, 2019 5:05 pm

The justification is it will improve “animal welfare”.

Well maybe.. but my guess is that the goal is to eliminate the raising of meat which, of course, will eliminate the welfare of the animal good or bad.

PeterW
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 8, 2019 5:27 pm

We have known for a long time that well cared for livestock are more profitable… Anyone who thinks that bureaucrats with no skin in the game are better judges of animal welfare than the farmers who depend on them for our income, is retarded.

Same goes for slaughter. Stressed animals are tougher and taste less attractive. Only a fool are a vegan would blindly accept the idea that we spend time and effort raising a quality product, only to cut its value by lack of care in processing.

Kenji
August 8, 2019 3:47 pm

Wie heissen sie! CA taxes it’s recreational marijuana at 15% retail. Achtung Deutschland! isn’t it time you legalized marijuana and taxed all the stoners, instead of the Beefeaters!?

August 8, 2019 3:50 pm

I think that both the Greens and the so called “”Progressives”” have gone too far this time.

The Inner City Greens withy their mostly very high salaries can afford this. I recall the story from the Bible about “”The Widows Mite””.

Oh well lets hear it for no meat, but “”Let them eat Cake”” instead.

MJR VK5ELL

LdB
Reply to  Michael
August 8, 2019 8:02 pm

Yes it is definitely a regressive tax on the poor and will hit them hardest. I guess the German greens really do hate the poor.

DonM
Reply to  LdB
August 9, 2019 6:06 pm

The poor don’t spend a lot on meat.

Meat already costs more than filler; tax won’t alter most poor folks eating habits. If you want to help the poor tax mcdonalds and use the tax to subsidize real food.

Steve Hodgkiss
August 8, 2019 3:55 pm

Ironically, this will yield more animals farting — not less, thus contributing to the “Chicken Little theatre politique”. Isn’t that odd? Social-Democrats: Socially corrupt, but Democratic enough to tax you to death on everything they hate so they can control you. “As for me and my house, we will serve THE LORD!” not these Philistines.

J Mac
August 8, 2019 3:55 pm

Wurst idea! Nich sehr gut.

Ve2
August 8, 2019 4:00 pm

More expensive bratwurst, the Germans are really going to like that.

nw sage
Reply to  Ve2
August 8, 2019 6:02 pm

If the bratwurst is only 50% meat (the rest vegetable products), is only the meat 50% taxed? [think bologna and mostof the processed ‘meat’ products in the USA]

LdB
Reply to  nw sage
August 8, 2019 8:07 pm

Personally I would go for a tax of 100% on anything sold as Vegan, Trendy or Enviromenatlly friendly because then the tax will target the rich inner city greens who can afford it. The perfect Tax system would also have extra taxes on “hip” or “trending” inner city suburbs as they represent groups of people who can easily afford to pay extra.

Dave
Reply to  LdB
August 9, 2019 1:16 am

Now there is sensible tax proposal I could get behind.

Dan Cody
August 8, 2019 4:00 pm

What do yo call a pissed off German? Sauerkraut

What do you call a blind German? A not see

How do Germans tie their shoes? With little knotsies

What did the German kid say when he pushed his brother off a cliff? “Look ,mother,no Hans!”

TonyL
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 8, 2019 6:03 pm

Dan Cody
You really are in way over your head.
Please contribute or desist.

Dan Cody
Reply to  TonyL
August 8, 2019 7:23 pm

Tony,you’re the one that’s way over your head with your constant belly aching over my joke telling.You need to lighten up and stop your childish complaining.I choose to do what i want to do in my comments and you shouldn’t even care.It’s way past your bedtime now.Go sleep it off. Good night

jtom
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 6:07 am

I agree with TonyL.

Your ‘humor’ is not funny. It is old snd stale. I heard most of your quips more than a half-century ago. They were not funny then.

Original, relevant quips or plays on words are one thing, but stale grade-school humor is just a cluttering nuisance. It adds nothing to the forum.

Dan Cody
Reply to  jtom
August 9, 2019 6:22 am

Jtom,I don’t care whether you think my humor is funny or not.Most people,judging from the comments i’ve received over the past few days,like my humor.It’s all a matter of opinion.Still,you sound like someone who takes things too seriously and needs to lighten up a little and develop a sense of humor. You’ll feel better for it and it helps to have that attribute because it’s healthy for the mind and spirit. criticizing others a lot is only going to make you full of bad feelings such as anger and frustration leading to bitterness,high blood pressure,heart problems,unhappiness,misery,etc. JTOM, I only have good intentions here in trying to help you with some good advice.Please be receptive to it instead of complaining so much.It’s time for you to let go and move on.Feel better and have a good day.

jtom
Reply to  jtom
August 9, 2019 11:58 am

Dan, I have a great sense of humor. The problem is, you don’t. You don’t understand the concept. Here is some help for you: Grow up. Give up the childish take on what’s funny, and embrace intelligent humor. Also learn that there is a time and a place for everything, and when something is appropriate or not. Here’s a hint: do you see anyone else on this forum behaving as you do? Get a clue.

Dan Cody
Reply to  jtom
August 9, 2019 1:38 pm

Jtom,if you had any sense of what a sense of humor is,you wouldn’t of made that overly serious,nasty reply towards me.You’re the one that needs to grow up and start being nice to others by acting like an adult,not like a pouting child. Feel better Jtom.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 8, 2019 7:52 pm

Mods, this guy seems to be intent of trolling every thread and is now straying into the area of making offensive ethnic “jokes”.

Dan Cody
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 8, 2019 8:08 pm

Relax Nicholas.There not meant to be offensive to anyone. It’s just a little light hearted humor as a change of pace amidst all this scientific discussion that seems to never end.Lighten up and try to smile a little.Enjoy yourself.Have a good night.

Earthling2
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 8, 2019 8:14 pm

I agree. At least put this troll on moderation and cue his comments for some of the offensive stuff he is spewing. Why is he allowed to post jokes here anyway? This isn’t a joke forum. Just delete this idiot. He isn’t adding anything to the conversation here and is starting to give this wonderful site a black eye with some of his stupid jokes.

Dan Cody
Reply to  Earthling2
August 8, 2019 8:28 pm

you’re the one giving the black eye by making nasty comments calling and labeling others nasty names coming from someone who is really the nasty one. Your negative attitudes are far far worse than my light hearted jokes.You shouldn’t even care or be concerned about my comments.Don’t wast tout time worrying about it..If you’re smart and feel bothered,then ignore the comments and move on! That’s a lot better than hearing your complaining and belly aching all the time.Do us all a favor an try to lighten up and not take things so seriously.You really sound like someone who isn’t fun to be around with.As I said,you need to move on and not let yourself get caught up in all this.Maybe Earthling2 should get beamed up! Have a good night.

Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 1:01 am

I search for the joke, Dan, as German I can’t find it, I even can’t recognize some relations to Germans in the BS you wrote
😀

Dan Cody
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 9, 2019 3:30 am

By BS, you meant ‘Best Satire’.

Reply to  Dan Cody
August 11, 2019 1:00 pm

No. He really didn’t.

David S
August 8, 2019 4:00 pm

When the income tax was first established in the U.S. in 1913 the top rate was ONLY 7% and it ONLY applied to the richest people. But by 1944 the top rate was 94% and even the lowest bracket was 23%.
source; https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

So once the government crooks get their foot in the door the sky is the limit.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  David S
August 9, 2019 12:12 am

“When the income tax was first established in the U.S. in 1913″

An income tax was introduced during the Civil War and discontinued after that war. Congress tried again in the 1890’s, and was slapped down by the Supreme Court. Hence, the 16th Amendment. That earlier tax return was one page, but looked remarkably like the current 1040.

jtom
August 8, 2019 4:20 pm

In the US study was recently published in the Washington Post calling for a tax on food based on calories, ostensibly to fight obesity

Face it, there are groups who do not want you to have money, and the freedom to choose what to do with it. They are the ones who cannot function in a free society, and the only way they can have the same lifestyle as everyone else is for the government to provide an identical standard of living to all. They do not have the intellect to understand how that would impact a person’s willingness to work, accomplish, and excel.

joe
August 8, 2019 4:27 pm

Someone, please tell me where or what this tax will be paying for? A weather machine that changes the weather? I heard it was going to the world order group to pay for immigration to all European countries to wipe out the nation’s sovereignty.

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2019 4:30 pm

So to be clear, with the current tax system the meat industry is essentially being subsidized via a far lower tax rate than the standard 19%. All they want to do is take away that subsidy. Sounds fair to me. I don’t know why it was even there to begin with.

jtom
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2019 7:01 pm

What a distorted view, First, not being taxed, or taxed less, is not a subsidy. Secondly, the meat industry is not getting the benefit of it, the consumer is. The problem is not that there are lower taxes on meat; it’s that there are taxes on food to begin with.

An extension of your logic would mean that everything not being taxed is being subsidized. From my understanding (i.e., NOT personal experience!) Germany has commercial establishments where people can engage in mutually agreed upon physical activity for a price (I think you understand). I would bet bottom (bad choice of words) dollar that that activity is taxed. I would also bet that married couples do not pay such a tax, although they engage in the same activity, and one may even derive a financial benefit. Is that a subsidy for married people? Should married couples be required to pay taxes for that, too?

People pay steep taxes to breath cigarette smoke. Are people who breath natural air getting a subsidy? I fear those with similar twisted logic will think so, and one day tax us for breathing.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  jtom
August 9, 2019 4:22 am

Your view is the distorted one, and you have distorted what I said, using the typical tactic of straw man “logic”. Moron.

jtom
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 9, 2019 5:55 am

Not at all. You clearly view a lack of taxation of a similar product as a subsidy. Product A was not taxed as Product B, therefore Product A is being subsidised. Substitute ‘meat’ as Product A, and ‘other foods’ as Product B, and you have your exact position.
That you can not defend the generic structure of your logic speaks volumes, as well as your retreat to name-calling. If you cannot argue your view civilly, this may be the wrong site for you.

Gunga Din
August 8, 2019 4:35 pm

A 19% meat tax to combat Global Warming?
I guess their agenda is safe.
No meat

LdB
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 8, 2019 7:42 pm

It was a media stunt ahead of todays release of the IPCC report guess what it recommends
https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/

Firey
August 8, 2019 4:36 pm

Just another money grab under the guise of “Climate Change”

PaulH
August 8, 2019 4:41 pm

I think it’s a good thing something called “oat milk” is taxed at 19%. Heck, tax it at 50%, I’m not going anywhere near the stuff. 😉

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  PaulH
August 8, 2019 6:56 pm

How, exactly, does one milk an oat?

jtom
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 8, 2019 7:05 pm

Very small milk-persons, sitting on very small stools.

Ve2
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 9, 2019 4:16 pm

With very small fingers.

Right-Handed Shark
August 8, 2019 4:44 pm

Let’s see, what can we tax next.. carbonated drinks, obviously, and beer! don’t forget beer. Then there’s bread of course, lot’s of CO2 in bread, and so many types! Bagels, baps, buns, ciabatta, focaccia, the list is endless.. and cakes! mustn’t forget cakes. But is 19% enough?.. Let’s make it 25%.. or 30%..

icisil
August 8, 2019 5:04 pm

OK, let’s try to focus on important things. Like that hot dog. Is that bacon garnish? The caption says Monk’s Hot Dog, but the only thing I can find is the Buddhist monk who tells the hot dog vendor, “Make me one with everything”.

Shoki Kaneda
August 8, 2019 5:07 pm

The German people tolerated high electric and fuels costs. They (somewhat) tolerated windmills and an erratic grid. But now, they’re threatening their bratwurst. It could get ugly.

brians356
August 8, 2019 5:13 pm

Having spent considerable time in Germany, if they really want to trigger an insurrection, just tax both meat and beer exorbitantly.

John Tillman
Reply to  brians356
August 9, 2019 10:45 am

Well, beer does release CO2, for the benefit of any plants in the area.

markl
August 8, 2019 5:13 pm

Taxing meat in Germany is equivalent to taxing pork in China. Germans will not bend over that far.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  markl
August 8, 2019 6:51 pm

I was going to say something similar. Germans love their cold meat breakfasts and sausage!

Walter Sobchak
August 8, 2019 5:43 pm

michael hart
August 8, 2019 6:37 pm

Presumably it will also encompass meat products ranging from pet food to paint and …. too many other things to list here. All while need to distinguish between animal and vegetable sources for the same product.

So it’s good news for bureaucrats and label manufacturers .
Bad news for foot ware manufacturers as they experience a shoe event horizon driven by the demonization of leather as well as plastics

UBrexitUPay4it
Reply to  michael hart
August 8, 2019 9:40 pm

Typical government approach to life. What will the unintended consequences of this be, I wonder? Firstly, a new trade in “under-the-counter meat products, meat smuggling, and meat trading? That sounds like a recipe for health concerns: “Wanna buy a chicken, guv? Only been dead a week – hardly green at all!” Lots of dubious “meat with tubes” smuggled in from Poland.

Then we have people who will want to raise their own meat animals – lots of new backyard “farmers” who will not have the required permits and health and safety inspections, so a roaring trade in fines and court appearances – may be a net win for the government. Also an animal health issue, with animals kept in inappropriate conditions. Well done vegans!

Increased hunting. The wild boar population will take a hit (probably a good thing), and rabbits will be very nervous. Poor vegans having to see all the fluffy bunnies blown to bits because of their food-nazi enforced, virtue-signalling group-think.

I’m quite fond of vegans, but I couldn’t eat a whole one. Not all in one go, anyway.

jtom
Reply to  UBrexitUPay4it
August 9, 2019 6:01 am

One unintended consequence, at least in my country, would be more hunters, more guns, and more ammo, in direct conflict with the goals of other, very vocal, groups.

Max
August 8, 2019 7:22 pm

As of this evening, there are already reports that the public would not stand for this.

Nicholas McGinley
August 8, 2019 7:45 pm

Hey, they voted for the people making these laws.
If they want to support politicians who suffer from the delusion that taxing their people into poverty will cool down the planet, not to mention the delusion that the planet is too hot and needs to be cooled, that is something the majority over there decided they want to do.

Loydo
August 8, 2019 8:09 pm

“This new meat tax if passed will simply add to their already intolerable burden.”

Rubbish, a vegetarian diet is cheaper and healthier.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
August 8, 2019 9:13 pm

Until it is discovered that human do need animal meat based protein. Oh wait…

Loydo
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 8, 2019 10:26 pm

Typical, pathetic, meat deprived, anaemic vegan.
comment image

TonyL
Reply to  Loydo
August 8, 2019 10:08 pm

Rubbish, a vegetarian diet is cheaper and healthier.
Eeeek!
I just got done going through a big medical survey where they detailed all the illnesses and dietary inadequacies which had health effects, all due to vegetarian and vegan diets.
Thanks, but no thanks.
“Vegan is healthier”, a myth perpetrated by the usual subjects. After what I have just seen in that study, I would love to see some medical data purporting to show the premise “Vegan is healthier”.

On a somewhat related note:
One of the saddest fads is cat loving vegans putting their cats on vegan diets. Because it is so much better. As you may know, cats are obligate carnivores, and cannot survive on a plant based diet. Very sadly, their malnutrition causes the animal to go blind, then suffer terribly, then die.

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea:
We are not carnivores, we are omnivores. We have a much easier time achieving proper nutrition with a mix.

Loydo
Reply to  TonyL
August 9, 2019 1:02 am

What specific”dietary inadequacies”? B12? Yes vegans need a supplement. Anything else? Did they mention illnesses or health effects due to meat eating?

“Vegan is healthier”, I said “Vegetarian is healthier”

According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704

Indubitable healthier.

Dave
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 2:43 am

Ah Loydo. On the level of ‘climate science’ with selective omissions and cherry-picking. 1) “appropriately planned vegetarian diet” – careful omission of the fact that this very rare and takes enormous and constant management – something a normal omnivore diet does not require to anything like that degree, especially for normal mental development in children ( so no, it really isn’t a suitable diet, particularly for growing children, because the probabilities of failure of adequate nutrition are substantively higher 2)The reason the Belgian Health authorities declared feeding a child a Vegan diet – because of measurable and repeated hospital admission related data – was child abuse, was because of the damage to the developing brain and nervous system. And it wasn’t just B12 either. There are a range of micronutrients and fats involved, most likely. 3) The claims of ‘better’ outcomes are rather like ‘it’s hotter in our urban heat island so the world is boiling’ – their data failed to separate the fact that vegans and vegetarians tend to come from upper middle class backgrounds and have higher levels of education, and are thus more likely to exercise, and less likely to smoke or drink to excess, than the entire population. A comparison of people of the same background, exercise regime etc, who ate healthily (often many of the same foods they commend) but also ate meat and fish in moderation I suspect would toss your ‘proof’ out the window, simply because they’re far more likely to ‘get’ some nutrients the vegetarians and vegans miss.

However: I’d like to propose an alternate thesis – compared to a similar group of peers (same social strata, same approximate educational strata, exercise regime etc.) Vegans or Vegetarians are far more likely (proportional to their numbers) to indulge in extremist and often illogical activism, and also far more likely to have psychological and mental health issues. Whether this is their diet affecting their cognitive ability or the just that the same traits in their character lead them into vegetarian/vegan diets, extremism, and mental health issues, would require careful research. Of course that’s not all vegetarians or vegans, but the probability is much higher.

John Collis
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 3:47 am

Loydo, cholesterol does not cause coronary heart disease or stroke, cholesterol is found in the arteries of people with IHD because it is part of the inflammatory process.

Fat does not make people fat, carbohydrates may do.
Obesity may not cause type 2 DM, but Type 2 DM/insulin resistance may cause obesity (not everyone who is obese has diabetes and not everyone with Type 2 diabetes is obese).
Corelation does not equal causation.
I suggest that you look at:
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
Read “the great cholesterol con” by Dr. Kendrick, who is a practising GP
“Doctoring data” by the same author is worth a read.
Also search for Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX1vBA9bLNk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfVaOqLUbZA&t=39s

PeterW
Reply to  Loydo
August 10, 2019 4:23 am

Let me join with the others is condemning the spurious claim that vegetarianism or veganism is “healthier.

Your average vegetarian is also far less likely to smoke, drink excessive alcohol or eat the average amount of sugary and highly processed foods…….. all of which have been found to have adverse health effects.

Without controlling for other dietary, lifestyle, environmental and workplace variables, to claim that the difference in specific health outcomes relates to just ONE variable – consumption or not of meat – is an extreme example of “junk science”.

What is more, none of this so-called “research” is based on random controlled clinical trials….. the kind of trial that would require locking up something like 500 pairs of identical twins in controlled environments and fed controlled diets.
Try doing that for years, if not cradle-to-grave, without busting almost every basic Human Right.

Loydo
Reply to  PeterW
August 10, 2019 5:26 am

Are you going to wade in and “condemn the spurious claim” that a lack of meat is unhealthy too? No, I didn’t think so.

I actually conducted the sort of controlled experiment you’re describing: I ate meat for thirty seven years, then I ate no meat for 20. I feel much better eating no meat.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  TonyL
August 9, 2019 1:04 am

TonyL
The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals in the U.K. managed to get a small change in the law recently making it an offence to put cats and dogs on a vegetarian diet because it is unnatural and cruel. Very sensible.

The irony is that this means that yet again (BSE outbreak) Animals enjoy better food protection in the U.K. than children being force fed by crazy parents.

Traciatim
Reply to  TonyL
August 9, 2019 5:36 am

TonyL, could you link the study? I’d like to read it.

Ve2
Reply to  Loydo
August 9, 2019 4:28 pm

My SiL went vegan, yellow teeth sallow complexion, bad breath and an insufferable habit of telling you how great it was.
Every 5 minutes.

Craig from Oz
August 8, 2019 8:31 pm

I was musing on similar issues and realise that we are looking at these ‘solutions’ all wrong.

As Greta the Nordic Thanos likes to point out, children are important. After all, the logic goes, they are the ones who need to live in the future we are making now.

Good point. So therefore it is also logical that children, as well as taking greater responsibility for raising awareness, also need to take greater active involvement in the so called ‘solution’.

What we really need is a tax directly aimed at the under 18s. If they want to live in the future, they need to start investing in it, and the best way to invest is clearly to give the government some of your cash.

So, what I propose is that the U-18s should be taxed normally, exactly the same as everyone else just to be completely fair, and then have a Future Levy deduced from their net annual. Say 50%

The future remember. Important place the future. No point taxing old people because they are about to die and plus, they have already spent their entire lives producing the present that the youth of today get to live in.

Now of course as you age you are still going to be part of the future, which is why I also propose that 18 is only the current upper age limit. Each year we shall increase it by 1, so this year it will be under 18s, next year under 19s and so on.

Sure it might seem harsh, but hey, The Future!

I am sure Saint Greta would agree. And even if she doesn’t, The Future!

There you go kiddies, Saint Greta, or at least one of her handlers, or at least one of the multitudes willing to manipulate her IP for their own personal agendas, has SPOKEN.

Cube
Reply to  Craig from Oz
August 9, 2019 6:41 am

I thought they were funny. You bitch about Dan’s stupid jokes- do you bitch about Loydo / Griff’s incessant stupid trolling? Now we’re going to control what is posted to suit your delicate sensibilities- where does it end? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who will watch the joke moderators to ensure they are not blocking “real science”?

Loydo
Reply to  Cube
August 9, 2019 3:24 pm

Knock it off Cube I am not Griff. Ask a mod.

irritable Bill
August 8, 2019 9:35 pm

Don’t think this is Germanys problem I was listening in on Australians propaganda arm of the sociopathic left and guess what they were talking about with great enthusiasm? Limiting beef etc and pro beans….beans, beans the magical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. I guess that counts beans out as well? I have also heard these bizarre little people talking up the benefits of cockroaches, other bugs…..and maggots. I kid you not. Gone are the days of Peking Duck, now is the time of Writhing Pie….sick sad world.

Stanny1
August 8, 2019 9:59 pm

This non-issue and Global Warming are just a smokescreen to take the attention off of the Jihad Invasion.

August 8, 2019 10:49 pm

Burger, Schnitzel, Frikadelle, oder die Wurst — Ja. 😀 (mit 🍺🍺,🍺🍺🍺 ) 😙

Fleischlose Burger, vegetarische Schnitzel, vegane Wurst — nein! 😟 😛 😧

John Collis
August 9, 2019 2:55 am

Another consequence of this is all domestic cats will have to be euthanised as they cannot survive on a meat free diet (unlike dogs).

Then there is the question about carnivores in zoos that are there because they are endangered, can you have a vegan big cat for example, I don’t think tigers really eat sugar coated cornflakes, despite what Kellog’s may say.

RobH
August 9, 2019 3:02 am

This is a (deliberately?) misleading headline. The proposal is not to introduce a 19% tax on meat but to to abolish the existing concession by which meat is taxed at a lower rate than most foodstuffs. I’m not taking a position on this. Just clarifying. In the UK where I live food in general is 0% VAT.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  RobH
August 9, 2019 4:07 am

..In Canada, there is zero tax on food…for a reason..

Dan Cody
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 9, 2019 4:28 am

I heard that if you hit the lottery in Canada,your winnings are tax free.Is that true?

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 5:28 am

…yes, no matter the amount..

Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 9, 2019 6:58 pm

In relatively tax-happy Michigan, food sales tax is zero.

Jim
August 9, 2019 3:24 am

How will Germany tax rat meat, when rat is all the citizens can afford to eat?

Bindidon
August 9, 2019 4:28 am

So much excitation about what?
Nothing.

I didn’t check for that, OK, but I guess that not one of the commenters is aware that in Germany, even water is taxed at 19 % instead of the usual 7 % for food and similar stuff.

And the lobbies are still today running with full power against alcohol taxed at 19 %.

Thus meat taxed at 19 % VAT? Why not.
Eating less meat doesn’t make vegans out of us.

Dale S
Reply to  Bindidon
August 9, 2019 6:17 am

Water from a tap is taxed at the 7% level, it’s only bottled water that gets 19%. But that’s just a nit, you appear to have the situation correct — drinks, including bottled water and oat milk, are taxed at 19%. Foodstuffs, including meat, is taxed at 7%. The comparison of meat to “oat milk” in the OP is disingenous, oat milk is taxed at a higher rate not because it is from oats, but because it is a drink. Oats are taxed at 7%. Meat is taxed at a lower meat not because it is meat, but because it is a food. If it were turned into a meat-based drink, it would be taxed at 19%.

So the call to tax meat at 19% is not revoking some special tax break that only meat gets, it is in fact imposing a punitive tax for purchasing meat instead of other foodstuffs that will continue to be taxed at 7%.

ResourceGuy
August 9, 2019 6:08 am

What Europe needs today is a good stiff recession kick in the pants…..

Germany : Merchandise Trade
Released On 8/9/2019 2:00:00 AM For Jun, 2019
Prior Actual
Level E18.7 B E18.1 B
Imports-M/M -0.5 % 0.5 %
Imports-Y/Y 4.9 % -4.4 %
Exports-M/M 1.1 % -0.1 %
Exports-Y/Y 4.5 % -8.0 %

Highlights
The seasonally adjusted surplus stood at €18.1 billion in June, down from an unrevised €18.7 billion in May. Unadjusted, the black ink was €16.8 billion, a 29 percent decline versus a year ago.

—————-
United Kingdom : GDP
Released On 8/9/2019 4:30:00 AM For Q2p, 2019
Prior Consensus Actual
Quarter over Quarter 0.5 % 0.0 % -0.2 %
Year over Year 1.8 % 1.4 % 1.2 %
Highlights
Real GDP provisionally and surprisingly contracted at a 0.2 percent quarterly rate in the second quarter after expanding 0.5 percent in the previous period. The first quarterly slump since the fourth quarter of 2012 came as a surprise to analysts expecting a flat reading and pulled down annual growth from 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent.

Weakness was broadbased, but the main contributor to the headline decline was a 1.4 percent fall in production sector output led by a 2.3 percent drop in manufacturing. Noteworthy within manufacturing weakness was a 5.2 percent decline in transport equipment as auto assembly lines were idled in April, a 6.2 percent drop in chemicals and chemical products, and a fall of 6.5 percent in coke and petroleum products.

Weak business investment also subtracted from economic performance during the quarter, falling 0.5 percent, as did construction, which fell 1.3 percent.

Kerry Eubanks
August 9, 2019 7:41 am

Of the places I’ve traveled, Germany is perhaps the closest to the U.S. as a “meat & potatoes” country. They love their meat. This will put a serious dent in the finances so many poor and middle class German folk. They already have some of the world’s highest energy prices thanks in large part to their push for renewables.

I’m lucky. Here in Iowa, there is no sales tax on meat, vegtables, fruit, etc. (any non-processed or “value added” food stuff). Why not help people afford food? Electricity rates are pretty low, although increasing as our primary utility “invests” (other peoples’ money) in wind farms which increasingly spoil our wonderful landscape here in the central part of the state.

Awhile back, I went on an Atkins type diet. Lots of meat, cheese, some vegtables. Lost 40 pounds, significantly improved my blood sugar and cholesterol levels, and was able to discontinue my blood pressure meds. (I inherited hypertension and my bp was borderline even when I was wrestling in high school and fit as a fiddle.) — Vegetarians/vegans can go their way. I prefer mine.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Kerry Eubanks
August 9, 2019 8:58 am

+1 thanks

except -1 for Field of Ethanol Dreams in Iowa

So zero net earned.

kribaez
August 9, 2019 8:46 am

Just for the record, the standard VAT rate (purchase tax) in Germany is 19%. However, food is taxed at a “reduced rate” of 7%.

A lot of thinking on rebalancing food production seems to have been drawn from the recent study by Poore and Nemecek:- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325532198_Reducing_food's_environmental_impacts_through_producers_and_consumers

It is an important effort and certainly merits some study. There may be some strong non-GHG reasons why some targeted rebalancing is desirable. However, there are several things which puzzle me about the work.

First, I am struggling to understand why the evaluation of GHG contribution seems to be limited to emissions during the farming process without considering the net effects. Cows cannot create a carbon atom. Animal pasture absorbs carbon dioxide and plants grow. Cows eat the plants and convert some of the carbon to body mass. The rest is evacuated by breathing, enteric fermentation (farting) and defecation. There can be no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere in this process. We eat the cow, and convert some of the carbon to body mass; the rest is evacuated by breathing, enteric fermentation and defecation. There is still no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere. You could argue that there is a temporary conversion of some CO2 to methane, which increases CO2eq. However, if the population of cows and humans is stable then there is still no net addition from this process once a steady-state is achieved. The contribution of “enteric fermentation” constitutes well over half (actually up to 75%) of the GHG contribution attributed to animal farming.

Second, the study makes the point that a much larger area of land is required to produce similar quantities of proteins and calories from meat than from arable farming, which I am sure is true as far as it goeson simple measures. However, the study makes little distinction between the type of land used. A lot of land which is used for sheep and goat farming, for example, covers vast areas (think hill farming) and the land is inappropriate for arable farming. In some countries migrant herds are moved (over vast areas, once again) to take advantage of intermittent grazing normally determined by water availability. It would be more interesting I believe to see some estimates of how much potentially naturally arable land is used for animal farming. Stopping this type of farming would subtract a huge amount of land area from the total attributable to animal farming, but would not add anything to arable land availability.

Third, the study makes no mention of the critical benefits of animal farming to the environment and food security. I would refer readers to an excellent article on this subject written on a blog which is a strong supporter of urgent action on AGW:- https://climateandcapitalism.com/2018/06/26/why-avoiding-meat-and-dairy-wont-save-the-planet/

Jeff in Calgary
August 9, 2019 10:39 am

Its a great way to greenwash a new tax revenue stream.

Robert of Texas
August 9, 2019 10:54 am

This is nothing more than then an elite (in their own mind) trying to enforce a moral standard (CO2 bad, Obesity bad, eating animals bad) on a governed people. If the governed people do not stop it, then they de-facto agree to it.

The problem is of course, its all a lie. It won’t affect CO2 in the least, it won’t stop people from being obese (which is at least partially genetic), and it will not help the state of farm animals as they just will no longer be breed (in Germany).

Why the moral elite (so they think of themselves) can’t leave other people alone is just a mystery. I guess unless everyone is forced to behave the way the moral elite profess to behave, then it bothers them. Kind of like a religion – convert or be persecuted.

John Tillman
August 9, 2019 11:02 am

In 1492, North America was home to 30 to 60 million bison and at least tens of millions of other ruminants. Today the USA and Canada have about 107 million cattle. While white tail deer numbers might have increased, large members of the deer family, such as “elk” and moose, have declined since Pre-Columbian times. The range of caribou has shrunk. Hard to say what the net effect of development has been on mule deer. Wild sheep, “goats” and “antelope” declines have perhaps been offset by domestic relatives.

OTOH, the number of CO2- and CH4-producing humans has grown many-fold, even using the highest estimates for pre-contact population.

SM
August 9, 2019 12:45 pm

So the regnant German political parties (the CDU, the Left, the Greens, etc) are rapidly losing ground to the resurgent nationalist right, and they think this is the perfect time to introduce a policy that will enrage 95% of Germans?

Rumours of the intelligence of political strategists have been greatly exaggerated.

Rudolf Huber
August 9, 2019 1:56 pm

Let’s see how much Germans are willing to bear. I just imagine your regular German turning up at the local supermarket to see that his favored Weißwurst has become even more expensive overnight. This is not some windmills, this is not some fancy schemes they pay for – this is their guts and belly and I have a hard time believing that they will take it for long. How long for an opposition party to find out that there are votes up for grabs at the next election for the party that wants to repeal it. Arrogance breeds its own demise.

Mark Broderick
August 9, 2019 2:46 pm

..How did that “Let them eat cake !” thingy work out last time ?

Mark Broderick
August 9, 2019 2:56 pm

Since the election of President Trump, the left (worldwide) seems to be doing a political “Kamikaze” ! Absolute self destruction.

%d bloggers like this: