Goldsmith’s Beef Ban And the Necessity Of A Carbon Tax

Goldmiths, University of London, has decided to ban beef from the campus. No more steaks – not that they ever featured on student menus for cost reasons – but also no more burgers from beef mince, actually, no mince and tatties. The reason given is climate change and what it actually tells us is why we’ve got to have a carbon tax.

Yes, I know, I keep being told this, there is no climate change problem therefore we should do nothing. Which doesn’t actually work as a policy. Simply because the idiots are convinced and so something is going to be done. Thus we’ve got to get everyone doing something that will actually solve the problem – if it exists – and also the something that causes the least damage to all the rest of life.

That means a carbon tax:

They were once regarded as staples of the students’ canteen. But now burgers, lasagne, chilli and tacos have been taken off the menu at a London university which has banned beef as part of its efforts to fight climate change. From next month, Goldsmiths, University of London has said it will remove all beef product from its campus shops and cafes.

So, err, why?

Prof Corner said: “The growing global call for organisations to take seriously their responsibilities for halting climate change is impossible to ignore. “Though I have only just arrived at Goldsmiths, it is immediately obvious that our staff and students care passionately about the future of our environment and that they are determined to help deliver the step change we need to cut our carbon footprint drastically and as quickly as possible.”

Well, that’s obviously a lie. Perhaps one prompted by an ignorance of basic logic but a statement of the incorrect anyway. If not eating beef is part of the climate change solution, and also all the students are willing to do what it takes to beat climate change, then a ban on beef would not be necessary. Because no one would be eating beef in order to thereby save the world from climate change. The only possible argument in favour of banning beef is that it is the way to solve climate change and also that large numbers of people will eat it anyway because they don’t give a shit.

At which point, why are you banning people doing what they so obviously wish to do?

Another way to put this is that in the absence of a carbon tax the screaming harpies get to decide your life. These people:

A screaming harpy

A carbon tax solves climate change – assuming that it exists. But the political head of steam is such is that the idiots are going to do something anyway. Thus we simply must have that carbon tax – otherwise these fools are going to be determining our lives in ever greater detail. Which is the true value of a carbon tax – we’ve solved the problem therefore we can tell the screaming harpies to bugger off.

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
GR8M8Sliterate3Leo SavanttPhoenix44 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Phoenix44
Guest
Phoenix44

The problem is, the chances of (i) a carbon tax remaining at the right level and (ii) the screaming harpies then leaving us alone is zero.

My bet would be that not a single tax in history anywhere has not been increased for reasons that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the tax. And that no screaming harpy has ever been satispied with a solution that does not allow her to keep trying to control people.

literate3
Guest
literate3

The screaming harpy will not be satisfied but when it is obvious to even the most gullible that she has nil justification for her demands they will start (if polite) to ignore her or (if impolite) to tell her what to do.

Leo Savantt
Guest
Leo Savantt

Does a tax on alcohol solve alcoholism, does tax on petrol “solve” the car driving “problem”, does the departure tax “solve” the going on holiday “problem”? As more and more scientists are more vocally pointing out temperatures have not risen for two decades and that the minimal anthropocentric CO2 increase, just 0.01% of the atmosphere, is greening the planet; the answer to the problem is then a return to real science and a rejection of neurotic catastrophism. Goldmiths students also want to ban chemicals from their gardens, presumably because they are so ignorant of science that they don’t understand that… Read more »

GR8M8S
Guest
GR8M8S

Don’t be silly why have a carbon tax when you can have a super-efficient global bureaucracy instead: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/14/greed-and-graft-at-un-climate-program-united-nations-undp-corruption/

And you may find this an interesting read (Groupthink in the Climate debate): https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/05/christopher-booker-slayer-of-sacred-cows/