• Ni@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are often talks of carbon taxing, but removing subsidies would seen to be the obvious first step. Subdiside greener options instead.

      • Ni@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do you think so? From the people I know I think cutting meat and fossil fuel subsidises would be very unpopular. We have climbing food prices so if meat became more expensive I think there might be uproar - it’s needed though!

  • nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because people view their products as necessities to everyday life. People want to eat meat and and (real) cheese no matter what.

    If without subsidies it becomes cheaper to import these types of foods, it becomes a national security issue.

    Plus without subsidies this stuff gets more expensive, so people will start complaining

  • Jake Farm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Throw in the trucking industry and the autoindustry for good measure. SUVs and big trucks have caused car fatalities to skyrocket.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah tradition, the argument that has definitely not been used to justify all kinds of problematic and horrific thing

  • Galven@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because if fuel/milk/meat doubled or tripled in price, and the average member of the developed world would riot, and the guys in charge like being in charge. To the terminally online people, you are not the average. Just because you have a diet that gurgles gonads, or don’t have to drive a lot for your work, doesn’t mean the rest also don’t have to.