If Americans and people in most other developed countries ate according to their nationally recommended dietary guidelines, they would consume less red meat and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are fueling climate change, new research shows.

But the world’s consumers don’t always eat what their government nutritionists tell them. So it might take a little more prodding — and that prodding could be on the way.

This week, the two-year-old investment network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) released a report saying that countries could begin taxing meat — the way they tax sugar, alcohol or tobacco — to drive down consumption and to hit their carbon emissions targets under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

A few countries, including Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have considered behavioral, or "sin taxes," on meat, but the taxes haven’t yet gained support. This type of tax aims to cut meat consumption for health reasons — reducing the healthcare costs associated with a high-fat, animal-based diet — as well as for environmental reasons.

"Agriculture emissions alone will be so high by 2050, that that alone will push temperatures above 2 degrees," said FAIRR Director Maria Lettini, referring to the target set in Paris of limiting warming to at most 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. "We think, in the absence of other interventions, this is one that should be in the basket of tools."

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/national-meat-tax-may-be-menu

Unfortunately Federal withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord is not stopping individual States from deciding what is good or bad for you, and taxing accordingly. I'm sure some idiotic State will decide meat is toxic and impose a new tax on it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/12/27/seattles-new-tax-sugary-drinks-kicks-new-years-day/984673001/

Yup, just like the Philly soda tax was a money grab, though I actually agree with that tax since soda is terrible for you.

Funny how the Democratic cities are always the worst off and the most violent.  Not that the Republicans are any better (the whole system is screwed up), but it's odd the poorest cities with the most murders have been under socialist rule for decades

I live in Alaska, one of the lowest taxed States in the nation. However, in an attempt to curb the alcohol abuse problem here, alcoholic beverages are heavily taxed. The highest alcohol tax in the nation, actually. The bottom line is that between the transport costs to get things here, and the high tax, enjoying adult beverages in Alaska very expensive.

But after all that, it has done absolutely nothing to slow down, let alone stop, alcohol abuse. Even among the dirt poor here.

The problem with sin taxes is that once enacted, they never go away. The government becomes dependent on the revenue stream and has no incentive whatsoever to eliminate it, regardless of it's original purpose and efficacy. This is the reason I do not support this kind of taxation, no matter what it is imposed on. Imagine if the egg and butter taxes that politicians were trying to pass a decade ago had been enacted. Even though these foods have been now removed from the "naughty list", do you think the taxes would suddenly disappear?

Tom Naughton has a great bunch of articles on what he calls "The Anointed". The do-gooder, busy bodies who try to legislate our eating habits. Taxes aside, polices from "The Anointed" always fail. Here's one of the articles from several he's published on the subject. It's worth a read.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2015/02/10/the-anointed-know-why-youre-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it/