Ban Beef and Lamb - Eat Only Chicken - Save Money and The Environment

eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:34
Last edited 02/08/2023 - 16:34

This is an analogy for banning gas and forcing people to use electricity.

If you ban gas in residential, it will save people money (gas is more expensive), and it is better for the environment (long term, as more electricity is powered by renewable).

If we ban Coles from selling beef and lamb products, it will save people money (beef is more expensive than chicken), and beef production is also significantly worse for the environment. It requires much more litres of water per gram of protein and produces huge amounts of methane gas and has other negative consequences that chicken doesn't have.

Is this analogy accurate?
To my eyes it seems as good as any analogy can be. Not perfect but as close as you can get.

Would people accept it if existing residential gas was (slowly) banned and you were forced to convert to electric? I feel like this is inevitably coming.
What about if they slowly introduced bans on expensive beef and lamb? I don't think anyone would tolerate this except for vegan activists.
What's the difference?

Poll Options

  • 481
    This is a weak analogy
  • 40
    This is a clever analogy
Food & Grocery

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 16:36
    +26

    What about goat?

      • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 16:38
        +19

        Are you saying goat meat is irrelevant?

        • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:03
          +8

          Oooh i'd like to see where OP goes with this one.

          • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 17:07
            +3

            @Drakesy: OP realised the error of their initial ways after some prompting ;)

      • SoapyWooder on 04/08/2023 - 19:56
        +1

        Ban Lambo and only use Corolla, ban mansion and only use small apartment, ban Rolex and only use Casio, etc

    • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:52

      All other meats are permitted in this hypothetical. Just not beef or lamb.

      • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:11
        +1

        Eat Only Chicken

        Sounds like you're pretty limited in the meats.

        • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:15

          I tried to create a snappy title that encapsulated the idea.

    • GrownShrooms on 02/08/2023 - 16:58
      +6

      What about dog meat?

      • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 17:02
        +1

        Whaaaaaaaaat?

      • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:03
        +1

        Fair point.

      • Senatekill on 02/08/2023 - 21:13
        +1

        i prefer cat i live in spingvale….

        • Munki on 04/08/2023 - 12:08

          It's 2023. Who doesn't eat cat?

    • RSmith on 03/08/2023 - 15:04
      +4

      Goat's lives matter.

    • Shazam1 on 04/08/2023 - 09:55

      What about Pork? Any other meat you forgot about?

    • serpserpserp on 04/08/2023 - 19:11
      +2

      Goats are actually really good manage from a livestock perspective. Cheaper than cattle etc. and also great from a protein perspective. Very underrated class of meat producing livestock.

      Still, nothing beats bugs. But we just can't get people to eat them.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/08/2023 - 19:29

        Yes, goat is good lean meat.

        Bugs are probably good too & we just need to get used to them.

  • djones145 on 02/08/2023 - 16:38
    +7

    pork chop?
    bacon?
    ham?

    • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:04
      +33

      I think the onus is on you to prove why you think it's a strong analogy..

      Everything about it says i didn't make it past year 10 english.

      Also you haven't considered the entire chicken supply chain.
      Fish, kangaroo, camels etc would all be more sustainable.

        • Tambani on 03/08/2023 - 13:51

          And again (comma - though you didn't say this before) you have perpetrated an ad hominem fallacy. (he hasn't)

    • Keplaffintech on 03/08/2023 - 07:36
      +6

      Cooking is like 1-5% of the energy usage of a gas household with gas heating and gas hot water. Yes it's nice to use a gas cooktop but you waste so much gas with the other appliances to make it worth while. In addition, most people don't care and just use whatever their house has without considering switching over to electric.

      I'd compare it more to an ICE ban. Yeah it's nice to have engine noise but so many people drive ICEs just because that's what's cheapest or available in the style they want.

      • supersabroso on 03/08/2023 - 12:12
        +11

        Induction is superior to gas for normal cooking, it's so good. Only issue is that you need to make sure you have induction compatible cookware.

        • moar bargains on 03/08/2023 - 12:41

          I'm secretly hoping my electric cook top will die so I can justify getting an induction one!

          • Jackson on 03/08/2023 - 23:01
            +1

            @moar bargains: It will never die, just rip it out and put an induction one in, you cna get them for under 300 now

        • cloudy on 04/08/2023 - 05:20
          +1

          Induction is superior to gas for normal cookin

          Do you really get the same wok hei?

          • Subada on 04/08/2023 - 13:58

            @cloudy: Most home kitchens have burners limited to somewhere between 5k and 10k BTU with maybe 20k as a top end.

            Most of the propane fueled turkey fryer burners will output between 50k (a 10 psi throttle) and 175k (a 20 psi throttle).

            Most professional wok jets will output between 100k and 200k with some monsters going as high as 350k.

            In my opinion if you want good wok cooking you're better off with induction and getting a portable wok burner with propane (which has double the BTU of natural gas). Or just getting an induction compatible wok / cooktop setup.

        • star-ggg on 04/08/2023 - 23:49
          +3

          I feel most electric detractors have not actually used induction and assume it's just the crappy ceramic cookers.

      • Keplaffintech on 03/08/2023 - 19:48
        +1

        Just to add. I'm not for bans, I think taxes are better than bans. That way anyone who really wants gas can have it, but they have to pay the price. Most people will opt for electric to save money.

    • cheeseburger on 04/08/2023 - 14:57
      +1

      I don't think it's a strong analogy because, in most cases, you can interchange gas and electricity for one another without affecting the experience of their intended use. For example, water heated by gas is imperceptibly different than water heated by electricity. Conversely, chicken is not a direct substitute for beef or lamb because it tastes nothing like them. Your analogy would only work if all three meats were nearly identical in both taste and texture.

    • irony on 04/08/2023 - 22:16

      Weak because Heat is Heat, Meat ain't Meat.
      house at 22 degrees, electricty or gas, I can't tell.
      Hard to get a good steak sandwich from chicken… I can tell the difference.

      • Bunnyburger on 05/08/2023 - 13:00

        As Hank Hill would say taste the meat, not the heat

  • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 16:39
    +4

    Would people accept it if existing residential gas was (slowly) banned and you were forced to convert to electric? I feel like this is inevitably coming.

    Isn't it already happening, with the state government announcement last week?

    • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:40
      -3

      yes that's what I'm alluding to… they banned NEW installations, but the next obvious step is to ban EXISTING residential installations. They haven't announced this yet but it's surely coming.

      • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 16:41

        My understanding is that it is also banned for all renovations that require a planning permit.

        • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:41

          yes correct.

          • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 16:46

            @eckorock: So one of your points is reality, or already on the way.
            The other (meat etc.) could also be if agricultural production was limited by greenhouse gas emission limitations. Costs would increase, reducing consumption.

            • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:50

              @GG57: Yeah right, so if a beef ban comes though, I don't think most people would tolerate it, the same way they have done with gas. That's the point of my analogy, to ask what the difference between the two situations is.

              • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 16:58
                +16

                @eckorock: Comparing a food type to a domestic energy source doesn't make sense for any number of reasons.

                • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:58
                  -2

                  @GG57: elaborate on why

                  • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 17:02
                    +10

                    @eckorock: There isn't a correlation.
                    One is a one-off change of energy source, with no apparent difference in end-user experience.
                    The other is one type of food source, with multiple options available to replace it, which may or may not be acceptable to the end-user in their dietary requirements / likes / dislikes.

                    What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

                  • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 14:18
                    +3

                    @eckorock: A gas ban (on new properties) effects a small percentage of the population, has wide support, and is hated by a minority of people.

                    A beef ban effects a large percentage of the population, has low support, and is hated by a majority of people.

                    I do not doubt that the same people behind the first ban, would like to force others to comply with the second as well, but there is a much greater chance that this is stymied by the majority of people who oppose it than for the first.

                    I personally don't care what I cook with. I DO care what I eat. And I have a much stronger preference for beef over other meats (I also like fish, but fish stocks are under EXTREME global pressure at the moment, and your solution could actually make that worse.. and in any case I wouldn't accept a fish only diet over a beef + fish diet).

                    There is more to the decision than a single environmental factor. While CO2 emissions may be lower, with lower beef production and consumption, there can be negative environmental externalities in the proposed solution in other areas. For example, a certain percentage of beef production occurs in lands too marginal, and too water constrained to grow grains or other produce. Switching this protein source out for more farmed chickens results in a need for more crop fields allocated to this need.. which entails more land clearing, more intensive agriculture, or 'vertical farms' which then carry their own increased CO2 load (and fertiliser load, and waterways load etc).

                    On top of this there are human costs, destroying businesses, skill sets and livelihoods people have dedicated their lives to. And think of some of the other choices forgone to pursue this one..

                    A banning of private jet travel, would save many more times the amount of CO2, and affect far less people, but because those people hold significant power, and beef farmers (and abattoirs and butchers and so on) do not, you'd effectively be picking on the weak and those unable to defend themselves and their interests.

                    So a billionaire can still destroy the environment with his jet, but the man who runs a cattle station can go jump in a lake.

                    A group of people took control of Russia, and made all kinds of changes to the lifestyle of the people that they thought best, but eventually the weight of their impositions on others, and their taking away of their freedoms and choices, caused the people to overthrow that system. The same is possible if fanatics go too far here as well.

                    If the people aren't going with you on an issue, perhaps you could bow to their collective interests and will instead, instead of trying to proceed regardless. Popular bans are one thing, unpopular ones another. So the answer to you is people take more seriously their dietary decisions, than their "what they cook with" decisions, and attacking the former would be deeply unpopular.

                    • eckorock on 03/08/2023 - 15:49
                      +1

                      @LVlahov: I appreciate your response, very thoughtful

                    • callum9999 on 04/08/2023 - 07:23
                      +1

                      @LVlahov: Your first point "I like beef and want to eat it" was perfectly valid and strong enough to make your case.

                      The rest of your point claiming that curtailing beef consumption could result in increased CO2 emissions is flat out wrong. I know a lot of people like perpetuating this myth (the other common one being we'd have to turn every inch of land into agriculture to feed a vegan planet) - but there's a reason why virtually every environmental scientist, scientific study and environmental group on the planet says the exact opposite. And it's not because you know more than them!

                    • Sammyboy on 04/08/2023 - 20:50
                      +1

                      @LVlahov: Where is the stats that gas bans have wide support? I don't think many Asians and South East Asians will be happy with that.. and that will be a large percentage of the migrants coming to Australia

              • BluebirdV on 04/08/2023 - 06:20
                -1

                @eckorock: There would be a black market for beef.

      • SydStrand on 03/08/2023 - 02:49
        +13

        Newsflash: the government has always been doing this. Lead-based paints, and asbestos were banned from new builds decades ago in the name of public health. For environmental reasons, they've also enforced fuel particulate content, and efficiency standards in new cars, while allowing existing cars to remain road legal. Why are you behaving like this is a new thing?

        • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 14:28
          -3

          In all of the other cases you list there were alternatives that were just as good, and the impost affected people in negligible negative ways.

          E.g. you can have fuel that lowers the IQ of your children, or fuel that doesn't.. which do you want?

          Easy choice with virtually no downside. There was a direct large benefit to the people approving the decision.

          In the case of banning beef consumption, there is no direct benefit to those being banned.
          There are also many alternatives to lower CO2 production, the largest contributor to which would simply be stopping the levels of mass migration we currently accept, which leads to exponentially greater levels of CO2 emissions over time, in comparison to people eating beef locally.

          CO2 impost = population size x per capita emissions

          Mass immigration leads to EXPONENTIAL emissions growth, as it delivers a continually increasing population. 50m in 20 years, 100m in 50 years, 200m in 150 years and so on. 150m people produce a lot more emissions than a steady population of 24m.

          So how about we take the most significant step first, that benefits people here rather than harming them, over lots of little cuts to local freedoms?

          • SydStrand on 04/08/2023 - 12:41
            +3

            @LVlahov: Bullshit. We heard the same arguments back in the day. Asbestos is an excellent insulator, it's cheap, and banning it would destroy jobs. Now, no one builds an asbestos house or recognises that as a credible argument.

            Even now, the local refining industry (Caltex, Mobil, BP, etc.) is fighting moves to get our emission standards in line with Europe, despite it making environmental and public health sense, simply because it's cheaper to import dirty fuel and outdated motors. The difference between chicken and beef is largely personal and religious preference. Don't pretend this is some new, earth shattering precedent. The fact that you keep trying to make this a flimsy anti-immigration argument is hilariously transparent.

    • tomfool on 04/08/2023 - 13:15

      Its only a few years ago the QLD state government wanted to phase-out of standard electric hot water systems in all existing homes in favour of gas, solar hot water or heat pump.

  • AngoraFish on 02/08/2023 - 16:44
    +25

    Gas and electricity essentially offer the same thing - fuel for heating and transportation. Sure, some people might prefer the look of gas, but the influence of personal preference is relatively minor. Most people just go with what their house had when they moved into it.

    People eat for energy and also pleasure, and further, a varied diet has many nutritional benefits. There are numerous reasons why someone would want to maintain a varied diet that don't apply to energy.

    The cost of red meat analogy is also weak in the context of Australia and large parts of the third world. Issues such as increased water use largely apply to intensive agriculture such as they have in large parts of Europe, not open range grazing on land that is often not particularly viable for other forms of agriculture as we typically see in Australia.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 16:51
        +3

        Goat meat is inexpensive

        • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:52

          yes including goat.

          • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 16:53
            +22

            @eckorock: I'm glad you FINALLY acknowledged goat …. my work here is done!

            • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 16:53
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Fair point, I agree it's a very good meat and very good for the environment, and cost friendly.

      • CrowReally on 02/08/2023 - 16:53
        +17

        Your analogy works if all the foods taste the same.

        Does beef taste the same as chicken? No? It's a bad analogy.

        The end-user experience of using an electrical appliance isn't affected by where the electricity comes from.

        Try to make an analogy where an enforced switch is unnoticeable at the consumer end of the pipeline.

          • CrowReally on 02/08/2023 - 16:58
            +1

            @eckorock: Uh, sure.

            If you banned Amazon sales and required people to buy products from Australian stores, but the Australian stores had the same prices and delivery policy (or perhaps even cheaper prices), would you accept that? Etc.

            In this case, people are paying the same (or lower) prices and having the same product range and experience.

            It's not that hard, just set up your What If so the end-user experience is the same as before?

            • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:05
              +1

              @CrowReally: Many would argue that the end-user experience of cooking on gas is far superior to electric.

              In your example, which I think is good, the benefit to the environment would be reduced long distance freight/shipping, and forcing people to use local stores rather than overseas ones, e.g. Amazon AU store, and making Amazon US or JP store banned to access.

              • CrowReally on 02/08/2023 - 17:10

                @eckorock: Sure. So basically the end-user group of gas/electricity right now consists of

                X% of people who don't know or care what it comes from and
                Y% of people who like the aesthetic of using gas

                With an enforced switch from gas:

                Y needs to decide the tradeoff between how happy they are saving money vs losing the gas 'experience'. We also need to weigh up the 'unfairness' of forcing Y people to lose out on that same experience.

                X are happy no matter what, because now they're saving money

                That's about it. Depending of the size of Y, you can decide how serious an issue it is.

                • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 18:39
                  -1

                  @CrowReally: I think that's a good analysis, on top of that there is an aspect of the ethical question of the government making forced decisions on your behalf, by banning the alternative.

                  So even if we say Y% of people who prefer cooking with gas is only a tiny population, is it the right thing to be doing based on the supposed benefits to the environment (and because we think it will save them money long term)

                  So right now even if you're a celebrity chef who is extremely wealthy, you don't have the choice anymore to install a gas kitchen in your new home in Vic.

                  • stjep on 04/08/2023 - 18:14
                    +1

                    @eckorock:

                    there is an aspect of the ethical question of the government making forced decisions on your behalf, by banning the alternative.

                    Your entire exercise seems to be beating around the bush of this being the argument. My question is, what is the point of government other than to do this? It's a, albeit flawed and shitty, means of collective action to achieve greater goods, is it not?

                    How do you expect to achieve any carbon reduction and global warming measures if not through government action that will remove choice from some people?

                    So right now even if you're a celebrity chef who is extremely wealthy, you don't have the choice anymore to install a gas kitchen in your new home in Vic.

                    Is equality bad if you're rich or famous?

          • ninnypoop on 06/08/2023 - 07:40

            @eckorock: It's not a good analogy. I don't know how many times you need to hear it before you get it through.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 16:55
          +1

          The yuck plant based meat substitutes?

          • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 17:06

            @[Deactivated]: Have you tried the Impossible burger? It's not bad, much better than the Beyond Burger which doesn't taste like meat at all.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 17:15
              +1

              @Ghost47: I cannot go there ….. again!

              I have nightmares ever since I went to a dinner hosted by vegan parents from school. There are so many yummo dishes that can be made from vegetables alone without adding synthetic crap to try & recreate the taste of meat & fail miserably in the process.

            • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 14:33

              @Ghost47: Highly processed foods are bad for your health. Arguably an organic beef burger made at home with fresh ingredients beats an Impossible burger for its taste and health profile.

      • AngoraFish on 02/08/2023 - 17:06
        +3

        You asset that beef is 'very' expensive relative to chicken, yet my local Woolworths currently sells 1kg of beef mince for $12 and RSPCA approved chicken breast for $11 a kilogram, which is not even a 10% difference.

        I think you are over-egging the analogy by including price as if you are doing people some kind of favour, and either way the difference is less than the per-kg price of a Mars Bar, which almost certainly has dramatically higher environmental costs in terms of imbued energy from ingredients shipped from around the world, excessive packaging, intensive processing, etc.

        And as I note above, the environmental considerations as they apply to Australia are not as straightforward as you assert either. There are a number of additives that can be included in the diet of cattle that have the potential to reduce methane omissions, and cattle ranging on land that is sub-viable for other forms of agriculture means that livestock farming is not competing with other forms of intensive agriculture for resources - in this country we are lucky enough to be easily able to accommodate both.

        • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:08

          As with all analogies, they eventually break down.
          At a high level, beef and lamb are unquestionably more expensive than chicken, but if you go down to specific cuts then yeah, 2-star beef mince will be cheaper than free range grass-fed chicken breast fillets.

          • AngoraFish on 02/08/2023 - 17:12

            @eckorock: Woolworths free range chicken breast is currently $15 a kilo.

            At $11 we're talking "RSPCA approved chicken" which is a slightly more humane version of factory farming and the cheapest chicken option available. Woolworths chicken mince is also currently $11 a kg.

            • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:13

              @AngoraFish: Woolworths chicken breast $15/kg , how much is that compared to the top cut of steak available at Woolworths? Significantly cheaper, like 3-5x

              • AngoraFish on 02/08/2023 - 17:22
                +1

                @eckorock: You just seem to be arguing in circles at this point. Further, you have moved on to outright ignoring my comments in favour of arguing with your own straw man, or perhaps tar baby.

                I have explained why your analogy is weak and yet you insist on doubling down with nit picking and trivia.

                If your analogy requires people to accept a package of increasingly subtle distinctions and assumptions only clear to yourself then it is a poor one. Which is all I need to say.

                I shall leave you to it.

                • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:34

                  @AngoraFish: Sorry, I wasn't aware that I ignored your comments - the Mars bar comment seemed off-topic , and the comment about agricultural issues like sub-viable land, well I don't know about that so I will assume you're correct.

                  What I was trying to establish was that I disagree with your point about chicken being similar in cost to beef. I think it's quite obviously more expensive.

                  I appreciate your time and thoughtful comments either way.

                  • AngoraFish on 02/08/2023 - 18:27

                    @eckorock: Notwithstanding the fact that the price difference between gas and electricity is nothing like the difference between beef and chicken, trying to save people money by banning expensive things largely misses the point.

                    • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 18:41

                      @AngoraFish: But that was exactly the primary reason given by the Vic energy minister -

                      “We know the cost of living for Victorians is getting bigger and bigger,” she told reporters on Friday. “Doing something about it is exactly what today is about.

                      • AngoraFish on 03/08/2023 - 07:14
                        +4

                        @eckorock: It wasn't 'exactly' the primary reason despite your out of context quotation. The Victorian government has made repeatedly clear that exactly the reason is to reduce carbon emissions, reducing household bills is only a secondary benefit.

                        Furthermore, a big part of the reason that bills are being reduced is that you only have to pay one daily service charge, for electricity, not two, for both gas and electricity. A typical gas service charge is around $400 a year in Victoria, and once you're connected to gas you have to pay that service charge even if you don't use a single Megajoule.

                        Additionally, up until recently forcing every household in a new estate to be connected to gas has been a government requirement, and in new estates you can't just connect one household up to gas on demand anyhow. If even one house needs a gas connection infrastructure needs to run past every single property in the street, adding unnecessary installation and servicing costs that are ultimately borne by everyone who buys into that subdivision.

                        To extend this to your bad analogy, the equivalent would be the government forcing you to be served both chicken and beef for dinner every night, which you have to pay for even if you never actually eat the beef.

        • 2esc on 03/08/2023 - 09:53

          A lot of fertile farming land is being built on as they push for a larger population. Many want a growth of population as its the easy way to create economic growth but when does it stabilise.

      • frewer on 05/08/2023 - 18:52
        -1

        They are very expensive and bad for the environment

        I get the 'expensive' bit, but not the bad for the 'environment'. Care to elaborates more ? By the way if you want to spend my hard earn money on hooker, coke and whisky OR donate to charity, still NONE of your business ? I dont want to live under commies, thank you very much.

    • Almost Banned on 02/08/2023 - 17:05
      +3

      You clearly have never asked a chef if they are ok with electric instead of gas ranges…

      • SpainKing on 05/08/2023 - 09:26

        I think many chefs would prefer electric these days as induction burners don't heat up the kitchen like gas ones making for a much more comfortable work environment

  • HamBoi69 on 02/08/2023 - 16:51
    +3

    I saw the title and thought, what?

  • jugsy on 02/08/2023 - 16:58
    +3

    Culled Kangaroo or GTFO

    • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:13
      +2

      I prefer freshly hit roadkill, cleanses the soul knowing the animal didn't die for my consumption and you never know what you may end up with.
      Wedge tailed eagle, Wallaby, possum? who knows.

      Namaste.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join