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

      • jugsy on 02/08/2023 - 17:18
        +4

        Is it still ethical if I spread grain on the roads so they get hit more often?

        • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:20
          +2

          Ngl,

          That's a bloody genius move.

    • Senatekill on 02/08/2023 - 21:14

      Me like Venison. El Paca close second

  • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 16:58

    I definitely think that the banning of gas in new builds is quite extreme especially considering the short timeline of Jan 2024. I feel like people need more time to make the switch, although I did get a chuckle out of the photo of Dan cooking those fritters on his gas stove from the other day lol.

    It's an interesting analogy. For some reason something about it seems off though. I think it's because existing houses have gas, so you end up having a dichotomy of existing houses with gas and new houses without gas, i.e. even if you are banning gas in new builds, people with existing homes will still use gas. So gas isn't really gone, is it?

    After all if you ban sales of beef and lamb, it's not like people will have freezers full of beef and lamb they can consume over the next 30 years. If that was the case maybe the analogy would make more sense.

    • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:00

      Yeah but don't you feel like the writing is on the wall for existing gas houses too?

      Through a combination of

      • super expensive gas
      • financial incentives to switch
      • eventual bans or limits on existing appliances (e.g. you cant use more than x-MJ per day anymore otherwise you get a carbon penalty)
      • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 17:05

        I think there are die hards out there who much prefer cooking with gas over electric, so even though the writing is on the wall there will still be demand for it.

        Even considering your points, houses with gas can still pay for it if they want to which is different than not being able to obtain it at all, i.e. if beef was banned you wouldn't be able to buy it with any sum of money, right?

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

          I'm sure that in a hypothetical world if they banned beef then there would still be private farms and 'black market' very expensive beef you could get.

        • Thorn69 on 05/08/2023 - 08:53

          unless your one of those that fly around on private jets these kind of people have no indication of giving things up that they want us to,
          sure the problem is that beef contains everything the human body needs sure c02 blah blah blah but thats negligible when its locally sourced , tell ya what you these environmentalists dont think things through the earth is 000.04 c02 if it is lessened plant life will start dying , fastest ways to fix things is take action and roll up the sleeves and clean up water ways plant trees stop clearing of land for renewables turning that land into barren wastelands

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

      its already becoming unaffordable for most….it may as well be banned.

      • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 18:42

        yep, exactly

      • Senatekill on 02/08/2023 - 21:17
        -1

        yeah lets ban everything

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/08/2023 - 16:59
    -2

    I dont know about the analogy but i do not think we should be banning gas

    • franco cozzo on 02/08/2023 - 17:21
      +2

      apprently that decision seems to have been made for us already….

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/08/2023 - 18:44
        +1

        apprently that decision seems to have been made for us already….

        blame the left and the people who love Dan Andrews…..woke politics and stupidly has sent Viktoria broke soon Victorians will be broke too

        • Randolph Duke on 03/08/2023 - 09:39
          +1

          Why continuing building a gas network when people are already struggling to pay for gas, when renewable solar can reduce your energy bills? Gas prices will only increase as our supplies dwindle, thanks to our reserves getting shipped out overseas en masse.

          My favourite complaint against it was you can’t light a cigarette from electric stovetop.

          People are just up in arms because Dan’s announced this - so blinded by hatred good ideas are dismissed.

          • franco cozzo on 03/08/2023 - 09:43

            @Randolph Duke: suck up to dan some more….its sure to improve your future social credit score

            • Randolph Duke on 03/08/2023 - 10:37
              +4

              @franco cozzo: Where did I suck up to Dan specifically? Is agreeing with one policy sucking up now?

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/08/2023 - 09:43
            -1

            @Randolph Duke:

            Why continuing building a gas network when people are already struggling to pay for gas, when renewable solar can reduce your energy bills?
            My favourite complaint against it was you can’t light a cigarette from electric stovetop.
            People are just up in arms because Dan’s announced this - so blinded by hatred good ideas are dismissed.

            Maybe you're blind 'love' and bias is the issue not 'blind hatred' - the argument against 'not' getting rid of gas is basic economics the less competition the more expensive.

            Without Gas as an options electricity gets more expensive most people over the age of 25 understand less competition = higher prices

            Im all for more renewable energy but most people have 'common sense' and know this is bad for the consumer - our energy companies are not publicly run

            What ever happened to Dan bring power back under the public ownership?

            • Randolph Duke on 03/08/2023 - 10:40

              @Trying2SaveABuck: As much as I’d like to see the electricity grid fall back into public ownership (along with other public infrastructure), I doubt the proposed SEC plan will come to fruition.

              The state got addicted to cheap money and things will continue to be cancelled. Reckon SEC cancellation will get announced before Andrews retires (before the next election).

            • Randolph Duke on 03/08/2023 - 10:49
              +2

              @Trying2SaveABuck:

              the argument against 'not' getting rid of gas is basic economics the less competition the more expensive.

              Without Gas as an options electricity gets more expensive most people over the age of 25 understand less competition = higher prices

              I’m sure the irony of saying competition breeds cheaper prices, when privatising the gas and electricity networks has proven to be the opposite isn’t lost on you.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/08/2023 - 10:58
                -3

                @Randolph Duke:

                I’m sure the irony of saying competition breeds cheaper prices, when privatising the gas and electricity networks has proven to be the opposite isn’t lost on you.

                Actually, until bans and reductions of the use of coal Australia has some of the 'cheapest' Energy in the world….

                It is amazing how people who get their news from the ABC has Zero idea about business economics…

                You want proof perhaps look at the Shareholder return for companies like AGL etc - clearly have not been a profitable venture for holders (that is until ALP/Greens) started making Energy more expensive…..

                For the record im against burning coal but only if we dont sell it o/s for them to burn it otherwise there is no point

                • Randolph Duke on 03/08/2023 - 11:08

                  @Trying2SaveABuck:

                  Actually, until bans and reductions of the use of coal Australia has some of the 'cheapest' Energy in the world….

                  Who was talking about the rest of the world?

                  • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/08/2023 - 11:11

                    @Randolph Duke:

                    Who was talking about the rest of the world?

                    Energy prices are based on the commodity price it is a global market…ie Gas, Coal, Lithium, FF prices go up then energy prices go up…..

                    we have reduced significantly the amount of 'coal' in the free market thus energy prices have gone skyrocketing……

                    it might be hard for you to understand this but Australia is Not the only country on the planet

        • amzinguserman on 03/08/2023 - 17:04
          +6

          JFC that is stupid comment.

          anything i dont like is woke blah blah

          how can dan andrews do this

  • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 17:00
    +4

    You dropped your tin foil hat.

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

      focus on the analogy , not ad hominem insults

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

        Electricity and gas doesn't have a taste, texture or religious reasons behind it.

        Hell go one step further and just ban all meat?

        Really weird tangent this one

        • GG57 on 02/08/2023 - 17:09
          +7

          I think we are getting closer to the tipping point where OP shows their full hand and goes ballistic about Dan Andrews / Labor / Victoria / the environment / climate change / blah blah blah.

          • cloudy on 05/08/2023 - 05:48

            @GG57: If Dan Andrew’s is serious about climate change please bring back EV car incentives instead of scrapping them and taxing them.

            I was hoping after he brought in the usage tax that it could lead to a higher purchase subsidy, instead he has gone the other way :S

    • peteru on 04/08/2023 - 01:12

      I didn't know that tin foil hats were part of a troll's uniform.

  • Qazxswec on 02/08/2023 - 17:32
    +6

    Just so we are all on the same page here, are you saying that we shouldn't be eating Goat?

    • eckorock on 02/08/2023 - 17:35
      +1

      This is not an anti-goat hypothetical.

  • Richardc on 02/08/2023 - 17:45
    +4

    to save the environment, we need to ban humans.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 18:05

      Are you an alien?

      • Drakesy on 02/08/2023 - 21:42
        +1

        America has entered the chat

  • ihbh on 02/08/2023 - 18:09
    -4

    Why not ban meat altogether? You can get all your nutrients from plants plus a B12 supplement.

    • 7ekn00 on 02/08/2023 - 18:35
      +6

      Except Vitamin A (retinol - humans convert less than 5% of plant carotenoids to retinol) , B12, D3 (cholecalciferol - D2 is converted to D3 in less than 10% of humans), E, K2 (MK4 form - less than 5% of plant forms are absorbed), Creatine, Carnosine, Carnitine, Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), Heme iron, Taurine, CLA, Selenium (extremely low bioavailability from plants), Zinc (extremely low bioavailability from plants), etc

      A nice summary: https://michaelkummer.com/health/plants-vs-meat/

      It's the entire premise for why this is a false analogy ;) We get nutrients from food, we don't get nutrients from gas vs electricity!

      • ihbh on 02/08/2023 - 18:37

        Please don't quote some knob without serious scientific background.

        • 7ekn00 on 02/08/2023 - 18:43
          +2

          Links are all there, read the papers linked ;)

          Much better than believing some knob that thinks plants contain everything, but then concedes B12 and neglects the rests … there is a reason 84% of Vegans are no longer Vegan ;)
          https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/animals-and-us/20141…

          Just to highlight the actual issue, here is a heap of YOUR kind (so you should believe them without prejudice, like a good cultist member) telling you what supplements are NEEDED (ie. what is lacking) for a successful Vegan diet:
          https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+vegan+must+have+supp…

          • ihbh on 02/08/2023 - 19:07
            -1

            @7ekn00: Please Google Michael Greger, also longevity experts such as David Sinclair as examples and check out the comparison of Loma Linda of the whole food plant based cohort vs not.

            I eat predominantly whole food plant based. I'm not a vegan because they eat a lot of processed crap.

              • ihbh on 02/08/2023 - 21:29
                -1

                @7ekn00: haha… simplistic thinking

                look healthier and younger

                You need to play the long game.

                Go to a nursing home - do you see any buff guys or small old ladies (and a few small old men)?

                • 7ekn00 on 02/08/2023 - 22:04
                  +2

                  @ihbh:

                  Go to a nursing home - do you see any buff guys or small old ladies (and a few small old men)?

                  Typical vegan mis-understanding of your sample data - the buff guys and gals are not frail and do not end up in a nursing home for the frail, so of course you will never see it there …

                  Here are scientific papers for you regarding muscle mass as a predictor of longevity and mortality:
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035379/
                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382937/

                  You need to play the long game.

                  Been there, done that :P

                  Was a Greger disciple for 2 years after a diabetes diagnosis and it got worse to the point doctors were going to cut toes off, went carnivore and everything resolved within 6 weeks to the point I was off all meds and doctors were wondering "how" ;)

                  Have DEXA scans that show in those 2 years of whole food plant based I lost 17% muscle mass, 21% bone mass and gained 7% body fat, switch to carnivore (with exactly the same routine) and gained back 24% muscle mass, 27% bone mass and lost 16% body fat!

                  Also have CTCA calcium scores that went from 93 when diagnosed to 127 on plant based and back down to 58 and then zero on carnivore ;)

                  So you and Greger preach "simplistic thinking" and "cherry picked science" and I will stick with what is measurable and has completely reversed diabetes and heart disease for me :P Go get a DEXA and CTCA and you will be surprised at how bad they actually are …

                  • ihbh on 02/08/2023 - 23:30
                    -1

                    @7ekn00:

                    cherry picked science

                    I try to refer to the experts. Please see what diet David Sinclair has changed to. Aussie prof of longevity at Harvard.

                    PS: Strength training and aerobic exercise is definitely important. Attia's Outlive is a good source.

              • Franky23 on 03/08/2023 - 08:47

                @7ekn00: Michael Gregor, is this the guy that visibly looks like he suffering from early sarcopenia?

          • Franky23 on 03/08/2023 - 08:53
            +1

            @7ekn00: Exactly, plants are needed for metabolic flexibility and a moderate amount of fibre (not a lot). The human gut is especially acidic, similar ph level to dogs who we domesticated and used as hunting partners for thousands of years. This acidity makes us especially good at breaking down the nutrients in meat, not including the benefits on early brain and jaw development etc. Australian farmers have some of the highest standards of animal welfare and sustainable meat production in the world (I know there are some examples of bad practices amongst this), not to mention the benefits of soil health with good livestock practices compared to mono-crop agriculture. Respect our ancestry and science, which holds the answers to the best diet for human health - not ideology.

  • tmcn85 on 02/08/2023 - 18:20
    +2

    We need to increase our capacity to house the mentally ill in secure facilities.

  • trustnoone on 02/08/2023 - 18:23
    +3

    I don't see how this is a useful analogy? In fact, it sounds like we need to do more in making ways to ease cost and reduce effects on the environment.
    In some ways doing more may mean reducing gas, in other ways doing more may mean encouraging chicken, or vegetables or to look into ways to make healthier better foods easier and more available.

    How far we should go for each one depends on the people and what the people agree to put in, how much it affects us, and if we are happy to let go of vs keep (or if we even want to make a change at all).

    I don't think the fact that they both cost money and effect the environment means they are treated the same way.

  • Cunning Linguist on 02/08/2023 - 18:27
    +2

    I'm no expert and I have no references behind these opinions, nor am I particularly sacrosanct about them but I would say it's a weak analogy for a couple of reasons:

    • Natural gas is a commodity. If looking at the end result you are talking about such as power, heating etc, aside from the potential cost the outcome doesn't change. The average person is still going to see same outcome regardless if their power comes from renewable or non-renewable sources, but the latter does gives the added bonus of being sustainable. Meat on the other hand is less of a commodity - there are varying qualities between beef and lamb sources and you can't make a beef steak or lamb chops with chicken, it's an alternative protein but a very different product. The beef/lamb comparison therefore has a much stronger emotional association - and out side of strong taste preferences you'd need to also consider things such as allergies.

    • You don't need to consider animal welfare for the gas/renewable energy comparison. If you replaced beef and lamb with chicken, can there even be enough of a chicken supply to support that without resorting to less free range and more inhumane chicken battery farms and introducing a new problems. That's not to say there are no new problems created from moving to renewables too.

    • There are by-products concerned with both natural gas and bovine/sheep. While you can potentially mine natural gas for the by product and not burn the gas (such as fertilizer, antifreeze, plastics, pharmaceuticals and fabrics) and you can get wool from sheep without slaughtering it I am pretty sure you can't get bovine leather without killing the cow - so to shutdown the beef industry you are effectively shutting down the bovine leather industry as well.

  • treekangagaroo on 02/08/2023 - 18:36
    +1

    How many voted first and then came to read the post ?

    • SpainKing on 05/08/2023 - 13:43

      I accidentally voted for clever and now I can't change it 😫

  • ToyotaCrownHybrid on 02/08/2023 - 18:55
    +2

    But does gas or electricity taste better?

  • Protractor on 02/08/2023 - 21:12
    +1

    If saving the environment ACTUALLY meant an awakening, ergo for all species , not just ours I would give a flying…
    Every term about 'saving the environment' has been hijacked to actually mean preserving the toxic status quo of the capital model.
    aka saving human lifestyles

    "Is this analogy accurate?" Who cares. We needed ( but have missed the boat) action, not word mincing

  • Godric on 02/08/2023 - 21:16
    +1

    Only if its KFC chicken

  • pharkurnell on 02/08/2023 - 21:20
    +4

    Sorry IM late, was having a Rib eye…'

    beef is more expensive than chicken

    And if beef etc is unavailable - supply and demand - chicken will skyrocket

  • howsthat on 02/08/2023 - 23:22
    +2

    Imagine giving up our back yard bbq eating some lovely lamb or steak, no thanks, I will keep the tradition going.

  • Maglia Nera on 03/08/2023 - 07:12
    +1

    Drugs take you to hell, disguised as heaven OP

  • Extreme on 03/08/2023 - 08:03
    +1

    If I can’t eat beef or lamb, I’ll just eat mutton or veal instead…..

  • ForkSnorter on 03/08/2023 - 08:26
    -1

    I rarely buy beef, I think it's overrated. I wish there was more goat meat, camel meat, and crocodile meat on the market. These are far tastier. Not sure how easy it is to farm crocodiles though.

    • Champ888 on 03/08/2023 - 21:55

      Riiiiight

      • ForkSnorter on 04/08/2023 - 07:21

        Not kidding. You should try them.

        • Champ888 on 04/08/2023 - 08:51

          Mate I have, and just to single one out, crocodile is bland as buggery. Hard pressed to find it served without a LOT of peanut sauce for that very reason. Can be very tough too like chicken breast that’s been in the oven 10 hours too long.

          • ForkSnorter on 04/08/2023 - 08:58
            +1

            @Champ888: I found crocodile has a nicer texture than chicken. More of a nice chewy, moist texture that doesn't get as dry as chicken. I like camel and goat too. Goat especially when spit-roasted.

  • Bren20 on 03/08/2023 - 08:59
    +1
    • Gas is primarily consumed for hot water and heating
    • cooking uses a tiny fraction of the total gas consumed
    • gas isn't banned. You can hook up an LPG bottle like everyone outside of a major city has to do. If it's only powering cooking, it'll last for a long time between refills, far cheaper than paying a daily supply charge

    For anyone crying that the sky is falling because you can no longer cook with gas, that's a strawman, if you really want to cook with gas you can, but I suspect most people won't

    • ssfps on 03/08/2023 - 19:37

      You will pay more per BTU, you will have a worse default cooking experience, and you will be happy.

      • Subada on 04/08/2023 - 14:04
        +1

        https://www.elgas.com.au/blog/1673-shrewd-homeowners-abandon…

        Plenty of reasons why LPG can be cheaper than "natural" gas.

        Also since propane is double the BTU per cubic foot of natural gas you can get a hotter burning fire, which makes for a better cooking experience for most of the things gas simps claim to do all the time (e.g. wok cooking).

  • Misplaced on 03/08/2023 - 09:01
    +1

    How about this for an analogy: It's all bollocks.

  • peacefulpeanut on 03/08/2023 - 10:37
    +1

    Some people, presumably like yourself, react to the gas ban because they're disadvantaged by the decision. Example: gas providers, their employees and families.

    Some people simply don't like Dan Andrews, and want him out of public eye.

    In reality, as some others have mentioned in this post, people still have options to use LPG, electricity or solar power.

    Having said that, comparing food such as beef, lamb, chicken etc — which is life's essential — with energy (gas, electricity) does not make a good analogy.

  • monky on 03/08/2023 - 10:45
    +1

    You guys cook?

  • tomleonhart on 03/08/2023 - 11:43
    +3

    Every time I see this type of thread. I smile and go back to driving my diesel car back to my house which I warm by burning coal and wood I pick from the local neighbourhood.

  • ECE on 03/08/2023 - 11:53

    No one can save the environment 🤭😉

  • capslock janitor on 03/08/2023 - 11:56
    +3

    DONT TAKE AWAY MY GAS

    I LOVE THE FIRE FOR MY FOOD

    THEN WE HAVE TO WASTE TIME & MONEY ON GAS CANISTERS

    NOTHING HORRIBLE ABOUT USING NATURAL GAS

    IT'S A GREENWASHING SHAM

    • Subada on 04/08/2023 - 14:06

      You're a victim of a concerted propaganda campaign by big gas companies to make people emotionally attached to an energy source. Look it up. "Cooking with gas" is an ad campaign slogan developed to turn people into simps for a destructive industry.

      Big NPC energy

      • capslock janitor on 04/08/2023 - 14:32
        +2

        the same gas companies supplying you dirty energy and petrol already

        any more buzzwords you wanna chuck on mate ?

        • Subada on 04/08/2023 - 15:01

          Supplying a dwindling share of dirty energy. Not perfect but at least we're making progress despite reactionaries like yourself.

          NSW now has approximately 13,500 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy generation capacity, which is around 53% of total generation capacity in our state.

          This includes generation from

          large scale and rooftop solar  
hydro power stations 
wind power stations 
biomass power stations.

          https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/nsw-plans-and-progress/major-s…

          Of the 19% of electricity supplied by renewable sources, solar and wind combined provided 14% and hydro 3%. The transport sector remained the biggest energy user at 47% of the total energy use in NSW and the ACT. The percentage of renewable energy in the NSW electricity supply is increasing.

          https://www.soe.epa.nsw.gov.au/all-themes/human-settlement/e…

  • jatbinks on 03/08/2023 - 12:56
    +4

    Shouldn't be banned. Australia has massive gas reserves. It should be optional. We are not living in Russia or are we ?

    They banned gas so they can keep bottling more and more of it up and sell it for exports. Does it matter to the environment if it is used here or abroad ? Is electricity from coal powered plants cleaner than burning gas ?

    Seems like a lazy solution to the problem of private companies gouging gas prices. At the end it's the consumer that has to pay.

    • Thaal Sinestro on 03/08/2023 - 13:44
      +4

      It's very bizarre (even psychosis level crazy) that it is considered immoral for Australians to combust their own fossil fuels, but it is perfectly acceptable to send these fossil fuels overseas to be combusted there. It produces the same amount of Carbon dioxide; gases produces in one part of the world get transported throughout the rest of the world.

      But in relation to the banning of meat, my position is that people should be able to consume whatever food and whatever pharmaceuticals they want, including chocolate, cake, ice cream, vapes, alcohol, pot, ketamine and cocaine. My body, my choice. The government should not coerce people into adopting a certain lifestyle. "Consent" is the key concept.

      • Subada on 04/08/2023 - 14:08

        It's not a moral issue. Gas is associated with increased childhood asthma. Burning shit inside an enclosed space is basically never a good idea.

        It's also uneconomical to run a leaky and dangerous parallel energy network carrying a highly volatile substance that ONLY provides heating and cooking when we can just use power lines that can make everything in your house work.

        Houses with faulty gas connections have literally exploded. Why keep building in such an obvious point of failure into new development?

        Sure it's cheap to build in new gas lines as part of new greenfield development but then you have to maintain an extra set of underground pipes forever. Also all the extra service pits and lines running around make it a pain in the arse to do any new works.

      • SpainKing on 05/08/2023 - 13:50

        gases produces in one part of the world get transported throughout the rest of the world.

        So Australia has/will have the same air quality as a manufacturing district in China is what you're saying

    • ssfps on 03/08/2023 - 19:35

      Good to see a few sane comments in a sea of insanity.

  • stedmaster on 03/08/2023 - 13:41

    If they made a ban on some meats I'd probably contemplate leaving the country or farming my own. I'm upset enough that a near by ribs and burgers is relocating. Haha

    Electric is a lot safer than gas and if you can draw the kilowatts for fast heat, i.e induction and on demand hot water, I don't see the advantages of gas in a home anymore, if anything gas is a disadvantage in a new home, its outdated. Gas filled in a gap when higher current electrical infrastructure wasn't there.

  • LFO on 03/08/2023 - 13:56
    +3

    Funny thing with gas.
    Only about 30 years ago (1990s) mains residential natural gas (pipes) was, at least in some parts of Sydney, so cheap its cost was basically ignored (so low it was).
    Furthermore, new gas connections to houses were encouraged and subsidized by the gas distributor.

    Mover forward to 2023 and gas is "expensive" and evil.

    Will the cycle repeat itself and by 2050 gas will be super-cheap and electricity comparatively expensive???

    And back on topic: in that future, will meats be welcomed as a suitable protein source ???

  • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 13:57

    Or alternatively, what about people having a right to live, and eat, other than what you would restrict them to?

  • rave75 on 03/08/2023 - 14:44

    When I go to kebab places, beef kebab is always cheaper than chicken. Same with beef vs chicken meals at restaurant. How can OP think beef is more expensive than chicken

    • Talsek on 03/08/2023 - 15:39
      +1

      kebab places dont use 100% meat but do use chicken thigh (or similar) so not a great comparison.

      • rave75 on 03/08/2023 - 16:16

        Thai restaurants, chichen pad thai will be more expensive than beef, always.

        • mapax on 03/08/2023 - 16:41
          +2

          Wrong. None of the Thai restaurants in my area charge more for chicken than beef.

          • rave75 on 03/08/2023 - 18:01

            @mapax: Well, I am in Syd, prob different area than yours.

            • mapax on 03/08/2023 - 18:12
              +3

              @rave75: I just checked over a dozen Thai restaurants in Sydney and could not find a single one that charged more for pad Thai chicken than beef. Are you sure you’re not thinking of chicken pad Thai costing more than tofu pad Thai?

              • rave75 on 04/08/2023 - 10:00

                @mapax: I lived in Sydney from 2008 to 2020, that has been my experience. Has things changed now? Kebabs too, for example, I regularly go there (Jimmy's kebab Parramatta) and other kebabs in Sydney and the beef variant had always been cheaper.

          • Ghost47 on 03/08/2023 - 19:56

            @mapax: This has been my experience too. Chicken and beef were usually the same price, with seafood versions being more expensive.

        • Talsek on 04/08/2023 - 10:43
          +1

          I currently live in sydney,beef is always more expensive or the same price.

          • rave75 on 04/08/2023 - 15:02

            @Talsek: I guess 3 years made a lot of changes. 12 years I was there, I never saw beef option price > chicken for the same stir fried dishes like noodles, fried rice etc. Sometimes they were the same price but beef was never more.

            Of course I am not talking about stand alone dish like chicken steak vs beef steak because beef has many more grading.

            • Talsek on 04/08/2023 - 16:03

              @rave75: Oh yeh,that's what I was talking about too. My hunch is that chicken is more a popular option now and bulk purchasing helps the prices.

  • djgreedo on 03/08/2023 - 15:40
    +2

    Weak analogy.

    In the vast majority of cases there is no difference to the end user between different sources of power. Electricity has objective benefits over gas (environmental and health, for example). You can't objectively compare meat in the same way because people have preferences, dietary needs, etc.

    It's a terrible analogy. A better analogy might be petrol vs electric vehicles.

    If electric cars could go as far on a charge as a petrol car on a tank, and could be charged quickly, there would be a good argument for phasing out petrol cars. I think that's a better analogy. Obviously as of 2023 electric cars have some disadvantages, but that will change soon enough.

    • eckorock on 03/08/2023 - 15:45

      In that scenario would you support a ban on all sales of new petrol cars?

      • idonotknowwhy on 03/08/2023 - 17:35
        +1

        I'd rather lose petrol cars than beef!

    • trapper on 03/08/2023 - 18:24

      Electricity has objective benefits over gas (environmental and health, for example)

      Australia's electricity comes primarily from burning coal.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join