BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A special EU wide tax on meat consumption would reduce the threat to the planet

We believe the EU wide tax would lead to a reduction of the consumption of meat and therefore reduce the problems that we outline before. The effect of tax incentives on consumers is basically common knowledge, but for the sake of debate we will introduce evidence showing that taxes do reduce consumption, for example in the case of alcohol [[http://www.rwjf.org/publichealth/digest.jsp?id=9381]]. As meat is easy to replace for people with other food products we believe that the effect will be greater than with for example gasoline, which is harder to replace. The EU right now has taken a broad commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year of 2020. Mostly the responsibility how to arrive at this goal falls on the EU member states. However, in some cases, for example the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs or the aforementioned gas taxes, the EU has also mandated steps that the member countries have to take [[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-bulb.html]]. We believe that meat consumption is one of these areas where a concrete mandate for action is needed, because it is a field where we need to impact all the consumers’ behavior. In an EU wide free market it would be impossible for particular member states to enact a tax on meat consumption individually as this would put the member state’s meat producers in a competitive disadvantage. Therefore an EU-wide tax is needed. An EU wide tax would also be a helpful message to the countries in the rest of the world just as the commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions has been. The EU as one of the more developed regions in the world needs to step up and take responsibility for combating the threats to the planet as we have the resources to do so. The president of the EU Comission jose manusel Barroso said so recently, pointing out that the developed world needs to step up and offer help to the developing world. [[http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE58J1XZ20090920]] Finally let us point out that we do not believe that an EU wide tax would solve the problem entirely. But it would be a first step in a process moving towards improvement. So it won't be enough for the opposition to point out that the problem still remains, they need to show how this EU wide tax would make the situation worse. Also we believe that this plan is not mutually exclusive to consumer education campaigns and other government actions that would also help combat excessive meat consumption. To the contrary, we believe that the funds amassed by the tax would help the governments organize such activities. Fot the opposition to win this debate they will either need to prove that a) Meat consumption is not a threat to the planet or b) The EU wide tax would not decrease meat consumption or c) It will have more negative effects that outweigh the positiives that we have outlined in our case. We hope they'll have fun doing that and look forward to their replies.
The UN disagrees.

The solutions that the UN proposes are all fine and do not exclude having a tax on meat consumption. As we stated in our argument “we do not believe that an EU wide tax would solve the problem entirely. But it would be a first step in a process moving towards improvement.” The opposition argue for something they call "provider gets – POLLUTER PAYS". They never clearly explain what they mean by this. People buying meat are the reason producers produce meat. The production of meat leads to pollution. We think it makes sense to tax the consumer. The same way there is a tax on buying gasoline, because burning gasoline produces pollution. We think it makes sense that the persons who enjoy the result of the polluting action need to pay the tax. But moreover, many of the methods the opposition outline here and in other points: from the technical solutions they brought in a point of rebuttal (like 'sequestering carbon and mitigating CO2 emissions' etc.) to giving subsidies to responsible farmers - they all require money to do. They are all means to correct the results of the irresponsible acts of some people. It makes sense that these some people who enjoy the results of their acts also pay the bill. The same way taxes on using roads are paid by people who use the roads and are used to repair and maintain the roads.
Rebutting Prop's argument against our Point 3.

The principle that the polluter pays is a guiding principle of the UN's throughout the report Opps referred us to. This is why we didn't define it. Nevertheless, here it is defined by the OECD: 'a concept where manufacturers and importers of products should bear a significant degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product life-cycle, including upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself, and downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products. Producers accept their responsibility when designing their products to minimise life-cycle environmental impacts, and when accepting legal, physical or socio-economic responsibility for environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated by design.' [http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_34395_37284725_1_1_1_1,00.html] Opps say that 'people buying meat are the reason producers produce meat. The production of meat leads to pollution.' But we would seek to refine this by saying that not all meat production leads to pollution and some does more than others. This is why the principle that the polluter should pay is so important, it ensures price properly reflects environmental damage caused. In the Prop's model however, even if I am extremely careful to buy only organic, responsibly farmed meat, and therefore am not enjoying 'the result of the polluting action' I still 'need to pay the tax'. While if I care not a jot for how my meat was farmed, I pay the same. In the second part of their rebuttal, Props say that our proposals 'all require money to do' this is simply not true. We say (for the umpteenth time) inputs should be properly priced, externalities charged for and subsidies removed. All three of these measures simultaneously tackle the problems Props wish to solve and raise revenue. Props then contend that since these measures are necessary to 'correct the results of the irresponsible acts of some people. It makes sense that these some people who enjoy the results of their acts also pay the bill.' But as we show above this will not happen in their plan and does happen in ours.
On taxes

Taxing meat across the board is an inappropriate, ineffective and indiscriminate tool with which to attempt to mitigate the damage done to the environment by the industry, because its burden falls as heavily on the responsible farmer as it does on the irresponsible one, and therefore offers no incentive to improve practices. On the contrary, as we have shown, it would put farmers under pressure to cut corners in order to maintain demand. Pricing inputs and externalities realistically, on the other hand, achieves exactly the Proposition's desired effect: farmers who pollute or are profligate with water, for example, face higher costs. In this way efficiency is rewarded and waste penalised. A key difference between taxing meat and taxing tobacco and alcohol is public support. We agree the inevitable resistance and outcry over any such proposed meat tax is not an argument that 'nothing should be done' - it is an argument that something else should be done, as we propose. The point about inefficiency is irrelevant. For this to help their case proposition would need to show how increasing the efficiency of farms in the West would benefit the poor in the developing world, and then how this equates to 'saving the planet'. The case with respect to revenue is, at best, uncertain for the reasons we've outlined. Meat has an important social and cultural dimension, and much of the price rise will be offset by a rise in demand for cheaper meat and meat products. The scheme will cost money, take an enormous amount of time to ratify and require extensive bureaucracy and policing, costs that need to be borne in advance. Again contrast this with the UN's suggested plan. By removing subsidies we raise billions of dollars in revenue immediately that can be put to work at once. Half the EU's total budget, or about $50bn is spent on farming subsidies, and agricultural subsidies amount to ‘an average of 32% of total farm income in OECD countries, with livestock products (dairy and beef, in particular) regularly figuring among the most heavily subsidized products.’ [Their ref. P222] And remember the extraordinary environmental benefits of removing them in New Zealand. In addition by pricing inputs realistically we raise immediate revenue. By pricing externalities realistically we increase immediate revenue. And these costs fall proportionately on the farmers responsible for the damage we are endeavouring to repair.
The UN disagrees.

We saw earlier that the UN isolated two key principles to mitigating the harm done by meat farming to the environment. We will now elaborate briefly on those principles; why the Prop's case undermines them, and why the represent better solutions. 1. 'Prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities.' According to the UN, 'this leads to an overuse of these resources by the livestock sector and to major inefficiencies in the production process. Any future policy to protect the environment will, therefore have to introduce adequate market pricing for the main INPUTS'. (Our capitals) [their ref. p 276] The UN's suggested methods of introducing 'adequate pricing' for the main inputs are clearly stated. Water, for example is especially under-priced in most countries. To solve this problem the UN recommends the creation of 'water markets and different types of cost recovery' that 'have been identified as suitable mechanisms to correct the situation.' The true cost of land can be reflected by 'instruments' which 'include the introduction and adjustment of grazing fees and lease rates, and improved institutional arrangements for controlled and equitable access'. [their ref. p 277] Another key suggestion, which flies directly in the face of the Prop's idea, is 'the removal of price support at product level (i.e. the production subsidies for livestock products in the majority of industrialized countries)' The UN cites the case of New Zealand where the simple act of removing these subsidies resulted in ‘what has become one of the most efficient and environmentally benign ruminant livestock industries!’ [their ref. p 277] The UN's second prescription to mitigate the environmental damage caused by meat farming was as follows: 2. 'Environmental externalities, both negative and positive, need to be explicitly factored into the policy framework, through the application of the “provider gets – POLLUTER PAYS” principle'. (Our capitals) [Their ref. p276-277] Presumably we do not need to defend this principle too strongly. The UN itself is content to say that: 'correcting for externalities, both positive and negative, will lead livestock producers into management choices that are less costly to the environment.‘ By adopting these two principles, the UN report concludes: 'Correcting for distortions and externalities will bring us a step closer to prices for both inputs and outputs that reflect the true scarcities of production factors and natural resources used. These changed prices will induce technological change that will make better use of resources, and limit pollution and waste. Producers have shown their ability to respond quickly and decisively when such price signals are sent consistently.’ [their ref. p277] We agree with the UN's solution, not the Proposition's.
Livestock production threatens the world’s water supply

Again there are two mechanisms through which meat production affects the global water supply: unsustainable consumption and pollution. Unsustainable consumption Livestock production accounts for more than 8 percent of global human water use, mainly for the irrigation of feed crops. In Botswana livestock accounts for 23% of the country’s water use.[[ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e04.pdf]] As meat consumption is increasing globally the amount of water needes for raising the livestock will not be sustainable, according to the organizers of world water week. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm]] Pollution Evidence suggests it is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants, principally animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops, and sediments from eroded pastures. While global figures are unavailable, it is estimated that in the USA livestock and feed crop agriculture are responsible for 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in freshwater resources. The sector also generates almost two-thirds of anthropogenic ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems. [[http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm]]
Rebutting Prop's rebuttal to our fourth point .

We are intuitively opposed to regressive taxation for the reasons outlined. There is no conflict between this position and the wish to see a greater good: that the price of meat reflect the true environmental costs of its production. Particularly as our model incentivises the reduction of these costs in as efficient a manner as possible. Farmers will find ways to reduce these costs or go out of business, and in the process they will reduce their impact on the environment in a way they are not incentivised to do in the Prop's model.
On taxes

Taxation in general has 4 objectives [[http://ocgg.org/fileadmin/Publications/ER008.pdf]], two of these are relevant for this debate: revenue and re-pricing. We want to start with the second one. One goal of taxation is to re-price certain goods so that “all social costs and benefits of production or consumption of a particular good are reflected in the market price” (same ref.). This is, for example one reason why tobacco is taxed: by increasing the price of tobacco products we want to discourage people from smoking, but also in case they do not stop smoking, they will be paying money to the government who uses some of this money to support a health service, that treats people for illnesses caused by smoking (like cancer). In case of meat, the price that consumers currently pay does not reflect the damage done to the environment as a result of their consumption practices. We see this as a harm. As the opposition points out, it is true that it is easier to tax alcohol and tobacco, because it is easier to see the harms they cause: because a violent drunk person is more immediately visible to us than loss of biodiversity or global warming. The fact that these harms are not evident to people is not an argument that nothing should be done. But moreover, we have pointed out that high consumption of meat as a source of food is simply inefficient. It takes about 7 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef, however the nutrition value of 1 kg of beef is less than 7 kg of grain would be [[http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1626]]. If any other industry were so wastefully inefficient they would be taxed to death (like a car manufacturer using 7 kg of aluminum to produce 1 kg of car) As for revenue: righting the wrongs caused by excessive meat consumption costs money. The government has limited resources. Putting a tax on meat will produce revenue for the government, some or all of which can be used to mitigate the harms caused by excessive meat production.
Growing livestock wastes precious grain.

This point outlines the inefficiency of meat farming, which the opposition fully accepts. However, we must challenge proposition's assumption that grain presently used to feed livestock would necessarily find its way into the mouths of those suffering from a food crisis, even if a tax on meat should lead to a reduction in demand. The cause of food shortages in the developed world isn't insufficient capacity in the West. It is a detestable fact that there are food surpluses in Europe while children in Africa and elsewhere go hungry. Making our grain mountains higher or our milk lakes deeper won't of itself solve this problem.
In answer to Prop's rebuttal to our point 5.

VAT is imposed by national governments on all products. CAP is an EU subsidy that specifically targets agriculture for financial support on a massive scale. The plan Props recommend is, therefore, extraordinary in the history of economics for the simple reason that the same organisation (the EU) would simultaneously be singling out the same industry for special subsidies and taxes. Taking the comparison Props are so fond of making with Tobacco and Alcohol, this is equivalent to paying tobacco manufacturers and distillers subsidies at the same time as charging them excise duties, something of a mixed message. For people so happy to tax their own farmers indiscriminately, Prop show strange reluctance to extend this principle to the only place where it might actually do some good. They concede our argument that raising the price of meat in the EU might lead to an increase in demand for cheaper imported meat with all the enormous environmental damage this brings with it. But then go on to say: 'the EU can do nothing to make production of meat in these countries more expensive'. Well, the EU may not be able to make production of foreign meat more expensive, but that is irrelevant to the case, because the EU can, very simply, make the price of it more expensive by, you've guessed it, placing an excise duty on meat produced OUTSIDE THE EU. This, at least, would make some environmental sense since imported meat attracts immeasurably higher environmental costs as we will show in our final point.
The Olympics have been hijacked so many times for political purposes that competition “for the glory...

The Olympics have been hijacked so many times for political purposes that competition “for the glory of sport” cannot help but have been smothered. The Munich disaster is the most shocking: nine Israeli athletes were taken hostage by Palestinian terrorists, and were killed. Yet the Games were only suspended for 34 hours. It is as if those who play the Games were less important than the spectacle of the Games. When the USA boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games, they devalued still further the supremacy of sport for its own sake.
The IOC and many national Olympic committees lack integrity, and this kills the Games’ spirit. For e...

The IOC and many national Olympic committees lack integrity, and this kills the Games’ spirit. For example, several of the judges who selected Sydney for the 2000 Olympics, Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympics, and Nagano for the 1998 Winter Olympics are known to have taken 'bribes' - gifts well in excess of guidelines - from the winning countries, and from some of their competitors.
The leadership of the Olympic movement is unaccountable. Juan Antonio Samaranch, the long-time Pres...

The leadership of the Olympic movement is unaccountable. Juan Antonio Samaranch, the long-time President of the IOC, had estimated living expenses of £125,000 per year and clung to his well-rewarded job despite all the scandals, pleading that he was ignorant of the bribery that went on. (He is known to have accepted gifts, including a pair of rare guns!). Since Samaranch was able to resist pressure to resign for so long, the leadership must in reality be unaccountable.
The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...

We should have some sympathy with athletes: very often, they are compelled to take drugs by their team’s coach. There are stories of Chinese swimmers eating steroid-laced noodles. To overcome this, the IOC Conference in February 1999 recommended that coaches should take the Olympic Oath as well as athletes. Techniques to detect new drugs are being developed and being embraced by the Olympic authorities. A new mass-spectroscopy unit was installed for the first time at the 1996 Atlanta Games, and a technique that can detect the taking of growth hormones up to 6 months earlier was introduced at Sydney. An Independent Anti-Doping Agency was also established for Sydney. Samaranch declared himself to be fully behind the drugs war as early as 1998. The battle is being won: 12 cases of doping in 1984; two in 1996. The IOC is coming down hard on those who take drugs: a two year ban for the first offence has been introduced.
The man who revived the Olympics at the end of the 19th century, Baron de Coubertin, insisted that e...

The Olympic movement gives considerable funding to community sports programmes, precisely in order to teach fair play. Meanwhile, it is essential to put together a 'Dream Team' to fulfil the basic Olympic aims: faster, higher, stronger. Surely watching the Games can only be a good thing, since it gives young people something to aspire to, provided it is backed up with the playing of sport, of course?
The massive commercialisation of the Games erodes the idea of taking part for its own sake: with so ...

There is less prize money at the Olympics than at other international competitions, yet the Olympics are still “the” Games in which to compete. A few breaks in coverage is a small price to pay for 3.5bn people to be able to see the Games, and thus be inspired to play sports: that was the number of viewers predicted for the Atlanta Games. The sponsors do not really have significant control over the running of the Games: Coca Cola’s calls for Samaranch to be replaced were not met; IBM had to end its sponsorship of the Games because the IOC was asking for more than they could pay. The IOC has the stronger hand, and a wide choice of sponsors. Without any sponsorship, many of the poorer countries that are able at present to send a team to the Olympics would be unable to do so. Sponsorship, even a little, is the key to starting to put all countries on an equal footing.
The Olympics have been hijacked so many times for political purposes that competition “for the glory...

Why should we expect the Olympics to transcend the much graver matter of world politics? They may be excellent for bringing athletes of different nationalities together, but the Games cannot do the work of the UN as well. The USA’s boycott in 1980 was the only real option open to the Government, with the UN having condemned the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, and around 80% of the American people demanding the boycott.
The leadership of the Olympic movement is unaccountable. Juan Antonio Samaranch, the long-time Pres...

Samaranch’s management of the IOC in fact revived the Olympics during his time in charge. When he arrived, countries that hosted Olympic Games were losing vast sums of money; by courting sponsorship, he has remedied this, and countries are now queueing up to host the Games. This shows that the Olympic Dream is now more alive than ever. At the 108th session of the IOC, 86 out of the 89 members voted that they had confidence in Samaranch and his tenure was widely celebrated when he retired in 2001. Under his successor, Jacques Rogge, himself a former Olympian, the movement has continued to go from strength to strength and has continued to become increasingly transparent.
The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...

The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of those who take them to meaninglessness. New drugs such as the growth hormone EPO are very difficult to detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to overcome the problem. The President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, has been notoriously reluctant to put his weight behind attempts to beat doping.