A story written by Lou Del Bello last December in “Futurism” has gained new life on Twitter thanks to a retweet that popped up this week:

So we’re talking about a “sin tax” on meat to discourage consumption? Let’s see what Del Bello had to say in December:

Eating too much meat and smoking both have an impact on the public, from an environmental and health perspective. Meat production degrades the environment by releasing greenhouse gas emissions and using up a disproportionate amount of land and water per unit of protein, while smoking leads to enormous health bills that the public often has to pay for.

In a new report, investment analysts suggest passing on the costs of the meat sector’s impacts to those directly responsible, the same way we tax smokers. The simple idea of the so-called meat tax is that if your burger ends up costing as much as a plate of caviar, you may decide to explore vegetarian options.

It’s a regressive tax, though, hitting hardest the least nourished who need to increase their meat consumption. What to do?

Oh, wait, we just checked and this is still America.

But … the experts …