‘Yay! We were totally waiting for the New York Times to try shaming everyone for enjoying a good burger,’ said literally no one ever. C’mon NYT, don’t you have some sort of white privilege or trans-curious opinion piece to focus on?
Leave our burgers ALONE.
It's harder to enjoy your burger when you think of the greenhouse gas emitted in producing it https://t.co/VtRAzUu2ap
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) March 19, 2018
From The NYT:
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put a carbon tax on fossil fuel, a larger source of greenhouse gas emissions? You bet. But many people who now commute in conventional gas-fueled automobiles have no better way to get home — or to heat their homes when they get there. That broader carbon tax will require dramatically restructuring our lives. A carbon tax on beef, on the other hand, would be a relatively simple test case for such taxes and, according to the French study, only a little painful, at least at the household level: While people would tend to skip the beef bourguignon, they could substitute other meats, like pork and chicken, that have a much smaller climate change footprint.
Charles C.W. Cooke said it best:
It’s not.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 19, 2018
Not at all.
It's easier to enjoy not reading The NY Times when you think of the greenhouse gas emitted in producing it
— Lostmyleggins (@lostmyleggins) March 19, 2018
Won’t someone think of the TREES?!
Do you still have a print edition? Tree killer!!!!
— Walkin' Pam D (@lifebythecreek) March 19, 2018
MONSTERS!
No, I can still enjoy it just fine. But thank you for your concern. https://t.co/IjTrxk9YXk
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 19, 2018
Yeah, thanks but we’re good too.
It's harder to feel smug in your prius when you think of the greenhouse gas emitted in producing and charging it
— A Bot Got Yitz (@MeerkatYitz) March 19, 2018
Only if you’re eating a burger apparently.
Incorrect. When I enjoy a delicious burger none of this comes to mind.
— JWF (@JammieWF) March 19, 2018
Huh, same here.
How Trump won remaining a mystery to some.
— Blame Big Government (@BlameBigGovt) March 19, 2018
Heh.
So the point if this piece is to have a carbon tax on beef.
And I guess the point of the tweet is that imagine how much more you'll enjoy your burger if you pay more for it? Or something?
— Heimish Conservative (@HeimishCon) March 19, 2018
Or something.
We of course have no idea what they’re trying to do here but raising taxes seems like their M-O.
Ok, now we need a burger for lunch.
Thanks NYT!
Related:
Keep DIGGIN’! Good news white women, Hillary is sorry you’re too dumb to GET what she REALLY meant
Join the conversation as a VIP Member