‘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.

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:

Not at all.

Won’t someone think of the TREES?!

MONSTERS!

Yeah, thanks but we’re good too.

Only if you’re eating a burger apparently.

Huh, same here.

Heh.

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:

PLETHORA of dumb! Sean Spicier SUPER-triggers Lefties with tweets about Mueller, McCabe (bonus Jennifer Rubin slam)

Keep DIGGIN’! Good news white women, Hillary is sorry you’re too dumb to GET what she REALLY meant

‘The Young JERK’ Cenk Uygur gets a RUDE awakening when he claims Hillary ‘hurt Conservatives’ feelings’