‘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
Recommended
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