I doubt fish, pigs or goats produce any methane in any significant amount. Meat can be produced without polluting, it doesnt have to be cows. The cost still has to be payed though, even if it is so low.
Even so, just because some pollution would be hard to stop doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to tax it and every polluter anyway.
Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.
> Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.
And now compare the standard of living in both countries. Or their GNP. Or their healthcare systems.
I'm not saying that they're better of because they burn coal. But I'm saying that using energy is causing so much positive side effects, i.e. that we have an economy. It's just hard to attribute the negative side effects to one "polluter".
Again, with the same argument you might as well stop taxation, because it imposes costs on those who are productive to pay for those who are unproductive. However, upholding civil peace through a welfare system might be of higher value than 'punishing' the less productive people for their lack of capabilities.
Even so, just because some pollution would be hard to stop doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to tax it and every polluter anyway.
Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.