Who’s Up For A 1% Surcharge At Restaurants To Pay For ‘Climate Change’?

I actually love this idea for Warmists

What’s behind a new surcharge coming to your restaurant bill in California

Some California restaurants will put another surcharge on their bills later this year — but this time, it won’t be for service or employee benefits. It will be to fight climate change.

The initiative, announced Wednesday, is called Restore California Renewable Restaurants, and it will allow restaurants statewide the option of charging diners an additional 1 percent. They money would go toward California’s Healthy Soil Program, which helps farmers transition to methods that put carbon back in the soil.

It’s a partnership between the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), the California Air Resources Board and the Perennial Farming Initiative, a San Francisco nonprofit. (snip)

Leibowitz and Myint hope to sign on 200 restaurants statewide by the end of 2019. The program should begin by early fall.

While the surcharge will be added to every bill at participating restaurants, diners will be able to opt out by telling their server to remove it. Mission Chinese Food added a similar charge back in August as a test run, and Myint said no one has opted out yet.

I think this is a great idea, because it allows Warmists to put their money where their mouths are. Further, if they think about it, they are essentially paying for the eatery to be “carbon neutral”. They get to see that the costs for their beliefs are passed on to the consumer.

It’s also great at realizing you, the consumer are getting screwed. The photo above comes from ABC7 in San Fran. Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with the numbers if it is supposed to be just 1%?

And, of course, what comes next? This voluntary surcharge will become mandatory.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Who’s Up For A 1% Surcharge At Restaurants To Pay For ‘Climate Change’?”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    1% is not nearly enough. People who actually believe in this and care about it, should put their own money where their mouths are. 10% of their income is the right amount. That is the traditional payment for a religious donation.

  2. samoore says:

    The bill shows a 3% charge.

    Another example of Common Core?

    • samoore says:

      I suppose that that could be 1% per diner.

      • Professor Hale says:

        1% per diner is still just 1% of the total bill.

        • samoore says:

          What I meant was it appears that the tab was for 3 diners, and the server took 1% from the subtotal for each one.

          Which means that whoever had the “PNoodle” got screwed.

  3. Mangoldielocks says:

    And, of course, what comes next? This voluntary surcharge will become mandatory.

    AND it wont be 1 percent. It will be 5 percent. Then 8 percent. Then 10 percent. Then they will tax cars, and boats, and cows and rice and beans and daycare and diapers and underware.

    The slippery slope of allowing the government to do anything. In my town we had a drought years and years ago for about 4 years. They put a drought tax in place to dissuade us from using water. Water was rationed. Only until the drought was over. The drought has been over for 10 years and we are still paying the TAX and in fact its been increased twice since the drought ended.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      oh and we are still rationing water. We have resovoirs filled to overflowing. Our underground aquafers are oozing out of the ground and they still only let us water 3x’s per week. The government passes laws and they simply are incapable of rolling back a temporary law(the money is just too good to give up) and I live in a conservative state.

  4. Jl says:

    So if you pay more at a restaurant it’ll help stop bad weather? Sounds like something totally stupid liberals would dream up.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach typed: “The photo above comes from ABC7 in San Fran. Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with the numbers if it is supposed to be just 1%?”

    If you had actually read the ABC7 article you would have noted: For the past six months, the restaurant has been adding a three-percent surcharge on their bills and sending that money– $18,000 so far– to sustainable farming projects.

    You complain daily that non-deniers don’t put their money where their mouth is. When they put their money where their mouth is, you complain.

    • formwiz says:

      They don’t declare it on the bill, so it looks like they’re screwing the patrons.

      And, if they don’t tell their patrons what they charge, they’re not putting their money anywhere; their patrons are without their knowledge.

      Just another Lefty scam.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Dutch moves the goalposts again!

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          CO2 OFFSET was clearly on the bill. The restaurant should have clearly posted that they were charging a 3% surcharge to fund sustainable farming projects.

          A concern would be that the diner reduce the server’s tip by that much, in which case the server would be the one supporting sustainable farming!

  6. Dana says:

    Is there a mechanism by which consumers are guaranteed that the 1% CO2 offset charge will actually go to California’s Healthy Soil Program, as opposed to the pockets of the owners?

    An obvious question: will waitresses see larger tips, as patrons simply calculate 15% or 20% of the total bill, or will tips be reduced to pay for the CO2 offset?The logical guess would be: some of both.

    I think this is a great idea, because it allows Warmists to put their money where their mouths are. Further, if they think about it, they are essentially paying for the eatery to be “carbon neutral”. They get to see that the costs for their beliefs are passed on to the consumer.

    Yup, that’s the good part! Once people see that it ain’t them evil ol’ corporations being screwed, but themselves, they’ll stop this silliness.

    It’s also great at realizing you, the consumer are getting screwed. The photo above comes from ABC7 in San Fran. Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with the numbers if it is supposed to be just 1%?

    It’s 2.76% of the total bill, including tax.

    So, if the restaurant is turning over a 1% carbon offset, it’s keeping an additional 1.76% of the bill for itself.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9990 access attempts in the last 7 days.