11 ms·
Whether or not this will reduce CO2 is yet to be seen. But it will almost certainly raise the price of beef and dairy products. Taxes on producers inevitably ge
by jasonlfunk 2y ago
Whether or not this will reduce CO2 is yet to be seen. But it will almost certainly raise the price of beef and dairy products. Taxes on producers inevitably get passed on to consumers.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoThat is the point. As you increase price, fewer cow units are sold because people don’t have unlimited money. If the reduction target is not met, it just means the tax is not high enough.
- pmontra 2y agoThey will import those meat and diary products that won't be competitive enough anymore to be produced in Danmark. This kind of taxes work better if implemented uniformly in all the EU, but then they'll import from outside the EU. Ultimately it's a way to tell some industries to pack their things and go away.
- TheLoafOfBread 2y ago> That is the point. As you increase price, fewer cow units are sold because people don’t have unlimited money. Or people might start voting for right wing parties promising to cancel these taxes. As just happened during last European elections.
- K0nserv 2y agoYes of course, it's pricing in a negative externality that was previously not accounted for.
- nightski 2y agoVery few negative externalities are actually accounted for. This is political grandstanding at best.
- hansworst 2y agoSo we should just give up on trying to accurately price externalities until we’ve found a way to include all of them? (Hint: we never will, so that would mean never taking action)
- frumper 2y agoShouldn't the farmer's get a credit for growing grasses that pull it out of the atmosphere?
- piva00 2y agoIf that grass is eventually turned into cattle, no, because it hasn't been stored after it's been consumed by the cows.
- synecdoche 2y agoThen they should have neither credit nor penalty.
- nightski 2y agoNo, but maybe don't start with one of the smaller sources of overall greenhouse gasses (it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark), especially when it affects nutrition and well being of your people.
- ygjb 2y agoSure, but you are only looking at one potential impact of this. I can think of at least 3 benefits that are seem pretty clear without doing a deeper analysis. 1. Adding an appropriate carbon tax for gassy cows offsets reduces or eliminates the externalization of the environmental impact of the cows, and provides justification for spending on the increased cost of feeds that drive down the amount of methane produced. 2. Driving a justification for increased spent on those feeds, especially novel feeds, drives investment in new aquaculture techniques that will create additional jobs and ensures that capital that might be otherwise be held as profits actually circulates through the economy (a key component that is actually required for capitalism to work). 3. The increased costs of beef and pork will drive lower consumption of animal based proteins. That lower consumption should be a factor in driving better health outcomes, longer term (note I said lower, not elimination of consumption). This is a net benefit for any nation that provides health care services to it's citizens (heart disease and cardiovascular illness are among leading causes of death in Denmark, like most developed nations).
- HorizonXP 2y agoCould you explain which externality this is? I know they produce a lot of methane which is more of a GHG than CO2, but as far as I know, that methane is a part of the carbon cycle so it should be a net neutral contribution.
- chaos_emergent 2y agospecifically, it's 20x a GHG compared to C02, and I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle.
- HorizonXP 2y agoMaybe I’m using the wrong term but my understanding is that the carbon comes from the feed, which itself pulls it from the atmosphere. Thus, it came from the air, and goes back into the air. The fossil fuels did the same but on a grander scale and longer timeline where the carbon becomes sequestered. Carbon taxes on that make sense. I’m not seeing the benefit to taxing the cattle.
- Miraltar 2y agoFrom what I understand carbon comes from the soil as well as from the air, and it's supposed to be "stored" back into the soil by various means but our agriculture and more generally human activities tend to accelerate release of carbon from the soil and refrein the storing process. And that provokes a climate disimbalance. There was a good video on the relation between carbon cycle and massive extinctions throuhout history (1h long) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4
- krisoft 2y ago> I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle Plants breath in co2 from the atmosphere and bind the carbon in their structure. Cows eat the plants and turn some percentage of the bound carbon into cow meat, the rest they poop or fart or breath out. Eventually all that carbon ends up back in the atmosphere where plants again can bind it. This is the carbon cycle. Thus the point is that cows existing do not increase the carbon in circulation. (As opposed to digging up coal or drilling for oil/gas which liberates carbon which used to be in circulation but become bound in fossils.)
- chrisco255 2y agoCow farts don't cause climate change. Meanwhile ruminants are essential to ecosystems, have existed in the hundreds of millions for tens of millions of years and provide tons of positive externalities that aren't subsidized. Nevermind that they contribute to food security and health. Ruminants are also better for the land than millions of acres of GMO monocrops drenched in Roundup. The carbon cult has lost the plot.
- adrianN 2y agoCow farts do in fact make climate change worse.
- chrisco255 2y agoPlease show in the geological record anywhere in the last 50 million years where ruminants caused climate change.
- ygjb 2y agoWho said they cause climate change? Is the impact of domesticated cattle a measurable impact on global methane production? Yes. This has been measured, observed, and accepted science since at least 1995[1]. Does methane have an observable, measurable effect on climate? Yes[2], and agriculture is a major driver for anthropogenic climate change[3]. If you want to argue it doesn't or isn't, bring data, because there are too many articles, research papers, and studies arguing that it does that have for your unbacked opinion to be accepted. Does this mean that cow farts (or burps) are the cause or driver of climate change? No. Is it something that we can meaningfully reduce the impact of? Well, probably, based on some of the resources linked to in other comments. Does it mean that solving this for cattle is going to solve climate change? No, but incremental progress helps (insert 1.01% effort per day over a year = 37.8 meme). You know what doesn't help? Clearly ignorant reductive comments that conflate a contributing factor with the entire problem while ignoring the preponderance of evidence contrary to your claims. [1] https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632901?login=false https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632... [2] http://repository.geologyscience.ru/bitstream/handle/123456789/30629/Wueb_02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://repository.geologyscience.ru/bitstream/handle/1234567... [3] https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/methane-and-climate-change https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2022/meth... [4] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emission... [5] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121 https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121
- markusw 2y agoGood thing we have scientists who can model things so we don’t have to guess blindly! https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price I live in Denmark and look forward to this change.
- HorizonXP 2y agoYour link is in support of a carbon tax on fossil fuels but makes no mention of farms, cows, or cattle. Did you mean to post a different link?
- koolba 2y ago> Taxes on producers inevitably get passed on to consumers. And just like any tax on consumption, it would have an outsized effect on lower income consumers. That’s not necessarily wrong or unintended, but it’s the reality of any program like this. If this were CA, there would be some cockamamie “low income meat consumer tax credit” proposed alongside. And then even if it’s added, it’ll get removed after a few years so just the tax remains.
- TheLoafOfBread 2y agoAnd those priced out people are voting for right wing parties promising to cancel those taxes. Those right wing parties might not do that, but people on the left should not be surprised why EU is leaning more and more to the right.
- raydev 2y agoAgreed. It's well-established that protein from greens isn't as bioavailable as protein from meat. Hard not to worry about negatively impacting future generations of lower-income families.
- bandrami 2y agoIt would increase a cow's cost by like 0.3% which would be spread over the meat/dairy and hides and hooves.
- Dig1t 2y agoIt will also undoubtably put many farmers out of business and force more consolidation within the industry to the largest players who can afford to deal with the extra taxes.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y agoThat would be an acceptable outcome. Currently red meat is priced lower than it should be. If we want a market based solution to climate change we need to accurately price goods based on the damage they do. We have been discounting externalities for too long, and it's catching up with us.
- tracker1 2y agoAnd how do you measure/calculate that red meat is priced lower than it should be?
- mharig 2y agoA cow delivers around 9000 L milk a year. 100 USD/a/cow will raise the production costs for around a little above 1 USDcent/L. Negligible.
- cute_boi 2y agoThis is good. Why should whole world pay for the pollution created by these cows and dairy products.
- londons_explore 2y ago> Taxes on producers inevitably get passed on to consumers. Which raises the cost of living in your country. Which reduces the quality of life of your citizens And reduces the competitiveness of your exports on the global markets. I'm all for protecting the global environment, but capitalism puts concrete boots on the people of any country who spends any money on it whilst other countries do not. A global binding agreement, backed by sanctions, is the only approach that will work.