8 ms·
I am very conflicted on a carbon tax for the agriculture industry. It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins. The transition from regener
by manvillej 2y ago
I am very conflicted on a carbon tax for the agriculture industry. It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins. The transition from regenerative agriculture is expensive & rising food costs has a destabilizing effect.
There need to be changes, but I am not convinced that this will have the desired effects. Its quite possible this leads to a net conversion of farmland to residential or commercial property rather than nature.
- lovemenot 2y agoIt should be fine, I believe. Just in terms of land-use, livestock is several times less efficient than other kinds of agriculture for the same food output. So a shift from meat to other food crops would be a net win, even as it frees up land for other purposes. Many farmers will receive a one-time payment on land sales and some will use this windfall to subsidise their transition from growing livestock to more environmentally-friendly food.
- shiroiushi 2y ago>Just in terms of land-use, livestock is several times less efficient than other kinds of agriculture for the same food output. This assumes that the land is equally usable for both activities. Many times, it isn't: a lot of land that's good enough for grazing cows doesn't have enough water available for growing plants that people want to (or can) eat. People can't eat grass. This probably isn't an issue in Denmark, but in many other places it is.
- bluefirebrand 2y agoIt also ignores that animals produce the manure that is used to fertilize soil to grow crops in.
- hombre_fatal 2y agoWe use manure because it's coming out of the gills of the animal ag industry, not because it's necessary to enrich crop soil. Just because plastic bags are ubiquitous doesn't mean it's the only nor best way to carry items around, nor that we'd lose the ability to transport goods if they were phased out, nor that they don't come at a cost despite perceiving them as free.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago> We use manure because it's coming out of the gills of the animal ag industry, not because it's necessary to enrich crop soil Crop soil needs fertilizer somehow What is your alternative to manure? Bonus points if it uses less energy to produce than animals, produces less CO2 than animals, takes up less space than animals, or also produces food at the same time
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- braincat31415 2y agoDone any farming lately? You would not get enough yield to feed people without fertilizer. Of course it can be produced from a source different from manure. Nitrogen-based fertilizer is produced from cheap natural gas... oh wait... that is gone,too.
- jamil7 2y agoCows still need water from somewhere in those areas you’re talking about. If the land is particularly poor it also won’t produce enough feed and will have to be supplemented with feed that requires water and energy to grow somewhere else.
- hombre_fatal 2y agoCows are extremely inefficient (2% conversion) at converting calories to meat, so putting cows on that land is also an inefficient use of that land. And land with bad yield for crops also has bad yield for cows and the grass they eat and the water they need. I don't see the proposition being made in these claims. Cows are so inefficient that we don't need to use marginal land at all to grow food. The majority of arable land is already used for cows yet they produce a disproportionately small amount of food. Weening off cows is a good thing.
- seunosewa 2y agoDairy cows convert calories to milk at over 24% efficiency. And you still get the meat.
- braincat31415 2y agoYou do it then. I like my beef and milk, and I don't care if they use up the land or produce methane.
- benmanns 2y agoI think we should start doing more taxes combined with subsidies. Give everyone a $1/t carbon tax. Give everyone a ~$1/t farming subsidy based on current carbon production. Nobody loses, but everyone is incentivized to decrease carbon production and the faster ones profit more. Phase out the subsidy over X years if you like. Otherwise, you’re right. We’re upsetting the balance of a very complex, very important system and causing a regressive tax in the form of price increases.
- manvillej 2y agoa combined tax and subsidy to try to drive farmers into more sustainable practices in a fiscally neutral way isn't a bad idea, but I think it is just a very risky and necessary roll of the dice. I think inevitably, there will be price increases. The questions is just how bad and how many farms survive the transition.
- account42 2y agoYou misunderstand, driving small farms out of businness so they can be taken over by Gates and other big farming monopolies is the real goal not an unwanted side effect.
- mistrial9 2y agoa casual American perspective here -- it is easy to mistake the cause when an effect is obvious. Yes, coordinated market regulation ends up increasing consolidation (with capital). Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing. No, it is not a plot by a few powerful individuals (easy to imagine, convenient emotional target). Rather there are "policy levers" and economic forces that operate at once, and interact in complicated ways.
- mmooss 2y agoCurrently the public subsidizes the agriculture industry by paying for the consequences of the industry's carbon emissions. Also, that subsidy distorts industry choices in favor of carbon. The industry might be accustomed to profiting from the subsidy, but that doesn't make them entitled to it! And certainly the industry has had plenty of time to anticipate and adjust to the problems of carbon emissions.
- manvillej 2y agoGovernments pay to keep food at the cheapest point possible to ensure stability. a fed population doesn't kill their governments. Agriculture is not a regular industry; its a national security issue Farming is not a profitable endeavor. There would be a lot less financial advisors in the world otherwise. A carbon tax will either drive up prices or reduce suppliers, increasing prices. Reducing farmland will require more efficient methods which will also drive up prices The result will be the public pays more for food, not the agriculture industry makes any more or less money. It will require more imports which will come from countries with less regulation and more exploitable resources. We've seen the story of disruptions to the food supply play out before. The reality is this is a more dangerous gamble than most people realize.
- chaostheory 2y agoI wouldn’t be surprised if the masses interpret these changes as “let them eat cake” given that inflation is already hammering the middle and lower classes.
- chairmansteve 2y agoDenmark is a net exporter of food. In other words a net importer of agricultural pollution. So they could refice food exports without domestic political consequences. In theory.
- RayVR 2y agoin Denmark, inflation is currently running at a 1.6% annualized rate, as of the most recent reading[0]. This is the full basket inflation rate, including volatile categories (food and energy). Core inflation is even lower, with the latest reading at 1.3% (annualized) in October 2024. Food inflation is, of course, volatile. It currently sits at a moderately elevated level of 3.9% (October 2024, annualized). Food prices declined earlier this year for two consecutive months, though that will be a minor consolation after the significant food price inflation in 2022 and persisting, though at a slower pace, through 2023. All of that to say, "let them eat cake" mentality is unlikely in a country where they have consistently ranked at the top of a world happiness index. Additionally, while I'm not well versed in Danish politics, I am under the impression that the Social Democrats have responded much better to the mass immigration that has been an ongoing issue for many parties throughout Europe. I think this is indicative of a party that adapts rather more quickly to the consequences of their previous policies and is less ideologically stubborn - at least on some issues. 0: https://ycharts.com/indicators/denmark_inflation_rate https://ycharts.com/indicators/denmark_inflation_rate
- Scoundreller 2y ago> It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins. Will it or will farmland value take a dump but remain unchanged in use? I always thought of farmland these days as a use of last resort and if it could be marketable for buildings, it’s already not economically worth it as a farm except speculatively
- chgs 2y agoIn the U.K. farmland has a rental value of about £100 an acre but a purchase price over £10k an acre. The value in the land isn’t in its use (which is getting 1% ROI), but in speculation it may be granted permission to be converted to housing, or because of tax loopholes.
- blitzar 2y agoThe owner also get capital appreciation / depreciation of the land - ~5.7 per cent per annum over the last 100 years bring the total return to a 6.7% ROI. Land at the edge of cities and towns where there is a reasonable chance of development happening costs orders of magnitude more than the average. The person renting that land then farms it (presumably for a profit) for additional ROI.
- pjc50 2y agoYes, this came up in the recently closed inheritance tax loophole; people were buying "family farms" purely to leave to their children while doing the minimum of farming.
- chgs 2y agoYes speculation and tax avoidance. Neither of which are behaviours we want to encourage.
- teekert 2y agoDepends on the type of agriculture? If it make veggies cheaper in comparison to meat, I'm all for it. Hopefully it spurs development of sustainable nice tasting protein sources ;) (like synthetic meat etc.)
- madmask 2y agoThis is exactly what should not happen. Meat is great, especially when grass fed.
- perlgeek 2y ago... unless the "meat" being grass-fed is actually cows, which produce lots of methane. Not so good for climate change, at least if done at scale. It's never that easy as "Meat is great".
- blitzar 2y agoWe should slaughter everything that produces metheane to save the planet.
- valval 2y agoCow farts being harmful for the environment is the silliest hoax I see repeated over and over. Spending two minutes reading about the biogenic carbon cycle destroys this misconception.
- shafyy 2y agoI read about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle on the UC Davis website: "As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle belch out methane, there-by returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere. After about ten years, that methane is broken down and converted back to CO2. Once converted to CO2, plants can again perform photosynthesis and fix that carbon back into cellulose. From here, cattle can eat the plants and the cycle begins once again. In essence, the methane belched from cattle is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere. Rather it is part of the natural cycling of carbon through the biogenic carbon cycle." According to that logic, burning fossil fuels also is not harmful for the environment, because the CO2 eventually gets consumed by plants.
- space_oddity 2y agoIt’s a bold move, but like you, I’m not sure the potential consequences have been fully addressed
- BurningFrog 2y agoCarbon taxes are by far the most effective way to get down CO₂ emissions. But I'm doubtful that implementing them only for one industry in one small country is very helpful.
- hyeonwho4 2y agoRight. Why not carbon tax all industries (and imports), then subsidize select essentials like pumping water and growing agricultural goods?
- stainablesteel 2y agoI disagree, carbon taxes seem to be the best way to ensure your country starts to outsource all of it's carbon producing activity to less developed countries who do a worse job containing their emissions. This has been happening in europe for quite some time with the manufacturing of their wind turbines iirc. It's a super carbon heavy emission to produce them, so the europeans have them made elsewhere to make it look like their emissions are super low, which is essentially a lie for politicians to sell environment-crazed voters.
- BurningFrog 2y agoA carbon tax needs to be global to fully work, for reasons like this. That is of course impossible, so there is some tension there :)
- fulafel 2y agoGood news: we're implementing them widely and in all eu countries.
- 15155 2y agoMeanwhile, China simply doesn't care.