World's First Carbon Tax On Livestock Will Cost Farmers $100 Per Cow (cnn.com) 298
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Dairy farmers in Denmark face having to pay an annual tax of 672 krone ($96) per cow for the planet-heating emissions they generate. The country's coalition government agreed this week to introduce the world's first carbon emissions tax on agriculture. It will mean new levies on livestock starting in 2030. Denmark is a major dairy and pork exporter, and agriculture is the country's biggest source of emissions. The coalition agreement -- which also entails investing 40 billion krone ($3.7 billion) in measures such as reforestation and establishing wetlands -- is aimed at helping the country meet its climate goals.
"With today's agreement, we are investing billions in the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in recent times," Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a statement Tuesday. "At the same time, we will be the first country in the world with a (carbon) tax on agriculture." The Danish dairy industry broadly welcomed the agreement and its goals, but it has angered some farmers. [...] The tax, expected to be approved by Denmark's parliament later this year, will amount to 300 krone ($43) per tonne (1.1 ton) of CO2-equivalent emissions from livestock from 2030, rising to 750 krone ($107) in 2035. A 60% tax break will apply, meaning that farmers will effectively be charged 120 krone ($17) per tonne of livestock emissions per year from 2030, rising to 300 krone ($43) in 2035.
On average, Danish dairy cows, which account for much of the cattle population, emit 5.6 tons of CO2-equivalent per year, according to Concito, a green think tank in Denmark. Using the lower tax rate of 120 krone results in a charge of 672 krone per cow, or $96. With the tax break in place, that levy will rise to 1,680 krone per cow in 2035 ($241). In the first two years, the proceeds from the tax will be used to support the agricultural industry's green transition and then reassessed. "The whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions," Concito's chief economist Torsten Hasforth told CNN. For example, farmers could change the feed they use.
"With today's agreement, we are investing billions in the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in recent times," Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a statement Tuesday. "At the same time, we will be the first country in the world with a (carbon) tax on agriculture." The Danish dairy industry broadly welcomed the agreement and its goals, but it has angered some farmers. [...] The tax, expected to be approved by Denmark's parliament later this year, will amount to 300 krone ($43) per tonne (1.1 ton) of CO2-equivalent emissions from livestock from 2030, rising to 750 krone ($107) in 2035. A 60% tax break will apply, meaning that farmers will effectively be charged 120 krone ($17) per tonne of livestock emissions per year from 2030, rising to 300 krone ($43) in 2035.
On average, Danish dairy cows, which account for much of the cattle population, emit 5.6 tons of CO2-equivalent per year, according to Concito, a green think tank in Denmark. Using the lower tax rate of 120 krone results in a charge of 672 krone per cow, or $96. With the tax break in place, that levy will rise to 1,680 krone per cow in 2035 ($241). In the first two years, the proceeds from the tax will be used to support the agricultural industry's green transition and then reassessed. "The whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions," Concito's chief economist Torsten Hasforth told CNN. For example, farmers could change the feed they use.
Two Steak Dinners (Score:2, Insightful)
$100 per cow - Two steak dinners with sides, service, and alcohol.
How many dinners can you carve out of a cow? How many cow dinners does one deserve per annum?
Adds at least 4% to the cost of beef (Score:2)
$100 per cow - Two steak dinners with sides, service, and alcohol.
How many dinners can you carve out of a cow? How many cow dinners does one deserve per annum?
It adds at least 4% to the cost of beef. Every beef product. This is how inflation happens, all these good-idea-fairy ideas add up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh, not really. If you have a fixed monetary supply and then you artificially increase the cost of a specific product (in this case, anything coming from dead cattle), it may mean higher prices for that product, but it also means one of the following:
Fewer people buy said product, maintaining price equilibrium on other produxts/services
The same number of people buy the same amount of said product, leaving less capital available to chase all other products and services, causing their price to go down.
Actual
Re:Adds at least 4% to the cost of beef (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual inflation would require an increase in prices across a broad spectrum of products ...
Which is why I wrote "all these good-idea-fairy ideas add up". I am not claiming that in isolation this will cost inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
How many more of these good-idea-fairy ideas do you expect to layer on top of this one? Unless it's a uniform tax on everything (or at least a significant majority of goods/services), the same analysis applies.
Adds at least 8% to the cost of beef? (Score:2)
How many more of these good-idea-fairy ideas do you expect to layer on top of this one?
How many politicians do they have that need to make gestures signaling virtue?
Unless it's a uniform tax on everything (or at least a significant majority of goods/services), the same analysis applies.
FYI, someone mentioned the tax is annual, so cows will be subject to two $100 taxations, so it seems its an 8% increase in beef if this is correct.
Well, its not just an increase in all foods using the beef. There is also all products using the leather. And all products using the rendering of the innards. Oh, and somewhere meat not fit for human consumption and some of those innards not destined for renderings may go into animal
Re: (Score:2)
Actual inflation would require an increase in prices across a broad spectrum of products ...
Which is why I wrote "all these good-idea-fairy ideas add up". I am not claiming that in isolation this will cost inflation.
When I mentioned this to wife a moment ago she said "we will just have to put up our prices so we can afford meat" this conversation will be around 90%-95% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] dinner table and pretty soon everything is going up as everyone wants to eat so you underestimate the effect this will have
Re: (Score:2)
artificially increase the cost of a specific product
Externalities are no more artificial than the product itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Externalities such as arbitrary taxation are entirely artificial.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people seem to believe that cost of production dictates price. That's just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Lower profits? Perish the thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, live cattle? Are you happy now?
Re: (Score:2)
Also the post I'm replying to mentioned a "4% increase in the cost of beef" soo . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The costs you mentioned staying the same have increased here in Europe: (driver/butcher) wages have gone up, fuel prices have risen, refrigeration has become more expensive because the kWh price has gone up. The European markets work very differently from the US, and we pay more taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
It adds at least 4% to the cost of beef. Every beef product.
You do know how capitalism works right? If something costs too much then it is replaced with something cheaper. Or perhaps... do you not believe in the invisible hand of the free market?
Re: (Score:2)
You do know how capitalism works right? If something costs too much then it is replaced with something cheaper. Or perhaps... do you not believe in the invisible hand of the free market?
That depends on how elastic the demand is [investopedia.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Dairy cows make bad steaks.
Aurochs (Score:2)
Where's The Beef (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not in Denmark, because it is unprofitable to farm there, then it will be coming from another country, because people still want to eat the beef that they can no longer get.
Of course, this means the beef will be more expensive, since it has to be imported. And the importing (trucking and railway, and shipping overseas, and port operations, etc.) will result in a net increase in carbon emissions both within and on the way to Denmark.
So this "feel good" tax will lessen the wealth of the people of Denmark, while causing global warming to go up.
Good job!
Re: Where's The Beef (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And the money... (Score:2)
Will be immediately pocketed by some politician and he will use the money to make a nice barbecue.
Ulterior motives (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it will make beef more expensive. That in turn will reduce beef-consumption and make it easier for beef substitutes to emerge. You need to think more about the bigger picture.
Tax on cow farts..... (Score:2)
That is exactly th motive (Score:2)
Put all Danish farmers out of business and on paper Denmark will be a carbon neutral country so that every person in Denmark can sleep well at night knowing that they did their share for improving the environment.
What would be .. (Score:2)
the most expensive fart in the world?
Somehow I never asked myself that important question.
How's this effective? (Score:3)
So...100 bucks a cow to make the weather gooder. How, precisely, will that work? Where will the money be going to achieve this astonishing result?
If, by this point, you trust politicians you haven't been paying attention. You really can't hate and distrust them enough.
External costs are market failures (Score:4, Insightful)
Reasonable people can disagree about how to internalize those costs.
But if you're opposed to internalizing them, you're just plain anti-market.
Taxing agriculture (Score:2)
A sarcastic blog post I wrote in November 2010... (Score:2)
"Henceforth, all beef cattle must be grass-fed or fed a diet to minimize the output of methane. Furthermore, all cattle must be individually fitted with an Automated Collection and Methane Extraction (ACME) system, and each individual shall be indelibly tattooed with its methane creation license number, as issued by the Department of Homeland Flatulence, the Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification of its owner, and the production records of each individual shall be submitted to the DHF. Overproduc
Taxed for being alive (Score:2)
Cows are living creatures that produce CO2 and methane as part of just being alive. So this is a tax for being alive.
I think we should leave the farmers alone and tax the politicians instead
Re:pittance (Score:5, Funny)
Strange. I'm seeing the price trending upwards. It's currently sitting at around $4,096.
Re: (Score:2)
https://apnews.com/article/bra... [apnews.com]
Re:pittance (Score:5, Insightful)
It's who subsidises infrastructure in fact (Score:3)
These articles always forget to mention
1. Politics beyond emissions/environmentalism - This is a political maneuver to reduce the number of seats in government that rural/farmer has as a way to take over the country's government. The farmers have been resisting and a voting block to prevent more radical anti-farming laws
2. The business interests want to divide and knock down the farmers so that they can buy large amounts of farmland, develop it into cities and then profit by selling it.
3. The Dutch governm
Re:pittance (Score:4, Funny)
I'll give you $4,095 for one. I'm not wasting a bit on 1 dollar.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that the retail price of the meat or the price the farmer sells the cattle to the meatpacker for? Current price seems to be $1.93 a lb
https://markets.businessinside... [businessinsider.com]
Not that it changes the small percentage but I have to imagine this is a bit of poking around to find the optimal rate to see the outcomes you want. Just like normal prices there is an inflection line with taxes, a clearing price just the same.
Next greatest alternative. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that it changes the small percentage ...
Ranchers seem to get about $2,500. So that a 4% increase in costs. The thing is its at the ranching level where the decision to ranch or not ranch is made, depending on the profitability of the ranch. Keep in mind that the decision is not really is ranching still profitable with this 4% increase, its really is ranching still more profitable than the next greatest alternative. Farming, dude ranch, whatever might be more profitable than ranching after the 4% hit. That's how ranches get shut down. Add time value of money into the picture and that 4% might make it better to just sell the land to condo developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Revenues are not costs, you drooling moron.
Also, if a 4% increase in costs is enough to tank your business, you've already failed.
Does it hurt to be a stupid as you?
Tell that to super markets which make about that much, often less in net profit...
Anyway, the raise will simply be relayed to consumers, as always..
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds to me like another push for humans to go to the 'bugs" for food again.....
WEF influences in Europe?
I concur. I used to get UN notices praising the insect eaters and telling us what a good source of protein they are and how responsible we would be if only...
Other than novelty eating, eating insects is survival food, so I'll pass on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the retail price of the meat or the price the farmer sells the cattle to the meatpacker for? Current price seems to be $1.93 a lb
https://markets.businessinside... [businessinsider.com]
Not that it changes the small percentage but I have to imagine this is a bit of poking around to find the optimal rate to see the outcomes you want. Just like normal prices there is an inflection line with taxes, a clearing price just the same.
TFS mentions "dairy cows". Those are the ones you keep alive to produce *milk* although they may be sold as cheap meat when they no longer produce milk. So it's basically a tax on milk and other dairy products.
Re: (Score:2)
In regards to emissions a cow is still a cow and i was responding to someone about the price of meat...
Re:pittance (Score:4, Insightful)
A quick google says a healthy cow, butchered, provides around $4000 worth of meat.
Yes, but the cost is to the ranchers where the cow is worth $2,500. A 4% increase in costs to the rancher, that's not a pittance. This is where the decision to ranch or not to ranch is made. Ie whether we get burgers made from beef or burgers made from insects. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Or burgers made in a vat out of inspecific amino acid slurry.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that and fuck bugs....
If this comes to the US...I'll pay the extra AND do my best to rally support to vote the assholes OUT of office that try to institute this crap.
Try to be green all you want....but don't fuck with my food.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If this comes to the US...I'll pay the extra AND do my best to rally support to vote the assholes OUT of office that try to institute this crap.
Try to be green all you want....but don't fuck with my food.
The incredible paniced and half-assed "solutions" people come up with are interesting.
It's pretty obvious a concept of "Cows make methane, methane BAD!! , so let us tax cows out of existence, and the world will be more gooder".
Everyone farts, not just the evil moocows. Perhaps we should eradicate all herbivores from the planet? They fart up a real storm. And vegans - they seem to be quite a source of natural gas. Methane is a natural result of the herbivore diet.
Which brings us to the real problem,
Re:pittance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How long does the cow take to grow? This is an annual tax
Re: pittance (Score:4, Insightful)
The story says that most of the cattle in Denmark are dairy cows, so Iâ(TM)m not sure why people are obsessing about steaks and talking about it taking 18-24 months because dairy cows are kept for many years.
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU, most dairy cattle are slaughtered for veal at 18 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Whut?!
Are you sure you meant "weeks"?
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantic but makes sense. Unless a dairy cow is a cow that is milked for dairy, in which case none are slaughtered for veal at 18 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU, most dairy cattle are slaughtered for veal at 18 weeks.
That doesn't make sense. Dairy cows start producing milk at about 2 years age. You can't slaughter them at 18 weeks and produce dairy.
(Of course, the male calfs are slaughtered, but they're not dairy cows.)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't slaughter them at 18 weeks and produce dairy.
If you don't slaughter most of them, you will have an exponentially expanding herd.
(Of course, the male calfs are slaughtered, but they're not dairy cows.)
I said "cattle", not "cows".
Re: (Score:3)
WHich would be irrelevant, as this mostly deals with dairy farming. The actual profit, where you need to take into account government subsidies, imported food (soy from brazil), fluctuating milk prices and some profit from meat (young bulls, older cows).
Re:pittance (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about this specific person, but there is a fairly large group that makes comments like that that are pretty clear on who should do the work: nobody.
They want China to keep pointing to the US as biggest poluter per capita, and the US keeps pointing to China as the biggest polluter in absolute terms. And then nobody does anything. The idea of 'everybody does their bid' sounds like work to them, and they are not too interested.
Re:pittance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite for China. Virtually all of China's coal plants are replacement projects to cover existing plants being decommissioned and the logistics already in place to support coal power. This is why they seemingly a building an endless amount of coal power stations and yet haven't appreciably increased their coal consumption in nearly a decade.
China would be a great demonstration to India that you can expand a power system using green energy, and they are spending more on green energy projects than anyone e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile our efforts to clean up pollutants other than CO2 and methane have caused more warming. Turns out that these pollutants were actually helping keep the planet cooler. See also the science.org article about ship fuel with reduced sulfur is causing warming. Oops.
The concept that some people have that sulfate emissions were helping is a mono variant analysis based only on reduction of temperatures as being the sole criteria.
That anyone would accept the idea of a thousand or more years of global acid rain and its destructive effects on forests, aquatic life, buildings and wildlife and humans is beyond the pale.
The relationship between sulfate aerosols and average temperatures is real, but it mainly serves as a data point, not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even imagine what they are going to charge your mom.
Not as much as I charge your mom.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the dumbest shit I have ever read.
It's not all that dumb, at least in theory. Governments tax industries that pollute because it costs money to offset the effects of the pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but how are they going to offset it?
Good question. The problem with cow belches is the methane (not carbon dioxide) they contain, so planting trees won't help.
One obvious step is funding research into cow-diets that mitigate the emissions. More general research into ways to deal with airborne methane is another. I'm not sure whether anyone has invented capture-systems for cows, but encouraging innovation in that area might be worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I have to guess there are FAR more humans on the face of the earth than cows....we're all belc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is complete bullshit.
I saw what you did there.
Re: (Score:3)
It is truly amazing and awakening to realize that you only have to publish some PR in a bunch of places for almost everyone to start believing and making it their reality, that cows are destroying the planet. Human beings live in a world of mental models. All you have to do is corrupt the model a little bit.
It's also amazing how we know from experience that local politicians lie constantly to the people. It's almost impossible to find anything that they haven't had to lie about. And yet, as soon as we start
Please contemplate it. (Score:2)
Theft by any other name is complete bullshit.
Have you ever considered why there are no societies that have no taxation? You should seriously consider why nations have an economic and social systems that always a system for taxation. Like everything, nations are part of a natural survival of the fittest environment and yet there are none that exist without taxation. Consider how you will be protected from other nations in a system without taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 'Polluter pays' principle (Score:2)
Cattle do not harm society. Animal agriculture is fundamentally zero carbon, to live in a society where burning wood is considered zero emissions but gas from ruminent digestion isn't is bizarre to say the least. None of it intrinsically involves fossil extraction. Its not as though cows do alchemy, the methane they produce breaks down into co2 which they consume in a closed loop. The best argument you can make is that a reduction in the overall amount of cattle can temporarily lower atmospheric methane to
Re: People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects (Score:3)
You can have my smoked beef brisket when you pry it from my cold dead hands...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With a bit of luck, lab grown meat will take off in a big way. If you made a burger of minced insect, most people probably wouldn't notice the difference unless you told them
More likely with a McDonalds hamburger with overpowering amounts of ketchup, mustard and special sauce.
Less likely on a medium rare steak in a more pristine condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't see replacing my whole vac-pak brisket with a "bug brick" or lab grown blob...to throw on my offset wood burning smoker for BBQ as being something I would enjoy....
People are animals....we eat other animals....let us continue to live within our nature.
I don't mind people trying to do their green thing...but keep y
Re: (Score:2)
Eating insects is for people whose crops have been eaten by said insects, or for whose who think we need meat for proteins.
Re: (Score:2)
Eating insects is for people whose crops have been eaten by said insects, or for whose who think we need meat for proteins.
Getting proper proteins is a lot harder from a purely plant based diet. We are omnivores because it benefited us. That said, yes our meat/plant ratio is biologically way out of "spec", but so is 100$ plants.
Re: (Score:2)
> Taxes aren't going to solve the problem of global CO2 emissions
They aren't meant to. They are meant to help with the local problem. Which is why the money is said to go toward reforestation and establishing wetlands.
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be just comical to many nations around the world that are competing with Denmark
Denmark is a meat importer, no one is competing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion isn't based on facts (Score:2)
Doing a web search, the top result is "Livestock production—primarily cows—produce 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions."
So when you say "dairy farmers are not contributing significantly to the warming of the planet", that's really not based on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CNN article:
“The whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions,” Concito’s chief economist Torsten Hasforth told CNN. For example, farmers could change the feed they use.
So I take this to mean looking at different foods or food additives for cattle so that less methane is produced. There are candidates.
Here is an excellent article on Ars Technica : https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Re: Your opinion isn't based on facts (Score:2)
That was a litteral quote from the first search result. I'll make that easy for you: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+ [duckduckgo.com]"Livestock+productionâ"primarily+cowsâ"produce+14.5+percent+of+global+greenhouse+gas+emissions."
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but dairy farmers are not contributing significantly to the warming of the planet.
I would apologise as well if I posted something that is objectively incorrect. Not only does dairy farming contribute double digit green house gas emissions in absolute terms, it does so with a gas that is significantly worse impact on global warming than CO2.
Good spot (Score:2)
The absence of any means for farmers to avoid the tax by using appropriate feedstuffs is a serious flaw. Of course if the cows are fed on open pastures this won't be an option. Using the money raised by the tax to subsidise low methane feedstock might help correct this problem, but you're raised a good point.
Re: (Score:2)
1. This will raise the price of Danish beef. Consumers will just switch preferences to more cost-competitive meat producers that aren't taxed to the hilt. This unnecessarily punishes Danish farmers, and ultimately the country, from reduced exports and increased imports
The expected rise in cost of beef in the supermarket is on the order of 15 US cents for a half kilo of beef when the tax is fully implemented in 2035. That equates to a roughly 2% rise in prices over the next 10 years.
2. They state that the whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions, but where are the rebates for farmers that actually *do* reduce emissions?
The revenue from the CO2 tax will go to development and deployment of methods and technology to reduce emissions. Furthermore, the first 60% of emissions are free, so there is some incentive in reducing the 40% that are taxed. You may also be interested in knowing that agreement happened as a
Re: (Score:2)
The tax is per ton of CO2, so when you reduce emissions, you pay less.
Re: (Score:2)
The tax is per ton of CO2, so when you reduce emissions, you pay less.
Yes, and you can significantly reduce emissions from livestock using feed additives. It's just a question of getting off your ass and doing something about it. Having said that I would have preferred legislation that just mandates the mixing of emissions reducing additives to cattle feed rather than a tax and offloading the burden onto farmers. Taxation is not going to be popular, this tax is unfair and most importantly, this approach is way less efficient than handling the problem with additives at the fee
Re: (Score:2)
Seaweed reduces *METHANE* emissions, not CO2 !
Cows produce carbon dioxide by being alive.
Carbon pricing tariffs (Score:2)
There are proposals to impose import tariffs to address the transfer of production out of countries that are imposing carbon pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
Beef is not a vital food resource as almost anything else would be more efficient. There's many good reasons why goat is the most popular meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The justification is grabage
The idiocy behind that statement is profound.
These wackjobs are acting as if the cows, and the dairy iindustry itself, exists in complete isolation.
The actual driver here is the same as it is everywhere. The more consumers there are, the more pollution there is. Pointing at the dairy industry and saying "COW BAD" whilst spawning more consumers speaks to a mental impairment of heroic proportions
Re: (Score:2)
"The whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions"
I'll retire my conspiracy theories when I can see that tax coming off for feeding the cows seaweed.
TFA for those confused: https://colsa.unh.edu/resource... [unh.edu]
"The red seaweed species Asparagopsis taxiformis showed up to a 99% reduction in methane emissions (Machado et al., 2014; Kebreab et al., 2019). However, this seaweed species does not grow in colder climates, has been shown to be highly invasive and to produce poor biomass."