Denmark to charge $100 per cow in first carbon tax on farming

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.

I live in Denmark. We have way more pigs than people here. We export most. Only 2% of our nature isn’t farmland. The farming sector only contributes marginally to our economy, while being responsible for an extraordinary amount of the carbon equivalent.

I look forward to this change, and more like these!

Relevant reading: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price

It's likely an attempt to kill off beef farming locally I'd say.

> "For example, farmers could change the feed they use."

Finding an alternative to already optimized feeding process will likely cost farmers more and the output be less, that cost is shifted on to the consumers.

But consumers will simply buy cheaper imported beef from Ireland, or even from Brazil where the meat production may be less stringent than inside EU.

A brave new world where the poor people eat artificial meat and crickets while the rich get to eat cows and chickens.

I wish we put a tax on every animal exploited, from the position of suffering caused. But we'd need to recognize animal personhood first.

Still, this is a step in the right direction, even if from a different angle.

Do still have to pay if the livestock is part of regenerative agriculture farm? Such systems capture carbon, somewhere around a ton/hectare/year[1].

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-system...

I’m not very savvy with client science, but does this make any sense? The methane produced by cow farts comes mostly from consumed grass and maybe grain. Grain would have some petrol inputs, but does a grass-fed cow? It sounds like it’s neutral.

That's like one third of one percent of the cost of a cow; I'm not sure that's going to move any needles.

We’ve been debating this “green new deal” in Denmark for months. While we have our share of disinformation and bad arguments from political interest groups and confused individuals, it’s pretty eye opening to see how “usaglig”[0] the debate in this thread is. Our political scene is not perfect, but man are we in a much better place here than the US (I assume its the US bias of this site that make even slightly political discussions here so.. difficult)

Here in Denmark, both sides have to make somewhat reasonable somewhat fact-based arguments if they don’t wanna lose face.

[0] we even have a word for whether a debate/argument is ‘high quality’ or not, its either saglig (reasonable) or usaglig (unreasonable)

Hope this can be EU wide.

I am by no means a vegetarian, and I enjoy a good steak or burger very much. I hope the possibility of accessing them never goes away.

But it seems pretty obvious that we need to shift our consumption habits towards more sustainable foods.

We've gotten spoiled in the last 50 years by the insane availability of almost everything, but eating meat three times a day simply isn't sustainable at a global population level. I don't know of taxes like this are the answer, but something's got to shift.

I think we could all live comfortably in a world in which beef was a special dinner once a week, instead of every day.

I think the carbon emissions is a ridiculous excuse and I think this is an attack on meat eating in general and it's based on the assumption a vegetarian diet is good.

Having been mostly vegetarian for 10 years (even vegan at points) and having had a number of health issues, I disagree completely with this assertion and I now eat almost exclusively meat.

People should be rioting - instead we're just a bunch of lab rats with smartphones.

Does Denmark import beef? Will they tax those?

Because of not, people could simply shift to imported beef if it becomes cheaper.

Governments taxing food usually isn't a good idea. They should attack the problem in a way that doesn't make it so food is more expensive for people.

I'm genuinely shocked be the amount of clever disinformation in these threads. I expected better from this demographic.

It's absolutely wild to do this, and simultaneously:

- Place extremely punitive tariffs on cheap Chinese EVs and solar panels.

- Shut down nuclear power generation facilities. Make it effectively impossible to build new ones.

I mean, as a reality test, if those bureaucrats sincerely believed the Earth was about to become an uninhabitable flooded fire ball due to CO2 emissions, they would actually propose serious solutions -- nuclear power expansion, solar power expansion, subsidies on already-low-cost foreign EVs to make them the most attractive default option by far, investment in indigenous cleantech, etc.

They're not really doing that. Hell, nuclear power generation is banned in Denmark.

They're fundamentally unserious and this is a punitive new tax that's probably targeted at political opponents.

Cows aren't the problem. Large scale industrial mono-agriculture and meat processing are the problem.

And as always, this will make the poor even poorer, that's why they're protesting these changes, but rich people on HN are cherishing them.

The Danes, 3 years from now: “How come meat is 3x the price now? We gotta vote those bastards out.”

From where does the (extra) greenhouse gas emission come? The cow itself consume renewable feed (of course [1]). Is it the transportation of feed, production of clean water, random diesel tractor stuff? Maybe deforestation due to feed production?

[1]: Or is there feed where the carbon is taken from e.g petroleum somehow? Sugar is a hydrocarbon after all...

Yet another example of how environmentalism (good) has been adopted by the political class as another wealth extraction tool (bad).

europe's being europe

in 10 years it will cost $5 to fart in a public space

The levy is on livestock, not merely cows. Apparently all mammals fart.

Where does it end (no pun intended)? Gerbil farts? At this rate they should levy a tax against Jarls and Emma for their sickly farting. Rise of a personal tax? Invest in Beano futures now!

I'm so torn on this. On the one hand reducing pollution is obviously good, but on the other hand it is less clear cut when the reduction in pollution comes from increasing the cost of a moral good like meat eating.

A few comments mention that the policy is about internalising the cost of externalities.

In this concrete case, I wonder how do you price it correctly absent a market?

Generally, I wonder how far you can extend the concept of internalising externalities without severely limiting individual liberties.

E.g. health care (in countries with a public health care system). We already try to price in the social costs (burden on public health insurance) of smoking and drinking with taxes and other limitations. How about other activities, like biking without helmets (legal in some countries), extreme sports or consumption of coffee, meat etc? Should we tax and limit activities that are "negative externalities" and provide tax benefits for "positive externalities"?