first cow fart tax
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5219 readers
464 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Obligatory ummm akchually it's the burps.
Wasn't New-Zeeland first, by taxing emissions of cattle?
Reposting my deeper level comment as a top level comment...
Let's do some math here...
100 / 365 ≈ €0.274 per day.
You really think that'll put much of a dent in a farmer's wallet?
Let's do some more math. Let's say they raise the price of a gallon of milk by €0.10. Nobody will bat an eye, they'll just chalk it up to general inflation.
A good healthy dairy cow produces ~ 9 gallons of milk per day.
So, €0.10 * 9 = €0.90 per day extra, per dairy cow. That would actually yield the farmer an actual net gain of ~ €0.626 per day, per cow, subtracting the daily tax.
That would actually end up with the farmer gaining ~ €228.50 per year per cow, after the tax.
Ain't nobody gonna bat an eye if they raise the cost of milk by €0.10 per gallon. Nothing will change, except the farmers will jack the prices around just enough that nobody cares and they actually profit from it.
This carbon tax, like most others, is designed so that the price is initially far below the damage done by the emissions, and it rises over time to encourage behavior changes. So no, I don't expect it to initially make much difference. I do expect it to make a difference in the future though.
I just see it as a gradual way to slowly increase prices, at such a slow rate that people don't tend to care, while both the farmers and the government collect more profit.
Nothing will change with such a slow method. Wanna make a difference and make a real change, just double the price of milk and beef overnight.
While a tempting logic, in my understanding of the dairy market this is not correct. To my knowledge, here in Finland the big retail chains initiate auctions for the milk contracts, which are highly competed. If a producer tries to raise the price, they will likely not sell any milk at all. On top of that, milk is an important loss leader for the retail chains. The price is kept as low as possible, and it might even be sold at a loss, to tempt customers who will then compensate for this loss with the rest of their shopping basket. Against this, it would be very incorrect to assume that nobody bats an eye if the price of milk increases ten cents.
If the competition is that high, the farmers will have very low profit margins. Any extra expense needs to be added to the price.
This won't affect competition much, as all farmers have the same tax and therefore the same need for increased price.
The only noteworthy thing I see here (based on your information) is that the extra tax is per cow, but the price increase will be on the milk. This will hit farmers with lower amount of milk per cow. I guess this is farmers with more focus on quality and animal welfare.
I wanna know who uses the Euro and sells milk in gallons, heh.
We do need some bananas for scale, yes.
The percentages of my math still add up. Who TF is gonna bat an eye at €0.10 or $0.10 price increase?
You've got it all wrong, the farmers will pay, the prices go up, they still lose 100 bucks a cow, and the milk company makes the extra .10 a gallon. Capitalism in action.
That scenario doesn't sound too far off base either. Still, nobody gonna bat an eye with a €0.10 increase, while either/or the government, the farmers, or the milk compamy CEO just gain profits.
it's the huge commercial farming that's the problem. Feeding grains and such making the gas worse for the animals. Smaller grass fed farms shouldn't be included in the tax.
The problem is the bacteria cows use to digest cellulose. That's not really changed by grass-feeding the animals. What's needed is to sharply reduce the total quantity of cattle; the only way going to small grass-fed farms is going to make a big difference is to stop raising as many animals.
This is a very tiny step, like a cow calf rising up and making a step right before they're abducted to a veal crate/cage far away from their distressed mother.
https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions-101/
As indicated in the figure, carbon dioxide emissions accounted for about 7.2 percent of (non-energy-related) agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases in 2021
It's something, but it's not what it should've been. Farmers have a lot of political sway in this country and I have no doubt that some under-the-table things have happened because that's the motto of our sitting government.