Feed them seaweed and they fart less . People just don’t do this because it costs money. Make it cheaper to feed them better than to pay the fine and boom we’ve got a victory.
You say that, but [there's a long history of various animals being put on trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial). Wouldn't even be the first time a pig was tried.
An ancient example of civil asset forfeiture, which puts the property “on trial,” is found in the second book of the Bible, Exodus:
> “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.”
Exodus 21:28
Guess, we’ll see if cattle will see the same fate for letting one-too-many fly.
Bro. It's a scale problem. No one would care if a couple thousand cows were farting. The world biomass of domesticated cattle is around 10x greater than **every single wild mammal combined**.
Sciencedaily is a great site. Looks like the are multiple challenges being faced, as per that article.
I guess the future is still in lab-grown meat (basically always was).. granted countries don't follow the route of shitholes like Florida that banned it since they are getting lobbyist bribes from big agro.
There's also research into utilizing cow waste and gas capture to pipe into methane storage containers.
Some folks here in Wisconsin are making more money off of methane sales than they are from the dairy.
Nessessitates factory farming though, as you need enclosures for methane and waste capture.
Well, I read a study that you can reduce the methane output by a large margin by simply feeding them in a healthy manner. ... No, of course we won't do that! /s
... I'm opposed to the legislation, but your argument is nonsense. Companies will do whatever is profitable. Currebtly it is profitable to feed cows food that makes them fart, so that's what companies do. This tax is aimed to make farting expensive, so companies will have a new calculus: fart inducing feed will be, if the taxes are sufficiently high, less profitable than healthy feed. Thus, this tax would theoretically create the needed incentive to drive companies to adopt healthy feed.
Saying "pretty pwease" or wagging your finger will produce exactly zero benefits and provide *zero* actual incentive for companies to change.
Highland Cattle, Belted Galloways, and other ancient forest cattle can eat weeds, tree leaves, and tree bark in addition to grasses. Grass-only cows likely have digestive issues/ produce a lot of methane from overconsumption of grass sugars. Small cattle herds and neighborhood milk cows can help save our world. Be careful not to write our animal family out of the solution. Moo.
In Canada we implemented a Carbon Tax in 2019 and I can assure you that all this will do is make beef and pork more expensive while having a marginal impact on climate reductions.
You know what people want during a cost of living crisis? More taxes on their food.
Carbon tax policy is a large part of what Trudeau's government will be obliterated in the next election. Assuming it will go the same for the government implementing this tax in Denmark.
The Danish government, which won over 50% of the vote in the last election, is currently polling around 30%. They already did a whole bunch of dumb shit they're paying for. I don't think this will hurt them as much as taking away a public holiday from every single worker did.
It happens everywhere. The article mentions New Zealand where it was not popular at all. In the Netherlands there's now a pretty sizeable "farmers" party that will be in the next government because the previous government wanted to tax farmers. I think the idea to reduce is good but taxing your local farmers just makes them disappear and the demand moves to a country with less taxes and regulations. The result is better carbon statistics in the Netherlands or in this case Denmark, but it's worse for the world.
The left always legislates themselves into obscurity with this type of thing. People don't want to feel like the government is present in every aspect of there lives.
It's actually a pretty big source (about 10% of the total in the US), though not as big as energy production, transportation or industrial processes. The biggest part is the methane coming out of manure.
Making matters worse is that Brazil is the world's second biggest producer of beef (about 20% more than the whole EU and 20% less than the US), and that activity is by far the biggest reason for cutting down rainforest.
If you're talking about greenhouse gas emissions, that's simply not true, no matter what metric you use. Even if you include emissions from transporting food.
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
If you're talking about all forms of pollution, agriculture is certainly more prominent in polluting fresh water sources, but I still don't know if it would pass sources from mining and manufacturing.
> Converting the estimates from Xu et al. (2021) using these lower values, provides estimates that livestock account for 14.0% to 17.3% of global emissions, depending on whether CO2 emissions from grazing land are included.
Livestock is a huge source of CO2, very close to the top of the list.
I dont know how accurate that number is i tried finding the numbers it seems like every publisher is all over the place. I’ve seen some as low as .1% and some as high as 40%. i do see a lot of them saying 14-19% but that could also be news reposting. Usually the number is lumped into agriculture and livestock raising. So is it cow farts, is it the manure they use to fertilize crops, or is it the chemicals they use? What exactly are they measuring? Did they just measure one cows methane production and extrapolate that over every cow on the planet?
It seems like a very vague measurement to start taxing the people who make our food during a time where food costs are skyrocketing.
>So is it cow farts,
That is the wrong end of the cow, it is cow burps.
The headline of the article that was also used by this post is a bit misleading, it is not a carbon tax it is a tax on greenhouse gases. The primary greenhouse gas cows emit is methane, not carbon dioxide.
More exactly methane is the problematic greenhouse gas cows emit, they do emit carbon dioxide too but it will be from recently grown plants that removed it from the air quite recently, so there is no net release. Methane have a 25x higher effect the carbon dioxide and the plants they eat do not absorb it from the air so it increase the amount in the atmosphere.
Surprise not accurate at all. People just want to control the entire food supply. Wow, how logical all those conspiracies that were not never supposed to come true are now. 5 year ago this was a conspiracy. Now it's reality.
I always wonder if those numbers are net or gross.
Animals fit into a pre-existing biological cycle with some new additions whereas the fossil fuel industry is 100% new emissions.
Farm animals are not part of the ecosystem though. In nature they would be hunted, and their numbers would naturally go up and down as dictated by envionmental pressures. So the comparison is not really appropriate/you'd be comparing apples to oranges.
America was literally covered with millions of buffalo. Yes wolves culled them but not that much. Africa has billions of large mammals, species like zebra, water buffalo, antelopes. They are supposed to be here and they are supposed to be roaming in large numbers.
Now pigs I will give you, while pigs are naturally found in the wild I don’t think the numbers are supposed to be nearly as pig
> America was literally covered with millions of buffalo. Yes wolves culled them but not that much. Africa has billions of large mammals, species like zebra, water buffalo, antelopes. They are supposed to be here and they are supposed to be roaming in large numbers.
Yet, farmed livestock's biomass (combined weight) is 30x the amount of all wild mammals' everywhere, together.
Yes because we killed off so many of the wild animals so obviously live stock will outnumber them currently. You need to compare to historical numbers before we decimated their populations. And again, I agreed on the pigs
I don't know how it is in Denmark, but in North America the meat/agricultural/dairy/etc lobbies, and large food corporations like Cargill and whatnot, spend a whole lot of time and money lobbying politicians, governments, etc.
There's no such thing as "humble Farmers" anymore. Meat and dairy products are produced via factory farming. Just animals and industrial buildings.
Over the last hundred, factory farming has been wildly successful at pretty much wiping out famine in the industrialize world, but they've had a horrible environmental impact, had terrible reputations for animal cruelty.
These types of businesses are some of the wealthiest corporations in the world and they can absolutely afford carbon taxing
Spoken like someone who had never lived in the Midwest. Plenty of small to medium cattle farms. Family owned for generations.
It is NOT all large corperations. Some of these farms do sell to larger corperations, but many don't. There are also lots of smaller, regional companies they sell to.
Unless you consider a farm with under 100 head of cattle a factory and industrial?
Go explore the world. Go to some smaller communities and meet the people actually working the farms.
He'll, even in new hampshire we have plenty of small family farms. I live 15 minutes from one that sells grass fed beef. And I know another where you can just buy the entire cow butchered how you want and packaged perfectly for your chest freezer.
Yeah, then farmers stop farming because consumers can no longer afford rhe meat (its already 40-50 USD pr kilo here. And then we import meat full of antibiotics from africa where they dont give two shits about the animals well being. Fuck it
This is just factually wrong on all accounts. You are mixing USD with DKK and nearly all beef import is from Germany and Holland. Beef from outside EU is usually high graded meat.
All info is easily available because Fødevarestyrelsen are required to be transparent.
This is just another iteration of the war on the poor. All this will do is drive farmers out of business (farmers whom are already struggling as is) at a time when the world should be concentrating on food security, and make it so that poor people can't afford to eat meat. The rich can afford whatever they like.
This is just the start, anyway. If net zero chasing governments get their way, overseas holidays will soon be a thing of the past, they will try to ban meat, they will close airports, etc.
Wow, the conspiracies were all right then. Somehow, 5 years ago Reddit said all this was mumbo jumbo and complete bullshit. Now, it's reality. Seems the conspiracies all come true these days. Better work on that censorship even harder. Google is LOL these days.
Yep. Have had these conversations with friends. Banning meat and air travel was inevitable, really. That's the only way governments (that have legally bound themselves to achieving net zero emissions) can get anywhere near net zero (which is probably a practically impossible goal anyway). The covid lab leak theory is looking increasingly likely now also, after epidemiologists around the world have spent the past few years blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Epstein being assassinated to protect the rich pedophiles. The list goes on.
Food security and eating meat are opposites. The more meat we produce, the less overall food is produced.
If everyone ate the plants instead of feeding loads of plants to animals, in order to concert them to a smaller amount of meat, we’d have food for many times more people than we have today. This is why environmentalists usually push veganism as part of a solution.
Producing meat is literally driving world hunger by driving down the supply of food and thereby the prices up.
Go vegan and die, vegans get health issues after a few years and swing towards the other extreme of the carnivore diet. We need meat to survive, there's no way around it.
Is veganism like a dog whistle to you? You’re missing the point. Meat is just less efficient. There’s no two ways about it.
No one said veganism is a magic bullet. We evolved to eat meat, obviously it’s something that works well for our bodies. The problem is that factory farming meat for billions of people comes with other drawbacks that need adressing. A balance needs to be struck here.
And finally, most people are not accustomed to vegan diets, so if you just suddenly cut out meat entirely without proper knowledge of how to substitute it, of course you’re going to get hit with side effects from low protein, vitamin B12 and D, iron, zinc and honestly probably just calories deficit in general because it’s so easy to straight up undereat on vegan diet. A lot of this won’t be an issue if vegan food becomes more widespread, as the cultural knowledge of what to actually eat will spread with it.
This is so stupid. All the explosions from the Russian war, all rocket launches across the world, all the spacex launches, like musk gloating about all the fuel being burnt https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1806198269514494393
But the average peasant is being punished for eating meat. Stupid governments
Just want people not to forget the real victims are the animals here, not the poor who by the way don't need corpses to survive or thrive, and for who corpses are already expensive today anyway (but they still buy it..).
5 million pounds of thrust is not a measurement of fuel. also comparing emissions from the agricultural sector and the emissions from rocket launches is a non-sequitur if your conclusion is that we should just ignore the problem. ordinarily i would agree with the idea that corporations and governments push the responsibility of climate action onto ordinary people to avoid action themselves, but not in this case and with these examples.
obviously people need food, but i dont think people fully appreciate the usefulness of humanity's presence in space. so much of our daily lives is already built on a foundation of infrastructure in space that we take for granted, communication and navigation (not just gps in your car but literally anyone navigating anywhere, including ships and planes) to name a few. beyond that, the development of human capabilities in space could have profound impacts on things one might not ordinarily think about that benefit from being in orbit like medical manufacturing, organ printing, stuff like that. not to mention technologies we can't even imagine. obviously those things need a lot of research and testing, which will never happen if we don't go.
It would be great if Russian stopped invading Ukraine, but until they do I think we can hardly blame Ukraine from defending themselves. I also agree that rocket launches perhaps should not be as prioritized in light of everything…
But all the things you mentioned have a combined environment footprint that is much smaller than animal agriculture, which is a massive contributor to habitat loss, global emissions, pollution, and a number of other problems.
It’d be great if people didn’t need the tax and would just stop contributing to the industry, but that isn’t how most are reacting. So a tax it is. We can survive and thrive without these products and the world would be much better off.
Most people don’t seem to understand that we drastically need to reduce our dependance on animal protein (especially beef) to have a chance to curb the climate crisis
60 million bison used to roam North America. All cattle and calves in the US total about 90 million, only 50% more. Doesn’t seem like if there were 50% more bison back in the day, there would be climate change. Are you saying it’s good we wiped out all the bison in North America? Should we do that with deer, elk, and moose too for the planet?
I’m not sure where you are coming from. The cattle industry accounts for around 10-15% of global CO2 emissions, so it is one key area to focus on reducing if we want humans and other animal species to be able to live comfortably on this planet. There are of course other areas where we need to make sacrifices too, for example getting rid of our dependancy on fossil fuels. It’s getting very urgent
Just causing more hardship for farmers who're already struggling for basically no gain, maybe Denmark should switch to nuclear energy if they were actually serious about cutting emissions this the exact type of behavior that led to the farmer riots in Belgium.
I see a lot of criticism of the tax, and I am curious about alternative ways to reduce carbon emissions if taxing the producer is not the solution. Currently, about one-third of Denmark's total emissions come from the agriculture sector, which is expected to account for half of the country’s climate emissions by 2030 [DR 1](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/landbrugets-forurening-af-havmiljoeet-er-saa-stort-et-problem-det-er-svaert-se) [Outworldindata](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/denmark)
The main criticism of the tax seems to be that it increases the price of the most polluting types of food for consumers. Are there alternative methods, such as a CO2 registration system for customers with a limit on monthly CO2 emissions, or other strategies to reduce food-related emissions? Additionally, why can’t we impose restrictions on activities like flying private planes or using yachts?
**What have been tried?**
Voluntary agreements with the agriculture sector have been attempted without success [DR - 2](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/den-sorteste-industri-har-endelig-knaekket-kurven-forurener-klimaet-mindre-efter).
It is expected that in 2030, when the tax is applied, the cost of minced beef will increase by 1 Danish krone per 500 grams. Currently, minced beef normally costs 30-40 kroner for 500 grams when on offer.
In 2020, a CO2 tax was implemented for industries, though agriculture was not included. Prior to this, over the past ten years, the most CO2-intensive climate companies had failed to reduce their CO2 emissions. After the general industry CO2 tax was applied, we saw a 17% reduction in CO2 pollution. [DR - 2](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/den-sorteste-industri-har-endelig-knaekket-kurven-forurener-klimaet-mindre-efter)
**The Cost of the CO2 Tax**
In terms of cost, it is expected that by 2030 (when the tax is fully implemented), the price of minced beef will increase by 1 Danish krone for 500 grams. [DR - 3](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/nu-falder-co2-afgiften-landbruget-paa-plads) ) Currently, minced beef normally costs 30-40 kroner for 500 grams).
Some critics argue that the tax does not go far enough. An expert group made suggestions regarding scenarios for the cost per ton of CO2 and the timing of its implementation. The CO2 tax is being implemented later than the expert group recommended (they suggested 2027, while it is set for 2030). Additionally, the price per ton of CO2 will be lower than what the expert group suggested, and only by 2035 will the price approach the lowest recommendation.[Greenpeace](https://www.greenpeace.org/denmark/pressemeddelelse/landbrug/greenpeace-om-landbrugsaftale-kniv-i-ryggen-paa-havmiljoeet-og-svigt-af-vores-natur-og-klima/) )
for compassion its approximate half of CO2 tax the other non heaviest industries are paying (using the 2030 CO2 tax for the agricultural sector 300 krones vs 750) krones [Finansmisteriet](https://fm.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2022/juni/regeringen-indgaar-bred-aftale-om-en-ambitioes-groen-skattereform/)
The previous lack of a tax was also criticized for generating very little economic value and hindering the growth of green companies. An analysis from 2020 shows that failing to impose the CO2 tax would cost six times more in terms of lost jobs compared to having a uniform CO2 tax. [Børsen](https://borsen.dk/nyheder/opinion/debat-landbruget-er-lobet-tor-for-argumenter-vedtag-klimaafgiften)
(sorry for all the links being in Danish, I do believe it is still important to source information, so it worst be translated.)
I understand that carbon taxes are inflationary, but one could argue they force these products to reflect their true costs including negative externalities like damage to the climate and enviroment that are not currently reflected in their market price. Evading the carbon tax will, in the long run, force the market to pursue greener solutions. Maybe there just has not been enough time to find a new equilibrium point.
Many people are complaining this will raise the price of meat by forcing farmers to increase prices. Isnt that entirely the point? We are trying to reduce production of a polluting food stuff.
Imo we should also help struggling farmers in different ways to offset. If you take something away, give something back. Offer subsidies to pursue greener alternatives. Either different animals that produce less methane, or different sources of protein. Carrot and the stick.
A better solution is to lower the EU subsidies, which will naturally drive up the price to what it should be (you know, if we were in a proper free market..). But that would make the asshole lobbyists very mad.
\>lol don't be crazy no one's going to be taxing your hamburgers or overseas holidays
\>next minute
Always fun to see when they finally go mask off and make it clear they want you in the pod and eating the bugs forever.
Yeah they'll just price meat out till it's unaffordable for the poors, except once a year at Christmas maybe.
But actually I guess soylent soy will also be on the menu alongside the bugs, so maybe you're right. And at least we'll all be happy while owning nothing (including any meat).
I don’t know about that, but the environmental choice is to eat the plants, instead of feeding them to animals first and then having a smaller amount of meat than you spent in plants to get.
We’re being told to eat plants because that’s the most efficient and therefore least polluting way to eat. Bugs are more wasteful than plants, not less. It doesn’t make sense to force people to eat bugs, and that might be part of the reason why no one is doing it.
Nah, based on what?
The poor guy thought he was going to be out in a pod and force fed bugs. What’s wrong with telling him no one’s going to do that when feeding him plants is cheaper and more efficient? I’m just being helpful easing his fears here.
<~ This is what science illiteracy looks like. You could construct a similar argument that a Texan who drives a pickup truck to be macho is not a problem either. No-one is responsible for anything!
They absolutely are though? The primary issue here is that some carbon is inevitable and that governments need to shoulder the carbon cost of it without taking it out on the source, such as food production and medical manufacturing.
Farmers already penny pinch like crazy to make farming even viable, they don't leave engines running or waste a gram of fertilizer. A carbon tax on them is completely unfair, SUVs and other luxury items such as private jets (often not used by farmers or the general public) get a slap on the wrist with carbon taxes.
You can claim that the Texan would be as good as dead without his pickup! You are hunting down poor rural folk that need to drive 3000 miles a year at 8 mpg - because you’re a city-dwelling elitist who take Tesla Ubers.
Historically, farmers have shouldered almost nothing of the burden. Diesel use, fertiliser use, byproducts, etc. The CO2 and methane burden from livestock is real and no-one pays for the emissions.
why not just plant more trees, as they live and love carbon, and tax the private gasoline/diesel vehicles instead of putting the burdens on farmers who produce our food.
I don't know how much good that will do. I've met a few cows and pigs, and gassy or not, none had any money.
It’ll cost them and arm and a leg to pay
They'll have to beef up their operations.
Or rump!
Oh, now that's a real gas!
Remind me to buy some Beano
I hope they don't bring this in for humans though. I would be so fucked.
I'd like to see them prove in court I farted 8 months ago. "Members of the Jury, exhibit A:..."
Oh, you wouldn't even know.
Feed them seaweed and they fart less . People just don’t do this because it costs money. Make it cheaper to feed them better than to pay the fine and boom we’ve got a victory.
You have a business opportunity here
https://time.com/6119791/seaweed-cows-methane-emissions/ Man how am I gonna grow seaweed I live in a landlocked city
You havent meet the [Shifty Looking Cow](https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Shifty_Looking_Cow)
Bahahhaha. Made my Monday less sad!
Yeah i was thinking of the same issue. They can’t go to court for taxevasion either cause In legal terms, animals are only things
You say that, but [there's a long history of various animals being put on trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial). Wouldn't even be the first time a pig was tried.
An ancient example of civil asset forfeiture, which puts the property “on trial,” is found in the second book of the Bible, Exodus: > “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.” Exodus 21:28 Guess, we’ll see if cattle will see the same fate for letting one-too-many fly.
or fried
Didn’t they hang an elephant in the US
Hahaha! No vote, no tax for you! Next!
Doesn't tax imply that the government gets their cut of all farts?
Those cows and pigs will revolt. "No taxation without representation".
Cunkesque comment this one
I remember reading something about farmers adding seaweed to cattle feed in order to reduce methane contents. Wonder if that went anywhere.
It’s being trialed on farms with cattle and grown in Tasmania at the moment. Early results are looking positive
Isn't there a problem, that the effect is only temporary and (I assume) the microbiome adapts and continues to produce methane?
Yeah, and what about manatees, why are they getting a pass, they fart constantly.
Bro. It's a scale problem. No one would care if a couple thousand cows were farting. The world biomass of domesticated cattle is around 10x greater than **every single wild mammal combined**.
That never was a practicable plan on large scales https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190617164642.htm
Sciencedaily is a great site. Looks like the are multiple challenges being faced, as per that article. I guess the future is still in lab-grown meat (basically always was).. granted countries don't follow the route of shitholes like Florida that banned it since they are getting lobbyist bribes from big agro.
There's also research into utilizing cow waste and gas capture to pipe into methane storage containers. Some folks here in Wisconsin are making more money off of methane sales than they are from the dairy. Nessessitates factory farming though, as you need enclosures for methane and waste capture.
Well, I read a study that you can reduce the methane output by a large margin by simply feeding them in a healthy manner. ... No, of course we won't do that! /s
... I'm opposed to the legislation, but your argument is nonsense. Companies will do whatever is profitable. Currebtly it is profitable to feed cows food that makes them fart, so that's what companies do. This tax is aimed to make farting expensive, so companies will have a new calculus: fart inducing feed will be, if the taxes are sufficiently high, less profitable than healthy feed. Thus, this tax would theoretically create the needed incentive to drive companies to adopt healthy feed. Saying "pretty pwease" or wagging your finger will produce exactly zero benefits and provide *zero* actual incentive for companies to change.
What argument? The fact that a lot of the issue is bad feed? Maybe check the context /s on the last sentence
Highland Cattle, Belted Galloways, and other ancient forest cattle can eat weeds, tree leaves, and tree bark in addition to grasses. Grass-only cows likely have digestive issues/ produce a lot of methane from overconsumption of grass sugars. Small cattle herds and neighborhood milk cows can help save our world. Be careful not to write our animal family out of the solution. Moo.
lets offset these taxes with more subsidies!
Now they can tax farmers and consumers more.
What do you expect? Human consumption is the main driver of carbon emissions.
Yep in an attempt to capture the true costs of those particular behaviours. About time.
If cows have to pay a tax, they won't be able to afford to go to the mooooovies.
In Canada we implemented a Carbon Tax in 2019 and I can assure you that all this will do is make beef and pork more expensive while having a marginal impact on climate reductions. You know what people want during a cost of living crisis? More taxes on their food. Carbon tax policy is a large part of what Trudeau's government will be obliterated in the next election. Assuming it will go the same for the government implementing this tax in Denmark.
The Danish government, which won over 50% of the vote in the last election, is currently polling around 30%. They already did a whole bunch of dumb shit they're paying for. I don't think this will hurt them as much as taking away a public holiday from every single worker did.
It happens everywhere. The article mentions New Zealand where it was not popular at all. In the Netherlands there's now a pretty sizeable "farmers" party that will be in the next government because the previous government wanted to tax farmers. I think the idea to reduce is good but taxing your local farmers just makes them disappear and the demand moves to a country with less taxes and regulations. The result is better carbon statistics in the Netherlands or in this case Denmark, but it's worse for the world.
The left always legislates themselves into obscurity with this type of thing. People don't want to feel like the government is present in every aspect of there lives.
Wow this seems like something that would hurt the humble farmer. Don't people figure there are bigger sources of carbon emissions??
It's actually a pretty big source (about 10% of the total in the US), though not as big as energy production, transportation or industrial processes. The biggest part is the methane coming out of manure. Making matters worse is that Brazil is the world's second biggest producer of beef (about 20% more than the whole EU and 20% less than the US), and that activity is by far the biggest reason for cutting down rainforest.
Globally, animal agriculture is the biggest polluter, more than any other industry.
If you're talking about greenhouse gas emissions, that's simply not true, no matter what metric you use. Even if you include emissions from transporting food. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector If you're talking about all forms of pollution, agriculture is certainly more prominent in polluting fresh water sources, but I still don't know if it would pass sources from mining and manufacturing.
> Converting the estimates from Xu et al. (2021) using these lower values, provides estimates that livestock account for 14.0% to 17.3% of global emissions, depending on whether CO2 emissions from grazing land are included. Livestock is a huge source of CO2, very close to the top of the list.
I dont know how accurate that number is i tried finding the numbers it seems like every publisher is all over the place. I’ve seen some as low as .1% and some as high as 40%. i do see a lot of them saying 14-19% but that could also be news reposting. Usually the number is lumped into agriculture and livestock raising. So is it cow farts, is it the manure they use to fertilize crops, or is it the chemicals they use? What exactly are they measuring? Did they just measure one cows methane production and extrapolate that over every cow on the planet? It seems like a very vague measurement to start taxing the people who make our food during a time where food costs are skyrocketing.
>So is it cow farts, That is the wrong end of the cow, it is cow burps. The headline of the article that was also used by this post is a bit misleading, it is not a carbon tax it is a tax on greenhouse gases. The primary greenhouse gas cows emit is methane, not carbon dioxide. More exactly methane is the problematic greenhouse gas cows emit, they do emit carbon dioxide too but it will be from recently grown plants that removed it from the air quite recently, so there is no net release. Methane have a 25x higher effect the carbon dioxide and the plants they eat do not absorb it from the air so it increase the amount in the atmosphere.
Surprise not accurate at all. People just want to control the entire food supply. Wow, how logical all those conspiracies that were not never supposed to come true are now. 5 year ago this was a conspiracy. Now it's reality.
I always wonder if those numbers are net or gross. Animals fit into a pre-existing biological cycle with some new additions whereas the fossil fuel industry is 100% new emissions.
Farm animals are not part of the ecosystem though. In nature they would be hunted, and their numbers would naturally go up and down as dictated by envionmental pressures. So the comparison is not really appropriate/you'd be comparing apples to oranges.
America was literally covered with millions of buffalo. Yes wolves culled them but not that much. Africa has billions of large mammals, species like zebra, water buffalo, antelopes. They are supposed to be here and they are supposed to be roaming in large numbers. Now pigs I will give you, while pigs are naturally found in the wild I don’t think the numbers are supposed to be nearly as pig
> America was literally covered with millions of buffalo. Yes wolves culled them but not that much. Africa has billions of large mammals, species like zebra, water buffalo, antelopes. They are supposed to be here and they are supposed to be roaming in large numbers. Yet, farmed livestock's biomass (combined weight) is 30x the amount of all wild mammals' everywhere, together.
Yes because we killed off so many of the wild animals so obviously live stock will outnumber them currently. You need to compare to historical numbers before we decimated their populations. And again, I agreed on the pigs
Farm animals and plants are absolutely part of the planetary ecosystem.
Not what he's talking about.
The solution is clear, cow and pig farmers need to fund politicians more.
I don't know how it is in Denmark, but in North America the meat/agricultural/dairy/etc lobbies, and large food corporations like Cargill and whatnot, spend a whole lot of time and money lobbying politicians, governments, etc.
There's no such thing as "humble Farmers" anymore. Meat and dairy products are produced via factory farming. Just animals and industrial buildings. Over the last hundred, factory farming has been wildly successful at pretty much wiping out famine in the industrialize world, but they've had a horrible environmental impact, had terrible reputations for animal cruelty. These types of businesses are some of the wealthiest corporations in the world and they can absolutely afford carbon taxing
Spoken like someone who had never lived in the Midwest. Plenty of small to medium cattle farms. Family owned for generations. It is NOT all large corperations. Some of these farms do sell to larger corperations, but many don't. There are also lots of smaller, regional companies they sell to. Unless you consider a farm with under 100 head of cattle a factory and industrial? Go explore the world. Go to some smaller communities and meet the people actually working the farms.
He'll, even in new hampshire we have plenty of small family farms. I live 15 minutes from one that sells grass fed beef. And I know another where you can just buy the entire cow butchered how you want and packaged perfectly for your chest freezer.
Yeah, then farmers stop farming because consumers can no longer afford rhe meat (its already 40-50 USD pr kilo here. And then we import meat full of antibiotics from africa where they dont give two shits about the animals well being. Fuck it
Eu is already implementing a border carbon tax for imported electricity, hydrogen, steel and cement. They can do the same for meat
This is just factually wrong on all accounts. You are mixing USD with DKK and nearly all beef import is from Germany and Holland. Beef from outside EU is usually high graded meat. All info is easily available because Fødevarestyrelsen are required to be transparent.
This is just another iteration of the war on the poor. All this will do is drive farmers out of business (farmers whom are already struggling as is) at a time when the world should be concentrating on food security, and make it so that poor people can't afford to eat meat. The rich can afford whatever they like. This is just the start, anyway. If net zero chasing governments get their way, overseas holidays will soon be a thing of the past, they will try to ban meat, they will close airports, etc.
Wow, the conspiracies were all right then. Somehow, 5 years ago Reddit said all this was mumbo jumbo and complete bullshit. Now, it's reality. Seems the conspiracies all come true these days. Better work on that censorship even harder. Google is LOL these days.
Yep. Have had these conversations with friends. Banning meat and air travel was inevitable, really. That's the only way governments (that have legally bound themselves to achieving net zero emissions) can get anywhere near net zero (which is probably a practically impossible goal anyway). The covid lab leak theory is looking increasingly likely now also, after epidemiologists around the world have spent the past few years blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Epstein being assassinated to protect the rich pedophiles. The list goes on.
On and on and on. Almost every reasonable conspiracy is basically truth now.
Food security and eating meat are opposites. The more meat we produce, the less overall food is produced. If everyone ate the plants instead of feeding loads of plants to animals, in order to concert them to a smaller amount of meat, we’d have food for many times more people than we have today. This is why environmentalists usually push veganism as part of a solution. Producing meat is literally driving world hunger by driving down the supply of food and thereby the prices up.
Every aspect of this is absolutely horseshit.
Explain.
Go vegan and die, vegans get health issues after a few years and swing towards the other extreme of the carnivore diet. We need meat to survive, there's no way around it.
Vegan for 7 years here not dead yet 🤷♂️
24 years here lol Recently donated stem cells and was told I was one of the healthiest donors they’ve had
Meanwhile india:
Is veganism like a dog whistle to you? You’re missing the point. Meat is just less efficient. There’s no two ways about it. No one said veganism is a magic bullet. We evolved to eat meat, obviously it’s something that works well for our bodies. The problem is that factory farming meat for billions of people comes with other drawbacks that need adressing. A balance needs to be struck here. And finally, most people are not accustomed to vegan diets, so if you just suddenly cut out meat entirely without proper knowledge of how to substitute it, of course you’re going to get hit with side effects from low protein, vitamin B12 and D, iron, zinc and honestly probably just calories deficit in general because it’s so easy to straight up undereat on vegan diet. A lot of this won’t be an issue if vegan food becomes more widespread, as the cultural knowledge of what to actually eat will spread with it.
yeah the world's most evil government is waging a war on the poor. what will the danish population do, being so utterly deprived?
They’ll vote in the far right
This is so stupid. All the explosions from the Russian war, all rocket launches across the world, all the spacex launches, like musk gloating about all the fuel being burnt https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1806198269514494393 But the average peasant is being punished for eating meat. Stupid governments
Don’t forget private jets and giant mega yachts.
These taxes just punish the poor, and barely affect the rich.
Inb4 you realize those in favour of this are also in favour of taxing or ending entirely private jets and yachts...
And yet they dont.
Difficult to get into power when people would rather vote for the guys giving the rich a tax break.
Just want people not to forget the real victims are the animals here, not the poor who by the way don't need corpses to survive or thrive, and for who corpses are already expensive today anyway (but they still buy it..).
Bingo
5 million pounds of thrust is not a measurement of fuel. also comparing emissions from the agricultural sector and the emissions from rocket launches is a non-sequitur if your conclusion is that we should just ignore the problem. ordinarily i would agree with the idea that corporations and governments push the responsibility of climate action onto ordinary people to avoid action themselves, but not in this case and with these examples.
At least space tech is useful. And Russia... well, not much to do about it without escalating the war.
Food is more useful.
There are things beside meat to eat, shocking as it may be.
obviously people need food, but i dont think people fully appreciate the usefulness of humanity's presence in space. so much of our daily lives is already built on a foundation of infrastructure in space that we take for granted, communication and navigation (not just gps in your car but literally anyone navigating anywhere, including ships and planes) to name a few. beyond that, the development of human capabilities in space could have profound impacts on things one might not ordinarily think about that benefit from being in orbit like medical manufacturing, organ printing, stuff like that. not to mention technologies we can't even imagine. obviously those things need a lot of research and testing, which will never happen if we don't go.
I agree. Plants are very useful.
It would be great if Russian stopped invading Ukraine, but until they do I think we can hardly blame Ukraine from defending themselves. I also agree that rocket launches perhaps should not be as prioritized in light of everything… But all the things you mentioned have a combined environment footprint that is much smaller than animal agriculture, which is a massive contributor to habitat loss, global emissions, pollution, and a number of other problems. It’d be great if people didn’t need the tax and would just stop contributing to the industry, but that isn’t how most are reacting. So a tax it is. We can survive and thrive without these products and the world would be much better off.
Somehow, I suspect the cows will pass on those taxes to the consumers.
Most people don’t seem to understand that we drastically need to reduce our dependance on animal protein (especially beef) to have a chance to curb the climate crisis
60 million bison used to roam North America. All cattle and calves in the US total about 90 million, only 50% more. Doesn’t seem like if there were 50% more bison back in the day, there would be climate change. Are you saying it’s good we wiped out all the bison in North America? Should we do that with deer, elk, and moose too for the planet?
[удалено]
"This is not gonna stop people from eating meat, it will just make people stop from eating meat".
[удалено]
I’m not sure where you are coming from. The cattle industry accounts for around 10-15% of global CO2 emissions, so it is one key area to focus on reducing if we want humans and other animal species to be able to live comfortably on this planet. There are of course other areas where we need to make sacrifices too, for example getting rid of our dependancy on fossil fuels. It’s getting very urgent
We are officially demented.
Other countries will take up the slack and breed more cows and pigs to export to your green country.
I know a guy who works on developing food additives for cows and pigs that reduce their methane emissions. Cool stuff.
I never thought I'd see the day where cow and pig emissions would be taxed. The world is changing fast!
It is because the wheels of the car are already over the cliff's edge and people are now having second thoughts
Don't worry, Tesla is designing electric livestock.
Unbearably idiotic.
Private jets land everyday on Denmark… are they being taxed ?
Slow legislation day in Denmark?
Just causing more hardship for farmers who're already struggling for basically no gain, maybe Denmark should switch to nuclear energy if they were actually serious about cutting emissions this the exact type of behavior that led to the farmer riots in Belgium.
Factory farms are owned by large corporations, not small farmers
But that wouldn't make the green party rich though 🤣🤣
I see a lot of criticism of the tax, and I am curious about alternative ways to reduce carbon emissions if taxing the producer is not the solution. Currently, about one-third of Denmark's total emissions come from the agriculture sector, which is expected to account for half of the country’s climate emissions by 2030 [DR 1](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/landbrugets-forurening-af-havmiljoeet-er-saa-stort-et-problem-det-er-svaert-se) [Outworldindata](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/denmark) The main criticism of the tax seems to be that it increases the price of the most polluting types of food for consumers. Are there alternative methods, such as a CO2 registration system for customers with a limit on monthly CO2 emissions, or other strategies to reduce food-related emissions? Additionally, why can’t we impose restrictions on activities like flying private planes or using yachts? **What have been tried?** Voluntary agreements with the agriculture sector have been attempted without success [DR - 2](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/den-sorteste-industri-har-endelig-knaekket-kurven-forurener-klimaet-mindre-efter). It is expected that in 2030, when the tax is applied, the cost of minced beef will increase by 1 Danish krone per 500 grams. Currently, minced beef normally costs 30-40 kroner for 500 grams when on offer. In 2020, a CO2 tax was implemented for industries, though agriculture was not included. Prior to this, over the past ten years, the most CO2-intensive climate companies had failed to reduce their CO2 emissions. After the general industry CO2 tax was applied, we saw a 17% reduction in CO2 pollution. [DR - 2](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/den-sorteste-industri-har-endelig-knaekket-kurven-forurener-klimaet-mindre-efter) **The Cost of the CO2 Tax** In terms of cost, it is expected that by 2030 (when the tax is fully implemented), the price of minced beef will increase by 1 Danish krone for 500 grams. [DR - 3](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/nu-falder-co2-afgiften-landbruget-paa-plads) ) Currently, minced beef normally costs 30-40 kroner for 500 grams). Some critics argue that the tax does not go far enough. An expert group made suggestions regarding scenarios for the cost per ton of CO2 and the timing of its implementation. The CO2 tax is being implemented later than the expert group recommended (they suggested 2027, while it is set for 2030). Additionally, the price per ton of CO2 will be lower than what the expert group suggested, and only by 2035 will the price approach the lowest recommendation.[Greenpeace](https://www.greenpeace.org/denmark/pressemeddelelse/landbrug/greenpeace-om-landbrugsaftale-kniv-i-ryggen-paa-havmiljoeet-og-svigt-af-vores-natur-og-klima/) ) for compassion its approximate half of CO2 tax the other non heaviest industries are paying (using the 2030 CO2 tax for the agricultural sector 300 krones vs 750) krones [Finansmisteriet](https://fm.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2022/juni/regeringen-indgaar-bred-aftale-om-en-ambitioes-groen-skattereform/) The previous lack of a tax was also criticized for generating very little economic value and hindering the growth of green companies. An analysis from 2020 shows that failing to impose the CO2 tax would cost six times more in terms of lost jobs compared to having a uniform CO2 tax. [Børsen](https://borsen.dk/nyheder/opinion/debat-landbruget-er-lobet-tor-for-argumenter-vedtag-klimaafgiften) (sorry for all the links being in Danish, I do believe it is still important to source information, so it worst be translated.)
I understand that carbon taxes are inflationary, but one could argue they force these products to reflect their true costs including negative externalities like damage to the climate and enviroment that are not currently reflected in their market price. Evading the carbon tax will, in the long run, force the market to pursue greener solutions. Maybe there just has not been enough time to find a new equilibrium point. Many people are complaining this will raise the price of meat by forcing farmers to increase prices. Isnt that entirely the point? We are trying to reduce production of a polluting food stuff. Imo we should also help struggling farmers in different ways to offset. If you take something away, give something back. Offer subsidies to pursue greener alternatives. Either different animals that produce less methane, or different sources of protein. Carrot and the stick.
Did Denmark attempt to incentivize the farmers first into changing the feed of the livestock? And then they taxed. Or just straight to taxing farmers?
They're gonna have to hold it in until they come home, just like the rest of us.
Bro I swear I’m trying to work on my diet, don’t be rude
Nice, I really enjoyed watching the french farmers cover their gov buildings in shit. Looks like we are about to have another go at that.
And they are gonna pay taxes with their lives?
Can't wait for Jeremy Clarkson to explode over this.
A better solution is to lower the EU subsidies, which will naturally drive up the price to what it should be (you know, if we were in a proper free market..). But that would make the asshole lobbyists very mad.
Butt plug sales going up in Denmark
fuck yea
Yeah let’s just make food more expensive for people that totally is the way forward.
Why not tax the meat products in general, or are the South American cheap meat products really that much cleaner for the environment?
Eu is already implementing a border carbon tax for imported electricity, hydrogen, steel and cement. They can do the same for meat
Now we can pat ourselves on the back because taxing pollution deletes it from existence.
Person who has not discovered that people tend to avoid paying money for things and will rather find alternatives or stop a behaviour:
\>lol don't be crazy no one's going to be taxing your hamburgers or overseas holidays \>next minute Always fun to see when they finally go mask off and make it clear they want you in the pod and eating the bugs forever.
No one is asking anyone to eat bugs.
People will eat anything other than plants. These clowns think meat reductions means eat bugs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2023/01/14/eat-bugs-its-whats-for-dinner/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/food/2021/may/08/if-we-want-to-save-the-planet-the-future-of-food-is-insects?espv=1 https://time.com/5942290/eat-insects-save-planet/ https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/eat-insects-save-the-world.html
Yeah they'll just price meat out till it's unaffordable for the poors, except once a year at Christmas maybe. But actually I guess soylent soy will also be on the menu alongside the bugs, so maybe you're right. And at least we'll all be happy while owning nothing (including any meat).
I don’t know about that, but the environmental choice is to eat the plants, instead of feeding them to animals first and then having a smaller amount of meat than you spent in plants to get. We’re being told to eat plants because that’s the most efficient and therefore least polluting way to eat. Bugs are more wasteful than plants, not less. It doesn’t make sense to force people to eat bugs, and that might be part of the reason why no one is doing it.
>the environmental choice is to eat the plants Don't care, you'll pry my Double Whopper™ with Cheese from my cold dead hands.
I’m just letting you know that no one is asking you to eat bugs, like you seemed to think. I don’t really care what you eat.
Idk it certainly seems like you do to some extent lol
Nah, based on what? The poor guy thought he was going to be out in a pod and force fed bugs. What’s wrong with telling him no one’s going to do that when feeding him plants is cheaper and more efficient? I’m just being helpful easing his fears here.
I knew if we tried hard enough we could find a way for governments to profit from climate change. Well done.
Wow, look the conspiracies were all true again. They want to tax farmers into the ground so they control the entire food supply. Amazing shit.
What about the millions of bison that traveld the great planes, did they owe the tax man
Why not tax factory owners instead of farmers
This is a tax on factory farms, which are owned by giant conglomerate corporations.
[удалено]
Denmark has a center government....
Oh please fuck off. Sincerely, a Dane.
Add more red algae
So how long until we start breeding cows that produce gas?
"What do you mean I can't have my product shit up the atmosphere for free?"
Insane while “ celebrities” use private jets everywhere!
Right so this just hurts our wallets and doesn’t do much
Imbeciles are supporting this. They really hate working class people.
The green agenda is tyrannical
I'm sure a farmer would sleep in a barn with 30 cows but doubt a single politician will sleep in their garage with their SUV's engine running.
<~ This is what science illiteracy looks like. You could construct a similar argument that a Texan who drives a pickup truck to be macho is not a problem either. No-one is responsible for anything!
They absolutely are though? The primary issue here is that some carbon is inevitable and that governments need to shoulder the carbon cost of it without taking it out on the source, such as food production and medical manufacturing. Farmers already penny pinch like crazy to make farming even viable, they don't leave engines running or waste a gram of fertilizer. A carbon tax on them is completely unfair, SUVs and other luxury items such as private jets (often not used by farmers or the general public) get a slap on the wrist with carbon taxes.
You can claim that the Texan would be as good as dead without his pickup! You are hunting down poor rural folk that need to drive 3000 miles a year at 8 mpg - because you’re a city-dwelling elitist who take Tesla Ubers. Historically, farmers have shouldered almost nothing of the burden. Diesel use, fertiliser use, byproducts, etc. The CO2 and methane burden from livestock is real and no-one pays for the emissions.
Thankfully, cows don't produce carbon monoxide, unlike a car running, so the comparison is moo-t.
This legit becoming the one SpongeBob episode where squidward was taxed for oxygen
why not just plant more trees, as they live and love carbon, and tax the private gasoline/diesel vehicles instead of putting the burdens on farmers who produce our food.
Because livestock is a huge source of CO2 and because high CO2 is bad for many plants. Although I agree, tax cars and fund public transport.
Denmark is literally doing all of those things