There aren't a lot of details in the article, at least if the archive is complete. So taxes on agriculture would simply be baked into the cost of goods being sold. Depending on the goal of the...
There aren't a lot of details in the article, at least if the archive is complete.
So taxes on agriculture would simply be baked into the cost of goods being sold. Depending on the goal of the tax, there could be good and bad things here, possibly in tension. However, the article also said farmers would be eligible for deductions, but without knowing those details it can't be said what the impact to costs would be.
If the taxes raise the cost of food it's possible that it would send a signal to decrease consumption or reduce food waste. Of course, that disproportionally impacts the lowest income households. Edit: since the tax is based on emissions, it would also increase prices for high emissions foods more. So the price of meat would increase more than the price of beans.
Maybe the goal is simply to collect taxes to fund mitigation efforts, such as sequestration or other programs. However, the increase in tax deductions that the article mentions would seem to undercut this. If the government offsets the increased taxes with deductions, it is just changing the regulatory color of money. Maybe that is the easiest way to dedicate funds to mitigation programs that can't easily be changed, but it seems like a run around more direct routes.
But until we see more details it's hard to suss out.
Edit2: economists love making predictions on the impact of taxes on exports, so I'm curious to read the first real scholarly articles on the projected impacts of the tax on Danish agriculture exports. If there is harm to the farmers here, it would come from making their goods less desirable due to costs in both the domestic (cheaper imported goods) or foreign (cheaper domestic goods) markets.
While taxing carbon emissions is wonderful, why do they just HAVE to start with the poor people? And poor people whose jobs are literally essential for society? They need to go after the bigger...
While taxing carbon emissions is wonderful, why do they just HAVE to start with the poor people? And poor people whose jobs are literally essential for society? They need to go after the bigger guys that produce carbon via some fancy schmancy car or yacht. Imo.
However, I hope this becomes a trend and spreads to other areas of the world.
The majority of farms in Denmark are not run by poor people. They are run by workers who work for huge conglomerates - I don't remember the exact figure but it's something like 90%. So if you,...
The majority of farms in Denmark are not run by poor people. They are run by workers who work for huge conglomerates - I don't remember the exact figure but it's something like 90%.
So if you, like me, had this idea that this is about little family owned & operated farms, that could hardly be more wrong. Most farmland here is heavily industrialized, more so reminiscent of factories than cute idyllic farms.
The costs will end up being rolled into the cost of goods sold. That might make them less competitive, especially for exports, but that would take some additional details to model. But agriculture...
The costs will end up being rolled into the cost of goods sold. That might make them less competitive, especially for exports, but that would take some additional details to model.
But agriculture is a large producer of emissions, and many farms are quite large and use much of the land in Denmark. And the tax would raise prices more for high emissions products than lower emissions products, which might change consumption habits at a macro level.
But as I said in my other comment, there aren't enough details to see the effect here, especially when paired with undefined deductions.
The pdf you linked is made by an organisation that lobbied against this law, just fyi. They are more than a little problematic, just one example here:...
The pdf you linked is made by an organisation that lobbied against this law, just fyi.
I'm not surprised that a trade group would lobby against a tax on their constituents. I don't think that changes the point I made, assuming the data in the PDF is factual, though it is funny to...
I'm not surprised that a trade group would lobby against a tax on their constituents. I don't think that changes the point I made, assuming the data in the PDF is factual, though it is funny to use their data to argue in support of the tax.
Because thanks to the political economy, money is political power that can be wielded to prevent legislation that hurts the rich (or at least make it much harder to do so). Thus, you can have...
While taxing carbon emissions is wonderful, why do they just HAVE to start with the poor people? And poor people whose jobs are literally essential for society?
Because thanks to the political economy, money is political power that can be wielded to prevent legislation that hurts the rich (or at least make it much harder to do so). Thus, you can have effort aimed equally at all targets but only (or disproportionately) the efforts targeting the poor will succeed.
The solution is to reform the political economy (which the rich will tend to prevent, thanks to the political economy) or to eat the rich (which the rich will tend to prevent, thanks to the political economy).
I don't know another Denmark, but the USDA considers farm sizes to be as follows: Farmland averages a value of over $4K/acre, so a small farm easily is an asset of approximately a million dollars....
why do they just HAVE to start with the poor people?
I don't know another Denmark, but the USDA considers farm sizes to be as follows:
small family farms average 231 acres; large family farms average 1,421 acres and the very large farm average acreage is 2,086
Farmland averages a value of over $4K/acre, so a small farm easily is an asset of approximately a million dollars. That's "middle class 401K + house at retirement" territory. Not sure that counts as "poor."
In regards to operating revenue...if they're not making enough to make it worthwhile, they can cash out at any time. So unless they're really bad at business, I don't think they're sitting on an asset of that value for nothing.
Carbon is carbon, and agriculture emits a lot of it. I'd rather see a true, universal carbon tax maybe with some agricultural subsides to keep food prices down, but let's not keep pretending rustic subsistence farmers supplying the world's food are a thing...
First of all, by focusing more on crops with less impact then, for example, cattle ranching. This tax would make it more financially attractive to farm the kind of things with less of a carbon...
First of all, by focusing more on crops with less impact then, for example, cattle ranching. This tax would make it more financially attractive to farm the kind of things with less of a carbon footprint.
Second, farmers can actually grow crops that can sequester carbon in the soil. In other words, these crops would have a negative carbon impact.
The interesting thing is that many of the approaches also would decrease the incentive for mono-culture farming, which would also be beneficial for soil health, pollinators and biodiversity.
Another component in the sustainability of farms is actually also the nitrogen they consume by using industrial fertilizer. Many of these fertilizers are not only prone to polluting surrounding groundwater tables which eventually leads to river ecosystem collapse, but these fertilizers are made from fossil fuels! So another very beneficial thing farmers could do is use either biological, sustainable fertilizers, or use crop rotation and companion planting to increase their soil health instead of fertilizers.
Of course, nobody is saying any of this is easy. It is putting a larger burden on farmers. But just like we expect our energy sector to innovate and renovate their unsustainable 'easy' practices, so should other industries. Agriculture is a massive piece of the global sustainable puzzle, so adding a carbon tax is definitely a step in the right direction.
There aren't a lot of details in the article, at least if the archive is complete.
So taxes on agriculture would simply be baked into the cost of goods being sold. Depending on the goal of the tax, there could be good and bad things here, possibly in tension. However, the article also said farmers would be eligible for deductions, but without knowing those details it can't be said what the impact to costs would be.
If the taxes raise the cost of food it's possible that it would send a signal to decrease consumption or reduce food waste. Of course, that disproportionally impacts the lowest income households. Edit: since the tax is based on emissions, it would also increase prices for high emissions foods more. So the price of meat would increase more than the price of beans.
Maybe the goal is simply to collect taxes to fund mitigation efforts, such as sequestration or other programs. However, the increase in tax deductions that the article mentions would seem to undercut this. If the government offsets the increased taxes with deductions, it is just changing the regulatory color of money. Maybe that is the easiest way to dedicate funds to mitigation programs that can't easily be changed, but it seems like a run around more direct routes.
But until we see more details it's hard to suss out.
Edit2: economists love making predictions on the impact of taxes on exports, so I'm curious to read the first real scholarly articles on the projected impacts of the tax on Danish agriculture exports. If there is harm to the farmers here, it would come from making their goods less desirable due to costs in both the domestic (cheaper imported goods) or foreign (cheaper domestic goods) markets.
While taxing carbon emissions is wonderful, why do they just HAVE to start with the poor people? And poor people whose jobs are literally essential for society? They need to go after the bigger guys that produce carbon via some fancy schmancy car or yacht. Imo.
However, I hope this becomes a trend and spreads to other areas of the world.
The majority of farms in Denmark are not run by poor people. They are run by workers who work for huge conglomerates - I don't remember the exact figure but it's something like 90%.
So if you, like me, had this idea that this is about little family owned & operated farms, that could hardly be more wrong. Most farmland here is heavily industrialized, more so reminiscent of factories than cute idyllic farms.
The costs will end up being rolled into the cost of goods sold. That might make them less competitive, especially for exports, but that would take some additional details to model.
But agriculture is a large producer of emissions, and many farms are quite large and use much of the land in Denmark. And the tax would raise prices more for high emissions products than lower emissions products, which might change consumption habits at a macro level.
But as I said in my other comment, there aren't enough details to see the effect here, especially when paired with undefined deductions.
The pdf you linked is made by an organisation that lobbied against this law, just fyi.
They are more than a little problematic, just one example here: https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/her-er-interviewet-der-fik-landbrug-foedevarer-til-at-sige-undskyld
I'm not surprised that a trade group would lobby against a tax on their constituents. I don't think that changes the point I made, assuming the data in the PDF is factual, though it is funny to use their data to argue in support of the tax.
Because thanks to the political economy, money is political power that can be wielded to prevent legislation that hurts the rich (or at least make it much harder to do so). Thus, you can have effort aimed equally at all targets but only (or disproportionately) the efforts targeting the poor will succeed.
The solution is to reform the political economy (which the rich will tend to prevent, thanks to the political economy) or to eat the rich (which the rich will tend to prevent, thanks to the political economy).
I don't know another Denmark, but the USDA considers farm sizes to be as follows:
Farmland averages a value of over $4K/acre, so a small farm easily is an asset of approximately a million dollars. That's "middle class 401K + house at retirement" territory. Not sure that counts as "poor."
In regards to operating revenue...if they're not making enough to make it worthwhile, they can cash out at any time. So unless they're really bad at business, I don't think they're sitting on an asset of that value for nothing.
Carbon is carbon, and agriculture emits a lot of it. I'd rather see a true, universal carbon tax maybe with some agricultural subsides to keep food prices down, but let's not keep pretending rustic subsistence farmers supplying the world's food are a thing...
How will a farmer reduce their carbon footprint? by using traditional tools?
First of all, by focusing more on crops with less impact then, for example, cattle ranching. This tax would make it more financially attractive to farm the kind of things with less of a carbon footprint.
Second, farmers can actually grow crops that can sequester carbon in the soil. In other words, these crops would have a negative carbon impact.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/soil-based-carbon-sequestration
The interesting thing is that many of the approaches also would decrease the incentive for mono-culture farming, which would also be beneficial for soil health, pollinators and biodiversity.
Another component in the sustainability of farms is actually also the nitrogen they consume by using industrial fertilizer. Many of these fertilizers are not only prone to polluting surrounding groundwater tables which eventually leads to river ecosystem collapse, but these fertilizers are made from fossil fuels! So another very beneficial thing farmers could do is use either biological, sustainable fertilizers, or use crop rotation and companion planting to increase their soil health instead of fertilizers.
Of course, nobody is saying any of this is easy. It is putting a larger burden on farmers. But just like we expect our energy sector to innovate and renovate their unsustainable 'easy' practices, so should other industries. Agriculture is a massive piece of the global sustainable puzzle, so adding a carbon tax is definitely a step in the right direction.