No abstract

The aim of this study was to determine transparent food carbon footprint values for use in a climate tax, using a consistent methodology across the taxed food products and taking into account the need for such a tax to be administratively simple and accepted by affected stakeholders. Methods A method based on Life Cycle Assessment following the ISO 14067 standard was developed for establishing simplified, yet consistent and transparent, datasets on the carbon footprint of food, for use as a base in a climate tax on food. Several sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the effects of inevitable methodological choices on the carbon footprint of different foods. The choices were then discussed in relation to taxation of food. The methodological choices included in the sensitivity analyses were different approaches to system boundaries, how to account for soil carbon changes and how to weigh greenhouse gases (GHGs). Results and discussion The results on the carbon footprint of food calculated with the suggested method are in line with earlier findings in the field, with animal products, especially beef, showing a substantially higher value than most plant-based foods. Regarding choice of system boundaries for using the values in a tax, it is of particular importance to target emissions from biological processes, as these are currently untaxed. This would also be administratively simpler but less acceptable as large emission sources especially for imported products and greenhouse grown vegetables would not be included. Modelling emissions from soil carbon changes using a site-dependent method can be an advantage to obtain results in line with empirical data. Using Global Warming Potential over 100 years to weigh GHGs would be most in line with current climate reporting, which is an advantage for the consistency and acceptability of a tax. Conclusions Ultimately, how taxes are set is a political decision, but food carbon footprint values determined with a consistent and simplified methodology are required in the process. This study presents carbon footprint values established using such method and provides valuable insights into how methodological choices affect the results of climate impact values and the implications for taxation.

No abstract

Mussel farming has been suggested as a low-cost option for reducing nutrient content in eutrophied waters. This study examines whether mussel farming contributes to reductions in total nutrient abatement cost and increases in equity for achieving nutrient load reduction targets to the Baltic Sea under different international policy regimes (cost-effective, country targets set by the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), and nutrient-trading markets). A cost-minimizing model is used to calculate the cost savings, and the analytical results show that mussel farming is a cost-effective option only when the marginal abatement cost is lower than for other abatement measures. The numerical cost-minimizing model of the Baltic Sea indicates that the largest abatement cost reductions from introduction mussel farming, approximately 3.5 billion SEK (9.36 SEK = 1 Euro), are obtained under the cost-effective and nutrient-trading systems. Equity, as measured by abatement cost in relation to affordability in terms of gross domestic product, is improved by mussel farming under the cost-effective regime but reduced under the BSAP country targets and nutrient-trading regimes.

Livestock cause around 10% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the European Union. Despite the large quantities, no economic policy is in place to reduce emissions from the sector. In this paper, we introduce consumption taxes on animal products in the European Union to reduce GHG emissions. Impacts are simulated using the CAPRI model, which was created to analyze the impacts of agricultural policy reforms within the EU. Tax levels of 16, 60 and 290 Euro per ton of GHG emissions are used in the estimations. Our results show that consumption taxes have small mitigation effects, up to 4.9% of total agricultural emissions from the EU-27, mainly due to inelastic demand. The main source of reductions is beef and France is the country where most reductions would take place, given high levels of production and consumption in the country, combined with a large demand elasticity of beef.