Greenhouse Gas Taxes on Meat Products: A Legal Perspective

Abstract

Meat production and the transport sector contribute almost equally to global warming. However, unlike the transport sector, in terms of climate change policies meat production is relatively unregulated. Many scientists have called for a meat tax as a means of reducing consumption but governments and politicians have not responded. Has the law been an obstacle to the acceptance of a meat tax? To address that question, this article analyzes three examples of European Union (EU) taxes that could be imposed on the consumption of domestic and imported meat, and examines them in relation to the international climate change regime, human rights law, and the legal regimes of the World Trade Organization and the EU. It shows that, if carefully designed, an EU meat tax is consistent with these bodies of law. To address adequately the industrial sectors that give rise to global warming, governments will need to overcome the taboo relating to the concept of a meat tax.

The Moral Justification Behind a Climate Tax on Beef in Denmark

“…Nordgren (2012aNordgren ( , 2012b) makes a moral argument in favour of a climate tax on in the first instance the consumption of ruminant meat. Bähr (2014) argues that a EU meat tax is consistent with EU law, and that governments will need to introduce such a tax to adequately address all sectors that give rise to global warming, A climate tax should be followed by other measures, of course, but a tax on red meat could lead to a number of significant developments: a) it would limit the consumption of beef, thus reducing the emissions from Danish food consumption, b) it would send a clear signal to consumers about the role of food consumption in causing climate change, and pave the way for more wide-reaching taxation on foods in relation to their climatic impact and c) it would give Denmark a credible voice in international negotiations on lowering food-related GHG emissions by setting an example that other nations would hopefully follow (Danish Council of Ethics 2016).…”

Land Use, Livestock, Quantity Governance, and Economic Instruments—Sustainability Beyond Big Livestock Herds and Fossil Fuels

“…The digestive system of ruminants inevitably produces CH 4 and the production of N 2 O in connection with fertilisation is part of the N cycle [77] (p. 244), [80] (p. 163). Without a reduction in animal food, solely through productivity increases, technical measures and switching to agricultural practices such as organic farming, limiting global warming to 1.5 • C probably cannot be achieved [21] (p. 320), [29] (p. 89), [75] (p. 76), [81] (p. 174), [82].…”

“…This is also due to the fact that e.g., meat taxes, feed taxes or N levies only address individual aspects of livestock products (more detailed on this [18] (pp. 341-351), [80,81,88,89]). Instead, as announced, a cap-and-trade approach and a livestock-to-land ratio will be discussed in the following, as well as a possible combination of both policy approaches.…”

“…One way of reducing transaction costs is to use general or output-based emission values per animal or per kilogram of product [88] (p. 398) similar examples with meat taxes [80], [81] (p. 157). That way, the control variable for a cap-and-trade system would be much more tangible, since it would be easier to measure objectively the number of animals or the quantity of animal products than emissions from a farm keeping animals that can be determined on the basis of numerous characteristic values [80,110].…”

The Impact of Soil Carbon Sequestration on Adaptation in Europe's Agricultural Sector and the Potential Role of Regulatory Instruments

“…Additional instruments should also be targeted at consumers, especially instrument aimed at steering consumers' dietary choices away from meat, for instance by a meat tax. 129 As a final remark, it should be noted that alternative approach is potentially contrary to current WTO law, especially in case benefits from soil carbon sequestration projects, either from improved productivity or the sale of carbon credits under the EU ETS, greatly surpass the costs associated to the introduction of soil carbon sequestration measures. 130 This paper assessed current and proposed EU climate law and the legal instruments associated to the common agricultural policy to see whether and in how far soil carbon sequestration and associated adaptation is or can be promoted through the use of these current or proposed instruments.…”