The Moral Justification Behind a Climate Tax on Beef in Denmark

Abstract

This paper discusses the moral justification behind placing a tax on foods in correlation with their greenhouse gas emissions. The background is a report from 2016 by the Danish Council of Ethics promoting a national tax on the consumption of meat from ruminants as an initial step to curb the 19-29% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stemming from the food sector. The paper describes the contribution of food production and consumption to climate change and how a change in diet, away from ruminant meat in particular, could lead to substantial reductions in GHG emissions from food production and consumption. We discuss whether, given the anticipated effects on humans and the nature of climate change, individual consumers have a moral responsibility to change their diet and/or whether governments are justified in restricting the individual consumer's freedom of choice through taxation in order to effectively reduce emissions. The paper concludes that such an intervention is warranted and necessary, both from an efficiency perspective and from an ethical perspective.

Environmental impact of meal service catering for dependent senior citizens in Danish municipalities

“…As a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of food consumption, the Danish Council of Ethics suggested raising the beef prices by taxation (Lykkeskov and Gjerris 2017). If this were to come true, financial reasons would force Danish meal services to decrease the number of beef meals they offer.…”

Controlling Sustainability in Swedish Beef Production: Outcomes for Farmers and the Environment

“…In this context it can also be questioned to what extent private business, such as ICA, can be expected to go much further than they do today to steer consumers toward sustainability.. Indeed much research in the field now suggests that increased state intervention is needed to steer food production and consumption more significantly toward sustainability (Lykkeskov and Gjerris 2017;Nordgren 2012). Despite the significant climate impact of beef production the farmers in our study only acknowledged their environmental impact to a limited extent.…”

“…From a perspective of strong sustainability, and Garnett's (2014) 'food system transformation' perspective, we argue here that overall, Swedish citizens need to reduce their beef consumption significantly to contribute to the global responsibility of mitigating climate change (see Lykkeskov and Gjerris 2017;Nordgren 2012 for a similar argumentation). This can be done without compromising human health and welfare (more likely reduced met consumption even has health benefits: WCRF 2016) and without compromising pasture biodiversity and open landscapes.…”

“…It is clear that reaching strong sustainability in beef production and consumption would require significant restructuring of the food system. Therefore we suggest, like much research in this vein (Lykkeskov and Gjerris 2017;Nordgren 2012) that further state intervention is needed to steer the retail sector, and that we need simultaneously to open this issue up for public deliberation (Leach et al 2010;Carolan 2014), where citizens rather than consumers are given access to the facts of the matter and can deliberate within the democratic system on different pathways to sustainable beef.…”

Understanding the Political Challenge of Red and Processed Meat Reduction for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: A Narrative Review of the Literature

“…This is evident in Denmark where a “meat tax” was proposed to Parliament following the release of a publication by the Danish Council of Ethics, an influential think-tank. 102 Whilst the tax did not eventuate in law, it demonstrates the important norm-promotion role that civil society groups can play. Furthermore, public education surrounding the issue of RPM and its associated harms has markedly increased in part due to signature reports from research groups such as International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, 40 EAT-Foundation, 32 World Cancer Research Fund, 9 and the World Wildlife Fund.…”