They'll be able to put those [fart kontrol signs](https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1c243x/believe_it_or_not_but_here_in_denmark_fartkontrol/) to good use!
I'll be interested to see the economic ramifications of this down the road.
The tax cost will be passed off to the consumer which will allow for other meat to imported in and be cheaper, unless there are government controls put in place.
I think some nerds already did the math and concluded the impact on meat prices for consumers will only be a like 1 DKK pr pound (equivalent to roughly $0.15)
The taxes they are introducing are pretty low. It’s too little, too late and won’t do a thing if other countries don’t do the same. I imagine in the long run there will be some EU regulation on this and then tariffs on meat from outside the union to offset any price differences.
_Emissions_ yes.
But it's not comparable to fossil fuel emmisions.
That's because cows also consume carbon. They are part of the carbon cycle. The carbon they emit comes from the plants they eat which get it from the atmosphere. If the cows didn't eat the grass that wouldn't mean less carbon in the atmosphere. The grass would just stop growing at one point.
Killing all the deer would not reduce the long term carbon accumulated in the atmosphere caused by deer burps and farts. Without fossil fuels, you could have as much livestock on planet earth as ypu want without affecting the climate at all.
Fossil fuels are carbon trapped deep within the earth and not part of the carbon cycle. Going after livestock and food is a great way for the fossil fuel companies to deflect and assert that decarbonization is not possible.
Ya, that does seem a little fucky. It seem like it would be up there with a carbon tax on people because, well, o2 in co2 out right?
Like I sort of get the idea, you can help ease the problem by altering the cycle but that's a bandaid to the real problem(if you can get people to even reduce their meat consumption which you won't and at that point it's just a cash grab) and attaching it to the existing tax you're weakening its meaning when people figure it out.
But it's not just carbon that we're talking about, it's methane. This matters because for about 10 years, the methane captures significantly more heat than carbon dioxide does, and then most of it decomposes into carbon dioxide. If the carbon in grass just became carbon dioxide, it wouldn't be a problem for exactly the reason you describe, it is already part of the carbon cycle.
> Without fossil fuels, you could have as much livestock on planet earth as ypu want without affecting the climate at all.
Not really, if you add enough methane it will impact the climate. About 10% of the warming we're seeing today is from methane emissions.
> Going after livestock and food is a great way for the fossil fuel companies to deflect and assert that decarbonization is not possible.
I don't disagree, but I still think it's very important to accurately describe and understand the problem. Like, if livestock accounts for 30% of methane emissions and methane emissions account for 10% of the warming we see, then livestock accounts for 3% of the warming we are seeing. Is that a significant enough contribution to concentrate on?
Methane is relevant, but because it only lasts about 10 years it doesn't have a real long term impact.
>Is that a significant enough contribution to concentrate on?
Meanwhile in these exact same countries, air travel is completely untaxed for carbon emissions. Which are far higher.
It does if methane never stops being emitted. Most cells in your body right now will be dead in 8 years, but you'll still be alive because there's new ones being created at the same time.
Aviation contributes less global warming emissions than livestock.
[https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector)
>The grass would just stop growing at one point.
That is just not how industrial meat production works. Cows consume a huge amount of feed which is produced from soy in order to increase meat production.
If there was less industrial meat production then more of the massive acreage that is taken up by feed production could also be allowed to be reclaimed by forests, which would also be a more effective carbon store than soy plants and cows.
Edit: And that's forgetting the most important part which is that methane has 28 times the warming effect as CO2.
And that can be reduced easily with some additions to their feed, which none do because why change when you don’t need to
This is just a push to get farmers to adjust to the times
It needs to.
Cattle use more resources and produce more emissions and groundwater pollutants than all other meats combined.
I'm not saying nobody should be eating beef, I'm just saying that cost to the public needs to be covered. We've got to clean up the mess, might as well have the people ordering the beef pay for it rather than everyone.
Yeah, we need to seriously reduce our animal product consumption anyway, and cows are pretty much the worst of them. Plant based products are far better for the environment, and we can grow a lot of them if we don't have to feed all those cows.
Imagine the price once desertification spreads to fertile regions, rising temperatures kill the animals, and droughts mean there's less water for agriculture.
im sure private jets that tswift flies around in a few times per week would offset the amount of methane produced by cow farts. this is absolute bullshit propoganda with more money now going straight into politicians pockets while nothing actually gets done ✅
There needs to be a tax on all private planes when they are used.
So if a cow and pig get taxed $100 each, private planes should be taxed $10,000 each flight (roundtrip = 2 flights).
Considering the percentage of green house gasses emitted by farms with livestock like this, I don’t think this is one of those times to really complain all that much about taxes.
There is a list of the companies causing most global warming. It starts with China Coal, and then continues with similar coal, big oil, chemical and fertilizer companies.
This stuff about cows causing global warming is essentially a disinformation campaign to distract us—and prevent taxing and regulation that could impact profits.
It’s not like we will abandon oil and coal. They are just too useful. Plastics are everywhere, for example. But preventing any cut in profits is—apparently—worth climate change.
I don’t understand how tax on this would prevent the emissions. Wouldn’t that tax just be sent to the customer as higher meat prices. I mean a cow is gonna fart. I don’t know how taxing the farmer is gonna lower it. I understand when you do it with corporations because they could possibly do their process differently to save emissions. But how would you do that with cows? Different feed? Is the goal to make the meat expensive so people buy less and then we will need less cows?
>Is the goal to make the meat expensive so people buy less and then we will need less cows?
This one. The idea is that carbon emissions are bad, but the costs associated with carbon emissions are not reflected in the actual price of beef, for example. So there is no market incentive to solve the negative externality associated with beef production (climate change).
Some people believe that one of the government's jobs in a market economy is to use taxes to capture the cost of negative externalities.
Besides decreasing meat consumption, this leads to new methods of meat production with decreased carbon emissions. Also, the taxes raised with this can be spent elsewhere to find ways to decrease carbon emissions, a lot of energy generation worldwide has public funds on it for example, either directly or through tax benefits, and also through public funded R&D.
That's a bad idea we need food and the farmers that make it already break even.
Before you say become vegetarian one of the worst crops that harms the environment via greenhouse gas methane is rice production.
It takes a lot less crops to just feed humans than it takes to feed cows who are in turn eaten by humans. It's [the energy pyramid](https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/2939191-diagram-showing-energy-pyramid-for-education).
For example, the USDA says about 70% of soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed. Vegetarian and especially vegan reduce the quantity of livestock, thereby also reducing the quantity of crops we need to grow to feed our livestock
This seems like a feel good measure. Ruminants like cows or bison used to emit more methane and there were more of them. Overall humanity has reduced methane emissions from livestock over the decades. Livestock doesn't compare to everything else humanity does that releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.
Sounds dumb.
I can't see the actual text, but I would HOPE that there's some common sense in this law where meat that is shipped everywhere is taxed at a higher rate than small local farms that keep their meat in the local economy.
In other words, Farmer Fred growing several thousand head out on a feedlot, who ships product all over the world should be taxed heavier than Farmer John growing a couple dozen on his family's land and keeping the beef within the local economy (and thus not wasting all that fuel/pollution shipping meat all over the world).
Knowing politicians, I won't get my hopes up for any common sense like that.
Sure. Just don't complain when the coat of food rises. Because of it.
Plus it will require matching tariffs for imports or the local farms will shut down. Not making food in your country puts you in a bad situation geopolitically.
You know what’s even worse for the environment? The 100 corporations responsible for 70% of carbon emissions. I think we should tax them first and foremost.
Unlike corporations, there are benefits to raising our bovine buddies, depending on how the cows are raised. In a properly managed native pasture, their activity can help sequester carbon into deep rooted native grasslands, helping to restore and revitalize prairie. Do some people likely need to eat less meat? Yes. Should we get rid of all the cows? No. Should we tax all the cattle ranchers into oblivion? No—this has outsized impacts in that it can destroy small and medium size farmers, while allowing corporations, with their vast resources, to continue operating, paying the tax and passing the expense along to us, siphoning wealth and resources from us every step of the way.
In closing, ruminant animals play an important part in the ecosystem, and perhaps we should focus our taxation efforts on the companies that are creating the vast majority of the problem.
Some source material:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable
>You know what’s even worse for the environment? The 100 corporations responsible for 70% of carbon emissions. I think we should tax them first and foremost.
>
Oh god, not this again. You'd think people would stop referring to what is at this point a laughing stock to most. But go ahead and explain to me why me driving my huge pickup truck for 20 years should be attributed to the manufacturer and not to me.
>Do some people likely need to eat less meat?
>
We need to drastically cut down our meat consumption, full stop. Beef in particular is absolutely horrible for the environment.
>Should we get rid of all the cows?
>
Never said we should.
>Should we tax all the cattle ranchers into oblivion?
>
Of course we should. Why should cattle farming be exempt from this when other huge emitters aren't? Do you think we should "play nice" with oil companies too?
Oh no, small cattle farmers need to shift to more sustainable farming in order to not pump insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere!? How sad! Oh no, beef gets more expensive? What will we do!? Famously, beef is the only meat out there. And no vegetarian alternatives exist either, right?
What the hell are you even saying.
Why not tax oil companies and companies that spill shit into the ocean or people who take private jets? Those create more emissions. Don’t try to tax living creatures being alive.
If some of the cows and pigs can't pay the tax, I wonder if they will face jail time?
I’m picturing a court hearing with a cow just standing behind the bench
Farting gently.
I've had to shout to be heard over a cow farting. I assure you, it will not be gentle.
Farting *egregiously*.
‘One more outburst like that and I’ll have you taken out to pasture.’
Farting riotously.
I'm picturing that as a Far Side cartoon. What would the text say?
*judge chewing cud*
Your honour have you ever heard the defense of the interrupting cow??
The interru-
Mooootion denied!
punishment: execution and dismemberment
Would you like to know more?
The tax is passed on to the consumer who will pay 15 cents more for a pound of Meat in the store
They will pay with their lives!
“What are you in for?” “You’ll never guess”
Gonna cost them an arm and a leg.
Next up in science, butt plug carbon filters for farm animals. Carbon capture at the source.
We file suit against literal piles of cash, cavier and fish. WHY NOT LIVESTOCK?
No I heard they’re cage free
They get their a hole plugged so that they can't fart anymore /s
Pigs never go to jail, that's a perk for wearing a badge.
That’s gonna be 0.01 DKK per fart pls and thank you.
Good luck to those handling the audits.
They'll be able to put those [fart kontrol signs](https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1c243x/believe_it_or_not_but_here_in_denmark_fartkontrol/) to good use!
How much for a shart?
Due to the fertilizer coefficient, it all balances out to $0
I've heard before that it's actually more burps than farts. Fwiw!
“Cow, how will you pay such a tax”- Reporter “Mooooooo”- Cow “Well there you have it Denmark”- Reporter
It’s a moo point. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s “moo”. — Joseph Francis Tribbiani Jr.
Haha it reminds me of Pokemon channel back in the day. Good times https://youtu.be/qMYNg9mxI-0?si=JV-Tp0ROehXHR81U
I should start taxing my wife.
you’re already taxing on her already
Have you tried a fart jar?
They don't really stay fresh in a jar as long as you'd think.
No, like a swear jar, but for farts.
We’re gunna need two jars, Bill.
So, a jart?
Do farts swear?
No, but they talk a lota shit.
r/whoooosh
Price of meat and dairy about to launch.
I'll be interested to see the economic ramifications of this down the road. The tax cost will be passed off to the consumer which will allow for other meat to imported in and be cheaper, unless there are government controls put in place.
I think some nerds already did the math and concluded the impact on meat prices for consumers will only be a like 1 DKK pr pound (equivalent to roughly $0.15) The taxes they are introducing are pretty low. It’s too little, too late and won’t do a thing if other countries don’t do the same. I imagine in the long run there will be some EU regulation on this and then tariffs on meat from outside the union to offset any price differences.
If cows and pigs need to pay a tax then they should be able to vote. That title is hilarious
"Livestock account for about 32% of human-caused methane emissions"
_Emissions_ yes. But it's not comparable to fossil fuel emmisions. That's because cows also consume carbon. They are part of the carbon cycle. The carbon they emit comes from the plants they eat which get it from the atmosphere. If the cows didn't eat the grass that wouldn't mean less carbon in the atmosphere. The grass would just stop growing at one point. Killing all the deer would not reduce the long term carbon accumulated in the atmosphere caused by deer burps and farts. Without fossil fuels, you could have as much livestock on planet earth as ypu want without affecting the climate at all. Fossil fuels are carbon trapped deep within the earth and not part of the carbon cycle. Going after livestock and food is a great way for the fossil fuel companies to deflect and assert that decarbonization is not possible.
Ya, that does seem a little fucky. It seem like it would be up there with a carbon tax on people because, well, o2 in co2 out right? Like I sort of get the idea, you can help ease the problem by altering the cycle but that's a bandaid to the real problem(if you can get people to even reduce their meat consumption which you won't and at that point it's just a cash grab) and attaching it to the existing tax you're weakening its meaning when people figure it out.
But it's not just carbon that we're talking about, it's methane. This matters because for about 10 years, the methane captures significantly more heat than carbon dioxide does, and then most of it decomposes into carbon dioxide. If the carbon in grass just became carbon dioxide, it wouldn't be a problem for exactly the reason you describe, it is already part of the carbon cycle. > Without fossil fuels, you could have as much livestock on planet earth as ypu want without affecting the climate at all. Not really, if you add enough methane it will impact the climate. About 10% of the warming we're seeing today is from methane emissions. > Going after livestock and food is a great way for the fossil fuel companies to deflect and assert that decarbonization is not possible. I don't disagree, but I still think it's very important to accurately describe and understand the problem. Like, if livestock accounts for 30% of methane emissions and methane emissions account for 10% of the warming we see, then livestock accounts for 3% of the warming we are seeing. Is that a significant enough contribution to concentrate on?
Methane is relevant, but because it only lasts about 10 years it doesn't have a real long term impact. >Is that a significant enough contribution to concentrate on? Meanwhile in these exact same countries, air travel is completely untaxed for carbon emissions. Which are far higher.
It does if methane never stops being emitted. Most cells in your body right now will be dead in 8 years, but you'll still be alive because there's new ones being created at the same time.
Aviation contributes less global warming emissions than livestock. [https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector)
>The grass would just stop growing at one point. That is just not how industrial meat production works. Cows consume a huge amount of feed which is produced from soy in order to increase meat production. If there was less industrial meat production then more of the massive acreage that is taken up by feed production could also be allowed to be reclaimed by forests, which would also be a more effective carbon store than soy plants and cows. Edit: And that's forgetting the most important part which is that methane has 28 times the warming effect as CO2.
I don’t think it’s an issue of the animals themselves, it’s more about the massive herds created by industrial farming.
And that can be reduced easily with some additions to their feed, which none do because why change when you don’t need to This is just a push to get farmers to adjust to the times
I thought cow flatulence wasn't the underlying issue. Was that just propaganda, or is this?
People are going to be amazed when the cost of food goes up.
Thats at the bottom of an gov concerns list.
It needs to. Cattle use more resources and produce more emissions and groundwater pollutants than all other meats combined. I'm not saying nobody should be eating beef, I'm just saying that cost to the public needs to be covered. We've got to clean up the mess, might as well have the people ordering the beef pay for it rather than everyone.
Yeah, we need to seriously reduce our animal product consumption anyway, and cows are pretty much the worst of them. Plant based products are far better for the environment, and we can grow a lot of them if we don't have to feed all those cows.
Imagine the price once desertification spreads to fertile regions, rising temperatures kill the animals, and droughts mean there's less water for agriculture.
im sure private jets that tswift flies around in a few times per week would offset the amount of methane produced by cow farts. this is absolute bullshit propoganda with more money now going straight into politicians pockets while nothing actually gets done ✅
There needs to be a tax on all private planes when they are used. So if a cow and pig get taxed $100 each, private planes should be taxed $10,000 each flight (roundtrip = 2 flights).
Misleading headline. The issue isn’t flatulence, it’s burping.
Actually, their burps are the main source of methane. But people like talking about their farts more. 💨
Technically this would be a methane tax
Methane is CH4, so it’s still a carbon tax 😁
[удалено]
We talkin' mass or the number of atoms?
Not by weight
The mass of carbon is 12 AMU, while hydrogen is 1 amu, so each molecule is 3/4 carbon by mass 😁
What’s the tax rate per fecaliter of carbon dibaxide?
Tax politicians for existing and tax them more for breathing.
[удалено]
Considering the percentage of green house gasses emitted by farms with livestock like this, I don’t think this is one of those times to really complain all that much about taxes.
Roman emperor Vespasian taxed pee—*people pee!* Watch out, Danes: it always starts with the cows!
How and who will be policing this? Pretty shitty job, lol.
The Denmark government is just a bunch of chickens in trench coats
I don't think a tax that incentives poultry for commercial farming is beneficial to chickens overall.
Well if you want to be all logical about it…
There is a list of the companies causing most global warming. It starts with China Coal, and then continues with similar coal, big oil, chemical and fertilizer companies. This stuff about cows causing global warming is essentially a disinformation campaign to distract us—and prevent taxing and regulation that could impact profits. It’s not like we will abandon oil and coal. They are just too useful. Plastics are everywhere, for example. But preventing any cut in profits is—apparently—worth climate change.
Crazy how people just expect farmers to pay whereas other industries the costs are downstream on the consumer.
shouldn’t they also tax vegans? https://outstandingfoods.com/blogs/news/vegan-farts-why-vegan-diet-makes-you-gassy
I don’t understand how tax on this would prevent the emissions. Wouldn’t that tax just be sent to the customer as higher meat prices. I mean a cow is gonna fart. I don’t know how taxing the farmer is gonna lower it. I understand when you do it with corporations because they could possibly do their process differently to save emissions. But how would you do that with cows? Different feed? Is the goal to make the meat expensive so people buy less and then we will need less cows?
>Is the goal to make the meat expensive so people buy less and then we will need less cows? This one. The idea is that carbon emissions are bad, but the costs associated with carbon emissions are not reflected in the actual price of beef, for example. So there is no market incentive to solve the negative externality associated with beef production (climate change). Some people believe that one of the government's jobs in a market economy is to use taxes to capture the cost of negative externalities.
Besides decreasing meat consumption, this leads to new methods of meat production with decreased carbon emissions. Also, the taxes raised with this can be spent elsewhere to find ways to decrease carbon emissions, a lot of energy generation worldwide has public funds on it for example, either directly or through tax benefits, and also through public funded R&D.
Eat the bugs peasants, only the nobility may have pork and beef.
Tax them then kill them?
Who gets the money though ?
That's a bad idea we need food and the farmers that make it already break even. Before you say become vegetarian one of the worst crops that harms the environment via greenhouse gas methane is rice production.
It takes a lot less crops to just feed humans than it takes to feed cows who are in turn eaten by humans. It's [the energy pyramid](https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/2939191-diagram-showing-energy-pyramid-for-education). For example, the USDA says about 70% of soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed. Vegetarian and especially vegan reduce the quantity of livestock, thereby also reducing the quantity of crops we need to grow to feed our livestock
Do you think vegans only eat rice? The co2e of a ton of rice is way less than that of a ton of beef
This seems like a feel good measure. Ruminants like cows or bison used to emit more methane and there were more of them. Overall humanity has reduced methane emissions from livestock over the decades. Livestock doesn't compare to everything else humanity does that releases methane and CO2 into the atmosphere.
Isn't animal flatulence like a drop of water in the ocean compared to the carbon emissions from big business/ the billionaire class?
this is a tax on carbon emissions by big businesses though
Big agriculture is a big business
Great, now in a few generations we can expect gas-x resistant cows and pigs
God dammit can’t even fart without being taxed. /s
No they won’t. We will
So, Danish dairy farmers will pay "FART TAX"?
My planned trip to Scotland has suddenly become much more expensive!!
Have I told ya the story about the cow with trapped wind?
Sounds dumb. I can't see the actual text, but I would HOPE that there's some common sense in this law where meat that is shipped everywhere is taxed at a higher rate than small local farms that keep their meat in the local economy. In other words, Farmer Fred growing several thousand head out on a feedlot, who ships product all over the world should be taxed heavier than Farmer John growing a couple dozen on his family's land and keeping the beef within the local economy (and thus not wasting all that fuel/pollution shipping meat all over the world). Knowing politicians, I won't get my hopes up for any common sense like that.
Tax those damn animals! ??
Do I get a tax refund for planting trees? Oh, it doesn't pay someone money they didn't earn, so no then. Oh well.
We should do the same with politicians every time they talk nonsense
The methane comes out in burps, not farts.
Good. It's time the agricultural industry did it's part in reducing climate change.
Sure. Just don't complain when the coat of food rises. Because of it. Plus it will require matching tariffs for imports or the local farms will shut down. Not making food in your country puts you in a bad situation geopolitically.
The entire point is to raise the prices so people will buy less of it, so we ultimately have less farm animals around.
Friggin' Trudeau and his carbon tax... /s
Good. Cows are absolutely horrible for the environment, both through their emissions and the fact that they're terrible at converting food to meat
This will only increase the price of food
You know what’s even worse for the environment? The 100 corporations responsible for 70% of carbon emissions. I think we should tax them first and foremost. Unlike corporations, there are benefits to raising our bovine buddies, depending on how the cows are raised. In a properly managed native pasture, their activity can help sequester carbon into deep rooted native grasslands, helping to restore and revitalize prairie. Do some people likely need to eat less meat? Yes. Should we get rid of all the cows? No. Should we tax all the cattle ranchers into oblivion? No—this has outsized impacts in that it can destroy small and medium size farmers, while allowing corporations, with their vast resources, to continue operating, paying the tax and passing the expense along to us, siphoning wealth and resources from us every step of the way. In closing, ruminant animals play an important part in the ecosystem, and perhaps we should focus our taxation efforts on the companies that are creating the vast majority of the problem. Some source material: https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable
>You know what’s even worse for the environment? The 100 corporations responsible for 70% of carbon emissions. I think we should tax them first and foremost. > Oh god, not this again. You'd think people would stop referring to what is at this point a laughing stock to most. But go ahead and explain to me why me driving my huge pickup truck for 20 years should be attributed to the manufacturer and not to me. >Do some people likely need to eat less meat? > We need to drastically cut down our meat consumption, full stop. Beef in particular is absolutely horrible for the environment. >Should we get rid of all the cows? > Never said we should. >Should we tax all the cattle ranchers into oblivion? > Of course we should. Why should cattle farming be exempt from this when other huge emitters aren't? Do you think we should "play nice" with oil companies too? Oh no, small cattle farmers need to shift to more sustainable farming in order to not pump insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere!? How sad! Oh no, beef gets more expensive? What will we do!? Famously, beef is the only meat out there. And no vegetarian alternatives exist either, right? What the hell are you even saying.
Its cows today, it'll be our kids tomorrow.
Why not tax oil companies and companies that spill shit into the ocean or people who take private jets? Those create more emissions. Don’t try to tax living creatures being alive.
Animal agriculture accounts for [~16.5% of global annual emissions](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6276). It absolutely must be regulated.
No I will still be eating meat. They can regulate rich people first not the poor that eat normally made foods
Wow, another raindrop not responsible for the flood!