Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1476201
REARING livestock and growing crops to feed them has destroyed more tropical forest and killed more wildlife than any other industry. Animal agriculture al- so produces vast quantities of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. The environmental conse- quences are so profound that the world cannot meet climate goals and keep ecosystems in- tact without rich countries re- ducing their consumption of beef, pork and chicken. To slash emissions, slow the loss of biodiversity and secure food for a growing world pop- ulation, there must be a change in the way meat and dairy is made and consumed. A rapidly evolving market for novel alternatives, such as plant-based burgers, has made the switch from meat easier. Yet in countries such as Brit- ain, meat consumption has not fallen fast enough in recent years to sufficiently rein in ag- ricultural emissions. Instead, prices on meat and other animal products will eventually need to reflect all this damage. There are several ways to do this, but each inter- vention poses its own difficul- ties. In our view, the most like- ly result will be simple, di- rect taxes on meat and animal products. Our latest research, published in the Review of En- vironmental Economics and Policy, considered how an en- vironmental tax on meat could work. Our calculations suggest that the average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35%- 56% for beef, 25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental costs of their production. In the UK, where the average price for a 200g beef steak is around £2.80, consumers would pay between £3.80 and £4.30 at the checkout instead. Fortunately, our research found that a meat tax, if im- plemented correctly, need not increase the pressure on poor- er households – or the farming industry. Fairer, healthier and greener food Before food prices soared in response to the Russian in- vasion of Ukraine, the idea of a meat tax was already being mulled by agricultural minis- ters in countries like Germa- ny and the Netherlands. Even if a meat tax is currently un- thinkable in the current polit- ical environment, higher taxes on meat and dairy may become inevitable to decarbonise agri- culture at the necessary pace for limiting global heating to at least 1.5°C. Our analysis showed that by redistributing revenue from a tax on the sale of meat and animal products evenly across the population, in the form of uniform lump sum payments at the end of each year perhaps, most people on low incomes would have more money than before the tax reform. Would people spend this compensation on meat or oth- er products tied to high levels of pollution? Research from British Columbia in Cana- da showed that returning the proceeds from a carbon tax to citizens had no significant ef- fect on how much the province cut emissions (between 5% and 15%). Making meat relatively more expensive would most likely encourage people to spend their money elsewhere. Part of the tax revenue could finance subsidies for growing vegetables, grains and alterna- tive proteins, or help low-in- come households meet their food bills on a more regular basis. Just as meat and dairy must become more expensive, healthy and sustainable plant- based foods should become more affordable. Using reve- nue from a meat tax to cut val- ue-added taxes on fruit, vege- tables, and grains for example, could provide much-needed relief to poorer households during a cost of living crisis, while encouraging everyone to reduce their intake of animal products. Levelling the playing field Other types of regulation, such as stricter rules on man- aging animal feed or manure more sustainably, run the risk of putting domestic livestock farmers at a disadvantage com- pared to competitors from abroad who are not burdened with the additional costs of complying with these rules. This is why a form of "border adjustment", as economists call it, is also necessary to include products from overseas. A tax levied on any firm sell- ing meat – including restau- rants and cafes as well as super- markets – in a given country would capture all meat produc- ers. Other research indicates that consumers are typically more supportive of environ- mental taxes of this nature if they are phased in with a lower tax rate initially. Some of the revenue raised by the tax could be given di- rectly to farmers, leaving them with higher profits than before. This could be paid according to their work stewarding the land, restoring habitats like peat bogs. Or, it could help them in- vest in the transition to new in- come streams, such as produc- ing high-quality, organic meat from low-density herds which, when consumed in much lower quantities, may still be compat- ible with emissions targets. Taking steps to make plant- based foods more affordable and meat substitutes more at- tractive will pave the way for a future in which it's possible to make meat and dairy much more expensive. The good news is that – once their time has come – meat taxes could actually help us eat better, at lower cost. If implemented correctly, a meat tax could protect the en- vironment, while helping se- cure a sustainable future for livestock farmers, as well as affordable and sustainable food for all. maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 AUGUST 2022 13 OPINION A meat tax is probably inevitable – here's how it could work Cameron Hepburn & Franziska Funke Cameron Hepburn, University of Oxford Franziska Funke, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research The average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35%-56% for beef, 25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental costs of their production