The agriculture sector is one of the main three sources of greenhouse gas emissions, where cattle, sheep and goat production currently produces approximately half of that amount. Specifically in Canada, 10 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production. Despite this large share of our country’s emissions coming from this source, there has been relatively no mention of agriculture in addressing climate change at the federal or provincial level. This lack of attention, when compared to factors such as renewable energy and green transportation, is palpable. This inaction in confronting the effects of animal agriculture and the West’s market for meat and dairy on the planet is detrimental. Without considerable action to address climate change on multiple levels, mitigation will be futile.
A recent study published in Nature by a group of German researchers shows that the social and environmental costs due to greenhouse gases emissions are currently not considered in the cost structure of farmers or subsequent food chains. The external costs of meat on the planet are not included in the market prices for these foods, leading to price distortions and a huge under-pricing problem. Researchers suggest incorporating the “polluters-pay principle”, which implies that in order to compensate for externalities of meat production (such as catastrophic climate change), these costs should be levied on the producer prices of food. Raising the price of meat would place the financial burden of an environmentally damaging diet on the consumer, rather than spreading the cost in the form of funds spent on flood prevention and other extreme weather events. This could come in the form of a ‘meat tax’. The funny thing is, this would not really be a ‘tax’, but rather than the government reducing subsidies, it gives to the meat and dairy industries. Agriculture Canada’s website reveals that nearly $2 billion in government subsidies were provided to animal agribusiness, including dairy, pork, beef and chicken industries in 2019. This should not come as a surprise, as many sectors would not be viable were it not for multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The idea of a ‘meat tax’ has been gaining traction in the past few years. The EU and the UK are both urged to adopt such a tax to tackle the climate emergency. Governments do occasionally impose what is known as a ‘sin tax’ on what they consider to be undesirable or harmful goods, like sugary drinks, cigarettes and alcohol. Indeed, these taxes do seem to work. In 2012, the Journal of Public Economics did a meta study which showed that a sugar tax led to a moderate decrease in soft-drink consumption. If this is also true for meat, it could possibly lead to consumers supplementing meat with plant-based alternatives, and possible gains would be made in terms of sustainability and health. So, has the time come for us to impose a tax on meat? Here, the climate concern is not the only reason why such a tax would make sense. Meat has significant adverse health effects: the WHO has declared red meat a level 2 carcinogen and processed meat a level 1 carcinogen. Research done by Professor Springmann and colleagues out of Oxford in 2018 calculated that a 20 per cent tax on red meat would be needed to cover the associated healthcare costs, and a 110 per cent tax on processed products like bacon, which are more harmful. Taxing meat could not only help to save the environment, but also human lives.
However, like with any tax or economic policy, there are dangers to those who already find it difficult to get food on the table. Still, the meat tax could be revenue-neutral, meaning that the tax could be used to fund green infrastructure and sustainable initiatives. Also, federal and provincial governments could redirect subsidies so that family farmers and individuals who are food insecure would be the primary beneficiaries. Lastly, it could also be used to decrease the cost of plant-based alternatives, beans, pulses and produce. It is important to set up the scheme in such a way that it does not disadvantage Canadian farmers and just lead to an increase in animal protein imports, which may cause increased greenhouse gas emissions in other countries. This obstacle can be tackled by monitoring food imports and ensuring that meat and dairy levels do not increase, as well as the introduction of possible tariffs. A meat tax would not only work at a collective level but on an individual one as well. It would empower people to realize that their individual choices can effect real change. Many people struggle with the climate emergency, and despite the feeling that nothing they can do will make a difference, this change will signal that this is not always the case, especially with government aid.
While governments have targeted renewable energy and transport in their climate policies, initiatives to reduce the impact of food and farming on the climate have lagged behind. We have known for years the devastating impact of animal agriculture in its contribution to climate change. Think of a meat tax as being similar to a carbon tax – we cannot achieve net-zero mitigation if we ignore a large part of our emissions. If we want to commit to achieving our Paris Agreement goals, the government must address animal agriculture in its climate action plans, where minimizing the impact of these industries must be a part of the solution.