It's sometimes thought that tax is complex. And sometimes it is. And that's why many people misunderstand a lot about taxation. But it does not always need to be so.
It's my suggestion that we need to use Tax to Save the Environment (TASTE). Let me start with a simple example of something we could do now.
We now know that there is a massive problem with methane created by cattle, sheep and (to a somewhat lesser degree) goats. There is a way to address this issue in the UK. We could put VAT on all food the products that are created from them. We can do this now. VAT on food is allowed under EU law. And it would work: it would shift pricing and so reorientate people towards other products, of which there are many that are available.
I know this would be controversial: I am aware that the big problem would be around milk. The rate of tax on milk might then be open to discussion. On everything else standard rate VAT should be applied now, in my opinion.
And to ensure hardship does not result revenue raised must be matched by the allocation of additional funds to benefits.
This is simple, possible, and achievable now.
It's the first Tax to Save The Environment. There will be more.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Hello
Curious why you pick VAT?
Why not copy the plastic bag / fizzy drink levies?
Easier to impose – think of the plastic bag tax levy not actually going to govt. and the. Adjust or withdraw.
10p a time is not enough
The amount wasn’t the question. It’s the tax – why VAT? Plenty of countries have attempted luxury or sin VAT, only to withdraw them because tricky to implement and opens up fraud.
The other question would be is how elastic is the expenditure of less well off for such meat. There have been plenty of studies showing they absorb it and end up paying more tax proportionately. Taxes on cigarettes an example. Some early proof fizzy drinks is emerging now too.
OK
Better charge than not
And then follow up with regulation if there is no impact
Tax meat raised by intensive means in sheds, feed lots and fed on grains and other products requiring the use of fossil fuel derived fertilisers. In fact, I would ban it. Cattle reared extensively on the hills and uplands, organically or near-organically can contribute to the ecology and keep people employed. Otherwise these areas, already cleared following enclosures and sheep ranching, will become deserts.
No, we need to forest them
Do you need a yellow vest to drive in the UK?
??
It was a France reference, but I assume you got that. Here is what it’s like for Dairy farmers in the states:
http://www.startribune.com/wrenching-video-from-pine-island-dairy-farmer-highlights-desperation-on-the-farm/508448212/
Adding a vat is a great way to reduce consumption but that means less profits for the the producers. It would be best to have a plan to deal with that displacement or risk coming across like ‘Jupiter.’
I’m with Graham.
We cannot live on forest.
We cannot bring up our young on a vegan diet without health problems and vegetarian is only okay as long as it includes eggs and, very probably dairy.
Methane is a way, way more important consideration for shed fed cattle than for grass fed – where it is increasingly now felt that actually the carbon impact is (close to or actually?) zero because the grazing ground on which they stand always absorbs carbon. Put them on concrete and feed them grain – like the US, Southern Europe and Denmark, then none of that applies. In the UK and Ireland there is no need ( though some large players perceive a financial need). We should be feeding Southern Europe with beef/lamb and dairy ( to some extent we already do) – they can feed us with early arable crops. Denmark should be reviewing its farming practices.
Further, soil health is considerably improved by animal waste. So farming rotation avoids need for fertiliser (itself producing more atmospheric carbon) and avoids severely declining soil health which is already widely evident, as is, helped by this light, fertiliser fed soil, rampant soil erosion particularly in the southern half of eastern Britain, where animal husbandry, where it now exists at all, is largely of the shed variety.
I don’t think Britain has taxed food since the nineteenth century and if we are to start now we need to think more carefully than this, I suggest. Certain processed meats might be a possibility – in order to discourage them – but meat in general is I fear, not sensible.
To suggest that we should be able to fly but have to tax meat is an odd order of priorities.
We have been omnivores since hunter gathering…
(Sorry for lack of references no phone signal and am not on my computer!)
I did not say we could not fly
Or eat beef
I said we should tax them as I am happy with the evidence that they can cause harm
In which case tax has a role. I stick by the suggestion
Peter
Saying that we cannot bring up our young on a vegan diet without health problems is simply not true. The British Dietetic Association (https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179); the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864); the Dieticians of Canada (http://www.unlockfood.ca/en/Articles/Vegetarian-and-Vegan-Diets/What-You-Need-to-Know-About-Following-a-Vegan-Eati.aspx); the Mayo Clinic (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/art-20046446) all affirm that a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life including infancy and childhood.
The issue with moving from intensively reared animals to grazing animals is that it is hugely inefficient. The report published by the Food Climate Research Network (https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf) shows that out of the total of 81 grams of protein consumed per person, per day, only 1 gram is produced by grass fed ruminants. Yet approximately twice as much land is used for grazing as for producing crops (https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm).
The issue of greenhouse gas reduction through grazing is also covered in the same Food Climate Research Network report. The conclusion is that grazing is not going to cause a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I would argue we cannot live without forest. They are the lungs of the earth after all. On this largely deforested island why not turn relatively unproductive land into habitat, increasing biodiversity, and using more of the best available technology we have for carbon capture — trees.
Talking of harm, this is just the environmental argument for reducing/eliminating animal product consumption. There is increasing research showing that it is better for our health (see the Physicians Commitee for Responsible Medicine – https://www.pcrm.org). And we haven’t even touched the moral concerns of slaughtering an estimated 60-70 billion land animals (not including marine animals) per year for our consumption.
I’m not sure I follow your argument that we have been omnivores since hunter gatherers. We have also had many generations where we prevented women from having a vote, owned slaves, and committed many other appalling acts that we no longer find acceptable. This is a progressive blog after all and we are surely all here seeking to read and discuss ways to move forward in a less harmful, sustainable, and more equitable fashion.
So Richard, I am in agreement with you that they cause harm and should be taxed.
I”’m not sure I follow your argument that we have been omnivores since hunter gatherers. We have also had many generations where we prevented women from having a vote, owned slaves, and committed many other appalling acts that we no longer find acceptable”
You can’t see the difference between evolved diet and social/political choice?
I have to admit I think the comparison a little extreme
I understand the sentiment, but the accusation is heavy-handed, I think
There are two key problems with attempts to direct behaviour through ‘repricing goods and services’, and your proposal to tax foods derived from animals suffers from both of them. The first problem is that repricing is a blunt instrument. Changing the relative price of goods also changes the relative price of possible substitutes, and the substitutes may be as bad or worse than the options that are being controlled. What would you do, for example, if it emerged that the high relative price of dairy products prompted an increase in the consumption of environmentally destructive palm oil? Now I’ve pointed to the problem, you can probably say that it ought to be restricted too — but for any policy which takes in such a broad sweep of behaviour, there’s a limit to how many outcomes you can anticipate and provide for. There are nearly always more, unexpected consequences that aren’t visible until the damage has been done.
The second, and more important, objection is that repricing can (and often does) have unacceptable distributive consequences. Many environmental taxes have the effect that they allow richer people to carry on as they were, while poorer people suffer the restrictions and bear the cost – congestion charging is a clear example. And the thought of increasing the price of staple dairy products at a time when people on low incomes are going without food and having to seek help from food banks is frankly alarming.
The central flaw in the argument lies in one of the standard assumptions made in economic textbooks, which is that supply and demand can be controlled most effectively through the price mechanism. I’ve argued in my own blog (e.g. at https://tinyurl.com/y2yjdurl) that rationing by price is rather inadequate as an instrument of public policy. It offers nothing to protect us from inappropriate inclusion or exclusion from access to resources, and while some people think it’s a fair procedure (which is debatable), it is unlikely to be fair in its effects.
I deAlt with the distribution point
Palm oil is on my list to address
And what would you prefer? A market solution. I have to tell you, there isn’t one
On the contrary: in the third paragraph of this comment I explicitly reject market-based approaches. The objections I have raised are directed at attempts – including yours – to use the price mechanism to limit demand. The same objections apply to a raft of measures – such as congestion charges, road pricing, workplace car parking levies, water metering, and charges for rubbish collection by weight – which suffer from similar problems. Enviromentalists who favour repricing are all depending on the operation of markets to regulate behaviour. That approach sits more comfortably with the policies of market liberals than it does with the people-centred economic policies that green politics is supposed to favour.
Not for a moment have I suggested that price alone works
I have said it can help
I have no problem with other regulation as well
I think multiple measures often work best: the gaps tend to be better filled then
If taxing “bads” worked then eventually the tax take would be zero, or close to. Tobacco still seems fairly popular with new participants every year. There is also the issue of unintended consequences, such as bootleg fags. Elsewhere you refer to the inequity of flat taxes – VAT is one of, perhaps the most, regressive taxes.
We have 10 years left to make huge changes to avoid catastrophic warming. I don’t think any of your taxation proposals are going to make much difference and could have the unintended effect of inducing complacency: “we now have carbon taxes – job done!”
The GND is where we need to go, as you have argued. Total decarbonisation of power, electrification of transport & heating (using renewables), hydrogen, free public transport, organic agriculture, less flying, and so on. But even if we achieved that in the UK as long as Trump proclaims it’s all a hoax and the world’s population increases and GDP per capita (and hence emissions per capita) is seen as the lodestone of progress then the world will stumble on hoping something will turn up .
The Scottish Greens wanted a “Climate Emergency” declared, but we couldn’t even achieve that. I don’t see much hope in international co-operation with the current crop of politicians and corporate bosses, but without it we really are all “doomed”.
I have no problem with regulation
But I also know tax indicates the society we want
And because of its signalling helps create it
The two are in no way incompatible
I consider them mutually supportive.
Why standard rate VAT?
I don’t know what the social cost of the CH4 and CO2 is of meat products, it could be higher or it could be lower than putting a 20% charge on the retail price. I just can’t imagine it being exactly 20%. If you undercharge then people will carry on over consuming, not by as much, but they would still over consume compared to the impact on the world.
It seems logical to work out that social cost and then make that the tax. It could be way out or it could be close to 20%, but it would be good to set the tax at the optimal number.
Also good would be to raise the applicable amount in universal credit and pension credit so that people on these means tested benefits are overall no worse off.
I am being practical: the tax charge is signalling and not an expression of cost per se
You can’t hide behind “signalling” for so many of these ideas. Your motives might be genuine but they are not clearly thought out
Tell me why I can’t do that?
And what is wrong with them?
I gather much of this anti-meat “science” is fabricated to soften us up for the arrival of lab-grown low-nutrition but profitable substitutes. The anti-meat propaganda is all corporate-driven and largely, from the critiques I’ve read, fact-free. Your suggestion would effectively be a tax on healthy eating, and would only serve the interests of those who want us to eat their unhealthy but highly (for them) profitable lab-cultivated sludge. I’m agin it.
I have to admit I think that a very bizarre suggestion indeed
Have you noticed how invested in red meat business is?
Sorry, but this makes no sense at all Bill
Bill. I’d love to know which critiques of anti-meat propaganda you’ve been reading. Can you post some links I’d be very interested to read them.
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/health/vegans-hyped-up-the-meat-tax-what-happened-to-critical-thinking/573727.article
http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-fallacy-of-the-meat-tax/
http://www.pig-world.co.uk/news/red-meat-tax-would-be-a-retrograde-step-leading-nutritionist.html
Not hard to find!
And you think those are objective sources? Come on Bill, or stop wasting time here
Worth too considering
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2018/09/red-meat-the-evidence/
and
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2018/04/red-meat-cancer/
Now if you were to put a tax on low quality meat, that might not be a bad thing.
I wonder who funded that?
Sorry Bill but I think I would rather trust the science coming from bodies such as the WHO rather than the vested interests of pig-world.co.uk and co.
Why? https://andrewharmer.org/2018/05/27/ac-vc-the-shock-of-who-funding/
Bill
Let me be clear: I dob’t believe you are providing real evidence that contradicts the reality of the risk
And this is not a place where I publish stuff that is as ridiculous as climate change denial
Richard
Indeed, but there does seem to be reason to doubt pronouncements from those who we still consider to be the great and the good, like the WHO. Didn’t we used to think the great and the good included the FSA, and then the FCA? Didn’t we used to think Lloyds of London was above reproach because it was, well… it was Lloyds of London? Look how well that turned out… one of the problems with centralisation is that authorities can over time become the vassals of the enemies of those in whose interests they’re supposed to be working, our current government appearing to be a good example. The possibility should at least be borne in mind, and the results from so called ‘studies’ shouldn’t be swallowed wholesale.
I am not saying we cannot question
I am saying the scientific evidence on this seems overwhelming
It ius not just meat production or livestock farming that produces methane. A major source of methane entering the atmosphere is rice production. Methane, once known as marsh gas, is produced in substantial amounts from padi fields, which are effectively artificial marshes. Padi rice, (lowland rice, wet rice) is the staple crop of East and South Asia, China, Japan, Pillippines, Indonesia, India etc i.e. two thirds of the world’s population. The amount of calories and nutrients per hectare from padi rice to feed these billions of humanity is far greater than the amount that can be produced from dry upland rice, or cereals such as wheat, guinea corn, or even maize. If we are to cut or end methane production from livestock farming in the UK by imposing VAT, and by encouraging or forcing changes in the population’s diet – adoption of vegetarianism or veganism – what should we be urging those other countries to do where rice is the staple? How do you effect so drastic a change in systems of crop production and the diet of billions of people and the whole agricultural and food economies of these countries that house such a vast proportion if the world’s populace? By what means do you change the whole culture of rice dependent countries in a manner that is compatible with democratic politics?
Maybe we can’t
So we have to do all we can
Well, there is another possible solution, or contribution to the solution, but one which will no doubt raise a lot of hackles, which dare not speak its name and which very few have the courage to espouse: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/27/not-have-children-environmental-reasons
Some are doing that
But it has to be a choice
Why send tax signals when we can send clear messages by banning the intensive production of meat in the U.K. and, once we leave the EU ban it’s import and the export of live animals too. This is one green measure the neocon globalist controlled EU are never likely to adopt and it would make a real difference to our environment and food quality.
Such a clear policy well founded in animal welfare would be a clear vote winner for Labour.
There is a real niche marketing opportunity for a country whose food production system is entirely organic and more flexitarian. Why can’t it be Britain?
That could be done
It would still leave an issue
And I very much doubt it will be done, yet