[manvillej]

I am very conflicted on a carbon tax for the agriculture industry. It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins. The transition from regenerative agriculture is expensive & rising food costs has a destabilizing effect.

There need to be changes, but I am not convinced that this will have the desired effects. Its quite possible this leads to a net conversion of farmland to residential or commercial property rather than nature.

[mmooss]

Currently the public subsidizes the agriculture industry by paying for the consequences of the industry's carbon emissions. Also, that subsidy distorts industry choices in favor of carbon.

The industry might be accustomed to profiting from the subsidy, but that doesn't make them entitled to it! And certainly the industry has had plenty of time to anticipate and adjust to the problems of carbon emissions.

[manvillej]

Governments pay to keep food at the cheapest point possible to ensure stability. a fed population doesn't kill their governments. Agriculture is not a regular industry; its a national security issue

Farming is not a profitable endeavor. There would be a lot less financial advisors in the world otherwise. A carbon tax will either drive up prices or reduce suppliers, increasing prices. Reducing farmland will require more efficient methods which will also drive up prices

The result will be the public pays more for food, not the agriculture industry makes any more or less money. It will require more imports which will come from countries with less regulation and more exploitable resources.

We've seen the story of disruptions to the food supply play out before. The reality is this is a more dangerous gamble than most people realize.

[mp05]

We can debate the role of subsidies and carbon emissions, but framing agriculture as if it's uniquely nefarious misses the critical point that we all need to eat.

The industry isn't "choosing carbon" but rather it's responding to the immense challenge of feeding billions affordably while dealing with slim margins and unpredictable conditions. Adjustments require viable, scalable alternatives, not just finger-wagging.

I think we focus on supporting innovation rather than vilifying an essential industry.

[RayVR]

It’s also important to note that, at least in this specific situation, the effects of those hidden subsidies are extremely regressive.

[space_oddity]

That said, the transition requires thoughtful implementation

[benmanns]

I think we should start doing more taxes combined with subsidies. Give everyone a $1/t carbon tax. Give everyone a ~$1/t farming subsidy based on current carbon production. Nobody loses, but everyone is incentivized to decrease carbon production and the faster ones profit more. Phase out the subsidy over X years if you like.

Otherwise, you’re right. We’re upsetting the balance of a very complex, very important system and causing a regressive tax in the form of price increases.

[manvillej]

a combined tax and subsidy to try to drive farmers into more sustainable practices in a fiscally neutral way isn't a bad idea, but I think it is just a very risky and necessary roll of the dice.

I think inevitably, there will be price increases. The questions is just how bad and how many farms survive the transition.

[BurningFrog]

Carbon taxes are by far the most effective way to get down CO₂ emissions.

But I'm doubtful that implementing them only for one industry in one small country is very helpful.

[stainablesteel]

I disagree, carbon taxes seem to be the best way to ensure your country starts to outsource all of it's carbon producing activity to less developed countries who do a worse job containing their emissions. This has been happening in europe for quite some time with the manufacturing of their wind turbines iirc. It's a super carbon heavy emission to produce them, so the europeans have them made elsewhere to make it look like their emissions are super low, which is essentially a lie for politicians to sell environment-crazed voters.

[hyeonwho4]

Right. Why not carbon tax all industries (and imports), then subsidize select essentials like pumping water and growing agricultural goods?

[15155]

Meanwhile, China simply doesn't care.

[fulafel]

Good news: we're implementing them widely and in all eu countries.

[Scoundreller]

> It is going to sidle a cost to an industry of razor thin margins.

Will it or will farmland value take a dump but remain unchanged in use?

I always thought of farmland these days as a use of last resort and if it could be marketable for buildings, it’s already not economically worth it as a farm except speculatively

[chgs]

In the U.K. farmland has a rental value of about £100 an acre but a purchase price over £10k an acre.

The value in the land isn’t in its use (which is getting 1% ROI), but in speculation it may be granted permission to be converted to housing, or because of tax loopholes.

[lovemenot]

It should be fine, I believe. Just in terms of land-use, livestock is several times less efficient than other kinds of agriculture for the same food output. So a shift from meat to other food crops would be a net win, even as it frees up land for other purposes.

Many farmers will receive a one-time payment on land sales and some will use this windfall to subsidise their transition from growing livestock to more environmentally-friendly food.

[shiroiushi]

>Just in terms of land-use, livestock is several times less efficient than other kinds of agriculture for the same food output.

This assumes that the land is equally usable for both activities. Many times, it isn't: a lot of land that's good enough for grazing cows doesn't have enough water available for growing plants that people want to (or can) eat. People can't eat grass.

This probably isn't an issue in Denmark, but in many other places it is.

[teekert]

Depends on the type of agriculture? If it make veggies cheaper in comparison to meat, I'm all for it. Hopefully it spurs development of sustainable nice tasting protein sources ;) (like synthetic meat etc.)

[m463]

I would imagine growing vegetables could be carbon negative, literally making vegetables out of carbon from out of the air?

[madmask]

This is exactly what should not happen. Meat is great, especially when grass fed.

[space_oddity]

It’s a bold move, but like you, I’m not sure the potential consequences have been fully addressed