This is internalizing the cost of the externality. If paying the true cost of something is oppressive, hooboy, you're gonna have a bad time, because humanity has been living on credit for 100+ years wrt carbon emissions, the ag revolution, etc. I too am unhappy when a discount I was getting due to mispricing disappears.

If you don't believe in climate change, the argument is not worth having.

https://www.wired.com/story/everythings-about-to-get-a-hell-...

We don't need to argue about climate change, we can argue about whether or not this tax will have any measurable effect on it.

I would argue that the benefit to reducing emissions pales in comparison to the harm to Danish diets, industry, culture, health, etc.

Even still, in an ideal world, the Danish government would represent the Danish people. Initiatives that disproportionately harm the Danish people - even if there is a net global benefit - would be off the table.

If I governed both my own nation and a nation of people I hate, I would impose the $100 tax on those I hate in order to subsidise cattle farms for those I wish to prosper.

Maybe this tax is not good, it feels a bit too specific to me. However, if every country and leader took your position, actually tackling climate change would be hopeless, maybe it is.

Denmark was not very eager to investigate the NordStream leak, source of gigantic methane emissions.

All European countries support a stalemate war, oil laundering shipped via massively inefficient routes with high dirty ship diesel emissions, military CO2 emissions, private jets traveling to Davos (there is no fuel tax for private jets in Germany!) and a lot more.

But let us take away the milk from poor people.

Humans don’t need milk. Poor people should still get all the nutrition they need, even if provided for free.

True! We should just legislate that everyone eats the same low carbon footprint diet - nutrition paste fortified with cricket protein and water.

Is that what you’re eating today? Because I don’t know anyone eating this, and it isn’t required for a healthy low impact diet.

That people repeatedly think of bugs when they come up with an alternative to meat/milk in these comments is always a good reminder of how bad nutrition education is at least in the US.

If my family had to pay the true cost of the food I ate before becoming independent I wouldn't be here.

Now my family has a couple of engineers, and my work has a positive impact in mitigation of climate change.

There are many realities out there. And many ways to fight climate change.

As someone who grew up intermittently food insecure, I am not unsympathetic to this. On the contrary, I am an aggressive supporter of broad food security policy because of this lived experience and empathy. No one should ever go hungry.

With that said, there is a discussion to be had about what effective and efficient ag policy looks like while being mindful of the above, in a world limited by physical constraints.

The problem is that this is a regressive tax. It falls disproportionately on the poor, working class, and farmers. This will only lead to a populist revolt that will set the whole project of reducing GHG emissions back by a generation or two, not to mention being grossly unfair.

It's also going after a bit player in global GHG emissions. Replacing coal for electricity generation and oil wherever possible (land transport) are the big ones and where the vast majority of the attention should go.

You don't solve a problem by going after the hardest aspects of it down at the end of the long tail. You solve it by going after the head, which is carbon-rich fossil fuels.

The proceeds from the tax are going to farmers, so it's regressiveness has been mitigated.

Agriculture is not a "bit player" in GHG emissions. It's one of the big 5, the others being electricity generation, transportation, heating and industry, each of which contributes >10%. It's also the sector without a clear path to decarbonization. Generation has renewables, transportation has EV's, heating has heat pumps, some industry has transition plans (and some doesn't)

> It's also the sector without a clear path to decarbonization

It's probably because humans are carbon based life forms and we need to eat carbon based foods to live

I hope we never successfully decarbonize agriculture

It's easy to throw around the word "externalities" and just ignore what it means to real people who have been farming their land for generations.

Everything has externalities, just being born and existing has negative externalities, why don't we just confine everyone to their apartment to limit their externalities? Why don't we force people to pay a tax every time they leave their house to internalize their externalities?

This rule is authoritarian, and it is wrong for the government to use its monopoly on violence to do this to farmers.

> just ignore what it means to real people who have been farming their land for generations...

It's an extra $100 on a cow worth $3k that'll produce 10k+ gallons of milk in its lifetime. A penny per gallon of milk.

It likely means little to them.

Tradition is by no means a valid reason to destroy the one planet we share. Times change, adapt.

> It's easy to throw around the word "externalities" and just ignore what it means to real people who have been farming their land for generations.

I wonder if we could invent some form of farming that doesn't depend on cows? Technology is pretty amazing these days.

Or, in this case, a tax pushed for by multiple large and small parties, negotiated in agreement with the agricultural sector. Long time since it was polled, but it was like 50/50. No elites needed.

That's a lot of hyperbole for "price of beef gets closer to the real cost of producing it".

Chicken and turkey have always been cheaper and are just as nutritious, if you want to stick with meat.

The quality of discussions on HN seriously seems to have plummeted in the past two years.

"Differing opinions than mine are evil. There will be no discussion."

And it's the top comment too. Good Lord.

What discussion would like to see? I feel like this article doesn't really belong here to begin with.

I don't think this is a topic where people can be swayed by well articulated arguments unlike say, under post about the merits of Clojure.

I can see myself giving Clojure a shot after reading a nice comment about it. But no amount of arguing is going to convince me to approve of a tax on a food item I like. The difference in beliefs just goes too deep.

> But no amount of arguing is going to convince me to approve of a tax on a food item I like. The difference in beliefs just goes too deep.

Try to listen to this from an outside perspective. That's an absolutely bonkers thing to say.

So let's say that we're in the midst of a diabetes and obesity epidemic in the west and out comes solid, real-world proof that a tax on sugary beverages can significantly improve the outcome of children's health. This would lead to a healthier populace, lower costs on healthcare infrastructure, and consequently improve well-being of the nation.

Damn to all of that, you want your sodie pop?

Let me frame this another way to show how rediculous it sounds: replace "food item I like" with "tobacco" or "alcohol".

> I can see myself giving Clojure a shot after reading a nice comment about it. But no amount of arguing is going to convince me to approve of a tax on the booze I like. The difference in beliefs just goes too deep.

That's addict talk.

Shame indeed.

That whole idea of “my opinion isn’t up for debate because it’s actually not my opinion — it’s a fact. And therefore there will be no discussion…”

It’s infiltrated so many other social spheres and I would argue it’s one of the top contributors to why were so polarized and divided today.

It's from an account that literally has a post complaining about "The Jews" ending with "Heil Hitler". I quote: "I cannot wait for the 30s again. I'm so glad I'm here and still young enough to be actively involved in what's to come. H[eil] H[itler]" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40768048

So I think it's pretty clear who they mean with (((spiteful hegemonic elite)))...

Don't know why you're downvoted, HyulianGrader is quite literally a Nazi.

Some say pricing externalities, some say a spiteful hegemonic elite striving to humiliate its populace. Tomato - tomahto.

The key is on which farms is this applied. If it's on big companies I find it ok: they have the power to emit a lot of gas, I guess. But on the small/family farm?

A grand-uncle(?) of mine had to kill one or two of his 5 cows when the country entered the European Union. Just about retiring age. I totally relate to your comment.

It applies to all farms, but the proceeds are distributed as adjustment subsidies. Small farms will receive a disproportionate share of the subsidies, so they will likely be net beneficiaries.

The studies showing red meat is actually good for you, kinda make me believe this. My health has also dramatically improved after eating more red meat and less low fat vegetarian options, but I'm a sample size of 1. My personal lived experience about what actually worked for me, really makes me question more things.

Lived experience is one thing and if it works for you go for it, but as for the studies: there are studies that will justify basically any diet decision you want to make.

If you want to rely on answers from authoritative sources your only logical option is to go with the mainstream consensus which is still that red meat is terrible for you. As soon as you branch off into less mainstream studies you're now in the territory where you could logically justify nearly any health decision based on which studies you decide to cherry pick. At that point you have to ask yourself if you're really basing your decisions on the studies or if you're picking your studies based on your decision.

Again, the science is so sketchy that just doing what works for you makes sense, but it's not a good idea to pretend that you're doing it because of the science.

I was mostly eating vegetables for years, but eventually chronically underweight. At 25 I went to the doctor for severe knee pain, and the doctor told me I just need to eat some god damn food. I went out and gorged myself on korean barbeque. After that I started adding beef, lard, and meat in general to my previously mostly lentils and fried vegetables cooking. I am now no longer underweight and dont experience strange symptoms of deficiency such as the papillae on my tongue dissapearing, and loud painful joints.

> mostly lentils and fried vegetables cooking

FWIW that's not a healthy diet. A vegan diet (assuming you were vegan) needs a lot of variety--carbs/grains, healthy fats, nuts, legumes, etc. You won't meet your daily caloric needs on lentils and vegetables.

I ate yogurt and nuts in the mornings. Breads, lots of potatos. Lots of lentils which are legumes and have about the same protien per dollar and weight as chicken. I also put walnuts, peanuts, lots of other nuts and seeds, oils etc in my cooking. I cooked in bulk in a large pot.

I also ate 5+ bowls a day a day.

I just could not reach my calorie requirements.

I did exercise everyday by going up the nearby mountain. Adding protien powder to my meals helped, but adding meat made it very easy to substantially increase my calorie intake.

> The studies showing red meat is actually good for you, kinda make me believe this

Which studies are those?

There'll be a new one tomorrow saying the opposite, anyways. Food science studies are historically... sketchy.

Often it's one industry or another paying a tame scientist to p-hack their way to a forgone conclusion; https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

> less low fat vegetarian options

so... you eat less bread and feel better? surprise!

To me, this seems like the way to reduce the carbon emissions the least, while pissing off the largest possible voter base. Also making the least fortunate suffer the most. Brilliant move, slowly clapping here.

Make a few decisions like this in a few years and voila, you get pissed off masses who won't suffer any more taxes or cancelled bbq dinners for your "libtard agenda" and another Trump-like fellow will rise. Meanwhile no one taxes private jets or yachts for carbon emissions. I guess their costs are not "externalized".

Nobody's barbecue is going to be cancelled because of this. Meat and animal products are some of the cheapest and most easily available calories you can get here.

"no one taxes private jets or yachts for carbon emissions"

Canada does, it has a carbon tax on pretty much everything except fertilizer and heating fuel.

Broad based carbon taxes are the correct solution, but they're also the reason Trudeau is going to lose the next election.

> Can you spot the constituencies that have outsized voting impact?

I suppose people who has to eat and stay warm. I get what you mean, but it still is a good blow-softener in my opinion. Even if farmers get some benefits for no reason.

> Broad based carbon taxes are the correct solution, but they're also the reason Trudeau is going to lose the next election.

Well we are not living in a perfect world. I am not familiar with Canada and Trudeau's political opponents, but still. If a "solution" triggers a kneejerk reaction, cutting its own life short; and causing nutjob demagogues to rise, which leads to much greater harm than it prevented in the first place, how is it the correct solution?

> I suppose people who has to eat and stay warm.

No, it's pretty much a giveaway to Eastern Canada, which is the only part of Canada that uses heating fuel widely. Quebec uses electricity for heating, and the rest of Canada uses natural gas.

The fertilizer exemption is a protectionist measure. Fertilizer production produces massive amounts of carbon. If Canada taxed carbon on domestically produced fertilizer but not on foreign produced fertilizer it'd kill local fertilizer production for little benefit. The right solution is a carbon tariff at the border, but that's really hard to do unilaterally so we have the fertilizer exemption instead.

Facts, and it seems there are endless hordes of "groupthink" that will defend the coercive actions of the state. Cows are marginal to this carbon footprint fear mongering that has been running amuck.

> I wasn't going to click until fascism was brought up and now he sounds like an interesting guy.

> I'm the most racist person you can imagine and I don't get it.

On a submission titled Data-fueled neurotargeting could kill democracy:

> Cool. How can we help?

Look, this is a place for discussion, not edgy behaviour. It'd be best if you tried to participate in the same way, you are not spitting facts and your opinion is, at best, quarrelsome. It'd be best for all of us if you approached this space with less of this stupid rhetoric.

>This is the kind of oppressive tax a spiteful hegemonic elite would impose

it'S lITERalLy ninEtEeN eIghTY-four

It isnt really fair to mock this viewpoint. Everything genuinely is 1984 now, but worse because we have AI on our cameras, and 1984 didnt have the internet. Or robots, which may soon be relevant.

>Everything genuinely is 1984 now

Is it?

Closer to brave new world if we are being real

I can see that one.

They haven't been working this much land this intensively for millennia. So-called "conventional agriculture" is an experiment that's younger than my dad. Although this tax is only about carbon, the negative effects of the Danish agricultural sector on the rest of us who have also been living here for millennia are too many to mention. They provide next to no jobs and result in a few percent of GDP. In return, they are killing our seas with algae, poisoning the rivers and groundwater, and taking up sixty percent of the surface area.

Fully half of my country is used to grow pig feed, and most of that meat is exported.

The rest of the world can grow its own fucking bacon if it wants it so badly. This country needs less agriculture. There's no "but".

The runoff argument is a good one. That’s an externality that’s easily forgotten.

However, if Denmark stops exporting pork and tells everyone to grow it itself, what happens when those countries stop exporting products that Denmark doesn’t make? Is Denmark going to produce its own computers?

I understand the frustration and the argument. Maybe there’s something else Denmark can and should export.

Other countries would import their pork from somewhere else, or produce their own pork, while still selling their computers to Denmark because that’s good business?

> I understand the frustration and the argument. Maybe there’s something else Denmark can and should export.

Like pharmaceuticals? Or aerospace, robotics, high end machinery (Grundfos for example), or sea freight?

Before COVID the Danes also produced massive amounts of fur from mink, they've been culled due to the pandemic and nothing much has happened.

> However, if Denmark stops exporting pork and tells everyone to grow it itself, what happens when those countries stop exporting products that Denmark doesn’t make? Is Denmark going to produce its own computers?

Trade wars due to a country's economical decisions about what they prefer to produce or not is not a reality. Or if it is I'd like to see some examples.

I'm not against exports in principle. I'm against the destruction of my local environment for the profit of a group factory farm owners which as far as I know number in the hundreds. 0.5% of this country is wild nature - again 50% is pig feed! - and we need more wilderness and more forests both to maintain our biodiversity and capture carbon to reach our 2030 goals. This cow tax is actually part of a larger deal that also sets aside money to buy land back from farmers to achieve that.

And if you're asking me whether I think it's fair that we can buy computers from Asia for around the price of the raw materials and labour, and not have to worry about the environmental devastation of both the production of them and the handling of them when they're discarded, the answer is a firm no. I want environmentalism both here, in China, and in Africa. Production should be sustainable, and if I then have to eat less meat or make my computers last longer, then that's just how it is. Just because I want something doesn't mean I have a right to it when what I want has such a profound impact on others.