Tax Analysts Blog

A Meat Tax? Seriously?

Posted on Jan 21, 2014

Taxing meat would help slow global warming, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change. By reducing consumer demand, such a levy would curb one of the leading causes of climate change: methane emissions from livestock.

Carbon dioxide gets all the headlines, but methane is actually 20 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere. And cows are the principal offender when it comes to methane emissions. "Domestic animals also belch and fart amazing quantities of greenhouse gases," The Economist pointed out recently. Raising those cows involves the production of other greenhouse gases, too, especially when farming involves deforestation. "In all," the magazine reports, "livestock farming produces 8-18% of greenhouse-gas emissions."

It's not a big jump from scientific fact to fiscal remedy. Taxing undesirable commodities is a time-honored practice, both for regulation and revenue. At least in theory, a tax on meat is not unlike a tax on tobacco: both are tools for changing entrenched behaviors.

“Influencing human behavior is one of the most challenging aspects of any large-scale policy, and it is unlikely that a large-scale dietary change will happen voluntarily without incentives,” the authors of the Nature Climate Change article point out. “Implementing a tax or emission trading scheme on livestock’s greenhouse gas emissions could be an economically sound policy that would modify consumer prices and affect consumption patterns.”

It's easy to poke fun at this sort of suggestion. Headline writers seem particularly unable to control themselves:

For all the obvious and inherent humor, the idea of taxing meat is not crazy and it's not new. Serious proposals for some sort of anti-methane meat tax have been floating around for at least a decade, and the idea has real science backing it up.

But it's not exactly a slam-dunk, either. We can all dream up things we'd like to tax out of existence. Like sugary sodas. Or excessive antibiotic use. Or inequality. All these tax innovations have something to be said for them. (Although I find many -- and especially those on food products -- to be unforgivably regressive, paternalistic, and haphazard.)

But sin taxes -- or to use the more dispassionate and technical term, Pigouvian taxes -- have a serious problem. They complicate the principal function of a tax system: raising money to pay for government.

Ultimately, taxes function best when they try to do the least. When we get fancy with our taxes -- trying to tailor them precisely to social and economic conditions -- we make them more complicated and burdensome.

Moreover, Americans are already inclined to see their tax system as heavy-handed. When lawmakers start using taxes to control us (rather than simply raise money from us), they run the risk of unleashing the inner libertarian that lurks within us (or at least within a large part of the electorate).

I'm not arguing that Pigouvian taxes have no place in a modern tax system. When the social costs of a particular behavior are serious enough, those levies make sense. And climate change may be exactly that sort of situation. I find the argument for taxing carbon to be compelling. And maybe, eventually, I'll come around on meat taxes, too.

But we should think twice before trying to engineer the personal behavior of millions of Americans. Sin taxes have a role to play. But it's not a big one.

Read Comments (3)

David BrunoriJan 21, 2014

Joe, Geez Louise. I could poke fun at this for the rest of the year. But here
is the real problem. You state: "At least in theory, a tax on meat is not
unlike a tax on tobacco: both are tools for changing entrenched behaviors." I
thought taxes were supposed to be for paying for government services? I'd
prefer you did not try change my behavior whether it be smoking, shooting, or
eating 28 ounce t-bones. You already got me paying a higher tax rate to cure
inequities. Must I do more?

edmund dantesJan 21, 2014

Before we undertake a massive social experiment, let's be certain that we
aren't on the verge of global cooling, as opposed to warming. There's a ton of
evidence that sunspots are in steep decline, and this has generally been
understood to be associated with severe climate change--in a cooling direction,
not warming. Here's a link from an American source, and one from the BBC.

Could we perhaps design a tax policy that would keep the sunspots in their
regular cycle?

emsig beobachterJan 22, 2014

I would include a special excise tax on the consumption of bean burritos; if,
the purpose of the tax is to limit methane emissions. If I were the methane
emissions Czar (there seems to be a czar for every policy) I would earmark the
revenues from the Flatulence Fund for research into finding an efficient method
of capturing the methane emissions of grazing livestock and bean burrito
consuming humans. After all, methane is an extremely useful product -- it is a
major component of natural gas. Imagine getting enough natural gas from
flatulent cows and humans without frackin, etc. Eventually, the special excise
taxes would yield to subsidies to increase the consumption of meat and bean

Submit comment

Tax Analysts reserves the right to approve or reject any comments received here. Only comments of a substantive nature will be posted online.

By submitting this form, you accept our privacy policy.


All views expressed on these blogs are those of their individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Tax Analysts. Further, Tax Analysts makes no representation concerning the views expressed and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, fact, information, data, finding, interpretation, or opinion presented. Tax Analysts particularly makes no representation concerning anything found on external links connected to this site.