The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet

The opposition are happy to concede the existence and importance of global warming, and that the meat industry plays a significant aggravating role as characterised by the proposition. (In fact, our team captain is a 6 day a week vegetarian, so much faith does she have in these arguments.) The debate will not be fought on this ground therefore, rendering this point largely irrelevant to the debate.

As above, we would remove this point from contention. We agree. We would however at this stage like to draw attention to the proposition’s important decision to include in their definition of pollution, for example, “antibiotics, hormones… fertilizers and pesticides.” in the remit of their model. We believe this will come to further OUR case, later.

This point outlines the inefficiency of meat farming, which the opposition fully accepts. However, we must challenge proposition’s assumption that grain presently used to feed livestock would necessarily find its way into the mouths of those suffering from a food crisis, even if a tax on meat should lead to a reduction in demand.

The cause of food shortages in the developed world isn’t insufficient capacity in the West. It is a detestable fact that there are food surpluses in Europe while children in Africa and elsewhere go hungry. Making our grain mountains higher or our milk lakes deeper won’t of itself solve this problem.

We hope that the proposition isn’t genuinely suggesting that an EU excise duty programme would be able to compensate or even significantly mitigate this problem? We believe this point is also irrelevant to the debate, and we join with the proposition in lamenting the loss of biodiversity.

Our overarching rebuttal to the proposition’s case as it has been set out, can best be summarised by refuting their closing assertion:

‘For the opposition to win…’ ‘they will either need to prove that a) ‘Meat consumption is not a threat to the planet or b) The EU wide tax would not decrease meat consumption or c) It will have more negative effects that outweigh the positives that we have outlined in our case. ‘

Unfortunately they forgot to mention option d) Opps will need to prove that much more efficient means exist to achieve Prop’s aims.

We choose option d.

Thus, we approve of the aim of the proposition to save the planet (it’s where we keep all our stuff) but we strongly disapprove of the means. There are numerous more direct efficient actions the EU could take to better solve the problems Props identify, that don’t have any of the negative consequences their prescription entails.

How do we know this? Well, to make their case, and not being experts in this field, Props have quite sensibly turned to those who are. In so doing they were very fortunate to discover a recent comprehensive report on precisely this topic published by, of all bodies, the UN itself – ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow’ [their ref] which they commended to us. We found it showed, in a balanced and persuasive manner the damaging impact of the meat industry on climate change, water supply and biodiversity just as the Props report. (Indeed, where Props depart from the UN case, in point three, their argument temporarily breaks down, as we have shown.)

However, being satisfied to accept the UN’s presentation of the case against the meat industry in exactly the terms they set them out, they then choose to depart from this august body’s proposed solutions. Nowhere in this 300-page report is a consumption tax even mentioned.

Instead, the very same report Props commend to us, (and on which they lean so heavily in presenting the environmental damage caused by meat farming), contains a carefully calibrated set of answers both technical and strategic, designed to mitigate these problems on a case by case basis.

To give a sense of how thorough these technical solutions are, listed here are some of the measures meat farmers are exhorted to take to successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions: ‘sequestering carbon and mitigating CO2 emissions’, ‘reversing soil organic carbon losses from degraded pastures’, ‘reducing CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation through improved efficiency and diets’, ‘mitigating CH4 emissions through improved manure management and biogas’, ‘deploying technical options for mitigating N2O emissions and deploying NH3 volatilization.’ [Their ref. p115-123]

Each of the problems the report (and Proposition) identify is dealt with on a technical level in this way, based on the central conclusion that ‘resource efficiency is the key to shrinking livestock’s long shadow’. [Their ref. p 276] We are happy to accept the UN’s analysis and to assume these technical solutions are well-judged.

Finally, the report recommends a strategic framework to enable these technical solutions to be put into effect. It is based on two interlocking principles.

1. ‘Prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities.’ According to the UN, ‘this leads to an overuse of these resources by the livestock sector and to major inefficiencies in the production process. Any future policy to protect the environment will, therefore have to introduce adequate market pricing for the main INPUTS’. (Our capitals)

2. ‘Environmental externalities, both negative and positive, need to be explicitly factored into the policy framework, through the application of the “provider gets – POLLUTER PAYS” principle’. (Our capitals) [Their ref. p276-277]

We will elaborate on the superiority of the UN’s approach over the one advocated by the Proposition in our subsequent more detailed critique.

However for now we leave you with the following question: is it possible that in place of the remedy proposed by dedicated UN scientists, the Props have been able in the time it took them to read the report, to discover a single magic bullet that optimally hits all these targets at once, but which nevertheless eluded the experts? Or is their prescription, as we will show, a blunt instrument that will do more damage than it will good?

This is the battleground on which this debate will be fought, in our view.

Taxing meat across the board is an inappropriate, ineffective and indiscriminate tool with which to attempt to mitigate the damage done to the environment by the industry, because its burden falls as heavily on the responsible farmer as it does on the irresponsible one, and therefore offers no incentive to improve practices. On the contrary, as we have shown, it would put farmers under pressure to cut corners in order to maintain demand.

Pricing inputs and externalities realistically, on the other hand, achieves exactly the Proposition’s desired effect: farmers who pollute or are profligate with water, for example, face higher costs. In this way efficiency is rewarded and waste penalised.

A key difference between taxing meat and taxing tobacco and alcohol is public support. We agree the inevitable resistance and outcry over any such proposed meat tax is not an argument that ‘nothing should be done’ – it is an argument that something else should be done, as we propose.

The point about inefficiency is irrelevant. For this to help their case proposition would need to show how increasing the efficiency of farms in the West would benefit the poor in the developing world, and then how this equates to ‘saving the planet’.

The case with respect to revenue is, at best, uncertain for the reasons we’ve outlined. Meat has an important social and cultural dimension, and much of the price rise will be offset by a rise in demand for cheaper meat and meat products. The scheme will cost money, take an enormous amount of time to ratify and require extensive bureaucracy and policing, costs that need to be borne in advance.

Again contrast this with the UN’s suggested plan. By removing subsidies we raise billions of dollars in revenue immediately that can be put to work at once. Half the EU’s total budget, or about $50bn is spent on farming subsidies, and agricultural subsidies amount to ‘an average of 32% of total farm income in OECD countries, with livestock products (dairy and beef, in particular) regularly figuring among the most heavily subsidized products.’ [Their ref. P222] And remember the extraordinary environmental benefits of removing them in New Zealand. In addition by pricing inputs realistically we raise immediate revenue. By pricing externalities realistically we increase immediate revenue. And these costs fall proportionately on the farmers responsible for the damage we are endeavouring to repair.

Our case has two strands: the weaknesses of the proposed model, and the availability of superior alternatives.

To address the first of these first. If an excise duty is placed on meat, there are two ways a consumer might respond:

a) Cut meat consumption
b) Downgrade to lower quality, cheaper meat.

Proposition side appear to assume the former will result, we are less sure. It only takes simple economic logic to work out why.

The demand for a larger category of good is always less elastic than that of its sub-category, it being less substitutable. So for example the demand for ‘vegetables’ as a whole will be much less responsive to a price change (elastic) than will demand for ‘carrots’ it being easy to substitute carrots for, say, parsnips in response to a price rise. Wal-Mart’s carrots will be even more elastic, as a further subcategory.

By this token, rather than switch categories when faced with a price rise, consumers are more likely to move to a sub-category in this case ‘cheaper meat’, where possible.

This argument is compounded by the notion that products that are a part of people’s day to day lives, like alcohol in this respect, are notoriously insensitive to excise duty. Your alcohol example was based on a study that looked at the purchasing patterns of literally 112 people. That is incapable of supporting any argument. Increases in duty on alcohol in the UK, for example, have been accompanied by a rise in consumption of epidemic proportions.

This is our first rebuttal point: this model will not significantly cut meat consumption.

The fact consumers, faced with a price increase would downgrade to lower quality meat is salient here, because the effect of this would be specifically counter to the motion’s objective to reduce harm to the environment.

We see two ways in which consumers could obtain cheaper meat, they are to:
a) Downgrade to lower quality meat, ie. Non-organic and battery farmed meat products.

b) Import meat from where it can be produced more cheaply.

Unfortunately, the lack of clarity in the motion prevents us from understanding how viable the second option would be to a consumer, but if it were viable, then we contend the freight costs involved in shipping or flying meat around the country are completely counter-productive to their case.

As far as the former goes, we see this to be unequivocally the most likely outcome of a tax imposition that raises the cost of meat across the board. Organic meat would be the first to go, as we have seen demand for it fall already in times of recession. The same is true of free-range and ethically produced meat products.

We return the reader now to proposition’s argument number 2 which we flagged earlier. They lamented the pollution caused by meat production by way of the “antibiotics, hormones… fertilizers and pesticides” involved in the industry.

We know then, from this statement, that Prop will be equally horrified at the prospect of meat consumers switching away from organically produced meat which avoids all these to lower quality, more polluting meat producers. By their definition of saving the planet, this effect is counter to their objective.

We saw earlier that the UN isolated two key principles to mitigating the harm done by meat farming to the environment.

We will now elaborate briefly on those principles; why the Prop’s case undermines them, and why the represent better solutions.

1. ‘Prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities.’ According to the UN, ‘this leads to an overuse of these resources by the livestock sector and to major inefficiencies in the production process. Any future policy to protect the environment will, therefore have to introduce adequate market pricing for the main INPUTS’. (Our capitals) [their ref. p 276]

The UN’s suggested methods of introducing ‘adequate pricing’ for the main inputs are clearly stated.

Water, for example is especially under-priced in most countries. To solve this problem the UN recommends the creation of ‘water markets and different types of cost recovery’ that ‘have been identified as suitable mechanisms to correct the situation.’

The true cost of land can be reflected by ‘instruments’ which ‘include the introduction and adjustment of grazing fees and lease rates, and improved institutional arrangements for controlled and equitable access’. [their ref. p 277]

Another key suggestion, which flies directly in the face of the Prop’s idea, is ‘the removal of price support at product level (i.e. the production subsidies for livestock products in the majority of industrialized countries)’ The UN cites the case of New Zealand where the simple act of removing these subsidies resulted in ‘what has become one of the most efficient and environmentally benign ruminant livestock industries!’ [their ref. p 277]

The UN’s second prescription to mitigate the environmental damage caused by meat farming was as follows:

2. ‘Environmental externalities, both negative and positive, need to be explicitly factored into the policy framework, through the application of the “provider gets – POLLUTER PAYS” principle’. (Our capitals) [Their ref. p276-277]

Presumably we do not need to defend this principle too strongly. The UN itself is content to say that: ‘correcting for externalities, both positive and negative, will lead livestock producers into management choices that are less costly to the environment.‘

By adopting these two principles, the UN report concludes:

‘Correcting for distortions and externalities will bring us a step closer to prices for both inputs and outputs that reflect the true scarcities of production factors and natural resources used. These changed prices will induce technological change that will make better use of resources, and limit pollution and waste. Producers have shown their ability to respond quickly and decisively when such price signals are sent consistently.’
[their ref. p277]

We agree with the UN’s solution, not the Proposition’s.

The tax that the proposition seeks to impose on meat products would adversely affect consumers of meat on lower incomes. This is because the increase in price the tax would add to meat products represents a larger proportion of the income of a lower-income consumer than one on a higher income. This means that the opportunity cost of buying meat for a lower income consumer increases at a higher rate than the higher income consumer when the tax raises prices.

The opposition may argue that surely if governments do not find the inequality which arises from excise duties on alcohol and cigarettes a large enough issue to avoid this form of taxation, then surely the same can be said for meat. However, the difference with meat is that, as we on the opposition shall be discussing, there are methods of reducing the negative effects meat consumption on our planet, without simultaneously generating an additional harm, one of greater social inequality. In the cases of alcohol and cigarettes, this greater social inequality is perceived as justified. This is because the products themselves are viewed as harmful not only to the consumers themselves but can lead to harms to those other than the consumer, through the consumer’s own direct practices. It is not the direct effect of the consumption of the meat product itself that we would wish to be reduced (ignoring the fact that yes, excessive amounts of any food is bad for your health), for no one fears anti-social behaviour in one with a penchant for meat as they do an alcohol abuser, but the indirect harms such as the soil erosion effects to land which is used for livestock farming.

For many, meat is a necessity in terms of a balanced diet, unless we are to expect a total upheaval of consumption patterns right away. Therefore, we can see that the problem lies mainly in the practices exercised on the side of supply, rather than in the demand itself, and so approaching the situation from an angle which wishes to influence demand is not the most efficient.

The opposition wish to draw attention in particular to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the implications of this tax proposal on this system of subsidies which in 2006 accounted for 45.4% of the EU’s budget.
[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm]].
Were the EU to adopt the Prop’s plan therefore, this would put them in the extraordinary position of simultaneously paying farmers huge subsidies and taxing their product!
Furthermore, the proposition’s tax on meat would surely be in direct opposition to CAP’s current stance of making “payments conditional on farmers meeting environmental and animal welfare standards and keeping their land in good condition” [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm]].
CAP wishes to encourage farmers to engage in practices which are environmentally friendly by subsidising farmers who do so to the point they can compete in the industry with farmers who choose cheaper, more environmentally harmful methods of production.
It does this by providing more generous subsidies to those who go into organic production, as of 2000 “funds can be given to…encourage organic farming” [[http://www.economicshelp.org/europe/cap.html]]. This is because the EU recognises that it is the intensive breeding of livestock and poultry that lead to the harms that are associated with meat consumption (‘intensive’ being the word to note). The blunt tool that is a blanket tax on meat would not only render a large amount of money spent on European farming wasted, but the extra subsidies provided to organic farmers. This is because the increase in price the tax would impose on organically farmed products would see the practice of organic farming resume an uncompetitive status.

The tax proposition endorses no longer sees it viable for countries within the EU to produce their meat organically to compete with the economies of scale style production of cheap meat imported from, for instance, Brazil or Argentina. With the EU even expressing the view that “It is important to ensure that trade does not undermine the EU’s efforts to improve the protection of the welfare of animals for example” [[http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/fact/meat/2004_en.pdf]] we ought to realise that proposition’s scheme would be counter-productive in influencing the methods of meat production to gravitate towards environmentally practice, which the EU is actually taking great strides to do.

What we are seeing here, is the fundamental unsuitability of using a consumption tax to achieve environmental aims.

By removing subsidies and pricing externalities and inputs realistically, farmers who adopt more efficient environmentally sensitive practices win in the market place. In this way the market aligns the aims of consumers with the aims of the environment, precisely as the UN recommends.

But by placing a tax on consumption across the board, you remove the means and incentive for consumers to seek out more responsibly farmed meat (and very possibly create an incentive for them to increase consumption of less-responsibly produced livestock) while at the same time removing any incentive for producers to clean up their act.

We are pleased that Props concede that due to their measure ‘people will downgrade to lower quality of meat’ with all the contingent negative environmental consequences this entails.

We’ve shown how Prop’s model incentivises consumers to seek out cheaper meat, and how this might exacerbate the damage done by meat farmers to the environment.

To this Props say the revenue the tax raises and that creates this incentive can be used to pay the government to clean up the mess (which the tax itself helped create) and to encourage responsible production of meat!

But if it’s within our power to encourage responsible production of meat, why not just do so in the first place, as we advocate, without first making the problem worse? Particularly as our model enables us to raise more money, more surely, more promptly and in a fashion that automatically bears down on bad farming practices and rewards responsible ones?

The principle that the polluter pays is a guiding principle of the UN’s throughout the report Opps referred us to. This is why we didn’t define it. Nevertheless, here it is defined by the OECD:

‘a concept where manufacturers and importers of products should bear a significant degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product life-cycle, including upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself, and downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products. Producers accept their responsibility when designing their products to minimise life-cycle environmental impacts, and when accepting legal, physical or socio-economic responsibility for environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated by design.’
[http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_34395_37284725_1_1_1_1,00.html]

Opps say that ‘people buying meat are the reason producers produce meat. The production of meat leads to pollution.’ But we would seek to refine this by saying that not all meat production leads to pollution and some does more than others. This is why the principle that the polluter should pay is so important, it ensures price properly reflects environmental damage caused. In the Prop’s model however, even if I am extremely careful to buy only organic, responsibly farmed meat, and therefore am not enjoying ‘the result of the polluting action’ I still ‘need to pay the tax’. While if I care not a jot for how my meat was farmed, I pay the same.

In the second part of their rebuttal, Props say that our proposals ‘all require money to do’ this is simply not true. We say (for the umpteenth time) inputs should be properly priced, externalities charged for and subsidies removed. All three of these measures simultaneously tackle the problems Props wish to solve and raise revenue.

Props then contend that since these measures are necessary to ‘correct the results of the irresponsible acts of some people. It makes sense that these some people who enjoy the results of their acts also pay the bill.’ But as we show above this will not happen in their plan and does happen in ours.

We are intuitively opposed to regressive taxation for the reasons outlined. There is no conflict between this position and the wish to see a greater good: that the price of meat reflect the true environmental costs of its production. Particularly as our model incentivises the reduction of these costs in as efficient a manner as possible.

Farmers will find ways to reduce these costs or go out of business, and in the process they will reduce their impact on the environment in a way they are not incentivised to do in the Prop’s model.

VAT is imposed by national governments on all products. CAP is an EU subsidy that specifically targets agriculture for financial support on a massive scale. The plan Props recommend is, therefore, extraordinary in the history of economics for the simple reason that the same organisation (the EU) would simultaneously be singling out the same industry for special subsidies and taxes.

Taking the comparison Props are so fond of making with Tobacco and Alcohol, this is equivalent to paying tobacco manufacturers and distillers subsidies at the same time as charging them excise duties, something of a mixed message.

For people so happy to tax their own farmers indiscriminately, Prop show strange reluctance to extend this principle to the only place where it might actually do some good.

They concede our argument that raising the price of meat in the EU might lead to an increase in demand for cheaper imported meat with all the enormous environmental damage this brings with it. But then go on to say: ‘the EU can do nothing to make production of meat in these countries more expensive’.

Well, the EU may not be able to make production of foreign meat more expensive, but that is irrelevant to the case, because the EU can, very simply, make the price of it more expensive by, you’ve guessed it, placing an excise duty on meat produced OUTSIDE THE EU. This, at least, would make some environmental sense since imported meat attracts immeasurably higher environmental costs as we will show in our final point.

When your house is on fire, you don’t send a letter to the fire brigade.

Props began their argument with strong words about the urgency of the situation the planet is in. Just contemplate for a moment the length of time the plan they propose to combat this perilous threat would take to put into effect.

We begin with a commission charged to produce a report, a year or two later this leads to a consultation document. After this has done the rounds and all the various vested interests have had their say, maybe, a tentative draft proposal could be produced… You get the picture. We wonder if the Props are lawyers, as only a lawyer could view this prospect with any satisfaction.

(By the way, we would love to be a fly on the wall when Props put their plan to that most reasonable and law-abiding community: the French farmers. And we don’t suppose for a moment it would occur to British farmers to do anything so silly as protest this irrational and indiscriminate tax by blockading channel ports? Not to be outdone we notice that last May thousands of German farmers protested against increased taxes on diesel by driving their tractors through Berlin. How much more animated will farmers’ ire be when it is directed against those already-resented ‘unelected fat cat MEPs’ as they are styled in the popular press.)

Even the agreement (if it could ever be reached) is not the end of the affair of course. An enormous bureaucracy would need to be created; new powers granted to customs’ officers to prevent evasion, and so on.

And all for what? To possibly create a marginal reduction in demand for meat, at some point in the future, not even conditional on improving environmental practice, likely to incentivise further environmental damage, in the expectation that this will ameliorate the destruction of the planet that is taking place at an accelerating rate today.

Our planet is on fire, let’s not send a letter to the fire brigade.

The EU is already viewed with suspicion in many of its member states. Even France couldn’t pass its constitution in 2007 and Ireland and Holland also voted against.

The only way Britain became a signatory to the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties was by negotiating a series of ‘opt-out’ clauses that prevented the EU being able to mandate precisely the kind of interference in local affairs Props plan represents.

What tenuous mandate the EU has to affect the live of the citizens of its member states is, in short, fragile, and dependent on the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ which Prop’s plan clearly violates. Given our earlier experience, we define this principle below:

Subsidiarity ‘is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient. The principle was established in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, and was contained within the failed Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. However, at the local level it was already a key element of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, an instrument of the Council of Europe promulgated in 1985.’ (see Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Charter) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity]

In this political and economic climate, faced with the prospect of more expensive meat mandated by the EU (that subsidises farmers to the tune of $50bn a year) isn’t it certain that most EU citizens would prefer to keep their cheaper meat and do without the EU instead?

In its opening remarks Proposition drew our attention to two ways meat production damaged the environment most egregiously: through deforestation and reducing biodiversity.

Let us try to put these threats into some kind of global context. (We quote from the UN report unless stated otherwise.)

The first thing to note is that expansion of livestock farming and expansion of pasture areas into natural eco-systems ‘has essentially come to an end in most parts of the world, except for Latin America..’ ‘..and central Africa.’ [p256]

Secondly, ‘compared to the amounts of carbon released from changes in land use and land-degradation, emissions from the food chain are small’. [p115l

This leads the UN to conclude that ‘creating incentives for forest conservation and decreased deforestation, in Amazonia and other tropical areas, can offer a unique opportunity for climate change mitigation given the..’ ‘..relative low costs.’ [p116]

It’s also true that these same tropical forests while they account for only ‘8% of the world’s land surface…’. also ‘..hold more than 50% of the world’s species. Tropical regions support two-thirds of the estimated 250 000 plant species and 30% of bird species’ [p183]

The UN points out that Latin America is the continent where livestock production accounts most directly for deforestation, estimating that over the past decade 24 million hectares of neotropical land have been given over to grazing. [p187]

In contrast, in Europe today ‘traditional grazing is seen as having positively affected biodiversity in pastures, by creating and maintaining sward structural heterogeneity, particularly as a result of dietary choice.’ [Rook et al 2004]

The UN agrees: ‘in some contexts (e.g. Europe) extensive grazing may provide a tool to maintain a threatened but ecologically valuable level of landscape heterogeneity.’ [p188]

The last piece of the puzzle we need to finish the picture is demand. Here again the problem is not with Europe, where demand for meat has remained relatively static, but in the developing world, especially China, where, as the Props have pointed out demand for meat is expected to grow exponentially.

In this context circuitously reducing demand for meat and meat products in Europe, in a manner that risks actually increasing our appetite for cheaper imported meat as per props plan, will exacerbate rather than mitigate the impending environmental catastrophe awaiting us.

Proposition is barking up the wrong tree, with the wrong dog.

Proposition argued meat production presented four threats to the planet: it contributed to global warming, damaged the water supply, reduced bio-diversity and wasted grain. They went on to say that a European excise tax on meat was the ‘appropriate remedy’.

We accepted the first three threats were real and the aim to correct them was desirable, but we disagreed that taxing meat consumption would solve the problem.

We didn’t believe the fourth threat was genuine at all, so perhaps we can get this out of the way before summarising our objections to using taxation as an instrument to solve the others.

Their chain of reasoning went as follows: ‘growing livestock wastes grain…’ ‘…if the grain that is used to grow pork, for an example, would be used to feed humans more humans would get fed…’

We were happy to concede the first point: that growing livestock is comparatively wasteful of grain, but we couldn’t see how, nor did Proposition ever establish, this argued for a European tax on meat consumption. As we put this in our rebuttal, the cause of people going hungry in the developing world isn’t a lack of capacity in the West. To make this point stick Proposition would need to show how making European farming less wasteful of grain (even if this was the outcome of their proposal) would assist the cause of those going without food elsewhere. They were not able to do so.

This said, the main focus of the debate became the suitability or otherwise of an excise tax as a way of tackling the three genuine threats to the environment caused by meat production.

Proposition advocated this approach on two grounds, to reduce demand and to raise revenue ‘some or all of which can be used to mitigate the harms caused by excessive meat production.’

Again, we felt the second purpose of the tax could be dismissed relatively easily. This is because at present farming in general and livestock farming in particular, benefits from enormous financial support from the EU. Props would maintain these subsidies and simultaneously tax the product they help subsidise. We saw this is as economic madness when the simple expedient of dispensing with them achieved everything Props desired in a way that was guaranteed to provide revenue in a much more timely fashion. This is the approach preferred by the UN, which cites the case of New Zealand where the simple act of removing these subsidies resulted in ‘what has become one of the most efficient and environmentally benign ruminant livestock industries!’ [their ref. p 277]

Having dismissed Prop’s plan to raise revenue as economically flawed, it wasn’t even clear, in our view, that Prop’s plan would raise money, or that its impact on consumption would be without serious negative consequences. This was the third area of contention to which we now turn.

We believe that rather than simply stop eating meat altogether when faced with a price rise consumers would seek out cheaper cuts or sources of meat, a point Props conceded. Both actions have the potential to exacerbate the damage done to the environment by meat production. We have seen, for example, how the recession has led to a fall in demand of organically produced meat. And since the tax is indiscriminate, i.e. it does not favour farmers who employ these better environmental practices, it will simply add to this pressure on organic or otherwise more ethical farmers. Meanwhile those farmers who use every means at their disposal to lower costs, including “antibiotics, hormones… fertilizers and pesticides” will be rewarded for these bad practices.

Another beneficiary of the Props plan will be farmers operating in parts of the world with a comparative economic advantage over the EU, such as Latin America. Props shrugged their shoulders at this prospect, saying simply that their meat is ‘already cheaper at the moment’ and there is nothing the EU can do about it.

We found this attitude extraordinary in the context of their overall economic approach and the global context of the problem. The real battleground in the fight against climate change and to preserve biodiversity is the tropical rainforests, and Latin America is the continent where these precious cradles of life are most under threat from the encroachment of livestock farmers. Surely what tenuous grounds Props have for their attempt to reduce European demand for meat is dependent upon directing consumption away from meat produced in these vital habitats, not towards them?

Their plan, will have the same impact on costs ‘regardless of where it was produced’, this is precisely the problem. We seek to make the cost of meat reflect the environmental harm caused in its production. Thus meat produced on land reclaimed from tropical rain forests would in our plan be priced out of the market, while in theirs it becomes relatively more attractive to consume.

What makes their defeatism even harder to understand is their preferred mechanism, excise tax, is particularly well-suited to combating this problem, by making imported meat more expensive.

We ended our critique of Prop’s plan by pointing out that the glacial speed at which the EU could institute it was entirely out of step with their presentation of the crisis. We further doubted whether the EU had the level of support among its citizens or member states to pass it into law, and we bemoaned it as a distraction from the far more pressing problem of tackling the explosion of demand in the developing world and its likely devastating impact on tropical habitats.

Throughout our critique we were able to show that far more effective means were available to the EU to combat the threats Props identified, that did not suffer from the critical deficiencies of Props’ plan. We based this on the UN’s own analysis that the key to reducing livestock’s long shadow was resource efficiency. And that the most effective way to achieve this was by ensuring inputs and externalities were priced realistically and subsidies removed.

Between them these three measures would ensure the price of meat reflected the true environmental cost of its production, wherever it took place, elegantly aligning the interests of consumers and the environment in a manner proposition’s plan so singularly, and disastrously, fails to do.