I chose to analyze two articles on climate change and food tax: Mitigation Potential and Global Health Impacts from Emissions Pricing of Food Commodities published by Nature Climate Change; and UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change published by The Federalist Papers Project.
Article 1: Mitigation Potential and Global Health Impacts from Emissions Pricing of Food Commodities by Nature Climate Change
The main thesis of the study is levying greenhouse gas (GHG) taxes on food commodities could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate-change-mitigation policy in high-income, middle-income, and most low-income countries. The authors largely utilize logical arguments to appeal to their audience.
The study first provides the argument for reducing the GHG emissions related to food production. It claims the food system is responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also, population growth and dietary changes towards emissions-intensive animal-based foods are expected to increase the GHG emissions from food and agriculture by up to 80% by mid-century. In addition, in 2050, the study predicts food-related GHG emissions could take up half of the total emissions allowed to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius and exceed this figure by 2070. Therefore, the study concludes that reducing the GHG emissions related to food production will have to become a critical component of policies aimed at mitigating climate change.
After establishing the need for reducing the GHG emissions related to food production, the study proceeds to argue for the demand-side policies for addressing the environmental costs associated with food production. It claims agriculture has long been excluded from comprehensive climate policies due to difficulties in monitoring agricultural emissions, the lack of technical mitigation options, and concerns about the potential impacts on food security. Pricing GHG emissions at source incentivizes emissions reduction across the life cycle, but would require detailed farm-level measurements, which are highly variable, and therefore very costly to monitor. In addition, although some technological mitigation options exist, most of the agricultural GHG emissions are related to intrinsic nature of the agricultural system, and therefore difficult to address without substantial effects on agricultural output and the availability of food. On the contrary, the study claims levying GHG taxes on the consumption side instead of the production side has been argued to be an economically preferable approach, given the nature of agriculture. Furthermore, measures to change diets away from emissions- intensive good commodities are seen to offer great potential for reducing GHG emissions and could be associated with additional co-benefits in terms of improvements in human health. Therefore, the study concludes that demand-side policies could be a viable option for addressing the environmental costs associated with food production.
After establishing the viability of demand-side policies for addressing the environmental costs associated with food production, the study proceeds to argue for emissions pricing of food commodities. Based on the findings of the study, emissions pricing of food commodities represents a 9% reduction in food-related GHG emissions in 2020, and about 10% of the emissions gap in 2020 that needs to be bridged to have a likely chance of limiting global warming to below two degrees Celsius. In addition, the health benefit identified in this study are of an order of magnitude similar to the potential health benefits that global climate policies could have on air pollution associated with coal-fired power generation. Therefore, the study argues that levying GHG taxes on food commodities could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate-change-mitigation policy in high-income, middle-income, and most low-income countries.
Article 2: UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change by The Federalist Papers Project
The article combines the use of logical arguments and emotional appeals to convince its audience of its claim. The main argument of the article is the study published by Nature Climate Change is unashamedly promotional of freedom-limiting policies.
The author begins by analyzing the researchers’ reasoning for implementing a massive food tax on food commodities to address unhealthy eating habits and climate change. He claims the study ignores the roles of nutritional education. He also claims the study assumes that people are too stupid for freedom and, therefore, need fiscal persuasion. Therefore, because of these two false premises, the researchers propose implementing a massive food tax on food commodities to address unhealthy eating habits and climate change.
The article proceeds to argue for the potential ineffectiveness of the policy. The author claims that there are around 2.5 million alcohol-related deaths, worldwide annually, and about 6 million tobacco-related deaths. Because these substances are taxed heavily, yet taxation has failed to curb the use of alcohol and tobacco and instead lowers the quality of living of already overtaxed populations, the author argues that we should expect the same result if food taxes are implemented.
The author, then, proceeds to argue that the study is unashamedly promotional of freedom-limiting policies. He claims scientists will admit that carbon emissions from agriculture do not compare with that of industry, specifically China’s industries. Moreover, the researchers’ health-promoting policies do not focus on which foods are actually unhealthy, but rather which foods their research has deemed carbon-intensive. Also, climate change has become an excuse for stealing more money from people who earned it. Therefore, the author concludes that taxation is only about revenue for governments that can make no money on their own yet wish to spend frivolously on programs engineered to control the people and restrict their freedoms.
Analysis
In disputing the claim made by the study, the author of Article 2, though applying the same rhetorical strategies based on logical arguments as the authors of Article 1 in addition to emotional appeals, falls for several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author only provides the segments of the study that directly support his case and intentionally omits other information that would otherwise weaken his case, a clear instance of stacking the deck fallacy. For example, the author only emphasizes the negative impacts of emissions pricing on the price of meats and dairy products without mentioning the overall cost-benefit analysis of the impacts of food taxes on health and the environment conducted by the study.
In addition, the author’s claim on the researchers’ reasoning for implementing a massive food tax on food commodities to address unhealthy eating habits and climate change falls for the straw man fallacy, oversimplifying the overall thesis of the study. He based his claim on two premises: that the researchers ignore the need for nutritional education; and that they believe people are too stupid for freedom and, therefore, need fiscal persuasion. However, the study proposes levying GHG taxes on food commodities based on its positive impacts on both the environment and health, not on the two aforementioned premises.
Furthermore, the author’s argument for the potential ineffectiveness of the policy is a form of hasty generalization. He claims that food taxes would be ineffective only because taxation has failed to curb the use of alcohol and tobacco. This claim is based on only two samples, a clear example of misuse of inductive reasoning. Lastly, his claim that the study is unashamedly promotional of freedom-limiting policies is a clear evidence of irrelevant conclusion. Claiming emissions pricing of food commodities would restrict people’ freedom does not reduce the validity and soundness of the study’s overall conclusion.
On the contrary, the study carefully addresses potential concerns about the impacts of increased food prices and reductions in food availability on food and nutrition security, which further strengthens its overall argument. The study shows that the health benefits from tax- related reductions in obesity could outweigh the health losses from increased numbers of underweight people in three-quarters of all regions. Also, tax-related reductions in red meat consumption would result in additional health benefits that outweigh health losses from reductions in consumption of other food groups. Nonetheless, the study emphasizes the need for special policy in some low-income countries, other countries where a high fraction of the population is underweight, and possibly for low-income segments within countries, to prevent potential health losses associated with increased numbers of people who are underweight and, to a lesser extent, with reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables. Also, excluding food groups known to be particularly beneficial for health from taxation, and using a portion of tax revenues for health promotion are potential policy options that could help reduce the negative health impacts for exposed populations, whilst promoting changes towards diets which are more environmentally sustainable.