Some Gas Just Shouldn’t be Taxed

Out of the many policies that Canada could include in its Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, a tax on cow burps should not be on the list.

Cows produce methane when they digest food through a process called enteric fermentation and emit that enteric methane into the atmosphere when they burp. Currently, Canada does not have environmental policy that specifically targets methane emissions from livestock, but there is reason to believe that could change. Per the recent discussion document on the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, the government aims to fill policy gaps like the one left by enteric methane emissions.

Unfortunately for producers in New Zealand, their government announced just last year that it will be designing a program to tax livestock owners on the methane emissions of their animals. One hopes that we will not see a such a tax come to Canada, but given recent policies like the fertilizer emissions reduction target, that might be too much to hope for. As I write this, someone in the government will surely be considering how a tax on enteric emissions might work in Canada. While the arguments below will come as no surprise to any ranchers or farmers reading this, I hope they might be shared and potentially reach the doorstep of policymakers. To that end, here are three reasons why Canada should not implement a tax on enteric methane emissions.

First, producers already have the incentive to reduce their environmental impact. Inputs are expensive, and few producers have the margins to use any more than they must. Whether it’s fuel, fertilizer, water, or pasture, unnecessary inputs are costly to both the producer and the environment. Farm profitability and environmental sustainability are tied together. Consider that overall livestock emissions have been reduced by 20% in the last 15 years, and that water use per kg of beef declined 17% from 1981 to 2011. These improvements are primarily due to productivity and efficiency gains rather than environmental policy. Producers are already moving in the right direction and adding one more cost is only going to hurt them.

Second, imposing an additional financial strain on cattle operations could result in more conversion of pasture into cropland. The discussion document states multiple times that the conversion of pasture into cropland harms biodiversity, decreases soil health, and increases nitrous oxide emissions. An additional financial burden could push many producers to downsize or go out of business. Any unused pasture would then be bought up and, where suitable, used to grow crops. This is playing out in Eastern Canada, where downsized herds are causing the conversion of pasture into cropland. Out West, this could pose a particular problem because cow-calf operations are playing a significant role in preserving native prairie land. An enteric methane tax could actually magnify the issue it is trying to address, which just makes it a bad policy.

Finally, this policy would require accurate measurement of emissions at the farm level. Enteric methane emissions are measured by the National Inventory Report. This is a federal program which employs a top-down approach by producing estimates at the provincial/territorial level. The NIR estimates do not attribute emissions to individual emitters. As a result, farm-level estimates are likely to be inaccurate and producers could be credited with more, or fewer, emissions than they produced. While the challenges with emissions measurement are mentioned in the discussion document, no solutions are presented. Until these issues are addressed, an enteric methane tax would unfairly charge some producers more, and others less, without due regard to actual emission levels.

There has been a worrying global trend of demonizing agricultural producers in the name of climate activism. From the Netherlands to New Zealand to Sri Lanka, producers are being hit with policies that are substantially impacting their livelihoods. Right now, the global food supply is fragile, and governments should instead be supporting producers. An enteric methane tax on cattle producers represents a big step in the wrong direction, and hopefully, policymakers have the foresight to avoid taking it.

Grady Munro is a Master’s student at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.