IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v152y2017icp131-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How effective can environmental taxes be in reducing the environmental impact of pig farming systems?

Author

Listed:
  • Mackenzie, S.G.
  • Wallace, M.
  • Kyriazakis, I.

Abstract

Environmental taxes are a form of incentive regulation available to governments to drive reductions in environmental impact. The aims of this study were to: 1) develop a framework that enabled quantification of the potential effect of environmental taxes on pig diet composition and 2) examine the relationship between tax level and its effectiveness in reducing environmental impacts from pig systems. Three taxes were investigated: a carbon tax on the feed ingredients as purchased, and two financial penalties on the field spreading of N and P in manure respectively. Each tax was integrated into a diet-formulation model for pig diets in Eastern and Western Canada and tested at a range of tax levels. The two regions use different feed ingredients and constitute a test for spatial variation in the consequences of tax measures on diet-formulation. In each case diets were formulated to minimise feed cost per kg of live weight gain and the effect of the tax on feed cost as well as on predicted N and P excretion by the pigs were calculated. The results were then tested in a Life Cycle Assessment model representative of pig farming systems in the two regions, which calculated the potential effect of the diets on the aggregated environmental impacts of each farming system. The environmental impact implications of each environmental tax were quantified using four impact categories: Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential and non-renewable resource use. As environmental tax levels increased, trigger points in the tax range caused dietary change which reduced levels of the targeted emission type. In almost all the tax scenarios the largest reductions in the target emission per Canadian Dollar (C$) increase in cost were achieved at the lower end of the tax range tested, as diminishing marginal returns were evident. The taxes on spreading N and P in manure did not significantly reduce levels of any environmental impact category tested in most cases. In many of the scenarios the environmental taxes altered the diet in a way which significantly increased levels of at least one of the environmental impact categories considered. These results showed the potential for taxes which target specific emissions, to increase system-level environmental impacts in livestock production. The study demonstrated how system-level environmental impact models can be used to quantify the potential of environmental taxes set at different rates to reduce overall environmental impact levels in livestock systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Mackenzie, S.G. & Wallace, M. & Kyriazakis, I., 2017. "How effective can environmental taxes be in reducing the environmental impact of pig farming systems?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 131-144.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:152:y:2017:i:c:p:131-144
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.12.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16302591
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.12.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Waldhoff, Stephanie & Anthoff, David & Rose, Steven K. & Tol, Richard S. J., 2014. "The marginal damage costs of different greenhouse gases: An application of FUND," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 8, pages 1-33.
    2. Anthoff, David & Hepburn, Cameron & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 836-849, January.
    3. Wei Wei & Yile Liang & Feng Liu & Shengwei Mei & Fang Tian, 2014. "Taxing Strategies for Carbon Emissions: A Bilevel Optimization Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Thomas A. Barthold, 1994. "Issues in the Design of Environmental Excise Taxes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 133-151, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Jiangong & Akdeniz, Neslihan & Kim, Harrison Hyung Min & Gates, Richard S. & Wang, Xinlei & Wang, Kaiying, 2021. "Optimal manure utilization chain for distributed animal farms: Model development and a case study from Hangzhou, China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    2. He, Pinglin & Zhang, Shuhao & Wang, Lei & Ning, Jing, 2023. "Will environmental taxes help to mitigate climate change? A comparative study based on OECD countries," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1440-1464.
    3. Miceikienė Astrida & Walczak Damian & Misevičiūtė Ieva, 2022. "The Impact of Environmental Taxes on Mitigation of Pollution in Agriculture: The Theoretical Approach," Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, Sciendo, vol. 44(3), pages 263-273, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    3. David Anthoff & Johannes Emmerling, 2019. "Inequality and the Social Cost of Carbon," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(2), pages 243-273.
    4. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Targets for global climate policy: An overview," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 911-928.
    5. Disa Asplund, 2019. "Combining discounting and distributional weights. Lessons from climate change economic assessments," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 181-201.
    6. Richard S. J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have increased over time," Papers 2105.03656, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    7. Richard S J Tol, 2018. "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 4-25.
    8. Simone Blanc & Stefano Massaglia & Filippo Brun & Cristiana Peano & Angela Mosso & Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, 2019. "Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    10. Matthias Schmidt & Hermann Held & Elmar Kriegler & Alexander Lorenz, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Uncertain and Heterogeneous Climate Damages," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(1), pages 79-99, January.
    11. Christine Schleupner & P. Michael Link, 2007. "Potential impacts on important bird habitats in Eiderstedt (Schleswig-Holstein) caused by agricultural land use changes," Working Papers FNU-138, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jun 2007.
    12. Don Fullerton & Inkee Hong & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2001. "A Tax on Output of the Polluting Industry Is Not a Tax on Pollution: The Importance of Hitting the Target," NBER Chapters, in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 13-44, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Zuber, Stéphane & Fleurbaey, Marc, 2019. "Discounting and Intergenerational Ethics," SocArXiv xjhkp, Center for Open Science.
    14. Löschel, Andreas & Alexeeva-Talebi, Victoria & Mennel, Tim, 2008. "Climate Policy and the Problem of Competitiveness: Border Tax Adjustments or Integrated Emission Trading?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Newbery, David, 2018. "Policies for decarbonizing a liberalized power sector," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-24.
    16. Yannic Rehm & Lucas Chancel, 2022. "Measuring the Carbon Content of Wealth Evidence from France and Germany," PSE Working Papers halshs-03828939, HAL.
    17. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Discounting, risk and inequality: A general approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 34-49.
    18. Franziska Piontek & Matthias Kalkuhl & Elmar Kriegler & Anselm Schultes & Marian Leimbach & Ottmar Edenhofer & Nico Bauer, 2019. "Economic Growth Effects of Alternative Climate Change Impact Channels in Economic Modeling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1357-1385, August.
    19. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rose, Adam, 2008. "Equity and Justice in Global Warming Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 135-176, October.
    20. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:152:y:2017:i:c:p:131-144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.