Economics professor Michael Svarer is running for the title of Denmark’s bravest man.
Because it requires a certain amount of stamina to stand up in front of 400 farmers, whose state of mind varies from dissatisfied to furious, when three proposals for a new CO2 tax on agriculture have been presented shortly before.
Although the top economist knew very well what awaited when he visited the association Bæredygtigt Landbrug’s general meeting, it still caught his eye when an elderly farmer took the floor and said the following:
– Michael, before you came on, we had some lunch and sat and talked regarding how brave you really are. Because if it had been 1824, this morning we would have been building a gallows out back to hang the messenger. So be glad it’s called 2024.
Now, it’s not every day that someone in an open assembly jokes regarding hanging a professor on a gallows.
– I actually think it was unpleasant, Michael Svarer said followingwards to DR, while Sustainable Agriculture’s chairman, Peter Kiær, was busy stressing that “farming is not just a job.”
– It’s a lifestyle.
That the Danish farmer proudly stands up for his profession, no one can doubt. And with good reason. Over the centuries, agriculture has played a major role in both our self-understanding as a nation, our economy and employment.
But notice the use of the word ‘hair’.
Because agriculture is not what it once was.
Today, agriculture, including closely related businesses, constitutes a very small part of the Danish economy, both in terms of employees and the value creation that the business contributes.
Nevertheless, agriculture is allowed to account for almost a third of Denmark’s total CO2 emissions.
Unless, that is, you belong to the part of the profession that believes that agriculture does not emit CO2 at all, because the farmers’ fields also absorb CO2 – and the calculation thus goes to zero.
The debate regarding a CO2 tax on agriculture is inflamed to the bone, and it reveals not least an abysmal mismatch between agriculture’s self-understanding and the reality that the rest of us look into.
One thing is that agricultural emissions are a strong contributor to the internal Danish fjords and waters being tormented by oxygen depletion and turned into dead, barren moonscapes.
Something else is that it has been politically decided that Denmark must reduce its CO2 emissions by 70 percent by 2030. If it does not succeed, it will be more expensive for all of us, and the vast majority of economists agree that the most efficient and cheapest for society is to introduce a tax on agriculture, which for decades has not been able – or had the desire – to reduce its own emissions.
In that reality, farmers can use gallows humor. They can threaten to drive their tractors to Christiansborg or do as the deputy chairman of Agriculture & Food, Thor Gunnar Kofoed:
Label the Svarer report’s calculations as a factually incorrect party submission.
But one would so wish that agriculture as a whole took part in the conversation instead of standing on the sidelines with arms crossed.
Because there are good arguments for why a CO2 tax must not be too high and thus too hard on farmers’ competitiveness. It is regarding Denmark’s self-sufficiency. About export. And regarding the people who – also according to the Svarer committee – risk losing their jobs.
In rural areas, where jobs – despite the high employment – do not hang on the trees.
Now use those arguments.
The goals we must achieve, both for the climate, nature and our common future, are too important to be derailed by resistance to facts and irreconcilable threats of fire.
2024-03-03 08:11:45
#farmers #good #arguments #wont #hang #professor
