A survey has found people would prefer taxing “high-impact food” - such as meat - but Dr Jacqueline Rowarth says it's not an energy-dense product. Photo / 123rf
A survey has found people would prefer taxing “high-impact food” - such as meat - but Dr Jacqueline Rowarth says it's not an energy-dense product. Photo / 123rf
Swedish researchers want their findings on rationing to be discussed at COP29.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, is a director of DairyNZ, Ravensdown and Deer Industry NZ. She is also a member of the Scientific Council of the World Farmers’ Organisation.
OPINION
Could food rationing become a reality in the war on climate change?
Published at the end of September, their study reported the first cross-country analysis of whether people would accept rationing as a climate policy instrument.
A survey of more than 8650 individuals across five countries (Brazil, Germany, India, South Africa, and the United States) on five continents revealed that for fossil fuel, the acceptability of rationing was similar to that of taxation.
In contrast, people surveyed would generally rather have taxation on “high-impact food” than rationing.
Across the full sample, 38% of the respondents accepted fossil fuel rationing (monthly limits on fossil fuel purchases), 39% accepted fossil fuel taxation, 33% accepted high climate-impact food rationing (monthly limits on meat purchases) and 44% accepted taxation on high climate-impact foods.
Note, however, that “high climate impact food” was identified as meat, calculated to “produce more emissions per unit of energy than other foods”. But meat is not an energy-dense food, it is protein with appropriate ratios of essential amino acids for human use, as well as vitamins, iron and micronutrients. A calculation based on “energy” is not appropriate.
Researchers commented that responders from low and middle-income countries appeared to be more receptive to the idea of rationing and taxation than those in higher-income countries.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth says subsidies, whether on fossil fuel or food, distort behaviour.
How much of this apparent positive attitude was because responders from the less affluent countries didn’t think that rationing would apply to them, was not investigated.
And that is the overall difficulty — who should make the changes in their lives?
Politicians, in general, tend to be unwilling to make decisions that they think will lose them votes.
As a result, we see greenhouse gas targets being set in public (the Paris Agreement, and Nationally Determined Contributions, for instance) and then national changes that make fossil fuel, for instance, easier to afford.
In New Zealand, a reduction in Fuel Excise Duty by 25 cents per litre occurred in March 2022 to reduce the impact on the cost of living and allow for “business as usual”.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
One of the current reasons for the support given to former US President Donald Trump is that fuel was cheaper under his presidency — with no thought of a four-year passing of time or the effect on fuel prices of the Russia-Ukraine war.
Nor of the income tax (which includes the fossil fuel industries) that goes through the government to support fossil fuel subsidies in the US.
The International Monetary Fund calculated that in 2022, US$3 billion ($5b) was given to fossil fuel companies in America and only US$0.9b was collected from them in tax.
Another US$754b was estimated in implicit subsidies — costs that are borne by society at large rather than producers, including negative health impacts and environmental degradation.
America has about 13% of its area protected.
In contrast, New Zealand has 30% under the conservation estate — which is the figure desired for the world and discussed at COP16 in California in October.
The various COP meetings over the years have shown that all countries make declarations when in the presence of other leaders, but achieving their stated goals is difficult.
Carless days in New Zealand, implemented to reduce fuel consumption, are an example.
In 1979, the government banned weekend petrol sales and then introduced carless days.
Multi-car families simply chose different days for keeping their cars off the road, and this, with the exemptions available, meant the scheme was ineffective.
The Swedish researchers want rationing to be discussed.
They suggested that their research findings showed potential for rationing as a means to address climate change and other sustainability-related challenges.
COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, will be full of serious political and scientific dialogue, but possibly not about rationing.
About 40,000 delegates are expected (in contrast to the 100,000 at COP28); provision and mobilisation of finance are key points on the agenda.
Outcomes of the first Global Stocktake from COP28, including the agreement to transition away from fossil fuels, will also feature.
But given the ongoing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry globally, not just in America, that bit might be short.
