138
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Reposting my deeper level comment as a top level comment...

Let's do some math here...

100 / 365 ≈ €0.274 per day.

You really think that'll put much of a dent in a farmer's wallet?

Let's do some more math. Let's say they raise the price of a gallon of milk by €0.10. Nobody will bat an eye, they'll just chalk it up to general inflation.

A good healthy dairy cow produces ~ 9 gallons of milk per day.

So, €0.10 * 9 = €0.90 per day extra, per dairy cow. That would actually yield the farmer an actual net gain of ~ €0.626 per day, per cow, subtracting the daily tax.

That would actually end up with the farmer gaining ~ €228.50 per year per cow, after the tax.

Ain't nobody gonna bat an eye if they raise the cost of milk by €0.10 per gallon. Nothing will change, except the farmers will jack the prices around just enough that nobody cares and they actually profit from it.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 16 points 4 months ago

This carbon tax, like most others, is designed so that the price is initially far below the damage done by the emissions, and it rises over time to encourage behavior changes. So no, I don't expect it to initially make much difference. I do expect it to make a difference in the future though.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I just see it as a gradual way to slowly increase prices, at such a slow rate that people don't tend to care, while both the farmers and the government collect more profit.

Nothing will change with such a slow method. Wanna make a difference and make a real change, just double the price of milk and beef overnight.

[-] pot_belly_mole@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 months ago

While a tempting logic, in my understanding of the dairy market this is not correct. To my knowledge, here in Finland the big retail chains initiate auctions for the milk contracts, which are highly competed. If a producer tries to raise the price, they will likely not sell any milk at all. On top of that, milk is an important loss leader for the retail chains. The price is kept as low as possible, and it might even be sold at a loss, to tempt customers who will then compensate for this loss with the rest of their shopping basket. Against this, it would be very incorrect to assume that nobody bats an eye if the price of milk increases ten cents.

[-] myplacedk@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If the competition is that high, the farmers will have very low profit margins. Any extra expense needs to be added to the price.

This won't affect competition much, as all farmers have the same tax and therefore the same need for increased price.

The only noteworthy thing I see here (based on your information) is that the extra tax is per cow, but the price increase will be on the milk. This will hit farmers with lower amount of milk per cow. I guess this is farmers with more focus on quality and animal welfare.

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 4 points 4 months ago

I wanna know who uses the Euro and sells milk in gallons, heh.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

We do need some bananas for scale, yes.

The percentages of my math still add up. Who TF is gonna bat an eye at €0.10 or $0.10 price increase?

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You've got it all wrong, the farmers will pay, the prices go up, they still lose 100 bucks a cow, and the milk company makes the extra .10 a gallon. Capitalism in action.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

That scenario doesn't sound too far off base either. Still, nobody gonna bat an eye with a €0.10 increase, while either/or the government, the farmers, or the milk compamy CEO just gain profits.

this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
138 points (96.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5246 readers
352 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS