COPENHAGEN, Denmark— Denmark, renowned for its innovative culinary scene and stylish design, is about to make headlines for its groundbreaking environmental policy: the world’s first tax on livestock emissions, informally dubbed the "fart tax.”
This measure has emerged from the unique environmental and agricultural circumstances of Denmark, where there are about five times as many pigs and cows as there are people. With nearly two-thirds of its land devoted to farming, agriculture has become the leading contributor to climate pollution, prompting lawmakers to take substantial action.
Recently, Denmark's coalition government—an unusual gathering of three parties from across the political spectrum—finalized the tax on methane emissions produced by livestock, including emissions from burps, farts, and manure. Approved by the Danish parliament this November, it positions Denmark as the pioneer of such climate regulation.
The idea behind the tax is twofold: to nudge both consumers and farmers toward more sustainable choices and to address the urgent need for reducing agricultural pollution. Rasmus Angelsnes, 31, who was browsing for groceries in Copenhagen, expressed, “I think it’s good. It’s kind of a nudge to make different choices, maybe more climate-friendly choices.” Ironically, he was purchasing pork belly, which he defended as “comfort food.”
This tax initiative is integral to Denmark's broader environmental strategy, which aims to restore damaged farmland to its natural state. Efforts to reestablish peatlands—natural wetlands rich in carbon storage—are also part of this plan. These peatlands, drained for agriculture decades ago, are known to effectively sequester greenhouse gases, making their restoration pivotal to the country’s climate goals.
The challenge of transforming agriculture is not unique to Denmark. Across the globe, the food system accounts for nearly 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. Developing solutions requires balancing complex realities, including the politicized nature of farming and the substantial lobbying power of agricultural interests.
After much debate, the Danish government settled on the exact form and details of the tax. An independent panel suggested various approaches, one of which included higher taxes heavily resisted by farmers. The government finally agreed on a plan offering farmers time and financial support to adapt, an arrangement criticized by environmental proponents for being insufficiently stringent.
Demonstrators gathered outside government offices during the negotiations, with protest signs reading, “Food for people, not feed for animals,” calling attention to the balance between animal farming and food security. Amidst the protests, some teenagers shouted, “I love minced meat,” showcasing the dichotomy of opinions surrounding livestock farming.
Beginning in 2030, Danish farmers will incur a fee of 300 Danish kroner (approximately $43) for every ton of methane emitted. By 2035, this rate will escalate to 750 kroner. Unlike conventional carbon taxes, the farming sector receives automatic rebates of 60%, allowing farmers to manage their emissions without immediate financial strain. These rebates may increase as farmers implement methane-reducing technologies, such as additives for animal feed or systems to treat manure sustainably.
According to Jeppe Bruus, Denmark’s minister for green transition, “A tax on pollution aims to change behavior.” The presence of the center-right Venstre party, traditionally aligned with farmers’ interests, has been pivotal for the tax's approval, emphasizing compromise.
Even major dairy cooperative Arla Foods has recognized the necessity of such measures. Though not inherently supportive of the tax, they acknowledge the industry's responsibility to clean up its environmental act. CEO Peder Tuborgh remarked, “They understand they need to do it; they want to do it. They know it is protecting their reputation, and they’re still producing.”
Among the farmers adapting to these changes is Jens Christian Sørensen, who manages around 300 milking cows. He is employing technology to monitor animal health and optimize feed management. Planning to introduce feed additives already used by farmers abroad, he acknowledges the accounting for both economic viability and ecological responsibility, stating, “The dairy industry, we also have to deal with this. It’s not the end of the business.”
The global demand for Danish dairy remains strong; approximately two-thirds of butter and half of milk powder is exported, with rising trends expected as developing nations seek increased dairy production. Sørensen’s children, reflective of shifting dietary preferences, show less desire for red meat, particularly beef, compared to previous generations.
Organic farmer Svend Brodersen, faced with stricter limitations on feed additives, adopts innovative strategies. He has begun replacing parts of his cropland with trees to absorb carbon dioxide. Brodersen supports the methane tax as it signals to the globe the potential for sustainable farming without excessive pollution, asserting, “Without a tax, everyone will do the same tomorrow as they did yesterday.”
Denmark's agricultural framework is confronted with existential questions about land use. Brodersen is considering shifting more of his land toward crops for human consumption instead of livestock. “You need cows in nature,” he said, “but you have to find a balance between how much milk and how many vegetables.”
The implementation of the tax not only addresses immediate greenhouse gas emissions but also aligns with Denmark's commitment to environmental sustainability as part of its Green Tripartite Agreement. This strategic plan aims to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 2.35 million tons by 2032 and includes significant biodiversity improvements through the planting of new forests over 250,000 hectares of land.
The climate crisis continues challenging nations worldwide, and Denmark’s bold measures represent both the urgency of the issue and the path forward. The tax on livestock emissions may well inspire others grappling with the dual obligations of food production and climate responsibility to rethink their own policies and approaches.
This report originally appeared in The New York Times and highlights not just the turning point for Danish agriculture but serves as a lens through which the global community might evaluate its response to agricultural emissions.