The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets – The case of Denmark

By Louise Dyhr Edjabou, Sinne Smed. 2013

163 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Economics and Econometrics, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f33a99c02f7fa75f27d410ffce14347d9f07989

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Economics and Econometrics

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden (2015, background): “Wirsenius et al. (2011) considered consumption taxes in the EU on animal products and Edjabou and Smed (2013) designed taxes for a large set of food items in Denmark, in order to regulate GHG emissions and promote an environmental friendly diet.”
Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions (2019, background): “Furthermore, the large deforestation carbon footprints of some agricultural and forest products could also be addressed through carbon taxes on food products in export markets (Wirsenius et al., 2011; Edjabou and Smed, 2013).”
Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures (2017, background): “…pro-environmental dietary guidelines in Sweden, Brazil and the Netherlands (Fischer and Garnett, 2016) and modelling of the use of GHG taxes to reduce the consumption of meat and dairy foods, which seem to offer some potential (Edjabou and Smed, 2013; Säll and Gren, 2015; Wirsenius et al., 2011).”
How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture (2016, background): “However, very few, and rather limited, studies have been carried out on such options (Edjabou and Smed, 2013; Säll and Gren, 2015; Wirsenius et al., 2011), and more comprehensive analyses are needed of the potentials, administrative and social costs, and implementation hurdles of such interventions.”
Mapping the carbon footprint of EU regions (2017, result): “Thesefindings are in agreement with prior analysis of the Danish consumption-based emissions embodied in food (Edjabou and Smed 2013).”
Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution (2016, background): “The growth of the world’s population and rising disposable incomes has led to an increase in global meat consumption (de Boer et al., 2014; Hallström et al., 2014; Edjabou and Smed, 2013).”
Urban versus conventional agriculture, taxonomy of resource profiles: a review (2016, background): “Internalizing environmental burdens of food production within prices using Pigovian taxes has been suggested to nudge consumers away from environmentally burdensome foods (e.g., meat and dairy) (Edjabou and Smed 2013).”
Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors (2017, background): “Monetary considerations strongly influence people’s food choices, including meat consumption behaviour (Furst et al. 1996; Ritson and Petrovici 2001; Lanfranco and Rava 2014; Edjabou and Smed 2013).”
Trade-offs between environment and livelihoods: Bridging the global land use and food security discussions (2017, unknown): “In a study for Denmark covering all food products, the most efficient scenario estimated a reduction in calories consumption of 1.2– 6.1% for a cost of around 20–230 EUR / tCO2eq (Edjabou and Smed 2013).”