Determining the climate impact of food for use in a climate tax—design of a consistent and transparent model
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to determine transparent food carbon footprint values for use in a climate tax, using a consistent methodology across the taxed food products and taking into account the need for such a tax to be administratively simple and accepted by affected stakeholders. A method based on Life Cycle Assessment following the ISO 14067 standard was developed for establishing simplified, yet consistent and transparent, datasets on the carbon footprint of food, for use as a base in a climate tax on food. Several sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the effects of inevitable methodological choices on the carbon footprint of different foods. The choices were then discussed in relation to taxation of food. The methodological choices included in the sensitivity analyses were different approaches to system boundaries, how to account for soil carbon changes and how to weigh greenhouse gases (GHGs). The results on the carbon footprint of food calculated with the suggested method are in line with earlier findings in the field, with animal products, especially beef, showing a substantially higher value than most plant-based foods. Regarding choice of system boundaries for using the values in a tax, it is of particular importance to target emissions from biological processes, as these are currently untaxed. This would also be administratively simpler but less acceptable as large emission sources especially for imported products and greenhouse grown vegetables would not be included. Modelling emissions from soil carbon changes using a site-dependent method can be an advantage to obtain results in line with empirical data. Using Global Warming Potential over 100 years to weigh GHGs would be most in line with current climate reporting, which is an advantage for the consistency and acceptability of a tax. Ultimately, how taxes are set is a political decision, but food carbon footprint values determined with a consistent and simplified methodology are required in the process. This study presents carbon footprint values established using such method and provides valuable insights into how methodological choices affect the results of climate impact values and the implications for taxation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This global warming potential is somewhat lower than previously reported values for Swedish beef from suckler herds.
“This is somewhat lower than previously reported values for Swedish beef from suckler herds (Moberg et al., 2019).”
From Time-dependent climate impact of beef production – can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions? (2022) · cites this paper as Moberg et al., 2019
The Results section (page unavailable) compares beef sold on the Swedish market with an international compilation, not with previously reported values for Swedish beef from suckler herds. Searches for suckler herds and suckler-cow systems found no passage making the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Henders, S., Persson, U. M., & Kastner, T. (2015) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125012 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities
Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Wiebe, K., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2017) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3155 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003 · Cited by 266 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As LCA studies neglecting to account for soil carbon have been criticised repeatedly by researchers (e.g. Stanley et al. 2018) and by proponents of grass-fed ruminant production (e.g. Rundgren and Bremen 2017), including soil carbon changes can be especially important for acceptance of a climate…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge Univ, Press
- Clune S, Crossin E, Verghese K (2017) Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J Clean Prod 140: 766-783
- Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S (2011) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge European Commission (2016) Product environmental footprint pilot guidance. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase European Parliament, E & Cote U (2014) Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing regulation (EC) No 842/ 2006 Text with EEA relevance. Off J Eur Union 57:195-230 European Union (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off J Eur Union 5:2009
- Garnett T, Mathewson S, Angelides P, Borthwick F (2015) Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: what works? Review of the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions aimed at shifting diets in more sustainable and healthy directions. London, UK: Food Climate Research Network, The University of Oxford and Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs
- Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, McConkey BG, Campbell CA, Nemecek T (2015) Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J Clean Prod 104:23-39 Government of Sweden (2009) Regeringens proposition 2009/10:41. Vissa punktskattefrågor med anledning av budget propositionen för 2010. Stockholm
- Hallström E, Davis J, Woodhouse A, Sonesson U (2018) Using dietary quality scores to assess sustainability of food products and human diets: a systematic review. Ecol Indic 93:219-230
- Hartmann C, Siegrist M (2017) Consumer perception and behaviour re- garding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. Trends Food Sci Technol 61:11-25
- Kätterer T, Bolinder M, Thorvaldsson G, Kirchmann H (2013) Influence of ley-arable systems on soil carbon stocks in Northern Europe and Eastern Canada. The role of grasslands in a green future: threats and perspectives in less favoured areas. Proceedings of the 17th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Akureyri, Iceland, 23-26 June 2013, 2013. Agricultural University of Iceland, pp 47-56
- Levasseur A, Cavalett O, Fuglestvedt JS, Gasser T, Johansson DJ, Jørgensen SV, Raugei M, Reisinger A, Schivley G, Strømman A (2016) Enhancing life cycle impact assessment from climate sci- ence: Review of recent findings and recommendations for applica- tion to LCA. Ecol Indic 71:163-174
- Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropogenic and nat- ural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovern- mental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
- Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H (2012) The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37:760-770
- Notarnicola B, Sala S, Anton A, McLaren SJ, Saouter E, Sonesson U (2017) The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J Clean Prod 140: 399-409
- Smith P, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig E, Haberl H, Harper R, House J, Jafari M, Masera O, Mbow C (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate Change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 813-922
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Moberg, E., Karlsson Potter, H., Wood, A., Hansson, P.-A., & Röös, E. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12041407 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Self-citationHammar, T., Hansson, P.-A., & Röös, E. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Moberg, E., Walker Andersson, M., Säll, S., Hansson, P.-A., & Röös, E.
- Affiliations
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Moberg, Emma
- Venue
- The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
- Published
- 2019-03-08
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1715-1728
- ISSN
- 0948-3349 (ISSN-L)
- 1614-7502
- OpenAlex
- W2922249567
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 4.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Naturvårdsverket (NV03211-15)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- food carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions from food, system boundaries, soil carbon change, global warming potential, plant-based foods, animal products, food imports, ISO 14067, sensitivity analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
