By Gunnar Schupelius
The Federal Environment Agency speaks of a methane tax on cows, and then on other animals as well? That goes too far: Living things are not climate killers, says Gunnar Schupelius.
The President of the Federal Environment Agency, Dirk Messner, has spoken out in favor of a climate tax on cows. In the program “Jung & Naiv” by the journalist Tilo Jung on July 25, he said that it was “a logical idea.” Agriculture also had to “pay for its greenhouse emissions”.
Of course, Messner drew the ire of the farmers, who are already groaning under the high costs, taxes and levies. For the first time, not only the burning of fossil raw materials, but “the mere existence of life is made liable for costs,” said the spokesman for the association “Free Farmers Germany”, Reinhard Jung.
In fact, Messner’s statement, which he made by the way, makes you sit up and take notice. The Federal Environment Agency is the highest and central environmental protection authority in the state. What their President says carries weight.
So why a climate tax on cattle farming? It is primarily about methane, which is held responsible for the greenhouse effect and to an even greater extent than CO2. Methane is produced during the digestion of plant raw materials and escapes from the digestive tract of the animals as flatulence.
Cattle produce far more methane than other livestock, so the call for taxation begins with them. The climate tax is intended to reduce the number of cattle. There are currently around eleven million cows and bulls in the barn in Germany.
Even if cattle produce the most methane, it would only be a matter of logic to tax other farm animals as well, and not just them: an elephant in a zoo produces ten times as much methane as a cow.
Now, of course, there are only a few elephants in Germany, so maybe they can remain climate tax-free. But what about the pets?
They really matter: in 2021, around 34.7 million pets lived in German households, including 16.7 million cats and 14.4 million dogs. Their number is increasing rapidly. They all emit methane.
And if we have already arrived at this calculation, then we should not exempt ourselves as human beings. We also produce methane every day, through flatulence, but also through breathing. We are now 7.7 billion in this world, and the trend is also increasing.
So will the President of the Federal Environment Agency demand taxation of human methane emissions? Or maybe a population limit? Would that then be a kind of “one-child policy” in the name of saving the climate?
The global warming debate is growing strangely. It is certainly correct to burn less oil, coal and gas because we assume that fossil fuels are not part of the natural cycle. But animals and people are part of it. Living beings are not climate killers.
Is Gunnar Schupelius right? Call: 030/2591 73153 or email: [email protected]
