Can a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tax on Food also Be Healthy and Equitable? A Systemised Review and Modelling Study from Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

Policies to mitigate climate change are essential. The objective of this paper was to estimate the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) food taxes and assess whether such a tax could also have health benefits in Aotearoa NZ. We undertook a systemised review on GHG food taxes to inform four tax scenarios, including one combined with a subsidy. These scenarios were modelled to estimate lifetime impacts on quality-adjusted health years (QALY), health inequities by ethnicity, GHG emissions, health system costs and food costs to the individual. Twenty-eight modelling studies on food tax policies were identified. Taxes resulted in decreased consumption of the targeted foods (e.g., −15.4% in beef/ruminant consumption, N = 12 studies) and an average decrease of 8.3% in GHG emissions (N = 19 studies). The “GHG weighted tax on all foods” scenario had the largest health gains and costs savings (455,800 QALYs and NZD 8.8 billion), followed by the tax—fruit and vegetable subsidy scenario (410,400 QALYs and NZD 6.4 billion). All scenarios were associated with reduced GHG emissions and higher age standardised per capita QALYs for Māori. Applying taxes that target foods with high GHG emissions has the potential to be effective for reducing GHG emissions and to result in co-benefits for population health.

Evaluation of Benefits and Health Co-Benefits of GHG Reduction for Taiwan’s Industrial Sector under a Carbon Charge in 2023–2030

“…This makes the comparison among results meaningful and reliable. As such, the EIO-LCA becomes one of the more popular assessment models at the aggregate sector level [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ].…”

“…These changes will not be implemented, however, until the relevant technology is developed to a mature level. Similar explorations regarding the GHGs reductions are sometimes conducted for a specific city, such as New York City [ 34 ] and California [ 35 ], or at country level such as for New Zealand [ 36 ], or globally [ 37 ]. These studies, however, do not integrate both sides of the benefits arising from the GHGs reductions, i.e., GHGs reductions benefits and the accompanying air pollution reduction benefits.…”