Označavanje hrane u kombinaciji s višim cijenama hrane s visokim udjelom ugljika moglo bi pomoći u smanjenju emisija stakleničkih plinova u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu za 5%

Food labeling combined with higher prices for carbon-intensive foods could help reduce UK greenhouse gases by 5%, according to a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Researchers from the University of Trento in Italy, working alongside the University of Exeter, found that combining carbon labels on food products with a tax on high-emission items could cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 5%. The study suggests such measures could generate additional societal benefits while keeping costs manageable for consumers. The research team created a simulated online supermarket environment and gathered data from approximately 5,000 UK residents who regularly shop for groceries. Participants were asked how their purchasing behavior might change if they saw carbon labels indicating the environmental impact of each item or faced a tax on the most carbon-heavy foods. The results showed that simply displaying carbon labels reduced the average carbon footprint of a shopping basket by 5.6%, equivalent to 2.7% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. When a tax of £60 per metric ton of CO₂e was applied to the most carbon-intensive products, the effect was even stronger. This approach led to a 10% reduction in the average household’s carbon footprint, though it came with an annual cost of £79 per person. However, the researchers noted that lowering the tax rate to £28 per metric ton, when paired with labeling, achieved the same level of emission cuts, about 10%, but at a much lower cost of £34 per person annually. This combination, they argued, offered the greatest balance between effectiveness and affordability. The study estimated that the overall social benefit of implementing both carbon labels and a modest tax would amount to roughly £13 per person per year. This figure is more than double the benefit of a tax-only strategy, which yielded about £6 per person annually, and significantly greater than the benefit of labeling alone, which amounted to approximately £8 per person. These figures suggest that the dual approach offers substantial economic and environmental advantages. Ian Bateman, director of the University of Exeter’s Land, Environment, Economics and Policy Institute, emphasized that the findings indicate a viable path forward for policymakers seeking to reduce emissions without imposing undue financial burdens on consumers. He stated that combining carbon taxation with transparent labeling allows for meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while improving overall well-being. Dr. Marco Tomasi of the University of Trento pointed out that while carbon taxes face public resistance and disproportionately affect lower-income households, the study highlights ways to address these concerns. By distributing the tax revenue evenly among citizens, the policy could become more equitable and widely accepted. “Redistributing the tax revenues on a per capita basis would effectively eliminate the inequalities associated with the implementation of the tax,” he said. The study also revealed differences in how individuals respond to the proposed measures based on their dietary habits. Dr. Carlo Fezzi of the University of Trento noted that households consuming more meat tended to adjust their behavior more in response to carbon labels. This finding suggests that targeted education and information campaigns could further enhance the effectiveness of such policies. The research underscores the potential of market-based tools in shaping sustainable consumer behavior. As food production accounts for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, the study highlights the importance of innovative strategies to align personal choices with broader climate goals. The findings provide a framework for future policy discussions aimed at balancing environmental protection with economic fairness.