Perhaps it is useful to put into context that the simple, incentive driven tax system of Estonia is in the process of being replaced with a full European Union Socialist Tax System.

Five years ago Estonia had few taxes, a 26% flat rate, 0% on reinvestment and an even 18% VAT (Value Added Tax).

Since Estonia became a member of the European Union on 1 May 2004 and of NATO since 29 March 2004, their simple system has gone to pot.

Taxing “Cow Gas” is yet another layering on a systemic neo-socialism that has taken hold.

Whether the Ecology angle is the driving force, governmental control, or tax revenue, is hard to sort out. Published sources suggest it is all three, plus the mandates of harmonization to the EU without the exemptions earlier members were afforded.

On an economic point, is the effect of non-participatory market influences (agricultural pollution) not already factored into the costs of the full traded pollution credits?

Just like the price of corn you buy at the market is set at the price after the borers, blights, birds and whatnot have “taken” their share without paying, so wouldn’t the pollution credits be priced to recognized the effect of agriculture?

Contending that they do, if agriculture is levied with taxes on unavoidable pollution there may be opportunity to create an inequality of costs that temporarily may favor one industry or undertaking, but the net out would need to include the food needed for society’s continuance.

(BTW the sugar field burning is an exception – unburnt the rantoons (shoots) eventually will peter out leading to 10-20 times more land needed for the same crop. Alternative is a nasty manual clearing of the fields that potentially damages the ecology more. The erosion of manual clearing of over mature sugar cane would be less noticed, but not ecologically more favorable.)

Thank you for the post & cheers!

Steve