Auf der diesjährigen 15. Tagung - Bau, Technik und Umwelt in der landwirtschaftlichen Nutztierhaltung (BTU) in Soest geht es um das Spannungsfeld zwischen "Tierwohl", "Umweltschutz" und "Ernährungsrisiken. Dabei stellen Berg et al. unsere Ergebnisse unter dem Titel: "Kosten für mehr Tierwohl in der Schweineproduktion / Costs of higher animal welfare standards in pig farming" vor. Es erwartet Sie eine spannende Konferenz und wir freuen uns auf die Diskussion mit Ihnen.
Die Diskussion nimmt unter anderem Bezug auf die Studie "How much is the Dish", die sich hier finden lässt/ The discussion refers to the study "How much is the Dish" which can be found here:
In 2018, our research network “Markets for Mankind” published the study “How much is the dish?” in which we calculated the hidden costs of different foodstuff. By pricing in those hidden costs via an environmental tax, the price of specific foodstuff relates to the amount of its caused environmental damage. Thereby market imperfections are balanced out and consumers as well as producers are incentivized towards more sustainable consumption and production decisions. So much for the theory. But should environmental protection solely rely on the good will of the individual? And aren’t environmental taxes in the same category as animal welfare labels; tools for politicians to push away their responsibility for meaningful changes of the economy and leave it to the market actors? Is this – provocatively formulated – the death of politics? For the "political", understood in line with Hannah Arendt as common normative action, seems to disappear precisely where there is an individualization of normative questions. Should we not rather have prohibitions and restrictions of ethically and ecologically questionable consumer decisions that apply to everyone, instead of merely steering consumer behaviour by means of taxes and labels? In other words: How should externalities be correctly addressed?