Food for thought on an agricultural climate liability fee

Year after year, global carbon emissions steadily rise. As a result, carbon removal technologies used to offset these emissions are of increasing interest. Agriculture, in particular, is a sector which faces significant challenges, and is unlikely to reach net zero emissions, making carbon removal attractive. Moberg et al. propose a climate liability fee to support a pathway to net-zero agriculture. In this commentary, we aim to situate this proposed fee within a broader socio-economic context. In so doing, we highlight several key tensions that such a proposed fee may overlook: (1) the generalizability of the Swedish context; (2) the technical feasibility for this proposed fee's implementation; and (3) downstream equity considerations. We advocate for the incorporation of political and equity-based considerations into climate liability fees – not merely as an add-on, but as fundamental methodological inclusion, to enable more effective policy implementation and uptake.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dialogues on climate change.
Published
2026-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/29768659261485381
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Food for thought on an agricultural climate liability fee

Alesandros Glaros, Stefania Pizzirani, Lauren AE Erland
Dialogues on climate change.
Climate Change Policy and Economics
article

Food for thought on an agricultural climate liability fee

Alesandros Glaros, Stefania Pizzirani, Lauren AE Erland
article en

Abstract

Year after year, global carbon emissions steadily rise. As a result, carbon removal technologies used to offset these emissions are of increasing interest. Agriculture, in particular, is a sector which faces significant challenges, and is unlikely to reach net zero emissions, making carbon removal attractive. Moberg et al. propose a climate liability fee to support a pathway to net-zero agriculture. In this commentary, we aim to situate this proposed fee within a broader socio-economic context. In so doing, we highlight several key tensions that such a proposed fee may overlook: (1) the generalizability of the Swedish context; (2) the technical feasibility for this proposed fee's implementation; and (3) downstream equity considerations. We advocate for the incorporation of political and equity-based considerations into climate liability fees – not merely as an add-on, but as fundamental methodological inclusion, to enable more effective policy implementation and uptake.

Dialogues on climate change.
University of the Fraser Valley (CA)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.