No, but maybe don't start with one of the smaller sources of overall greenhouse gasses (it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark), especially when it affects nutrition and well being of your people.
> it's like <3% in the U.S. for example, not sure about Denmark
Sure, but TFA and this discussion is about Denmark, where "...agriculture is the country’s biggest source of emissions".
Further on in TFA, "The global food system is a huge contributor to the climate crisis, producing around a third of greenhouse gas emissions", of which, "Denmark is a major dairy and pork exporter".
Even per the EPA agriculture is ~10% for the US [0]. And you say "That's all agriculture", I say "Why do you think the US grows so much shite-tasting feed corn? Some for ethanol, lots for pigs, cows, and chicken".
Sure, but you are only looking at one potential impact of this. I can think of at least 3 benefits that are seem pretty clear without doing a deeper analysis.
1. Adding an appropriate carbon tax for gassy cows offsets reduces or eliminates the externalization of the environmental impact of the cows, and provides justification for spending on the increased cost of feeds that drive down the amount of methane produced.
2. Driving a justification for increased spent on those feeds, especially novel feeds, drives investment in new aquaculture techniques that will create additional jobs and ensures that capital that might be otherwise be held as profits actually circulates through the economy (a key component that is actually required for capitalism to work).
3. The increased costs of beef and pork will drive lower consumption of animal based proteins. That lower consumption should be a factor in driving better health outcomes, longer term (note I said lower, not elimination of consumption). This is a net benefit for any nation that provides health care services to it's citizens (heart disease and cardiovascular illness are among leading causes of death in Denmark, like most developed nations).
