To reduce CO2 emissions, the 'polluter pays' principle is to be implemented; therefore, introducing a CO2 tax on anything that functions or walks is a logical outcome.

Since 2017, the vehicle operation tax has already been collected based on the level of CO2 emissions. But!!! That will not be enough to fulfil Latvia's commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, we will have to resort to more radical measures and apply a CO2 tax to absolutely everything that generates CO2 – regardless of whether it is machinery or a living creature. While one can increase excise duty on the fuel used by CO2-generating machinery – petrol, diesel or gas – this cannot be applied to fields, forests, bogs and living beings. If owners of bogs and rotting forests are forced to pay a proper and substantial CO2 tax, there is a chance that such properties will immediately go up for auction and will likely be bought by 'reputable investors' who know how to 'solve' the little problem of CO2 generators. Of course, when it comes to overgrown forests, there is a simpler solution. Unlike young stands – new forests – they do not sequester CO2, but rather produce it. The solution would be: cut down the old forest and plant a new one. However, this course of action will undoubtedly face mass protests from 'friends of nature', because in their opinion, this would negatively affect environmental quality, and the rural/forest bird index would also certainly 'suffer' (importantly – not the birds themselves, but the index!). It can be concluded that such a solution (felling) will not bring any good, because both CO2 emissions/sequestration and the rural/forest bird index are in mutual conflict and are partially mutually exclusive. I wonder how countries with active volcanoes solve this problem with CO2 emissions. That, however, is not Latvia's problem, as we have no such 'wonders' here.

Farmers could have more of a headache regarding CO2 emission reductions because CO2 emissions 'multiply' (increase) if the land is ploughed, especially if it is fertile. The simplest solution is: stop ploughing and plant the land with forest. The fact that there will be less food is a mere trifle, because foreigners will surely supply food as long as we are able to buy it. It is not excluded that a CO2 tax will be calculated depending on the intended use of a particular land – it would certainly be lower for growing grassland than for growing cereal crops. Of course, CO2 is generated by everyone who breathes – therefore also by livestock, birds and pets. While it is unlikely to be possible to apply a CO2 tax to wild animals, there will be no problems in forcing farmers engaged in meat and dairy farming to pay a CO2 tax for every animal, as animals are registered in the herd register. There are two options – to set a specific CO2 tax amount for each animal – for example, a small one for a laying hen, a larger one for a domestic goose or turkey, an even larger one for a sheep or pig, and an even more impressive one for a dairy cow or bull. Since the number of livestock in Latvia is not exactly small, even a few euros of tax per year would add up to a solid sum that would be very useful for the state to solve its highly pressing problems. At the same time, a small CO2 emission tax might not be an effective solution for fulfilling the country's overall commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, for farmers to 'shorten' (reduce) their herds, the CO2 emission tax rate must be higher. Yes, there will be side effects – fewer jobs, less production, less income from other taxes, but the CO2 emission reduction plan will be fulfilled! A similar solution could also be introduced for pets – for every dog, cat, parrot or similar animal or bird. If that is not quite enough, a peculiar tax could be introduced for every person, because after all, history has already seen the so-called 'poll tax'. Of course, it can and should be called something 'nicer' than a 'poll tax' or an air tax – for example, a life tax. The only remaining questions are what to do with fans of sports activities, because during physical exercise (training), a person consumes more oxygen and simultaneously produces more CO2. To rectify this injustice, one could introduce a double tax for athletes and those who lead an athletic lifestyle. It would not be fair for others to suffer in these people's place! And furthermore, if anyone doubts the set CO2 emission tax amount, a specific individual could be equipped with a special CO2 emission detector, and the person could pay based on its readings. Sounds like science fiction?! Maybe! But only 'maybe'!

If the Latvian state does not have many great opportunities for further reductions, there will be nothing better than introducing a tax on air – or conversely – a CO2 emission tax not only for any piece of machinery but also for every living creature, including humans. If we cannot take a categorical stance and say that we did everything we could and there is nothing more to reduce (unless we mean reducing the human population, because no people means no problems, as a certain political figure once said), that is clearly not the case. However… Recently, advertisements seen in the capital have been 'catching the eye': 'The foundation of a happy country is a person!' …What is it really like? And – what will it be like?