5 ms·

I wonder to what extent farming subsidies and implicit subsidies such as the under pricing of carbon emissions make meat burgers less expensive than they ought

by ttul 6y ago

I wonder to what extent farming subsidies and implicit subsidies such as the under pricing of carbon emissions make meat burgers less expensive than they ought to be.

Daishiman 6y ago
If you priced the externalities, plant-based food is an order of magnitude cheaper, at the very least.
- Nbox9 6y ago
  My grocery bill decreased when I started eating exclusively plant based foods. In most meals the most expensive item on the plate is the meat.
  - mike_d 6y ago
    Plant based food are cheap because the overwhelming majority of government subsidies go to farmers and not ranchers. (there are some misleading charts on the internet that try to bundle school lunch programs providing milk as a meat subsidy)
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > Plant based food are cheap because the overwhelming majority of government subsidies go to farmers and not ranchers And then the ranchers buy the subsidized feed... 74 cents on every dollar a dairy farmer earns is from subsidy.
    - ornornor 6y ago
      > misleading charts on the internet that try to bundle school lunch programs providing milk as a meat subsidy It’s not misleading. You don’t get milk without killing calves soon after they’re born and their mothers after a few years.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If you priced the externalities in fossil fuels would be cost prohibitive, but a sizable political faction, particularly in the US, views Pigovian taxes as equivalent to totalitarian Communism, and an influential if anti-scientific set of economic viewpoints views externalities as either unreal or not practically subject to internalization. So, I wouldn't hold your breath.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    > an influential if anti-scientific set of economic viewpoints views externalities as either unreal or not practically subject to internalization That’s interesting, if not too surprising, unfortunately. Is there somewhere I can read more?
- belorn 6y ago
  I would very much approve a food tax on the externalizes, determined by a review process per product if the seller request it. It would however not be as simple that plant-based food would just be cheaper. Every kind of food type has a spectrum of climate impact, depending on multiple factors like farming method, transport, and local factors. A hunter shooting down an overpopulated flock of wild boars is going to have a distinct different climate impact than a pig farmer in a industry farm. Same for crop rotating farm that don't use fertilizers or pesticides vs one that massively contribute to eutrophication, burn down forests to make room, and leaves a desert behind. A tax would at first fix the competition between similar products that only differ in the climate impact. Secondarily it would encourage locally over imported. And third it would make most plant-based food cheaper vs most meat. It would also add a huge tax on factory farmed meat and encourage farmers to use slower and much less harmful practices when raising animals.
Nbox9 6y ago
The meat (and dairy) industry receive massive subsidies from the the US federal government, and they have massive externalized costs. Some externalized costs are greenhouse gas emissions, downstream downstream pollution, reduced health outcomes in consumers, heavy fresh water usage. The meat & dairy industry received the majority of the benefit from the $867 billion farm bill passed in 2019.
- jhawk28 6y ago
  In exchange for these subsidies, farms have lots of regulation and little control over prices. I wouldn't consider that to be a benefit. The main downside is that it keeps around the bad farmers and makes it harder for the good ones.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    74 cents on every dollar made by a dairy farmer are from government subsidy. I think I can confidently state that that's a benefit.
- ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  >The meat & dairy industry received the majority of the benefit from the $867 billion farm bill passed in 2019. No, they didn't. The majority of the 10 year funding bill went to SNAP (food stamps). [1] I do hate how I have to waste my time researching your ridiculous claims, I do wish such extreme takes could just be out right deleted before they cause any damage. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/massive-867-billion-farm-bill-inches-closer-to-finish-line.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/massive-867-billion-farm-bil...
  - Nbox9 6y ago
    What percentage of SNAP funding is spent on foodstuff with animal products in it? Over a quarter of the average American food budget is spent on meat and diary directly, with more being spent on products that contain meat and dairy. It’s safe to assume SNAP spending is similar. https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-much-we-spend-food https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-much-we-spend-food

by ttul 6y ago

I wonder to what extent farming subsidies and implicit subsidies such as the under pricing of carbon emissions make meat burgers less expensive than they ought to be.

Daishiman 6y ago

If you priced the externalities, plant-based food is an order of magnitude cheaper, at the very least.

Nbox9 6y ago
My grocery bill decreased when I started eating exclusively plant based foods. In most meals the most expensive item on the plate is the meat.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Plant based food are cheap because the overwhelming majority of government subsidies go to farmers and not ranchers. (there are some misleading charts on the internet that try to bundle school lunch programs providing milk as a meat subsidy)
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > Plant based food are cheap because the overwhelming majority of government subsidies go to farmers and not ranchers And then the ranchers buy the subsidized feed... 74 cents on every dollar a dairy farmer earns is from subsidy.
  - ornornor 6y ago
    > misleading charts on the internet that try to bundle school lunch programs providing milk as a meat subsidy It’s not misleading. You don’t get milk without killing calves soon after they’re born and their mothers after a few years.
dragonwriter 6y ago
If you priced the externalities in fossil fuels would be cost prohibitive, but a sizable political faction, particularly in the US, views Pigovian taxes as equivalent to totalitarian Communism, and an influential if anti-scientific set of economic viewpoints views externalities as either unreal or not practically subject to internalization. So, I wouldn't hold your breath.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  > an influential if anti-scientific set of economic viewpoints views externalities as either unreal or not practically subject to internalization That’s interesting, if not too surprising, unfortunately. Is there somewhere I can read more?
belorn 6y ago
I would very much approve a food tax on the externalizes, determined by a review process per product if the seller request it. It would however not be as simple that plant-based food would just be cheaper. Every kind of food type has a spectrum of climate impact, depending on multiple factors like farming method, transport, and local factors. A hunter shooting down an overpopulated flock of wild boars is going to have a distinct different climate impact than a pig farmer in a industry farm. Same for crop rotating farm that don't use fertilizers or pesticides vs one that massively contribute to eutrophication, burn down forests to make room, and leaves a desert behind. A tax would at first fix the competition between similar products that only differ in the climate impact. Secondarily it would encourage locally over imported. And third it would make most plant-based food cheaper vs most meat. It would also add a huge tax on factory farmed meat and encourage farmers to use slower and much less harmful practices when raising animals.

Nbox9 6y ago

The meat (and dairy) industry receive massive subsidies from the the US federal government, and they have massive externalized costs. Some externalized costs are greenhouse gas emissions, downstream downstream pollution, reduced health outcomes in consumers, heavy fresh water usage. The meat & dairy industry received the majority of the benefit from the $867 billion farm bill passed in 2019.

jhawk28 6y ago
In exchange for these subsidies, farms have lots of regulation and little control over prices. I wouldn't consider that to be a benefit. The main downside is that it keeps around the bad farmers and makes it harder for the good ones.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  74 cents on every dollar made by a dairy farmer are from government subsidy. I think I can confidently state that that's a benefit.
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
>The meat & dairy industry received the majority of the benefit from the $867 billion farm bill passed in 2019. No, they didn't. The majority of the 10 year funding bill went to SNAP (food stamps). [1] I do hate how I have to waste my time researching your ridiculous claims, I do wish such extreme takes could just be out right deleted before they cause any damage. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/massive-867-billion-farm-bill-inches-closer-to-finish-line.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/massive-867-billion-farm-bil...
- Nbox9 6y ago
  What percentage of SNAP funding is spent on foodstuff with animal products in it? Over a quarter of the average American food budget is spent on meat and diary directly, with more being spent on products that contain meat and dairy. It’s safe to assume SNAP spending is similar. https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-much-we-spend-food https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-much-we-spend-food