5 ms·

All that is true, but - we also don’t force farmers to internalize the externalities created by their industry. Southland farmers themselves are saying that if

All that is true, but - we also don’t force farmers to internalize the externalities created by their industry. Southland farmers themselves are saying that if they had to comply with proposed water and soil quality regulations that they wouldn’t be able to exist due to the increased costs involved. The backlash even from the introduction of a heavy vehicles tax are representative of how much these farmers think they rely on the unpriced benefits they are getting.

kibibu 5y ago
> if they had to comply with proposed water and soil quality regulations that they wouldn’t be able to exist due to the increased costs involved People always say things like this until they are forced to, and somehow find a way. (Particularly if imports were charged similar tariffs)
- stkdump 5y ago
  > People always say things like this until they are forced to, and somehow find a way. That is one of two possible outcomes. The other is that the sector just dies off and relocates to another place on earth, where externalities don't have to be considered, maybe for strategic reason. This has happened many times.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    This is why the EU is looking into carbon-based tariffs. If you want to enact global change, you can't just change yourself, though it's always a good place to start. And probably a major beneficiary of similar laws currently is meat production and animal welfare laws used to exclude imports.
quattrofan 5y ago
We also don't value the cost of the environment. If we did and we taxed appropriately I suspect beef farming would be unprofitable.
te_chris 5y ago
It’s time to subsidise NZ farmers to at least encourage sustainable land use.
theodric 5y ago
Farming is thankless, backbreaking, poorly-paid work that often is only viable because of subsidies the government provides, because the government recognizes that without farmers we'll all starve. And you're concerned that they're not paying their fair share. Fine. Good luck with that.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > they're not paying their fair share That's not how it works. There is no fair share. He is saying that farmers are not actually paying the costs they make society incur. Therefore these costs are not priced into the meat they produce which would not be that competitive if that was the case. It's a form of subsidy.
- adrianN 5y ago
  The cost of food as a share of income has fallen dramatically over the last fifty years or so. It's not unfathomable that it rises a bit again in exchange for properly pricing in externalities.
- xorfish 5y ago
  Demand for food is pretty inelastic. If the external costs were included, consumer would simply be forced to pay for their consumption. This would give a fair advantage for food that has less external costs. External costs are also hard to estimate, especially if they is burdened on another species. How much is the suffering of a chicken worth?
  - chii 5y ago
    and yet if you actually did that, people on the other side of the political spectrum would complain that it's unfair for poor people because they now have a higher food cost burden. Shouldn't the rich subsidize for the poor for these essentials? So then you get back to the original condition - subsidizing food once again. In fact, this is the reason why they are subsidized in the first place!
    - 5y ago
roenxi 5y ago
> All that is true, but - we also don’t force farmers to internalize the externalities created by their industry. The net externality is probably positive, and if you want to start evening the slate using externalities then farmers would deserve a subsidy (which is bad policy). Food is about as high on a supply chain as it is possible to get, and the entire downstream supply chain would count as an externality of the farmer's activity. If farmers didn't produce food we'd all starve to death, but that is absolutely not priced in to how much they get paid.
laingc 5y ago
As I said, I really don’t want to get drawn into the environmental debate, but there is one persistent myth that does need to be corrected: the idea that emissions from “heavy” vehicles are not priced. They are. They’re in the ETS. Reductions in heavy vehicle use due to tax will not reduce carbon emissions at all, as it will be emitted elsewhere in the economy. The only way to reduce the emissions of an activity covered by the ETS is to lower the cap, which can be done without a vehicle tax of any kind.

kibibu 5y ago

> if they had to comply with proposed water and soil quality regulations that they wouldn’t be able to exist due to the increased costs involved People always say things like this until they are forced to, and somehow find a way. (Particularly if imports were charged similar tariffs)

stkdump 5y ago
> People always say things like this until they are forced to, and somehow find a way. That is one of two possible outcomes. The other is that the sector just dies off and relocates to another place on earth, where externalities don't have to be considered, maybe for strategic reason. This has happened many times.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  This is why the EU is looking into carbon-based tariffs. If you want to enact global change, you can't just change yourself, though it's always a good place to start. And probably a major beneficiary of similar laws currently is meat production and animal welfare laws used to exclude imports.

quattrofan 5y ago

We also don't value the cost of the environment. If we did and we taxed appropriately I suspect beef farming would be unprofitable.

te_chris 5y ago

It’s time to subsidise NZ farmers to at least encourage sustainable land use.

theodric 5y ago

Farming is thankless, backbreaking, poorly-paid work that often is only viable because of subsidies the government provides, because the government recognizes that without farmers we'll all starve. And you're concerned that they're not paying their fair share. Fine. Good luck with that.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> they're not paying their fair share That's not how it works. There is no fair share. He is saying that farmers are not actually paying the costs they make society incur. Therefore these costs are not priced into the meat they produce which would not be that competitive if that was the case. It's a form of subsidy.
adrianN 5y ago
The cost of food as a share of income has fallen dramatically over the last fifty years or so. It's not unfathomable that it rises a bit again in exchange for properly pricing in externalities.
xorfish 5y ago
Demand for food is pretty inelastic. If the external costs were included, consumer would simply be forced to pay for their consumption. This would give a fair advantage for food that has less external costs. External costs are also hard to estimate, especially if they is burdened on another species. How much is the suffering of a chicken worth?
- chii 5y ago
  and yet if you actually did that, people on the other side of the political spectrum would complain that it's unfair for poor people because they now have a higher food cost burden. Shouldn't the rich subsidize for the poor for these essentials? So then you get back to the original condition - subsidizing food once again. In fact, this is the reason why they are subsidized in the first place!
  - 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

> All that is true, but - we also don’t force farmers to internalize the externalities created by their industry. The net externality is probably positive, and if you want to start evening the slate using externalities then farmers would deserve a subsidy (which is bad policy). Food is about as high on a supply chain as it is possible to get, and the entire downstream supply chain would count as an externality of the farmer's activity. If farmers didn't produce food we'd all starve to death, but that is absolutely not priced in to how much they get paid.

laingc 5y ago

As I said, I really don’t want to get drawn into the environmental debate, but there is one persistent myth that does need to be corrected: the idea that emissions from “heavy” vehicles are not priced. They are. They’re in the ETS. Reductions in heavy vehicle use due to tax will not reduce carbon emissions at all, as it will be emitted elsewhere in the economy. The only way to reduce the emissions of an activity covered by the ETS is to lower the cap, which can be done without a vehicle tax of any kind.