4 ms·

Step one should be stopping subsidies to animal feed (corn, soy, etc) and moving those subsidies to plant foods (vegetables, grains, legumes, etc) that humans c

Step one should be stopping subsidies to animal feed (corn, soy, etc) and moving those subsidies to plant foods (vegetables, grains, legumes, etc) that humans can directly eat. This would drive up the cost of rib eye, and drive down the production of methane from cow burps. Cutting methane would be a quick win. We need to make our farm land as efficient as possible and return as much land to forests that we can. We also need to repopulate the worlds oceans.

pdonis 5y ago
I agree with stopping subsidies to animal feed, but not with moving them to something else. We should not be subsidizing any crops.
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  "Should" isn't always a great word when it comes to real world economics. I agree with you in theory, but realistically one would need to subsidize these crops: the market isn't equipped for the entire American Midwest (for instance) to suddenly begin growing beans, potatoes, and other staple crops at the frequency that they were raising beef cattle. It's a deep hole we're in, and its going to take considerable effort and a lengthy process to dig ourselves out.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > the market isn't equipped for the entire American Midwest (for instance) to suddenly begin growing beans, potatoes, and other staple crops at the frequency that they were raising beef cattle. Subsidies won't change that. Yes, it takes time to shift an entire economic sector to a significantly different distribution of production and consumption. That just means we need to get started on the shift now--by stopping subsidies. Shifting the subsidies to something different just makes it take even longer to get to the only really sustainable state, which is nothing being subsidized and the free market determining what gets produced and what gets consumed.
tdeck 5y ago
If we want to discourage meat production, I think it would have to be something more direct. All of the crops you described are things that humans and non-human animals can eat. Cows can be fed wheat and soybeans. Farmers will feed them whatever is cheapest per calorie.

pdonis 5y ago

I agree with stopping subsidies to animal feed, but not with moving them to something else. We should not be subsidizing any crops.

IntrepidWorm 5y ago
"Should" isn't always a great word when it comes to real world economics. I agree with you in theory, but realistically one would need to subsidize these crops: the market isn't equipped for the entire American Midwest (for instance) to suddenly begin growing beans, potatoes, and other staple crops at the frequency that they were raising beef cattle. It's a deep hole we're in, and its going to take considerable effort and a lengthy process to dig ourselves out.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > the market isn't equipped for the entire American Midwest (for instance) to suddenly begin growing beans, potatoes, and other staple crops at the frequency that they were raising beef cattle. Subsidies won't change that. Yes, it takes time to shift an entire economic sector to a significantly different distribution of production and consumption. That just means we need to get started on the shift now--by stopping subsidies. Shifting the subsidies to something different just makes it take even longer to get to the only really sustainable state, which is nothing being subsidized and the free market determining what gets produced and what gets consumed.

tdeck 5y ago

If we want to discourage meat production, I think it would have to be something more direct. All of the crops you described are things that humans and non-human animals can eat. Cows can be fed wheat and soybeans. Farmers will feed them whatever is cheapest per calorie.