5 ms·

There are some counter intuitive economical things going on as well. A lot of bad farming practices are heavily subsidized. For example a lot of Spanish land is

There are some counter intuitive economical things going on as well. A lot of bad farming practices are heavily subsidized. For example a lot of Spanish land is not exploited. But to claim the subsidies, farmers still work the land, which leads to a lot of top soil erosion for no good reason whatsoever. In the same way a lot of dairy production is misaligned with actual demand. And you get weird surpluses of things like milk and butter. Wine is another example where subsidies lead to over production. And another side effect of subsidies is that it counteracts development aid sent to places that the EU competes with on farmed products. Instead of boosting their economies by importing stuff from those countries we kill their exports with subsidized local produce and then spend a lot on development aid. And fragile economies in Africa of course create all sorts of collateral issues including wars and refugees. All to protect local farmers so they can produce things like sugar beet so we can have subsidized local sugar production instead of just importing that from outside Europe.

badpun 3y ago
We subsidize agriculture to maintain food self-sufficiency. Otherwise, things could get very nasty around here during the next global famine. During a famine, you can't just outbid poor countries and buy out their food, as their governments will ban food exports and there will be not food to buy, regardless of price.
- CrampusDestrus 3y ago
  Agriculture is subsidized to get the farmers' vote
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - badpun 3y ago
    That too, but the benefit of food security is there regardless of the motive.
  - cjrp 3y ago
    It’s really not. Without subsidies, farms could not exist; we simply don’t pay enough for produce to keep them running. You could argue that subsidies are to keep the public onside. If you were the party who removed subsidies (and increased food prices by 50%), it would be political suicide.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      I've never quite followed the math on this argument for subsidies. Government subsidies are still payed by us, the money is funneled through taxes and government budgets but it's not like a subsidy appears out of thin air. This is also does in the face of free markets. If we keep process artificially low we won't see any explanation in production. That keeps prices high and sticks us in a loop where we need subsidies because prices are too high and can't reduce price because there's no market incentive.
      - Guthur 3y ago
        Free market is the reason you need the subsidies, otherwise import tariffs. European production costs around labour, regulations etc would be drastically undercut by foreign low cost markets and you would lose food sovereignty due to foreign imports. Of course subsidies do introduce distortion but they are often simpler globally than tic for tat tariffs.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I'm not so sure if subsidizing a handful of industries avoids the problem of cost imbalances when trading globally. Say we subsidize corn because otherwise our corn industry would be decimated by cheap labor overseas. We successfully walled off one industry, but that cheaper foreign labor is still available for other production. Maybe workers that would be paid overseas to grow corn are instead paid to produce cheaper clothing that we can't compete with. We can't keep subsidizing one industry at a time in hopes of dodging a fundamental supply abstracts the other country has. Tariffs can be an option there *if* imposed on all imports from one country. They have their own practical issues though, not least of all is enforcement. NATO made a huge deal about banning Russian oil when the war started but they still sell it just fine, often as crude oil to another country that refines it and still sells it to us anyway.
  - pkphilip 3y ago
    Not just that. If you don't have farming going on - and it often requires subsidies to keep it going - even Netherlands have subsidised agriculture, your food security will just disappear. I am not sure why people don't seem to understand this. If a nation ever finds itself dependent on a neighbour for water, food, electricity, oil etc, they are going to be in big trouble when it comes to any sort of negotiations. The truth is that agricultural land is under tremendous pressure. It is far more lucrative to just build apartments or commercial real estate on farming land than it is to sustain agriculture. Subsidies are used to incentivize farmers to continue farming instead of disposing of their land.
- tfourb 3y ago
  If the only way that agriculture can sustain itself in i.e. Germany is by subsidies covering 50% of farmers' incomes and all of their profits, then the way we do agriculture/food is fundamentally wrong. Also, how self-sufficient are you really if your entire agricultural system is predicated on access to chemical fertilizers, which in turn is produced from natural gas of which you have to import close to 100%? The subsidy system is thoroughly dysfunctional and doesn't solve a real problem anymore, except by supporting existing economic structures.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    I'd assume food stores could be made to last long enough to enact some kind of rationing, and thus lack of chemical fertilizers will have a less profound effect. The point isn't that we would have to sustain ourselves as before, but to be able to sustain on some kind of level.
  - pkphilip 3y ago
    Across the world agriculture is subsidised.. even in poorer countries, because the cost of doing agriculture is very high. Farmers are moving to other jobs, selling their farmlands etc.. this will put huge pressure on food supplies and so the govts figured that there has to be some incentive to keep people in agriculture. Nations which don't have substantial access to food grown within their borders will place themselves at severe disadvantage when it comes to any sort of global negotiations. Take the example of Qatar - when it was under sanction by many of the Arab countries, they could not import food.. and they were forced to get into agriculture and now agriculture thrives in Qatar even though the climate is not conducive. https://thefarmermagazine.com.au/qatars-farmers-have-gone-from-being-zeroes-to-heroes/ https://thefarmermagazine.com.au/qatars-farmers-have-gone-fr...
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> Instead of boosting their economies by importing stuff from those countries we kill their exports with subsidized local produce and then spend a lot on development aid. I think a key takeaway from the pandemic is that you don’t want to be reliant of import from strategic ressources and food is priority number one. European subsidies are mostly going to France which is a huge wheat producer. Farming is an area where I can predict there are going to be a lot of tension in the EU between ecological ambition and the cold reality of having to feed everyone.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  EU Farming subsidies and ecological ambition are a near perfect fit. Just politics gets in the way as usual. But as the climate deniers power wanes it's a powerful tool ready to be used for good.
- psiops 3y ago
  It'll be a lot easier to feed everyone if we grow food for humans rather than cattle.
  - mihaic 3y ago
    It seems that optimal calorie output from all our available land involves some intermediary animals that eat whatever humans can't eat. I agree we're raising far too many cattle, but just wanted to point out it's not very simple.
    - aziaziazi 3y ago
      Depends how you define « optimum ». For IPCC it’s GHG mitigation and the vegan diet beats them all, while « all diets needs to provide full complement of nutritional quality, including micronutrients ». https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCCL_Chapter_5.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCC... (Page 488) Edit : translate giec to ipcc
mempko 3y ago
I'm sorry but it seems that it's global warming that is causing insect declines as the primary driver, not farming practices (though farming practices do play a role of course). Protected lands of the Puerto Rican rain forest saw huge declines in insect and consequently birds and there is no farming there. The explanation is simple. Heat waves are killing the bugs. They simply can't cope with 1 or 2 weeks of intense heat. You also see this with lizards and frogs. Since they are low on the food chain this translates to bird declines, and other animal declines. PS. I choose not to use "Climate Change" because it's too neutral and is the preferred term of the fossil fuel industry for a reason. I like "Global Warming" or "Climate Crisis" or "Climate Emergency" or "Climate Chaos". The problem is too serious to use neutral language.
- binx_ 3y ago
  "Climate Chaos" is certainly apt - things are becoming verifiably hotter but also more unpredictable and volatile. I was a proponent of using 'climate change' fairly exclusively but this comment has helped reframe that, thank you.

badpun 3y ago

We subsidize agriculture to maintain food self-sufficiency. Otherwise, things could get very nasty around here during the next global famine. During a famine, you can't just outbid poor countries and buy out their food, as their governments will ban food exports and there will be not food to buy, regardless of price.

CrampusDestrus 3y ago
Agriculture is subsidized to get the farmers' vote
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- badpun 3y ago
  That too, but the benefit of food security is there regardless of the motive.
- cjrp 3y ago
  It’s really not. Without subsidies, farms could not exist; we simply don’t pay enough for produce to keep them running. You could argue that subsidies are to keep the public onside. If you were the party who removed subsidies (and increased food prices by 50%), it would be political suicide.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    I've never quite followed the math on this argument for subsidies. Government subsidies are still payed by us, the money is funneled through taxes and government budgets but it's not like a subsidy appears out of thin air. This is also does in the face of free markets. If we keep process artificially low we won't see any explanation in production. That keeps prices high and sticks us in a loop where we need subsidies because prices are too high and can't reduce price because there's no market incentive.
    - Guthur 3y ago
      Free market is the reason you need the subsidies, otherwise import tariffs. European production costs around labour, regulations etc would be drastically undercut by foreign low cost markets and you would lose food sovereignty due to foreign imports. Of course subsidies do introduce distortion but they are often simpler globally than tic for tat tariffs.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I'm not so sure if subsidizing a handful of industries avoids the problem of cost imbalances when trading globally. Say we subsidize corn because otherwise our corn industry would be decimated by cheap labor overseas. We successfully walled off one industry, but that cheaper foreign labor is still available for other production. Maybe workers that would be paid overseas to grow corn are instead paid to produce cheaper clothing that we can't compete with. We can't keep subsidizing one industry at a time in hopes of dodging a fundamental supply abstracts the other country has. Tariffs can be an option there *if* imposed on all imports from one country. They have their own practical issues though, not least of all is enforcement. NATO made a huge deal about banning Russian oil when the war started but they still sell it just fine, often as crude oil to another country that refines it and still sells it to us anyway.
- pkphilip 3y ago
  Not just that. If you don't have farming going on - and it often requires subsidies to keep it going - even Netherlands have subsidised agriculture, your food security will just disappear. I am not sure why people don't seem to understand this. If a nation ever finds itself dependent on a neighbour for water, food, electricity, oil etc, they are going to be in big trouble when it comes to any sort of negotiations. The truth is that agricultural land is under tremendous pressure. It is far more lucrative to just build apartments or commercial real estate on farming land than it is to sustain agriculture. Subsidies are used to incentivize farmers to continue farming instead of disposing of their land.
tfourb 3y ago
If the only way that agriculture can sustain itself in i.e. Germany is by subsidies covering 50% of farmers' incomes and all of their profits, then the way we do agriculture/food is fundamentally wrong. Also, how self-sufficient are you really if your entire agricultural system is predicated on access to chemical fertilizers, which in turn is produced from natural gas of which you have to import close to 100%? The subsidy system is thoroughly dysfunctional and doesn't solve a real problem anymore, except by supporting existing economic structures.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I'd assume food stores could be made to last long enough to enact some kind of rationing, and thus lack of chemical fertilizers will have a less profound effect. The point isn't that we would have to sustain ourselves as before, but to be able to sustain on some kind of level.
- pkphilip 3y ago
  Across the world agriculture is subsidised.. even in poorer countries, because the cost of doing agriculture is very high. Farmers are moving to other jobs, selling their farmlands etc.. this will put huge pressure on food supplies and so the govts figured that there has to be some incentive to keep people in agriculture. Nations which don't have substantial access to food grown within their borders will place themselves at severe disadvantage when it comes to any sort of global negotiations. Take the example of Qatar - when it was under sanction by many of the Arab countries, they could not import food.. and they were forced to get into agriculture and now agriculture thrives in Qatar even though the climate is not conducive. https://thefarmermagazine.com.au/qatars-farmers-have-gone-from-being-zeroes-to-heroes/ https://thefarmermagazine.com.au/qatars-farmers-have-gone-fr...

WastingMyTime89 3y ago

> Instead of boosting their economies by importing stuff from those countries we kill their exports with subsidized local produce and then spend a lot on development aid. I think a key takeaway from the pandemic is that you don’t want to be reliant of import from strategic ressources and food is priority number one. European subsidies are mostly going to France which is a huge wheat producer. Farming is an area where I can predict there are going to be a lot of tension in the EU between ecological ambition and the cold reality of having to feed everyone.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
EU Farming subsidies and ecological ambition are a near perfect fit. Just politics gets in the way as usual. But as the climate deniers power wanes it's a powerful tool ready to be used for good.
psiops 3y ago
It'll be a lot easier to feed everyone if we grow food for humans rather than cattle.
- mihaic 3y ago
  It seems that optimal calorie output from all our available land involves some intermediary animals that eat whatever humans can't eat. I agree we're raising far too many cattle, but just wanted to point out it's not very simple.
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    Depends how you define « optimum ». For IPCC it’s GHG mitigation and the vegan diet beats them all, while « all diets needs to provide full complement of nutritional quality, including micronutrients ». https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCCL_Chapter_5.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCC... (Page 488) Edit : translate giec to ipcc

mempko 3y ago

I'm sorry but it seems that it's global warming that is causing insect declines as the primary driver, not farming practices (though farming practices do play a role of course). Protected lands of the Puerto Rican rain forest saw huge declines in insect and consequently birds and there is no farming there. The explanation is simple. Heat waves are killing the bugs. They simply can't cope with 1 or 2 weeks of intense heat. You also see this with lizards and frogs. Since they are low on the food chain this translates to bird declines, and other animal declines. PS. I choose not to use "Climate Change" because it's too neutral and is the preferred term of the fossil fuel industry for a reason. I like "Global Warming" or "Climate Crisis" or "Climate Emergency" or "Climate Chaos". The problem is too serious to use neutral language.

binx_ 3y ago
"Climate Chaos" is certainly apt - things are becoming verifiably hotter but also more unpredictable and volatile. I was a proponent of using 'climate change' fairly exclusively but this comment has helped reframe that, thank you.