5 ms·

Subsidies should go to electric cars and new nuclear power plants instead.

baldfat 12y ago
Farming subsidies have a long pass. The concern is that we lose to many farmers we lose the ability to feed ouraselves. Willie Nelson started "Farm Aid" to address his own conern and it was apart of a national movement. So US Farmers are supported by the governemnt and they get the subsidies. It isn't the seed manufators that them. Personally I hate ethnol and well there is hope that we will get off of fosil fuels for electricity sooner rather thamn later AKA After I Die.
- mml 12y ago
  Ah, but farmers don't take these subsidies and stuff them in their homespun mattresses. They pretty much hand them over to seed, fertilizer and equipment manufacturers. George Archer was once asked why he didn't just employ farmers directly, instead of buying contracts for their output. He allegedly replied along the lines that he'd never be able to get away with treating employees so poorly.
  - baldfat 12y ago
    Canada does not give their farmers subsidies for grain farms. I had friends that ran a fairly large farm. It was always fest or famine. On good years they would make hundreds of thousands of dollars and on bad years they would lose tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The issue was if you had a string of bad years for to long. My friend is still farming 20+ years now and he made money in all but 5 of them. He also says that the work load is basically the same for a profit or loss year. It is based on the prices of the crops and that the yields stay the same. He predicts this year will be a BIG loss year. This is the forecast for farmers this year in US. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/2015-farm-sector-income-forecast.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-inco... Farming was something I did for 2 weeks a year for fun. It was so different than my desk jobs that I really enjoyed it and the economy of the business is really hard to get your head around but was fascinating to me.
fulafel 12y ago
EV CO2 footprints are in the same ballpark as gas cars. It's just environmental procrastination, there's nothing in sight to make two cars per household sustainable. (Or even one for that matter.) Giving subsidies to nuclear plants wouldn't drastically change the picture.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Electric cars have similar CO2 emissions as a Prius on the current US generating mix. Of course, you can drop that to near zero by buying only renewable power (which would cost me about 10% extra if I felt like doing it). I'm curious as to why you think nuclear wouldn't drastically change the picture, though. Nuclear substitutes nicely for coal on the grid, and coal power is by far the biggest offender here.
  - fulafel 12y ago
    To drastically change the picture you need to cut into the demand for fossil fuels. Subsidies for nuclear power and individuals opting for renewable electricity only make incremental increases in electricity supply and indirectly crowding out fossil energy this way is very expensive compared to going at the culprits directly (eg heavily taxing/cap-and-trading co2 and investing the proceeds cleverly to combat climate change).
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Yes, capturing the true cost of fossil fuel usage would be a really good thing.

Farming subsidies have a long pass. The concern is that we lose to many farmers we lose the ability to feed ouraselves. Willie Nelson started "Farm Aid" to address his own conern and it was apart of a national movement. So US Farmers are supported by the governemnt and they get the subsidies. It isn't the seed manufators that them. Personally I hate ethnol and well there is hope that we will get off of fosil fuels for electricity sooner rather thamn later AKA After I Die.

mml 12y ago
Ah, but farmers don't take these subsidies and stuff them in their homespun mattresses. They pretty much hand them over to seed, fertilizer and equipment manufacturers. George Archer was once asked why he didn't just employ farmers directly, instead of buying contracts for their output. He allegedly replied along the lines that he'd never be able to get away with treating employees so poorly.
- baldfat 12y ago
  Canada does not give their farmers subsidies for grain farms. I had friends that ran a fairly large farm. It was always fest or famine. On good years they would make hundreds of thousands of dollars and on bad years they would lose tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The issue was if you had a string of bad years for to long. My friend is still farming 20+ years now and he made money in all but 5 of them. He also says that the work load is basically the same for a profit or loss year. It is based on the prices of the crops and that the yields stay the same. He predicts this year will be a BIG loss year. This is the forecast for farmers this year in US. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/2015-farm-sector-income-forecast.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-inco... Farming was something I did for 2 weeks a year for fun. It was so different than my desk jobs that I really enjoyed it and the economy of the business is really hard to get your head around but was fascinating to me.

fulafel 12y ago

EV CO2 footprints are in the same ballpark as gas cars. It's just environmental procrastination, there's nothing in sight to make two cars per household sustainable. (Or even one for that matter.) Giving subsidies to nuclear plants wouldn't drastically change the picture.

mikeash 12y ago
Electric cars have similar CO2 emissions as a Prius on the current US generating mix. Of course, you can drop that to near zero by buying only renewable power (which would cost me about 10% extra if I felt like doing it). I'm curious as to why you think nuclear wouldn't drastically change the picture, though. Nuclear substitutes nicely for coal on the grid, and coal power is by far the biggest offender here.
- fulafel 12y ago
  To drastically change the picture you need to cut into the demand for fossil fuels. Subsidies for nuclear power and individuals opting for renewable electricity only make incremental increases in electricity supply and indirectly crowding out fossil energy this way is very expensive compared to going at the culprits directly (eg heavily taxing/cap-and-trading co2 and investing the proceeds cleverly to combat climate change).
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Yes, capturing the true cost of fossil fuel usage would be a really good thing.