• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Study: Farm Subsidies Destroying the World's Ecosytems

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
$1m a minute: the farming subsidies destroying the world - report

Quote the article...

The public is providing more than $1m per minute in global farm subsidies, much of which is driving the climate crisis and destruction of wildlife, according to a new report.

Just 1% of the $700bn (£560bn) a year given to farmers is used to benefit the environment, the analysis found. Much of the total instead promotes high-emission cattle production, forest destruction and pollution from the overuse of fertiliser.

The security of humanity is at risk without reform to these subsidies, a big reduction in meat eating in rich nations and other damaging uses of land, the report says. But redirecting the subsidies to storing carbon in soil, producing healthier food, cutting waste and growing trees is a huge opportunity, it says.

The report rejects the idea that subsidies are needed to supply cheap food. It found that the cost of the damage currently caused by agriculture is greater than the value of the food produced. New assessments in the report found producing healthy, sustainable food would actually cut food prices, as the condition of the land improves.

“There is incredibly small direct targeting of [subsidies at] positive environment outcomes, which is insane,” said Jeremy Oppenheim, principal at the Food and Land Use Coalition (Folu), the collaboration of food, farming and green research groups that produced the new report. “We have got to switch these subsidies into explicitly positive measures.”

He said the true global total was likely to be $1tn a year, as some subsidies are difficult to quantify precisely: “That trillion dollars of public funding is available and is a massive, massive lever to incentivise the farming community across the world to act differently.” [article continues]​

Questions? Comments?




Now here's a tune for you in a futile effort to make up for inflicting yet another insufferable political thread on you...

 
The security of humanity is at risk without reform to these subsidies, a big reduction in meat eating in rich nations and other damaging uses of land, the report says.

Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate

As the scale and impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, meat is a popular target for action. Advocates urge the public to eat less meat to save the environment. Some activists have called for taxing meat to reduce consumption of it.

A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.

...

Many people continue to think avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent. According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we'd see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-meat-affects-environment-cows-climate.html

Comments?

The main problems with farming are:

1) Use of industrial quantities of antibiotics which also runs off into water supply/get everywhere causing multi-drug resistant infections
2) Destroying rainforests for palm oil, soya, livestock, etc

I'm not sure how we fix these any time soon though.

The public is providing more than $1m per minute in global farm subsidies

More of a question/point of thought than a statement as I've no idea as to the answer, but could reduced farm subsidies in the West drive production into the less regulated developing world where agriculture is causing massive environmental damage?
 

leov

Well-Known Member
$1m a minute: the farming subsidies destroying the world - report

Quote the article...

The public is providing more than $1m per minute in global farm subsidies, much of which is driving the climate crisis and destruction of wildlife, according to a new report.

Just 1% of the $700bn (£560bn) a year given to farmers is used to benefit the environment, the analysis found. Much of the total instead promotes high-emission cattle production, forest destruction and pollution from the overuse of fertiliser.

The security of humanity is at risk without reform to these subsidies, a big reduction in meat eating in rich nations and other damaging uses of land, the report says. But redirecting the subsidies to storing carbon in soil, producing healthier food, cutting waste and growing trees is a huge opportunity, it says.

The report rejects the idea that subsidies are needed to supply cheap food. It found that the cost of the damage currently caused by agriculture is greater than the value of the food produced. New assessments in the report found producing healthy, sustainable food would actually cut food prices, as the condition of the land improves.

“There is incredibly small direct targeting of [subsidies at] positive environment outcomes, which is insane,” said Jeremy Oppenheim, principal at the Food and Land Use Coalition (Folu), the collaboration of food, farming and green research groups that produced the new report. “We have got to switch these subsidies into explicitly positive measures.”

He said the true global total was likely to be $1tn a year, as some subsidies are difficult to quantify precisely: “That trillion dollars of public funding is available and is a massive, massive lever to incentivise the farming community across the world to act differently.” [article continues]​

Questions? Comments?




Now here's a tune for you in a futile effort to make up for inflicting yet another insufferable political thread on you...

at this point i do not see real solution of this problem. we need change of consciousness, almost utopian real communism, but first money and greed has to be eliminated. science can help to balance production needs and environment.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate

Attacking the notion that cattle are significantly contributing to global climate change is way too much of a straw man for me. That idea was kicked around for a while way back when. How many prominent climate scientists believe in 2019 that cow farts are the main problem with cattle? Can you cite some recent papers in support of it?

Rather than play the straw man game, tackle the deforestation of the Amazon and other ecosystems that has been the consequence of converting land over to be used in raising cattle for the beef market.
 
Attacking the notion that cattle are significantly contributing to global climate change is way too much of a straw man for me. That idea was kicked around for a while way back when. How many prominent climate scientists believe in 2019 that cow farts are the main problem with cattle? Can you cite some recent papers in support of it?

On the subject of strawmen, the article wasn't about the idea cow farts are the main problem with cattle.

Rather than play the straw man game, tackle the deforestation of the Amazon and other ecosystems that has been the consequence of converting land over to be used in raising cattle for the beef market.
2) Destroying rainforests for palm oil, soya, livestock, etc

:shrug:

Do I have to personally solve the problem myself before I can even mention anything else regarding the environment? Noting something as one of the 2 biggest problems apparently isn't sufficient to avoid being a mendacious peddler of strawmen because I also had the temerity to link to a research scientist mentioning something else.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
On the subject of strawmen, the article wasn't about the idea cow farts are the main problem with cattle.




:shrug:

Do I have to personally solve the problem myself before I can even mention anything else regarding the environment? Noting something as one of the 2 biggest problems apparently isn't sufficient to avoid being a mendacious peddler of strawmen because I also had the temerity to link to a research scientist mentioning something else.

I'm sorry Augustus. I only quickly skimmed your post, rather than read it with understanding. My bad.
 
I'm sorry Augustus. I only quickly skimmed your post, rather than read it with understanding. My bad.

No problem, we all do it.

Not that I'm saying 'do nothing' or 'everything is fine', but I am very worried about centralised, top-down attempts to significantly alter diet and agriculture patterns as these usually have major unintended consequences for both health and environment.

This is exactly the kind of thing that humans suck at but keep forgetting that they suck at.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Another view....
Farm subsidies are part of a response to a larger problem,
ie, over-population. Even if farming policies & practices were
changed for the better, environmental degradation will continue
with an ever increasing population.
 
Top