Agricultural Subsidies

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate Policy > Agricultural Subsidies

Agricultural Subsidies04-12-2018 07:06
GunnarTHansen ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	The United States government should have policies and laws preventing the future negative effects of climate change. Unfortunately, government policies currently encourage the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One of these policies is subsidies for farmers. Many of these subsidies go on to help animal agriculture. The subsidies make an animal product cheaper, by making cattle feed cheaper and by funding the farm directly when they are hit by changing markets. Many wonder how the animal agriculture industry is contributing to climate change. There are essentially three different ways they contribute. First is the need for natural land to be transformed into land suitable for animals and the crops that are necessary to feed them. Before the land undergoes a transformation it has plants and other vegetation that serve as sinks CO2 can be held in. However, when this vegetation is stripped from the ground and killed the area's role as a barrier for CO2 coming into the atmosphere is also lost. This means that more CO2 is present in the atmosphere once the land is transformed. Secondly, the number of animals produced contributes a large amount of the greenhouse gas methane to the atmosphere. Methane, when compared to CO2, has a global warming potential 28 times higher during a 100-year time period. This means that smaller amounts of methane can still speed up climate change. luckily if policies change the time it takes for methane to breakdown is also shorter. Lastly, Nitrous oxide which has a global warming potential of 265 is also produced because of fertilizers used on the agricultural land. All in all animal agriculture is contributing to global climate change too much for the United States to support it. Instead, Congress should be funding plant-based agriculture that is being sold solely for humans. if you want to see more action done tell big foundations such as Greenpeace to start promoting more sustainable agricultural practices. Thank You Edited on 04-12-2018 07:09
04-12-2018 07:47
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	GunnarTHansen wrote: ..... First is the need for natural land to be transformed into land suitable for animals and the crops that are necessary to feed them..... Not in the US. Not anymore.
04-12-2018 16:59
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	It's real simple.... 1. Cow eats plant 2. Cow takes a shit 3. Shit grows BIGGER plant. 4. Cow eats it and shits again. 5. Rinse and repeat until a wonderful steak is produced. 6. A hungry person gets a full belly. (me ) As far as cow farts go....if you promise to never fart again I'll get rid of my cattle. Dude, quit drinkin the koolaid and git yourself a good ribeye. It'll change your life!! Edited on 04-12-2018 17:04
04-12-2018 17:00
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Oddly contradictory... Why destroy natural land, to create grazing land? Eventually, those cleared pasture lands, get turned into condos, stip malls, and parking lots. Either way, aren't trees, and natural vegetation just as good at using CO2? Well, maybe not in California, seem to like burning a lot of it. US agriculture gets a whole lot of subsidies. I think much of it is antiquated, and the government needs to stop. The idea was to help balance out the crops, farms are a business, and they tend to plant the crops that produce the highest profits, all of them. Unfortunately, too much of one type of crop, creates a surplus, which some farmers can't give away, much less sell. The subsidies encourage a good variety of crops, unfortunately, the government found they could also manipulate global prices as well. Few of the less ethical politicians, found there was huge profits, in knowing which crops would sell for top dollar, and which ones could produce a surplus, and very low prices. Still a small gamble, since crops do fail, occasionally, and we see a shortage. Personally, I believe the plants and trees that live decades/centuries, are better for pulling CO2 from the atmosphere. They have higher requirements, and store the converted CO2. Farm crops usually get harvested each years, some take a few years. Fruit trees get replace, frequently, their production drops with age. Methane... Every mammal emits it, people are mammals too. There are a lot of mammals in the wild, not quite as many, as there use to be. The American Bison (buffalo), use to be very plentiful, and more than twice the size of beef cattle. They were nearly killed off completely, but not as food. They hides where removed, as proof for a bounty, and sold for leather products. They didn't like railroads, and tended to protest on the tracks, causing great delays, for busy, important people. The Native American's major food source, specially for the winter, was the buffalo, so killing them off, sort of helped our government take care of another problem, since they wanted to steal the land they lived on. I really don't see a climate issue, just doesn't make enough sense, specially this time of year, definitely into a Global Cooling trend right now. Basically, only so much energy is going to get here from the Sun. Colder stuff will receive energy from warmer stuff, most happens in the atmosphere, where a good portion is emitted back out to space. The heat energy that sticks around on the surface, doesn't sit still, it moves around, cold, takes energy from the warm, never stops. CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, about 400 ppm. It's not spread out evenly over the surface of the planet, it's mixed in with a whole lot of other gasses, and water vapor. Even if the CO2 was spread out, in an even layer, there would be a considerable distance between each molecule. Just not enough to cause a global effect of any kind. You can't get more energy out, than what was put in. Otherwise, we would need 'Fossil Fuels', there would be free energy to use every where. With, or without CO2, or any of the so called 'Greenhouse' gasses, there is only so much solar energy, and the warming/cooling would be the same, a molecule can only handle so much energy, the surplus is passed on to other molecules. The planet isn't a closed container, plenty of energy is cast off, all the time, day and night, specially in the winter...
04-12-2018 19:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GunnarTHansen wrote: The United States government should have policies and laws preventing the future negative effects of climate change. Define 'climate change'. What exactly is it? It's a meaningless buzzword to me. No one has ever defined 'climate change'. GunnarTHansen wrote: Unfortunately, government policies currently encourage the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using surface infrared light. GunnarTHansen wrote: One of these policies is subsidies for farmers. Many of these subsidies go on to help animal agriculture. The subsidies make an animal product cheaper, by making cattle feed cheaper and by funding the farm directly when they are hit by changing markets. Many wonder how the animal agriculture industry is contributing to climate change. It doesn't. The only thing contributing to this buzzword is people like you. GunnarTHansen wrote: There are essentially three different ways they contribute. First is the need for natural land to be transformed into land suitable for animals and the crops that are necessary to feed them. Cattle don't need land transformed. They just graze on whatever's there. It can be grass, forest, desert brush, whatever. GunnarTHansen wrote: Before the land undergoes a transformation it has plants and other vegetation that serve as sinks CO2 can be held in. However, when this vegetation is stripped from the ground and killed the area's role as a barrier for CO2 coming into the atmosphere is also lost. This means that more CO2 is present in the atmosphere once the land is transformed. Did you know that grass and ocean plankton are the primary sinks of CO2? Not trees? Did you know that many trees sleep this time of year and do not process CO2 at all? GunnarTHansen wrote: Secondly, the number of animals produced contributes a large amount of the greenhouse gas methane to the atmosphere. Methane, when compared to CO2, has a global warming potential 28 times higher during a 100-year time period. This means that smaller amounts of methane can still speed up climate change. luckily if policies change the time it takes for methane to breakdown is also shorter. Farts are not a 'greenhouse' gas either. There is no such thing. GunnarTHansen wrote: Lastly, Nitrous oxide which has a global warming potential of 265 is also produced because of fertilizers used on the agricultural land. Making fertilizers is the process of fixating nitrogen. The process does not release nitrous oxide. Fertilizers are potassium nitrate, urea nitrate, ammonium nitrate, etc. They are nitrates. GunnarTHansen wrote: All in all animal agriculture is contributing to global climate change too much for the United States to support it. The only thing supporting this buzzword is you. The United States and the wonderful ranchers across this land ARE supporting the United States. GunnarTHansen wrote: Instead, Congress should be funding plant-based agriculture that is being sold solely for humans. They do. Ever hear of corn subsidies for loser projects like ethanol? They destroyed the sugar cane industry. Price controls never work. GunnarTHansen wrote: if you want to see more action done tell big foundations such as Greenpeace to start promoting more sustainable agricultural practices. Thank You No thanks. I don't support socialists and Marxists masquerading as environmentalists. I support the environment, just like the ranchers themselves do. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-12-2018 19:03

04-12-2018 21:48
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Apparently, from PETA undercover videos of beef production, they are confined in narrow stalls, give, food, water, hormones, antibiotics... Not sure where the cattle gets the exercise needed, to develop the muscle mass, or stay healthy, for that matter. Steroids don't work that way. You still need to do the work, they just reduce the pain, in the old 'no pain, no gain', letting you work harder, and longer. Probably reduce methane considerably, by shutting down Taco Bell...
04-12-2018 22:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Apparently, from PETA undercover videos of beef production, they are confined in narrow stalls, give, food, water, hormones, antibiotics... PETA propaganda videos are designed to give a fake view of what happens on a ranch. I suggest you drive out into the country and look at all the cattle out there grazing in the fields. Stalls aren't narrow. They are used to protect them from harsh winter weather protection from the cold overnight, as a place to give antibiotics and other treatments for the health, than put out to pasture to graze each day. Narrow gates are used to guide cattle and essentially trap them in one place for treatments. These are temporary use. Cattle can be dangerous to be around. HarveyH55 wrote: Not sure where the cattle gets the exercise needed, to develop the muscle mass, or stay healthy, for that matter. They walk, they run, they hump each other, they drink, they graze. There is not too much in the life of cattle. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-12-2018 22:41
05-12-2018 03:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I mostly did farm work, before I went off to college. Started at age of 13, mostly the summer months, when school was out, and extra hands were always in short supply. I already as tall, or even taller than most adults, and good physical condition from competitive swimming. Pasture land isn't cleared, or really much done to it, other than remove or block off things where the cattle can hurt themselves. Some kinds of plants (weeds) are harmful, need to be removed. Barn animals are there for protection, until they can be turned back out to pasture. Cows brought in to be milk, but sent back out when done. Way too much propaganda, but we have the right to 'Free Speech', unfortunately to many abuse the privilege, it's not expressing an opinion, but outright lies, some do cause a lot of damage, cost a lot of tax money. I'll admit, I saw some stuff on the farm, which I didn't agree with, but could understand the need. A thousand pound animal can do a lot of damage, serious injuries, even kill, little abuse, to a 'product', is understandable. Might look bad, but most farmers aren't going to do any serious harm, as they are the ones who pay for it. Damaged products don't sell as well, serious injuries require a Vet, which is an expense. The cattle do worse to themselves sometimes. The climatologist might think a little economic damage is worth the end product, a cleaner, greener world. But, they are still selling a lie, though their intentions might be good, their methods will cause more harm, than their false predictions.
05-12-2018 05:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: I mostly did farm work, before I went off to college. Started at age of 13, mostly the summer months, when school was out, and extra hands were always in short supply. I already as tall, or even taller than most adults, and good physical condition from competitive swimming. Pasture land isn't cleared, or really much done to it, other than remove or block off things where the cattle can hurt themselves. Some kinds of plants (weeds) are harmful, need to be removed. Barn animals are there for protection, until they can be turned back out to pasture. Cows brought in to be milk, but sent back out when done. Way too much propaganda, but we have the right to 'Free Speech', unfortunately to many abuse the privilege, it's not expressing an opinion, but outright lies, some do cause a lot of damage, cost a lot of tax money. I'll admit, I saw some stuff on the farm, which I didn't agree with, but could understand the need. A thousand pound animal can do a lot of damage, serious injuries, even kill, little abuse, to a 'product', is understandable. Might look bad, but most farmers aren't going to do any serious harm, as they are the ones who pay for it. Damaged products don't sell as well, serious injuries require a Vet, which is an expense. The cattle do worse to themselves sometimes. The climatologist might think a little economic damage is worth the end product, a cleaner, greener world. But, they are still selling a lie, though their intentions might be good, their methods will cause more harm, than their false predictions. Cows know to come in to be milked. It's what prevents them from rupturing. They can't stop producing milk. I mean you know how to go to the bathroom when you need to empty your bladder, right? Maybe you could spend some time on a dairy farm? And if you're lucky you might be allowed to drink some real milk. When it's homogenized you get sour tasting milk. This is because when it's heated it loses it's sweetness.
05-12-2018 06:29
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harvey, can I be an ****? I never got sick drinking real milk. The sugar they add to cereal is because milk tastes like sh1t. I think it's funny. I'd forgotten what it was like to taste pasteurized and homogenized milk for the first time. I couldn't believe they thought people wanted to drink it. It tasted that bad. It's an acquired taste like salmon. Luckily I got out of that edited to add: Harvey, I owe you a big thanks for this. Even my aunt (actually great aunt) was shocked when we had to wait to get the milk. It was explained to us about the law and why it had to be done. It did take some coaxing to get me to keep drinking milk. Who knows, maybe the next big thing will be be a process that let's milk keep it's sweet taste? Do you know the difference between Russia and the US? Russians would probably let me have a woman in my life because I served in the US Armed Forces. In America that doesn't give me the right to have a family. In the end I'll most likely move to Australia. Edited on 05-12-2018 07:05
05-12-2018 09:03
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	The link is to Powell Valley Rd. At it's end is where my grandmother lived. She owned 2 acres that straddled the road. At the end of the road was a gate onto the dairy farm. There's plenty of woods because the area is considered both eastern Kentucky and Appalachia. All this means is you won't find flat ground. That's more for the Midwest. Powell Valley Rd Kentucky 40403 https://goo.gl/maps/ueHrh8DeVxS2 This is another place I lived as a kid. No dairy farm for a neighbor but we had fjords. Hard to say which was better. Didn't have to speak Angelsk around a fjord. Do you know that some people only learn one language? I don't really believe that. It'd be like walking on one leg or not drinking real milk. Alesund Ålesund Municipality, Norway https://goo.gl/maps/Njf3fytULss Edited on 05-12-2018 09:08
05-12-2018 16:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	My farm work, really didn't involve the animals much. The bulk was in the hay fields, cutting, baling, and storing it in the barn. You can't do it all in one day, needs to dry out, so I'd sometime either have a few days off, or work out the pasture, fixing gates and fences, fallen trees, cleaning stuff up. Always plenty of stuff to do, wasn't charity. I've always like salmon, odd you'd call it an acquired taste. Think it's only good, fresh caught though. Haven't really had any good salmon in a long time, sometimes it's pretty bad around here, mostly just barely good enough. Smoked salmon is really good, stores well too, but unfortunately, you can only eat small portions though, not make a meal of it. Tends to violently clear the bowels, if you over indulge. It's packed full of oils, and most of the water content removed, slides right through. But, fresh salmon needs to be prepared simple, and not over cooked. Just a little salt and pepper, nothing fancy. There are 5 main species, the most common (goes by many names, not sure of the scientific), is terrible, basically cat food, fish bait. Coho and Sockeye are the two best species.

Join the debate Agricultural Subsidies: