|
I can't claim to speak for the OP, but I think a reasonable interpretation of his arguments without the bluster might go something like this: Currently, our system is deliberately weighted in favour of large-scale industrial farming, without regard for local faming in any capacity, through subsidies, tarrifs, price fixing, etc. of certain crops. While to some degree industrial farming is necessary given the populations we need to support and the particulars of where they live, we've distorted the market in such a way that some practices that have obviously negative externalities make sense (growing water-intensive crops in drought regions, transporting vegetables capable of being produced locally over huge distances, growing more corn than anyone knows what to do with, to the point that literally burning it for fuel is cost-effective). One solution to this is to shift where we apply incentives to favour practices that have less negative externalities, such as preferring local farms, sustainable practices, etc., without necessarily banning one or another. We just move the thumb we're currently putting on the "industrial ag" part of the scale and shift it to the "small, local farm" part of the scale. It makes more sense - if a big part of the argument is that industrial ag has large negative externalities that aren't accounted for when we think of how efficient they are, it seems appropriate to either tax for these externalities or subsidize those who can avoid them. This may have an effect on some regions - fresh produce might be more expensive in desert regions, and produce would probably go back to being more seasonal than it is today. Most likely, you could still get whatever you want, it's just that you'd have to pay for it if you want strawberries in February. If we're talking about North America though, there's very few places that food can absolutely not be grown, and subsidies can be tweaked to ensure that staples and basic produce is always cost effective. But yeah, the "won't somebody think of the poors" argument doesn't hold water when you're talking about the ability to have literally whatever fruit or vegetable you want at any time for the same price.
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:54 |
|