# guaranteed pricing for fruit and vegetable producers



## joe sod (28 Jul 2018)

this summer has shown us how precarious the supply of both indigenous and imported fruit and vegatables is. The summer drought has affected not just ireland but most of europe so the supply of fruit and veg will be significantly down. Ireland is more dependant on imports of fruit and veg than other european countries so we are actually more exposed. The supermarkets have concentrated their supply of irish fruit and veg to a few very large producers in the north dublin , meath areas. This is the area worst hit by the drought as it is the driest area in the country. If there were more small producers of fruit and veg scattered evenly over the country the effects of drought would not be as severe as areas in north west ireland have got adequate rainfall. Also if you are a small producer it is easier to manage the situation and get water onto crops from a farm well or from a river. This is too difficult for large producers.

        Therefore the blunt market works most of the time and we benefit from lower prices until a year like this comes around and then we see how dangerous and precarious the supply of food is. So I think there needs to be guaranteed pricing for vegetable producers and other market supports. Growing fruit and veg is a very difficult job, after a year like this there is a danger that even the large suppliers in north dublin/ meath will quit the game and do something easier.


----------



## llgon (28 Jul 2018)

Is it the case that the price of this fruit and veg is expected to rise this year, due to lower production, thus reducing loss to the growers? If a guaranteed price had been agreed would it not be to the disadvantage of growers?

This type of model could be applied to lots of sectors that are affected by the weather, economic conditions etc but would need a change in competition laws.


----------



## dub_nerd (28 Jul 2018)

The problem with guaranteed pricing is the perverse incentives when there is a glut. EU-wide price supports gave us food mountains and produce wastefully ploughed back into the ground. Concentrating food production near the area where a third of the population lives also sounds like a sensible way to reduce food miles. Maybe what is needed is an insurance scheme rather than price supports. It's true it can only save producers from going under in bad years -- it doesn't give any additional security of supply during the bad year itself. But bad years are much rarer than bumper years and the alternative is to have almost permanent over-supply.


----------



## joe sod (28 Jul 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> The problem with guaranteed pricing is the perverse incentives when there is a glut. EU-wide price supports gave us food mountains and produce wastefully ploughed back into the ground. Concentrating food production near the area where a third of the population lives also sounds like a sensible way to reduce food miles. Maybe what is needed is an insurance scheme rather than price supports. It's true it can only save producers from going under in bad years -- it doesn't give any additional security of supply. But bad years are much rarer than bumper years and the alternative is to have almost permanent over-supply.



yes the cap of the 1980s produced this market distortion , but that was more to do with the european union and its politics then(or EEC as it was then), France was a beneficiary and the UK and Germany were contributors, also the cold war and the closure of huge parts of the eastern bloc to european exports. The 1980s was much more benign period in weather terms (no global warming effects) and the european population was alot lower then. They allowed these massive surpluses to build up before the politicians got around to reforming it.
Most developed countries have market protections in key items of food production, Canada and the US also have protections for dairy and fresh produce. If the market is left to its own devices as now fresh food will not be produced and there will be shortages, we are now facing shortages. Once producers of fruit and veg go out of business , they will not return. It is much more skilled than livestock and cereal production, and is very important as we are only now realising


----------



## T McGibney (28 Jul 2018)

Price fixing doesn't work.

Next.


----------



## joe sod (28 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Price fixing doesn't work.
> 
> Next.


your contribution is not worthy of a reply, a one line smart alec reply to a looming crisis, whats your alternative shortages


----------



## Clamball (28 Jul 2018)

I think the issue is the large multiples want to purchase from large producers, they really do no want to purchase from small one or two people outfits.  So multiple local producers, doing a variety of fruit or veg are not going to supply the local Aldi or Tesco or Dunnes.  They cannot compete on price, volume or supply with large international producers.

I think the only answer is to request local potatoes, carrots, onions every time you shop and then eventually sway the buyers, through a groundswell of requests.

It is not just weather that can send producers out of business, the mushroom growers practically closed overnight due to currency fluctuations between Ireland and UK.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Jul 2018)

joe sod said:


> your contribution is not worthy of a reply, a one line smart alec reply to a looming crisis, whats your alternative shortages


"Not worthy of a reply" usually means "I'm stumped but won't admit it"

What part of "price fixing doesn't work" do you not understand?

Basic economics.

And price fixing is illegal too.


----------



## Purple (30 Jul 2018)

We should remove all price supports and trade openly with developing countries who could produce most of our food for us. That would cause a consolidation in the agricultural sector which would eventually lead to far fewer but much larger producers. Globally we'd reduce real poverty and lift the incomes of millions of families. Our current model (the CAP) is immoral and economically nonsensical. 

As for water shortages for producers; invest in contingency plans and stop expecting the general public to prop up your business. Who do you think you are, a farmer? Oh, yea, sorry; scrounge away.


----------



## Jim2007 (30 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> We should remove all price supports and trade openly with developing countries who could produce most of our food for us. That would cause a consolidation in the agricultural sector which would eventually lead to far fewer but much larger producers. Globally we'd reduce real poverty and lift the incomes of millions of families. Our current model (the CAP) is immoral and economically nonsensical.



Absolutely not.  It would have environmental consequences, land management, reduced job opportunities for unskilled workers, social impact in the country side. Economics is a very poor argument when all is considered.


----------



## Purple (30 Jul 2018)

Jim2007 said:


> Absolutely not.  It would have environmental consequences, land management, reduced job opportunities for unskilled workers, social impact in the country side.


 What environmental consequences? About 5% of the workforce is in agriculture. The number of low skilled job losses would be minimal. The social impact would be significant but does that justify subsidies and trade barriers which cause so much poverty, suffering and death in developing countries?



Jim2007 said:


> Economics is a very poor argument when all is considered.


 It's not just an economic argument, there is very little to support the massive subsidies paid to keep totally un-viable businesses afloat and plenty, besides the strong economic argument, against.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> We should remove all price supports and trade openly with developing countries who could produce most of our food for us. ... *Globally we'd reduce real poverty and lift the incomes of millions of families*. Our current model (the CAP) is immoral and economically nonsensical.



+1

Looking at Irish agriculture, it is very inefficiently organised. And why would it be otherwise given the subsidy regime. 

The few farmers who do step away from subsidy farming show what can be done. 

Keelings fruit farms are a world class business. The Foods of Athenry is a family farm showing what can be done. Keoghs or O Donnells in crisps. Glenillen Farm in dairy produce. There are many more. However there are too many that will not do anything except what their grandparents did and put their hands out for a subsidy. A free market would put them out of business and let real farmers, as opposed to subsidy junkies, get on with business.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> A free market would put them out of business and let *real farmers*, as opposed to subsidy junkies, get on with business.



Like Larry Goodman?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (30 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Like Larry Goodman?


Leave Larry alone  I suspect he would see through the people who think the know everything what a strange addiction the people who see subsidy junkies everywhere the look,


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Like Larry Goodman?


No not like Larry Goodman, he is so far as I know primarily a meat processor. 

More Like the several farmers I referenced above.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> No not like Larry Goodman, he is so far as I know primarily a meat processor.


He's also the biggest farmer in the country and the biggest EU subsidy recipient. If there was no subsidies in the meat trade, he probably wouldn't be at that either.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> He's also the biggest farmer in the country and the biggest EU subsidy recipient. If there was no subsidies in the meat trade, he probably wouldn't be at that either.



Another reason to scrap subsidies then.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Another reason to scrap subsidies then.


That too, but don't cod yourself that doing so would hurt the likes of Goodman though.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> That too, but don't cod yourself that doing so would hurt the likes of Goodman though.



Wha ? First you tell me that he is the biggest EU subsidy recipient, now you are suggesting that scrapping subsidies would not hurt him. Confused is a good word.

Subsidies distort Irish agriculture, if they were removed, farmers would have to produce and market their wares in a more efficient way. The examples I cited above could serve as an inspiration.


----------



## T McGibney (30 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Wha ? First you tell me that he is the biggest EU subsidy recipient, now you are suggesting that scrapping subsidies would not hurt him. Confused is a good word.
> 
> Subsidies distort Irish agriculture, if they were removed, farmers would have to produce and market their wares in a more efficient way. The examples I cited above could serve as an inspiration.


Not confusing at all. If subsidies were removed, the likes of him would hoover up half the country's agricultural land at knockdown values and we'd be halfway to a national food production oligopoly and all the joys that would bring.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> If subsidies were removed, the likes of him would hoover up half the country's agricultural land at knockdown values and we'd be halfway to a national food production oligopoly



If subsidies were removed no doubt agricultural land would be transferred from less efficient producers to more efficient producers. 

This would be a far better utilization of a major national resource. Resulting in cheaper food and freeing up of Labour for more productive purposes. A win win. 

I don’t doubt for a moment Mr. G that you understsnd this as well or better than I. 

The possibility of an oligopoly arising certainly exists but fear of possible future problems which may arise is no reason not to address current problems which actually exist.


----------



## joe sod (30 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> We should remove all price supports and trade openly with developing countries who could produce most of our food for us. That would cause a consolidation in the agricultural sector which would eventually lead to far fewer but much larger producers. Globally we'd reduce real poverty and lift the incomes of millions of families. Our current model (the CAP) is immoral and economically nonsensical.
> 
> As for water shortages for producers; invest in contingency plans and stop expecting the general public to prop up your business. Who do you think you are, a farmer? Oh, yea, sorry; scrounge away.



That was the situation that existed pre world war 2, there was free trade in food , europe imported much of its food from the americas,  australia and new zealand. When this trade was halted by the war europe starved, that was the whole rationale for the CAP. The CAP is a bad system by the way but that is more to do with the politics of the EU than anything else , reform happens as in many other areas at snails pace. 
As for depending on the developing world which has enough mouths of its own to feed and is suffering much more than europe from droughts and undependable rainfall. There is not enough arable land in the world to feed the growing global population and that is not taking into account the problem of climate change. Europe and America are in the temperate zone, therefore it is in the best area to grow food, thats why when you look at the globe they are coloured green whereas africa is largely yellow. Many african countries are also importers of food so are hardly in a position to supply europe.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Jul 2018)

joe sod said:


> As for depending on the developing world which has enough mouths of its own to feed and is suffering much more than europe from droughts and undependable rainfall. There is not enough arable land in the world to feed the growing global population and that is not taking into account the problem of climate change. Europe and America are in the temperate zone, therefore it is in the best area to grow food, thats why when you look at the globe they are coloured green whereas africa is largely yellow. Many african countries are also importers of food so are hardly in a position to supply europe.



http://www.dpa-international.com/to...can-agricultural-development-170503-99-298260

Africa can't compete with EU subsidies. The entire situation is distorted by them.


----------



## llgon (30 Jul 2018)

Yes, and the European farmers don't want to compete with the farmers of the developing world on a equitable basis, despite Joe's assertions that there would be no competition.

Joe, I don't think you answered my questions at the start of the thread:



llgon said:


> Is it the case that the price of this fruit and veg is expected to rise this year, due to lower production, thus reducing loss to the growers? If a guaranteed price had been agreed would it not be to the disadvantage of growers?


----------



## T McGibney (31 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> If subsidies were removed no doubt agricultural land would be transferred from less efficient producers to more efficient producers.
> 
> This would be a far better utilization of a major national resource. Resulting in cheaper food and freeing up of Labour for more productive purposes. A win win.


Oligopolies rarely if ever result in cheaper prices.

I used the example of Larry Goodman for a reason. His track record in the meat processing trade, a classic oligopoly, is worth looking at very very closely.

And I'm picking my words extremely carefully here.


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2018)

joe sod said:


> That was the situation that existed pre world war 2, there was free trade in food , europe imported much of its food from the americas, australia and new zealand. When this trade was halted by the war europe starved, that was the whole rationale for the CAP. The CAP is a bad system by the way but that is more to do with the politics of the EU than anything else , reform happens as in many other areas at snails pace.


 The whole self reliant on food thing is nonsense, especially for Ireland. If global trade broke down how would we get the fuel for our farm machinery? Where would we get our tractors? Where would be get the tyres and parts for our trucks to deliver the food? Where would we get the fertiliser and the feed and the seed and the medicines and the plastic for our packaging? We’d have plenty of beef and Dairymaster could keep making the milking parlours, that is until they ran out of metal and plastic and PCB’s and wire etc. We live in a globalised just in time world. Self sufficiency, for Ireland or the EU, is a myth.   




joe sod said:


> As for depending on the developing world which has enough mouths of its own to feed and is suffering much more than europe from droughts and undependable rainfall. There is not enough arable land in the world to feed the growing global population and that is not taking into account the problem of climate change. Europe and America are in the temperate zone, therefore it is in the best area to grow food, thats why when you look at the globe they are coloured green whereas africa is largely yellow. Many african countries are also importers of food so are hardly in a position to supply europe.


 Nonsense. The land around Lake Victoria is the best in the world. Rwanda is the size of Leinster, has 8 million people, and produces more than enough food. Most of Europe and much of North America are in the Northern Temperate Zone. You do know that there’s a Southern Temperate Zone as well, right?


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> http://www.dpa-international.com/to...can-agricultural-development-170503-99-298260
> 
> Africa can't compete with EU subsidies. The entire situation is distorted by them.


Yep, we dump our produce at below cost prices, thus stymying the development of their agricultural industry, and then make ourselves feel good by giving them charity which is a tiny fraction of the subsidies we give to our farmers. The CAP is morally wrong. We kill people to maintain the myth of self sufficiency.


----------



## joe sod (31 Jul 2018)

Purple said:


> The whole self reliant on food thing is nonsense, especially for Ireland. If global trade broke down how would we get the fuel for our farm machinery? Where would we get our tractors? Where would be get the tyres and parts for our trucks to deliver the food? Where would we get the fertiliser and the feed and the seed and the medicines and the plastic for our packaging? We’d have plenty of beef and Dairymaster could keep making the milking parlours, that is until they ran out of metal and plastic and PCB’s and wire etc. We live in a globalised just in time world. Self sufficiency, for Ireland or the EU, is a myth.



Its not a nonsense, why was it one of the central corner stones in the formation of the EEC, because in the 1950s the memory of the war years and food shortages and rationing were very fresh. The architects of the european community rightly observed that a reliable and self sufficient source of food was the basis of economic development. We have grown up in an era where we take the supply of food for granted, there has never been shortages, the supermarkets are always full (remember the panic over bread during the snow). Yes it is true that a disruption of trade would hit supplies of other vital products, however a trade war or worse  between european countries is highly unlikely, and europe supplies most of those essential products anyway. It is far more likely that wars and disruptions will happen in developing countries , Rwanda was a perfect example of this 20 years ago



Purple said:


> Nonsense. The land around Lake Victoria is the best in the world. Rwanda is the size of Leinster, has 8 million people, and produces more than enough food. Most of Europe and much of North America are in the Northern Temperate Zone. You do know that there’s a Southern Temperate Zone as well, right?



Yes of course I know about the southern temperate zone, unfortunately it is not as significant as the nothern one as relatively small amount of land is situated within it compared to the north, it only contains southern africa, southern part of south america, mainly brazil and argentina and new zealand, australia is not really in it either, (thats why the original discoverers of australia,the dutch, were not overly excited by it). Therefore all of the good temperate land in europe is still essential for food production


----------



## Purple (1 Aug 2018)

joe sod said:


> why was it one of the central corner stones in the formation of the EEC, because in the 1950s the memory of the war years and food shortages and rationing were very fresh


 That was nearly 70 years ago. The shortages weren’t caused by lack of production capacity, it was caused by war. Therefore the EEC/EU served the function of not letting people within it starve by preventing war through open trade, not by subsidising farmers.  




joe sod said:


> The architects of the european community rightly observed that a reliable and self sufficient source of food was the basis of economic development.


 Plenty of countries have a reliable and self sufficient source of food but don’t have economic development. A functioning and competent public sector, trade, minimal corruption, the rule of law, property rights and education are all required for economic development.




joe sod said:


> We have grown up in an era where we take the supply of food for granted, there has never been shortages, the supermarkets are always full (remember the panic over bread during the snow).


 Yes, but the cost to others is horrific.




joe sod said:


> Yes it is true that a disruption of trade would hit supplies of other vital products, however a trade war or worse between european countries is highly unlikely, and europe supplies most of those essential products anyway. It is far more likely that wars and disruptions will happen in developing countries , Rwanda was a perfect example of this 20 years ago


 Rwanda, yes, due to instability, tribalism (think Northern Ireland) outside interference by European powers and general regional instability due to the legacy of colonialism and the Cold War. Bugger all to do with food production. If Europe goes to war with itself again people will starve again.




joe sod said:


> Yes of course I know about the southern temperate zone, unfortunately it is not as significant as the nothern one as relatively small amount of land is situated within it compared to the north, it only contains southern africa, southern part of south america, mainly brazil and argentina and new zealand, australia is not really in it either, (thats why the original discoverers of australia,the dutch, were not overly excited by it). Therefore all of the good temperate land in europe is still essential for food production



We in the EU only produce about one third of the food we are capable of producing. That is due to environmental regulations and the inefficient structures within the agricultural industry. Instead we outsource that environmental damage to other countries and import what they produce, thus adding carbon miles to the environmental damage we already caused. We then keep prices low by giving massive welfare payments to our farmers.



There is no food security argument for the CAP.

There is no environmental argument for the CAP.

There is no moral or ethical argument for the CAP.

It is simply a political tool to keep farmers happy but in doing so we cause unimaginable suffering.


----------



## joe sod (1 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> We in the EU only produce about one third of the food we are capable of producing. That is due to environmental regulations and the inefficient structures within the agricultural industry.



We produce only a third !! where did you get that statistic from, almost all of the arable land in europe is in full production, so where is the two thirds produce thats not being produced going to come from. I agree that we produce less than we could because of environmental considerations but hardly by 2/3 . Surely that is a good thing that the food produced is of high standards. 



Purple said:


> Instead we outsource that environmental damage to other countries and import what they produce, thus adding carbon miles to the environmental damage we already caused. We then keep prices low by giving massive welfare payments to our farmers.



I thought you were advocating importing our food from third countries, now you are arguing against yourself. What food are you talking about that europe outsources the production of because it is too dirty to produce here. I thought outsourcing dirty production was the preserve of heavy industry and electronics where the dirty part of the production happens in third countries. You cant really tar the food industry with that one.

I think you have taken my point about the small land area encompassed in the southern temperate zone. The biggest land area that is much underused is in the northern zone and is actually Russia, not Europe.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

joe sod said:


> We produce only a third !! where did you get that statistic from, almost all of the arable land in europe is in full production, so where is the two thirds produce thats not being produced going to come from. I agree that we produce less than we could because of environmental considerations but hardly by 2/3 . Surely that is a good thing that the food produced is of high standards.


 It was a former employee of the world bank talking on Pat Kenny on Newstalk a while ago.



joe sod said:


> I thought you were advocating importing our food from third countries, now you are arguing against yourself. What food are you talking about that europe outsources the production of because it is too dirty to produce here.


We import beef into the EU and then slap ourselves on the back that we've got greenhouse gas emissions down when in reality we have just outsourced the pollution. We in Ireland know all about how much environmental damage beef production causes; it's the main source of our industrial pollution.



joe sod said:


> I thought outsourcing dirty production was the preserve of heavy industry and electronics where the dirty part of the production happens in third countries. You cant really tar the food industry with that one.


The dirty part of electronics production is the mining that takes place to produce the elements used in them. That happens in places like central Africa and Australia. Energy production and farming are the big polluters.



joe sod said:


> I think you have taken my point about the small land area encompassed in the southern temperate zone. The biggest land area that is much underused is in the northern zone and is actually Russia, not Europe.


 I agree. War the Ukraine (the breadbasket of the Soviet Union) has disrupted production. If we traded fairly with former Soviet Republics they'd have the resources to invest in the infrastructure to further increase production.
The EU can make or break agriculture in poorer countries. Just look at the recent deal with Georgia (the country that invented wine) around Hazelnut production.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> We in Ireland know all about how much environmental damage beef production causes; it's the main source of our industrial pollution.



Really??? I find this hard to believe. Not even mentioned here in this newspaper report on industrial pollution. https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/industrial-pollution-down-since-2013-high-336494.html  I've never heard of any industrial pollution issues with beef processors like Kepak in Clonee nor Liffey Meats in Ballyjamesduff for example.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Really??? I find this hard to believe. Not even mentioned here in this newspaper report on industrial pollution. https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/industrial-pollution-down-since-2013-high-336494.html  I've never heard of any industrial pollution issues with beef processors like Kepak in Clonee nor Liffey Meats in Ballyjamesduff for example.


Apologies, I was talking in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.
Just because it doesn't smell bad or kill fish in a river that doesn't mean it's not pollution.
The Eu's solution is to import beef from South America, adding carbon miles to the existing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging deforestation etc.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Apologies, I was talking in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.


I understand your confusion, the conflation of the two is utterly endemic and obscures all such discussions like a dark cloud, if you'll pardon the pun.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> I understand your confusion, the conflation of the two is utterly endemic and obscures all such discussions like a dark cloud, if you'll pardon the pun.


I wasn't confused. I was just unclear in contextualising what I said. 
Pollution from farming into our waterways is the main source of pollution in those waterways. 
The notion that farming is a clean industry is nonsense.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Pollution from farming into our waterways is the main source of pollution in those waterways.


That's a totally different argument though from this sweeping and totally incorrect statement which you made earlier.



Purple said:


> We in Ireland know all about how much environmental damage beef production causes; it's the main source of our industrial pollution.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> That's a totally different argument though from this sweeping and totally incorrect statement which you made earlier.


It is a different point alright.
The statement I made earlier was about industrial greenhouse gas pollution. It it factually correct. My error was in not being clear that I was talking about greenhouse gases.
Agriculture is our biggest polluter. Arrabawn Co-Op, Arrow Group, Carbery Food Ingredients and Dairygold Co-op have all been "named and shamed" by the EPA.
Agriculture accounts for one third of our total greenhouse gas emissions from beef production and the whole sector, and particularly beef, is expanding rapidly. The fines for not meeting our targets could be as high as €600 million by 2020 but I suppose it's just another subsidy for the farmers.
We also have water pollution from fertilizer and effluent run off etc.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Again you're continually mixing and conflating so-called greenhouse gas emissions with actual pollution. Reasoned and informed debate is impossible as long as this persists.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

So you don't think that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution?! Sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> So you don't think that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution?!


No I don't. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and naturally prevalent gas that is essential for the existence of life. 

And please don't swear. For starters, it's against AAM posting guidelines.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Aug 2018)

I don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, scientifically speaking. 
But we are a member state of the EU, and it does. And will fine us heavily accordingly.
So economically we need to treat it as a pollutant and those costs need to be factored into economic costs of agricultural production here.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> No I don't. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and naturally prevalent gas that is essential for the existence of life.
> 
> And please don't swear. For starters, it's against AAM posting guidelines.


Most of the pollution we create is made up of naturally occurring elements. It is the amount and concentration of it that we produce that makes it pollution.
Cow excrement is naturally occurring but I don't think anyone would describe tons of it being dumped into a stream as anything other than pollution.



T McGibney said:


> And please don't swear. For starters, it's against AAM posting guidelines.


 Since when is praying swearing? For the love of God, I don't know what the world's coming to...


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Cow excrement is naturally occurring but I don't think anyone would describe tons of it being dumped into a stream as anything other than pollution.



But carbon dioxide doesnt pollute anything. Comparing it to slurry dumped in a stream aptly illustrates the nonsense of claiming otherwise.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> But carbon dioxide doesnt pollute anything. Comparing it to slurry dumped in a stream aptly illustrates the nonsense of claiming otherwise.


CO2 released by human activity pollutes the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels and thereby contributing to the Greenhouse Effect. It is different to slurry in that its impact is global and endangers life as we know it. So yes, it is different; it is far worse.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> CO2 released by human activity pollutes the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels and thereby contributing to the Greenhouse Effect. It is different to slurry in that its impact is global and *endangers life as we know it*. So yes, it is different; it is far worse.




Again:
CO2. is. not. a. pollutant.

Inhaling or imbibing slurry can kill you within seconds. CO2, on the other hand, is safe and actually facilitates life. The comparison is fatuous.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Again:
> CO2. is. not. a. pollutant.
> 
> Inhaling or imbibing slurry can kill you within seconds. CO2, on the other hand, is safe and actually facilitates life. The comparison is fatuous.


I'm not going around in circles with this but your position is nonsensical.
When we add the right amount of Chlorine to water we make it safe to drink. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.
When we add the right amount of carbon to steel it makes it harder and better. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.

The same with CO2 in the atmosphere; it should be between 280 and 350 parts per million, above that it is a pollutant.  
If we take the definition of pollutant as a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem then what else can our high emissions be?


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> I'm not going around in circles with this but your position is nonsensical.
> When we add the right amount of Chlorine to water we make it safe to drink. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.
> When we add the right amount of carbon to steel it makes it harder and better. When we add too much it becomes a pollutant.
> 
> ...



We were talking about slurry as a pollutant, yet its deleterious effects persist even in small concentrations. That's why it causes mayhem when added to rivers and lakes where it is diluted to tiny concentrations. 

The claimed pollutant effects of CO2 at 350 ppm (however contested these actually are) are not remotely comparable with the pollutant effects of slurry.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> The claimed pollutant effects of CO2 at 350 ppm (however contested these actually are) are not remotely comparable with the pollutant effects of slurry.


 I know; it's far worse.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> I know; it's far worse.


You won't die or get violently ill if you are temporarily exposed to air containing 351 ppm CO2.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> You won't die or get violently ill if you are temporarily exposed to air containing 351 ppm CO2.


Yea, I know.
So what?


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> Yea, I know.
> So what?


Again: CO2 and agricultural slurry are not remotely comparable as alleged/conditional and actual pollutants respectively. 

Which is where we were fadó fadó when you insisted in conflating them.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Again: CO2 and agricultural slurry are not remotely comparable as alleged/conditional and actual pollutants respectively.
> 
> Which is where we were fadó fadó when you insisted in conflating them.


You can make the same point as many times as you like but it is still nonsense. They are both considered pollutants.
More here.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Aug 2018)

Purple said:


> You can make the same point as many times as you like but it is still nonsense. They are both considered pollutants.
> More here.


Your source confesses


> How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics.



I couldn't have put it better myself. 

My point, that slurry and CO2 are not comparable as actual or potential pollutants, stands.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2018)

T McGibney said:


> My point, that slurry and CO2 are not comparable as actual or potential pollutants, stands.


We're not going to agree on this so maybe just leave it.


----------

