Yes but then you are in a position where instead of a large number of small farms, you end up with a small number of factory outfits - the farming equivalents of Dunnes Stores & Larry Goodman.
I don't know how you can reconcile this with your ideal of farmers selling their own products in local markets.
The experience in the UK has been that the trends in this direction have been at the expense of food safety, animal welfare and public confidence in the product.
Purple, I totaly agree with your location description!
I agree that moves have been made in the right direction (pushed for by the Americans at the GATT talks) but the barriers to entry are still there and so are the deflationary subsidies (though the oversupply is, for the most part, gone)."As long as the CAP is in place there is no way of stopping this from happening since our subsidies artificially deflate the selling price of the produce."
It is a little more nuanced than that. We did have subsidies which were directly linked to production; This encouraged overproduction and the creation of food mountains. Decoupling is now the order of the day. A farmer gets a subsidy which is not in any way related to his production level. His decision to produce milk or grain or whatever is now based solely on the market for his produce. It is true that the EU is a protected market, but it is no longer the case (or certainly it is much less the case) that we have through subsidies caused the overproduction of food with the consequent result of dumping it below cost abroad. Dairy farmers are already calling for an end to milk quota and the entitlement to compete on the world market. The CAP is moving in the right direction.
From an environment point of view - we need to grow food locally.
Left to the market we'd get low quality mass produced stuff that is not traceable.
...do you really fancy the idea of eating a piece of lettuce that has travelled thousands of miles to get to your plate as opposed to one that was grown in Rush?
I don't buy this. Is it really that bad for the environment if green beans are farmed manually in Kenya and then packed by the tonne onto a cargo plane to be transported to the EU market?
... Yes. That would be a disaster. Unless you are proposing that we all switch to a permanent diet of green beans, there would be thousands of tonnes of every imaginable food flying on planes overhead constantly. Every minute, every hour, every day. It would be environmental suicide, among other things, and it beggars belief that you would suggest otherwise!
That's a good question.
I haven't got the exact figures but in general the bulk of Irish grown food is exported to Great Britain, and then a smaller portion to Europe. There would be some beef and lamb exports to the middle east, and Russia but although it's an important outlet, it's only a percentage. So Irish food exports do create an additional carbon footprint, without a doubt.
In my previous post I was referring to wholesale trans-global movement of food covering thousands of miles, and weeks of storage from other continents to Europe. Specifically beef from Brazil, lamb and dairy produce from New Zealand, grain from the US. That's thousands of miles, by sea and air, on a constant basis, and I would imagine if you were to compare the carbon output of that projected scenario to that of current Irish exports there would be a radical difference.
Just because something travels several thousand miles to get to a location doesn't mean it has a higher carbon footprint. Hence the example of beans from Kenya. Despite travelling by air to get here, they have a lower carbon footprint than locally sourced beans.
I agreeRegardless, I think the carbon footprint argument is poor justification for condemning millions to poverty.
CAP is not necessarily payments to farmers.
The article say that "the comparison has been a cause of outrage" but imho it is absolutely bogus. You could use the same logic to decry almost any aspect of Western social or economic behaviour - for example the $x billion spent on alcohol/cosmetics/kids sweets/haircuts/smug liberal newspapers/dieting in the EU & US every year. Reminds me of the old whinge that the Catholic Church's policies on contraception are to blame for the AIDS crisis in Africa - ignoring the facts (1) that most Africans are Muslims; and (2) Islamic law does not approve of artificial contraception.In 2005 Oxfam calculated that there were over 1 billion on this planet living on less than $1 a day. CAP payments for the average cow came to $2.62 a head in 2003. More money than half the world's population live on.
How can this madness be justified?
Depends. If you don't believe what the IPCC is currently forecasting, then that's a fair position to take. However if you agree with the IPCC fourth report, then ignoring the carbon footprint argument, you are condemning future millions to death, not to mention poverty.Regardless, I think the carbon footprint argument is poor justification for condemning millions to poverty.
Depends. If you don't believe what the IPCC is currently forecasting, then that's a fair position to take. However if you agree with the IPCC fourth report, then ignoring the carbon footprint argument, you are condemning future millions to death, not to mention poverty.
If you allow the millions of oppressed to industrialise now then they will be in a far better position to deal with the implications of global warming in fifty years time.
Alternatively you can keep people in poverty, reduce carbon emissions and hope the IPCC are correct in their assertions.
I know which option I'd prefer if I lived in the third world.
LOLThe article say that "the comparison has been a cause of outrage" but imho it is absolutely bogus. You could use the same logic to decry almost any aspect of Western social or economic behaviour - for example the $x billion spent on alcohol/cosmetics/kids sweets/haircuts/smug liberal newspapers/dieting in the EU & US every year. Reminds me of the old whinge that the Catholic Church's policies on contraception are to blame for the AIDS crisis in Africa - ignoring the facts (1) that most Africans are Muslims; and (2) Islamic law does not approve of artificial contraception.
Just because something travels several thousand miles to get to a location doesn't mean it has a higher carbon footprint. Hence the example of beans from Kenya. Despite travelling by air to get here, they have a lower carbon footprint than locally sourced beans.
France is the largest recipient of CAP subsidies and over 80% of French CAP payments go to French agribusiness companies. CAP is not necessarily payments to farmers.
In 2005 Oxfam calculated that there were over 1 billion on this planet living on less than $1 a day. CAP payments for the average cow came to $2.62 a head in 2003. More money than half the world's population live on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?