Carbon tax - exception for farmers?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So as we know, CO2 emissions have been ravaging the environment. Floods, droughts, sea level rise, hurricanes, etc... yet it seems impossible to make those responsible for carbon pollution pay for their actions' consequences, except through a carbon tax.

However, one walk of life has more reason to use fossil fuels than those driving when public transit is available... and that walk of life is farmers. So far green technology has yet to present an adequate alternative in the context of farming. While carbon taxes might seem like a good way to force the issue, there's no sense denying it's going to harm some farmers in the short run. Just as climate change can harm farmers. So we need to go ahead with this. Should they be reimbursed financially, given fossil fuel vouchers, or something else?

[Dooom35796821595]

No. Farmers get enough bloody subsidies as is, they don't need tax breaks too. If you really want to beat climate change, stop countries being so protectionist and crack down on global tax avoidance.

[Risottia]

However, one walk of life has more reason to use fossil fuels than those driving when public transit is available... and that walk of life is farmers

Nope.
They can use eletric engines, or IC engines fueled by biomass fuels instead of fossil fuels, or animal power.

[Topoliani]

No. Farmers get enough bloody subsidies as is, they don't need tax breaks too. If you really want to beat climate change, stop countries being so protectionist and crack down on global tax avoidance.

Pretty much this

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The real question is, if Americans bought all their food from overseas, would that be a higher carbon footprint or a lower one?

[Sovaal]

Sounds like development in green farming equipment.

[Neu Leonstein]

I prefer carbon trading to a straight-up carbon tax. The former would help deal with the problem of concentrating the carbon reduction efforts where it gets us the most bang for the buck.

But under either arrangement, I don't think there's a reason for the government to play favourites (which is what makes the initial distribution of carbon permits a potentially interesting policy question). Anyway, we have an interest in farmers becoming more carbon-efficient - especially because agriculture has a relatively large environmental impact if done poorly. We shouldn't first create better incentives and then shield some people from them.

[Topoliani]

The real question is, if Americans bought all their food from overseas, would that be a higher carbon footprint or a lower one?

Uh, you do realize boats produce a SHITTON of CEO right?

That, and that would be totally unrealistic. 323,100,000 Tons of food per year approx, and that's just so America doesn't go starving.

[Sovaal]

The real question is, if Americans bought all their food from overseas, would that be a higher carbon footprint or a lower one?

Uh, you do realize boats produce a SHITTON of CEO right?

That, and that would be totally unrealistic. 323,100,000 Tons of food per year approx, and that's just so America doesn't go starving.

And why import when we’re a large food producer our selves?

[Topoliani]

Uh, you do realize boats produce a SHITTON of CEO right?

That, and that would be totally unrealistic. 323,100,000 Tons of food per year approx, and that's just so America doesn't go starving.

And why import when we’re a large food producer our selves?

This as well

[Trumptonium]

Yeah

Farming is unprofitable as it is already. Forcing farmers to pay a "carbon tax" for all the methane and CO2 they produce (which, by the way, the farming industry produces more than all private and public transport put together and then combined with private business electricity needs) will just result in a total write-down of the agricultural sector, and not only lots of unemployment but also higher carbon footprint as you're going to have to import food in higher quantities instead from countries which do not punish farmers with a carbon tax. Ergo, forcing farmers to pay a carbon tax will result in more pollution. Rather self-defeating.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

I prefer carbon trading to a straight-up carbon tax. The former would help deal with the problem of concentrating the carbon reduction efforts where it gets us the most bang for the buck.

But under either arrangement, I don't think there's a reason for the government to play favourites (which is what makes the initial distribution of carbon permits a potentially interesting policy question). Anyway, we have an interest in farmers becoming more carbon-efficient - especially because agriculture has a relatively large environmental impact if done poorly. We shouldn't first create better incentives and then shield some people from them.

Yeah, because cap-and-trade has done such a great job reducing CO2 emissions in the EU and such...

Farmers shouldn’t be exempted from a carbon tax, but continue to be subsidized as the majority of farmers will be unable/unwilling to switch to more efficient technologies without government assistance.

[Neu Leonstein]

Yeah, because cap-and-trade has done such a great job reducing CO2 emissions in the EU and such...

It's got to be done properly, yeah. And it's a complicated bit of policy, so getting it right is tricky. It's not that I'm against using a tax instead, given that it has the advantage of being simpler to design and implement. But in principle I prefer tradable carbon permits.

[MERIZoC]

Farmers get enough handouts as it is lol

[Trumptonium]

I prefer carbon trading to a straight-up carbon tax. The former would help deal with the problem of concentrating the carbon reduction efforts where it gets us the most bang for the buck.

But under either arrangement, I don't think there's a reason for the government to play favourites (which is what makes the initial distribution of carbon permits a potentially interesting policy question). Anyway, we have an interest in farmers becoming more carbon-efficient - especially because agriculture has a relatively large environmental impact if done poorly. We shouldn't first create better incentives and then shield some people from them.

Yeah, because cap-and-trade has done such a great job reducing CO2 emissions in the EU and such...

Farmers shouldn’t be exempted from a carbon tax, but continue to be subsidized as the majority of farmers will be unable/unwilling to switch to more efficient technologies without government assistance.

There are no "more efficient technologies"

If you think there are, go and set up a farm.

[Neu Leonstein]

There are no "more efficient technologies"

If you think there are, go and set up a farm.

And yet... https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ ... -findings/

[Trumptonium]

There are no "more efficient technologies"

If you think there are, go and set up a farm.

And yet... https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ ... -findings/

"there are more efficient technologies that exist"

"here, i can prove it to you"

>link that shows output per acre rose from capital investment and factor productivity rose from 1960

now, i may not be an expert on farming, but I doubt any farmer today is still living in 1960 and can be improved by joining the rest of the world

historical arguments are nonsensical for determining whether there is existing technology which present farmers can catch up to, to which the answer is no, or at least not in great quantity.

as we can see from this chart, the source of this great growth of agricultural productivity is not the west, which is already at the peak of its own productivity, exemplified by Britain and Netherlands whose agricultural output is growing by <1% a year. it is coming from developing countries that are catching up.

also factor productivity is not exactly a great measurement of agricultural productivity as produce prices do not remain constant; they fluctuate with the market. this is why spain and brazil appears to be booming, when in reality their agricultural sector is already heavily modernized, but the produce (citrus and coffee/cocoa respectively) they let out into the world has appreciated massively during the period of the study, hence appearing to artificially become more "productive".

this is why the wheat-producing countries (probably the most stable-priced commodity) such as eastern europe and britain has not moved an inch. there's nowhere left to invest to grow.



unless you can show technologies that apparently exist, then there's no point going further. if you can, then pitch them to farmers, rural credit unions and finance institutions, as you appear to be better aware of the investment potential in agriculture than people who do it for a living.

granted, there's potential improvements - I personally know people at cambridge who just got through a round of million-dollar funding for "data-driven agriculture", but that doesn't hasn't produced tangible results just yet. right now, for all we know, agriculture is as productive as it possibly can be.

[Chestaan]

Yeah, because cap-and-trade has done such a great job reducing CO2 emissions in the EU and such...

Farmers shouldn’t be exempted from a carbon tax, but continue to be subsidized as the majority of farmers will be unable/unwilling to switch to more efficient technologies without government assistance.

There are no "more efficient technologies"

If you think there are, go and set up a farm.

And there will be no incentive to develop them if farmers are exempt from carbon tax/carbon credit systems.

As to the topic in general, farmers already get a crazy amount of government aid, especially in the EU. I don't see why they should be given even more help. In fact, the subsidies and aid need to be phased out to some extent.

[The Parkus Empire]

No, incentivizing farmers to wreck the environment is poor planning. It also stacks the deck against smaller, local farmers who try to do the right thing with environmental issues.

[Trumptonium]

There are no "more efficient technologies"

If you think there are, go and set up a farm.

And there will be no incentive to develop them if farmers are exempt from carbon tax/carbon credit systems.

As to the topic in general, farmers already get a crazy amount of government aid, especially in the EU. I don't see why they should be given even more help. In fact, the subsidies and aid need to be phased out to some extent.

there will be no incentive to develop any new technologies if you pull all farmers out of business by making it unprofitable to be one. nobody is going to go into severe debt to sustain their lifestyle. technology isn't developed in a year - and these farmers will leave before the summer.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

There are no "more efficient technologies"

If you think there are, go and set up a farm.

And there will be no incentive to develop them if farmers are exempt from carbon tax/carbon credit systems.

As to the topic in general, farmers already get a crazy amount of government aid, especially in the EU. I don't see why they should be given even more help. In fact, the subsidies and aid need to be phased out to some extent.

Yeah I wasn't really thinking of the EU when I was talking about agricultural subsidies. My argument(s) in favor of some sort of subsidies are 1) demand will outstrip supply due to population growth and increasing affluence, and 2) climate change will drastically affect agricultural output and we will need to find a way to adapt to that

No, incentivizing farmers to wreck the environment is poor planning. It also stacks the deck against smaller, local farmers who try to do the right thing with environmental issues.

Absolutely.

[Neu Leonstein]

now, i may not be an expert on farming, but I doubt any farmer today is still living in 1960 and can be improved by joining the rest of the world

historical arguments are nonsensical for determining whether there is existing technology which present farmers can catch up to, to which the answer is no, or at least not in great quantity.

Total factor productivity in North American agriculture grew at 1.89 per year, on average, between 2001 and 2014, and productivity gains are more important as a driver of output now than they have ever been. You're right, in principle maybe TFP growth has actually stopped since 2014 and we're now at the maximum productivity that cannot be improved on. But at least until 2014, it seems like farmers could and did actually get more efficient. Any particular reason you think this stopped in the last four years?

[Kenmoria]

I am rather divided on this issue. On one hand, agriculture already gets massive amounts of government help and subsidies so should really gain any more, but, on the other hand, adding this carbon tax would have a very negative effect on local farmers who rely on their business for living. So, at the moment, I would support putting a tax only on large-scale farming operations, though this is liable to change.

[Neu Leonstein]

unless you can show technologies that apparently exist, then there's no point going further. if you can, then pitch them to farmers, rural credit unions and finance institutions, as you appear to be better aware of the investment potential in agriculture than people who do it for a living.

As you may have guessed, I don't actually know the details of any particular technologies. But the idea that we are now at the highest level of productivity we could possibly be is pretty far-fetched, especially since most of the world's farm do not look like Dutch ones.

[Trumptonium]

now, i may not be an expert on farming, but I doubt any farmer today is still living in 1960 and can be improved by joining the rest of the world

historical arguments are nonsensical for determining whether there is existing technology which present farmers can catch up to, to which the answer is no, or at least not in great quantity.

Total factor productivity in North American agriculture grew at 1.89 per year, on average, between 2001 and 2014, and productivity gains are more important as a driver of output now than they have ever been. You're right, in principle maybe TFP growth has actually stopped since 2014 and we're now at the maximum productivity that cannot be improved on. But at least until 2014, it seems like farmers could and did actually get more efficient. Any particular reason you think this stopped in the last four years?

North America includes places such as Jamaica, Mexico, the Caribbean in general as well as the Isthmus countries, who produce produce that are chiefly fluctuating in nature, such as: citrus fruit, sugar, coconuts, bananas and especially cocoa. These have historically appreciated above inflation, and factor productivity is of course based on the value added through this primary industry. If the value added per unit rises, productivity rises. This makes the interpretation of this data flawed from the perspective of growth of agricultural output, just as we know that the methods used to extract diamonds haven't gotten anymore efficient, their prices have just risen.

Take the United States alone and the US Department of Agriculture concludes that agricultural productivity grew at an annual rate of 0.72% a year from 2007 to 2014 - lower than Sub-Saharan Africa on the link provided by yourself.

Note that this also includes California which shares similar agricultural traits to Central America/Caribbean as well as multiple traditional agricultural states like Kansas who have been switching production from wheat and maize to the more lucrative soybean and peanuts, so in reality the true agricultural productivity growth in the United States has likely been close to zero, if not below zero due to gradual soil quality depletion and lack of release of fertile lands by the Federal government.