Energy and the Environment

[az]

Oh, and I think we could do with a bit more forest and less "cultivated landscape". That'd be change for the good. Agriculture destroys quite a bit in bio-diversity when it occupies lots of land.

I was making this point yesterday, but must have forgotten to hit the submit button in my tired stupor. Well, you said it better and more concise than I did, anyway.

DeeZee: There is no realistic scenario except a world war (or something equally catastrophic, like an asteroid impact making earth uninhabitable) where we would be cut off from food supplies outside of europe. Even if the whole of Africa were to magically stop producing food because of a Teenage Mutant Ninja Locust Invasion (sorry, not mocking you, just found it funny And I don't think it's very realistic to expect an entire continent's agriculture to just halt), there are other regions that produce and export food, and with the money we saved on subsidies we could easily buy all the food we need to bridge a gap in our primary suppliers' production.

[Nowhere]

This will be water under the bridge when some brainiac invents a way to extract carbon from waste gases and sequester it on an industrial scale. I can see energy industries developing just such a technology for no other reason than to prevent the elimination of their cash-cow (I'm working on it. Give me time).

Is this even energically viable? More out than in?

Gas vs electricity for heating and cooking in the US is a strong bone of contention among people with a preference to one or the other. I know my wife would oppose on the strongest terms any attempt to force her by law to use electricity over gas, and she'd have lots of company. A better strategy would be to switch to a low-carbon fuel source to replace natural gas. Hydrogen would be a good choice, but large-scale production is still problematic.

I understand gripes that some have with cooking on electrical oven (I have to use one myself), but...hydrogen? Oh I don't know...one of my chemist used to say that putting even something like natural gas in houses is quite an extreme idea. Furthermore, since I guess that those who have problems with electrical owens do have them only in case of pots, not when making cakes, here's another idea: warm up air/water vapour to very high temp using in some way electricity, and cook on that.

[Nowhere]

Re subsidies: The EU is not better than the US in this regard, probably worse. What I don't understand is: 50% of the EU budget went into farming subsidies (this was a few years ago, might well have changed, though I don't believe it; there is too much lobbyism going on). On top of that, we put money into development programs for third world countries, then shut them out of our markets with import taxes and unnaturally low prices (due to subsidies). If we just cancelled our agricultural subsidies and bought our food from them, we would save money, these people would have an income, and we wouldn't grow tobacco in germany. Yeah, it's probably not that easy, but still, why do we have to spend so much money to support farmers? If anybody else loses their job because the trade they are working in isn't feasible in their country anymore (due to cheaper work elsewhere or technological advance or less demand or whatever), we don't throw billions and billions at them just to artificially secure their jobs. Except for farmers (and coal miners). Why?

Well, mostly, as usual, votes issue. And you must know that, after joining of few central European countries (especially PL, because of it's sheer size among the group), the situation is now much, much harder to change... :/

[Nowhere]

in addition to what dzeus said: because a lot of what we see around our countries is a "cultivated landscape", which would dissappear. a lot would change without agricultural use - and that's not restricted to some mountain farmers in the alps.

mfg
wulfman

And I think that would be a good thing...
BTW, it happens to some extent for almost 20 years in PL (mostly economical resons/dissapearing of former "market"). Ask any ornitologist, etc. why he's happy about it.

[dZeus]

Oh boy. Az is completelty right and you dZ and Wulfman are wrong.

thanks, I always suspected all matters were of a black or white nature

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was instigated in 1958 and it was a cold war instrument. The thrat was of a USSR-blockade across the Atlantic so that the US would not be able to provide Western Europe with food in case of war and shortage.

Agriculture would not dissapear if we cut subsidies. What would happen is that our overproduction would dissapear and our agriculture would become more efficient (albeit uglier at the same time until we'd be prepared to pay for less efficient grown stuff "ecologically" grown stuff etc). We would probably become net-importers of foodstuffs, true, but what kind of image of the world must one have to argue this is bad and stupid while we have actually been making Aficra dependent on our food production?

More efficient? afaik the only reason they can compete in addition to massive subsidies is that they're highly efficient already compared to agriculture outside of US/EU. I didn't state that becoming a net importer is bad. My main gripe is fear of losing too much of the agricultural sector beyond the point where you can supply enough food to remain self-sufficient for 'basic needs'. Appearantly you prefer abolishment of all agricultural subsidies because you don't think that will happen, while I want a guaranteed production. Of course this guaranteed production wouldn't need to be achieved by means of current massive subsidies.

Brazilian farmers basically use slave-labor. To fight that, instead of subsidizing our own food production, I would suggest:
1. Political pressure
2. Import tariffs justified by the fact that there is no level playing field due to the use of slave-labor, something the WTO would rule in our favor on.

Why don't we? Becuase of our CAP we are immunised from (mostly) anything that occurs outside of our (agricultural) world, so why bother?

Meanwhile, we pay to much for our food, we pay a lot in taxes that goes to the agricultural industry and we pay more taxes to support 3rd world countries just because we obstruct their means to make a living for themselves.

I agree on these points, however I think one reason for using CAP instead of import tarrifs depending on the 'quality demands' that the goods meet is that the latter requires massive resources to implement (how do you guarantee it's meeting the right demands? do you install unbiased observers near every agricultural exporter worldwide?). The EU has problems to check all of the European agricultural sector already for these quality standards... So while CAP is very unfair, it might still be a question of chosing the lesser evil (not suggesting that the lesser one is CAP).

Oh, and I think we could do with a bit more forest and less "cultivated landscape". That'd be change for the good. Agriculture destroys quite a bit in bio-diversity when it occupies lots of land.

you do realise that a lot of the agricultural land would be used for building houses, industry and corporate buildings, right? Check ground prices for agricultural ground vs. a business park of for housing in this country.

[dZeus]

My position is that the CAP helped cause just this in Africa.

How would you define "dependent"? As being net importer of foodstuffs or as starving if they do not sell you food anymore for some reason? There is a big difference between the two and I wonder how you show that without EU-Subsidies we would get all our food from South-America?

Not all our food, but since 3rd world agricultural sector has problems competing with Brazillian farmers I suspect that they'd experience the biggest growth in exports by far.

[Umfriend]

thanks, I always suspected all matters were of a black or white nature

Yeah, well, sorry.

More efficient? afaik the only reason they can compete in addition to massive subsidies is that they're highly efficient already compared to agriculture outside of US/EU.

False. EU food production is as efficient as it is mainly due to (huge) capital investment which have only been made because of the subsidies. It is however still characterised by mostly small production capacities per farm. In fact, what reforms thus far have done mostly is not lower production (aside from the reform from production-subsidy to wage subsidy) but the sale of by one farmer of his farm to another allowiung the purchaser to operate on a larger scale. Our background is still that of a large number of small farmers (as opposed to Brazil for instance).

I didn't state that becoming a net importer is bad. My main gripe is fear of losing too much of the agricultural sector beyond the point where you can supply enough food to remain self-sufficient for 'basic needs'. Appearantly you prefer abolishment of all agricultural subsidies because you don't think that will happen, while I want a guaranteed production. Of course this guaranteed production wouldn't need to be achieved by means of current massive subsidies.

You fear production to decrease "to much" but do you have any study showing this to be an apparent risk of abolishing subsidies? Not some shouting farmer fighting for his luxury but a real study? How about this:
1. We abolish all subsidies
2. We monitor food production
3. If and when our food production falls below 85% of our protein/calorie consumption (which BTW is way more than subsistence level) we sort out what to do
Meanwhile we save billions, billions of euro, enable fairer trade with LDCs and provide an incentive for our own agri-industry to improve efficiency.

I agree on these points, however I think one reason for using CAP instead of import tarrifs depending on the 'quality demands' that the goods meet is that the latter requires massive resources to implement (how do you guarantee it's meeting the right demands? do you install unbiased observers near every agricultural exporter worldwide?). The EU has problems to check all of the European agricultural sector already for these quality standards... So while CAP is very unfair, it might still be a question of chosing the lesser evil (not suggesting that the lesser one is CAP).

First, that has NEVER been the objective of the CAP. Secondly, using it for that means you presume any competitor of being guilty of failing quality demands. Thirdly, it is the exporting countries duty to uphold quality and it's definition of quality should be close to that of the importing country or the importing country may impose tariffs. So the check is on the rules and the way they are enforced first. You only need to do sample testing for those countries where the rules are fine. Not that big a deal, really. We do it all the time.

you do realise that a lot of the agricultural land would be used for building houses, industry and corporate buildings, right? Check ground prices for agricultural ground vs. a business park of for housing in this country.

This is false and just provides me with another argument as well to abolish subsidies. It can only be used for housing and/or industry if the government allows the land to be used for that. That is a seperate decision that can be taken with or without the subsidies in place. In that sense, your statement is false.
Interesting enough however, you are right in pointing at the huige difference in the value of land dedicated (by law) to farming and that dedicted to housing/industry. What this means is that even when taking into account the subsidies one could get by farming, the value of the land is far less than what it would be if it could be used for other uses. This means that when I buy a house I pay a shitload of money for the land just because a lot of the land is not available to me as it is dedicated to farming. Another way I pay for the subsidies indeed. Heck, devote 60% of the land that stops being used (if that is going to happen) to have forrest/park/reservation or whatever and 40% for housing and industry and we would all be better of. Way better.

[Nowhere]

...
you do realise that a lot of the agricultural land would be used for building houses, industry and corporate buildings, right? Check ground prices for agricultural ground vs. a business park of for housing in this country.

I have an impression that here you're just making things out that could support you views againts limiting of subsidies.
I'm not sure if you know but cities are almost universally negligible in size in comparison to agriculture land...

[dZeus]

I have an impression that here you're just making things out that could support you views againts limiting of subsidies.
I'm not sure if you know but cities are almost universally negligible in size in comparison to agriculture land...

or playing the devil's advocate

[dZeus]

Yeah, well, sorry.
False. EU food production is as efficient as it is mainly due to (huge) capital investment which have only been made because of the subsidies. It is however still characterised by mostly small production capacities per farm. In fact, what reforms thus far have done mostly is not lower production (aside from the reform from production-subsidy to wage subsidy) but the sale of by one farmer of his farm to another allowiung the purchaser to operate on a larger scale. Our background is still that of a large number of small farmers (as opposed to Brazil for instance).
You fear production to decrease "to much" but do you have any study showing this to be an apparent risk of abolishing subsidies? Not some shouting farmer fighting for his luxury but a real study? How about this:
1. We abolish all subsidies
2. We monitor food production
3. If and when our food production falls below 85% of our protein/calorie consumption (which BTW is way more than subsistence level) we sort out what to do
Meanwhile we save billions, billions of euro, enable fairer trade with LDCs and provide an incentive for our own agri-industry to improve efficiency.
First, that has NEVER been the objective of the CAP. Secondly, using it for that means you presume any competitor of being guilty of failing quality demands. Thirdly, it is the exporting countries duty to uphold quality and it's definition of quality should be close to that of the importing country or the importing country may impose tariffs. So the check is on the rules and the way they are enforced first. You only need to do sample testing for those countries where the rules are fine. Not that big a deal, really. We do it all the time.
This is false and just provides me with another argument as well to abolish subsidies. It can only be used for housing and/or industry if the government allows the land to be used for that. That is a seperate decision that can be taken with or without the subsidies in place. In that sense, your statement is false.
Interesting enough however, you are right in pointing at the huige difference in the value of land dedicated (by law) to farming and that dedicted to housing/industry. What this means is that even when taking into account the subsidies one could get by farming, the value of the land is far less than what it would be if it could be used for other uses. This means that when I buy a house I pay a shitload of money for the land just because a lot of the land is not available to me as it is dedicated to farming. Another way I pay for the subsidies indeed. Heck, devote 60% of the land that stops being used (if that is going to happen) to have forrest/park/reservation or whatever and 40% for housing and industry and we would all be better of. Way better.

Ok, suppose all of your views that abolishment of all subsidies are correct.. why are they still in place atm? Fear for mass unemployment by countries with a huge agricultural sector like France?

[Umfriend]

I do not know why. If I knew why I might be supportive of them. I *think* the agri-industry is a well organised lobby that is very succesfull against an unorganised bunch that tax payers typically are. But I am not sure whether that is all there is to it.

No suppose my views are not correct. How would you refute them?

[az]

deezee, mostly it's lobbyism and of course the way the EU is organized: All members know that this is a problem that has to be tackled. Now when the time comes to consolidate the EU budgets, nobody wants their piece of the pie to become smaller, nobody wants to pay more for the EU than they get out of it, and if that means clinging to farming subsidies then so be it. And I suppose they are also used to give one's own interests more weight: "If you agree to [do something that benefits me], I could see us not insisting on our subsidies the next time that topic is brought on the table.".

[Nowhere]

And as hinted at by me earlier, it'll become worse, or at least not better, "thanks" to new countries joining quite recently (in biggest part - PL). Farmers (and there's a lot of them here, much higher number than average in EU) and miners are a force every politician must be aware of... :/

[Brian Ellis]

Do you know the difference between a European peasant and a European industrialist?

...

...

...

....

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

The peasant washes his Mercedes himself.

[az]

Yeah Brian, Europe is rich (and TBH all the whining in this country about how "inhuman" it is to only get about ~800 EUR/month from welfare is really going on my nerves. Every student manages to get by with less, and still be happy. Germans really are the world champions in whining. So what if you can't afford a car when you're unemployed? Hell, the government even pays your loan installments for the house you bought before you lost your job if it isn't totally over the top. Everybody can get public healthcare, which really isn't that bad, except that it doesn't pay for teeth anymore. It's sickening how much people want for nothing, that they take all this for granted. No legal citizen here knows real poverty, if he didn't bring it upon himself. *rant* Sorry, you brought up the topic ). But that's the point: We can afford to import our food. In fact, it would even be cheaper than producing it ourselves for most stuff, and because we are so rich a food embargo against us would be impossible, because money always manages to find its way around legislation.

How many jobs could you artificially produce if you put all the money that goes into subsidies (agricultural and industrial) to use more directly by starting state-owned businesses (for instance in fields that aren't financially viable yet, but serve the "greater good", like saving or producing cleaner energy or producing goods at cost price to enable our industry to produce more environmentally-friendly products at competitive prices? Wouldn't this also help keep businesses here instead of moving all their production (AND know-how!) to china?) or just paying people wages directly instead? Has anybody ever done a study about how many jobs these subsidies "save" (i. e. keep in Europe), and calculated how many of these people could just be paid the average wage of that group if the money went directly to them instead?

I'm rambling... But somehow I don't think the trend to sell all state-owned businesses is a good one: I don't think a dense railroad network with fast trains and prices ordinary people can afford will ever be financially viable (A ticket on the ICE - the german equivalent of the TGV - within germany costs ~65 EUR, one-way. Granted, net speed is 200+ kph and it is comfortable, but I do think that's a bit steep. And prices for freight don't seem to be very competitive, and/or the network isn't dense enough.), for instance. I think the infrastructure (including public transport, both urban and railroad, water, heat/gas, telecom(!) and electricity, and of course streets and waterways) should stay in public hands to guarantee availability, affordability and quality. On the other hand, wouldn't a regulated market achieve the same or better? (And if so, why? Why is it that the market is more efficient than state-owned businesses?) I don't think a totally free market would produce desireable results.