Utopia Talk / Politics / EU demands farmers stop farming

Sam Adams rank	Thu Oct 17 21:11:14 2019 Because the cult of climate crying is more important than eating? Lol@seb http://www.apnews.com/db28ed269ffd4fba935be04d2fc5b27c
Nekran rank	Fri Oct 18 07:38:54 2019 Not about the EU, not about stopping farming. Exactly what I expect from Sammy's accuracy. Also this article is constantly on about Nitrogen... since when is Nitrogen a problem? That's like 80% of the atmosphere or something?
Seb rank	Fri Oct 18 17:11:46 2019 So, its a Dutch measure, not an EU measure, and the measure of to buy out inefficient farms to free efficient ones to expand to deliver the same output but with lower carbon and nitrogen emissions. You'd have to be Sam to oppose this.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 18 17:12:56 2019 Want to bet Sam saw this reported shitily in the Sun or Daily mail, and then posted the AP link instead without reading it?
Rugian rank	Fri Oct 18 17:29:20 2019 Nekran and Seb are correct, this is purely a Dutch initiative that has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, and furthermore Sam is a complete ret-... "Dutch urged to cut speed limits to reduce nitrogen emissions September 25, 2019 THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — An advisory commission has urged the Dutch government to adopt a broad package of measures including lowering the speed limit on some roads and buying up old, inefficient cattle farms to reduce the country’s nitrogen emissions. The recommendations published Wednesday follow a decision in May by the country’s highest administrative court that said the government’s rules for granting permits for construction and farming activities that emit large amounts of nitrogen breached European Union law. Johan Remkes, who led the advisory commission, says the Dutch government has to make some tough choices to reduce emissions. http://www.apnews.com/c4865d774bf745fe8d74b236917cff17 ...oh.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 18 18:00:55 2019 Rugian: Does EU law require that Holland stop inefficient farming? No. Just that they cut nitrogen emissions. They could do so by, e.g. regulating more strongly on industry, or diesel engines.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 18 18:03:09 2019 Cutting nitrogen emissions is fine. In a single market that needs to be coordinated or States can seek competitive advantage. Hence it is done at the EU level. How they go about doing that is up to them. It is Holland that is choosing to look at the agricultural sector, and far from banning farming or whatever, it's proposing to buy out small inefficient farms. A sensible approach.
jergul rank	Fri Oct 18 19:15:10 2019 Nitrogen emissions means NOX, not N2
Seb rank	Fri Oct 18 19:16:28 2019 Jergul: Obviously.
Seb rank	Fri Oct 18 19:16:56 2019 Oh, just saw the last line of nekrans post !
jergul rank	Fri Oct 18 20:10:24 2019 Seb I am unsure that larger units mean greener agriculture. For example, the carbon footprint of predominantly grass-fed milking cow (slaughtered for meat later) is far, far lower per unit of output than corn fed beef cattle. There are some interesting studies that indicate grazing actually does store a significant about of CO2 in the upper 1.5 meters of topsoil (up to and including methane eating bacteria that thrive on grazing animals breathing on them). I would put the subsidies into electrification myself. Which is not yet endlessly scaleable (larger farming machinery has yet to have an electric counterpart).
Nimatzo rank	Fri Oct 18 21:21:32 2019 Inefficiency are bad and should always be worked out, but something to keep in mind is: 9% of the worlds carbon emissions comes agriculture half of that comes from meat Matthew 23:24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
jergul rank	Fri Oct 18 22:10:44 2019 Nimi Reducing carbon footprint is an inefficiency. Humane animal and worker treatment is an inefficiency. Pushing through a 3 million Euro project is an inefficiency (assuming it was marginally efficient at 1 million euro). hell, both taxes and subsidies are inefficencies.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 19 00:40:15 2019 Jergul: Evidently the Dutch think so. A buyout scheme almost certainly means they have an evidence base. The article seems focused on nox, so it will really be about fertilizer use and diesel.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Oct 19 01:14:50 2019 So a client state of the eu does something in order to meet a eu demand and nekran and seb in their infinite retardation claim it is "not eu". Its like the miami dolphins of thinking.
Seb rank	Sat Oct 19 09:51:32 2019 Member state. Holland supported the regulations on the first place. Sam is weird: "I want more pollution! Pollution is good! N-O-X, U-S-A". I mean I bet he was against the damned feds forcing States to reduce sulphur emissions. "Fucking socialist dictator Regan, forcing us to get rid of acid rain." Anyway, to get back to the substantive, no, the fact the EU agreed NOX limits doesn't mean you can say that the EU is demanding farmers stop farming. Largely because the EU isn't, and even what the dutch are doing can't be described as stopping farmers farming.
jergul rank	Sat Oct 19 13:01:21 2019 Seb I am sure they do. But remember that larger units have disproportionate impact on policies (and recieve the lion's share of all subsidies). My view is that the paradigm has to change. A semi-substinance teacher-farmer (or pensioner-farmer) with the right machinery, production goals, and outlook has data to support her too.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Oct 21 17:17:28 2019 Seb is wierd: "i want less food and more nanny state!"
Seb rank	Mon Oct 21 18:27:36 2019 Sam: Lol. Ley me introduce you to the common agricultural policy. How about fewer welfare farmers and less surplus subsidised food paid for by taxpayers? Efficient farms producing the same food and less nanny state is the outcome of this policy.
Sam Adams rank	Mon Oct 21 23:47:43 2019 "More government regulation is actually less" -seb
Seb rank	Mon Oct 21 23:53:02 2019 Sam: How is buying out ineffecient farms "regulation"?
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 00:34:17 2019 Sammy Its not more regulation, its adding a new trigger to something similar to eminent domain. My problem with it is based on that. In its rawest form - public money spent to buy out small-holders, then giving the land to agro-industrial landholders. In effect, its just another agricultural subsidy.
Sam Adams rank	Tue Oct 22 01:25:42 2019 "How is buying out ineffecient farms" How about you let the farmers and the free market decide what is or is not efficient, you filthy communist cockgoblin.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 01:36:55 2019 Sammy Yah, how about you do that? "The U.S. government presently pays about $25 billion in cash annually to farmers and owners of farmland"
CrownRoyal rank	Tue Oct 22 02:33:04 2019 "At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion. And farmers expect the money to keep flowing: In an August survey by Purdue University and the CME Group, 58% said they anticipate another round of trade aid next year." http://www...llion-bailout-isn-t-a-solution
CrownRoyal rank	Tue Oct 22 02:33:30 2019 free market ftw
Forwyn rank	Tue Oct 22 02:40:18 2019 "Its not more regulation, its adding a new trigger to something similar to eminent domain." rofl
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 02:48:35 2019 Forwyn Dont be a moron, mkay? The advisory report actually wants government to play nice. Not nice would simply be removing all subsidy for farms of a certain type, bankrupt them, then take the land for lack of payment on property taxes. Then giving the land away to larger agro-industrial units. Along with an increased subsidy.
Forwyn rank	Tue Oct 22 03:13:14 2019 "Not meeting our efficiency standards will result in you being bought out" "This isn't regulartion" "Dont be a moron" rofl
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 03:42:41 2019 You are still being a moron, bro The Netherlands has legal obligations and can invoke eminent domain. This is not *more* regulations. Perhaps save your rofls for next time eminent domain is used to get a new sports arena or hotel complex over where you live. At least emission control to meet international commitments is a good reason. Please also note that it just is a recomendation from an advisory comission. It is not something the government has done. The problems with this are as I have noted previously.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 03:47:14 2019 What is incidentally your position on eminent domain being used to construct pipelines through farmland?
Forwyn rank	Tue Oct 22 04:30:13 2019 "emission control" is regulation by definition. If your backboard is "more", fine. If your backboard is, "muh US can eminent domain for private enterprise, rofl", Kelo v. New London is a fucking sham and I'm A-okay with publicly executing the justices from that majority
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 07:39:11 2019 Forwyn Emission control is a regulation already in place. The advisory board is citing it as the basis its recomendations. So is eminent domain. The only change is a new justification for something there likely is considerable pressure to do anyway (support the large agro-industrial units at the expense of smaller farms).
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 10:49:56 2019 Sam Adams: So you want to end the common agricultural policy? I do too. But that means less food, and you said you opposed my desire to see less farmers. You wanted more farmers. You supported excess pollution and unnecessary agricultural production from subsidised activity. I'm glad you agree. Eve CAP and tax nitrogen pollution heavily.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 10:52:09 2019 Forwyn: Nitrogen emissions imposes costs on society. A true laissez-faire free market would simply give unlimited liability to the farmers for consequential damages to those affected by nitrogen pollution. Which do you think gives a more efficient market?
Forwyn rank	Tue Oct 22 14:52:30 2019 jergul: So, "more". That's fine. Seb: Not interested in this Eurocuck yawnfest. Just laughing at this retardation: "How is buying out ineffecient farms "regulation"?" If you truly believe emissions lead to measurable costs in the span of a single lifetime, regulate away, just have the decency to be honest about it.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 15:35:10 2019 Forwyn Ty. NOX are actually measurably dangerous.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 16:08:39 2019 Forwyn: Sam isnt complaining about the EU reg on nitrogen emissions. He's complaining about the policy that the Netherlands is applying in the agricultural sector. This is neither an EU issue, nor a particularly statist measure. If Sam is basically arguing that the free market requires that commands be free to release NOx without bound, that's a very odd definition.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 16:31:29 2019 Seb Its not even a policy. Its a recommendation from an advisory board.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 16:41:48 2019 Yes, proposed policy.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 17:14:00 2019 Or a brainstorm idea that is not being applied to the agricultural sector?
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 17:18:34 2019 It's someone's proposed policy. Not agreed Govt policy. Presumably advisory board is some kind of quango not a random think tank.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 18:19:16 2019 A policy proposal you mean? http://www...p-internationaal-klimaatbeleid page 6/9 I can read dutch it seems, but it makes my ears bleed. A policy proposal is pre hearings. So it is very early in any policy development process. Brainstorm is not far off the mark.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 21:11:05 2019 I'm not using the term technically. We would call that green paper/white paper etc.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 22 21:12:30 2019 Though of course often think tanks call their barely thought through noodlings white papers too, so... Also I'm not sure the UK govt has had the discipline to do proper green paper, consultation, white paper process for a while. Can't think why. Almost like somethings distracting everybody from productive work.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 22 23:08:58 2019 Seb hehe, ty for the terminology. I was stuck in the Germanic (Utredning, høringsinnspill, lovforslag). I actually just reviewed the process. The Parliament has extremely detailed and transparent information for public viewing...though not translated to English. heh, it gives me faith in the system.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 23 01:43:05 2019 "The U.S. government presently pays about $25 billion in cash annually to farmers and owners of farmland" Sure its not great, but at least our government fucks with the market in the direction of more food, not less. Its always wise to have a little extra food stashed around, just in case...
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 23 01:45:37 2019 Seb in all his retardation wants to increase government regulation on farmers in order to decrease food. Lol thats just dumb.
Dukhat rank	Wed Oct 23 07:33:43 2019 This thread is so stupid on so many levels. Samanatha needs a new black boyfriend to fill her time and her holes.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 23 07:34:11 2019 Sammy Any particular reason you think this proposal to transfer land of inefficient farms to larger, more efficient farms would in fact result in the production of less food. Also, the main carrier for government subsidy is insurance coverage - the farmers get money when they fuck up trying to make food.
Seb rank	Wed Oct 23 10:54:19 2019 Sam: Surplus food drives down prices, creating the ongoing need for agricultural subsidy. It creates the need for low skilled agricultural jobs, which in turn create remote communities entirely dependent on the inefficient agricultural sector, requiring further public investment and making it harder to remove the subsidy. Further, because these are ineficient and poorly paid low skilled jobs, it becomes a magnet for immigration. Indeed you need immigration or the crops don't get picked and *then* you get food shortages. In economic crises this creates a strong procyclical effect: welfare reduced, immigrants go elsewhere, food spoils in the field, price of living goes up across the country. The presence of agricultural subsidies inhibits free trade deals - is stalled the Doha round for 20 years. The surplus food then ends up being dumped abroad at near zero cost, where it can drive famine by putting the cost of food below labour price at local rates, driving people into an unstable mix of aid dependence or subsistence farming - which further drives migration. And of course, low efficiency production is polluting. Food subsidies are a terrible idea, particularly when targeted to small holdfarmers. You want more food production and a buffer, then you should promote higher efficiency industrial farming. It can scale better when needed and avoids the above. Which is what is proposed here.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Oct 23 18:50:45 2019 Thats a whole lot of bullshit to try to justify bigger government.
Seb rank	Wed Oct 23 18:56:19 2019 There you have it folks. Sam is Pro big government farming subsidies.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 23 19:20:14 2019 "In 2014 Congress passed another huge farm bill. The bill changed the structure of subsidies, but it did not cut the overall level of benefits. The law ended the direct payment program, the countercyclical program, and a couple of other smaller programs. But it expanded the largest farm subsidy program — crop insurance — and it added two new subsidy programs, the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program. When the 2014 farm bill was passed, supporters claimed that it would save money, but the opposite has happened. The ARC and PLC programs have cost almost double what the Congressional Budget Office originally estimated.6 Meanwhile, the cost of crop insurance has soared over the past 15 years. All of these subsidies ensure that farm incomes are much higher than the incomes of most Americans. Farm programs are welfare for the well-to-do, and they induce overproduction, inflate land prices, and harm the environment. They should be repealed, and farmers should support themselves in the marketplace." The government is paying the farmers to fail to grow food. Whatya say, sammy?
earthpig rank	Tue Oct 29 08:05:28 2019 The thread & links repeatedly talk about a mandate to "buyout" farms that are on what I will call the "naughty nitro" list, and the discourse seems to be taking that at face value. But we have farmers driving their tractors into town to stop commerce, this indicates to me that these farmers sure as shit don't feel that the "buyout" is a fair market transaction where you have a willing buyer and a willing seller. I smell me some de facto eminent domain. You can't describe that as a "buyout." That's a takeover. Or the farmers are all on meth, or there's some other nuance that needs to be brought to our collective attention.
earthpig rank	Tue Oct 29 08:08:18 2019 Please keep in mind that a gov't appraisal is not relevant to the equally important questions of fair market value or voluntary consent. I can point to tens of millions of dollars in real estate transactions, that I personally worked on, where the gov't appraisal was >50% off true market value when the seller is voluntarily consenting to the sale.
smart dude rank	Tue Oct 29 08:17:08 2019 "Oh, just saw the last line of nekrans post !" Oh the irony of being the first person to call someone out for not actually reading what they are commenting on.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 29 08:59:37 2019 Smart Dude: The irony being I'm one of the few people that will actually self correct.
Seb rank	Tue Oct 29 09:03:42 2019 Earthpig: Farms in Europe are all heavily subsidised, so when we talk about fair value, consent etc. the simple fact is the value of the land would be a lot lower if the state weren't already heavily subsidising the activity.
earthpig rank	Wed Oct 30 06:02:34 2019 Ah. So when they talk about a "buyout," are you saying what they really mean is just ending the special subsidy? Seems an odd choice of words on the part of the journalist, if so, but I can't say I'd be surprised given how journalism has been for the last decade or so...
Seb rank	Wed Oct 30 09:28:01 2019 No they mean buyout - that's the proposal being made. But one can't really get all that objectivist about the morality of forced purchases (though not clear whether this would be forced or not) given the way the common agricultural policy operates.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 30 11:43:14 2019 Seb The principle of fair value for appropriation is clear and does not offer rebates for sector subsidies. On moral grounds - farmers often lose out for decades on zoning regulations that prohibits them from converting their farmland to residential property. There is an argument for fair value being the best value of use - either assuming subisidy or assuming rezoning and parceling as residential lots.
jergul rank	Wed Oct 30 11:44:27 2019 The State having a limitation on use and because of that limitation, the State can pay less when appropirating land. That is not a good moral place to be.
Seb rank	Wed Oct 30 16:36:19 2019 Jergul: Earthpig is making a broader philosophical point about eminent domain. I don't know about the US but in the UK and I suspect therefore much of the EU (as it speaks to commercial rights) there are strong protections on valuation of land compulsory purchased by the state. Looking at zoning restrictions seems a step too far removed. These are normally determined by local govts so there is a separation point, and applies to all property. It's not like if the owner sold voluntarily they would get a value that it ignored zoning.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: