#farm subsidies controversy

[kesarijournal]

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

Welcome to the latest drama that’s more tangled than your earphones in a pocket – the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ongoing saga involving a cast of nations with India and South Africa in leading roles, and a contentious plot over food, fishing, and farming subsidies. Set against the backdrop of Abu Dhabi’s Ministerial Conference, our story unfolds with India and South Africa uniting to…

[probablyasocialecologist]

“Under the most ambitious climate change mitigation scenario, food production is expected to decline by up to 25%,” the report reads. “Ambitious combinations of measures, including reducing food waste, using arable land to grow crops for direct human consumption rather than livestock feed (and thus implying a dietary change), and increased productivity on remaining farmland, could fully mitigate expected reductions in food production.” After the UK left the EU, farmers were no longer part of the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies scheme, which paid land managers according to the acreage they farmed. Instead the devolved nations have set up their own farming payments system. In England, this is the sometimes controversial Environment Land Management Scheme (ELMS), which pays farmers to make room for nature by letting hedges grow wilder, or sowing wildflowers for birds and bees on field margins. Anecdotally, farmers taking part in the schemes have noticed more wildlife, but until now no data has been available. The new government studies found that more mobile creatures, such as butterflies, moths and hoverflies, fared better when larger areas of land – a large farm or multiple small neighbouring ones – were involved in the scheme. Surveyed squares with high levels of eco-friendly schemes in the surrounding landscape had on average 117 more butterflies (a 53% increase), compared with the average for squares with low scores for schemes in the surrounding landscape. There were an average of 12 more moth species in areas with more eco-friendly schemes. Smaller, less mobile insects were boosted in smaller, more local areas signed up to the schemes. Numbers of barbastelle and Daubenton’s bats were also found to respond positively to eco-friendly schemes at the landscape level. Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, told the Guardian: “The evidence in the Natural England report confirms what many nature-friendly farmers are finding: delivering good-quality habitats, supported by public money, is helping to stop nature’s decline or even reverse it. Many farmers are pleased that their hard work is showing positive results, and with the support of well-funded ELMS, more farmers can deliver or help reverse nature’s decline.”

9 August 2024

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Michael De Adder

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 27, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 28, 2024

The House of Representatives will be back in session tomorrow after the February 19 Presidents Day holiday. It is facing a number of crucial issues, but the ongoing problem of the radicalism of the MAGA Republicans has ground—and, apparently, continues to grind—legislation to a halt.  

The farm bill, which establishes the main agricultural and food policies of the government—agricultural subsidies and food benefits, among other things—and which needs to be reauthorized every five years, expired in September 2023. While Congress extended the 2018 bill as a stopgap until September 2024, the new bill should be passed.

The farm bill has more breathing room than the appropriations bills to fund the government in fiscal year 2024 (which started on October 1, 2023). Four of the continuing resolutions Congress passed to keep the government running will expire on March 1; the other eight will expire on March 8. Operating on a continuing resolution that maintains 2023 levels of spending means the government cannot shift to the new priorities Congress agreed to in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, along with leaders from the Pentagon and the Senate, warns that the lack of appropriations measures is compromising national defense. 

On an even tighter timeline is the national security supplemental bill to aid Ukraine, Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza. Ukraine is running out of ammunition, and its war effort is faltering. Every day that passes without the matériel only the U.S. can provide hurts the Ukrainians’ cause.

All of these measures are stalled because extremist MAGA Republicans in the House are insisting their demands be included in them. Negotiators have been trying to hash out the farm bill for months, and today Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she would rather continue to extend the 2018 law than bow to the House Republicans’ demands for cuts to food assistance programs and funding for climate change. 

Appropriations bills are generally passed “clean,” that is, without the inclusion of unrelated controversial elements. But House Republicans are insisting the appropriations bills include their own demands for much deeper cuts than House leadership agreed to, as well as riders about abortion; gun policy; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives; LGBTQ+ rights; and so on. Those are nonstarters for Democrats.

As for the national security supplemental measure, lawmakers agree on a bipartisan basis that Ukraine’s successful defense against Russia’s invasion is crucial to U.S. national security. The Senate passed the bill on a strong bipartisan vote of 70 to 29, and if brought to the floor of the House, it would be expected to pass there, too. 

But House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) refuses to bring it to the floor. When President Joe Biden first asked for the aid in October, Republicans insisted they could not see their way to protecting our national security overseas without addressing it on the southern border. A bipartisan group of senators spent four months hashing out a border provision for the bill—House Republicans declined to participate—only to have House Republicans scuttle the measure when former president Trump told them to. The Senate promptly passed a bill that didn’t have the border component. Rather than take it up, the House recessed.

Today, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with congressional leaders and urged them to pass the appropriations bills and the national security supplemental. But Biden, Harris, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) all agree on the need to pass these measures immediately. The holdout is House speaker Johnson.

After the meeting, Schumer said the meeting on Ukraine was “one of the most intense” scenes he had ever seen in the Oval Office. "We said to the speaker, 'Get it done.' I told him this is one of the moments—I said I've been around here a long time. It's maybe four or five times that history is looking over your shoulder, and if you don't do the right thing, whatever the immediate politics are, you will regret it. I told him two years from now and every year after that, because really, it's in his hands." 

For his part, Johnson said that “the House is actively pursuing and investigating all the various options” on the supplemental bill, “but again, the first priority of the country is our border and making sure it’s secure.” 

Johnson appears to be working for Trump, who is strongly opposed to aid for Ukraine and likely intends to use immigration as a campaign issue. 

But Trump is a poor choice to give control over United States security. Yesterday, Special Counsel Jack Smith responded to Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges against him associated with his stealing and hiding classified documents on the grounds that he was being treated differently than President Biden, who had also had classified documents in his possession but was not criminally charged.

Smith noted that while there have been many government officials who have accidentally or willfully kept classified documents, and even some who briefly resisted attempts to recover them, Trump’s behavior was unique. “He intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents…and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club.” Then, when the government tried to recover the documents, Trump “delayed, obfuscated, and dissembled,” finally handing over only “a fraction” of those in his possession. No one, Smith wrote, “has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted.” 

Perhaps to distract from Smith’s filing, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability chair James Comer (R-KY) and House Committee on the Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) today subpoenaed information from Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of documents. Hur’s report exonerated the president and showed such contrast between Trump's behavior and Biden's full cooperation with officials that Smith used material from it in his filing. 

Comer and Jordan are likely also eager to find new material against Biden after the man who provided the key evidence in their impeachment attempt turned out to be working with Russian intelligence agents and was recently indicted for lying and creating a false record.

Since this year is a leap year, Congress has three days to pass the first four of the appropriations measures or to find another workaround before March 1, when parts of the government shut down. As Schumer said, those measures, along with the national security supplemental bill, are now in Speaker Johnson’s hands.

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[goverment-agency-bracket]

The numbers are for my partially written justification. I think the NLRB takes the final.

NASA wins because USPS will have more negative interactions with voting population, plus USPS is run like a business nowadays.

FDA wins because it is a regulatory body (popular with Tumblr) and has much higher name recognition than NARA.

USDA wins on name recognition + Food Stamps + National Forest Service

FBI loses because it is the Feds. The FBI passed round one because of its domestic focus vs the CIA. But anyone with any knowledge of the left in America would never vote for it.

OSHA wins mostly on the power of being the meme for the longest thanks to OSHA-official.

VA wins because bad opinion of Buttigieg tanks DOT’s chances. Despite being bad, and directly connected to the military system, free healthcare is cool, and the work the VA does do is mostly good.

NIH wins because Tumblr users have PubMed to thank for their degrees.

CDC wins on goodwill from COVID.

FDA wins because we love regulators. Not super confident about this one but I think the following matchups wouldn’t change if it were NASA.

NPS wins because it is not burdened by the controversy of farm subsidies.

OSHA win 3. VA can’t stand up to OSHA’s meme + regulation + civilian combo.

NIH wins, PubMed.

FDA wins via its regulatory body status. NPS is cool, but not getting poisoned by your lunch is cooler.

OSHA wins. Meme > PubMed

OSHA wins because it is mostly equal to the FDA, but has less stupid policies and is a bigger meme.

GPO wins. USAMRIID is bogged down by being connected to the Army.

EPA wins. Climate change  & name recognition

Smithsonian wins. Mostly on name recognition and personal good feelings.

NIST wins because of the typo for WPA. Otherwise WPA would’ve cinched it.

NSF wins because who gives a shit about the partially gov’t funded contractor.

PHS wins because it is winning now. Tbh I’m not sure why its winning.

NPR. No one likes the draft, lots of people like NPR.

NLRB actually does pro labor things. BLS is important but is never gonna win this fight.

I kind of gave up after that but I think my predictions are okay. That said I don't actually know that much about the government.

This is so valid! I love your explanations!

[beardedmrbean]

Farmers in Spain have joined their European counterparts in staging protests across the country.

Like farmers elsewhere, they demand more flexibility from the European Union, tighter controls on the produce of non-EU countries and more help from their government.

In several regions, they blocked roads and caused severe disruption to motorists.

A large demonstration in central Madrid is planned for later this month.

On Tuesday, farmers took to the streets of agricultural areas in Spain's northern interior, driving tractors in convoys, beeping horns, waving Spanish flags and brandishing placards.

They also protested in the north-eastern region of Catalonia, the southern region of Andalusia and Extremadura in the west.

Spain's farmers have similar grievances to their counterparts in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and other countries that have been protesting recently.

They say that regulations which form part of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), along with high fuel and energy costs, make it difficult for them to make a profit.

"The costs, when it comes to producing wheat and barley, are very high," said Esteban, a cereal farmer who preferred not to give his surname who was protesting in Aranda de Duero. "You've got to pay for fertiliser, pesticides, fuel - it's killing us. We have to pay very high prices and yet we sell at low prices."

Protesting French farmers accused Spanish producers of undercutting them by not fully observing EU rules. Last week, French former minister Ségolène Royal triggered controversy by claiming that Spanish organic tomatoes were "false organic". Amid an angry backlash from the Spanish food and farming industry, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez invited Ms Royal to try a Spanish tomato.

However, Spain's agricultural sector in turn levels similar criticism at non-EU countries, such as its southern neighbour, Morocco, which it claims is not subject to the same environmental and sanitary regulations as European producers, allowing it to sell cheaper produce.

"We have to undergo a lot of controls, a lot of sanitary regulations which products from [non-EU countries] are not subject to," said Estrella Pérez, who farms livestock and cereal.

"We just want a future for farming and right now, we don't see it."

The plight of Spanish farmers has been compounded by drought. Many areas of the country have not seen normal levels of rain in recent months which is affecting harvests. Spain is the world's biggest olive oil producer, but prices have been pushed up by low production. Last week, Catalonia declared a state of emergency due to a three-year drought, the longest on record.

Elsewhere, Italian farmers have been gathering from north to south for a week, also protesting against EU regulations and red tape. They are planning to converge on Rome at the end of this week.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has backed them, saying that the EU's Green Deal will hit farmers' lives disproportionately. But farmers are also concerned about government plans to end tax subsidies for the agricultural sector.

On Tuesday, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced she wants to withdraw a plan to slash the use of pesticides, describing it as "a symbol of polarisation".

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo welcomed the announcement, saying it was "crucial we keep our farmers on board to a more sustainable future of farming, as part of our determination to get the Green Deal done".

[misfitwashere]

February 27, 2024 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 28

The House of Representatives will be back in session tomorrow after the February 19 Presidents Day holiday. It is facing a number of crucial issues, but the ongoing problem of the radicalism of the MAGA Republicans has ground—and, apparently, continues to grind—legislation to a halt.  

The farm bill, which establishes the main agricultural and food policies of the government—agricultural subsidies and food benefits, among other things—and which needs to be reauthorized every five years, expired in September 2023. While Congress extended the 2018 bill as a stopgap until September 2024, the new bill should be passed.

The farm bill has more breathing room than the appropriations bills to fund the government in fiscal year 2024 (which started on October 1, 2023). Four of the continuing resolutions Congress passed to keep the government running will expire on March 1; the other eight will expire on March 8. Operating on a continuing resolution that maintains 2023 levels of spending means the government cannot shift to the new priorities Congress agreed to in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, along with leaders from the Pentagon and the Senate, warns that the lack of appropriations measures is compromising national defense. 

On an even tighter timeline is the national security supplemental bill to aid Ukraine, Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza. Ukraine is running out of ammunition, and its war effort is faltering. Every day that passes without the matériel only the U.S. can provide hurts the Ukrainians’ cause.

All of these measures are stalled because extremist MAGA Republicans in the House are insisting their demands be included in them. Negotiators have been trying to hash out the farm bill for months, and today Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she would rather continue to extend the 2018 law than bow to the House Republicans’ demands for cuts to food assistance programs and funding for climate change. 

Appropriations bills are generally passed “clean,” that is, without the inclusion of unrelated controversial elements. But House Republicans are insisting the appropriations bills include their own demands for much deeper cuts than House leadership agreed to, as well as riders about abortion; gun policy; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives; LGBTQ+ rights; and so on. Those are nonstarters for Democrats.

As for the national security supplemental measure, lawmakers agree on a bipartisan basis that Ukraine’s successful defense against Russia’s invasion is crucial to U.S. national security. The Senate passed the bill on a strong bipartisan vote of 70 to 29, and if brought to the floor of the House, it would be expected to pass there, too. 

But House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) refuses to bring it to the floor. When President Joe Biden first asked for the aid in October, Republicans insisted they could not see their way to protecting our national security overseas without addressing it on the southern border. A bipartisan group of senators spent four months hashing out a border provision for the bill—House Republicans declined to participate—only to have House Republicans scuttle the measure when former president Trump told them to. The Senate promptly passed a bill that didn’t have the border component. Rather than take it up, the House recessed.

Today, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with congressional leaders and urged them to pass the appropriations bills and the national security supplemental. But Biden, Harris, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) all agree on the need to pass these measures immediately. The holdout is House speaker Johnson.

After the meeting, Schumer said the meeting on Ukraine was “one of the most intense” scenes he had ever seen in the Oval Office. "We said to the speaker, 'Get it done.' I told him this is one of the moments—I said I've been around here a long time. It's maybe four or five times that history is looking over your shoulder, and if you don't do the right thing, whatever the immediate politics are, you will regret it. I told him two years from now and every year after that, because really, it's in his hands." 

For his part, Johnson said that “the House is actively pursuing and investigating all the various options” on the supplemental bill, “but again, the first priority of the country is our border and making sure it’s secure.” 

Johnson appears to be working for Trump, who is strongly opposed to aid for Ukraine and likely intends to use immigration as a campaign issue. 

But Trump is a poor choice to give control over United States security. Yesterday, Special Counsel Jack Smith responded to Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges against him associated with his stealing and hiding classified documents on the grounds that he was being treated differently than President Biden, who had also had classified documents in his possession but was not criminally charged.

Smith noted that while there have been many government officials who have accidentally or willfully kept classified documents, and even some who briefly resisted attempts to recover them, Trump’s behavior was unique. “He intentionally took possession of a vast trove of some of the nation’s most sensitive documents…and stored them in unsecured locations at his heavily trafficked social club.” Then, when the government tried to recover the documents, Trump “delayed, obfuscated, and dissembled,” finally handing over only “a fraction” of those in his possession. No one, Smith wrote, “has engaged in a remotely similar suite of willful and deceitful criminal conduct and not been prosecuted.” 

Perhaps to distract from Smith’s filing, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability chair James Comer (R-KY) and House Committee on the Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) today subpoenaed information from Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of documents. Hur’s report exonerated the president and showed such contrast between Trump's behavior and Biden's full cooperation with officials that Smith used material from it in his filing. 

Comer and Jordan are likely also eager to find new material against Biden after the man who provided the key evidence in their impeachment attempt turned out to be working with Russian intelligence agents and was recently indicted for lying and creating a false record.

Since this year is a leap year, Congress has three days to pass the first four of the appropriations measures or to find another workaround before March 1, when parts of the government shut down. As Schumer said, those measures, along with the national security supplemental bill, are now in Speaker Johnson’s hands.

Emphasis mine. We only hope and pray that after the DOJ has dealt with the 'kingpin' of this criminal enterprise, they will clean out the rest of the seditionists.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Backers of the European Union's ambitious Green Deal suffered a major blow on Tuesday after the European Commission scrapped plans to push farmers to use fewer pesticides and slash carbon emissions.

The volte-face by the EU's executive body was a response to weeks of protests by farmers who are angry about falling profits, red tape, rising costs and the burden of the EU's flagship Green Deal, a pioneering effort to make the EU the world's leader in fighting climate change by drastically reducing carbon emissions by 2050 and restoring natural systems.

Tuesday's developments could be seen as a defeat for those advocating Europe must move away from heavily subsidized industrial farming both for the good of nature and for the fight against climate change.

The Green Deal set out to make agriculture in the EU more organic and less polluting, but those aspirations are now in jeopardy.

In a speech to the European Parliament, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the end of a proposed law seeking to slash pesticide use by 50% by 2030.

She said the bill had become a “symbol of polarization” and that it had be nixed after its progress stalled within the EU's legislative process. The rules already had been watered down considerably, upsetting environmentalists. She said a new pesticide bill would be proposed after negotiations with farmers, environmentalists, agrochemical companies, banks and others.

In a separate announcement about a new strategy to reduce emissions by 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, the commission deleted language calling on the agriculture sector to make big cuts in its carbon emissions. In earlier drafts, the plan targeted emissions linked to farming, such as methane belched by cows, and called on farmers to reduce their livestock herds and Europeans to eat less meat.

Also angering environmentalists, the new goals omitted deadlines for phasing out coal, oil and natural gas, and did not call for an end to subsidies for fossil fuel projects, environmental groups said. Earlier drafts included tougher measures.

Instead, the guidelines focused on reaching the 90% target by using technology and methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere or stop it from being emitted at industrial sites. Such approaches are controversial because they are deemed ineffective and untested by many scientists.

The European Environmental Bureau, a Brussels-based non-profit, called it a “careless plan” unlikely to achieve its goals because of an “over-reliance on expensive and unproven technologies.”

Tuesday's concessions to farmers came a week after the commission delayed by a year new requirements compelling many large farms that get EU funds to set aside 4% of their land for nature. Under this rule, farmers will need to leave land fallow or plant such features as hedges and trees.

In her speech, von der Leyen made it clear that she was ready to take farmers' complaints seriously and she showed willingness to retreat from the Green Deal, a policy she's made central to her presidency.

She is coming under intense pressure not only from farmers but also her political group, the conservative European People's Party, the main force in the European Parliament.

The EPP has increasingly spoken out against many of the more stringent aspects of the Green Deal, arguing they are too costly for industry and farmers. In doing so, the EPP is seeking to stave off far-right rivals who are courting farmers as they surge ahead of June elections for the European Parliament.

For her part, von der Leyen may be shifting her stance along with the EPP because she is likely to seek a second mandate as commission president following the elections.

Environmentalists blasted von der Leyen's backpedaling and said weakening the Green Deal will end up hurting farmers by worsening the climate crisis and causing further damage to nature.

“Politicians ignoring scientific advice on helping farmers move away from overproduction of meat and dairy makes climate change worse and leaves European farming more exposed to extreme weather,” said Marco Contiero, an agriculture policy specialist for Greenpeace. “Farmers are nature's best allies, when the rules, markets and subsidies don't force them into a desperate choice between industrial production or bankruptcy.”

Philippe Lamberts, a leader of the Greens in the European Parliament, accused the EPP and other political groups of “disinformation” and “outright lies” about how the Green Deal and Green parties were to blame for the problems faced by farmers.

“They pretend to listen to the farmers; actually, they dictate to the farmers what they should say: Point the finger at the Greens,” he said during a news conference. “When you listen to the farmers, what do they tell you? That they are crushed by an economic system that gives them zero profitability, zero degree of freedom.”

He said the cause for the farmers' woes lies with political groups like the EPP that back free-trade deals, big agrochemical companies, the food retail sector and banking institutions.

“They've been screwing the countryside and then they pose as their saviors,” he said. “And that's just an outright lie.”

Lamberts said carrying out the Green Deal will involve big changes for farmers. To achieve this change, he said the EU needs to reform its hugely subsidized agricultural system so that farmers aren't paid subsidies for what they produce but rather for taking costly environmental measures.

“In a well-functioning market economy, they [farmers] should be able to sell their wares, what they produce, with a profit and then get rewarded with subsidies for services they provide to society that they cannot be paid for,” he said. “I mean, when you restore biodiversity, you cannot sell biodiversity on the market; but that is work and every work must be compensated by an income.”

More on this component in the ongoing saga, in the form of an article from early February

[fungaldeity]

would be interesting to make some sort of analysis on how cottagecore and adjacent aesthetics serve to uphold carnism as an ideology. farming sims that include animals as just another resource, devoid of any real emotions, upkeep, or agency beyond "milk this cow and it will love you". framing animal agriculture as "living off the land" and not the industrial reality of the status quo.

despite what cottagecore likes to present, when you eat an animal, you are not eating something that grew on a grassy pasture in a small farm and willingly gave up its life. you are eating something bred, born, raised and murdered in a factorylike system that reduced its life to an object with the sole goal of marketable resources. along with extensive government subsidies, the main reason why animal products are cheap is because of the systematic transformation of their lives into steps in a factory cycle.

chicken meat is cheap because decades of intensive breeding and feeding techniques brought heavy-breasted varieties at the expense of their ability to support themselves. nowadays, the average broiler chicken lives only to 6 weeks before it is murdered. laying hens in the usa are forced to lay eggs for two laying seasons, then murdered because of decreasing yields for farmers. the reason why they do two seasons is because you can force hens to moult by starving them of food and/or water, making them think it's a new season and rejuvenating the quality of their eggs. this controversial practice is banned in the eu, so laying hens there are simply killed after one season.

i could go on about individual examples by which the animal agriculture industry strips animals of their individuality and well-being in favour of singlemindedly driving up productivity, but pretty much every example is like that. the reality of animal agriculture is far from the idealistic imagery of happy animals on happy farms living happy lives. animals are not allowed to live their lives out to their fullest, forced to grow unhealthily fast and killed at the peak of when it is profitable to do so. as much as welfarists will argue that this is only an issue on large factory farms, any commercial operation is predicated on cutting costs, so in order to be a viable farm, farmers will necessarily kill animals who are no longer profitable for them.

where do cottagecore and all of its relatives come into play here? settler-colonialism aside, it glorifies exactly the kind of pastoralism that is not actually represented in the modern practice of animal agriculture. it creates consumers who have a warped idea of the truth of where their food comes from and convinces them that they are doing the right thing by continuing to practice carnism. cottagecore is propaganda and animal ag is not your friend

[climatecalling]

Eating large quantities of red and especially processed meat is unhealthy. Public sentiment overwhelmingly condemns the intensive animal farming practices that generate cheap meat products. ... Livestock farming contributes to numerous environmental problems, from deforestation and biodiversity loss to pollution and climate change. ... Is a meat tax politically impossible in the UK? Actually, other industrialised countries are already doing or planning to do something similar. New Zealand, where approximately half of all greenhouse gas emissions come from animal agriculture, will price emissions in this sector from 2025, effectively introducing a tax that will predominantly increase the price of meat products. ... In Denmark, a transition to plant-based diets is not seen as particularly controversial. The parliament recently passed a roughly £80 million fund for developing and promoting plant-based foods. In the UK, a sugar tax on soft drinks was passed and proved successful in cutting sugar consumption. This shows there is no political barrier to making a meat tax work if political parties allow a sober and nuanced debate on this issue. Taxing meat in some form is inevitable. To make such a measure more palatable, a winning formula would deliver on public demand for higher animal welfare standards, redistribute the revenue to benefit low-income consumers and shift farming subsidies towards fruit and vegetables.

[seriousbusinessforhumans]

BY FRÉDÉRIC MOUSSEAU & ANDY CURRIER

MARCH 10, 2023

Against the wishes of hundreds of millions of farmers, the bank is backing a model that can push economic dependence, soil depletion and pollution.

After the largest food price spike in recent decades, 2022 was dubbed the “year of unprecedented hunger”. Africa was once again at the forefront of the catastrophe, with hundreds of millions suffering from severe food insecurity.

In May that year, the African Development Bank (AfDB) launched a $1.5 billion African Emergency Food Production Facility with the stated goal of boosting food and nutrition security on the continent. This strategy is largely geared towards expanding an industrial model of agriculture centred on monocropping and increased reliance on inputs such as “improved” seed and chemical fertiliser.

To boost food production – with a focus on wheat, corn, rice, and soybean – the facility is to deliver “certified seeds, fertilizer and extension services to 20 million farmers” and provide “financing and credit guarantees for large-scale supply of fertilizer to wholesalers and aggregators”. Additionally, and in a concerning echo of Structural Adjust Programmes, the AfDB also announced that it is working to “secure commitments from African governments on implementing policy reforms on fertilizer”, after consulting with “fertilizer company CEOs”.

Framed as a crisis response, this corporate-led strategy has actually been at the core of the AfDB’s agenda for years. Its Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa (2016-2025), for instance, seeks to expand the use of commercial inputs and liberalise input markets. Meanwhile, through its Africa Fertilizer Financing Mechanism, the AfDB has worked closely with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and the International Fertilizer Development Center as well as controversial corporate giants like Syngenta, Yara, Dangote, Export Trading Group, and Omnia Fertilizer.

Is this approach what African farmers want or need amidst shifting precipitation patterns, rising temperatures, and more extreme weather? Is it compatible with the AfDB’s commitment to support a “transition [of] food systems compatible with climate and biodiversity imperatives”? Who truly benefits from this agenda?

Do synthetic fertilisers work?

According to the AfDB, the use of fertilisers and “improved” seeds increases agricultural productivity, leading to “a huge impact on [farmers’] yields, and therefore on their income”. This notion, however, ignores the vicious cycle that reliance on chemical fertilisers leads to. As research has shown, synthetic fertilisers can deplete the land’s nutrients, meaning more and more fertiliser is needed each year to produce the same yields. This creates a dead-end in which farmers have to spend more on inputs year on year, food security doesn’t improve, and the soil loses fertility over time.

This strategy can also prove extremely expensive for countries that subsidise synthetic inputs, a common intervention of many governments on the continent. At one point, for instance, Malawi was spending 16% of its entire government budget on a farm input subsidy programme that failed to reduce hunger. The costs of these kinds of subsidies may only increase; chemical fertiliser prices reached near record levels in 2022 and are projected to remain high for several years.

As well as being ineffective and costly, the use of chemical fertilisers also devastates the environment. The supply chain for synthetic nitrogen fertiliser is responsible for 2% of all global emissions. Meanwhile, runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus lays waste to local water supplies through algal blooms. These impacts are so serious that experts have called the flood of excess nitrogen into the environment “one of the most severe pollution threats facing humanity today”.

Who gains from chemical fertiliser use?

Agrochemical corporations have made record sums during the recent crisis as the prices of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash skyrocketed. For instance, Canada’s Nutrien took in a record $5 billion in net earnings in the first half of 2022. Norway’s Yara International reported a first-quarter operating income of $1 billion, more than triple the same figure a year earlier. US company Mosaic saw its earnings per share grow by over 250% in the same period, while Germany’s Bayer boasted “outstanding sales and earnings growth, with particularly substantial gains for our agriculture business”.

Fertiliser companies have a history of thriving in times of hunger. As detailed in a report from the NGO INKOTA, top fertiliser companies captured colossal profits during the last food price crisis in 2007/8, which they then used to consolidate and expand their power.

Today, agrochemical companies see Africa as the last expansion market. While an average 135kg of fertiliser is applied per agricultural hectare globally, that figure in sub-Sahara Africa is just 17kg. On the continent, smallholder farmers have been feeding hundreds of millions of people with little need for chemical fertilisers or so-called “improved” seeds. Entrenching a greater reliance on commercial inputs for African farmers is thus seen as a major opportunity for business growth.

What do farmers want?

Across the continent, organisations representing hundreds of millions of African farmers strongly oppose this Green Revolution model of large-scale, monocrop production reliant on chemical fertilisers. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and many other networks of farmers reject these programmes and have urged governments and international institutions to instead support a move to sustainable and climate-friendly methods.

This starts with the rehabilitation of African crops, such as teff, sorghum, fonio, amaranth, millet, cassava, yam, and many others. While Indigenous plants have assumed a reputation as “food for the poor” due in large part to ideas engrained during colonial rule, they are central to the diet of hundreds of millions of people. These crops are adapted to local geoclimatic conditions, which makes them more resilient to climatic shocks and less reliant on inputs than foreign cereals. By using agroecological systems that nurture healthy ecosystems, these crops can form part of a wide diversity of crops – alongside cereals, vegetables, roots, tubers, nuts and fruits – to provide a range of socio-economic, nutritional and environmental benefits – unmatched by monocrops.

Building on Indigenous knowledge, millions of farmers across Africa have assembled an abundance of effective practices and innovations that don’t require costly and polluting inputs. In Kenya, fermenting organic matter to create a nutrient rich compost called Bokashi is helping farmers restore dry, depleted soils. Farmers planting nitrogen-fixing “fertiliser trees” in Malawi are benefiting from the high levels of biomass they create and the nutrients they capture as well as their resilience to drought. A variety of nitrogen fixing leguminous plants are widely used from Malawi to Benin. And in many countries – including Senegal – cover crops are planted to protect the soil and improve the fertility through increased nutrient retention. Coupling such practices with composting, farmers across the continent have seen drastic yield increases. Mixing plants, crops, and trees also makes communities more resilient to the climate crisis by providing different sources of food and income along the year.

These are just some of the many impactful agroecological practices that are backed by scientific studies. This growing body of research – along with centuries of experience – demonstrates that alternatives to chemical fertilisers are effective, affordable, and sustainable. Moreover, unlike synthetic inputs, these approaches restore the soil over time and are unaffected by erratic global price spikes.

These practices are not just solutions to hunger. They are also essential for a shift towards resilient, environmentally sustainable farming. Yet they will remain neglected and underfunded as long as corporate bottom lines are prioritised by international finance institutions such as the AfDB. Instead of doubling down on a failed model, now is the time to direct public funds to support the solutions that African farmers are calling for across the continent.

[cattarattat]

A MUST, MUST, MUST READ!!!

Plain Sugar vs. High-fructose Corn Syrup

This is important considering there has been research which shows 'sugar' to be 'less adverse (even protective)' within high-fat diets of mice regarding a lesser likelihood of obesity, diabetes, and a particular cancer while its counterpart 'high-fructose corn syrup' seems to be having the opposite effect.

More research of course is necessary.

Yet when the potenially healthier choice between sweetners, plain sugar, may be shoved out of the American market by greedy corporate high-fructose corn syrup lobbyists through undermining the American government's historic U. S. Sugar Program--originally set in place to allot protections to sugar/beet/corn industry--this should definitely prompt a 'red flag' for the public!

While both sweetners have been historically competitive, high-fructose corn syrup has become more predominantly utilized within drinks & processed foods in more recent decades in place of sugar by corporations in the U. S. as high-fructose corn syrup is 'cheaper' (yet potentially unhealthier than its sugar counterpart).

This wouldn't be the first time monopolied corporations threw consumers under the bus healthwise just to save a buck or to maintain their stance within an industry where their particular product has ceased to be useful (or safe).

"The powerful U.S. corn lobby is launching an unusual offensive against the country’s sugar sector, an old foe in the lucrative sweetener market: seeking to overturn the controversial, near-century old U.S. sugar program.

The Corn Refiners Association, which represents high-fructose corn syrup producers, has hired Washington lobbyist firm, the Alpine Group, to challenge sugar’s long-protected status, a spokesman for the organization said on Thursday.

The sugar program, which restricts imports, sets price floors and provides government-backed loans to cane and beet processors, is considered one of the most generous in the U.S. Farm Bill that passed a year ago.

'The sugar loan program is an embarrassment,' Corn Refiners chief executive officer John Bode said in a statement. Its members include Archer Daniels Midland Co and Cargill Inc.

This is the first time corn refiners have publicly taken the fight to Washington by tackling sugar policy. Corn farmers also benefit from government support programs that keep a floor under prices.

Cane and beet farmers say they need subsidies to ensure the long-term health of industry, which employs thousands of workers across the Midwest and the South. Many also grow corn.

For years, the sugar and high-fructose corn syrup industries have jousted over their share of the massive sweetener market. Yet they also have been aligned in defending sweeteners from critics who say they cause obesity."

[kesarijournal]

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

The Grand WTO's Food, Fishing, and Farming Fiasco

Welcome to the latest drama that’s more tangled than your earphones in a pocket – the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ongoing saga involving a cast of nations with India and South Africa in leading roles, and a contentious plot over food, fishing, and farming subsidies. Set against the backdrop of Abu Dhabi’s Ministerial Conference, our story unfolds with India and South Africa uniting to…

[news47offical]

Nature-based farming-subsidies scheme given green light

Nature-based farming-subsidies scheme given green light

The sustainable-farming incentive will pay farmers to conserve ancient wildlife-rich hedges A post-Brexit farm-subsidy scheme designed to reward landowners in England for environmental work is going forward after a controversial review. Two of the three main elements of the payment system known as environmental land-management schemes (Elms) are to be retained, the UK government says. A third…

[mzemo0]

COP27 Climate Change Summit: Greenwashing Scam Imperilling Human Rights

COP27 Faced Major Criticism

Morally, politically and economically COP27 climate change summit has been coined as a greenwashing scam imperilling human rights.

The world watched Egypt closely as it hosted the 27th United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh from the 8th-16th of November. More than 190 governments attended COP27 to attempt to solve some of the world’s most pressing environmental challenges.

Furthermore, Egypt hosting of COP27 sparked much controversy due to its abysmal human rights record. Additionally,COP27faced heavy criticism due to some of the world’s top polluters, such as Coca-Cola sponsoring the event. Furthermore, attendees arrived in private jets; meat and dairy products remained on menus; dozens of domestic civil society organizations were excluded. Additionally, the summit was overshadowed by persistent calls to release up to 65,000 political prisoners in Egyptian prisons.

World's Top Polluter, Coca-Cola, Sponsored COP27

The UN climate conference announced a sponsorship deal with Coca-Cola, one of the “world’s top polluters”. Coca-Cola recently retained its title for the fourth year as the world’s top plastic polluter. The sponsorship deal is a greenwashing scam by campaigners, drawing intense criticism.

Coca-Cola produces 120 billion throwaway plastic bottles a year. 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, exacerbating the plastic and climate change crises.

Private Jets, Bottomless Cocktails and Beef Medallion Dishes

Surprisingly, attendees indulged in the very activities which got us into this mess in the first place. Moreover, world leaders flew to Egypt in private jets. Attendees enjoyed bottomless cocktails, one-hour unlimited wine and beer packages, $100 beef medallion dishes, and $50 seafood platters.

This begs the question: do these foods belong at a climate conference? We have missed the true purpose of the climate summit: to help save the planet.

Meat and Dairy On the Menu – Not on the Agenda

In the three-decade history of the UN Climate Summit, COP27 was the first UN summit to discuss the meat and dairy industry’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions.

COP27 faced massive criticism this year from climate activists due to the unsustainable meat and dairy items on its menus. It seems unimaginable that globally we are trying to reduce our meat and dairy consumption to save our planet. However, our governments cannot stop eating these foods at the world’s largest climate summit.

Cutting meat and dairy output are not yet on the agenda for governments at COP27. Many governments attending the summit give billions to livestock farmers in subsidies. Instead of focusing on plant-based diets, they are advancing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using feed additives that make animals less gassy and technology that sucks up the methane wafting off manure heaps. Andy Reisinger, a farm emissions specialist and vice-chair of the UN’s IPCC climate panel, said feed additives could worsen emissions by promoting intensive farming.

Dozens of Domestic Civil Society Groups Excluded

Hundreds of prominent human rights defenders, researchers and environmentalists were exiled from Egypt. They were unable to attend Cop27 due to the nature of their work. Many voices from Egypt were absent at the conference due to the government’s corrupt attempts to exclude dozens of domestic civil society groups.

“Arrests and detention, NGO asset freezes and dissolutions and travel restrictions against human rights defenders have created a climate of fear for Egyptian civil society organisations to engage visibly at the COP27” 

Additionally, COP27’s wifi blocked access to international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other news websites needed during information talks. These prominent human rights organizations hosted talks at COP27 but could not access their sites due to previous work criticizing the Egyptian government. Egypt used this strategy to hide the nation’s decades-long record of cracking down on human rights.

65,000 Political Prisoners in Egyptian Prisons

Currently, there are an estimated 65,000 political prisoners inside Egyptian prisons. COP27 was overshadowed by persistent calls to release political prisoners.

A British-Egyptian detainee, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, was a significant focus in the media. As a leader of Egypt’s 2011 revolution, he has been in prison for the past decade. He started a partial hunger strike in April 2022 to protest his detention conditions. He spent the last six months consuming just 100 calories a day. A week before COP27 started, he stopped eating altogether. Then, on the day the summit began, he stopped drinking water. He has since resumed drinking water but remains critically ill.

Greta Thunberg, who refused to attend COP27, signed a petition by a human rights coalition calling on Egyptian authorities to open up civic space and release political prisoners.

COP27 Cracks Down On “Greenwashing”

Companies, banks, cities and states worldwide have continuously made broken promises to achieve net-zero emissions. These corporate climate pledges amount to little more than a greenwashing scam. Evading net-zero claims is a common greenwashing strategy. Companies claim to be carbon-free due to strategies such as buying carbon credits while simultaneously pursuing new fossil fuel projects emitting greenhouse gases.

Greenwashing is when an organization spends more time and money marketing itself as environmentally friendly than minimizing its environmental impact. It’s a shady marketing gimmick that misleads consumers who prefer to buy environmentally friendly goods and services.

At COP27, the UN cracked down on greenwashing, laying down recommendations for how companies, financial institutions and cities must calculate their net-zero emissions status. The new UN report aims to eliminate loopholes by laying out ten steps to bring integrity, transparency and accountability to net-zero claims.

“I have a message to fossil fuel companies and their financial enablers. So-called ‘net-zero pledges’ that exclude core products and activities are poisoning our planet. They must thoroughly review their pledges and align them with this new guidance”.

UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, ANTÓNIO GUTERRES.

The UN cracked down on companies stating that they can’t claim to be net zero if they are not in line with targets set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These targets include cutting global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. The UN limited short-term carbon offsets and held that they could only be used sparingly in the long term.

Historic Deal: Governments Must Pay Poor Nations for Climate Damage

Governments at COP27 approved a historic deal to create a fund for compensating developing nations that are victims of extreme weather events worsened by rich countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. However, many remained uncertain as countries argued over emission reduction efforts.

Moreover, this is a massive step for poorer countries bearing the brunt ofclimate change. These nations face extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and famines despite releasing the lowest greenhouse gas emissions. This historical “loss and damage” deal will provide financial assistance to developing nations stricken by climate disasters.

However, this loss and damage deal has several flaws. Some nations held that the pledges to limit global temperatures to below 1.5 degrees showed little progress compared to the COP26 conference in Glasgow in 2021. Furthermore, others criticized how the language and guidelines on phasing out fossil fuels were weak. Despite many different opinions between nations regarding the guidelines of this historic deal, it is still a vital step towards achieving climate justice.

Concluding Thoughts

COP27 has faced significant criticism this year for many justifiable reasons. Many believe COP27 is a greenwashing scam failing humanity and the planet by not leading to significant changes. The UN climate summit is losing its credibility in being able to create meaningful change to save our planet.

World leaders and people in power continuously use high-profile gatherings like COP for attention and are greenwashing, lying and cheating their way through pledges and commitments. The UN Environment Programme released the Emissions Gap report stating that only an urgent system-wide transformation can deliver the enormous emissions cuts needed to stabilize global temperatures below 1.5 degrees by 2030.

World leaders consistently fail to fulfil their commitments and act on time. We cannot place trust in greenwashing scams like COP summits anymore. Instead, we need rapid, far-reaching, unprecedented changes in all aspects of society if we want to build a sustainable world for future generations.

[beardedmrbean]

Helsingin Sanomat (siirryt toiseen palveluun) explores what to do when neighbours keep trash or building waste on their property. The article follows a survey asking readers about their experiences with such incidents.

As per the Land Use and Building Act in Finland, buildings and their surroundings must be maintained so that they meet the requirements for health and safety and do not harm the environment.

In practice, however, the authorities' intervention methods are limited and the process is very slow, according to HS.

Anni Tuominen-Maila, Director of Building Control for the City of Espoo, told HS that the complaint process usually takes at least several months.

In Espoo, for example, there are more than 50 complaints a year and only one inspector.

"The workload is heavy, because in addition to unauthorised storage, he also monitors unauthorised construction and wood cutting, among other things," Tuominen-Maila said.

The municipality carries out an inspection of the site when a request for action is received, after which the landowner is asked to clean their yard, if necessary. If the site has not been cleaned up after a few months, the owner is sent a consultation letter telling them that the matter will be referred to the city board.

Tuominen-Maila said that it takes around four months before the matter is brought before the board, which can impose a penalty. Appeals can, however, be made to an administrative court, a process that can take up to a year.

Additionally, as soon as the owner of a messy plot cleans up a bit, the whole process starts again.

Fur auction controversy

In an Instagram post on Tuesday, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Antti Kurvinen (Cen) shared his feelings about his visit to a Saga Furs fur auction in Finland, Maaseudun Tulevaisuus (siirryt toiseen palveluun) reports.

"The trade is hot and money is flowing into Finland," Kurvinen wrote.

On Twitter, Matias Pajula, chair of the opposition National Coalition Party's youth organisation, reacted to the post, writing that Kurvinen was "first involved in the government in deciding business subsidies for unprofitable animal cruelty and then whitewashes unprofitable businesses on social media."

Pajula also referred in his post to Kurvinen's connection to Saga Furs, a company in which Kurvinen holds 124 shares, according to Ilta-Sanomat.

According to Kurvinen, he was surprised by the condemnation of his visit to the fur auction and support for a rural export sector from people in "a certain bubble in the capital region".

"The 'intellectuals' of the world want to destroy an export industry that's worth a couple of hundred million euros and take money and jobs away from small, poor municipalities," Kurvinen further stated. "They are not interested in the environmental problems of their own lives." The minister wrote that he would continue to stand up for a "smart and sustainable rural fur industry".

"Natural fur is part of the circular economy. Utilising low-value fish from water bodies and slaughterhouse waste. No microplastics or fast fashion. Is this not ethical and 'green'?" Kurvinen asked.

Jenni Haukio, wife of Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, added to the discussion on Wednesday by sharing a link on Twitter to a citizens' initiative to ban fur farming. The fur industry is concentrated in parts of western Finland that are traditional Centre Party strongholds.

Shrinking toilet rolls

Many companies have raised their prices as a result of rising raw material costs, but these may not be reflected on shop shelves if, instead, they have downsized their products, Taloussanomat (siirryt toiseen palveluun) reports.

According to the paper, in the United States, the phenomenon is known as "shrinkflation". In the Finnish grocery trade, shrinkage has also been observed in some product categories due to accelerating inflation.

As an example, Flora margarine's package size was reduced in the spring, Taloussanomat writes. During that time, the 400 gram package of margarine was reduced to 380 grams, and the 600 gram package to 550 grams.

As a result of reduced tissue production, Finnish company Metsä Tissue may also have to shrink its toilet roll sizes, the paper reports.

A reduction in the size of toilet rolls was already seen globally in the spring. This means that despite the price staying the same, the number of sheets per roll was reduced.

[kindly-whisper-norbury]

Just a reminder...

That when this news report in S14E20 (”Moriah”) takes place:

Reporter: “In what was supposed to be a speech on farming subsidies, the President instead spent more than two hours disclosing his entire tax history, deep ties to Russia and North Korea; and a, quote, ‘demon deal’ he made with someone named Crowley.”

Trump is canonically President (As per S13E23, “Let The Good Times Roll”):

Sam: “Businessman billionaire mogul turned President embroiled in yet another controversy.” ...

Bobby: “Lemme get this right: the ice caps are melting, a movie where a girl goes all the way with a fish wins Best Picture, and that damned fool idjit from The Apprentice is President? And you call where we come from Apocalypse World?”