First off, in the full post on Grist:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/24/16525/9585

I specifically address the possible regressive aspects of this possibility (which would probably not be very large anyway)- we could more than make up for this by lowering taxes to the poor from the money we would save on subsidies.

Next point- I disagree that virtually all of farm land is on sensitive area- that is way too broad of a definition- I am not an ecologist but what I am getting at is that there are some areas where the soil is very marginal, where there are high levels of biodiversity, or near very important water ways where some added regulation is necessary, if not a strict prohibition on farming. This is probably warranted in a few % points of current agricultural land. I DO NOT advocate dracoian forms of regulation for the majority of productive activity.

For those who don’t want the price of food to reflect its true environmental cost, this strikes me as bizarre- they only way to get actors to take environmental costs into account is for this to happen- like I said, there are plenty of ways to address distributional issues once efficiency is taken into account, which it needs to be. I could envision a compromise situation where the elimination of farm subsidies comes with some lower taxes and increased food stamps for the poor that can be used in farmers markets- something along these lines would a. dramatically decrease agricultural pollution, b. save money, c. help the poor, d. help smaller farmers, and e. make us healthier.

Final point: as to developing countries losing out if we stopped subsidizing agriculure, yes the food-importing countries would lose but they would also have a greater incentive to develop their own industries and there are much better ways of helping them than trashing the environment to grow cheap wheat to send half way across the world.

J.S.

By the way, the increased CO2 levels actually encourage increased production, since plants take in CO2 and expell Oxygen. That’s a good thing, don’t you think?

Think of it this way, the way we have it now, people in the cities have the luxury of debating the pros and cons of sustainable agriculture while pursuing their careers. They need not worry about spending every waking hour gathering enough to eat. The miracle of modern agriculture does it for them for less than 10 percent of their disposable income. Compare that with 50-75 percent cost of income in poor countries. Would you rather prefer to spend most of your wages on food instead? I don’t think so.

It’s as if all the rest of the people on this planet don’t exist and do not have an impact on the outcome. That’s not how it works.