Remix.run Logo
awjlogan a day ago

A lot of “farmland” is unproductive and kept in usage only by heavy subsidies. Additionally, I think a more important/interesting part of the article is taxation of livestock - you reduce the land needed significantly when the amount of livestock is reduced. I’m not vegan/vegetarian but it is “obvious” we should reduce meat consumption for a wide range of reasons and focus on raising livestock in ways that are beneficial to the wider environment.

tonyedgecombe a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, the least productive 10% of land represents a much smaller percentage of food production. This is often land in areas that are most environmentally sensitive.

In the UK we pay farmers to raise lamb on marginal land yet they still aren't competitive with lamb shipped from the other side of the world. I'm not sure why we should be subsidising that, especially when there is a lot of environmental damaged associated with it.

Epa095 a day ago | parent [-]

Could food security in case of another global crisis be a good enough reason? I don't know anything about the British situation AT ALL, but I think many in Europe think slightly different about the market-based solution when it comes to both food, medicines, and other essentials after corona.

It turns out that when shit hits the fan, countries need to handle the basic needs of their population themselves.

OscarCunningham 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People don't need lamb in an emergency.

throwaway0123_5 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

Exactly... I find all the arguments in the style of "but we need food" extremely disingenuous when it comes to meat production. Almost without exception, more food could be produced by converting land used for animal agriculture into land used to grow food directly for human consumption.

rightbyte a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You'd need firewood too.

a day ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]