We can debate the role of subsidies and carbon emissions, but framing agriculture as if it's uniquely nefarious misses the critical point that we all need to eat.

The industry isn't "choosing carbon" but rather it's responding to the immense challenge of feeding billions affordably while dealing with slim margins and unpredictable conditions. Adjustments require viable, scalable alternatives, not just finger-wagging.

I think we focus on supporting innovation rather than vilifying an essential industry.

If I can spend 100k on a tractor cause 100t of pollution or 200k on a tractor causing 50t of pollution I will obviously choose the firmer tractor as the rest of the world pays the price of the extra 50t of pollution.

If the externalities of that carbon generation are priced in I end up paying more for the polluting tractor so I choose the less polluting tractor and make more money.

Who vilified it?