tfks t1_jb91oti wrote on March 7, 2023 at 9:56 AM

Reply to comment by Capn_Zelnick in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater

In most cases, allowing a business to flounder and die is fine. In the case that the business is producing something that your population would die without (food) allowing the business to flounder and die is maybe not a good idea. The hilarious amount of corn produced in the USA means that the entire rest of the world's agriculture could fail or be made unavailable and the US would still have a good supply. This protects against disaster, war, and other geopolitical events.

Obviously there are negative consequences to subsidizing corn (and other foods) to this degree, but I think it's important to temper any assessments with the fact that the subsidies are meant to prevent mass starvation should things go terribly wrong in the world.

Capn_Zelnick t1_jb9b2fk wrote on March 7, 2023 at 12:00 PM

I don't suggest that the corn industry, or any other industry already discussed in different threads that has significant concequences to its subsidizing, die, just that we really don't have to spend this much on food security in order to still have a huge advantage in that regard over the rest of the world.

tfks t1_jb9ggh0 wrote on March 7, 2023 at 12:55 PM

The industry doesn't have to die. I did also use the word flounder. These industries need to be subsidized enough that they could provide food rations to the American people in times of catastrophe. If they're below that threshold and the global food supply becomes significantly restricted, it risks economic and societal collapse. Is the subsidy balanced in that way? I honestly don't know and I've never once seen anyone addressing that in these threads about food subsidies.