Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[<activism98201@verizon.net>]

As a percentage, who do you think gets greater amounts of subsidies, 
conventional or organic*?

*We need to concentrate on using "local" rather than "organic."  Big AG is 
also producing organic, and they're also shipping long distances (as their 
model dictates).

Keep in mind that we're seeing double subsidies when it comes to fuel crops: 
subsidies for the likes of corn, and then subsidies for the fuel processing 
(and likely for vehicles that are produced to take greater "advantage" of 
these fuels).

I would contend that it would be easier to drop ALL subsidies than to only 
drop subsidies to the big agri-fuel corporations.  They command huge amounts 
of power (lobbying) and will ensure that they are not discriminated against.  
There is a near ZERO chance that you could drop subsidies to the existing big 
AG folks AND then provide subsidies to small/local farmers.

Subsidies externalize costs.  They're how we got in this mess in the first 
place. And once something is entrenched it's awfully hard to get rid of, 
efficiencies be damned!


-Mark Nagel
Everett, WA


=====================
From: "R. Follette" <marketgardener@thymeforewe.com>
Date: 2007/04/29 Sun AM 07:46:29 CDT
To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] happenings to get fired up about growing

>>Kill ALL existing subsidies, NOW!

That won't happen, but let's suppose it could.  What about the subsidies 
that go to organic farmers who use them to get up and running sustainably 
years sooner than they would have without the subsidy?  I don't think all 
subsidies are bad.