Will Irish Farming be sacrificed at the altar of Climate Change?

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,636
I thought the subsidies were quite specific. We looked at the sustainable crop subsidies a few years ago. There were specific crops subsidised for climate change goals. Set aside is specific. I cant profess to know about all of them but any of the ones I have seen detail on over the years have been quite specific. You cant just own land and have cash shoved into your pockets, despite what people say around here.
There's definitely specifics around what they grow, but that's never really changed except on a piecemeal basis, and that's what we're talking about now. Moving from doing X to Y. And that may have costs associated with it (Which shouldn't fall onto the farmer). Can't hit a point of telling them "We want you to move from beef to windfarm + 50% veggies. Here's the number of a good guy who can source the metal for you".
 


silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,162
Irish farming is suited to raising animals and not suited to large scale grain production. It would be in the interests of Irish politicians not to get steamrolled on this
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,059
Do you have any numbers to back all this up?

If the argument is about subsidies, fine remove them for everyone - including the wind farmers, data centres, MNCs, and their developer friends.

Your problem is that you are somehow differentiating one group of subsidies as better or more deserving than another. And there you are into the world of personal bank account interests.
I think the difference is that what you are terming subsidies elsewhere is often taxes foregone rather than monies paid.
Plus the equation works as follows - I set the tax rate at X, my overall collection is Y - but if I set it at (X-Z) my overall take is greater than Y. Now you argue that the algorithm is incorrect, but its the case that the theory behind the setting lower rates is a belief it results in larger overall take.

However in the case of farm payments an economic activity must first take place, against which a tax is levied and then part of that atx revenue is then paid out.

It can still be the case that there is a net economic or social benefit.

But in terms of direct cost. There is one with subsidies. Not with tax based incentives.
 

Hillmanhunter1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,357
Irish farming is suited to raising animals and not suited to large scale grain production. It would be in the interests of Irish politicians not to get steamrolled on this
I think the key point in relation to farming in Ireland and in many parts of Europe is that it is not an economically viable activity without Government subvention and protection.

In Ireland and across many parts of the EU we wish to preserve (to some degree at least) a rural lifestyle that connects many of us with our past and with our idea of what defines our nation. It matters not that over 80% of French people live in an urban environment they see themselves through bucolic lens - and so do we. We might live in a shoe-box apartment and toil in a factory or office, but we also want to live in a country that has a pastoral dimension.

For the privilege of this we (urbanites) must be willing to subsidize rural life and communities, and by and large we are happy to do so - we cannot expect the countryside to have viable communities while at the same time expecting farmers to compete on price with grain from the prairies or beef from the pampas.

The upshot of this is however that farmers are effectively civil servants, employed by the State to manage the countryside on behalf of the nation. Across Europe we cannot be dictated to by the farming community as to what they will and will not tolerate. Their voice is important, and must be heard, but it is he who pays the piper who calls the tune.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,885
I think the key point in relation to farming in Ireland and in many parts of Europe is that it is not an economically viable activity without Government subvention and protection.
Its a political choice to maintain as many family type farms as possible rather than allowing farming to become the business of large commercial food producers. We already have examples of supermarkets deciding the price of milk and there is some problem with meat factories dictating the price of cattle. I don't see any advantage in moving to large commercial food production where consumers pay what the monopolies decide.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,162
I think the key point in relation to farming in Ireland and in many parts of Europe is that it is not an economically viable activity without Government subvention and protection.

In Ireland and across many parts of the EU we wish to preserve (to some degree at least) a rural lifestyle that connects many of us with our past and with our idea of what defines our nation. It matters not that over 80% of French people live in an urban environment they see themselves through bucolic lens - and so do we. We might live in a shoe-box apartment and toil in a factory or office, but we also want to live in a country that has a pastoral dimension.

For the privilege of this we (urbanites) must be willing to subsidize rural life and communities, and by and large we are happy to do so - we cannot expect the countryside to have viable communities while at the same time expecting farmers to compete on price with grain from the prairies or beef from the pampas.

The upshot of this is however that farmers are effectively civil servants, employed by the State to manage the countryside on behalf of the nation. Across Europe we cannot be dictated to by the farming community as to what they will and will not tolerate. Their voice is important, and must be heard, but it is he who pays the piper who calls the tune.
the aim should be unsubsidised agriculture and a food industry that isn't grant aided, no point punishing farmers but giving big grain , food processors or Crispy Cremes globs of money and tax concessions or otherwise facilitating unnecessary transportation of random produce around the globe.
 

blue max

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
12
Depends on how those fertilisers are produced for the direct effect. For the indirect effect, nitrates are a key water polluter leading to eutrophication which in turn affects aquatic plant life (a CO2 store). So yes, all pollution, directly or indirectly affects climate change.
I understand that the effect of eutrophication increases algae (bloom) due to the nutrients which leads to a decrease in oxygen levels for other aquatic life.

If the runoff will lead to an increase in plant life and hence the carbon sink, as you state, then the nutrients added by runoff will mitigate climate change!
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,151
I understand that the effect of eutrophication increases algae (bloom) due to the nutrients which leads to a decrease in oxygen levels for other aquatic life.

If the runoff will lead to an increase in plant life and hence the carbon sink, as you state, then the nutrients added by runoff will mitigate climate change!
Nope. Should read a bit more into the matter. Algal blooms aren't necessarily co2 consuming.
 

blue max

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
12

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,151
Eutrophication | Definition of Eutrophication by Merriam-Webster

Definition of eutrophication
: the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen

Algae blooms ARE plant life and do absorb co2
I prefer the Metcalfe and Eddy definition, (or at a stretch the IHE-Delft Definition). It being the industry standard. Not ALL algae absorbs CO2. Next.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
Farms in north dublin tend to be tillage and market crops though right? Dairy and beef herds are the main contributors in ag. (if and more so one ignores the indirect emissions from fertilizer production )
True enough but a lot of them use fertilizer to increase crop yield

- will the cost of fertilizer rise if costs go up in Dairy Farming?

Point is the FCC area impact on Global Warming is so utterly tiny as to be statistically insignificant


So why are we doing this?
 

blue max

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
12
I prefer the Metcalfe and Eddy definition, (or at a stretch the IHE-Delft Definition). It being the industry standard. Not ALL algae absorbs CO2. Next.
What are the " Metcalf/Eddy (or at a stretch IHE-Delft) definitions.

Which algae do not absorb CO2
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,151
What are the " Metcalf/Eddy (or at a stretch IHE-Delft) definitions.

Which algae do not absorb CO2
Metcalf and Eddy is the industry standard book on the treatent of wastewaters. IHE-Delft is the leading third level instituion in the field of water and wastewater treatment.
 

blue max

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
12
Metcalf and Eddy is the industry standard book on the treatent of wastewaters. IHE-Delft is the leading third level instituion in the field of water and wastewater treatment.
But what are THEIR definitions of eutrophication that you prefer to use and which algae do not absorb CO2?
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
My answer to that would be why do we keep hearing about the threat to Irish farming posed by Brexit when FG plan to destroy Irish farming through emissions mitigation strategies anyway?
I think this usefully frames the issue. We could add the simple fact of changing consumer tastes, highlighted by the whole vegan folderol.

One way or another, Irish farming faces change because (whether for reasons of Brexit, climate or consumer tastes) demand for its meat and dairy products is likely to fall very significantly.

And the idea that a sustainable response to the climate agenda is exporting even further afield is nonsense, and obvious nonsense.

Headlines about us tripling dairy exports to lactose-intolerant Asia are cloaking the fact that we export very little of our product to those places. Where do you find a replacement market for the half of our product that goes to the UK? In keeping with the general level of myth and nonsense surrounding Irish agriculture, that issue is avoided.

We can't seem to join the dots, or talk about what a genuinely sustainable food sector would look like. It wouldn't, I suspect, seek to retain our current position as net food energy importers.

The reluctance to change is very deeply ingrained. Regardless of how unsustainable the current structure of our agriculture is, there seems to be a deep need to believe that, somehow, it has to be continued concentration on a couple of products for export, or nothing.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
And many of the farming detractors isolate it as an industry unto itself. What they appear to miss is that it is the bottom of a very important supply chain. Take it in conjunction with dairies (Kerry, Glanbia etc) and the factories (Goodman, whatever the chicken processors are called etc) and much more.
No, this point isn't missed.

Its actually overstated by Irish agricultural advocates. Teagasc, for example, have produced stats on employment that effectively include the checkout operator in Tesco or Supervalu, who sells you imported veg, as a job generated by Irish Agriculture.

The image that's good to bear in mind at this time is Supervalu "Signature Taste" Orange Juice, which comes in a big bottle screaming "From Co Carlow" on the side of it.

Made with oranges flown into the airport, and taken out of the city on the back of a truck.

Irish agriculture needs a collective kick in the head. Long overdue.
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,836
I think that's a valid point and something that needs to be calculated every time approval's given for one of these data centres. You seem to be trying to set this up as an A vs B issue which this isn't though. There are various streams of the economy that work long term, there are various ones that won't. A govt's job is to try and address the latter. Farming's actually easier to do logistically because of the very high subsidies given.

Those who pay the piper call the tune.
FG are total hypocrites on all this anyway - their contempt for our Natural Heritage since they came back into government is obvious for anyone who follows such issues eg. in the last few weeks alone they have stripped protections from dozens of bogs in the west and made commercial scale peat removal exempt from the planning process
 

blue max

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
12
Go read them. They're freely available.
Which publication of Metcalf & Eddy define eutrophication. I can't find it, nor can I have the definition at IHE-Delft if they are freely available.

I would very much like to read them both.
 

hollandia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
30,151
Which publication of Metcalf & Eddy define eutrophication. I can't find it, nor can I have the definition at IHE-Delft if they are freely available.

I would very much like to read them both.
Google.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top