Biospace wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 2:07pm
pwa wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 8:46pm
I personally know a sheep farmer who lives alone in a damp, windswept house that has rooms lit by bare light bulbs, and furnished with a spartan array of old, shabby furniture. He lives to work and has next to nothing to show for it. So please be careful not to create the impression that all farmers are lazy and living off the taxpayer. Some are about as poverty stricken as a person working full time can be.
But of course we need state investment in farmland to reflect our goals, such as well maintained rights of way, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
I know someone like this too, but they're very definitely not on the bread line even though many assume he is.
I don't believe I was tarring all farmers with the 'lazy and living off the taxpayer' brush. Whatever individual behaviours are, it is the system which has been the problem for decades.
Would you explain your assumption that state investment is needed to reduce GHG in farming?
I would put it more broadly than that. State money is needed to ensure farmed land is maintained or improved in ways that benefit us all. If we leave it just to market forces we will have some farms become so single mindedly commercial that any wildlife potential is driven out, even more than at present. The surviving farms will be the vast arable prairies of the east of England. And the other farms will cease farming. Unless the price of food rises dramatically.
A lot of farming outside the big arable areas is currently done by farmers who make little money from it, and they are an aging bunch of people who have children who don't want to take over from them because it is a lot of work for little reward. I believe that we ought to ensure that the state money necessary to keep these marginal farms going is directed at outcomes that make things better for you and me. Such as measures to reduce spillage into streams, biodiversity enhancing programmes, a nationwide upgrade of rights of way, and running farms in a way that tackles emissions. I think most of us want the bulk of our food to come from the UK, and we want our countryside to deliver the other things we value it for. None of that will happen without some state funding. Or much higher food prices combined with trade barriers. If you tell a dairy farmer that they must meet this and that strict rule and work to the highest standards, and do it all while getting so little per pint of milk that they struggle to break even, something must give.
With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, having locally produced food makes sustainability easier, so it is best to ensure local farming does not go bankrupt or wither through lack of investment. And there are ongoing trials of new ways of reducing methane emissions. A farmer struggling just to break even is not going to have the time and energy to devote to this area of concern without the state making it easier for them. And they won't be farming at all without getting higher prices for produce, or some state funding.
So I support the notion of continued financial investment in farming, with it directed at outcomes that we consider to be important to us. Control of greenhouse gas emissions is one of those outcomes.