Agricultural Taxation

Since she has accepted them, will structure our argument based upon them. My opponent starts out by saying that the EPA mandates that farmers buy permits, and thus farmers pay for the pollution they produce. Perhaps my opponent misunderstands the structure of this debate. This debate, is a debate not on what is, but what should be. In essence, I will be arguing why we should be taxing farming, and my opponent will be arguing in opposition. Stating current policy that supports my position does little to affirm her contention. The EPA is a federal regulatory committee. The permits are a form of taxation. My opponent then states that CO2 is not a huge contributor to gobal warming so 24x more lethal is really not so bad. "Methane and Vegetarianism By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture. Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane. "With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet's human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive "lagoons" used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists' for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U. S. " SOURCE: . http://www.ecobridge.org... As my opponent can see, methane causes nearly half the planets human-induced global warming. The main source of methane is agriculture. Thus Agriculture must be taxed in the equivalent of removing the methane from the atmosphere. Furthermore agriculture is the number one source of water pollution in the U. S. Farmers, and not the citizens should have to pay to clean up this mess as it is negatively affecting the citizens who are a third party in the business transaction. Furthermore the tax should be more specific so the price of pollution can be reflected in different forms of agriculture. This gives both farmers and consumers a financial incentive to exclude foods that cause a massive amount of methane pollution from their diet, and also gives farmers an incentive to use technology that reduces the methane pollution. "If it is the government's duty to prevent citizens from being taken advantage of by businesses, then the government needs to outlaw our current economic system" The economic system has nothing to do with it? Government simply needs to participate in the subsidization of positive externalities and the taxation of negative externalizes to prevent market failure. I would like to see what my opponent defines as our "current economic system" because it is certainly not laissez faire as my opponent is implying and thus has not reason for being outlawed. "Under my opponent's logic, the government must protect these workers from exploitation by CEOs. " No under my logic, government must protect the citizens who don't aren't directly involve in a business transaction by the business that employs both the worker and CEO from any negative effects of their business transaction, and also must reward the business for any positive effects. "Next, as my opponent says, farming is already subsidized, indicating that the business, although necessary, cannot exist without help. " No it is indicative that there are more farmers employed than the economy demands, not that the industry is by any means in trouble. Government is simply keeping the least profitable farmers from being unemployed by paying them a salary out of taxpayer dollars to do essentially nothing, which keeps the supply of crop down and thus makes it profitable to farm. Lifting that subsidization only allows more farmers to produce more price which actually lowers the price of farming goods, which then makes it unprofitable, the least profitable farmers then leave the industry and find a more economically efficient job to do. Which then makes the supply of crops less, which then makes farming profitable to the point where it is a sustainable mode of living, which in turn rises the price of crops back to their subsidization levels. By then taxing farmers further we would then be either raising the price of goods which would do nothing to the amount of crops being produced (depending on how inelastic the specific good is) or be lowering the demand on the good. Either way, the needs of the citizen would be met. My opponent has used bad analogies, poor uses of economic logic, and no real points to refute my affirmation. With this said, I am very appreciative of her excellent contention, and thank her for joining me i this debate. I look forward to what I'm sure will be an excellent argument in round 2, thank you.