Agricultural Subsidies

I Affirm that Agricultural, because of its negative environmental impact due to greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution it produces is a negative externality. Thus by economic principles, Agriculture should be taxed in the amount of money that would clean up the amount of pollution it produces, or in the amount that would subsidize a positive externality that removes the pollution agriculture produces. Given: In this debate the emittance of greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution are considered to negatively impact society as a whole. Also this debate assumes that the current subsidization of farming has been entirely dissolved and is further arguing in favor of taxation. Definitions: Externality - an effect on a third party (usually the community as a whole) that is not involved in a business transaction. -positive - benefits the public - negative - hurts the public EXPLANATION OF WHY FARMING IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY Farming is a negative externality because it is responsible for producing about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock. John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution and Diet for a New America, says that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the culprit normally at the center of global warming discussions. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that animals in the U.S. meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste produced, or five tons for every U.S. citizen. In addition to its impact on climate, hog, chicken and cow waste has polluted some 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.foodreference.com... WHY WE SHOULD TAX FARMING We should be taxing agriculture with the cost of cleaning up the pollution in methane gas and other forms of pollutants that it produces or in the amount that would subsidize a positive externality that removes the pollution agriculture produces. It is governments duty the prevent the citizen from being taken advantge from by business. In this case consumers are paying (by enduring poorer air and water quality) for a benefit they are not receiving. Thus this is considered to be a market failure, or a failure in the way the economy works as the optimal amounts of quantities are not being produced. By taxing agriculture in the form of x amount of cents per %/pound of pollution produced the tax will be passed onto the consumer. This way consumers will then experience higher prices for goods that produce more pollution. Thus consumers will gravitate towards farmers who use both more technologically efficient and economically efficient forms of farming that produce the least pollution. So in the case of the consumer side there will be a direct incentive to support farming that produces the least amount of pollution. Which will in turn eliminate the most pollution-creating forms of farming. This will force farmers (and provide them economic incentive) to produce the least amount of pollution in the process of farming. Furthermore the tax money gained from taxing pollution could go towards cleaning up any future pollution being made. This will effectively eliminate pollution produced by the agriculture industry at the cost of slightly higher food prices (which would only decrease as agriculture technologies (that will after this tax is created be in demand)are utilized and become more readily available that allow farmers to produce more crops/livestock and less pollution)and less farmers employed.