In 2020, the USDA disproportionately subsidized the production of foods that emit the most greenhouse gases.
Stephanie Feldstein’s April 30 Friday Opinion essay,
“Biden isn’t trying to cut meat consumption. But he should,” suggested
that national climate policies should promote lowering meat consumption.
Agree or not, there’s no need for intrusive or drastic measures. The
Agriculture Department could simply level the playing field with
agricultural subsidies and let consumers decide.
In 2020, the USDA disproportionately subsidized the production of foods that
emit the most greenhouse gases. USDA and Environmental Protection Agency
reports reveal that rice, beef, dairy and pork producers were subsidized
with an estimated $800 to $1,400 per ton of methane emitted. Considering
subsidies that reduced animal feed costs as well, the range stretches to
$2,600 per ton.
Though some may propose methane digesters, feed supplements or carbon credit
swaps to reduce climate impacts, the USDA should prioritize its spending on
proven mitigation methods, such as helping farmers transition to producing
more climate-friendly commodities.
It is foolish for taxpayer dollars to favor high greenhouse gas producers
when providing greater consumer access to low greenhouse gas foods is a
simple, cost-effective way to empower Americans to reduce the climate impact
of the agriculture industry.
Laura Reese is executive director and co-founder of the Agriculture Fairness
Alliance.
Number of animals killed in the world by the fishing, meat, dairy and egg industries, since you opened this webpage.
0 marine animals
0 chickens
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 rabbits
0 turkeys
0 geese
0 sheep
0 goats
0 cows / calves
0 rodents
0 pigeons/other birds
0 buffaloes
0 dogs
0 cats
0 horses
0 donkeys and mules
0 camels / camelids