Post APWeJcj214oiksm1aa by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
 (DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
 (DIR) Post #APWeJcKDVKy3VvACuW by norightturnnz@mastodon.nz
       2022-11-11T02:44:21Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       On NRT: Climate Change: Submit! - http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2022/11/climate-change-submit.html
       
 (DIR) Post #APWeJcj214oiksm1aa by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
       2022-11-12T11:07:44Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @norightturnnz I agree with you overall and it frustrates me beyond belief that food producers who have made the effort to reduce emissions, don't get the rewards a sensible system would give them for that. But ...
       
 (DIR) Post #APWez4BCqWoDmCiIfg by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
       2022-11-12T11:15:14Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @norightturnnz> Why should farmers - a tiny, dirty, inefficient minority - be exempt? Why should we subsidise their profits?Because they grow our food. Because they're not an industry we can allow to sink or swim. Because decades of neoliberal policy has asset-stripped rural communities, not least of the population base, diversity, and talent that might have helped them adapt to a zero carbon world by now. Something must be done, for the reasons you quite rightly state, but here be dragons.
       
 (DIR) Post #APXLCboTJ1JTvaDgSO by chopsstephens@mastodon.nzoss.nz
       2022-11-12T19:08:16Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @strypey @norightturnnz I would argue that the approach here should be that we include farmers in the ETS; and then we separately subsidise them. This approach maintains the market signals we need to send to push farmers to change their practices, and exposes farmers to the true cost of those practices. Anything else unfairly disadvantages those who are actually trying to change their farming practices in the face of climate change.