Leaders must rethink farm subsidies
The autumn harvest in Illinois is a juicy one. Corn and soybeans matured early, yields are mostly abundant and prices stand at the thirdhighest level ever.
Add to that a bumper crop of subsidy checks from the federal government, and Illinois farmers will be enjoying some of their highest incomes in years. Yes, even in good times, Uncle Sam subsidizes agriculture.
Last year, the U.S. government made more than $45 billion in direct payments to landowners and farm operators, much of it in pandemic relief. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture expects to make $28 billion in direct payments.
Agriculture needs to be weaned from its dependence on government programs, which include everything from subsidizing crop insurance to diluting motor fuel with ethanol, which is mostly made from corn. These subsidies not only cost taxpayers a fortune, but they distort the marketplace for food, encourage consolidation at the expense of smaller farm operations and contribute to obesity by promoting overconsumption of meat and dairy products.
The American farm lobby has a different point of view and a history of success in farming the government. The same is true around the world: Government support for agricultural producers totals $540 billion a year, the United Nations estimates.
A common threat finally may be uniting the interests of taxpayers, policymakers and at least some producers.
Food production is one of the biggest contributors to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Many agricultural practices contribute to warming the planet: raising cattle, producing chemical fertilizers, clearing land to plant the same crops repeatedly. And food producers are vulnerable to droughts, floods, severe storms and heat waves brought on by climate change. Business as usual is not a realistic option for citizens whose taxes pay to support agriculture or for those who make a living at it. The agricultural sector needs to help solve the problem of climate change rather than being a cause of it, and one of the keys is restructuring farm aid.
As it stands, the spending is way out of whack. International pledges to fight climate change amount to an estimated $100 billion a year, while about $470 billion of the global total spent on government support to farmers is what the United Nations categorizes as harmful, including subsidies for specific livestock, crops, fertilizers and pesticides, as well as inefficient export and tariff schemes.
It’s time to reconfigure the government handouts to back environmentally friendly infrastructure improvements, research and development and, especially, sustainable, climatesmart agriculture.
It’s a daunting prospect, but shifting dollars from one farm program into another is far more doable in the short run than eliminating subsidies.
There have been some successes. China is reducing dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the United Kingdom shifted subsidies to meet environmental goals and India has piloted a promising natural-farming policy. In the U.S., the Conservation Reserve Program pays out billions every year to remove sensitive acreage from production.
The U.S. has a proud history of innovation in the farm sector, playing a leading role in feeding us all with great productivity and efficiency. But in 2050, the world will need to feed an estimated 10 billion people. And we’re all beginning to better appreciate the vital importance of combating climate change effects that can be devastating, as we see today in the droughts now ravaging California and the Dakotas.
America must lead the way and make crucial changes to how the government interacts with the agricultural sector.
The next opportunity to reimagine federal programs is getting started through early work on the farm bill, a package of legislation approved every five years or so that sets U.S. agricultural policy for the next five years.
A new farm bill is expected in 2023. Let’s make it green.
—