Essentially the nub of the argument is this: "Where there are subsidies, you find people essentially manufacturing environments in which to grow food, because they're getting paid $2 for every grain of rice they produce (or whatnot). The huge profit margins make it economical to import water from far, far away, or build elaborate systems to 'trick' crops into growing, and so on."
The (environmental) case against agro-subsidies | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist Magazine:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment