Imhoff’s flaw, (like so many other progressives, conservatives, mainstream media, etc.) , is that he (like Pollan online,) thinks subsidies cause cheap prices (corn, etc.) and all of the problems that come from those cheap prices. I prove 4 ways that that’s not true. There’s a zero correlation between subsidies and the drop in the price of rice from 1953-1977, since there were no rice subsidies, for example, (ditto for corn, wheat, cotton, oats, barley, grain sorghum). The real problem (that IATP, FWW, NFFC, etc. fix, but Imhoff does not,) is that, (economically,) farm commodity prices are usually low in free markets (causing all of the problems,) and, (politically,) Congress/Presidents have reversed the New Deal (& Steagall Amendment) policies that fixed it in the past (1942-1952) with living wage price levels and no subsidies.

A key myth is the belief that subsidies cause cheap prices. No, they’ve resulted from them. I prove that this myth is wrong (4 ways) in “Michael Pollan Rebuttal.” (I share Pollan’s excellent values.) The 4 proofs are: 1. price inelasticity, the failure of free markets for these crops, is the real economic cause, see ag economist “Daryll E. Ray”, APAC, “price responsiveness”. 2. Historical data refutes it as prices fell when price floors were lowered and eliminated, while we saw zero correlation with subsidies for much of this period, as subsidies hadn’t started yet. 3. Experience from other countries shows that oversupply wasn’t fixed by removing/reducing subsidies. 4. Major econometric studies (recent and from the 1980s) agree.

Another main myth comes from not showing subsidies in relation to farm prices and farm bill “Price Floors”. (The Environmental Working Group never shows this, or even mentions it. I’m the only source online where I’ve seen this.See my “Farm Bill Slides”.) Price Floors (the needed policies to address concerns related to subsidies and cheap prices,) were lowered (1953-1995) then eliminated (1996-), by amounts that are much greater (ie. 5x greater) than the amount of subsidies returned to farmers (since 1961 when subsidies started).

Finally, the top 10% of recipients in the “Farm Subsidy Database” (USDA @ EWG) are mostly not big agribusiness but rather are family-sized (ie. full-time) farms, farms smaller than family-sized, and farms that are very similar, but larger than family-sized farms. By “mostly” I mean those recipients from the 10% mark to the 4$% or 3% or 2% marks) Meanwhile the bottom half are only 3.3% of a minimum sized full time farm or less. The bottom 1/3 are only 1% of full time. (See my method of measuring this in blogs, starting with “Subsidy Narratives: How Foodies Unknowingly Bash Family Farmers”. I seem to be about the only one who has provided this kind of data.) The bottom 80%, for example in my zip code, where I know who the recipients are, are clearly long retired farmers, dead farmers, people with tiny acreages, etc.

CalCAN is a great organization. The Family Farm Justice Movement pleaded for decades for a huge consumer side food movement to help address these issues (see “Missing Food Movement History: Highlights of Family Farm Justice: 1950-2000″ and “Food Movement 1985: Were You There”). Though we’ve been severely ravaged by agribusiness, we’re glad for all of the new attention. I’m happy to provide data sources, charts, or any other kind of help to anyone in the food movement.

United Nations Ambassador Phillip Muller of the Marshall Islands said there is no sense of urgency to find not only those answers, but also to address the causes of climate change, which many believe to be responsible for rising ocean levels.

“Even if we reach a legal agreement sometime soon, which I don’t think we will, the major players are not in the process,” Muller said.

Those players, the participants said, include industrial nations such as the United States and China that emit the most carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. Many climate scientists say those gases are responsible for global warming. Mary-Elena Carr of Columbia University’s Earth Institute said what is now an annual sea level rise of a few millimeters will increase dramatically by the year 2100. “The biggest challenge is to preserve their nationality without a territory,” said Bogumil Terminski from Geneva. International legal experts are discovering climate change law, and the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is a case in point: The Polynesian archipelago is doomed to disappear beneath the ocean. Now lawyers are asking what sort of rights citizens have when their homeland no longer exists.
t present, however, there appear to be at least three possibilities that could advance the international debate about ‘climate refugee’ protections and fill existing gaps in international law.

The first option is to revise the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees to include climate (or environmental) refugees and to offer legal protections similar to those for refugees fleeing political persecution. A second, more ambitious option is to negotiate a completely new convention, one that would try to guarantee specific rights and protections to climate or environmental ‘refugees`.