The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Residents of America’s 54 largest cities collected more than $24 million in Direct Payment farm subsidies in 2012, according to new research by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
A total of 18,276 city dwellers cashed in on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Direct Payment program, which was created in 1996 to wean farmers off subsidies but instead was continued in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, EWG’s study shows.
Congress must decide this month whether to extend the Direct Payment program, which cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion a year. Both the House and Senate versions of the proposed new farm bill would end these payments, but it looks more likely that Congress will vote to extend the current farm bill once again.
Unlike subsidies tied to current farm production and prices, direct payments are based on a farm’s historical production. As a result, the checks go out regardless of need or even whether a farm has produced a crop. Land that has been converted to non-farm uses is legally not eligible for direct payment subsidies, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found that USDA does a poor job of tracking land use changes.
Many of the city dwellers who receive direct payments have an ownership interest in a farm, but are only marginally involved in its operation and may not even visit it.
From 2003 to 2011, about one-quarter of all direct payments—$10.6 billion—went to landowners whose farm did not grow the crop associated with its historic production, and many landowners reported their land as fallow—with no crop at all—the GAO found.
Here is how the Direct Payment program works: landowners annually enroll based on a farm’s historical production and the payment rates set in the 2008 farm bill. A payment is calculated by multiplying the payment rate by the farm’s historic acres and yields, as specified in the 2002 farm bill. If the farm also participates in the separate Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) subsidy program, the direct payments are cut by 20 percent.
This table shows the payment rates for 11 eligible commodity crops:
Direct payment rates
Direct payment rate
Direct payment rate if enrolled in ACRE
There are some limits on direct payments. Landowners can grow many crops on eligible lands, but they are prohibited from growing fruits, vegetables and wild rice. An individual landowner is supposed to be limited to no more than $40,000 a year in all, but this limit does little to level the playing field for family farmers. According to the GAO, recipients of the top 25 percent of direct payment checks pulled in 73 percent of the total in 2011.
Because the current farm bill expires at the end of September, Congress must decide soon how to extend the current programs—including whether or not to extend direct payments. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) got it right when she concluded during a recent colloquy that extending direct payments “is indefensible in the current budget climate. It makes no sense to pay farmers when they haven't suffered a loss.”
Any farm bill extension—including a short-term extension—should finally end direct payments and use some of the savings to finance other small but important programs, including those that help organic farmers, beginning farmers and local food initiatives.
Visit EcoWatch’s FARM BILL page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›