An argument for eliminating some ag

Note: Most newspaper content reprinted here is incomplete and delayed. Want it all? Sooner? You can subscribe to our full print and online editions by calling (559) 674-4207 and get both editions for the price of one!

webmaster | 01/05/13

Many California residents wonder if there are any solutions to help the state we live in. Here is one, which deals with an economic approach.

California’s Gross State Product (GSP) is $1.9 trillion. The three largest income earners that contribute toward the GSP are 1) manufacturing, 2) retail trade, 3) real estate and trade. Yet, most people who live in the San Joaquin Valley believe that agriculture makes up the largest income for the state.

Agriculture makes $32 billion per year. That is only 1/6th of the total GSP. Also, agriculture employs but a very small amount of people compared to other industries. Only 50 percent of all agriculture products are consumed in the U.S. Agriculture consumes 80-85 percent of all water in the state, whereas 10 percent is for human consumption and is being polluted by nitrate fertilization, making it hazardous for human consumption.

Taxpayers pay billions in farmer subsidies, water projects, and Army Corp of Engineers benefiting corporate farming operations, and the public sector.

This is not to say that our country can go without farming operations, we all know that food is of essence, but we do not live in a 19th century agrarian sociality.

By reducing agriculture 30-40 percent and implementing higher economic producing businesses in California, we will increase the GSP and jobs, create a cleaner water supply, and overall make our country stronger.

Steven Dodd,
Oakhurst

 

comments powered by Disqus