EU farm subsidies favour high-emission animal products

> [Source1] calls the high number extraordinary ‘but unsurprising’, given that the CAP system primarily focuses on land use. The larger the area of land used, the higher the subsidy, and animals occupy the majority of agricultural land. Approximately 75 to 80 percent of the land that is required to produce food for EU citizens is dedicated to the raising of animals and the growing of feed. The production of fruits, vegetables, and cereals for direct human consumption requires significantly less space.

> Changing the distribution of subsidies is not a straightforward process. [Source2] recalls the time when subsidies were based on the amount farmers produced, rather than the land area they used. That led to overproduction, and tons of unused butter and milk.

Farm policy is hard. Smaller farmers (generally a high-skill but grueling, insecure, and thankless job) want security and appreciation, but without much pesky or paperwork-heavy regulation of their not-always-neighborly activities. Large farmers are more similar to greedocratic corporations. Politicans want both to buy farm-region votes, and to ensure the food supply to non-farm regions. Middlemen in the food supply chain tend to be more greedocratic corporations. Voters in non-farm regions want to cling to all sorts of quaint and counter-factual notions about farming and food, and definitely avoid thinking or hard choices. There are a load of land-used issues, which is its own area of hard policy. And a whole plague of locusts...er, make that human parasites, hovers over the field - regulation-is-my-career bureaucrats, lobbyists and lawyers, the financial industry, ...