I can understand where you are coming from with that idea, but I don’t think that would be very fair. First, some states have higher populations than others, and it usually has more to do with location than actual land size. Second, many states aren’t very good farming states. These states would produce a lot less food than they need to, as most of the farming is in the south and mid-western states.
I live in Kansas, works for me…we can grow, hunt, or fish for all we need here. Might also help instill a better sense of conservation and wise-use in those states that can’t do so. Nice to see a thought provoking discussion on here instead of just questions from people taht are too lazy to do their own internet searches. lol.
In that case, I’d be glad I currently live in southern California. We have a particularly long growing season, whereas when I used to live in Minnesota we would have had to eat canned or frozen fruits and vegetables for most of the winter, spring and summer until the next fall for harvest season. Interesting idea, but I think it would dramatically reduce the variety in many individual’s diets.
I think there should be a balance. IT’s good to encourage utilizing local resources and efforts to produce and for consumers to buy. This contributes to conservation models and helps local economies. However, like Simba was mentioning, not every state will be able to produce quantities or varieties needed to maintain optimal health. There’s definitely room to stimulate inter-state sustainability, but like all things…. it’s not black or white.
I agree, there should definitely be a balance. However, this balance should not be between states and the nation, but between domestic food and international food. Other nations, proletariat nations, are losing tremendously to the US, although America forced them to become capitalist nations. This is because the US government gives huge tax credits to farmers in the country. This forces underdeveloped nations to lower their prices below subsidence.
I think that this would be an impossible standard. Our country is relatively spread out and has very different microclimates throughout. The Northwest gets plenty of rain and is suitable for some crops, while the Southeast is warm and sunny and is better suited for others. I do feel that we need to go local whenever possible, but its amazing that we can have oranges from Florida and apples from Washington whenever we want. It’s not fair to limit people who are all citizens of the same country.
I think it is a great idea! This would keep food local and fresh, and significantly cut down the energy it takes to produce and transport food across the country. Each state might not be able to produce all of the food that it’s citizens need, but there could be some sort of agreement between close states. It would make it so much easier for people to make healthy choices, and I think it would create a lot of jobs as well. It would be great for the economy, the health of the populous and the environment.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC