Search the archive.

The first field hearing for the 2018 farm bill takes place Thursday in Manhattan, Kan. — a town just 130 miles from where I was born and raised. It’s a fitting location given the crucial role that farmers, lawmakers and political leaders from the Midwest have played in addressing hunger and promoting national security.

That’s because the farm bill won’t impact just American growers and consumers. It will also have an enormous impact on the world’s hungry people — and help stabilize an increasingly unstable world.

Climate change is an existential threat to humans and global biodiversity, as was reinforced in the sixth assessment report (1) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as Conferences of the Parties of the IPCC (Glasgow, UK; November 2021) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (Montreal, Canada; December 2022). But these gatherings also implicitly highlight severe shortcomings in how conservation scientists and policymakers are addressing the climate change threat.

Research in climate change ecology and conservation is still dominated by attempts to understand how species are vulnerable to the altered abiotic conditions driven by climate change alone (e.g., rising temperature) (2). This threat is undoubtedly important. But we argue that other facets of climate disruption could have vastly greater impacts—in particular, the ways in which climate-altered human societies, demographics, and economies interact with natural ecosystems and species. Unfortunately, these human dimensions of climate change ecology have received scant attention. Broad-scale assessment of the scale of biodiversity responses to climate change (3) are therefore underestimating the problem—potentially on a massive scale—when only incorporating direct, abiotic impacts.

Topsoil is crucial to agriculture. The first step-creating and conserving healthy soil-is the foundation of a sustainable agriculture. It is closely linked to the next two steps-conserving water and protecting its quality, and managing organic wastes and farm chemicals so they don’t pollute. How well agriculture manages soil, water, and organic wastes will determine its future health. Conserving healthy soil by guarding it against erosion or other forces that would degrade it is the most basic step. This step has as its corollary actively building soil health, because soil used for agricultural purposes today is not as healthy as it could be. It is both less diverse and less active biologically. Without healthy topsoil, the world cannot begin to feed its billions. Although American popular culture discourse in recent years has speculated on the fate of life on earth in case of alien invasion, asteroid bombardments, or rampaging killer viruses, the slow loss of quality soil is more of a threat to life on the planet than any of these scenarios.

The diversity of plant and animal species in the world as a whole are the most essential units of Earth’s life-support systems.

One of the major reasons for defining the importance of biodiversity hotspots on earth. Biodiversity acts as the building block of all life on Earth. A myriad of diverse species creates an intricate system for biological interaction & a balanced ecosystem where life is made possible. The grand species  Without species and a balanced ecosystem, for instance, there would be no food to eat, no diversity in genes, no air to breathe, or no water to drink. It, therefore, means that without biodiversity, humans would equally be non-existent because biodiversity hotspots are vital for human survival. The map of hotspots extends extraordinarily beyond the map of the natural areas that most benefit human populations.

Civilization, and even the fate of our species, is utterly dependent on proper global ecosystem functioning. Ecosystem functioning, including primary productivity, the biogeochemical cycles, and the network of trophic mutualistic and antagonistic species interactions that compose the food chains, is the fabric of life—a fabric that is translated by humans as ecosystem services (e.g. [28,39]). The vast literature on the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship and the significance thereof in terms of services to humanity has focused its attention on the consequences of changes in the diversity of (mostly) plant species or genetic variants on four major types of ecological processes: (i) provisioning, such as crop yield, fodder yield, wood production, medicines and medicine models; (ii) regulating, such as biocontrol, pollination and nutrient cycling; (iii) support services such as primary productivity; and (iv) cultural services, such as inspiration, and education (see a classic review in [40]; also [39]). Biodiversity–ecosystem function studies focused on animals are more limited, but some reviews make such relationship evident too, including services such as crop pollination and pest control, seed dispersal, litter decomposition, carbon cycling, carrion and dung removal, soil erosion control, animal forage provisioning, and zoonosis risk regulation (see reviews in [30,41]). What all this implies, in practical terms, is that the millions of years of plant and phytoplankton cumulative photosynthesis; the tens of millions of soil organisms that transform dirt into fertile soil, decompose the bodies of dead organisms and contribute to nutrient recycling; the wild and domesticated plants, animals (both terrestrial and aquatic) and fungi that for millennia have fed and currently feed the human population (i.e. we all eat biodiversity); the communities of animals that maintain plant reproduction and genetic diversity, as well as those animals that regulate the abundance of disease hosts and vectors; the thousands of plants, fungi, other microorganisms and animals that have provided and continue to provide medicine or medicine models; the physical protection due to ecosystem ‘structures’ such as mangroves and coral reefs from extreme weather events; and the increasingly appreciated significance of the inspirational, educational and emotional benefit derived from our contact with biodiversity constitute the life-support systems for humanity (see a recent review in [18]). In a different perspective, ecosystem services have been examined in economic terms (see a major review in [42]), and several researchers have attempted to calculate the value of nature's services in a variety of ways. Among these would be the cost of infrastructure that needs to be developed to substitute for the services of, for example, protective coastal ecosystems, and the price of water treatment plants that can play the role of wetlands in filtering contaminants [43]. Similarly, one estimate is that without mangroves flood damage in tropical coastal areas would increase by more than 16% or $US82 billion annually. However, we emphasize that the fundamental value of ecosystems in the intersection culture–ecosystem functioning lies in that the value of our life-supporting systems ‘is essentially incalculable’ [18]. This short review makes it evident that humanity cannot survive in the absence of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, which, as we have discussed above, we are increasingly degrading. Furthermore, the prospect of Homo sapiens being present when the normal recovery times following a mass extinction occur is simply unrealistic. Finally, it is imperative to appreciate that all these aspects of human dependence on biodiversity—the intersection between human culture and ecosystem services—occur at the level of the populations of the myriad species and functional groups present where human populations are present. Therefore, it is crucial that we examine the impact of the human enterprise on the myriad populations of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms.

A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices.

An exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive.

Our planet has coped remarkably well so far with the blizzard of changes we have wrought, but we would be foolish to assume that it will continue to do so. A relatively small proportion of species have actually gone extinct so far, but almost all wild species now exist in numbers that are a fraction of their former abundance, subsisting in degraded and fragmented habitats and subjected to a multitude of ever-changing man-made problems. We do not understand anywhere near enough to be able to predict how much resilience is left in our depleted ecosystems, or how close we are to tipping points beyond which collapse becomes inevitable. In Paul Ehrlich’s “rivets on a plane” analogy, we may be close to the point where the wing falls off.

The United States is rejoining international efforts against climate change in a crucial year. All members of the Paris Agreement are obliged to submit updated pledges for emissions reductions prior to a global climate meeting in November. President Joe Biden wants to re-establish U.S. leadership on climate. Doing so will require the United States to make an ambitious but achievable pledge and to assist other nations in doing the same. The political landscape for enacting climate legislation in the United States is still tricky, but U.S. subnational actors have continued emissions reduction efforts during the Trump administration and will be a key part of efforts going forward. These subnational actors can share their skills and ambition with their counterparts abroad. The United States also has an opportunity to lead through its role in the global financial sector. It can encourage greener investing by requiring disclosure of climate risks and support global efforts to finance emissions reduction and climate adaptation in developing countries.

CHALLENGE

History tells us that drafting, debating, and voting on such a massive bill – not to mention producing an eventual bipartisan agreement — will take a significant amount of time and intense negotiations. There are as many as 60-80 House Republicans who are expected to oppose any farm bill, making Chairman Thompson’s job all the more challenging as he launches the renewal process in the House. The markup process is expected to be contentious, and floor consideration could be especially messy. Regardless, the law’s reauthorization will by necessity require bipartisan support. Should Congress not reauthorize the bill by the September deadline, another extension will be necessary – pushing the bill’s consideration into the lame duck session or more likely into the next Congress, where the political dynamics could shift significantly after the November elections and where high profile, high-cost fights over the debt limit and expiring tax cuts will take center stage.

Negotiations will continue. Nothing in either of these publicly available proposals is set in stone. The first formal action, barring a quick schedule change in the Senate Ag Committee, will be the House Ag Committee’s markup on May 23rd. In this markup, committee members will have the opportunity to offer amendments to the Chairman’s bill, speak for or against individual provisions, and vote on whether to advance the bill to a Floor vote. Changes can also happen through Floor amendments and during a Conference Committee between the House and Senate. All of this to say, what we’re seeing in these proposals is not necessarily what will become law.

A lot must be done in a short time. We are in an election year, and a presidential election year at that. While this will motivate some Members of Congress to show efficacy in getting a Farm Bill done, party conferences and campaigning also compress the legislative calendar. The months of May and June will be critical if we’re going to get a bill done.

Other negotiations over crop subsidies, crop insurance and conservation programs will also occur. An expansion of the safety net for farmers of row crops and dairy producers is expected in the final bill. And there’s a good chance a final farm bill could be approved by Congress before the end of the summer.

The last five-year farm bill expired last September, so Congress approved a one-year extension. That has resulted in uncertainty and has made it difficult for farmers, conservationists and bankers to conduct long-term planning.

3. Ecological degradation in food production and the need for new sustainable paradigms in agriculture From the neolithic period, different human groups have developed agriculture, devising processes for the obtention of seeds, sowing, plantation maintenance, harvest and exchange and commercialization of food. In many cases these activities have altered the dynamic balance of ecosystems, and in the Anthropocene, the agriculture is recognized as a primary driver of global change and as the main contributor to environmental risks (Foley et al., 2011). The degradation of ecosystems (their structure, dynamic and evolution) for food production can be explained in two ways: • By the appropriation processes of natural resources and environmental services, where any intervention generates negative impacts on environment; • By disposing residues to the environment. According to González de Molina and Toledo (2014) these emanations should be analyzed by both the quality as well as the quantity of the materials of the residues, meaning if they are recyclable or not by nature or if they surpass or not the natural recycling capacity. Nevertheless, when the appropriation of nature is done disregarding the productive vocation of the ecosystems, its capacity to renovate itself and its existence is threatened. This in turn generates certain changes that end up affecting society (Toledo, 2008). For example, a reduction on crops productivity or the use of agrochemicals to attenuate the loss of soil fertility. In these cases the farmer spends a great amount of time recovering the ecosystem, generating additional negative pay offs causing the producer to overexploit its labor to balance the relation. It could be considered that nature generates penalizations to wrong decisions made by the producer, accumulating in time and space, which could lead to a collapse of the material base and even the disappearance of populations, states or civilizations, requiring sustainable interventions over the ecosystems (González de Molina and Toledo, 2014). Nonetheless, processes such as the circulation, transformation and specially consumption increase the pressure over nature. According to González de Molina and Toledo (2014) in human history the volumes of materials-products that circulate as well as the distances covered before they are consumed, have increased. Going from the non-merchant and non-monetary trade, to the trade mediated by money, private property and markets. The latter results in a vast network of trades that is intimately linked to the transformations where the old relation, direct and almost immediate between appropriation and consumption gets blurred (González de Molina and Toledo, 2014). These authors argue that at a global level and at the beginning of the XXI century, consumption constitutes a powerful factor that demands incentive and even subordinates the other metabolic processes. Examples around the world could explain the important role of consumption. For example, a global increase in the levels of meat consumption, is recognized as one of the greatest threats to tropical ecosystems and biodiversity (Machovina and Feeley, 2014). Livestock production accounts for up to 75% of all agricultural lands (Foley et al., 2011), so that a rise in the consumption of meat products increases the demand for animal feed and consequently changes the land uses with the associated negative environmental impact on ecosystems and biodiversity. Also, it is known that agri-food systems in which higher calories are consumed by humans stem from animal products that have a higher total calorie throughput (Mayer et al., 2015). Likewise, another interesting example is related to commerce between northern and southern countries. After the XX century, the consumption in northern countries and the international commerce with southern countries has been a factor that has promoted the expansion of agricultural border and has contributed to intensifying the exploitation of the soil in southern countries. This represented an increase in volumes of foods and produced agricultural raw materials, as well as in increased productivity by having higher yields per hectare (Pérez, 2006); with associated environmental costs and natural heritage exhaustion. According to Pérez (2006) the increases on productivity are very important in economic terms, but these have associated environmental implications a: i) The ecological footprint caused by the intensive introduction of energetic inputs based on non-renewable resources produce energetically deficient agriculture that is of low ecological sustainable value; and, ii) absolute increments on the use of other natural resources such as water, since the dynamic on the use of the soil has a relation of correspondence in the dynamic of the use of hydric resources for agricultural activity. The strong pressure over nature by conventional agriculture, and also the permanent demand of food by the increasing human population, implies the necessity of new paradigms for an agricultural production in the frame of productive tendency of ecosystems. In relation to this Leff proposes: The environmental crisis takes us to rethink reality, to understand its tracks of complexity and the linking of the complexity of the being and of the thinking process, of reason and passion, of sensitivity and intelligibility, so that from there, open new roads of knowledge and new existential senses for the reconstruction of the world and the reappropriation of nature (Leff, 2006). In this new perspective, the modern world crisis must be considered, especially in the rural sector, as a consequence of the transgression of the biophysical limits of the planet for food production. For Toledo et al. (2009), the way to approach the crisis is through the improvement of the reduced ways in which traditional models as well as the modern ones articulate each other and with nature. Thus, bringing about the concept of sustainable development, which allows perceiving an alternate modernity that is really the adoption of a new method of appropriation of nature. In this sense, sustainable agriculture can be understood as the management and use of agroecosystems in a way that the biological diversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and functioning capacity are maintained. So that important biological, economic and social functions at a local, national and international level can be met (today and in the future) without damaging other ecosystems (Lewandowski et al., 1999). Sustainability can be reached through agricultural practices based on the adequate and profound knowledge of ecological processes in production units and their context. Therefore, agreeing with Gliessman a greater comprehension and evaluation of the current productive processes is required to focus agricultural production toward social and economic changes that promote sustainability (Gliessman, 1998).

This year Congress is expected to pass a piece of legislation that deeply affects the lives of all Americans and determines the strategic positioning of the United States in global agriculture for the next five years. The Farm Bill influences the food we eat, how we grow it, and the lives of the farmers who do so. Funding for agricultural research and development (R&D) only makes up a tiny sliver of the Farm Bill’s budget—about 0.2 percent in the 2014 bill—but it has profound consequences for U.S. agricultural competitiveness and global food security. The United States has historically been at the forefront of agricultural science and innovation, but our leadership is slipping: China has been outspending us 2 to 1 on agricultural research since 2013. Q1: What is the Farm Bill, and what does it have to do with agricultural research and development? A1: The first Farm Bill was dominated by farm support programs meant to ease the blow of the Great Depression. Since then it has evolved into an enormous omnibus bill that addresses a wide range of issues, spanning nutrition assistance, rural development, international food aid, and more. The legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and sparks strong opinions from diverse interest groups ranging from maritime unions to commodity associations. The 2014 Farm Bill authorized a projected $489 billion in mandatory federal spending between 2014 and 2018. Just four of the bill’s 12 titles—nutrition, crop insurance, conservation, and farm commodity support—make up 99 percent of its mandatory authorizations. Funded at over $390 billion, nutrition programming alone accounts for roughly 80 percent of the budget, with the bulk of this funding earmarked for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps. Source: USDA Economic Research Service, “Projected Spending Under the 2014 Farm Bill,” . In comparison, the portion of the bill that supports agricultural research and extension received $800 million over five years. Despite this small share, these funds determine priorities for agricultural science related to crop diseases and pests, farm animal health, natural resource management, food safety, nutrition, and countless other areas critical to U.S. agricultural and food systems. The Farm Bill is the primary source of federal funding for agricultural science. With these resources, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds the work of its three in-house research agencies—the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service—as well as its extramural research wing, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which funds research through land-grant universities, state agricultural experiment stations, and other institutions at the state and local levels. The 2014 Farm Bill also authorized $200 million to establish the nonprofit Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, which matches federal funding with private-sector donations to award grants for public-private collaborative research partnerships. Q2: What are the trends in U.S. public investment in agricultural R&D that impact our leadership position? A2: Despite a 40 percent return on investment, growth in U.S. public-sector funding for agricultural R&D slowed in the early 1980s, flatlined in the 1990s, and turned negative as of 2011. Inflation-adjusted public investments in agricultural R&D fell by 20 percent between 2008 and 2013. These trends are troubling on their own but even more so in light of the global context. As the United States steadily chipped away at agricultural research funding, rapidly growing economies—like China, India, and Brazil—did the opposite. As a result of these inverse patterns, the U.S. share of global public agricultural R&D investments fell by nearly half between 1960 and 2011, from 20 percent to 11 percent. Meanwhile, China ramped up spending almost eightfold between 1990 and 2013, overtaking the United States as the biggest investor in public agricultural R&D in 2008. U.S. federal funding for agricultural science has also deteriorated relative to other research areas. In 2012, the National Institutes of Health (one of the foremost federal biomedical research centers in the world) outspent USDA nearly 15 to 1 on research and development. There is no question that human health is a high priority for R&D dollars, but ensuring an adequate, healthy, and safe food supply plays a critical part in improving health outcomes. Q3: Why is public agricultural R&D important for U.S. agriculture? A3: American agriculture is competitive because it is productive. U.S. agricultural output grew by a staggering 268 percent from 1949 to 2007. Expanded agricultural production was due almost entirely to productivity growth, a metric for how efficiently inputs (land, labor, and other resources) are turned into outputs (crop and livestock yields), rather than an expansion of our agricultural footprint. R&D, paired with systems that bring discoveries from the laboratory to the field, is the principal driver of productivity growth. American farmers have benefited from a flood of breakthrough technologies and innovations—like high-yielding, drought-tolerant seeds and more efficient equipment—that have transformed farming as we know it. They have experienced first-hand how investments in public R&D can allow them to maintain their competitive edge both at home and abroad. Expanded output also suppresses consumer food prices, with particular benefits for low-income households, who typically spend a greater share of their income on food. U.S. annual agricultural productivity growth peaked at a rate of about 2 percent in the mid-1980s and has been slowing ever since. This is especially concerning in the face of global agriculture’s myriad new challenges: climate change, unfamiliar pests and diseases, and rising production costs, to name a few. Given such threats, U.S. agriculture will require “maintenance research” just to sustain current levels of productivity, let alone boost yields. With continued public-sector R&D divestment, slumping productivity growth is likely to persist. Stagnant productivity has negative implications beyond our domestic food supply. In the long term, losing ground on investments in agricultural R&D to other countries means losing our competitive edge to them, too. Failing to invest in the next generation of scientists would hamstring our scientific workforce well into the future, further diminishing our long-run leadership in global agricultural research. America’s competitive advantage is rooted in being on the cutting edge of scientific discovery. Q4: What are the global implications of U.S. agricultural R&D? A4: The United States has long been a leader in advancing the frontier of agricultural science. American scientists—often in partnership with international research institutions like CGIAR—tackle issues relevant to both domestic and global agriculture. Transformative techniques and innovations born of this research flow from the United States to the rest of the world. In poor countries that cannot afford to undertake their own agricultural research, these discoveries help farmers do more with less. When U.S. agricultural scientists partner internationally, it often produces dual wins for both domestic and global stakeholders. For example, in the last decade, USDA-funded scientists worked in collaboration with international researchers to address a virulent wheat stem rust, Ug99, which wrought havoc on wheat yields across Africa and Asia. Eighty percent of the global wheat supply was vulnerable to Ug99, including U.S. production, posing a potentially devastating threat to global food security (wheat accounts for 20 percent of calories consumed globally). But by using CGIAR breeding lines, scientists stopped the spread of the disease. By partnering with scientists internationally to address global challenges like wheat rust, the United States safeguards domestic agriculture against future threats, while simultaneously bolstering resilience and productivity around the world. Consumption growth coupled with dietary changes driven by increased incomes will boost demand for agricultural products from 60 percent to over 110 percent in the coming decades. Agricultural productivity growth is key to satisfying this rising demand, but it must be harnessed in a sustainable manner to safeguard the environment. However, productivity growth is not on course to meet forecasted demands and is especially lagging in developing countries, where population and consumption growth is concentrated. Increased investments in agricultural R&D and knowledge transfer systems will be essential to ensure food security in the developing world. The Farm Bill could help to chart a more food secure future by fostering international research collaboration that supports the strategic interests of both the United States and our partners. For example, Section 1402 of the Farm Bill, which covers agricultural research, extension, and education, could be enhanced by adding language that incentivizes international scientific collaboration through USDA. The Lugar Center agrees. The first point in its Principles for Public Investments in Agriculture Sciences, published this week, states “both domestic and international research need to work together on common goals.”

The war raging in Ukraine has exacerbated food insecurity across the world — and food aid experts are looking to the 2023 farm bill for solutions.

Ukraine’s massive grain supplies typically feed 400 million people per year, but the war has “drastically cut supplies” and driven up food costs for consumers in rich and poor countries alike, according to the World Food Program (WFP).

The recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary report written by the world’s top climate science experts sends a clear message:

We are facing an unprecedented climate crisis caused by human activities and hitting 1.5 degrees C of global warming is likely to happ

The stakes are high as Congress begins serious discussions to reauthorize the farm bill, which expires at the end of September 2023. Among other things, this legislation represents a major opportunity to enable private landowners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to take action to address the crises of climate change and nature loss.

Congress must have the back of farmers, ranchers, landowners, and communities who are stepping up to lead on conservation and climate change.

We’re in trouble: biodiversity loss and climate change are reshaping the world as we know it. We are losing species at an unprecedented rate, and climate change is causing a myriad of harmful effects that impact everything from Wall Street to Main Street. We need an all of government response to these challenges, and Congress has a key role to play.

Though reauthorization of the farm bill has been significantly delayed, Congress has a window of opportunity right now to further empower and support our nation’s hardworking farmers, ranchers, and private foresters — many of whom care deeply about wildlife conservation and are taking proactive steps to combat climate change — to conserve the invaluable habitats that support productive agriculture operations. This critical opportunity to improve the farm bill only comes about every five years and cannot be missed.

More than a decade ago, the non-profit group Public.Resource.Org sought to remedy this serious flaw in our system. Public Resource started buying standards that were incorporated by reference into law and then posting the standards online, in order to share the law with the public without charge.

Public.Resource.Org (sometimes abbreviated to PRO, seemingly reflected in the name “PRO Codes Act”) is headed by Carl Malamud; I have advised Public Resource, and helped represent the organization in court, since 2012.

The first instinct in a democracy is to give responsibility for statutory adaptations to the institution with the greatest degree of public accountability, as well as the greatest capacity for information gathering. Typically this is thought to be the legislature. However, timely adaptation of patent statutes through legislative oversight is simply impractical. Enormous political capital is typically required to muster the votes needed to enact any new legislation. Given the many demands on the attention of a national legislature, it is not realistic to believe that such political will can be mustered year-in and year-out in order to update patent statutes. Indeed, among the myriad political issues surrounding transportation, health care, taxation, diplomacy, and law enforcement, repeated patent reform is unlikely to take precedence. It is simply not realistic to expect that the majority of a legislative body will continually update itself on the latest technological and economic developments facing innovators. And even were patent statutes to command the ongoing attention of the legislature, it might be better if they did not. As the saying goes, “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe when the legislature is in session.” A vast literature on public choice theory, together with practical experience of the legislative process, warns that each new statutory enactment provides opportunities for rent-seeking by favored constituencies. Legislative proposals quickly become encrusted with special-interest provisions or are redirected to unexpected ends.

Third and most interestingly of all, even representatives of content producers are now having second thoughts about the desirability of long copyright terms. In a remarkable statement to Ars Technica last week, the Authors Guild reportedly expressed that it:

does not support extending the copyright term, especially since many of our members benefit from having access to a thriving and substantial public domain of older works. If anything, we would likely support a rollback to a term of life-plus-50 if it were politically feasible