I still can't find that amber list, but I did find out if we keep paying farmers to set aside their land and not farm it in the name of conservation, it is a 'green box' item, one that is protected by the WTO collecitivists? WTO generated, US taxpayer subsidized subsidy, that is.
Please post the amber list, I know we all would like to see what's on it.
My understanding is that amber box subsidies are any subsidies that affect the price or production of an item, and the U.S. proposal is to cut ours by 60% if the EU cuts theirs by 83% (the reasoning being that their subsidies are higher than ours to begin with). I have never heard of the U.S. government paying farmers to keep their fields fallow in the name of environmental conservation (can you imagine someone argue that it is somehow conservative?--hint), and I'm not about to go searching the 'net for that sort of information unless you pay me. Here's a suggestion: why not make your point anyway?
My opinion is that a subsidy in the name of the environment is still a subsidy (the operative fact being that checks are being cut), whereas banning production (say, to save the snail darter) is not, because no money changes hands.