Environmentalist Tom Steyer owns a green ‘regenerative agriculture’ ranch that doesn’t work

hotair.com ^ | 10/11/2019 | John Sexton

[rktman]

Billionaire Tom Steyer and his wife Kathryn Taylor own an 1,800-acre ranch in California called TomKat Ranch. Like everything Steyer spends his money on, the ranch is intended to change the world. In this case he wants to demonstrate that “regenerative agriculture” can be just as profitable as the factory farming that Steyer believes is destroying the planet. But according to Politico Magazine, Steyer’s experimental ranch isn’t producing all of the desired results thus far:

[rktman]

How cute. Tom and Kat='tomkat ranch. NOT producing the desired results thus far. Yet , tommy boy keeps saying he's the only one that can take Trump on and get the job done. Take a hike ecowanker.

[goldstategop]

Its running at a loss. It seems no one wants billionaire Steyer for President.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Marijuana?

[goldstategop]

Something about the saying throwing good money after a bad idea will help you recoup the investment.

For a rich guy like Steyer, its a minor hiccup on his bottom line.

[Texas Eagle]

Pollutico wrote that? Wow. When you’ve lost Pollutico.....ehhhh, I’m not sure what you’ve lost.

[Ken H]

Simple solution - grow Belgian endives.

[Texas Eagle]

Steyer’s experimental ranch isn’t producing all of the desired results thus far:

Unless the desired result is a tax write-off for the money the enterprise is losing.

[goldstategop]

Grow arugula and sell it to five star restaurants.

[IronJack]

I'm not sure what a "regenerative" ranch is. All agriculture is based on producing a crop every year, which, by definition, is regenerative.

But most farmers I know aren't virtue-signalling elitists, so they just call their property "farms."

[polymuser]

But... it sounded good. It should have been good. My friends said it would be good. Why isn’t it good?

[Ken H]

“I’m not sure what a “regenerative” ranch is. “

>>>>>>>>>>>

A typo. The “r” key is close the “d”.

[Billthedrill]

Steyer is simply another in a long line of political enthusiasts who think that a head full of theory may be substituted for experience with respect to farming. This sort of individual - Robert Mugabe comes to mind - is associated with some of the worst famines in modern times.

[goldstategop]

A carbon neutral emissions ranch.

[Chickensoup]

We are moving back towards a system that mimics the landed gentry of the 17 and 1800s.

Not a good time for the middle class.

[Brilliant]

Who would have thought you can’t grow plants without water?

[G Larry]

A profitable business would first determine whether carbon dioxide was a problem.

Upon finding no evidence to support the theory, the enterprise would address the most pressing PROVEN problem.

[rktman]

Hmmmm. Carbon neutral? Does that mean the plants are disallowed from receiving ‘See uh O 2’? No wonder it not quite working.

[PIF]

this seems to be a plan to store carbon in the ground while growing edible plants and slow growing very expensive beef cattle. It seems to assume that as long as the plants have “air” they will grow well in an atmosphere with less co2. How embarrassing is this idiot?

[bert]

In east Tennessee there are hundreds of gentlemen farmers profitably raising cattle that graze on grass in the summer and are fed hay in the winter.

As a matter of fact, there is generally a large hay surplus. Hay is not exported because of shipping costs but there have been instances when it was given to cattle farmers elsewhere when their hay was destroyed in a disaster

The problem with regeneration must be California.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Well it’s the intention that’s important. No one cares about good results.