This is the introduction to a series looking at how agri-technology can be used to help sequester greenhouse gas emissions. Activists fighting to ban technology and modern farming practices will be responsible (again) for increased emissions and environmental destruction.
There has been an increase of rage and irresponsibility in the latest wave of European agri-bashing. Farmers are being attacked on their tractors for protecting their crops; climate death-cults are blaming farming for the coming extinction of humanity; activist journalists are manipulating the alarmist fear to demand an end to all agriculture; vocal veganistas in many European countries are lobbying hard for a “meat tax”; and farmers have been denigrated as “industry actors” and “Monsanto stooges” by an organic food industry lobby that follows no ethical codes of conduct.
These small vocal activists influencing the dominant western narratives are literally biting the hands that feed them … ignorance-laden and choking on hubris.
In a time when this orchestrated fear of climate catastrophe seems to be controlling every waking thought, activist groups are using these heady days of disquiet to rapidly push forward every agenda and special interest before policymakers wake up and realise the potential damage they will be doing to the environment. One such idea is to rewild agricultural land and abandon most modern farming practices … or as some social justice warriors like to call it: “agroecology” .
Put it Back in the Ground
Agriculture is the only sector that has the capacity to go carbon negative (ie, put more greenhouse gases back into the earth than are emitted). Now the simple solution would be to stop farming and grow trees for firewood (and many simpletons would be happy with that). But if we want to feed a growing (and growingly affluent) population, we need to go carbon negative while ensuring food security (we should not expect to have to offshore food production to some Chinese factory). This involves then embracing agricultural technologies.
For the activists who want to rewild farmland, embracing technology is not in their song-book. Like the simpletons who demand that we stop all fossil fuels and, at the same time, shut down nuclear reactors (thus ensuring a bright future for coal power), those who want to drastically reduce agriculture while rejecting all modern ag-tech are creating a world of compromise, want and further destruction. These self-proclaimed defenders of the people, these warriors against industry, greed and capitalism have, as their only solution, that we need to accept more expensive and intermittent energy supplies and more expensive, less reliable food supplies. The public will need to sacrifice and go without food choices in order for this zealot dogma to remain pure. And in a consultative process, policymakers are forced to engage with these single-minded imbeciles.
So how can agri-technology keep us from compromised lifestyles, hunger and food disparity while demitting carbon (ie, going carbon negative)? There are many already existing technologies that can contribute to more sustainable agriculture, improve yields and sequester carbon. It should, however, come as no surprise that environmental activists are working full out to try to ban these technologies. They are, regrettably, succeeding. But what if the narrative shifts and the public wake up and realise that embracing technology to fight climate change is more important than spreading doubt, fear and uncertainty about the food chain for the sole pleasure of seeking donations?
During 2020, the Risk-Monger will be publishing a series of articles looking at the agriculture technologies that have the capacity to “save the planet” while feeding a growing population. The Carbon Farming series will look at conservation agriculture tools like no-till or reduced tillage farming. Research done several years ago on complex cover crops will be re-released within the context of going carbon negative. Climate-friendly innovations in plant breeding technologies will be considered. Finally this series will look at an alternative to the forced binarialisation of agriculture into a marketing-driven choice between organic and conventional farming practices.
But these ideas aren’t worth the algorithms they’re printed on if the zealots continue to impede progress and research in favour of their twisted Malthusian mindset. So it involves a compromise – a détente among “warring parties”. So here it is: The Risk-Monger Pact.
The Risk-Monger Pact
The Risk-Monger declares that he will ignore the alarmists’ ridiculous end-of-days Nostradamnations about climate and ecosystem collapse and the imminent extinction of humanity and let them continue to feed on the vulnerable, use children and build their “House of Fear” unperturbed (since no journalist would dare spoil the party with facts in any case). He will look the other way as they continue to create energy impoverishment among European middle classes. He will not complain as cowardly policymakers waste taxpayer money without scrutiny on ideas and projects destined for the dumpster before completion.
And in return, the activist community will cease its moronic assault on technology and accept that the solution to our situation is not found in impoverishment, want and sacrifice, but in human ingenuity, innovation and technological development. Rather than attacking new technologies, the climate alarmists will encourage open debate and the cross-fertilisation of ideas on ag-tech solutions (bringing their interests to the table rather than chopping the table up as kindling for their bonfire of intolerance). No ideas or approaches will be excluded prima facie (eg, stop the “natural-only” nonsense). Their loud, lunatic fringe (the naturopaths, anti-vaxxers and vegans) will not be amplified and wherever possible, will be confronted on their irrationality and ignorance.
I think this is reasonable.
5 Comments Add yours
I really wish David would write without the snark and pejoratives. The analysis is good, and often (as in his glyphogate series) the best out there. I teach Agricultural Policy and Ethics, and some of these writings would be great reading for my students if not for the tone and hubris.
Point taken … with my apologies. Snark is my coping mechanism.
It is correct to point out that there is nothing alarming about CO2, as the enviro-stalinists like to profess (see, I also appreciate snark and pejoratives!).
So what’s the point of a discussion of the agroeconomy going carbon neutral (God forbid, negative!) given the beneficial aspects of CO2 to plants both in terms of warming (if one accepts the circular logic of the model-based AGW conjecture) and the observed global fertilization of Earth since a few decades?
It’s like shooting oneself in the foot IMHO.