In a bold move, eleven U.S. states, led by their agriculture commissioners, have called on the Trump administration and Congress to eliminate federal funding for United Nations programs promoting “net-zero” climate policies. These states—Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—argue that such policies are detrimental to American farmers and threaten global food security. Their letter, sent to key congressional leaders and the Trump administration, highlights concerns that these programs impose a radical climate agenda that undermines agricultural productivity and drives up costs for consumers. T
The States’ Case: UN Climate Programs Harm Farmers
The letter, spearheaded by state agriculture officials from Republican-leaning states, contends that UN agencies’ net-zero policies—aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero—are incompatible with the realities of modern agriculture. These policies, they argue, impose burdensome regulations and compliance costs that threaten the livelihoods of American farmers and ranchers, who are critical to feeding not only the U.S. but also the world. The officials assert that these programs violate President Donald Trump’s executive order to withdraw from UN groups that have strayed from their original missions, instead pushing what they describe as a “radical climate agenda.”
Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, a group allied with the state officials, emphasized the economic impact: “These programs that require compliance with a radical climate agenda undermine American farmers and ranchers, threaten to drive up costs for consumers, and weaken food security for working families.” The letter was addressed to influential congressional figures, including Senate and House Budget Committee Chairmen Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jody Arrington (R-Texas), as well as Senate and House Agriculture Committee Chairmen John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.). The states argue that continued U.S. taxpayer funding for these UN initiatives is unjustifiable, especially when they conflict with national interests like energy dominance and agricultural productivity.
The states’ concerns center on the practical implications of net-zero mandates, which often involve reducing methane emissions from livestock, limiting fertilizer use, and transitioning to less intensive farming practices. These measures, while framed as environmentally friendly, could drastically reduce crop yields and livestock production, increase operational costs, and disrupt supply chains. For farmers already operating on thin margins, such policies could be financially ruinous, potentially driving smaller operations out of business and consolidating control in the hands of large agribusinesses.
Critical Look at Net-Zero in Agriculture
The push for net-zero emissions in agriculture is rooted in the broader global climate agenda, which seeks to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century to combat climate change. In agriculture, this involves targeting methane from livestock digestion and manure, nitrous oxide from fertilizers, and carbon dioxide from farm machinery and land use. While the intent is to mitigate environmental impact, the application of net-zero policies to farming is fraught with practical and ethical challenges that could precipitate a global food crisis.
Reduction in Agricultural Output: Net-zero policies often advocate for reduced livestock numbers and restricted fertilizer use to curb emissions. Methane, a byproduct of ruminant digestion, is a primary target, leading to calls for smaller herds or alternative feed additives that are costly and unproven at scale. Similarly, limiting nitrogen-based fertilizers, which contribute to nitrous oxide emissions, can significantly lower crop yields. For example, studies have shown that reducing fertilizer use by 30-50%—as some net-zero proposals suggest—could decrease global cereal production by up to 20%, exacerbating hunger in vulnerable regions.
Increased Costs for Farmers and Consumers: Compliance with net-zero mandates requires investments in new technologies, such as methane capture systems or precision farming equipment, which are prohibitively expensive for many farmers. These costs are inevitably passed on to consumers, driving up food prices at a time when inflation is already straining household budgets. The states’ letter highlights this concern, noting that net-zero policies “threaten to drive up costs for consumers,” particularly for working families reliant on affordable food.
Threat to Global Food Security: Agriculture is not just a local industry; it’s a global lifeline. The U.S. is a leading exporter of grains, meat, and dairy, feeding millions worldwide. Policies that curtail American agricultural output could ripple across global markets, spiking food prices and exacerbating hunger in developing nations. For instance, the 2022 fertilizer shortages caused by supply chain disruptions and geopolitical conflicts led to a 15% increase in global food prices, pushing an estimated 100 million people into food insecurity. Imposing net-zero restrictions on top of such vulnerabilities could amplify these effects, potentially leading to famine in regions dependent on imported food.
Unrealistic Assumptions and Trade-Offs: Net-zero advocates often rely on optimistic assumptions about technological fixes, such as carbon capture or alternative proteins, without addressing their scalability or affordability. For example, transitioning to plant-based or lab-grown meats to reduce livestock emissions ignores the cultural, economic, and nutritional importance of traditional animal products. Similarly, organic or regenerative farming, while beneficial in some contexts, cannot match the productivity of conventional methods needed to feed a global population of nearly 8 billion.
The Famine Risk: A Global Catastrophe in Waiting
If net-zero policies were fully implemented in agriculture, the consequences could be dire. The world’s food system is already strained by population growth, climate variability, and geopolitical instability. Imposing restrictive measures on the most productive agricultural systems—like those in the U.S.—could tip the balance toward widespread famine. Here’s why:
Historical Precedents: Past attempts to radically alter agricultural systems have led to catastrophic outcomes. The Soviet Union’s collectivization efforts in the 1930s and China’s Great Leap Forward in the 1950s caused famines that killed millions due to misguided policies that disrupted farming practices. Net-zero mandates, by prioritizing emissions over productivity, risk repeating these mistakes on a global scale.
Dependence on High-Yield Agriculture: Modern agriculture relies on high-yield practices, including synthetic fertilizers and mechanized farming, to produce enough food for billions. Scaling back these practices without viable alternatives could lead to a collapse in food production. For example, Sri Lanka’s 2021 ban on chemical fertilizers, driven by environmental goals, resulted in a 40-50% drop in rice and tea yields, plunging the country into economic crisis and food shortages. Scaling such policies globally could be catastrophic.
Disproportionate Impact on the Poor: Famine disproportionately affects low-income populations in developing nations, where access to food is already precarious. Net-zero policies that increase food prices or reduce supply would hit these communities hardest, potentially leading to mass starvation. The World Bank estimates that a 10% rise in global food prices pushes an additional 50 million people into poverty. A net-zero-driven agricultural contraction could easily double or triple this impact.
Climate Models vs. Human Lives: The push for net-zero is based on climate models that predict long-term environmental risks but often fail to account for immediate human costs. The states’ letter implicitly challenges this prioritization, arguing that the focus should be on practical policies that support farmers and ensure food security rather than speculative goals that may not even achieve meaningful climate outcomes. For instance, agriculture contributes only about 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a fraction compared to energy and industry, yet it faces disproportionate scrutiny.
Prioritizing Food Security Over Ideological Mandates
The push by eleven U.S. states to defund UN climate programs reflects a growing backlash against net-zero policies that threaten American agriculture and global food security. By prioritizing emissions reductions over productivity, these policies risk crippling farmers with burdensome costs and impractical regulations, ultimately endangering the food supply for millions. The potential for worldwide famine is not hyperbole but a realistic outcome of dismantling high-yield agricultural systems without scalable alternatives. While environmental concerns deserve attention, the dogmatic pursuit of net-zero in agriculture ignores the immediate human cost—higher food prices, reduced output, and hunger in vulnerable regions. Congress and the Trump administration should heed these states’ warnings, redirecting resources to support farmers and ensure affordable, abundant food. Policies must balance environmental goals with the pragmatic need to feed a growing global population, lest ideological zeal lead to a humanitarian catastrophe.