In a recent NY Times article, there’s a glaring narrative that agriculture, and by extension, human consumption, stands as a primary culprit in environmental degradation, particularly through climate change. This viewpoint not only oversimplifies the complex interplay between human activity and environmental impact but also veers dangerously into what could be termed an “anti-human” stance.
It's worth repeating, agriculture/food systems are responsible for:
•80% of deforestation
•29% of GHG emissions
•70% of freshwater use
•70% of terrestrial biodiversity loss
•50% of freshwater biodiversity loss
•66% of ocean negatively affected, mostly by fishing#COP15 pic.twitter.com/vmj3PXrCX3— Pádraic Fogarty (@whittledaway) December 9, 2022
The article in question, like much of the discourse on climate change, tends to focus heavily on the emissions from agriculture, particularly from livestock and rice cultivation. While it’s true that these sectors contribute to ‘greenhouse gases’, this perspective ignores the broader context. Agriculture isn’t just about emissions; it’s about life support. The narrative conveniently forgets that agricultural practices have evolved over millennia to feed a growing population, and many of these practices, when managed correctly, can be part of the solution, not just the problem. Moreover, innovations in farming, like regenerative agriculture, promise to improve soil health and provide overall environmental benefits.
A recent article by Agriculture Dive details how agriculture will be a major focus at the upcoming COP29 United Nations Climate Summit.
After years out of the spotlight, agriculture and food systems are quickly becoming a central pillar of countries’ plans to meet the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Climate action on agriculture, food and water will be the focus of high-level talks at the conference on Nov. 17, marking the second time the issue receives a dedicated day in the summit’s history. The meeting will include the release of a declaration to reduce methane from food or other types of organic waste.
When “globalists” talk about how they want to alter agriculture in order to fight “climate change,” we all need to listen, because the implications could be severe. These powerful people, often unelected, view the rest of us as being nothing more than “useless eaters.”
Yuval Harari who works for the WEF regularly refers to 'useless people/class/eaters'. He's a key advisor to Klaus Schwab.https://t.co/Dx2my9qIyj
— Lange (@djlange) February 20, 2023
Framing human dietary preferences and agricultural needs as fundamentally destructive is not just ecologically myopic but ethically troubling. It suggests an underlying misanthropy where human existence itself is seen as an environmental sin. This perspective fails to acknowledge that humans are not just consumers but also creators, innovators, and caretakers of the environment. The narrative misses the point that “sustainability” should be about how we live, not whether less people deserve to live.
Are planned food shortages ahead?
John Kerry: “Agriculture accounts for about 33% of the world's emissions. And we can't get to net zero if agriculture is not at the center of the solution.”
Control the food supply, control everything. pic.twitter.com/oIE0AlkR22
— Ben Swann (@BenSwann_) October 31, 2023
Advocating for drastic reductions in agricultural output, especially in meat and dairy, without considering the nutritional and cultural significance these foods hold worldwide, edges towards policies that could lead to widespread malnutrition or famine. The push towards alternative diets, often suggested as universally beneficial, overlooks regional dietary needs, taste preferences, and agricultural suitability. If implemented to the extreme, these policies could disrupt food systems in ways that might not only fail to meet climate targets but could also lead to societal unrest due to food scarcity.
Also, can we talk about how dystopian and downright sinister it is that there’s a TED presentation about how human beings need to be genetically altered to be intolerant of meat so as to battle ‘climate change’?
Bioethicist, S. Matthew Liao: In order to combat "climate change", humans should be genetically modified to be intolerant to meat.
"If we eat less meat, we could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions."
"Now, some people would be willing to eat less meat, but they… pic.twitter.com/ruKra171ft
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) September 19, 2024
These anti-agriculture activists often sideline the advancements in agricultural technology and management practices that reduce environmental impact. From precision farming to the use of biochar and cover crops, there’s a spectrum of solutions that could mitigate agricultural emissions without demonizing the act of farming itself. The narrative of “agriculture as villain” might serve to sell a story but does little to encourage the adoption of these technologies.
Instead of promoting solutions that increase yields, we are seeing agricultural land converted into solar farms. The last I checked, people could not afford electricity.
— No Farmers, No Food (@NoFarmsNoFoods) September 18, 2024
We need to have informed discussions about CO2, which is the big bogeyman of the climate change extremists, and how it actually increases yields and makes crops more drought-tolerant. This is why the USDA is forecasting record yields at the same time we’re being told how “climate change” is devastating agriculture.
A Convenient Truth: ‘Climate Change’ Is Awesome for Agriculture
Perhaps most concerning is the subtle anti-human message embedded in such critiques of agriculture. By implying that human dietary choices are inherently detrimental, there’s a tacit suggestion that fewer humans or less human activity would be better for the planet. This isn’t just about environmental policy; it’s about valuing human life and activity. The real challenge is finding a balance where human life thrives alongside a healthy planet, not in opposition to it.
In its attempt to highlight the environmental impact of food production, the NY Times article promotes an anti-human narrative. This perspective not only risks alienating the very people needed for environmental stewardship but also overlooks the complexity of food systems, human nutrition, and the potential for agricultural practices to evolve. Instead of vilifying agriculture, the focus should shift towards innovation, education, and efficient practices supporting human life and environmental health. The solution lies not in reducing human impact to zero but in enhancing our ability to coexist with nature more harmoniously.