Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Agriculture

EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Cult

Published

6 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY David ThunderDAVID THUNDER  

The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040

Many major arteries connecting Europe have been obstructed or brought to a standstill in recent days by a wave of protests by farmers against what they claim are overly burdensome environmental targets and unsustainable levels of bureaucracy associated with EU and national farming regulations.

The warning shots of this showdown between policymakers and farmers had already been fired on 1st October 2019, when more than 2,000 Dutch tractors caused traffic mayhem in the Netherlands in response to an announcement that livestock farms would have to be bought out and shut down to reduce nitrogen emissions. Early last year, Polish farmers blocked the border with the Ukraine demanding the re-imposition of tariffs on Ukrainian grain.

But it was not until early this year that an EU-wide protest was ignited. German and French protests and tractor blockades made international news, and the blockades were soon replicated in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, and Ireland. Major highways and ports were blocked and manure was poured over government buildings, as farmers across Europe expressed their frustration at rising farming costs, falling prices for their produce, and crippling environmental regulations that made their products uncompetitive in the global market.

It seems the farmers have European elites rattled, which is hardly surprising, given that EU elections are just around the corner. While the European Commission announced Tuesday it was still committed to achieving a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2040, it conspicuously omitted any mention of how the farming sector would contribute to that ambitious target. Even more tellingly, the Commission has backed down or fudged on key climate commitments, at least temporarily.

According to politico, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday that “she was withdrawing an EU effort to rein in pesticide use.” The climbdown on this and other Commission proposals relating to farming was rather embarrassing for the Commission but politically inevitable, given that the protests were spreading rapidly and farmers were showing no signs of going home until their demands were met. As reported by politico,

A note on the possibility of agriculture cutting down on methane and nitrous oxides by 30 percent, which was in earlier drafts of the Commission’s 2040 proposal, was gone by the time it came out on Tuesday. Similarly excised were missives on behavioral change — possibly including eating less meat or dairy — and cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, many of which go to farmers to assist with their diesel costs. Inserted was softer language about the necessity of farming to Europe’s food security and the positive contributions it can make.

The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040, while fudging on the fact that a 90% emission cut in 16 years would have drastic implications for farming.

It is clearly politically expedient, especially in an election year, to put out this fire of farming discontent as soon as possible, and buy some peace ahead of June’s European elections. But there is no avoiding the fact that the Commission’s long-term environmental goals, as currently conceived, almost certainly require sacrifices that farmers are simply not willing to accept.

Independently from the merits of EU climate policy, two things are clear: first, EU leaders and environmental activists appear to have vastly underestimated the backlash their policies would spark in the farming community; and second, the apparent success of this dramatic EU-wide protest sets a spectacular precedent that will not go unnoticed among farmers and transport companies, whose operating costs are heavily impacted by environmental regulations like carbon taxes.

The Commission’s embarrassing concessions are proof that high-visibility, disruptive tactics can be effective. As such, we can expect more of this after June’s EU elections if the Commission doubles down again on its climate policy goals.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • David Thunder

    David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society in Pamplona, Spain, and a recipient of the prestigious Ramón y Cajal research grant (2017-2021, extended through 2023), awarded by the Spanish government to support outstanding research activities. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting assistant professor at Bucknell and Villanova, and Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. Dr Thunder earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.

Agriculture

Canada’s air quality among the best in the world

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Canadians care about the environment and breathing clean air. In 2023, the share of Canadians concerned about the state of outdoor air quality was 7 in 10, according to survey results from Abacus Data. Yet Canada outperforms most comparable high-income countries on air quality, suggesting a gap between public perception and empirical reality. Overall, Canada ranks 8th for air quality among 31 high-income countries, according to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute.

A key determinant of air quality is the presence of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets floating in the air, known as particulates. The smallest of these particles, known as fine particulate matter, are especially hazardous, as they can penetrate deep into a person’s lungs, enter the blood stream and harm our health.

Exposure to fine particulate matter stems from both natural and human sources. Natural events such as wildfires, dust storms and volcanic eruptions can release particles into the air that can travel thousands of kilometres. Other sources of particulate pollution originate from human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels in automobiles and during industrial processes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) publish air quality guidelines related to health, which we used to measure and rank 31 high-income countries on air quality.

Using data from 2022 (the latest year of consistently available data), our study assessed air quality based on three measures related to particulate pollution: (1) average exposure, (2) share of the population at risk, and (3) estimated health impacts.

The first measure, average exposure, reflects the average level of outdoor particle pollution people are exposed to over a year. Among 31 high-income countries, Canadians had the 5th-lowest average exposure to particulate pollution.

Next, the study considered the proportion of each country’s population that experienced an annual average level of fine particle pollution greater than the WHO’s air quality guideline. Only 2 per cent of Canadians were exposed to fine particle pollution levels exceeding the WHO guideline for annual exposure, ranking 9th of 31 countries. In other words, 98 per cent of Canadians were not exposed to fine particulate pollution levels exceeding health guidelines.

Finally, the study reviewed estimates of illness and mortality associated with fine particle pollution in each country. Canada had the fifth-lowest estimated death and illness burden due to fine particle pollution.

Taken together, the results show that Canada stands out as a global leader on clean air, ranking 8th overall for air quality among high-income countries.

Air Quality infographic

Canada’s record underscores both the progress made in achieving cleaner air and the quality of life our clean air supports.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Agriculture

Health Canada indefinitely pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat after massive public backlash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Health Canada has indefinitely paused its plan to allow unlabeled cloned meat in grocery stores after thousands of Canadians, prominent figures, and industry leaders condemned the move.

Health Canada is pausing its plan to put unlabeled cloned meat in Canadian grocery stores, following public outcry.

In a November 19 update on its website, Health Canada announced an indefinite suspension of the decision to remove labels from cloned meat products after thousands of Canadians condemned the plan online.

“The Government of Canada has received significant input from both consumers and industry about the implications of this potential policy update,” the publication read. “The Department has therefore indefinitely paused the policy update to provide time for further discussions and consideration,” it continued, adding, “Until the policy is updated, foods made from cloned cattle and swine will remain subject to the novel food assessment.”

In late October, Health Canada quietly approved removing labels from foods derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) clones and their offspring. As a result, Canadians buying meat from the grocery store would have had no way of knowing if the product was cloned meat.

Many researchers have documented high rates of cloning failure, large offspring syndrome (LOS), placental abnormalities, early death, and organ defects in cloned animals. The animals are also administered heavy doses of antibiotics due to infections and immune issues.

Typically, the offspring of cloned animals, rather than the cloned animals themselves, are processed for human consumption. As a result, researchers allege that the health defects and high drug use does not affect the final product.

However, there are no comprehensive human studies on the effects of eating cloned meat, meaning that the side-effects for humans are unknown.

News of the plan spread quickly on social media, with thousands of Canadians condemning the plan and promising to switch to local meat providers.

“By authorizing the sale of meat from cloned animals without mandatory labeling or a formal public announcement, Health Canada risks repeating a familiar and costly failure in risk communication. Deeply disappointing,” food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University Sylvain Charlebois wrote on X.

Likewise, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warned, “Health Canada recently decided that meat from cloned animals and their offspring no longer needs a special review or any form of disclosure.”

“That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred,” she continued. “Other countries debate this openly: the EU has considered strict labelling, and even the U.S. has admitted that cloned-offspring meat is circulating.”

“But here in Canada, the public wasn’t even told. This is about informed choice,” Lewis declared. “If government and industry don’t have to tell us when meat comes from cloned animals, then Canadians need to ask a simple, honest question: What else are we not being told?”

Likewise, duBreton, a leading North American supplier of organic pork based out of Quebec, denounced the move, saying, “Canadians expect clarity, transparency, and meaningful consultation on issues that directly touch their food supply. As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”

According to a survey conducted by duBreton, 74 percent of Canadians believe that “cloned meat and genetic editing practices have no place in farm and food systems.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X