Connect with us

Agriculture

Who Is Directing The War On Agriculture And Nutrition?

Published

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Paul Driessen

Government agencies, billionaires and pressure groups put world’s poor, hungry families last

Elite billionaire organizations and foundations, government agencies and activist pressure groups are funding and coordinating a global war on modern agriculture, nutrition, and Earth’s poorest, hungriest people. Instead of helping more families get nutritious food, better healthcare and higher living standards, they’re doing the opposite, and harming biodiversity in the process.

The World Economic Forum wants to reimagine, reinvent and transform the global food system, to eliminate greenhouse gases from food production. Central to its plan is alternatives to animal protein: meal worm potato chips, bug burgers instead of beef patties, and meat loaves and sausages made from lake flies, for instance. Fixing the WEF’s toxic workplace is apparently a low priority.

A UN Food and Agriculture Organization report advises that turning “edible insects” into “tasty” food products can create thriving local businesses and even promote “inclusion of women.”

Created to alleviate global poverty, the World Bank has decided the “manmade climate crisis” is a far greater threat to impoverished families than contaminated water, malaria and other killer diseases, hunger, or even two billion people still burning wood and dung because they don’t have reliable, affordable electricity. It has unilaterally decreed that 45% of its funds – an extra $9 billion in FY2024 – will be shifted to helping the poor “better withstand the devastation of climate change.”

Of course, most of the better and lesser-known environmental pressure groups are also deeply involved in food, agriculture and energy policy campaigns: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, La Via Campesina (The Peasant Way), Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and countless others.

Like the rest of the “agro-ecology” movement, they deride and malign modern agriculture as a scourge inflicted by greedy mega-corporations. They oppose fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides and biotechnology. They extol “food sovereignty” and the “right to choose.” But their policies reflect top-down tyranny and bullying, with little room for poor farmers to embrace modern agricultural technologies and practices.

In addition to WEF, FAO and World Bank support, these hard-green organizations have the ideological, organizational and financial backing of the US Agency for International Development, EU agencies, and a host of progressive and far-left American, European and other foundations.

The US-based AgroEcology Fund was created by the Christensen Fund, New Fields Foundation and Swift Foundation. Its funding and programs are overseen by the New Venture Fund, which helps “charitable” and “educational” organizations direct funds to programs that align with what many characterize as neo-colonialist and eco-imperialist goals.

Other major players include the Schmidt Family Foundation, Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and Ben and Jerry Foundation.

This is serious money – hundreds of millions of dollars per year in food, agriculture and climate change funding. It completely overshadows the piddling $9,000 that Kenyan farmer Jusper Machogu raised via donations to his “climate realism” website – much of it given to neighbors, so they could drill water wells, buy tanks of propane or get connected to the local grid.

And yet Mr. Machogu incurred the wrath of the BBC’s “Climate Disinformation Officer.” (Yes, the Beeb actually has such a position.) The CDO attacked him for “tweeting false and misleading claims” about climate change and saying Africa should develop its oil, gas and coal reserves – instead of relying entirely on intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar. Even worse, the farmer had the temerity to accept donations from non-Africans, including “individuals with links to the fossil fuel industry and groups known for promoting climate change denial.”

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors is another major donor to agro-ecology outfits. It’s part of the legacy of guilt-ridden oil money from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Co. corporate trust – an inheritance that includes nearly 1,000 climate-related institutions, foundations and activist organizations.

As Canada’s Frontier Centre put it,

“Every time you hear a ‘climate change’ scare story, [the person writing it] was PAID. He is a Rockefeller stooge. He may not know it, but his profession has been entirely corrupted.” Far worse, I would add, the writer and his (or her) organization are complicit in perpetuating global poverty, energy deprivation, hunger, disease and death – because the fear mongering drives destructive energy and food production policies.

Alone or collectively, these policy corrupters must not be underestimated in this war to preserve and expand modern energy, agriculture and global nutrition. Thankfully, there is increasing pushback. Many families simply do not want to be trapped in poverty, disease, mud-and-thatch huts, an absence of educational opportunities for their children, and a future of backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk labor in little subsistence-farming fields.

That’s especially so when films, news stories and cell phones present American and European farming equipment and practices – and the crop yields, wealth, health, homes, leisure time and opportunities that accompany those modern agricultural systems.

Poor farmers also see China, India, Indonesia and other countries rapidly industrializing and modernizing by using oil, gas and coal. They see rumblings of change in many countries that are intent on charting their own courses, with fossil fuels as the energy foundation for that growth. They’re rejecting the eco colonialism and eco-imperialism that wealthy Westerners seek to impose on them.

They are getting the message that humanity has faced climate fluctuations and extreme weather events throughout history … and survived them, dealt with them, adapted to them, prospered. That there is no real-world evidence that man made greenhouse gas emissions – especially the trivial amounts generated by agriculture – have replaced the powerful natural forces that caused past climate changes.

They increasingly realize that organic and subsistence farming requires vastly more land – which would otherwise be wildlife habitats – than modern mechanized farming, to get the same yields. Plowing those habitats would decimate plant and animal diversity.

That locking up fossil fuels, and relying instead on biofuels and plant-based feed stocks for thousands of essential products, would require even more acreage. So would mining for massive amounts of metals and minerals to manufacture wind, solar and battery technologies.

Most importantly, they understand that humanity today has far greater wealth, far more knowledge, far better technologies and resources than any past generations.

To suggest that we cannot adapt to climate changes, or survive and recover from extreme weather events, is simply absurd. To suggest that farmers should revert to … or remain stuck in … ancient farming practices and technologies – to save the world from computer-generated manmade climate disasters – is eco-imperialism at its most lethal.

South Africa’s electricity minister recently said his country will not be “turned into a guinea pig for a worldwide Green New Deal.” Hopefully, all developing countries will soon apply that same attitude to anarchists who would use the world’s poor as guinea pigs in global agricultural and nutrition experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Restoring balance between renewable energy, agricultural land and Alberta’s iconic viewscapes

Published on

Alberta is known around the world for many things – some of the most breathtaking and iconic scenery on earth, a world-class agricultural industry that puts high-quality food on tables across the globe and a rich history of responsible energy development. Alberta is a destination of choice for millions of visitors, newcomers and investors each year.

To ensure Alberta’s continued prosperity, it is imperative that future energy development is balanced with environmental stewardship, protecting Albertans’ ability to use and enjoy their property, and safeguarding agriculture for continued food security.

Alberta’s renewable energy sector has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet the rules to ensure responsible development have not kept up. As a result, municipalities, agricultural producers and landowners across the province raised concerns. Alberta’s government is fulfilling its duty to put Albertans first and restore the balance needed for long-term success by setting a clear path forward for responsible renewable energy development.

“We are doing the hard work necessary to ensure future generations can continue to enjoy the same Alberta that we know and love. By conserving our environment, agricultural lands and beautiful viewscapes, our government is protecting and balancing Alberta’s long-term economic prosperity. Our government will not apologize for putting Albertans ahead of corporate interests.”

Nathan Neudorf, Minister of Affordability and Utilities

Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation provide clarity for renewable energy developers on new and existing environmental protections.

These changes will create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. Albertans expect renewable power generation projects to be responsibly decommissioned and reclaimed for future generations. Alberta’s government stands firm in its commitment to protect landowners and taxpayers from being burdened with reclamation costs.

“We want to protect landowners, municipalities and taxpayers from unfairly having to cover the costs of renewable energy reclamations in the future. These changes will help make sure that all renewable energy projects provide reasonable security up front and that land will be reclaimed for future generations.”

Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Alberta’s government committed to an ‘agriculture first’ approach for future development, safeguarding the province’s native grasslands, irrigable and productive lands. The protection of agricultural land is not only essential to food production, but to environmental stewardship and local wildlife protection.

The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation follows this ‘agriculture first’ approach and enhances protections for municipalities’ most productive lands, establishing the need to consider potential irrigability and whether projects can co-exist with agricultural operations. These changes are critical to minimizing the impacts of energy development on agricultural lands, protecting local ecosystems and global food security. With these new rules, Alberta’s farmers and ranchers can continue to produce the high-quality products that they are renowned for.

“Our province accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Canada’s cattle, produces the most potatoes in the country, and is the sugar beet capital of Canada. None of this would be possible without the valuable, productive farmland that these new rules protect. Understanding the need for an ‘agriculture first’ approach for energy development is as simple as no farms, no food.”

RJ Sigurdson, Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation

The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation also establishes specific guidelines to prevent projects from impacting pristine viewscapes. By establishing buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones, Alberta’s government is ensuring that industrial power projects the size of the Calgary Tower cannot be built in front of UNESCO World Heritage sites and other specified viewscapes, which will support the continued growth and success of Alberta’s tourism sector.

As Alberta’s population and economy grows, it is critical that the province has the additional power generation needed to meet increasing demand. Power generation must be developed in a balanced and responsible manner that promotes environmental stewardship, ensures the continued enjoyment of Alberta’s beautiful landscapes, and safeguards food security by protecting Alberta’s valuable agricultural lands. By encouraging the responsible development of additional power generation with these new regulations, Alberta’s government is listening to Albertans and ensuring the electricity grid is affordable, reliable and sustainable for generations to come.

Summary of Policy Changes

Following the policy direction established on February 28, 2024, Alberta’s government is now implementing the following policy and regulatory changes for renewable power development:

Agricultural lands

The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation takes an “agriculture first” approach.
• Renewable energy developments will no longer be permitted on Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) Class 1 and 2 lands unless the proponent can demonstrate the ability for both crops and/or livestock to coexist with the renewable generation project,

• In municipalities without Class 1 or 2 lands, Class 3 lands will be treated as Class 1 and 2.

• An irrigability assessment must be conducted by proponents and considered by the AUC.

Reclamation security

Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. There will be a mandatory security requirement for projects located on private lands.

• Developers will be responsible for reclamation costs via a mandatory security or bond.

• The reclamation security will either be provided directly to the province or may be negotiated with landowners if sufficient evidence is provided to the AUC.

Viewscapes

The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation ensures pristine viewscapes are conserved through the establishment of buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones as designated by the province.

• New wind projects will no longer be permitted within specified buffer zones.

o Other proposed electricity developments located within the buffer zones will be required to submit a
visual impact assessment before approval.

• All proposed electricity developments located within visual impact assessment zones will be required to submit a visual impact assessment before approval.

Municipalities

The AUC is implementing rule changes to:

• Automatically grant municipalities the right to participate in AUC hearings.

• Enable municipalities to be eligible to request cost recovery for participation and review.

• Allow municipalities to review rules related to municipal submission requirements while clarifying consultation requirements.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Saskatchewan potash vital for world food

Published on

From Resource Works

Fertilizer Canada says the fertilizer industry contributes $23 billion a year to Canada’s economy and provides over 76,000 jobs.

A small potash extraction company in Manitoba calls Saskatchewan “the Niagara Falls of potash in Canada.”

The current 10 mines in Saskatchewan produced around 13 million tonnes in 2023, accounting for some 33% of global potash production, and exported 95% of it to more than 75 countries.

Potash mine No. 11 in Saskatchewan is working toward production in late 2026. That’s the $14-billion Jansen mine, owned by BHP, located 140 kilometres east of Saskatoon. It aims to produce around 8.5 million tonnes a year to start, and as much as 16–17 million tonnes a year in future stages.

With potash used primarily in agricultural fertilizers, Saskatchewan’s output is a key ingredient in global food security. Fertilizer is responsible for half of the world’s current food production.

As Real Agriculture points out: “Fertilizer production is not only an economic driver in Canada, but it is also a critical resource for customers around the world, especially in the United States.”

This is particularly important as Russia’s war on Ukraine has raised doubts about reliable supplies of potash from Russia, the world’s No. 2 producer, which produced 6.5 million tonnes in 2023.

In fertilizers, the potassium from potash increases plant growth and crop yields, strengthens roots, improves plants’ water efficiency, and increases pest and disease resistance. It improves the colour, texture, and taste of food. Natural Resources Canada adds: “Potassium is an essential element of the human diet, required for the growth and maintenance of tissues, muscles and organs, as well as the electrical activity of the heart.”

Canada’s federal government has included potash as one of 34 minerals and metals on its list of critical minerals.

Fertilizer Canada says the fertilizer industry contributes $23 billion a year to Canada’s economy and provides over 76,000 jobs.

The potash operations in Saskatchewan are in the Prairie Evaporite Deposit, the world’s largest known potash deposit, formed some 400 million years ago as an ancient inland sea evaporated. The deposits extend from central to south-central Saskatchewan into Manitoba and northern North Dakota. These deposits form the world’s largest potash reserves, at 1.1 billion tonnes.

Manitoba’s first potash mine is close to bringing its product to market. The PADCOM mine is 16 kilometres west of Russell, Manitoba, near the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border. The Gambler First Nation has acquired a one-fifth stake in the project.

PADCOM injects a heated mixture of water and salt underground to dissolve the potash, which is then pumped to the surface and crystallized. CEO Brian Clifford says this process is friendlier to the environment than the conventional method of mining underground and extracting ore from rock deposits.

Saskatchewan’s northern potash deposits are about 1,000 metres below the surface and are extracted using conventional mining techniques. To the south, deposits are anywhere from 1,500 to 2,400 metres deep and are mined using solution techniques.

PADCOM aims to produce 100,000 tonnes of potash per year, eventually growing to 250,000 tonnes per year. However, PADCOM president Daymon Guillas notes that across the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border, the Nutrien potash mine near Rocanville, Saskatchewan, produces five to seven million tonnes per year.

“In 36 hours, they produce more than we do in a year. Saskatchewan is the Niagara Falls of potash in Canada. Our little project is a drip, just a small drip out of the faucet.”

(New Brunswick once had a small potash mine, but it closed in 2016.)

Real Agriculture says: “Canadian-produced potash remains vital to the U.S.’s ability to produce enough corn for feed, ethanol production, and export requirements, at a time when the U.S. heightens its focus on reducing exposure to international integrated supply chains in favour of U.S. domestic supply chains.”

Writer Shaun Haney continues: “For the U.S. corn farmer, Canadian-produced potash is critical for achieving the top yields. According to StoneX, over the past three years, Canada accounts for roughly 87 per cent of potash imports by the U.S., while Russia sits at 9.5%.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X