Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Agriculture

Don’t Buy the Media Lies About Crop Production

Published

6 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Linnea Lueken

One of the mainstream media’s favorite pastimes in recent years has been trying to scare the pants off everyone by suggesting that climate change is decimating crop production around the world. They are either lying intentionally, or mistaken. However, in either case, there is some journalistic malpractice going on, as well as a notable failure of logic.

We have all seen the stories, the favorites of the media usually have to do with foods that are popular semi-luxury items, depending on where you live, like cocoa beans, coffee, and wine.

For instance, Forbes put out an article claiming that cocoa, olive oil, rice, and soybeans are all “particularly vulnerable” to the effects of “climate-induced stressors.” I will be looking at this article as a case study of sorts for the kind of bad journalism I am talking about.

I am not going to get into whether or not extreme weather is getting worse or not, or climate specific subjects in this op-ed. What I am aiming to do is debunk the climate-related alarmism surrounding food production.

That Forbes article in particular stuck out to me because I already knew from the second sentence that it was nonsense based on previous work I have done looking into production and yields for all the crops listed. First, the bait and switch: Forbes’ article title, “Climate Change’s Toll On Global Agriculture: A Looming Crisis,” and introductory paragraph contain no indication that what is about to be discussed actually is not a global problem, but a regional one, and sometimes the problem does not exist at all.

For cocoa beans, they focus on West Africa, for olive oil the Mediterranean region, for rice they chose Italy and India, and for soybeans the United States and South America. In each of those regions, the overall trend for their crop production is positive.

Globally, every single crop listed by Forbes, according to data from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, has broken all-time records for production and yields year after year. On occasion, there is a less good year, but the trendline remains positive.

Since 1990, when the worst effects of climate change supposedly began to manifest, world production of cocoa beans has increased 132 percent, setting an all-time high in 2022. Olive oil has seen a rise of 124 percent. Overall rice production has risen 49 percent since 1990, and India alone saw a 75 percent increase. Soybeans, in part subsidized by the U.S. government, are certainly not struggling in this country, and worldwide soybean production has risen 221 percent.

All of this information is easy to find for the curious; you do not need to take Forbes’ or my word for anything.

This isn’t to say, again, that certain regions don’t suffer bad seasons, but this is a natural risk of farming, and nothing crop producers haven’t seen before. The media is fearmongering in order to weaken resistance to their preferred public policy goals.

There are, according to Our World in Data, around 570 million farms throughout the world. The vast majority of those are small farms, which make it exceedingly difficult for them to adapt to any weather, regardless of whether or not extreme weather is getting worse. Every single season, for every single crop, there is some region or individual farm suffering from poor yields due to the weather.

That is a whole lot of fodder for human-interest stories for propagandist journalists to choose between when they want to push a narrative. Since we are so connected worldwide now thanks to the internet and instantaneous communications, we get to hear about a wealth of stories that we never would have heard about otherwise, and likely would not even have been covered at all in the West. This generates a sense that crop failures are happening more often, but they’re not.

This also is not to say that global crop shortages do not or cannot occur – they do, they can, due to weather or geopolitical issues.

The best way to guarantee that those positive crop production trendlines reverse would be to ban the things the propagandists want us to ban, like diesel tractors, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers. Just ask the farmer of Sri Lanka. Or ask the people who never had those things but would like to have them, like the subsistence farmers of Africa.

My advice is to dig a little deeper when the media hypes crop failures because in most cases there is more going on than our journalist gatekeepers admit.

Linnea Lueken ([email protected]) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. 

Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.

Agriculture

Farm for food not fear

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Fall harvest is in the storehouse. Now, let’s put away all proposals to cap fertilizer inputs to save the earth. Canadian farmers are ensuring food security, not fueling the droughts, fires, or storms that critics unfairly attribute to them.

The Saskatoon-based Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) did as fulsome an analysis as possible on carbon emissions in Saskatchewan, Western Canada, Canada, and international peers. Transportation, seed, fertilizer and manure, crop inputs, field activities, energy emissions, and post-harvest work were all in view.

The studies, published last year, had very reassuring results. Canadian crop production was less carbon intensive than other places, and Western Canada was a little better yet. This proved true crop by crop.

Carbon emissions per tonne of canola production were more than twice as high in France and Germany as in Canada. Australia was slightly less carbon intensive than Canada, but still trailed Western Canada.

For non-durum wheat, Canada blew Australia, France, Germany, and the U.S. away with roughly half the carbon intensity of those countries. For durum wheat, the U.S. had twice the carbon intensity of Canada, and Italy almost five times as much.

Canada was remarkably better with lentil production. Producers in Australia had 5.5 times the carbon emissions per tonne produced as Canada, while the U.S. had 8 times as much. In some parts of Canada, lentil production was a net carbon sink.

Canadian field peas have one-tenth the carbon emissions per tonne of production as is found in Germany, and one-sixth that of France or the United States.

According to GIFS, Canada succeeds by “regenerative agriculture, including minimal soil disturbance, robust crop rotation, covering the land, integrating livestock and the effective management of crop inputs.”

The implementation of zero-till farming is especially key. If the land isn’t worked up, most nutrients and gases stay in the soil–greenhouse gases included.

Western Canada has been especially keen to adopt the zero-till approach, in contrast to the United States, where only 30 percent of cropland is zero-till.

The adoption of optimal methods has already lowered Canadian carbon emissions substantially. Despite all of this, some net zero schemers aim to cut carbon emissions by fertilizer by 30 percent, just as it does in other sectors.

This target is undeserved for Canadian agriculture because the industry has already made drastic, near-maximum progress. Nitrates help crops grow, so the farmer is already vitally motivated to keep nitrates in the soil and out of the skies–alleged global warming or not. Fewer nutrients mean fewer yields and lower proteins.

The farmer’s personal and economic interests already motivate the best fertilizer use that is practically possible. Universal adoption of optimal techniques could lower emissions a bit more, but Canada is so far ahead in this game that a hard cap on fertilizer emissions could only be detrimental.

In 2021, Fertilizer Canada commissioned a study by MNP to estimate the costs of a 20 percent drop in fertilizer use to achieve a 30 percent reduction in emissions. The study suggested that by 2030, bushels of production per acre would drop significantly for canola (23.6), corn (67.9), and spring wheat (36.1). By 2030, the annual value of lost production for those crops alone would reach $10.4 billion.

If every animal and human in Canada died, leaving the country an unused wasteland, the drop in world greenhouse gas emissions would be only 1.4 percent. Any talk of reducing capping fertilizer inputs for the greater good is nonsense.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Canadian pandemic bill wants to regulate meat production, develop contract tracing

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Included in Bill C-293 are provisions to ‘regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,’ produce ‘alternative proteins,’ and ‘enable contact tracing of persons.’

A “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill introduced by a backbencher MP of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party would give sweeping powers to “prevent” as well as “prepare” for a future pandemic, including regulating Canadian agriculture.  

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is now in its second reading in the Senate. The bill would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.”

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.  

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.” 

Text from the bill also states that the government would be able to “promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk,” which includes the “production of alternative proteins, and phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species.”  

It is not clear when Bill C-293 will proceed to the third reading in the Senate. When it was in the House, it took over a year for it to go from the second to the third reading. Should an early election be called this year, or the bill not get to its third reading before the fall of October of 2025, the bill will die.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The Great Reset of Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF) has as part of its agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints. 

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption.

Bill would give the government powers to ‘enable contact tracing’  

Bill C-293 would allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.” 

The bill will also “take into account the recommendations made by the advisory committee following its review of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.” 

The federal government, and most provincial governments, during COVID, pushed and enacted contact tracing to monitor the general population. Any Canadians who traveled out of the country had to also use the government’s much maligned and scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app, which had a contact tracing feature.  

Also during COVID, the Trudeau government took a heavy-handed approach when it came to enacting laws or rules under the guise of “health.” For example, in October 2021 Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. He also announced that the unvaccinated would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally. 

This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.  

Continue Reading

Trending

X