Month: September 2023

Right, EpochTV, Global Climate Policies Are Targeting Food Production

By Linnea Lueken

EpochTV host Roman Balmakov’s documentary, “No Farmers No Food,” shows that climate policies are being used to push farmers out of business, cause a decline in animal husbandry, and promote the human consumption of insect protein. Balmakov accurately describes how climate activists are collaborating with governments around the world to shut down farms by imposing burdensome regulations and top-down decrees on farmers, allegedly to prevent a purported climate crisis.

Balmakov explains in the film that the United Nations leads these efforts.

“People in charge of some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have determined that agriculture, specifically animal agriculture, is to blame for global warming, and global warming is to blame for the high prices of food and food shortages,” says Balmakov.

The film cites a variety of specific policies imposed by governments around the world that are driving farmers out of business, such as water regulations in California, nitrogen policies in the Netherlands, and organic farming mandates in Sri Lanka. These policies are also leading to food shortages and higher food prices. Climate Realism has likewise previously reported on the dangerous results of these perverse policies, in “Yes, Breitbart, The Netherlands Anti-Agriculture Scheme Is a Disturbing Development,” covering the voluntary-or-else government buyouts of small to midsized farms in the Netherlands, as well as a scheme in Britain to “rewild” farmland. Climate Realism also discussed how the Sri Lankan government’s push to take its agriculture industry all organic resulted a rapid and steep reduction in output, and an equally rapid and steep increase in food prices.

Data show that amid modest warming, world crop production and yields are increasing, regularly setting new records, as has been discussed in dozens of articles on Climate Realism. For most places food security has improved, and hunger and malnutrition have fallen significantly during the recent period of climate change.

Take for example world production of staple food crops like rice, corn, and wheat. All of these crops, according to data from the United Nations’ own Food and Agriculture Organization, have seen steady production increases over the same time period that alarmists have been warning of a dangerous warming. (See Figure below)

Research shows that carbon dioxide is contributing to this increase in crop production because of the fertilization effect of higher CO2 levels. Additionally, the modest warming of the past decades has likely contributed to a slight increase in precipitation in the northern hemisphere and the “bread basket” regions, which means that less groundwater is needed for irrigation.

Eating bugs is certainly not going to help anything. As Climate Realism pointed out, here, for example, insects are not bulletproof earth-friendly health foods, in fact they can cause serious allergic reactions and other health complications. Also, replacing cattle with insects is unlikely to improve emissions, because factory-scale insect farming for human consumption is energy intensive, especially in the quantities needed if proponents intend to totally replace other animal proteins.

As The Epoch Times explains, Balmakov’s “documentary shines the spotlight on how some innocuous-sounding policies are harmful to the food supply.” The facts indicate that climate change does not threaten the global food supply. Rather, as Balmakov’s documentary shows, it is governments and international agencies retrograde farm policies which threaten the continued growth in food production, by eschewing modern agricultural technological innovations which have brought about the largest, fastest decline in hunger around the world in history, during the past century. Banning fertilizers and pesticides, limiting the amount of water that can be used for farming and ranching, restricting fossil fuel development and use, and threatening livestock ranchers over the amount of methane produced by their animals, can only result in reduced food production and increased hunger.

Congratulations are in order for EpochTV and Balmakov for producing and promoting this important documentary. The impact of green policies on the food supply is one of the most dangerous emerging global issues. Shockingly, as Balmakov exposes, these policies are largely driven by climate alarmists in governments and supported by the climate alarmists in the mainstream media.

Linnea Lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/hBJ0uHX

September 28, 2023 at 08:08AM

Quote of the GOP Debate from Doug Burgum

This was the highlight of tonight’s (terribly moderated) Republican debate. The quote is from North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum. Fortunately, it was about climate. I think you’ll agree.

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/QkAd4Ze

September 28, 2023 at 07:25AM

October 14 Eclipse

I plan to travel to New Mexico and film the October 14 annular eclipse. Should be quite a show if it isn’t cloudy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/0L2TljG

September 28, 2023 at 06:26AM

Ben Marlow In Cloud Cuckoo Land Again

By Paul Homewood

 

How this guy still has a job at the Telegraph is a mystery to me:

 

image

The Rosebank oilfield is located around 80 miles north-west of the Shetland Islands, 3,600 feet below the surface of the North Sea.

It is into this black abyss that any semblance of a coherent plan to power Britain has slipped after its owners were granted permission to drill for new oil and gas.

The timing of the announcement alone was comically bad. Just 24 hours after the International Energy Agency warned that any new oil and gas infrastructure was incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreements of limiting global warming to 1.5C – an accord of which the UK is a signatory – the North Sea Transition Authority gave the green light to a development that is expected to produce as much as 500m barrels of oil over its lifetime.

A cross-party group of MPs and peers estimate that is equivalent to 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide – “more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world.”

The truth of Rosebank is that it does none of the things that ministers and its cheerleaders claim. Instead, it underlines how desperately muddled our energy policy has become. It is the price we must pay for decades of failure to invest in, and plan for, an energy system capable of replacing one dominated by fossil fuels.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/28/rosebank-price-energy-failures-oilfield-north-sea/

It’s the same load of old tripe we are used to getting from Marlow.

The fact that his main argument against it is the Paris Agreement says it all! Does he not realise that the Paris Agreement actually formalised rapid increases in emissions? Does he not realise that it gave carte blanche to China, India and the rest of the developing world to carry on using as much fossil fuels as they want? Whatever your beliefs about global warming, nobody should pretend that it should be an economic blueprint for the UK, more a straitjacket.

Marlow clearly has not realised that we will still be using huge amounts of oil and gas for many years to come. It’s not me saying that, even the CCC accept this. So why should it make more sense to ship the stuff half way round the world, when we could supply some of it ourselves.

His main complaint seems to be that the amounts involved at Rosebank are small fry, in terms of our overall energy consumption. But so what? The same argument could be made about every economic policy decision.

He goes on to moan about the failure of the offshore wind auction this month. Evidently he is happy for the public to pay even greater subsidies for their electricity. As ever, he offers no solutions to the problems of intermittency.

His final moan is about our failure to build more nuclear, especially since he says there is a risk that Hinkley Point might not be ready till 2036. Maybe he should have been arguing for this 20 years ago, when his favourite Miliband and the rest of the Labour Party banned new nuclear, whilst setting the destruction of our energy security into motion.

The delays show just how short sighted it would have been to put all of our eggs in the nuclear/wind basket, as Marlow suggests.

Is it not time for the Telegraph to employ somebody who actually understands the energy sector, and send Ben Marlow packing to the Guardian, where he should feel more at home (judging by the avalanche of critical comments he gets every time he writes this nonsense!)

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/VBnQxk1

September 28, 2023 at 05:33AM