When global elites and bureaucrats decide they must “fix” the world, the results often speak for themselves. Take the latest technocratic debacle: Bovaer, a feed additive designed to reduce methane emissions from cows, marketed as a “climate-friendly” solution. It’s now being shelved by Norwegian dairy producer Q-Meieriene after consumers flatly rejected its so-called “climate milk.”

This is more than a simple story of market rejection. It’s a cautionary tale of what happens when governments, corporations, and globalists push policies and products that tamper with the food supply to address a problem that may not even exist.

The Quest to Solve a “Crisis”

Bovaer, developed by DSM-Firmenich, has been touted as a game-changer in the fight against methane emissions—a major target of climate policies. The additive is said to suppress a key enzyme in the cow’s digestive process, reducing methane emissions by up to 30%. Regulatory bodies in over 68 countries, including the EU, Australia, and the U.S., have approved its use.

But let’s step back for a moment. Why are we targeting cow burps and farts in the first place? Methane is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it’s also a short-lived one that breaks down in the atmosphere within about a decade. Moreover, cows and bison have been emitting methane for millennia without triggering apocalyptic climate shifts. Yet suddenly, livestock emissions are treated as a planetary emergency demanding immediate action.

This myopic focus on cow methane is a prime example of how climate zealotry warps priorities. Rather than addressing real and immediate issues—like the energy crises their own policies create—governments and globalists have decided to micromanage how your milk is produced, all to reduce emissions by an imperceptible fraction of a percentage point.

Consumer Rebellion

The backlash against Bovaer has been swift and fierce. In Norway, Q-Meieriene began using the additive in 2023, branding the resulting product as “climate milk.” The response? Consumers overwhelmingly rejected it, leaving supermarket shelves stocked with unsold cartons while Bovaer-free milk flew off the shelves.

Facing dismal sales, Q-Meieriene recently announced it would discontinue the use of Bovaer, stating:

“Demand for Q climate milk has not been high enough to continue production…we phased out the use of methane suppressants in cow feed and are putting this project on pause.”

https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/ville-redde-klimaet-med-prompe-fri-kumelk-snur/s/5-95-2166980

This is not merely a marketing failure. It reflects a broader consumer revolt against the technocratic imposition of “solutions” no one asked for. People are increasingly skeptical of being told that their daily choices—what they eat, how they travel, how they heat their homes—must be sacrificed on the altar of climate orthodoxy.

What Are They Hiding?

One of the most glaring issues with the Bovaer debacle is the lack of transparency. Supporters insist the additive is safe, with regulatory agencies claiming that Bovaer is metabolized in the cow’s stomach and doesn’t transfer into the milk or meat. But these assurances don’t address broader concerns.

What are the long-term effects of tampering with the natural digestive processes of livestock? Why is there such a rush to roll out untested solutions before these questions are answered?

This isn’t just about methane or milk. It’s part of a larger pattern of globalist overreach, where unproven technologies are foisted upon the public in the name of saving the planet. The uncertainties and potential unintended consequences are ignored, while dissenters are dismissed as ignorant or conspiratorial.

The Cost of Technocratic Zeal

The Bovaer case reveals the fundamental arrogance of climate policymakers. They presume to know what’s best for everyone, overriding centuries of agricultural tradition and the preferences of ordinary people in favor of top-down diktats.

But their schemes often fail to account for basic realities. Milk production, like most aspects of life, is a complex system with countless interdependencies. Intervening in such systems with narrow, technocratic fixes can easily do more harm than good.

Even if Bovaer’s methane-reducing claims are accurate (and that’s still up for debate), its actual impact on global temperatures would be so minuscule as to be undetectable. Meanwhile, the costs—economic, ecological, and societal—are potentially enormous.

This raises an uncomfortable but essential question: who benefits from all of this? It certainly isn’t the average consumer, who ends up paying higher prices for milk marketed with dubious claims. Instead, the beneficiaries seem to be the corporations and bureaucracies that profit from the endless churn of climate regulations, subsidies, and greenwashing schemes.

A Problem That Doesn’t Exist

At its core, the push for products like Bovaer rests on the assumption that we face a climate crisis of unprecedented scale. But this assumption is far from proven. Climate models—riddled with uncertainties—predict catastrophic warming that keeps failing to materialize in the real world. Methane’s role in this alleged crisis is even less certain.

Yet rather than acknowledge these unknowns, climate policymakers double down on their interventions. The result is a cascade of ill-conceived policies that disrupt lives, erode trust, and impose enormous costs without delivering measurable benefits.

The rejection of “climate milk” shows that ordinary people aren’t buying it—literally or figuratively. They’re tired of being treated as pawns in a game they never agreed to play.

Conclusion: The Limits of Control

Bovaer’s likely impending failure is a small but significant victory for consumer choice and common sense. It’s a reminder that no amount of regulatory approval or corporate greenwashing can override the will of the public.

More importantly, it exposes the futility of trying to engineer society around speculative climate fears. Whether it’s tampering with the food supply, banning gas stoves, or pushing unreliable renewables, these interventions inevitably backfire because they’re built on a flawed premise: that a few technocrats can redesign the world better than nature itself.

The next time globalists and bureaucrats come calling with their latest scheme to “save the planet,” we would do well to remember the lesson of Bovaer: the problem they claim to solve might not even exist, but the damage their solutions can cause is all too real.

A recent article in Newsweek, titled “Map Shows US Cities That Could Be Underwater in 2050,” claims that a number of major cities will be submerged beneath rising seas by 2050 if humans don’t stop climate change. This is false, as false as when the same claims were made by multiple media outlets repeatedly over the preceding decades leading up to 2000 and 2020. None of those cities is even close to being “underwater,” or even having the coastal waters lapping at their streets, parking lots or buildings.

Newsweek points to data and a map produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

A map shows the growing threat to coastal cities across the Northeast United States due to rising sea levels.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s latest projections, sea levels along the U.S. coastlines are projected to rise, on average, around 10 to 12 inches by 2050.

Many communities along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts face significant risks of partial inundation in the future if current trends continue and mitigation efforts are not intensified.

NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer shows which cities may be impacted along each coast, with dark blue areas indicating significant projected sea level rises.

Newsweek cites the map below to provide an image reflecting the alarming projections:

Newsweek is apparently forgetting these same areas were predicted to be underwater by 2000 ad 2020.

This narrative is not new; mainstream media outlets have, for decades, issued similar alarming forecasts, often with timelines that have come and gone without the predicted catastrophes materializing.

In the late 20th century, numerous media reports warned that major U.S. cities would be underwater by the year 2000 due to rising sea levels. For example, a 1989 Associated Press article reported a United Nations official warning that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000 due to rising sea levels if global warming was not addressed.

Similarly, in 2012, PBS published an interactive map projecting that certain U.S. cities and counties could experience flooding by 2020 or 2050 due to global warming-induced storm surges. Like in the Chicken Little fairy tale, the media’s past warnings have repeatedly proven false.

These past projections were based on climate models and assumptions that, in hindsight, grossly overestimated the rate of sea-level rise and underestimated the resilience and adaptability of human societies. The current projections are grounded in the same flawed climate models that overstated the rate of sea level rise in the past.

NOAA claims sea levels have been rising at an approximate rate of about 1.2 inches per decade globally since 1993. Translating to approximately a foot over a century, this rate of change will put none of the cities discussed in Newsweek’s article underwater by 2050. Based on this rate of rise, societies have ample time to adapt.

Moreover, localized factors such as land subsidence, tectonic activity, wetlands conversion, and groundwater extraction play significant roles in regional sea-level changes, complicating blanket predictions.

The media’s penchant for sensationalism often leads to the amplification of worst-case scenarios, lacking support in empirical data. For instance, a Climate Realism article critiques CBS News for suggesting that New York City is on the brink of being flooded by sea-level rise, pointing out that such claims are not substantiated by current trends or historical data.

Human societies have historically demonstrated remarkable adaptive changes. Technological advancements and proactive urban planning have enabled coastal cities to implement effective mitigation strategies against sea-level rise. For example, the Netherlands has successfully managed sea levels for centuries through an extensive system of dikes and pumps, showcasing human ingenuity in the face of natural challenges.

While it is prudent to acknowledge and prepare for environmental changes, it is equally important to critically assess the data and avoid hyping unrealistic claims, stoking fear where none is warranted. Predictions of imminent, catastrophic sea-level rise leading to submerged cities have repeatedly failed to materialize, underscoring the necessity for a balanced perspective that considers both scientific evidence and historical context.

Newsweek’s recent article warning of submerged U.S. cities by 2050 is yet another example of alarmist reporting that prioritizes sensationalism over substance. By neglecting to critically assess historical data, current trends, and the track record of similar failed predictions, the outlet has done its readers—and the broader conversation on climate issues—a great disservice.

Responsible journalism requires more than repackaging doomsday scenarios; it demands rigorous fact-checking and a willingness to present a balanced view of the evidence. By failing to meet these standards, Newsweek not only erodes public trust but also diminishes the legitimacy of meaningful environmental discussions. Readers deserve better than recycled, unfounded predictions—they deserve facts. Until outlets like Newsweek prioritize accuracy over hype, they will remain complicit in the spread of misinformation masquerading as science.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM