Trudeau pushes ahead on fertilizer reduction as provinces and farmers cry foul
torontosun.com
torontosun.com
0: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/a-food-crisis-looms...
For example, it takes time to switch a field over to organic, and who will pay for the more expensive yet not yet qualified organic crop? Where are the distribution chains (never mind the supply chains).
I don't know enough about Canada's plan (only this article) to criticize or praise it. But I do know that your criticism, on its face, is not appropriate.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dutch-farmers-protest-b...
And what are the scientific rationales for these policies?
It seems evident that food prizes will be adversely affected, and that without artificial fertilizers there is a large risk of starvation in many places.
It's just that the western ruling class lives in a bubble in which policies like this seem like a good idea. Their disdain for kulaks [1] probably contributes to their blindness to views outside the bubble.
Look it up. Trudou and the Netherlands leader are both WEF members and both acting in similar ways despite the obvious red flags of doing so.
If you look at the members and alumni for that [1], you'll find many politicians who oppose things like this. A relevant example would be Andrew Scheer, the former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, who opposes even the carbon tax. [2]
The thing probably serves a function similar to "honorary" doctorates: it pads the resumes and boosts the egos of politicians, and extends the network of influential people who are friendly towards WEF.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Global_Leaders#Members...
[2]: https://globalnews.ca/news/6265202/scheer-vows-to-never-supp...
I think it has more to do with being a controlled opposition than party affiliation. Here in the UK, Conservative government is dead set on implementing the agenda and they even defenestrated the current PM because he was not competent at delivering it and now the contest for a new PM is run by two WEF members. It's interesting that the most popular candidate among the Conservative members - Kemi Badenoch was eliminated - the fact that she wasn't a WEF member was of course a coincidence.
Other factor is that they themselves may not be competent, but they have money that can buy competent people to get their closer to their goals, however, stupid and destructive these may be.
If not, then it seems like lower demand for artificial fertilizers in Canada would increase the supply of the stuff to other nations, thus reducing prices and increasing caloric intake.
The amount of farmland available globally is limited, so reducing the yields per hectare in one country will probably contribute to food inflation globally.
You could increase the amount of available farmland by deforestation, but that would probably be contrary to the goals of environmental conservatism.
Also, we are assuming a global free market of crops, which is an unrealistic assumption, as there are lots of subsidies and tariffs.
On the one hand, modern agriculture has learned that you can increase crop yields through the use of heavy fertilizers, which lead to decreased soil capabilities, which lead to increased pest issues which lead to increased use of pesticides which leads to... a truly vicious circle, one quite profitable for the likes of monsanto
On the other hand, there is an emerging technology which, in the long run, is not emerging at all, but much closer to a return to agriculture's roots - it's known as Regenerative Agriculture - sometimes referred to as "no-til" farming. The idea being that you, quite literally, improve soil's ability to capture and retain carbon - something you give up when you plow the soil - and, from there, you reduce the amount of water needed, improve soil health, and measurably improve crop yields. There's a strong movement in that direction, and several feature-length films. A brief intro is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6m-XlPnqxI
[1] https://www.weforum.org/great-reset
[2] https://rumble.com/voe3ah-mr-klaus-schwab-follows-every-deba...
It's something I've heard preciously little about, and therefore I'm surprised that many countries suddenly are seeing this as an extremely urgent problem almost simultaneously.
> Canola and wheat yields were projected to increase with global warming, while maize yield was simulated to increase or slightly decrease depending on the characteristics of the currently grown cultivar and differences among the crop models. It appears that future warming accompanied by increased CO2 concentration will remain beneficial to crop yields at the global warming level of 2.0 °C for Canada.
[1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab17fb
How about moving towards sustainable solution with slow changes.
That's not true, at least about global warming (which is the relevant issue here) and for Canada. See my other comment below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32205121).
Don't assume that the farmers are the only ones hit and that they can be simply waved away as a minority that has to yield to progress. Destabilizing agriculture in food exporting countries is a potential threat to consumers of those calories worldwide.
Humanity consists of 8 billion people, most of them living in countries that are barely self-sufficient in terms of food production or not sufficient at all. Net exporters are an important player in fight against hunger. Canada itself feeds two other Canadas abroad.
If countries like Egypt or Iraq or Nigeria go off the rails because of food insecurity, there will be political instability much worse than during the War on Terror. Canada may be insulated from the consequences, Europe will definitely be not.
Why should we go first in eliminating fertilizer?
I think a benefit/risk calculation is in order here.
"...no Person holding any Office...shall...accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
WEF Global Leader sounds like a title to me.