I think a benefit/risk calculation is in order here.
> 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?