Climate Agenda radical impositions limiting and increasing the costs of fertilizers and energy, aren’t only affecting farmers in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe, or Canada.

The pain, freshly delivered by the environmental directives contained in the Biden “Inflation Reduction Act,” and Biden policies effectively throttling oil and natural gas production and use, is causing a spiraling farmer crisis in the U.S.

Incredibly, the radical environmental dictates are on the verge of leading to something unprecedented in American history.

As reported by The New York Post, the U.S. is set to become an overall net importer of food, instead of net exporter, as soon as this year.

That means Americans will be importing and consuming more food from outside the country, then producing and sending to other countries.

Farmers, especially in the Northeast, but also across the country, are sending strong warnings that they can’t continue to produce or exist, given the policies being imposed on them.

The Post story quoted Tim Stanton, owner of Feura Farm & Markets, near Albany, NY:

“Biden is trying to get rid of fossil fuels, and it’s killing us. Our packaging costs almost doubled, fuel costs are through the roof, and we paid $1,000 a ton this year for fertilizer that was $500 a ton in 2021. So we get hit twice. It’s putting a lot of pressure on all of us.”

The Trends Journal alerted readers regarding an emerging fertilizer crisis back in October of 2021, before it was mainstream news (see “THE PRICE OF UREA IN CHINA”).

Also in October of 2021 (in “BOLD SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS FROM BIDEN?”), we noted that Biden’s energy policies to that point were already worsening the economic picture, and would continue to do so:

“Whether it was shutting down energy pipeline projects and turning the country back into a net energy importer, or obsessing about vaccines for young people at near zero risk and people with natural immunity, Biden has pursued an agenda that has hobbled an economic recovery.”

Food Insecurity Directly Tied To Climate Agenda Extremism

Instead of taking an “all of the above approach” to energy production and improvement, the Biden administration, from literally its earliest hours, jettisoned Trump energy policies which had made America a net exporter and revitalized energy producer.

Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline project, but also rejoined radical NGO formulated and UN endorsed climate accords and objectives.

Those “zero carbon” emission objectives, and the targets along the way, are squeezing farmers to the point where they are being forced to shut down.

It reveals a larger truth, so far only being spoken at the edges of the overall Climate Agenda and “Green Energy” policy debate.

But it’s becoming clearer: the Climate goals of the UN (and being adopted by Biden) can’t provide the energy needed to sustain current levels of economic activity, let alone create or sustain higher levels of economic growth.

The specter of “DeGrowth” and “Post Growth” economies, under the banner of Green Marxism, is becoming a more prominent admitted rationale and goal of climate activists.

Indeed, the ongoing COP27 climate conference currently in session attempted to use the conference as an economic critique against “capitalism,” contending that a different economic model was the answer to extreme weather events, or something like that. 

Meanwhile, as reported by The Guardian, the conference proposed that the richest countries (which also happen to be economically “capitalist”) fork over two trillion a year by 2030 to poor nations in a kind of “climate reparations” scheme.

Remarks concerning The World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO), were also illuminating.

Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, argued that those and other institutions were created in the mid 20th century to foster economic growth in poor regions, but that those goals (as if they were motivating factors at the institutions, which have long served elitist interests) needed a more rigorous climate agenda makeover:

“Institutions crafted in the mid-20th century cannot be effective in the third decade of the 21st century. They do not describe 21st-century issues. Climate justice was not an issue then [when the bank was set up.”

Typical of climate extremists, the rhetoric of the conference was apocalyptic: change everything, implement Green Marxism, or face a collective fast lane to hell!

The alarmism was amplified by authors of an annual “Global Carbon Budget,” who urged COP27 to come to agreement on drastic cuts in fossil fuel usage, or face a “critical climate change threshold” within nine years.

Another doomsday timetable.

Leaders at COP27 would “have to take meaningful action if we are to have any chance of limiting global warming close to 1.5°C,” said the report’s lead author, Pierre Friedlingstein, according to Breitbart. “The Global Carbon Budget numbers monitor the progress on climate action and right now we are not seeing the action required.”  

Ironically, COP27 earned criticism for abhorrent environmental pollution and other garishness of the conference itself.  A CNBC headline summarized “Flowing sewage, bewildering signs, lack of water: COP27 faces logistics nightmares.”

Hypocrisy of radical climate activist attendees was also on display, as many complained about lack of food, water and personal conveniences, as they railed about the supposed failures of capitalism to combat a climate emergency.

CNBC quoted Philip Mann of Climate Impact Partners as saying he’d brought his own personal stash of provisions to the event, and that he wouldn’t be staying for [the] entire conference, because he couldn’t survive the deprivations: “I couldn’t do two weeks of this.”

As for farmers, it appears that they are fast waking up to the reality that the climate agenda doesn’t mean for their businesses to “transition” to “sustainable” green energy technologies.

Quite simply, those technologies can’t compete or provide the energy and related products needed.

The only answer for many farmers will be to shutter their farms, and create a larger food crisis, that will in turn further validate the need to apply “Degrowth” objectives more openly to human activities—and human populations.

For related reading, check out:

Comments are closed.

Skip to content