There isn’t space enough here to describe all the ways the climate scaremongers are working to reduce us to feudalism where, tied to our fifteen minute permitted movements, we work and scramble for the scraps they allot us, but even a short list of their initiatives make it clear they intend to cull the world’s population by starving us. It’s been only a few decades separating Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution in agriculture that saved millions from starvation to a global initiative to starve and impoverish the world.
As the Cuban example below shows, rising energy costs and food shortages because of the "climate" loons anti-fossil fuel and absurd agricultural policies will inexorably lead to rationing and leave you with three options: starve, steal, or enter the black market to stay alive. In the meantime, their media accomplices deny what we will suffer if this madness isn’t checked.
The effect of cutting fossil fuels is to diminish agricultural production. Net-zero policies eliminate nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, the consequence of which will mean half the world’s population will be deprived of sufficient foods. Malthusians always assume the pie will stay the same and the pieces we get will always have to be made smaller. Such thinking always neglects human ingenuity and technological development much as before the automobile, wise men calculated the amount of horse manure from New York city’s carriages and drays and predicted the city would be buried in it. In any agriculture policy what began as a misplaced Malthusian notion of the world running out of sufficient food, was reversed thanks to Borlaug but has now become a series of steps designed to make sure we do.
In that vein, the etymologist E.O. Wilson predicted two decades ago in a book excerpt in Scientific American that humans are about to run out of food. His solution was that we all should become vegivores. He calculated the amount of grain consumed by livestock and said if we instead gave that grain to humans, and stopped raising livestock we could feed billions more of projected population increase.
Unfortunately, he neglected a number of things. People would still need more “nuts, seafood, fruits, vegetables, cotton, root crops and all the other varieties of food and fiber.” He also missed that we eat the animals that eat the grain, so the suggestion that animals reduce the amount of food produced for human consumption overlooked something very significant, the very reason we raise them. As the song we sang as kids “Mares Eat Oats” goes, some animals do eat grains, but livestock do not exist on grain alone. They consume things humans do not—pigs dine on garbage, hens eat bugs and grass, goats eat leaves. In the United States cows eat thousands of tons of cottonseed meal every year, taking nothing away from human consumption.
In other words, they turn what humans do not eat into meat, milk, and eggs—protein, necessary for good nutrition. They also provide us with leather, hide , horn, feathers and wool, which make up no small part of clothing necessary for healthy living especially in the developing world. (Substitutes for these things such as polyester and plastic shoes require fossil fuels to produce.) The vegan solution is not sustainable, even if you were able to persuade millions of people, let alone the entire earth to support it:
If modern agriculture in the U.S. were adjusted to the vegan diet, according to the study in Elementa , we’d be able to feed 735 million people—and that’s from a purely land-use perspective. Compare that to the dairy-friendly vegetarian diet, which could feed 807 million people. Even partially omnivorous diets rank above veganism in terms of sustainability; incorporating about 20 to 40 percent meat in your diet is actually better for the long-term course of humanity than being completely meat-free.
And no seconds for you.
There is, in fact, a concerted, intentional effort to reduce food production altogether, which will reduce world population by starvation in order to save the planet from the chimerical danger primitives thought of as the sky dragon, redubbed by today’s bien pensants as “climate change.” This horrific notion –to drastically cut meat and dairy production is the Global Methane Pledge which 13 nations including the such major producers as Argentina, the U.S. and Brazil have agreed to.
“Special envoy for Climate” John Kerry has vowed to sign it; “mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term," he has said. I expect Congress has a different notion. This Pledge is a brain child of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab’s instrument of global domination
Meanwhile, reducing methane seems to have overtaken Wilson’s belief that reducing animal-derived protein and subsisting mostly on grains was necessary to feed the population. This year’s bright thinking is that we need to reduce all farm production—that is to say all food—to save the planet. All. Including grain production.
Rice is the most popular grain eaten around the world. In 2021-2022 about 250 million tons of it were consumed around the globe. Fifty percent of the world’s population depends on it for eighty percent of its food requirements. Next to corn and wheat it is the most farmed grain crop, and is a mainstay of many third-world diets. The latest target of the starve-the-world-to-save-the-planet crowd is, naturally, rice. Rice-growing that results in 10 percent of global methane emissions is the latest target to reduce “global warming," but, in fact, methane has a cooling effect on climate.
UC Riverside researchers found that methane not only traps heat in the atmosphere but also creates cooling clouds that offset 30 percent of the heat. Methane’s absorption of shortwave energy counterintuitively causes a cooling effect and suppresses the increase in precipitation by 60 percent. This finding emphasizes the need to incorporate all known effects of greenhouse gases into climate models.
Most climate models do not yet account for a new University of California, Riverside discovery: methane traps a great deal of heat in Earth’s atmosphere, but also creates cooling clouds that offset 30 percent of the heat.
Almost as bad as cow farts.
There has been a push in the same circles that would deprive us of traditional foods to get us to eat bugs. Oh, sure this month NPR reports “This Right Wing Conspiracy About Eating Bugs is About as Racist as You Can Get.” Nevertheless for years, as posters like Stephen Miller on Twitter (now X) has documented, since at least 2008,NPR has been promoting a bug diet with coverage like “Time to Swap Burgers for Bugs, Says UN” and “The Joys and Ethics of Insect Eating.”
In reality unless this madness is stopped, food, like the fuel needed to harvest, preserve, transport and to prepare it, will be rationed and we will be starving like Cubans. Patrick Symmes experimented living in Cuba for one month on only the amount of money a journalist would earn there. Even with the purchase of some black market supplies and the kindness of neighbors and visiting overseas friends he experienced painful starvation. In Harper's magazine he detailed the day by day agony of getting enough food to survive:
In mid-February I walked one last time to the Riviera, weighing myself in the gym. I was down eleven and a half pounds since my arrival. More than eleven pounds gone in thirty days. I’d missed about 40,000 calories. At this rate I would be as lean as a Cuban by spring. And dead by autumn.
Remember that the next time you're tempted to listen to John Kerry.