ONFARM, 15/12/2023

When you take a high-level look at the environmental/consumer/farmer matrix it looks as if there is a small minority of so-called environmentalists who are exceptionally well resourced and organised on one side, and on the other side we have the busy siloed farmer producing food to sustain civilisations.  In the middle are the confused consumers who don't know which way to turn. 

They barely hear from those in charge of food production and the only ones really engaging with them are the environmentalists.  Do they listen to the green folks and starve in the dark or seek to understand it from the grassroots up by connecting more closely with the farmers on the ground.  On one side you have affluent eco-groups with plenty of resources to fuel their mission; and the other is the hardworking agriculturist who tends to work in isolation.  Until farmers can come together to share in the conversation and truly engage with consumers, the misinformed environmentalists will continue to dominate with their agenda.

The other dichotomy is between the Western World and the Developing World.  The elite-environmentalists are saying because the west is wealthy it must give up the foundation of its success in cheap reliable energy and slip backwards into poverty because the carbon emissions are too high.  The Developing World is okay to increase its carbon emissions as much as it likes until 2050 to get its people out of poverty and then they will supposedly get their people to agree to slip back into poverty to 'save the environment'. 

Carbon has been the windfall which has created the highly lucrative elite environmentalist market.  They are now trading carbon - a natural invisible gas which is essential to all life on earth, civilisations are sustained by abundant and reliable energy supplies which support organised agriculture, transportation, cities, cooking, heating, cooling, industry, employment and peaceful governance.  Annually humans emit 3% of CO2 into the atmosphere, nature emits the other 97%. (Source. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC).  Between 65%-95% of the earths heat dynamics are controlled by water vapour, but because it was too hard to outlaw water, they stay focused on the 3% of Co2 humans emit.  Blaming Co2 for what H2o is doing is working a treat but insanity does come at high cost; the environment, the economy, the poor and the vulnerable will be first and the most impacted.  

If the heat dynamics are largely controlled by water vapour, why aren't we addressing the real agricultural practices that are contributing to the heating of the earths services.  Like the bare grounds and open fields of ploughed soil that are absorbing a huge amount of heat that leads to evaporation of even more water vapour.

Until we address the real human impact of how we are contributing to the largest problem of all (the water vapour) we will stay stuck skirting around the problem by trading imaginary carbon credits.

Most people will only ever see the pie chart on the right and conclude that carbon dioxide is the obvious problem.  However if you really want to get back to the basics go and visit the desert and feel the heat that is being generated from the bare ground there. Then sit under a tree in a lush green field at the same latitude and feel the difference.  While you're contemplating under that tree, ask yourself how does water convert from a liquid to a gas? What is contributing to desertification of arable land around the world? How do we sequester and capture carbon into the soil? These three questions will get us much closer to the real cause than trading imaginary carbon credits will.

Historically civilisations do crazy things when interest rates get to 2%, investments into pointless public works, wasteful energy schemes and ludicrous spendthrift behaviour by individuals and governments.  The low global interest rates have added fuel to the Woke Carbon agenda of destroying western civilisation.  The contradiction of our politicians confusion about energy is making matters much worse.  They want to decarbonise the global economy to stop the climate from changing, have cheap energy so the voters can drive their cars, eat cheap food and not freeze to death at home in the dark, have the oil producing nations pump as much oil as possible to get us out of this energy crisis, then go away to die while wind and solar take over to save the planet.  All incompatible, unrealistic and unachievable. 

The Achilles heel of western civilisation is affordable and reliable energy.  Expensive and unreliable energy supplies mean food supplies will be expensive and unreliable, expensive energy means the most vulnerable in society must do without heating and cooling or fuel for cooking.  Climate Activists have embraced their unelected power with no regard for the consequences and price that their fellow humans are going to pay.  They are exploiting the hard-wired human survival mechanism which is an innate fear of the unknown and unseen.  The second tier of the climate schemes are the individuals and corporations who plan to make themselves famously rich preying on the gullibility of their fellow man. 

Net Zero is a mindless and meaningless slogan, every breath a human being takes in is 0.04% carbon dioxide and they breath out 4% carbon dioxide, carbon is in every living thing on earth, it is in our steel and concrete, in the fuels which sustain civilisation and organised agriculture.  Humans can make huge environmental gains at the ground level, which is the largest carbon sink we have control over and farmers are the custodians of most of it.  More than ever we need farmers at the table sharing in the great debate of all time, in how do we save the planet.

Left unchecked Carbonism can only result in the destruction of environments, economies, freedoms, sovereignty and the unnecessary deaths of millions of human beings.  Not quite as noble as the Climate Cult's would have you believe.  Predictably as the Net Zero targets are approached and no climate stability is reached the proponents will call for tougher measures to reduce carbon emissions, it's then they may even say its humans that are emitting too much methane and carbon.  Desertification is real, environmental decline is real, aridification is real, biodiversity loss is real, none of which are fixed by reducing emissions.  All of these problems which are contributing to the real changes in climate are fixable at the ground level and as a result of fixing these, we will produce nutritious food as a by-product.