Moms Across America previously reported on a global land-grab involving using carbon and nitrogen regulations as the impetus to cull herds of livestock. The result of these regulations, in the name of climate change, would put thousands of multi-generational family farms out of business and reduce access to meat (raising prices) for millions. However, several fronts in this battle have taken a turn for the better. These should inspire and empower us all to continue taking positive action toward a safer food system.

Monumental Win For Independent Farmers

In August, Moms Across America reported that the Dutch government announced its intention to reduce livestock herds by 30% in order to comply with European Union regulations around nitrogen and ammonia “pollution.” The shock of this emboldened tyranny was felt worldwide. The government planned to seize 3000 farms and limit the number of cows to only 2 per field in order to meet new climate goals. These reductions were so severe that rural communities in the Netherlands would be totally devastated economically — not to mention the extreme shortage it would create in the food supply, nationwide.

However, the Dutch farmers recently prevailed in 2月 2024, after The European Commission (EC) announced its plan to cut emissions by 90%, “no longer includes a reference to a 30% reduction target in methane, nitrogen and other gasses linked to farming,” the Financial Times reported, citing European Union (EU) officials. The farmers won, for now.

This victory was certainly due to the widespread and often aggressive protests by farmers in France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, and Italy, as well as persuasive advocacy letters written to the EC. Politico reported: “The updated version of the plan, which is still subject to change, framed agriculture in a more positive light compared to earlier drafts. The role the sector plays in the EU’s ‘food sovereignty’ was also emphasized.”

While it’s unclear where the EU will land on the food freedom issue after this positive step, Reuters says the EC’s new proposals will “kick off the political debate on the target,” but adds that “it will be up to a new European Commission, formed after EU elections in June, to make a final legal proposal.” Expect climate activism to resume at that time and for farmers to rise up again and pull harder on their end of the tug-of-war rope.

A Food System Based on Climate Activism

Though the EU took a step back from policies that choke out independent farms and push toward corporate food agendas, for all countries participating in climate treaties, the “Net Zero” mantra is obligatory and at odds with the practicality of real farms. Net Zero refers to carbon emissions policies to which countries commit and corporations then follow. These policies have contributed to the complete collapse of Sri Lanka with Canada barreling down a similar path – a fate the Dutch may have momentarily avoided.

The idea that net zero emissions would improve the climate is still highly debatable. Epoch Times reports that the trillions of dollars being poured into new emission reduction initiatives set by the United Nations’ Paris Agreement’s legally binding international treaty is based on a glaring false premise. The stated goal is maintaining a temperature of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

But according to many experts, any decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions won’t have an effect on temperature for hundreds to thousands of years—even under the most restrictive circumstances, if at all. “If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels,” the Royal Society states in a report on its website. The organization describes itself as a fellowship of many of the world’s most eminent scientists. “Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions,” the report states. “The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.” (That is, if it even exists, which is also debated.)

“CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2,” said Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist. Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa, agreed that if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the Earth would continue warming—but not because of CO2. He said that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which, itself, is due to solar activity.

Our Executive Director,Zen Honeycutt, has stated, “I’m deeply concerned about corporations profiting off of the fear of climate change and utilizing carbon credits to continue to pollute the planet.”

Meanwhile, in the US, President Biden has set an aggressive goal of achieving a net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. With this we can expect increasing detrimental farmer coercion, unless actions are taken proactively. According to Michael Fakhri, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food movement, these climate goals will steer countries that adopt them further toward ultra processed, conventionally-farmed foods, which the US is known for subsidizing. “The USDA subsidizes things that one could call ‘edible products’, but it’s not good food,” he said. If US subsidizing could shift toward producing real food at the local level, instead of corporate mega produced crops, food sovereignty would certainly organically grow.

See Part Two of this article.