Global Food Supply at Risk From Disastrous Response to So-Called ‘Nitrogen Crisis’
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier
The full horror of the ‘nitrogen’ war on agriculture is becoming more apparent every day. Food supplies around the world face collapse if the use of nitrogen fertiliser is severely restricted under Net Zero requirements. It is claimed that the fertiliser is warming the Earth and causing the climate to break down, as the by-product nitrous oxide is released into the atmosphere. In fact the entire global food supply is in danger of being trashed for the sake of what recent scientific work notes is almost unmeasurable 0.064°C warming per century.
Policies to address this non-existent crisis have already done enormous harm in Sri Lanka, where a ban on nitrogen fertiliser caused a rapid collapse in food yields, and led to the President fleeing the country in a hurry. The Canadian Government is committed to a 30% reduction in N2O levels by 2030. In the Netherlands, the Government is following European Union instructions and trying to remove farmers from the land. Any compensation paid will be tied to a restriction not to start farming again anywhere in the EU. Political discontent is growing, and there are already fears for the supply of agricultural products since the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world.
Nitrogen is a vital component of plant metabolism which is obtained from the soil. Alas, there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to grow plants at the scale needed to feed global populations. Before the arrival of commercial nitrogen fertilisers, famine was a frequent feature of the unreliable food supply across parts of the world. Without the fertiliser, famine will resume its gruesome role, something mainstream Net Zero politicians have to address in the near future. Virtue-signalling green delusions about ‘rewilding’, bug diets and organic farming will not feed the world, probably not even a quarter of it.
Read the full article here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Unfortunately it seems that we have no means of stopping the climate change scam, which is based on corrupt science. The UN and the WEF have a tight grip on western governments and the MSM.
Forget the science. This idea that it is economically right to decimate or worse Western farming now to prevent possible cists decades in the future is clearly absurd. The costs are going to be vast and hugely damaging, massively outweighing what the science actually says future costs will be. This isn’t science. it is politics/economics and we are now using scenarios put forward by lunatic extremists to justify actions, not scientists.
That has always been the case since the scam, hysterics and scaremongering started
>>scenarios put forward by lunatic extremists to justify actions, not scientists.
Government are seeking views on a Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain announced today. Any ideas to send in..? https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strategy-and-policy-statement-for-energy-policy-in-great-britain?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=9cb8cf23-5fa1-4e11-931a-8c207bcfde53&utm_content=daily
Repeal “Climate change act”. Fixes everything!
A good start, but also scrapping of all the regulation, bans and taxes that that insane legislation has _already_ created. And refunds for those taxes.
>>Repeal “Climate change act”. Fixes everything!
“Any ideas…?”
Everyone who has had anything to do with the present policies should be invited to jump in the sea. Then the church bells should be rung.
The article is somewhat scaremongering. However it is true that every single initiative of the ‘zero mob’ is profoundly and deeply insane.
I have a little Penguin book, from nearly a hundred years ago, about bacteria and soil and such like, by an expert of the scientific breed that lived between the world wars – a young gaunt man, bespectacled, ferociously clever. Anyway, he said that if you want good crops of anything – including your lawn – bung nitrogen on it. It so happens that the crops humans raise benefit more from nitrogen than the plants we think of as weeds; and so the weeds are put at a disadvantage. Who am I to argue with ‘a boffin?’
Something I learnt from the book was how incredibly dynamic and fluctuating is the bacterial world. How the different sorts in a tablespoon of soil grow and consume each other and die in their turn – their populations rising and crashing on a scale of hours. It is as if the entire history of Europe happened in a week.
Those growing their own vegetables fix nitrogen by growing crops that do it for them and using compost and manure. To feed billions this isn’t really an option.
Next targets will be phosphorus and potassium also vital for plant growth.
Then banning of lightening and thunderstorms known for fixing nitrogen into forming nitrogen dioxide, which dissolves in water, creating nitric acid, which then forms nitrates.
We might be safe from environmentalists if we keep quiet about what fixing nitrogen means and pretend it means fixing the nitrogen problem – they’ll never twig on their own
We want cheap, reliable, safe power. That’s all. You have to trade off those three things against each other but we managed that before so we can manage it again.
Thanks for the link Frank, I have just enjoyed making a submission. Not wishing to bore anyone I reproduce my answers just to the third part:
3 Given the FSO does not exist yet but will need to have regard to the strategy and policy statement once it does, do you consider that we
have effectively reflected the FSO’s role in this document? If not, please identify where these expectations could be made clearer.
My country has no need for yet another team of ‘wafflers’. What happens when the systems of the future realise that ‘green’ policies head in the wrong
direction?
When 250 tonnes of rock needs breaking up to extract enough metal for just on Electric Vehicle, how on earth can we accomplish this using green energy?
When Grant Shapps spends a billion pounds of taxpayers money each year to capture carbon and store it under the sea, for no gain, will the FSO be able
to change his balmy policies? (In passing the Coronation is said to have cost £100million and dear Grant wants to waste 10 times that every one of the
next 20 years.)
When we, as headless chickens, use hydrogen as a future fuel or an energy store will the FSO ever realise that it produces Water Vapour – the most
abundant of our greenhouse gases? I doubt it.
Another invented “crisis” just like “climate”. What is wrong with politicians (particularly in Europe) ? Why do they actively hate ordinary people so much?
“Why do they actively hate ordinary people so much?”
There is actually a very simple answer. The ‘ordinary people’ have, in their eyes, failed THEM. To explain, almost everybody who has been exposed to ‘further education’ – other than of the strictly technical kind – in the last fifty years has
been indoctrinated in Marxism. Perhaps under shifting and twisting disguises, but pure Marxism at bottom. And most politicians are survivor-victims of this ‘grooming,’ and viscerally thrill to the call to arms to destroy every single atom of our culture.
Now, Marx prophesised that when the ordinary people ‘raised their consciousness they would as one become Marxists and carry out the revolution under, however, the guidance of wise men like himself.
It never happened that way, of course. So to our eager activists the answer is : wrong sort of proletariat! Get rid of the ‘bigots’ as Brown sneered. Punish them till they squeal, as Healey said ’till the pips squeak.’ Import a new sort of proletariat through massive immigration. Make up a new sort of person ripe for consciousness raising : ‘modern women’ for example, or when feminism did not change anything, men claiming to be women. Anything at all!
Orwell said the future is a boot coming down on a human face forever. I do not think he was right. It is a knife being stealthily inserted in your back for ever.
Archimedes is reported as saying: Give me a lever and I shall move the world.
AGW/CC is that lever for some very corrupt and/or naive politicians – and mainly, those who have not stood for election.
Every proponent of Net Zero should be asked what difference all these schemes will make to the climate, with irrefutable evidence to back it up.
Computer models will not be admissable.
Has “the pause” in global warming been acknowledged by NASA/NOAA/IPCC yet and the climate modellers?
Gavin Schmidt head of NASA’s modelling admitted that the models ran “too hot” in an article in Nature May 2022 which you can see here, near the bottom:
https://www.climatecatastrophefund.com/
Has the BBC mentioned it?
Actually, DC, I was so taken by that video clip the other day of some bigwigs being asked on a Congreesional panel what the proportion of CO2 was in the atmosphere that I think all MPs etc should be asked and their responses recorded. The follow-up should be, and what changes to that proportion will be made by the UK going NZC.
‘causing the climate to break down’
What does that even mean? It is gibberish!
But wait! Do an internet search for it, and on first page:
‘Revealed: how climate breakdown is supercharging toll of extreme weather’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/04/climate-breakdown-supercharging-extreme-weather
Climatology is a clown show.
Climate change is going to reduce crop yields so we must ban fertiliser…
Strange that when climate change causes something it’s a Really Bad Thing but when we do the Really Bad Thing to stop climate change it becomes a Really Good Thing we can adapt to.
Hmm.
It’s the new-speak world now: climate affects weather! Face/Palm!!
This is part of the third strand of Global Green Control, after Climate Change and Air Pollution. The story of nitrogen use is incredible, and an indictment of the UK educational system that I left school knowing nothing about it. Today, people still leave school knowing nothing about it, but now with a belief that most farming is evil.
A great book about nitrogen is “The Alchemy of Air” by Thomas Hager, mostly about how and why the Haber-Bosch process was developed.
If people leave school today ignorant of the scientific side of farming and , indeed , energy issues it is not the fault of the education sysystem or the syllabus. I have been helping a grandson through chemistry GCSE and was surprised at how demanding it is compared to the old Olevels. In particular it is far more quantitaive than the old syllabus and , through calculation from bond energies, students are required to work out the thermodynamics of the Haber process ( thus knowing what it is intended to do) and also calculate the energ y output of different fuels , fossil and hydrogen as well as knowing the electrode processes in fuel cells.
All relevant to modern debates and requiring some mathematical expertise, more so than in my old school days .
The A level chemistry he is now embarking on has thermodynamic sections that years ago would have been 1st year University.
Any 18/9 yr old emerging from a Science Sixth Form should be well equipped to understand the complexities of modern energy topics and the advantages and disadvantages of different agricultural practices.
Unfortunately it is the Oxford graduates with their useless PPE degrees who are running the country at Westminster and in Whitehall.
That is interesting, but I still think that school education is “one-size-fits-few”, too academic for the 99.9% who don’t (or shouldn’t) do a science degree, mostly useless for everyone … still waiting to come across an oxbow lake or a tetrahedral rhombus, still taught to everyone because it is teachable, but not useful.
They are not at all relevant to the current debate. What is relevant is understanding economics and how complex modern economies are. There may be costs from climate change but they are all in the future whereas avoiding those furure costs means costs now. How we work out what to do is economics. And a course in critical thinking and data analysis wouldn’t go amiss either.
“Global Food Supply at Risk From Disastrous Response to So-Called ‘Nitrogen Crisis’.”
Of course it is. That’s the point of it.
Until people stop accepting the excuses as though they are rational and can be reasoned against, we’re doomed.
Case in point, above:
“the entire global food supply is in danger of being trashed for the sake of what recent scientific work notes is almost unmeasurable 0.064°C warming per century.”
The narrative is deliberate misdirection. They know it is nonsense. It doesn’t matter how many facts are rolled out to counter it, they are irrelevant to the globalist pushers and profiteers. The real question is will the frog realise soon enough that it is being slowly boiled.
Good one, Phil.
The economic madness of Net Zero is now apparent to anyone not indoctrinated. You don’t need to do a detailed report to see that the costs of Net Zero in the near term are going to be vast and potentially catastrophic. The costs of not doing Net Zero are far in the future and uncertain. We are getting closer and closer to real, significant harm and deaths, and when that happens, people are going to get angry.
The ‘Nitrogen Crisis’ is predicated on such an obvious deception that it is shocking that it has been accepted by so many for so long; The IPCC claim that Nitrous Oxide is “273 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide” is based on a ‘per ppmv’ comparison which does not account for the actual concentrations of the compared gases.
Elsewhere in climate science the comparison is always ‘per doubling’ and on this basis Nitrous Oxide has a potency of 0.17 (a little more than one sixth) compared with Carbon Dioxide.
The rate of increase of Nitrous Oxide is also significantly slower than that of Carbon Dioxide, the time for a doubling to take place being around twice that of Carbon Dioxide. Details here: https://cw50b.wordpress.com/the-nitrous-nonsense/
Will global starvation will be the only spur to call out the IPCC nonsense?
Bit it’s illogical anyway – climate change is bad because it will lower crop yields in the future. So we must take actions now that will…er…lower crop yields. The effects of the solution are to have the effects of the problem but for longer. It is removing my foot now in case I get frost bite in 50 years time.
Answer: Ban nitrogen fertilizer.
Question: How can we kill the most people – billions – without it looking like murder?
The nitrogen gig’s true purpose is to reduce the worlds population by starving them. Worked for Stalin in Ukraine now it is the UN’s turn to implement the WEF policy.
It must be better to starve and kill billions in starvation agonies than to let 8 billion live fully fed and happy in a house with a car – lol – crazy psychos – it can only be demonic as they stuff themselves with fabulous food at the CO2 emitting conferences .
Listen to XR et al. and they tell us that climate change will cause billions to die. What they omit to say is that because climate change is in fact not causing billions to die, they want to enforce policies that will ensure that billions die so they can claim (at least any that are left) “See, told you so!”
Nitrogen policy is in exactly this mould. In reality, it should be subject to Pythonesque ridicule, and consigned to ignominy.
This gives rise to the spectre of Lysenko in the Soviet Union.
His ‘research’ produced results that met with the approval of Stalin and later Mao, with the resulting famines causing the death of many millions.
Lysenko applied political power to silence opposition and eliminate his opponents within the scientific community. (Sounds familiar!)
Nitrogen, along with plant breeding and fungicides, has been responsible for the more than doubling of cereal yields since the 1960s, and has enabled food supplies to keep up with the increase in the world population from 3.5bn in 1968 to 7.8bn now.
There seems to be a high level of ignorance among the political community, or am I missing something?
Russia likely to target food supplies from Ukraine.
I think we have reached the point that we can tell someone arguing for “climate action” (sic), we can look them in the face an say, “Climate action means YOU DIE. Still for it?”
Following Peterson’s Dictum, the murder of billions of people is the motivation. “Climate change” is the Universal Cause to get people to accept it. It’s not about the weather; it’s about getting people to accept mass murder. Their OWN murder.
Climate change is a conspiracy to commit mass murder.
Fossil fuels have raised 80% of the world’s population out of extreme poverty. Which really pisses off the elites. They want to return to those days.
Mixing hydrogen with natural gas ought to be a nonstarter if nitrous oxide is the villain they claim it is.
https://insideepa.com/share/227828