Human history has largely been a struggle to get enough to eat. Starvation was an ever-present threat, almost everywhere, until very recently. Only in the last century or two has even part of the world learned how to produce an abundant and reliable supply of food. It requires a scientific approach to hybridization, crop rotation, intensive fertilization, pest control, and more. As a result of these modern farming methods, for the first time ever the vast majority of the world’s population is not imminently threatened by starvation.
But that could change. The international “environmentalist” movement is determined to outlaw modern farming practices, ostensibly for the sake of our climate. Places like Sri Lanka, the Netherlands and Canada have been forced to confront the anti-agriculture movement, and it is already making itself felt in the U.S. Banning fertilizers and prohibiting animal husbandry are two of the planks in this “green” platform.
Food shortages are already appearing around the world, but liberals are undeterred. Which raises the question: will Americans actually vote for less agriculture, higher food prices, and mass starvation in the world’s poorer precincts?
You wouldn’t think so. This survey of Wisconsin voters, sponsored by Americas PAC, offers some comfort:
A poll by VCreek/AMG found that 50% of likely Wisconsin voters “strongly oppose” regulations on farming and livestock similar to those being implemented in Canada and the Netherlands. A combined 63% oppose the idea of similar regulations being implemented in the United States. Only 13% strongly support bringing the restrictions on food production to the U.S.
***
“These results illustrate the ongoing disconnect between the Biden Administration and normal working
people,” said Tom Donelson, chairman of Americas PAC. “Regulators and global executives seem so enthralled by green status posturing, they don’t consider the impacts on something as fundamental as affordable food.”
This was the question the pollster asked:
The governments of Some foreign countries, in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, have proposed reducing the amount of fertilizer famers can use to grow crops like Soybeans, Wheat, Corn and vegetables. The governments have also proposed reducing the number of cows, pigs, chickens and other livestock farmers raise. –These proposed reductions will likely result in food costing more at grocery stores and restaurants.– To what degree would you Support OR Oppose these fertilizer and livestock regulations that would reduce green house gas emissions AND increase the price of food, if they were proposed in the United States?
To me, the disquieting fact is that 32% of likely voters in an agricultural state said they support, to some degree, cutting back on farm productivity. One wonders whether the result would have been different if the question had referred to mass starvation in poor countries rather than higher prices here in the U.S. Probably not, I suspect: “green” is a religion that demands human sacrifice.
This pie chart shows the breakdown of responses:
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.