Speaking recently at the Seeds & Chips conference, an annual gathering of policy wonks, investors, and technology entrepreneurs centered on innovative ways to improve the food chain, former President Barack Obama devoted his remarks to agriculture’s role in causing climate change. Obama stated that agriculture is the second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions after energy. He claimed that these emissions are starting to adversely affect food production itself, stating: “Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food. We’ve already seen shrinking yields and rising food prices.” Of course, he also averred that the costs would be borne mostly by the poor, accidentally making it clear he wasn’t talking about the billions upon billions of dollars that Western nations have committed to spending in a futile attempt to make the planet behave in a more reasonable manner.
And by-the-way, global crop yields and food production have generally been increasing, not decreasing. To the extent that there is any warming, many believe this will be a boon to plant life. What is a greenhouse for, again?
Oddly, Obama spent much of his time conversing with Sam Kass, who now mentors and invests in food entrepreneurs, and who was Obama’s own senior policy adviser for nutrition while the now ex-president was in office. Kass served up a couple of softball questions to his former boss, engendering dialogue about topics such as the Paris Climate Accord, and affording an opportunity for Obama to talk about rising ocean levels and the concern the rest of the world has about the United States’ current commitment to the agreement.
Acknowledging that the current administration has differences with his energy policies, he gloated, “…I think the good news is that, in part because of what we did over the last eight years, the private sector has already made a decision that the future is in clean energy.”
No it hasn’t. Your policies gave them no alternative. By banning drilling, refusing to allow pipelines to be completed or coal plants to be produced, and giving ridiculous subsidies to “green” energy, your administration caused dramatic change to the market’s climate.
Obama also noted that the aforementioned Paris agreement focused almost entirely on damage to the environment from the energy sector, leaving the role of food production sadly unaddressed. He cited the powerful agricultural lobby in Washington as a potential barrier to needed changes, remarking that the one area where Democrats and Republicans have historically been in agreement is on the agricultural committees, “because the members usually come from agricultural states and they’re very good at joining across party lines to protect the interests of food producers.”
Those damn food producers!
Obama added, “It makes for a difficult political dynamic for us being able to shape rational policy.”
In summation, Obama believes we have to limit our food production so that our ability to produce food won’t be limited.
That is “alternative rationality,” to put it kindly.
You know demographics are changing rapidly when the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, or DFL, that has already pissed off labor, is apparently willing to cast off farmers, as well.