Government agencies, billionaires and pressure groups put the world's poor, hungry families last
Paul Driessen
Elite billionaire organizations and foundations, government agencies, and radical pressure groups are funding and coordinating a global war against modern agriculture, nutrition, and the poorest, hungriest people on Earth. Instead of helping more families gain access to nutritious food, better healthcare and higher standards of living, they are doing the opposite, harming biodiversity in the process.
The World Economic Forum wants to reimagine, reshape and transform the global food system to eliminate greenhouse gases from food production. At the heart of the program are animal-based protein alternatives: mealworm potato chips, bug burgers instead of beef patties, and patties and sausages made from lake flies, for example. Fixing the toxic workplace at the World Economic Forum is clearly not a priority.
A report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations suggests that turning “edible insects” into “delicious” food could create thriving local businesses and even promote “women's inclusion”.
The World Bank aims to alleviate global poverty and believes that the “man-made climate crisis” poses a far greater threat to poor households than contaminated water, malaria and other deadly diseases, hunger, and even the fact that 2 billion people still burn wood and excrement because they Don't do this. It unilaterally announced that 45% of its funding (an additional $9 billion in fiscal 2024) would be used to help the poor “better resilient to the ravages of climate change.”
(The World Bank also decided to donate more taxpayer funds — $300 million instead of “just” $70 million — to the Palestinian Authority, which pays terrorists to murder Israelis.)
Of course, most of the well-known and lesser-known environmental pressure groups are also deeply involved in the food, agriculture, and energy policy movement: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, La. Via Campesina (Campus Farmers), the African Alliance for Food Sovereignty, and countless others.
Like other members of the “agroecology” movement, they ridicule and denigrate modern agriculture, viewing it as a scourge caused by greedy big corporations. They oppose fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides and biotechnology. They celebrate “food sovereignty” and “the right to choose.” But their policies reflect top-down tyranny and bullying, leaving little room for poor farmers to adopt modern agricultural technologies and practices.
In addition to support from the World Economic Forum, the FAO, and the World Bank, these hard green organizations receive ideological, organizational, and financial support from USAID, EU agencies, and a range of progressive and far-left American, European, and other foundations. support.
The American Agricultural Ecology Fund was created by the Christensen Foundation, the New Fields Foundation, and the Swift Foundation. Its funding and projects are overseen by the New Venture Fund, which helps “philanthropic” and “educational” organizations direct funds toward projects that align with what many describe as neocolonial and eco-imperialist goals.
Other major players include the Schmidt Family Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and the Ben and Jerry's Foundation.
That’s a lot of money – hundreds of millions of dollars a year in food, agriculture and climate change funding. This completely overshadows the paltry $9,000 that Kenyan farmer Jusper Machogu raised through donations to his Climate Realism website — most of which went to his neighbors so they could Dig a well, purchase a propane tank, or connect to the local power grid.
However, Mr Majogu has angered the BBC's “climate disinformation officer”. (Yes, the Beeb actually has such a position.) The CDO attacked him for “tweeting false and misleading statements about climate change” and said Africa should develop its oil, gas and coal reserves rather than rely entirely on intermittent sexual, weather-dependent energy. To make matters worse, the farmer had the temerity to accept donations from non-Africans, including “individuals with ties to the fossil fuel industry and groups known for climate change denial.”
Rockefeller Philanthropic Advisors is another major donor to agroecological institutions. It’s part of a guilt-ridden oil-money legacy from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Co. corporate trust that includes nearly 1,000 climate-related Agencies, foundations and event organizations.
As the Canadian Frontline Center says, “Every time you hear a horror story about ‘climate change,’ [the person writing it] Paid. He was Rockefeller's puppet. He may not know it, but his profession is completely corrupt. Even worse, I would add, is that the author and his (or her) organization are complicit in the perpetuation of global poverty, energy poverty, hunger, disease, and death—because fearmongering drives destructive energy and food production policies .
Individually or collectively, these policy corruptors should not be underestimated in the battle to protect and expand modern energy, agriculture, and global nutrition. Thankfully, resistance is mounting. Many families simply do not want to be trapped in poverty, disease, mud thatched huts, lack of educational opportunities for their children and a future of hard, dawn-to-dusk labor on tiny subsistence farmlands.
This is especially true when movies, news reports, and cell phones illustrate American and European agricultural equipment and practices—and the crop yields, wealth, health, family, leisure time, and opportunities that accompany these modern farming systems.
Poor farmers have also seen China, India, Indonesia and other countries rapidly industrialize and modernize using oil, gas and coal. They see changes taking place in many countries that intend to chart their own course toward fossil fuels as the energy base for growth. They reject the eco-colonialism and eco-imperialism that wealthy Westerners seek to impose on them.
The message they get is that humans have faced climate fluctuations and extreme weather events throughout history…and survived, dealt with them, adapted to them, and thrived. There is no real-world evidence that human-made greenhouse gas emissions—especially trace amounts from agriculture—have replaced the powerful natural forces responsible for past climate change.
They increasingly realize that to achieve the same yields, organic and subsistence farming require more land than modern, mechanized agriculture—land that would otherwise become a habitat for wildlife. Plowing these habitats destroys plant and animal diversity.
Locking in fossil fuels and relying instead on biofuels and plant feedstocks to produce thousands of basic products will require more acreage. The same goes for mining vast quantities of metals and minerals to create wind, solar and battery technology.
Most importantly, they understand that humans today have more wealth, more knowledge, better technology and resources than any previous generation.
It is simply ridiculous to suggest that we cannot adapt to climate change, or survive and recover from extreme weather events. To suggest that farmers should restore…or continue to cling to…ancient agricultural practices and technologies—to save the world from computer-generated man-made climate catastrophe—is the deadliest form of ecological imperialism.
South Africa's electricity minister recently said South Africa would not “become a guinea pig for the global Green New Deal”. Hopefully all developing countries will soon adopt the same attitude towards anarchists who use the world's poor as guinea pigs for global agriculture and nutrition experiments.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and the author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.
Relevant
