Claim: We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A climate crisis role playing exercise, hosted by the World Wildlife Fund and the Center for American Progress, has concluded that the world can survive the ravages of climate change, providing we implement a global carbon tax, and create a new global governance structure.

Food Chain Reaction was held last November in Washington DC. The game was played by 65 international experts, who assumed the roles of nations, multilateral organizations and multinational business, and confronted a burgeoning food security crisis in the decade 2020-2030.

The players were divided in teams for Africa, Brazil, China, the European Union, the United States, multinational businesses and the international institutions. Their task: to figure out how they could cooperate to guide the world through a decade of mounting climate pressures and the resulting disruptions. There was no safety net. Through their actions, the participants could either get the world ready for an ever more apparent – and volatile – new normal, or drive it off a cliff.

In the end, even as extreme weather ran rampant and food prices flirted with 400 percent of the long-term average, they came up with a host of solutions. Cooperation mostly won the day over the short term individual advantage. Teams pledged to jointly build international information networks and early warning systems on hunger and crops, invest in smart agricultural technology and build up global food stocks as a buffer against climate shocks.

The most eye-catching results, however, were a deal to institute a worldwide carbon tax and a global food security summit that was tasked with setting up a whole new global governance structure for climate and food security issues.

Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/cargill/2016/02/15/food-security-in-a-time-of-climate-change/

I’m skeptical about the claim that additional global governance can improve the resilience of food production. Central planning was a disaster for Soviet Agriculture – distant bureaucrats tend to make poor farm managers.

133 thoughts on “Claim: We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN

    • Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Marx would all be proud of how these traitors to humanity have embraced their manifestos – take away their guns , food, and children and they will beg to be controlled. World dominance can come about only through the chaos created by those who would be God. Billions of us against several hundred of them – what odds we’re giving away!

      • Good try UN again! Take a look at this 1976 document which is a commentary/clarification of Agenda 21. Note what it says in section D. (My highlighting)

        https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf
        My highlighting!

        Ex NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark is aiming to be the next Secretary General.

        Not only is it a laugh, because although she may be a top politician, and knows how to get elected, she knows nothing about the economy or real long term effects of her policies.

        Of course she slipped in a raft of legislation which has helped UN Agenda 21 get a foot hold in NZ.

        She once, (while she was still PM of NZ), even lectured the Premier of China on how to run his country.

        The fact that Beijing city alone is 3-4 times the population of NZ and its economy seemed to slip her mind.

        Under her tenure as PM here, the economy slumped and a government surplus quickly changed to a government deficit – which we still have.

        Of course it was the world economy doing it? How else could it be explained?

        So want an open communist and useless tyrannical leader of the UN?

        Just out for the lesbian looking lady with the Hitler eyes.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

      • She also, while health minister in the 80’s, effectively destroyed probably the best public health care service in the world. She also increased the envy tax on anyone earning more than NZ$60,000. And still the econnmy slumped and revenuse vanished. But Cullen was the best laugh of all when he said “We won. You lost.” after coming to power under Clarke. When she lost her last election, she vanished and took up a position at the UN. Don’t recall what it was.

    • You’ll enjoy this.

      Replacement Migration:
      Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

      United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

      Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

      http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

      • When did the US become part of Europe and Japan? And when was it moved into Europe and the EU?

  1. It’s just the results of a role playing game, not an official UN declaration of intent of imminent world domination, as the title of this post made me suspect when I clicked on it. Somewhat disappointing actually, because that would have been interesting :)

    • I think you’ll find that it’s when they think it’s just a game, that they reveal their deepest desires.

      • Very perceptive question. Yet the only rhetoric that’s in our face is that of our bondholders – got a couple trillion to buy the truth? Nevertheless, it’s clear that the billions of masses have neither the knowledge, will, or motivation to fight a few hundred de-populaters. Does anyone even know what “eugenics” means these days? Seems like they’re taking the whole pie and over-pricing the crumbs. “A day’s wages for a loaf of bread.”

      • A few elites can solve the “problem” with humanity by getting rid of the rest of us. I have no doubt that we can survive climate change. But if we cede more power to the UN, we won’t survive the UN.

  2. So the scenario is that food prices will rise due to shortages. The warmer weather and increased CO2 have so far resulted in rising harvests, but let’s not let reality into climate games, that only confuses the issue. The answer by a cabal of “experts” who have been briefed with the “correct” answer is to take cash out of the economy by raising taxes, giving the average Joe less money to buy dearer food. Were these experts involved with the Venezuelan economy over the past 5 years by any chance?

    • Venezuela is indeed in a state of collapse. The history of government seizures of private businesses and particularly large farming operations is that a country that used to export food now has to import it but is running out of money to pay for the imports.

      Perhaps a variation of Margaret Thatcher’s quote: “Eventually you run out of other people’s food.”

      Of course you can always blame it on the climate:
      http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/160213/drought-a-predictable-crisis

      But that doesn’t free you from responsibility unless you can say the climate is unprecedented. Drumroll, enter the UN….

    • Is all this warmer weather in warm places, we had colder weather, damaged crops a livestock killed by heavy snow where I live recently.

    • According to these same people, communism is a roaring success, because anything designed by left wind economists will always works.

    • With fresh food. The “food stock” is for the rest of us who survive. How can they stock steak and lobster? “Don’t touch the oil and wine.”

    • ..I knew it wouldn’t take long to come out because they know they are running out of time before the cold comes crashing down on us !

  3. Read the post from yesterday about Robert Mugabe’s request for $1.5 billion per year as climate change assistance. Dictators driving economies into the ground to starvation with wealth redistribution on their lips is a sure fire way for the Greens to achieve the maximum loss of human life to achieve their “ideal carrying capacity” of half a billion humans on the planet.

    • The interesting thing, my fossilized friend, is that the “greens” seem to be the people with the least ability to adapt and survive. They’re the ones that are simultaneously over-educated, living in urban environments, and highly dependent on technology. They have a real lack of appreciation for the benefits of 1200 gallons of diesel in highly secure tanks, a few thousand rounds of the finest Swiss 7.65 mm mini-projectiles, and a 3/4 acre plot that can grow enough food to supply six for a year.

      I really think they’ll be the next to go after the Central and East African nations are hit.

      • Worse, they have an over reliance on technology of which they have no clue how works. They also have no clue how the food gets on their tables, or their clothes get on their backs or anything else of practical value. They are very educated in things which have no practical value in the post apocalyptic world they preach about.

        You see, they have a firm belief that they will be the pampered overlords that benevolently oversee the human animals that are left in the herd.

      • I recall reading a paper about the human brain’s use in conservative v liberal problem solving. It was way over my head but it seemed to conclude that conservative problem solving centered in the “fight or flee’ brain area while liberal problem solving centered in areas of the brain associated with aesthetics and social activities. My take was conservative decisions ensure liberal survival.

  4. The seekers of the truth need to have a far far far more effective campaign to fight the lies coming out of the UN and other rent seeking NGOs. By far the most cost effective campaign would be to enlist the public to seek the truth, they are after-all the ones that will be paying for all this nonsense. The deserve honesty. The easiest and cheapest way to do that is through an Open Source Campaign. Create an X-Prize type contest where the winner will get $1 million. The data to use is already available, the Raw data from NOAA, NASA, MET, UAH, Public Universities and willing individuals and corporations. Contestants would have to detail what data they used, how they “adjusted” it, the algorithms they used, the models they created, and the results they created. Never in a billion years would an Open Source project create the Hockeystick, never. No longer should the UN and Governments be allowed to determine the scientific truth that is used to justify their political agendas. An Open Source Climate Science would end all this nonsense, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  5. Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

    • do you have a link to that quote bill ? i would like one for the archives. i am fairly sure we can survive the ravages of climate change. whether we can survive the ravages of greenpiss, fiends of the earth,wwf, the united nations and the european union i am not so sure.

      • The quote is from
        The First Global Revolution
        Page 75

        “The book follows up the earlier 1972 work-product from the Club of Rome titled “The Limits to Growth”. The tagline of “The First Global Revolution” is A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome. The book was intended as a blueprint for the 21st century putting forward a strategy for world survival at the onset of what they called the world’s first global revolution.”

        “The Club of Rome is a global think tank … the Club of Rome describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former heads of state, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders from around the globe…”

        United Nations seems to be very heavily influenced by the Club of Rome. This is evident even in the following recent summary: 2013 Economic and Social Council Integration Meeting (13 May 2013)

        «Graham Turner’s comparison of 30 years of historical data and scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth was provided as an example to illustrate that business-as-usual will result in an economic collapse by 2030.»

        More on this in a earlier comment by me here: December 6, 2015 at 2:41 am

        United Nations has come off its hinges.

    • “It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose”

      That sounds very 1984-ish. Aldous Huxley was a very far-sighted author.

  6. “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher

  7. However well meaning, the UN has hardly impressed with its performance in other areas of international stress – particularly war, hunger, clean water, pollution, refugees etc. Seems naive to believe they would do any better with food shortages.

    A far better long term solution is a reduction in the number of mouths to feed. It is clear that non-confrontational, non-violent, and acceptable policies to achieve this are preferred over the unpleasant alternatives. We are sleepwalking into the latter!

    • The planet could easily support 3 to 5 times the current population. With foreseeable advances in technology that number will only grow.

    • i agree, i think we should immediately euthanise every single politician on the planet from local coucillors upward ;)

  8. I’ve always admired Winston Churchill’s leadership role in World War II but the creation of the United Nations was one of his worst ideas not excepting the Gallipoli campaign in WWI. Maybe I’m cynical but it seems to me that idealism is almost always the handiest tool for tyrants even though it is born from man’s noblest motives.

  9. And perhaps the most powerful voting block in the UN at present, is the MusIim Umma. So I expect that Obama will support this proposal wholeheartedly. Although the Mid East voting for renewables is a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas, they would do anything to gain political power over the West.

    R

    • The western idea of socialism is sharing what you have with your neighbours. Russians know that it is forcing your neighbours to share with you.

      In the same way, the oil-rich countries have no problem with the rest of the world bankrupting themselves trying to run an industrial civilisation on windmills. Nobody in the oil-rich countries are going to try anything so stupid. Pretty soon the rest of the world will be back with cheque-book in hand, looking for a power source they can rely on.

  10. distant bureaucrats tend to make poor farm managers.

    Too many words there. Here, let’s clean it up … bureaucrats are bad managers. The skill which bureaucrats at best at is the ability to collect their pay checks. Otherwise, they are nothing more than glorified clerks overfilled with their own self-importance, who do not play well with other bureaucrats.

    • “bureaucrats are bad managers”

      Not true at all. Many of the world’s biggest corporations are very bureaucratic. Bureaucrats may not make the decision that benefits you most. Frankly we aren’t paid to do that. We’re here to keep government running properly.

  11. The Changing Climate of Global Warming addressed this issue pretty well in this clip: Chris Horner has some devastating comments. The clip starts at min 42 and be sure to watch through min 48.

  12. I suspect the global governance structure needs climate change a lot more than the climate or any of the 6 billion people on earth need global governance structure

  13. From ‘Forbes’ { http://www.forbes.com/sites/cargill/2016/02/15/food-security-in-a-time-of-climate-change/#52f7b5b25313 },

    “Climate change won’t break the global food system all by itself by 2030, but in a world of population growth, rapid urbanization, and political instability in places, we do need to secure the system against climate shocks, the organizers argued.”

    -reported by Tom Vandyck [who] is a communications specialist at Cargill, dealing mainly with food ingredient and sustainability issues. Formerly, he was a reporter whose work was published in outlets around the world.

    An open free market is the reason based optimization of the ‘system’. Central ‘systems’ is a euphemism for ‘planned economies’; see 20th century for proof that they are the worst idea in the history of mankind.

    John

    • ah, thanks, enlightening
      hes a pr man for Cargill,
      who want monopoly purchase on crops at lowest prices, ongoing.
      the “system” he wants to secure is their supply NOT so much giving a shit re anyone else.
      yeah they worry about making a lot of profit OFF consumers
      but
      that’d be better off first worlders just like now.
      Im sick to death of reading industry news from food cos raving up the latest synthetic additive to “extend” product
      fillers gums and substitute prior waste being rehashed as new innovative ingredients
      like yellow pea flour bleached and added to bread etc
      farmers get .3c per kilo for wheat at 330 a tonne
      loaf of bread would be lucky to contain 200gm or max 300gm of wheat flour usually less
      so POINT ONE of a cent per loaf..is too expensive?
      for a product retailing in Aus anyway for avg 3$ a bloody loaf!!?
      too many =NOT what you think youre buying= ingredients can be “offlabelled” as processing aids, flow enhancers, whatever goofy excuse they can to cover the dearth of the main supposed..food for lesser value high profit crud.
      cargill and adm between them own close to half each of the worlds cocoa production
      since theyve managed that?
      notice the prices soaring while the substitute cheap fats and oils for the cocoa butter theyre selling elsewhere for more
      when choc went white from heat before you could still eat or cook with it
      now?
      it turns to crumbly dust…hmm?

  14. “The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
    — Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961

    I think that much more than a solution, United Nations is likely to become a huge, bureaucratic and undemocratic problem – an economic black hole. By it´s climate panel: IPCC, it is evident that United Nations has endorsed inductivism.
    United Nations was supposed to solve international problems of a cultural character – not to become one!

  15. Yes – it’s always a “Fund” in the name of “Progress” – the progressive funders will make sure they get a whopping return on their investment, by hook, crook, and force. It’s like being charged for the air we breathe.

      • Great diagram but it is missing one important group.

        The rich, the very very rich and all the rest, live and die for money. But there is a class – beyond wealth – that has genuine power, the power to ‘manufacture’ money. With unlimited ‘money’ the price of any commodity can be controlled and any currency manipulated.

        “And if you and your army don’t like it, we’ll spare no expense to arm your enemies and ruin your economy. Fuck it, we’ll arm you as well, through the backdoor, while we’re at it! There are many other benefits for us, but you probably get the idea.” / sarc (1%)

  16. But for the fact that we know they mean phony climate change when they say climate change, the article actually makes some sense, in that they talk about mitigation. Of course, the carbon tax sentence ruined it all.

  17. This was simply a game created in a Malthusian Universe with Malthusian assumptions. Those assumptions have no validity in the real world. Hence the game is completely meaningless. If these bureaucrats spent the same amount of time figuring out how to defend Middle Earth from Sauron, it would have been just a meaningless, but at least a bit more entertaining, as their collectivist ideas were completely consumed by org armies!

  18. Why does all discussion, on a world government, not include the word democracy? Are we all incapable of the concept of a democratic world government? Is the U.N. the only possible world government we can imagine, with the modern mind? GK

    • A democracy can exist only in a union of people with similar values, traditions, and goals. The world is far too diverse for a single democracy. Look at what is happening to the USA. Some ideologies are not compatible, the required compromises to freedoms and lifestyles are too great. Consider the NH slogan “Live free or die”. Many of us will take up arms and fight to the death before allowing our freedoms to be compromised due to incompatible ideologies taking root. Those who would give away the wealth and power of the USA to the rest of the world are traitors to the USA and are guilty of treason. Some of us like the dominant position of the USA and will protect it. Trump is the best thing to come along in a long while!

    • It would likely wind up like the EU, an elected parliament with absolutely no power, governed by an unelected bureaucracy that rules with an iron fist. A veneer of democracy on top an all-powerful autocracy.

  19. Hi from Oz. So how does this UN sponsored climate madness end, their way or ours? And if ours, by whom? All the rest is just waffle and wooly thinking. I don’t want my grandchildren to be slaves. Do you?

  20. Claim: We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN.

    Not a crumb from a garbage bin, give these professional high living moochers an inch, they will take a mile.

  21. The Left preach tolerance, but in practice, only for their own point of view. In climate change, they have found a license to be openly totalitarian.

  22. Can anybody find out how much this ‘game’ cost?
    How many thousands of dollars were flushed down the drain for a bunch of adults to spend an afternoon playing Clash of Climate Clans?

  23. They’ve always wanted central planning and global government and from what I’ve read over the years, it appears they are leveraging AGW as their means of getting what they want.

    What we could very well end up with is a world with UN leftists in total control and at their fingertips, the means to monitor virtually everything we purchase, everywhere we go, everything we watch, read, or listen to, everything we write or say…

  24. Love that the World Wildlife Fund is a Rockefeller funded organization and the Center for American Progress has been funded by both the Soros backed Tides foundation and Rockefeller. Must be that those dependent effeminate left-wing hippies are too stupid to connect big-money dots.

  25. The UN is yet another step you and I are removed from being represented in decision making, just like the EU is for Europeans.

  26. Whenever one hears ‘food security’ it raises red flags, its usually a mask for stealing and self interested control. Food grows just fine without governments trying to steal the production for themselves.

  27. Those of us in Europe have heard this kind of thing before: whatever crisis there is, the only solution for it is ‘more Europe’……..

  28. Any bureaucrat given any problem can only try to solve it using more bureaucrats…

    If you asked them to implement a free market, their heads would explode!

  29. “Food Chain Reaction: A Global Food Security Game is a simulation and role-playing exercise intended to improve understanding of how governments, institutions, and private sector interests might interact to address a crisis in the global food system. The scenario is set five years from today in a world where population growth, rapid urbanization, extreme weather, and political crises combine to threaten global food security.”

    I would be surprised if we don’t have such a situation arise within the next four years, because of this solar minimum. Looking carefully at the Gleissberg (late 1800’s) and Dalton solar minima, the bulk of the more extreme negative North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillation episodes occur between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak cycles +~1yr, 1807-1817 and 1885-1895. For Maunder, the same pattern follows for three max to max cycles rather than one, 1672-1705 with a brief respite at the sunspot maximum around 1686. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

    For this minimum that translates to from now to around 2025. El Nino frequency will likely double, and coupled with a renewed AMO warming, which will cause persistent regional continental drought, mostly cool-wet summers in maritime regions like NW Europe, and a large increase in deep cold winter episodes, furthering crop problems, such as this recent freeze event in Russia:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-12/russian-wheat-trapped-under-ice-risks-crop-in-major-growing-area

    Canada is currently having food supply problems, and will have increasing production problems through the next decade:
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/01/canadas-food-banks-fear-shortage-crisis-due-to-price-of-fresh-foods.html

    “The most eye-catching results, however, were a deal to institute a worldwide carbon tax and a global food security summit that was tasked with setting up a whole new global governance structure for climate and food security issues.”

    Unless they are fully clued in on what is driving natural variability, their tinkering will do more harm than good.

  30. I’m also skeptical about that, as I also was about COP21 and other “gatherings” like that. Everybody is preoccupied by the climate change, but it is useless to discuss only the future without understanding the main cause of the climate transformation. My opinion is that the ocean and human activity on the ocean (mostly naval wars) has a big contribution in the matter. Aren’t we ignoring that? Shouldn’t we pay more attention to the ocean? Let’s not forget that oceans govern climate, as it’s very well mentioned here: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/.

  31. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) & Photosynthesis are the foundation of Life on Earth. Plants/plankton turn Sunlight/CO2 into Food/Oxygen. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it helps to shrink deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures also lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall & save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 40 years ago.

  32. Ceding more power to the UN is just a euphemism for transferring more wealth to the developing world with their corrupt, inefficient, dysfunctional and brutal governments. The money could then be used by their ruling classes to enhance their lifestyles and beef up their militaries which in turn would ensure those ruling classes stay in power. As for fighting climate change, this is just a ruse because it’s not even seen as a priority among the majority of Third World citizens. Besides, what would happen if the money destined toward this fight proved to be ineffectual or to have been diverted to other causes. Would we get a refund?

  33. But it’s all a conspiracy theory…..isn’t it? Even when stated in writing people protect the UN machinations to control the world as a right wing conspiracy theory. There’s enough written proof of their real goals and they are becoming more and more bold about it. The EU is their proving ground and we see how that’s going so far. National sovereignty is the key to survival. The largest, most prosperous countries in the world will not relinquish sovereignty because they either already have what’s being promised or the people in power won’t give up their control. Why should they?

  34. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the Sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it. Our real problem is Man;s out of control population. If Man does not control his own population then Nature will, catastrophically.

    • willhaas commented: “…If Man does not control his own population then Nature will, catastrophically…”

      So either way “man” loses. I’ll take my chances with nature.

  35. “We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN”

    Ummm – NO.

    And we’ll survive it anyway – just as we have for the eons of changing climates before us.

    Greedy, power-hungry IDIOTS.

  36. Science must be put in to the hands of scientific institutions and not in to the hands of UN as this agency is more interested to collect trillions of dollars to distribute to serve the vested interests only. This will be deathbed to science.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Most of the scientific institutions are in lock-step with the UN. I fail to see how your suggestion would help.

  37. Well, ceding power to the UN is far preferable to ceding power to the EU. If you saw the mess they made here in the Common Market days, with farming subsidies giving rise to all kinds of scams and the price of food skyrocketing, you’d know what I mean.

    Other consequences of EU meddling are the exhausting North Sea fish stocks, and the disastrous floods which the UK has suffered.

  38. Why are these idiots looking into the future and playing games when there are so many people going without food NOW?

    Perhaps they are not so ‘expert’ after all.

    From https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats (undated but agrees with other documents for 2015 figures)

    Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth.

    The vast majority of the world’s hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished.

    Asia is the continent with the most hungry people – two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly.

    Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest prevalence (percentage of population) of hunger. One person in four there is undernourished.

    Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five – 3.1 million children each year.

    One out of six children — roughly 100 million — in developing countries is underweight.

    One in four of the world’s children are stunted. In developing countries the proportion can rise to one in three.

    If women farmers had the same access to resources as men, the number of hungry in the world could be reduced by up to 150 million.

    66 million primary school-age children attend classes hungry across the developing world, with 23 million in Africa alone.

    WFP calculates that US$3.2 billion is needed per year to reach all 66 million hungry school-age children.

  39. I really disliked the so called research linking conspiracy theorists with climate change scepticism, I really don’t buy it. But of late there seems to be an uncomfortable amount of people posting who seem determined to prove me wrong.

    • You’re right Gareth, nobody conspires these days, there is nothing practical about organising, or planning! Plotting, intrigue and iniquity are things of the past. Politics is about individual values not party lines. Elites would never collude out of self interest. Terms like “organised crime” have no meaning today because that would imply conspirators. Forget corporate corruption, it doesn’t exist because it would require a conspiracy to defraud and that is impossible in the world today where “everything is awesome”. Forget the entire political history of history nobody ever conspired that is just a theory! / sarc/exasperation (I don’t know anymore.)

  40. As someone working in alternative agriculture, I can assure you that we HAVE answers to ensure longterm production increases and more stability in our food systems. We are ignored though and there is some rather interesting work going off on the side anyway. For instance I know growers in various parts of africa using tree based systems to provide reliable quality food, that over time become more and more fertile in places considered non arable, even without irrigation involved. Not all such models work in the first world where labor is expensive but robots might one day change that but they do very well in the third world. My own work here in the high desert SW shows I can grow a range of crops here including treecrops that could replace the grain we feed animals currently (large portion of grain goes to animals) all while producing much much more meat then current cattle production here. I use goats not cattle but the amount of meat is easily an order of magnitude higher, ore actually but hard for me to say for sure at this point because I am only doing a small area currently I dont have the land to scale up yet.

    The most obvious potential here although there are many is to use such models to improve the arid regions we currently grow half the worlds meat on. They would become more and more fertile and hold more water over time while producing more then currently while providing treecrops as well. We could readily free up the farmlands growing grain for livestock now with treecrops, use more of them as fillers in our own food or eat directly and many other potentials.

    My real point here is when or if the world stops ignoring some of those at the edges of food production advancement we have answers already for sharp increases for decades to come. We have many international groups all supposedly seeking out such answers, for instance bill gates spending mountains of cash across africa for this goal. Yet somehow literally missed groups ALREADY doing it in AFFORDABLE ways simply by a change in mindset with mostly onsite and VERY sustainable inputs. yet it is ignored even though youd have to try to ignore it if you study food production and africa to any extent. This tells me that an entire field is so closed minded it cannot see many of the answers and more then adequate ones already exist and are being implemented in a few places. Extreme cognitive dissonance. OR they do not want answers, they want control.

    Considering some of the other things I know about having happened the answer appears to be control. Hard to imagine, but little else makes sense.

  41. This is one way to ratchet up the dues. It will not be long before the UN partakes in the day after claims of a mandate in U.S. elections.

  42. And these organizations are still apolitical non profit for the IRS and other national tax collectors.

Comments are closed.