fbpx

Agriculture

Political Polarization Finds Its Way to the Agricultural Sector

“Don’t let us become more like the United States.” This was the message from German agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, regarding the farmer protests that have shaken Germany for months. Farmers spoke out and organized against planned tax hikes on agricultural vehicles and diesel fuel amid a cost-of-living crisis already stressing German life.   

“This is a dangerous rift that can lead to conditions like those in the USA,” Özdemir told German news. “People no longer talk to each other, they no longer believe each other and they accuse each other of all the evil in the world.” The goal must be to “keep the country together in the center.” 

It is a convenient cop-out for a German cabinet member to distract from the problems with its own government’s policies by pointing the finger at American political polarization. In truth, the two issues have nothing in common, and German farmers are right to be upset. 

For many years now, German and EU policy has reduced the toolbox of crop protection chemicals that farmers can use on their fields to protect yields. The government has been adamant about getting herbicide glyphosate banned across Europe, despite ample evidence of its safety, a fact acknowledged by local and EU-wide regulators. Now that farmers are treading water and only live comfortably in above-average harvest seasons, Germany thought it opportune to fill the coffers of the treasury with higher taxes on diesel and tractors. 

When the farmers started protesting on the streets of Berlin, the government and its apologists initially shifted blame. The farmers were either “entitled”, since they’d had a good harvest in 2023, or they were not participating enough in the environmental transition in the country. Environmental lobby group, Greenpeace, argued that farmers should switch out their diesel tractors for electric ones instead, forgetting to mention that those often come at double the acquisition price. Germany also has amongst the highest electricity prices in Europe.

Under political pressure from the protests, Berlin eventually gave in, dropped the tax hikes on tractors, and promised to phase out tax breaks on diesel over a longer period of time. However, farmers have promised to keep protesting, as the phase-outs will eventually overlap with bad harvest years and bankruptcy will follow for many farmers living on the financial edge. This has put an already tedious government coalition under strain 

80 percent of Germans who have no connection to the agricultural sector express support for the farmer protests.

In a way, minister Özdemir is correct. The political environment in Germany is badly polarized. But unlike the American boogeyman he is alluding to, the polarization is between his government coalition and everyone else. The same is currently happening in France, Poland, and Romania, where farmers are protesting the effects of EU regulation and dwindling margins on their products.

For over ten years, consecutive German and EU governments have pursued a devastating green agenda that has led to high fuel prices, high electricity prices, and high gas prices. Germany had made itself dependent on Russian gas, then phased out perfectly operational nuclear power plants, and then decided that all the taxpayers needed to pay even more for the privilege of having amongst the highest energy costs on the continent. As a result, social democrats and environmentalists have become unpopular, and risk defeat at the ballot box.

European leaders can approach this problem in one of two ways: either they recognize that the farming sector is overregulated and give it a path towards ending reliance on subsidies, understand that energy security and reduced global warming emissions require the use of nuclear power, and provide the baseline for a successful industrial nation, or will they just write-off everyone who disagrees with them as far-right extremists?

Which way will they choose?

Originally published here

MANIFS D’AGRICULTEURS EN EUROPE : OUI, LES DIRECTIVES EUROPÉENNES SONT EN FAUTE !

A travers toute l’Europe, les agriculteurs expriment leur mécontentement… à juste titre.

Dans de nombreux pays européens, les agriculteurs protestent et ils ont raison de le faire.

Qu’il s’agisse des agriculteurs néerlandais qui protestent contre la réduction prévue du nombre d’éleveurs, des agriculteurs allemands qui s’opposent à la hausse prévue des taxes sur le diesel ou des agriculteurs français qui déplorent les marges globales sur leurs produits, les agriculteurs de toute l’Europe se sont soulevés contre l’excès de réglementation.

Je sais que de nombreux opposants aimeraient prétendre que les agriculteurs sont en fait motivés par l’assistanat, mais je pense que c’est une vision très partiale de la question. Oui, la plupart des agriculteurs reçoivent des paiements directs dans le cadre de la politique agricole commune (PAC), et oui, la PAC représente une grande partie du budget de l’UE.

Mais ce qui est souvent ignoré dans ce débat, c’est que les agriculteurs sont aussi considérablement gênés par les réglementations existantes qui les obligent à ne pas cultiver certaines parties de leurs terres. Qu’il s’agisse de la politique de gel des terres menée par Bruxelles pour maintenir les prix du marché à un niveau élevé, ou des règles de l’UE visant à maintenir les terres agricoles en jachère pour contribuer à la régénération des sols, les bureaucrates semblent souvent croire qu’ils connaissent mieux la profession agricole que les agriculteurs eux-mêmes.

En outre, la « négociation » du gouvernement français avec les chaînes de distribution pour éviter l’inflation des denrées alimentaires a essentiellement fait peser le fardeau sur les agriculteurs. Maintenant que les agriculteurs sont mécontents, le gouvernement français veut à nouveau résoudre le problème à l’aide de subventions. Il s’agit d’une boucle sans fin, qui n’est pas propice à l’élaboration d’une bonne politique.

Les agriculteurs ne veulent pas être dépendants des aides, mais le système réglementaire les rend dépendants de ces aides. Je dirais également que la PAC doit disparaître, mais pour qu’elle puisse disparaître, une grande partie du système réglementaire doit partir avec elle.

Prenons l’exemple de la stratégie « Farm to Fork« , une politique qui, heureusement, est relativement morte sur le plan législatif. Cette stratégie vise à rendre le système alimentaire plus durable d’un point de vue environnemental, mais elle aboutirait en fait à l’inverse, en augmentant les émissions de dioxyde de carbone avec les aliments biologiques (qui nécessitent plus d’énergie pour obtenir le même résultat) et en augmentant les prix de l’énergie pour les consommateurs. Récemment, la Commission européenne a également retiré la principale directive du programme, qui concernait l’utilisation durable des pesticides et aurait permis de réduire de moitié l’utilisation des pesticides d’ici à 2030.

La réaction politique aux manifestations des agriculteurs a été très révélatrice : ils tentent de détourner l’attention.

« Ne nous laissons pas devenir plus semblables aux Etats-Unis. » Tel est le message du ministre allemand de l’Agriculture, Cem Özdemir, concernant les manifestations d’agriculteurs qui secouent le pays depuis des semaines. Les agriculteurs se sont exprimés et organisés contre les hausses de taxes prévues sur les véhicules agricoles et le carburant diesel, dans un contexte de crise du coût de la vie qui pèse déjà sur le quotidien des Allemands.

« Il s’agit d’un clivage dangereux qui peut mener à des conditions similaires à celles des Etats-Unis, a déclaré M. Özdemir à la presse allemande. Les gens ne se parlent plus, ne se croient plus et s’accusent mutuellement de tous les maux du monde. L’objectif doit être de ‘garder le pays uni au centre’. »

Il est commode pour un membre du cabinet allemand de détourner l’attention des problèmes liés aux politiques de son propre gouvernement en pointant du doigt la polarisation politique américaine. En réalité, les deux questions n’ont rien en commun et les agriculteurs allemands ont raison d’être mécontents.

Sous la pression politique des manifestations, Berlin a fini par céder, par renoncer à l’augmentation des taxes sur les tracteurs et a promis de supprimer progressivement les avantages fiscaux sur le diesel sur une période plus longue. Toutefois, les agriculteurs ont promis de continuer à protester, car les suppressions progressives finiront par coïncider avec les mauvaises années de récolte et la faillite s’ensuivra pour de nombreux agriculteurs vivant au bord du gouffre financier. Cette situation a mis à rude épreuve une coalition gouvernementale déjà fastidieuse. En tout, 80% des Allemands qui n’ont aucun lien avec le secteur agricole expriment leur soutien aux protestations des agriculteurs.

D’une certaine manière, le ministre Özdemir a raison. L’environnement politique en Allemagne est fortement polarisé. Mais contrairement au croquemitaine américain auquel il fait allusion, la polarisation se fait entre sa coalition gouvernementale et tous les autres. La même chose se produit actuellement en France, en Pologne et en Roumanie, où les agriculteurs protestent contre les effets de la réglementation européenne et la diminution des marges sur leurs produits.

Pendant plus de dix ans, les gouvernements allemands et européens successifs ont poursuivi un programme vert dévastateur qui a entraîné une hausse des prix des carburants, de l’électricité et du gaz. L’Allemagne s’est rendue dépendante du gaz russe, puis a mis progressivement hors service des centrales nucléaires parfaitement opérationnelles, avant de décider que tous les contribuables devaient payer encore plus pour avoir le privilège d’avoir des coûts énergétiques parmi les plus élevés du continent. Par conséquent, les sociaux-démocrates et les écologistes sont devenus impopulaires et risquent d’être battus dans les urnes.

Les dirigeants européens peuvent aborder ce problème de deux manières. Soit ils reconnaissent que le secteur agricole est surréglementé et lui ouvrent la voie vers la fin de la dépendance aux subventions, soit ils comprennent que la sécurité énergétique et la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre nécessitent l’utilisation de l’énergie nucléaire et constituent la base d’une nation industrielle prospère, soit (en bonus) ils font passer tous ceux qui ne sont pas d’accord avec eux pour des extrémistes d’extrême-droite.

Quelle voie choisiront-ils ?

Originally published here

The German Government Gambled Against Farmers and Lost

In December, a convoy of 1,700 tractors blocked the main road to Berlin’s iconic Brandenburg Gate. Honking and chanting could be heard all over the city as farmers bashed the government’s plan to end tax breaks on fuel and agricultural vehicles in the 2024 budget. 

Under Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the government needs to make cuts of $18.5 billion in this year’s budget or find additional revenues. Ending tax breaks on farm vehicles and fuel would raise a little over $1 billion but would threaten the farmers’ livelihoods, their representatives say.

The German government comprises three political parties: the social democrat SPD, the Green Party, and the liberal-democrat FDP. Greens and FDP say they reject dragging down farmers with a tax hike but struggle to reign in government spending. The constitutional debt limit in Germany bars the government from borrowing its way out of the current budget crisis. The coalition is already on shaky feet after an internal FDP vote decided narrowly to continue being a part of it.

Making farmers the target by levying further taxes is not merely an act of fiscal desperation. Across Europe, governments are concerned over the environmental impact of farming and how that reflects on their global warming emissions. A slimmer farm sector would satisfy this environmental accounting because imported products from abroad do not count as domestic emissions.

Greenpeace has been at the forefront of arguing in favor of these tax hikes, implying that farmers are unnecessarily dramatic and privileged, asserting the agricultural sector “must play its part in achieving the climate targets and switch to fuel-saving and climate-friendly drive systems. The technology is available, and the first e-tractors are already in use.” 

The fact that electric tractors easily come at double the cost of conventional diesel tractors is left out of Greenpeace’s statement.

Greenpeace has had a significant effect on Germany’s policies. The former chief of Greenpeace International, Jennifer Morgan, now serves as special envoy for international climate policy under Germany’s Green foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock.

Despite the lobbying for tax hikes, the German government reversed course last week, deciding that tax hikes on agricultural vehicles would be scrapped. Those on diesel would be phased out over many years “to give companies more time to adjust.” This is a win for farmers despite early indications from organizers that they will continue to call for protests.

Once again, this shows the power of farmers who seek to be politically active and make their voices heard. An earlier example was the Dutch farmer protests against stringent rules on nitrous oxide emissions, in which the Dutch government was seeking to buy out a large set of livestock farmers in the country. Most farmers made it clear to politicians in The Hague: We value our profession and do not want to be considered a problem to be solved by our own government. 

Ultimately, a farmers’ party won the provincial election in the Netherlands, creating a roadblock in the government agenda that would enable the buyout program.

Farming also represented a significant issue in the recent Dutch parliamentary elections. Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his party were ousted and relegated to a less important position.

A rule of thumb in European politics is the following: If you act against the interests of farmers, you are bound to lose. Politicians in Berlin might think they changed course before they could find out — but it will very well be too late for their political reputation in any of the coming elections.

Originally published here

Le mauvais pari du gouvernement Allemand contre ses agriculteurs

A la suite d’importantes protestations, le gouvernement allemand a fait volte-face et a renoncé à augmenter les impôts des agriculteurs. 

Fin décembre, un convoi de 1 700 tracteurs a bloqué la route principale menant à l’emblématique porte de Brandebourg à Berlin. Des klaxons et des chants ont été entendus dans tout le centre-ville, les agriculteurs dénonçant le projet du gouvernement de mettre fin aux exonérations fiscales sur le carburant et les véhicules agricoles dans le budget 2024.

Le gouvernement du chancelier social-démocrate Olaf Scholz doit procéder à des réductions de 17 milliards d’euros dans le budget de cette année ou trouver des recettes supplémentaires. La suppression des avantages fiscaux sur les véhicules agricoles et le carburant permettrait de récolter un milliard d’euros, mais menacerait les moyens de subsistance des agriculteurs, affirment leurs représentants.

Le gouvernement allemand actuel est composé de trois partis politiques : le parti social-démocrate SPD, le parti vert et le parti libéral-démocrate FDP. Les Verts et le FDP affirment tous deux qu’ils refusent de tirer les agriculteurs vers le bas en augmentant les impôts, mais ils luttent aussi manifestement pour limiter les dépenses de l’Etat. La limite constitutionnelle de la dette en Allemagne empêche le gouvernement d’emprunter pour sortir de la crise budgétaire actuelle. La coalition est déjà fragilisée par un vote interne du FDP qui a décidé, de justesse, de continuer à en faire partie.

Il est clair que faire des agriculteurs la cible de nouvelles taxes n’est pas seulement un acte de désespoir fiscal. Dans toute l’Europe, les gouvernements s’inquiètent de l’impact environnemental de l’agriculture et de son incidence sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Un secteur agricole moins important satisferait en fin de compte cette comptabilité environnementale, car les produits importés de l’étranger ne sont pas comptabilisés dans les émissions nationales.

« L’agriculture a besoin d’une sécurité de planification, c’est pourquoi ces choses, telles qu’elles ont été décidées du jour au lendemain – à court terme et sans concertation avec la profession – étaient erronées dès le départ », explique même un politicien social-démocrate à Berlin à la radio allemande RBB.

Il va sans dire que Greenpeace a été en première ligne pour défendre ces hausses de taxes, laissant entendre que les agriculteurs sont inutilement dramatiques et privilégiés, affirmant que « le secteur agricole doit jouer son rôle dans la réalisation des objectifs climatiques et passer à des systèmes d’entraînement économes en carburant et respectueux du climat« . Le fait que les tracteurs électriques coûtent facilement deux fois plus cher que les tracteurs diesel conventionnels n’est pas mentionné dans le communiqué de presse de Greenpeace.

L’organisation écologiste américaine a eu un impact significatif sur les politiques allemandes. En effet, l’ancienne directrice de Greenpeace International, Jennifer Morgan, est envoyée spéciale pour la politique climatique internationale auprès de la ministre verte des affaires étrangères, Annalena Baerbock.

Cependant, malgré le lobbying des écologistes en faveur d’une augmentation des taxes, le gouvernement allemand a fait volte-face la semaine dernière en décidant que les taxes sur les véhicules agricoles seraient supprimées et que celles sur le diesel seraient progressivement éliminées sur plusieurs années « pour donner aux entreprises plus de temps pour s’adapter ». Il s’agit d’une victoire pour les agriculteurs allemands, même si les premières indications des organisateurs montrent qu’ils continueront à appeler à des manifestations.

Cela montre une fois de plus le pouvoir des agriculteurs qui cherchent à être politiquement actifs et à faire entendre leur voix.

Les manifestations des agriculteurs néerlandais contre les règles strictes en matière d’émissions d’oxyde nitreux, dans le cadre desquelles le gouvernement néerlandais cherchait à racheter un grand nombre d’éleveurs de bétail dans le pays, en sont un autre exemple. La plupart des agriculteurs ont clairement fait savoir aux responsables politiques de La Haye qu’ils tenaient à leur profession et qu’ils ne voulaient pas être considérés comme un problème à résoudre par leur propre gouvernement. En fin de compte, un parti d’agriculteurs a remporté les élections provinciales aux Pays-Bas, bloquant ainsi l’agenda du gouvernement qui devait permettre la mise en oeuvre du programme de rachat.

L’agriculture a également représenté un enjeu important lors des récentes élections législatives, au cours desquelles le Premier ministre Mark Rutte et son parti ont été évincés et relégués à une position moins importante dans la politique néerlandaise.

En politique européenne, la règle est la suivante : si l’on agit à l’encontre des intérêts des agriculteurs, on est condamné à perdre. Les hommes politiques de Berlin peuvent penser qu’ils ont changé de cap avant qu’ils ne puissent s’en rendre compte, mais il sera bien trop tard pour leur réputation politique lors des prochaines élections.

Originally published here

Comment le « Green Deal » européen est mort

L’échec du « Green Deal » européen est un avertissement pour tous les décideurs politiques…

Le Parlement européen a rejeté le projet de loi sur l’utilisation durable des pesticides, qui constituait la pierre angulaire du « Green Deal » européen et de la stratégie « Farm to Fork ».

En 2020, l’Union européenne a prévu une réforme fondamentale du secteur agricole de l’Union, en réduisant l’utilisation des pesticides et des engrais et en encourageant l’agriculture biologique. Bien que certaines propositions restent d’actualité, les législateurs sont pratiquement revenus sur leurs positions d’il y a trois ans, et il y a de bonnes raisons à cela.

Lorsque l’UE a dévoilé ses projets de réforme, le COVID en était à sa phase initiale, on pensait qu’il avait été vaincu par des blocages rigoureux, et l’Ukraine n’avait pas encore été envahie par la Russie. Les taux d’intérêt étaient presque négatifs et, depuis la chambre d’écho qu’est l’exécutif européen, il semblait opportun de bouleverser l’ensemble du système alimentaire et agricole.

Après une première réaction politique plutôt molle, les commissaires de l’UE ont persisté. C’est pour le bien de l’environnement, ont-ils dit. Toutefois, il est rapidement apparu que ces projets allaient coûter très cher : selon l’USDA, ils s’accompagneraient d’une baisse de la production agricole comprise entre 7% et 12% et auraient un impact significatif sur le PIB global du continent. Pourtant, la Commission européenne, l’organe exécutif de l’UE, a persisté : les pesticides chimiques, même s’ils sont approuvés par le régulateur indépendant, doivent être réduits.

Des fissures ont commencé à apparaître dans la sincérité de l’exécutif de l’UE lorsque le président Macron, puis d’autres chefs d’Etat européens, ont commencé à douter de la possibilité de mettre en oeuvre ces règles. Les représentants des agriculteurs avaient indiqué qu’ils rejetaient les objectifs des stratégies de l’UE.

Les élections provinciales néerlandaises, qui ont vu la victoire d’un parti agricole ayant fait campagne contre la politique gouvernementale visant à réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre conformément à la législation de l’UE, ont marqué le début de la fin. Le BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), également connu sous le nom de Mouvement des agriculteurs-citoyens, a remporté une victoire importante lors des élections provinciales aux Pays-Bas. Avec un nombre impressionnant de 15 sièges sur 75 au Sénat, il occupe désormais la position du parti le plus influent au sein de la chambre haute du pays. Le BBB a été créé en 2019, mais il a bénéficié d’un large soutien à la suite de la décision du gouvernement de réduire les émissions d’azote, en fermant environ un tiers des exploitations agricoles néerlandaises.

Les protestations des agriculteurs aux Pays-Bas ne sont que la partie émergée de l’iceberg de la boîte de Pandore que l’UE a ouverte en s’immisçant dans le système agricole européen.

La vision utopique et déformée de l’agriculture véhiculée par l’environnement se heurte aux besoins réels des consommateurs. En fait, la solution européenne consistant à développer l’agriculture bio va à l’encontre de l’objectif de réduction des émissions de dioxyde de carbone. Les émissions de CO2 augmenteront de 70% si l’agriculture biologique devient la norme, comme l’ont montré des chercheurs britanniques. La raison en est simple : l’agriculture biologique a besoin de plus de ressources et de plus de terres agricoles pour obtenir le même rendement. Les aliments biologiques sont donc non seulement moins bons pour l’environnement, mais aussi plus chers pour les consommateurs.

Il s’est avéré que la réduction des terres agricoles européennes, tout en privant les agriculteurs du droit de prévenir adéquatement la propagation des parasites, n’a pas été bien accueillie par les électeurs. Dès lors, le Parti populaire européen (PPE), le plus grand parti du Parlement européen – qui devrait rester en place après les prochaines élections –, s’est autoproclamé parti de l’agriculteur, a démoli pièce après pièce le « Green Deal » européen. Nombre de ses composantes restantes ne seront probablement pas soumises au vote avant les élections européennes de juin.

D’ailleurs, Frans Timmermans, l’architecte néerlandais du « Green Deal » européen, a déjà quitté son poste pour tenter de devenir Premier ministre dans son pays, un pari qui ne s’est pas encore concrétisé à l’issue des récentes élections.

En l’espace de trois ans seulement, l’Union européenne est passée de l’affirmation qu’elle était sur le point de réaliser une réforme sans précédent en matière de changement climatique à la mise à mort de ses propres ambitions.

Cet échec du « Green Deal » européen est un avertissement pour tous les décideurs politiques. Repenser l’agriculture et l’environnement exige une approche équilibrée qui intègre les préoccupations des agriculteurs, garantit une communication transparente et s’adapte aux réalités changeantes. Le succès futur des initiatives environnementales dépend de la capacité des politiciens à forger des consensus solides, respectant les diverses perspectives et assurant la viabilité à long terme des politiques adoptées.

Originally published here

How the Green New Deal Met Its Demise In Europe

In a stunning upset, the European Parliament voted down the “Sustainable Use of Pesticides” bill, which marked the cornerstone of the European Green Deal and the so-called “Farm to Fork” strategy. In 2020, the European Union planned a fundamental reform of the bloc’s agricultural sector, slashing pesticide use, cutting down fertilizer use, and boosting organic agriculture. And while some proposals remain on the tale, lawmakers have all but reverted the views they had three years ago, and there’s good reason for that.

When the EU initially unveiled its plans for reforms, COVID was in its initial phases, believed to be beaten by the stringent lockdowns, and Ukraine had not yet been invaded by Russia. Interest rates were close to being negative, so from within the echo chamber that is the EU’s executive, it seemed opportune to turn the entire food and farming system on its head.

After some initial, rather meek, political pushback, the commissioners of the EU persisted. It’s all for the good of the environment, they said. However, it quickly became apparent that the plans were going to be very expensive, according to the USDA, with agricultural production dropping between seven and twelve percent, and a significant impact on the overall GDP of the continent. Yet, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, persisted: chemical pesticides, even if approved by the independent regulator, should be reduced.

Cracks started to appear in the sincerity of the EU’s executive when French president Emmanuel Macron, then other European heads of state, began to doubt whether implementation of these rules was even possible. Farmer representatives had indicated they rejected the objectives of the EU’s strategies. 

The Dutch provincial election, in which a farmer’s party that campaigned against government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with EU law, won, marked the beginning of the end. The BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), also known as the Farmer-Citizen Movement, achieved a significant victory in provincial elections in the Netherlands; with an impressive 15 out of 75 seats in the Senate, it now holds the position of the most influential party in the country’s upper chamber. The BBB was established in 2019, but it gained widespread support following the government’s decision to reduce nitrogen emissions by shutting down approximately one-third of Dutch farms.

It turned out that cutting European farm land, all while depriving farmers of the right to adequately prevent pests from spreading, did not fare well with voters. Since then, the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest party in the European Parliament – which is expected to remain in the case after the upcoming election – has now coined itself as the farmer’s party, has struck down piece after piece of the European Green Deal. Many of its leftover components are likely not to make it to voting before the European elections in June next year.

Incidentally, Frans Timmermans, the Dutch architect of the European Green Deal, has already left his post in an attempt to become the Prime Minister in his home country, a gamble that has yet to materialize following the recent elections.

In a time span of just three years, the European Union went from stating that it was about to realize an unprecedented climate change reform to killing its own ambitions.

This abrupt reversal in the European Union’s stance on agricultural reform serves as a cautionary tale for the United States, highlighting the delicate balance between environmental ambitions and the economic realities faced by farmers. The EU’s ambitious plans, aimed at significantly reducing pesticide and fertilizer use while promoting organic agriculture, initially seemed like a bold step towards a more sustainable future. However, the practical implications of these proposals, particularly the potential negative impacts on agricultural production and GDP, led to a swift and decisive backlash.

For the United States, which also faces the challenge of balancing environmental conservation with agricultural productivity, the EU’s experience serves as a reminder that well-intentioned policies must be carefully crafted and thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. The sway of public opinion, as demonstrated by the BBB’s success, emphasizes the need for inclusive decision-making processes that consider the interests of all stakeholders. As the U.S. explores its own agricultural and environmental policies, it should take a look at Europe and not repeat its mistakes.

Originally published here

Europe tried it green and failed

Nearly 300 votes against, only 207 in favor: Those were the final results of a vote in the European Parliament on the “Sustainable Use of Pesticides” directive, the landmark legislation of the European Union’sagriculture reforms. The plans would have cut back on pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as shifted a major part of Europe’s farmland use to organic. Now, the plans are all but dead, the architect of the European Green Deal has resigned, and next year’s EU elections are announcing a shift away from environmentalistideas.

The name “European Green Deal” was modeled after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) Green New Deal, and it promises cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and healthier lifestyles for consumers. But it does so at a significant expense to taxpayers and the economy. With an implementation price tag of $285 billion, the EU did not account for the ripple effects of the policy, ignoring its impact assessments.

In the majority of models presented in the assessment, it is anticipated that GDP will contract. This contraction is closely linked to the decline in employment, consumption, and exports. The impact on countries heavily dependent on export industries will be especially severe, as these industries employ people who have limited options for reemployment. While service sectors such as the financial industry will experience less impact, this will result in a widening disparity of opportunities within the labor market.

Another weight on existing inequalities will be rising energy prices for consumers. As the German energy shift has shown already, a quick change to renewable energy sources, arrived through subsidization programs, sharply increases consumer energy prices. Prices of energy, housing, and water are all projected to rise. Some energy sources could see price rises of over 70%. Employment in key energy sectors, including gas and coal, could drop by more than 15%, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

As cuts to greenhouse gas emissions have become mandatory, the Dutch government sought to buy out livestock farmers from their professions, causing the now famous Dutch farmer protests last year. These protests not only caused a farmer’s party to win the Senate elections in the Netherlands, but they also contributed to the resignation of the government this year. The pushback against Brussels’s green policies has many parliamentarians in fear for their reelection for next year’s European Parliament vote in June 2024. Overall, polls show that the EU’s legislative body is expected to see a right-wing shift, with losses for social democrats and environmentalists alike.

The architect of the European Green Deal, Dutch politician Frans Timmermans, resigned recently to try his luck at national politics; French President Emmanuel Macron believes that agricultural reform should not be on the table as the war continues in Ukraine; and Central and Eastern European countries consider many of the planned reforms as discriminatory feel-good policy for the sake of the West’s good conscience. 

The EU’s green reforms have been driven into a ditch because voters have woken up to the reality of dwindling purchasing power and the real costs of the green policies, which sounded better on paper than in practice.

Originally published here

Navigating the Future: Insights from COP28 in Dubai

Exciting times are underway at COP28 in Dubai, where global leaders are converging to address pressing environmental concerns and chart a sustainable course for our planet. As discussions unfold, it’s crucial to delve into the key consumer concerns that will shape the future of our world. Join me as we explore the hot topics dominating the agenda and their potential impact on our lives.

Nuclear Power Renaissance: A Game-Changer for Global Energy Prices?

The spotlight at COP28 is firmly on nuclear power, with 22 nations pledging to triple their nuclear power output by 2050. This signals a potential nuclear power renaissance, raising questions about its role as a game-changer for global energy prices. As we look towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future, nuclear power’s resurgence could play a pivotal role in meeting our growing energy demands.

As the momentum builds at COP28, it’s unfortunate that some nations, including Germany, are not part of the coalition pledging to triple nuclear power output. Nevertheless, the global community’s collective efforts at the conference showcase a commitment to tackling the pressing challenges that lie ahead. The decisions made and discussions held in Dubai have the potential to shape our environmental trajectory, paving the way for a more sustainable and resilient future.

Modern Agriculture & Genetic Engineering: Sustaining a Growing World Population

Amid concerns about food security and a burgeoning global population, modern agriculture and genetic engineering take center stage. Can these innovations sustainably feed the world, or do they present ethical and environmental challenges? COP28 provides a platform to discuss the intersection of technology, agriculture, and the imperative to ensure food security for all.

My colleague Bill Wirtz writes, “While the organic community’s resistance to genetically modified crops may often be ideological, the advantages of genetic modification have become apparent in those jurisdictions where it can legally be deployed in food production. Gene-editing allows for crops to absorb 30% more carbon dioxide without ill effects on them, makes wheat safe for people suffering from celiac disease, creates allergy-free peanuts, and produces drought-resistant rice in India. Overall, gene-edited crops grow more efficiently with less resource use (such as water), thus accelerating the speed with which agricultural efficiency advances.”

While COP28 in Dubai addresses a multitude of environmental concerns, the debate around meat consumption is a prominent and contentious topic. Advocates for restricting meat consumption argue that it is a necessary step in mitigating climate change and promoting sustainability. However, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) presents a counter-narrative, emphasizing the vital role of meat, eggs, and milk in providing essential nutrients that are not easily obtained from plant-based sources. The FAO asserts, “Meat, eggs, and milk offer crucial sources of much-needed nutrients which cannot easily be obtained from plant-based foods.” This statement underscores the nutritional significance of animal products, particularly in preventing damaging nutrient deficiencies that persist even in higher-income countries.

Critics of the movement to limit meat consumption point to the FAO’s data, challenging the widely propagated notion that livestock, particularly cows, are disproportionately contributing to climate change. The FAO’s publicly available data contradicts the notion that livestock is solely an environmental burden, revealing that they account for 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Simultaneously, livestock plays a pivotal role in providing sustenance, contributing 30% of global protein and nearly 20% of calories consumed worldwide. It is essential to consider these nuanced perspectives in the ongoing discourse, recognizing the complex interplay between dietary choices, environmental impact, and global nutrition needs. 

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF): Hype or Hope for Eco-Friendly Aviation?

With the aviation industry under scrutiny for its environmental impact, Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) emerge as a potential solution. But are they merely hype, or can they genuinely make aviation more affordable and eco-friendly? The path to sustainable aviation is not without hurdles, as SAFs currently remain three to four times more expensive than conventional kerosene. Moreover, the potential increase in consumer prices adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate debate. I wrote in Parliament Magazine, “the journey towards affordable and sustainable aviation fuels demands a collaborative and global effort. The EU must abandon any protectionist views on palm oil-derived SAFs and embrace a more balanced approach. As the aviation industry takes strides toward a greener future, policymakers, regulators, and activists must shed old mantras and prioritize pragmatic solutions over ideological debates. If sustainable jet fuels should ever become an economically viable mass-market alternative, smart and pragmatic approaches are needed.” The discussions at COP28 aim to unravel the promise and potential challenges of transitioning to sustainable aviation fuels.

Prosperity without Fossil Fuels: A Global Conundrum

One of the burning questions at COP28 is whether it’s possible to create more prosperity without relying on fossil fuels. As nations grapple with the need to decarbonize their economies, striking a balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability becomes paramount. Market openness will produce cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant energy in the medium to long term. The history of advancement has shown that such revolutions cannot be planned, and timelines cannot and should not be clearly defined. Just as there was no timetable for how long the car would take to replace the horse-drawn carriage or email to replace the letter, there will be no timetable to make Switzerland pollution-free; consumers, not self-described natural monopolies, can make that change.

My colleague Yael Ossowski writes, “Data from 2022 shows oil and gas represented nearly 70 percent of American energy consumption, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports global consumption of liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) will remain high for the next decade.”

In the pursuit of sustainable energy, the concept of technology neutrality needs to take center stage at COP28. How important is it in ensuring energy security, and what role does it play in fostering a diverse and resilient energy landscape? As nations navigate the transition to cleaner energy sources, finding the right balance and embracing a neutral stance towards technology becomes a crucial aspect of the discussions.

Stay tuned for updates as we navigate the intricate landscape of COP28!

NY Bee Protection Bill Would Sting Farmers

Protecting the birds and the bees, that is the aim of a bill in the New York Legislature that passed in June. The bill would ban the use of neonicotinoid insecticides (known as neonics) — a move that is dear to the heart of anti-pesticide activists, but that would severely hurt farmers and consumers alike.

The premise of their argument is that chemicals in this group of insecticides severely affects the health of pollinators, and thus a ban would protect the ecosystem in the state — but they’re wrong.

As I outlined in a piece for Newsmax last year, there are a myriad of mistruths about the health of bees that are being used for the causes of activists whose stated goals is a ban of all pesticides. The short version is the following: despite warnings of a “Beepocalypse,” bee populations are in fact on the rise. Regional bee declines occur through urbanization, reduced market demands for managed colonies, and naturally occurring viruses.

Like most poor public policy, the Birds and Bees Protection Act is built on faulty premises and a feel-good name. The statistics on pollinator decline and colony collapse disorder have long been falsely associated with the use of insecticides. In fact, before insecticides were blamed for “killing the bees,” it used to be bioengineered food that was in the crosshairs of activists.

This assumption was never backed up by evidence, and administrations on both sides of the aisle have come to recognize the incredible climate mitigation and efficiency opportunities associated with genetically engineered food.

In the European Union, a number of countries have implemented exemptions on neonic bans due to the detrimental impact they had on local farmers. This exemption policy not only causes anxiety for all parties involved, but also fails to provide farmers with any certainty for the future.

The Birds and Bees Protection Act takes a different approach by completely prohibiting the use of these products, bypassing regulatory agencies. However, this approach then requires these agencies to undergo lengthy assessments to determine appropriate emergency use. This process is both burdensome and unfair to farmers.

The elimination of regulatory agencies from the decision-making process was the primary reason why California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill last year that aimed to ban neonics for non-agricultural purposes.

Advocates for pollinators may have good intentions, but their lack of understanding of agriculture is evident. The implementation of neonics bans in Europe has resulted in farmers resorting to alternative chemicals to protect their crops. However, the use of substitute products has been shown to decrease crop yield and increase insect resistance, ultimately leading to negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity.

It is not feasible to suggest that farmers acquire more land to compensate for crop losses or use products that are not equipped to provide adequate protection for their fields.

The potential consequences of such measures are dire, particularly for the over 25,000 farm workers in New York State who rely on stable yields and reliable methods to safeguard their farms from invasive species. The absence of guaranteed yields could lead to rising prices in the crop production sector, as has been observed in France.

For New Yorkers already grappling with the burden of rapid inflation, such agricultural regulations are not responsible. Legislation of this nature should require more than a mere noble-sounding name and good intentions to become law, and the Birds and Bees Protection Act falls short in this regard.

Originally published here

Europe’s Agriculture Reform Is Failing

The European Union commissioner for the European Green Deal has left, a farmers’ party has taken control of the Dutch senate, French president Emmanuel Macron says regulatory changes shouldn’t be rushed, and the EU’s largest political group is openly opposing reform plans that had been years in the making. It is not looking good for the farm policy reform that the European Union had been promising.

Legislation in Europe either dies a quiet death or goes out with a lot of fanfare. The “Farm to Fork” strategy by the European Union is on track to do the latter. Its flagship proposal to halve the use of pesticides by 2030 and set aside 10 percent of agricultural land to protect biodiversity has hit a brick wall: Austria, Poland and Hungary are stalling negotiations, possibly dragging them out until the European elections next June. The pesticide reduction element of the plans formulated in the Sustainable Use of Pesticide Regulation has faced opposition for practical and political reasons.

Early on, farmers’ groups opposed the law because it would undermine Europe’s food production industry. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture did an impact assessment on Farm to Fork, it found that it would significantly increase agricultural prices and even contract the European economy. That was before the economic effects of COVID-19 had manifested itself fully and before the war in Ukraine had started. Still, the European Commission held firm throughout the mountain of criticism; Green Deal Commissioner Frans Timmermans even said, “We’ve gotten used to food being too cheap.”

Last summer, Netherlands farmers upended European politicians’ illusion that agriculture as a policy area could simply be swept under the rug. Large-scale protests by farmers addressed the issue of nitrogen emissions, which the Dutch government sought to cut to follow EU rules. Livestock farming, responsible in part for those emissions (as is construction and aviation), was explicitly targeted by a buy-out program seeking to reduce by almost a third the number of livestock farms in the Netherlands. Despite that, in their anger, farmers burned hay balls and blocked access to airports, public opinion was on their side. In the recent senate elections in the Netherlands, the Farmers’ Citizen Movement became the strongest party, now set to have a significant say in the policymaking of the country.

The political happenings in the Netherlands served as a wake-up call for political parties across Europe, specifically those on the center-right who had traditionally counted on the support of farmers and now see themselves threatened by the emergence of single-issue farmer parties in elections. Other than protesting, Dutch farmers have shown there is a political angle for them to embark on and that farmers as food providers have a much higher public standard than previously recognized.

Timmermans is now exiting his job to run for prime minister. Given his record on environmental policy, it’s hard to tell whether Dutch voters will give him a chance.

Farmers certainly won’t. 

Meanwhile, the center-right European People’s Party is pitching itself as the farmers’ party, even warning that farmland reductions could lead to “global famine” and put “farmers out of business.”

While the last European elections in 2019 gave more leeway to environmentalists, who have tried to implement ambitious targets, it looks as if the realities of the COVID pandemic, the economic troubles that have ensued from it, and the war in Ukraine will be preventing them from following through with their plans. It is likely that we’ll see a shift to the center and center-right and by that standard, a different agricultural policy.

One positive change that has been announced and will land on the negotiating table of the next European Commission is the authorization of gene-edited crops. Until now, the commercialization of new genomic techniques in food production has been virtually impossible. But with those legal changes, Europe will finally catch up to the technological realities of the United States and Canada.

From the perspective of European strategic autonomy, the fact that the Farm to Fork strategy is likely to fail is good news because Europe cannot afford increased food dependence. Both animal feed and fertilizer imports were coming from Ukraine and Russia until the war upended the reliance Europe had on both countries. Reducing the environmental effect of farming by reducing the size of the sector cannot be a forward-looking strategy for Europe.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN