This sounds a little too much like what happened in Sri Lanka[0]. Is now a great time to go messing with food supply anywhere? Pricing and availability is VERY out of wack in my part of the US still.<p>0: <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/a-food-crisis-looms-in-sri-lanka-as-farmers-give-up-on-planting" rel="nofollow">https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/a-food-crisis-looms...</a>
Is this coordinated with the efforts in Netherlands to also reduce the amount of fertilizer use?<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dutch-farmers-protest-by-blocking-supermarket-distribution-centres-2022-07-04/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dutch-farmers-protest-b...</a><p>And what are the scientific rationales for these policies?<p>It seems evident that food prizes will be adversely affected, and that without artificial fertilizers there is a large risk of starvation in many places.
Doesn't Canada already have a carbon tax? I thought the whole point of that approach was that it set a price for carbon across all segments of the economy, and then let the market figure out the most efficient way to function under that new constraint. Adding in bureaucratic micromanagement seems counterproductive, particularly amidst a global food crisis.
As expected, there is a significant fraction of the population that won’t change their behaviour no matter what situation presents itself. Hopefully, this can be managed by the rest of the population…. Otherwise, “gee, nobody said that would happen” or “why wasn’t this avoided/prevented” will be the cries. Call it head in the sand, or a lack of care about the future or other less nice descriptions but it’s there. People will just have to route around the damage or accept that it’s going to be bad.
It’s not the Sri Lanka “ban all fertilizer” approach, and North American farmers use far too much fertilizer anyway, but any mandated reduction in fertilizer use (directly or indirectly as in this case - the farmers aren’t the ones designing or creating fertilizer) needs to include mandatory production tracking to verify it hasn’t caused any significant reduction - although who knows how you fix that retroactively
At least the US founding fathers had the foresight to put in the emoluments clause:<p>"...no Person holding any Office...shall...accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”<p>WEF Global Leader sounds like a title to me.