The Attack on Farming: A Recipe for Depopulation Disaster? By Bob Farmer, Dairy Farmer
Martin Armstrong's fiery Armstrong Economics post, from some time back, but still relevant, paints a doomsday canvas: Global elites, hell-bent on Malthusian maths, are torching farmland with solar panels and wind turbines, one-third of it worldwide, he claims, to starve the masses and cull the population by 30-40%. Industrial agriculture? Demonised as a 25-30% GHG monster (à la John Kerry), it's the scapegoat for climate hysteria, ignoring natural cycles and historical norms. War? Just another depopulation tool. The assertion: "The attack upon farming cannot but have a depopulation impact if successful." Spot-on, if blunt, Malthus's ghost looms large, but Armstrong's brushstrokes are broad. If these "attacks" succeed in slashing output, famine follows, and bodies pile up. The undercurrent's real: Policies pushing "sustainable" tweaks risk tipping vulnerable regions into crisis.
Armstrong revives Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), whose Essay on Population warned exponential human growth outstrips arithmetic food gains, birthing famine, war, or plague. Fast-forward: Climate warriors, per Armstrong, wield this as a cudgel, blaming agriculture for 20-30% of CO2 sins (IPCC, Kerry), then "reducing" it via renewables that gobble farmland. U.S. food system's 20% emissions? Global agriculture? 12% direct, ballooning to 25-30% with "embodied" energy (fertilisers, shipping). Solution? Shrink production, endure shortages, depopulate by design. Wind/solar? "One-third of farmland worldwide," he blasts, fuelling a tyrannical agenda blind to cycles (NYC temps below 1932 highs).
The thesis: Success = depopulation. The globalist 2030 strategy, per Malthus: Cut supply, demand bites back. But is the "attack" real, or rhetoric?
Armstrong's "one-third" claim? Overreach. USDA's 2024 Economic Research Service: From 2012-2020, 90% of U.S. wind turbines and 70% of solar farms hit agricultural land, but direct impact? Only 424,000 acres in 2020, 0.05% of 897 million U.S. farmland acres. Globally? NREL's 2023 models: <1% U.S. land for 100% renewables; Europe's <2%. Australia's ANU: 1,200 sq km (0.00016% of land) suffices for solar/wind needs. Wind? 95%+ usable for grazing; solar? Agrivoltaics (panels over crops) boost yields 10-20% via shade. So, it's happening, but the globalists have a bity more to do to wipe us farmers out!
Yet this nails the rub: If attacks succeed, via bans (EU's 2023 fertiliser cuts, India's 2024 crop pauses), depopulation does follow. Malthus modern: Sub-Saharan Africa's 5.1 fertility meets lagging yields, risking famine (FAO: 70% food hike needed by 2050). Policies like Sri Lanka's 2021 organic mandate crashed output 50%, sparking riots, 700 hospitalised. U.S. net-zero pushes? Potential 20% emissions cut via ag tweaks, but yield dips 10-15% without tech (USDA models).
Armstrong's "depopulation scheme"? Overstated at present, but a clear future danger. We need to be eternally vigilant.
"Everywhere you look, there is this scheme to reduce farming, which will reduce population. That was the whole theory of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) that the population would surpass the ability to grow food. That is the agenda. Wind generators or solar panels consume one-third of the farmland worldwide. This is what has inspired this thinking that we MUST reduce the population. War is a great tool for that, which is one reason they are pushing World War.
They insist that industrial agriculture, which is employed by the majority of the developed world, is creating climate change. The U.S. food system contributes nearly 20% of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that agricultural land use contributes 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Then, they add the embodied energy required for industrial agriculture, and they claim this gets worse. The manufacture and use of pesticides and fertilizers, fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking, and shipping, electricity for lighting, cooling, and heating, and emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and every possible greenhouse gas they can think of, increases the impact up to between 25% to 30% which is the number used by John Kerry.
In other words, they want to reduce agriculture, shipping, refrigeration, air conditions, and turn off heat in the winter, and reduce the population by 30-40%, and maybe they would be satisfied. They get to impose their tyrannical policies with absolutely ZERO evidence to support their theory because they ignore that natural cycles have existed for millions of years. Climate has always changed. The temperatures have NOT exceeded historical norms. The data from NYC shows that we have NOT exceeded the highs of 1932 and the days of the Dust Bowl. The mainstream media only repeats what they are told and NEVER does any mainstream media dare to investigate anything."
Comments