John Kerry would love for farmers to stop farming

Special presidential envoy for climate John Kerry recently warned that the world can't tackle climate change without first addressing emissions from agriculture.

Kerry noted that agricultural production is responsible for roughly one third of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions and argued that reducing those emissions must be "front and center" in the quest to defeat global warming. Kerry made the remarks at the Department of Agriculture's AIM (Agriculture Innovation Mission) for Climate Summit in Washington, D.C.

The attack on farming by Western leaders is beyond shocking. It is criminal, treasonous. For his part, Kerry neglected to mention that, though agriculture is purportedly responsible for roughly 33% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions, it is undeniably responsible for the sustenance — and continued existence — of 100% of the world's roughly 8 billion people.

In places like Minnesota, the Democrat party is — and has long been — known as the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, or DFL. It is time to take the "F" out of "DFL." Given its job-killing policies, the "L" should be removed as well. I propose that these letters be replaced by "TG," for transgender. It would be more accurate to refer to today's Democrats as members of the DTG Party.

It may sound like a bit of a niche brand, but, to be fair, it is also the party of idiots, globalists, entitled whiners, freedom-deniers, and wealthy wannabe tyrants. In this day and age, that is a pretty big tent.

Such proposals made in the name of combating global warming are often grounded in fallacies lacking evidence and sound premises.

The first fallacy in the statement is its utilization of a broad claim. It suggests that agricultural production is responsible for one-third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, making this the prime cause of global warming. This is a premature conclusion that disregards other significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as manufacturing, transportation, and energy production.

The second fallacy is the statement's foundation on false premises. It assumes that reducing agricultural emissions will be a key solution to tackling climate change. This approach ignores the complexity of the climate system, which demands addressing all sources of emissions instead of singling out one sector. The argument also fails to consider that such proposed regulations on agriculture are likely to do more harm than good, particularly by imposing costs that would threaten food security for many vulnerable populations worldwide.

Thirdly, the statement represents an instance of a double standard that is typical of liberal approaches. They view agriculture as an acceptable target for reductions, while other critical sources of emissions go unchecked. This is a hypocrisy as they ignore the significant emissions impact of corporate and industrial interests.

Therefore, a good rebuttal argument would be that global warming is a multifaceted issue that requires addressing all sources of emissions to achieve meaningful solutions. The argument would be that the proposal only addresses one area of contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, instead of considering all factors, thus rendering it insufficient.

To summarize, the statement made by Kerry's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture raises several objections, including fallacies, false premises, double standards, and hypocrisies. A robust approach to addressing global climate change demands a comprehensive approach that takes into account all sectors.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.