At the 48:33 minute mark, Hubert Keller, a Swiss banker, speaks at the WEF:
"The coffee that we all drink emits between 15 and 20 tons of CO2 per ton of coffee... Every time we drink coffee, we are basically putting CO2 into the atmosphere."
And yes, this is all about CLIMATE CHANGE and coincides with the huge topic of "REGENERATIVE FARMING" which = BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG CORPORATIONS SCREWING WITH OUR FOOD SUPPLY.
The term "regenerative farming" was coined in the 1970's. It's generally understood to mean farming that improves, rather than degrades, landscape and practices such as water, nutrient, and carbon cycles, and it has become a MAJOR HOT TOPIC.
First of all, global corporations such as Nestle, PepsiCo, Cargill and Bayer DOMINATE our food system. Some 70% of the global agrochemicals market is owned by just 4 companies and 90% of global trade is dominated by 4 businesses. This is IMMENSE POWER.
Many small-scale farmers struggle to compete in global markets - especially those in poorer, less developed countries. In an effort to keep up, these farmers also go into debt to buy chemicals and expensive machinery to boost production.
Farmers can't even agree on what regenerative farming truly means or is. Many say it's about improving soil health or sequestering carbon. For some, the term means using no-till practices or planting over crops. For others, it was about integrating livestock and crop production. For still others, it was about improving human health, or food access, or food safety...or supporting small-scale systems...or about improving economic well-being of communities...or about increasing yield...or about increasing profits. Get the picture???
Let's just say that everybody agrees on 1 thing - Regenerative Farming is about making the whole world better. If that's the case, how large is the whole thing, and who benefits? I think we all know that answer.
What is broken anyway? What would getting better mean?
imo, here are the major problems we face with Regenerative Farming:
- Farmers don't understand it. Period.
- It enables a small group of powerful entities to hold extreme power over public policy and industry standards.
- It will cause a lack of inclusion of traditional or alternative values.
- High-entry and start up costs will put average farmers out of business.
- Too big to fail scenarios = DANGER.
I find it interesting that CO2 is targeted as being bad, especially if they're trying to encourage farming practices that improve the soil, because CO2 is what plants need and use to grow healthy. Humans (and other species) emit CO2, and plants utilize CO2 for photosynthesis and emit oxygen, which humans use to breathe and thrive. It's a symbiotic relationship. Why isn't that seen as a good thing? Any small farmer knows that livestock and crops, managed wisely, compliment each other.