One of my continuing wishes is the world will wake up soon and realize the absolute imperative of the need for more agriculture and more efficient agricultural practices.
This realization is necessary now more than ever. We humans have a growing hungry populous to be fed. In addition, done right agriculture is also one of the solutions to the problem of putting a changing climate more into balance. How could this be done?
I read an interesting fact a while ago. More food will be needed in the next 50 years than was consumed in the last seven thousand years. If you think about that, organized agriculture was just being developed in the last seven to ten thousand years. This means, in my opinion, humans developed means and methods for food production that accommodated the increase in human population which has occurred in the past seven thousand years. And, if we did that out of necessity in the past, we will have to do the same in the near future. Yet, there are many mis-informed people and organizations around the world who try to impede human progress and innovation, especially in agriculture.
So-called preservationists think we need to stop using resources to “protect” the planet. We all know if you preserve a grassland by not putting it to use by grazing animals the resource will eventually degrade and atrophy to the point that root systems die and the possibility of carbon sequestration is lost, not to mention the protein production possibilities and watershed protection of the whole ecological system embodied by that grassland.
Furthermore, there are folks who think modern agriculture is destructive to the planet and they would do away with “factory farms”. The science behind modern crop farming and animal agricultural practices is truly a miracle of human ingenuity. Many of you already know in the beef production area of agriculture in the United States we are producing more pounds of beef with fewer cattle and resources than we did twenty or thirty years ago. This is a result of applied animal and plant genetics and the hard work of farmers and ranchers across our country using tools discovered and provided by agricultural scientists in private companies and educational institutions.
A recent example of a threat to our ability to feed a hungry world has recently come to my attention. This is an example of shortsightedness and hubris that is remarkable in its breadth and scope.
Agricultural publications are just starting to pay attention to what are known as Natural Asset Companies (NAC). The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a rule to allow the New York Stock Exchange to add a new listing of the above-named companies whose purpose would be to “hold rights to the ecological performance producer [i.e. land] by natural working areas, such as national reserves or large-scale farmlands”.
A group called the Intrinsic Exchange Group has put forth this idea to basically monetize the value of land’s natural assets by not using the land for farming, mining or grazing. In other words, as I understand it, by not using the land for traditional land use practices there would be value to the company having title or leaseholds on that land. Apparently, this idea would not only apply to private property but also to public domain land.
A core purpose of an NAC is to “maximize ecological performance”. In my humble opinion, that is exactly what modern crop farming and animal agricultural practices already do. So, to create an ability to monetize the non-use of land and to convert the public domain to private property, if its purpose is non-use, is an anti-private property exercise which would completely undermine the contribution private property rights add to our economic, social and political systems.
Some of the opinions I have read about NACs argue these are mere hidden efforts by the Biden Administration to support its 30 by 30 initiative, and foreign interests could invest in these companies whose ultimate purpose would be to destroy the food security of the United States. We should pay more attention to this government-initiated idea to put private property rights and productive land use practices in jeopardy.
The ultimate premise of the creation of this vehicle for “conservation” purposes is so flawed as to be pure nonsense. As stated above, the management of land by humans for farming and animal agriculture has evolved to meet human needs for at least 10,000 years. And, humans have had great success in that regard. Non-use as a goal for planetary health is a falsehood. Land needs to be used in managed sustainable ways to be healthy. To create value in land’s non-use by adding a new category to the New York Stock Exchange is a flawed proposal and it endangers land health and property rights, public and private.
To learn more about this idea you could go to: sec.gov. Let’s be observant and stay in touch on this mis-guided proposal.
I’ll see you soon.