Farming

It's Possible To Cut Cropland Use in Half and Produce the Same Amount of Food, Says New Study

Restoring up to 2.2 million square miles to nature

|

"If during the next sixty to seventy years the world farmer reaches the average yield of today's US corn grower, the ten billion will need only half of today's cropland while they eat today's American calories," concluded agronomist Paul Waggoner in his seminal 1996 article, "How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"

In their 2013 article, "Peak Farmland and the Prospect for Land Sparing," Waggoner and Rockefeller University researchers Jesse Ausubel and Iddo Wernick citing current global trends in yield increases and fertilizer deployment calculated if biofuel production could be reined in, that as much as 400 million hectares (1.5 million square miles) of current cropland could be returned to nature by 2060. That's about 25 percent of the land currently devoted to growing crops. "Now we are confident that we stand on the peak of cropland use, gazing at a wide expanse of land that will be spared for nature," the authors concluded.

It is worth noting that according to Food and Agricultural Organization data, cropland has not yet topped out, but agricultural land which includes pastures peaked back in 2000.

Now a new study in the journal Nature Sustainability by researcher Christian Folberth and his colleagues at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria reinforces the findings from these earlier reports.

In their article, "The global cropland-sparing potential of high-yield farming," the researchers calculate a scenario that closes current global yield gaps, bringing the crop yields of farmers in poorer countries up to those in richer countries. Achieving that goal "would allow reduction of the cropland area required to maintain present production volumes by nearly 50% of its current extent." That would mean that about 576 million hectares (2.2 million square miles) could be restored to nature.

The researchers also sketch out an alternative high crop yield scenario that specifically aims to protect and expand the habitats of threatened species. In that case, cropland use would still shrink by almost 40 percent.

Keep in mind that these scenarios are conservatively reckoning what would happen to global land use assuming that essentially all of the world's farmers adopt modern high yield agriculture. They do not take into account technological improvements in farming over the coming decades.

In addition, possible shifts in consumption toward alternative protein sources such as plant-based "meats" or cultured meats are not considered. Since about 36 percent of cropland is used to produce animal feed and the vast majority of agricultural land is pasture, such changes in consumer tastes could result in hundreds of millions more hectares of land being spared for nature by the middle of this century.

At the end of my book The End of Doom, I wrote:

New technologies and wealth produced by human creativity will spark a vast environmental renewal in this century. Most global trends suggest that by the end of this century, the world will be populated with fewer and much wealthier people living mostly in cities fueled by cheap no-carbon energy sources. As the amount of land and sea needed to supply human needs decreases, both cities and wild nature will expand, with nature occupying or reoccupying the bulk of the land and sea freed up by human ingenuity. Nature will become chiefly an arena for human pleasure and instruction, not a source of raw materials. I don't fear for future generations; instead, I rejoice for them.

Happily this new study bolsters that conclusion.

NEXT: It Took Less Than 24 Hours for Trump To Undermine His New Plan for Reopening State Economies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t see what any of this has to do with COVID-19.

    1. COVID patients don’t eat much while intubated, so they’re doing their part.

    2. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. zxc.No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
      Find out how HERE……More here

  2. It doesn’t mention Trump, but we all now it is part of Ron’s anti-trump agenda. We know it in our hearts.

    1. Why do you cry so much?

      1. I’m laughing (at you).

        1. Sure sounded like lefty whining to everyone else. I’d say you’re lying, as you quite often do.

  3. Was Paul Ehrlich available for comment, or was his head still buried too far up his own ass?

  4. In addition, possible shifts in consumption toward alternative protein sources such as plant-based “meats” or cultured meats are not considered.

    Or, actual shifts in consumption like the fact that, for decades, more of the countries of the world have been eating more actual meat.

    Weird that in places like China, where bat and cardboard soup is passed off as cuisine, meat substitutes of all sorts are still eschewed for genuine beef, pork, and chicken.

    I go to my grocery store and what’s still on the shelf? Beyond beef. Pretty bad when your customer base says, with their feet and wallets, “We’d rather die of COVID than eat fake meat.”

    Meat producers are concerned about how they’re going to meet demand with processing plants shutting down. Fake meat producers are like “Yeah, we’re worried about meeting demand too. Totally.”

    1. Not to mention recent studies on people’s buying preferences has shown people are eschewing plant based meats for real meat during this shutdown. Early indications are that the majority of people who buy plant based meats are meat eaters who do so out of curiosity. These are infrequent purchases and despite wild claims that plant based meat will make up 40% of the protein by 2030, their currently make up less than 2% of consumer sales. Additionally, as much as we discuss lab grown meat, not a single manufacturer is producing it and only one manufacturing plant is in the process of being built. Stock sales and price for the impossible burger, while spiking has returned to it’s initial offering price as sales have been extremely sluggish after initial curiousity sales. Lab grown meat also has failed to scale up and is still much more expensive to produce than actual meat. Ironically enough, one of the suggestions as to what to do with land that would be diverted from agriculture because of a hypothetical increase in consumer lab grown meat is to convert it to pasture. This is because pastures are good for the environment. If we had a demand for plant based proteins and “milk” we would be seeing it as milk and meat (hamburger especially) are more difficult to obtain during this shutdown. We aren’t, in fact their sales appear to be decreasing.

      1. Further, I’ve seen recent claims that the fake meat is not all that good for you.

        1. Much greater levels of sodium, but that begs the question how bad sodium is for you. There is plenty of research that demonstrates that people with healthy kidneys don’t need to worry about sodium levels.
          There are some other causes for concern, but sodium tends to be the one they focus on.

  5. That would mean that about 576 million hectares (2.2 million square miles) could be restored to nature.

    Also, again, this is like the stupid ‘automated cars will reduce the number of parking spaces argument’. We’ll take the 2.2M sq. mi. away from people who were using it to grow grain to feed massive herds of undulates and let it return to its natural state… growing grain to feed massive herds of undulates.

    1. Parks, vacations, all sorts of other uses. I especially relish the idea of decentralized housing, away from the cesspools called cities, and all the anguished gnashing of teeth from all the urban planners wailing at people not living vertically in little boxes with communal kitchens and bathrooms.

      Don’t forget the big kitty cats which feed on the herds of big ungulates.

      1. Parks, vacations, all sorts of other uses.

        I didn’t say there weren’t any other potential uses for the land. My point was that the land isn’t drastically ‘unnatural’ as it stands and the idea that you or Ron would make it ‘more natural’ or more vacation-esque is knowingly inflicting the tragedy of the commons on property that is private while hiding behind a mask of Gaiaism. Which is really what it’s all about. You don’t care what is actually being done to or with the land as much as you care that it’s not what *you* want done with it.

        Don’t get me wrong, I like the outdoors probably a little more than the next guy. I just recognize that libertarianism is the underlying principle that’s brought about the agricultural revolution that Ron *hopes* will return more of this land to nature.

      2. Multiple studies have shown that heavily visited parks and especially housing complexes have less biodiversity than pastureland. If it is nature we want, pasture is one of the best ways to preserve that.

    2. It also sort of assumes that rural agriculture in places like Africa will be using high-tech farming techniques and machinery across the board, which seems super improbable in the near term. Even if you gave them the books and machines odd’s are good the equipment will just rust in the field. Or, better yet, taken by the local warlord.

      If we’re just talking about the 1st world…don’t we already produce more than anywhere in the world on less land?

      Also, note that the author seems to think we won’t be using ‘natural land’ to get resources, but I don’t see where these alternate source of raw materials like iron will be coming from if not mining. Are these machines of the future built out of fairy dust, or what?

      1. This is the irony when people in western countries blame agriculture in their own land for climate change and push stupidity like organic to fight climate change. Western agriculture is less impactful per calorie, pound, bushel etc then organic. And even western organic is still leaps and bounds ahead of African subsistence farming. The best way to combat climate change impacts from agriculture would be to industrialize agriculture in Africa and many Asian countries. But the climate change activist are opposed to that.

        1. We’re always seeing that in the ‘climate change’ sphere. Institute draconian policies at home to ‘fight’ it, while the nations doing the vast majority of the supposed ‘damage’ do all the dirty manufacturing and mining we don’t want in our backyards.

          No solutions are allowed, because ‘solving’ the problem means we don’t need to destroy capitalism. Because that’s the real goal. Destroying capitalism.

          Watermelons are literally nothing new, they just changed their tune a little.

          If you want to fight a changing climate, move to the moon because Earth will never be static until it’s a cold dark rock. Then the sun will eat it. This is known.

          1. I’m pretty sure the Earth will be a hot bright rock before the Sun eats it, not cold and dark.

    3. Ungulate?

      1. I forgot when curfew was

        1. Bad Tiger! No meat for you!

  6. How much current farmland is suitable for modern American methods? I’m thinking of combines, threshers, harvesters, whatever they are called — machine farming which generally requires lots of reasonably level land not cramped by fences and hedges and other size limits. I believe removal of those impediments was one of the reason England’s farming became so much more productive and made so many people available for factories and other Industrial Revolution employment.

    And is that kind of machine farming the most productive? Probably small hand-tilled lots produce more per acre but less per farmer, and it is per-acre we are talking about. That’s how you get away from subsistence farming.

    1. Probably small hand-tilled lots produce more per acre

      Nope. Hydroponically, plants are grown as nutrient and area densely as possible. Modern industrial farming is as close to hydroponics as you can get without huge tiles and massive surpluses of water. The hand-tilled ‘living soil’ ideology is hokum. It’s like pretending the best way to play basketball is with peach baskets and a ladder or the best way to practice medicine doesn’t use antibiotics, plastics, stainless steel, or asceptic technique. It’s abject Luddism, idiocy on par with flat-eartherism, that thinks organic farming is more natural or naturally superior.

      1. Your comment is duly noted as being reflexive anti-luddite nonsense.

        I know machine farming is vastly more productive every year. I also know that the average back yard veggie garden is not particularly productive. I am specifically asking about intensive small plots, where people spend all their retired time looking for the slightest sign of weeds, bugs, rot, mildew, whatever is detrimental, where everything produced is far more expensive than even the fussiest organic zealot would pay for.

        Please stick to the topic when bloviating.

        1. I am specifically asking about intensive small plots, where people spend all their retired time looking for the slightest sign of weeds, bugs, rot, mildew, whatever is detrimental, where everything produced is far more expensive than even the fussiest organic zealot would pay for.

          So what’s the difference between an invisible pink unicorn and an intensive retired person? One serves their porridge not too hot while the other serves their porridge not too cold?

          You do realize that weeds, bugs, rot, and mildew aren’t intrinsic to farming, right? That you can farm without the need to spend all your time intensively guarding against such detriments that can be entirely averted by less “intensive” methods?

          The retired person growing an ‘intensive small plot’ that you’re referring to? They’re likely a hydroponic, aquaponic, or a greenhouse grower obviating the need of hand-tilling contaminated soil. Their method may be more efficient by whatever metric you deem to be most important but it’s almost certainly not more efficient by several other metrics that others can and do deem to be more important.

          1. See Brett’s answer below for a useful non-reflexively ideological answer.

            1. See Brett’s answer below for a useful non-reflexively ideological answer.

              Your question is intrinsically ideological you dumb shit! You can’t point to the garden or method that is better and my point is that, if it exists, it’s between possible and highly likely that it’s limited to *the* acre it exists on specifically because of that acre.

              We didn’t arrive at the agricultural system we have by some top down mandate by John Deere. For every retired old 1-acre gardener who’s ‘intensive’ there are a dozen industrial farmers who are just as if not more intensive. There is no vast conspiracy that’s keeping some ancient Chinese gardening secret locked up in some garden in England. The only method or garden that exists as you envision it is for obscure orchids and flowering plants that grow in extreme conditions and for which there is little/no market.

              The Vietnamese weasel coffee is grown better and more efficiently than any other ‘industrial’ or ‘machine’ coffee by ‘intensive’ civets, okay? Western agriculture is incapable of efficiently/effectively duplicating $500/kg coffee that was shit out by weasels. If more western coffee were farmed by intensive shitting civets, Western coffee would be universally superior to the garbage we drink today.

              1. He just mad you embarrassed him

        2. Oh, sure, it’s possible to beat the yield of modern industrial farming on a small scale by intensive manual labor. For some crops. Not corn, for instance, which is wind pollinated, and only has high yields when grown over large areas. (Unless you hand pollinate, of course.) But, sure, most vegetables.

          It’s not cost effective to do so, though. (I probably spend more on my garden than the veggies I get out of it would cost at the grocery store, and that’s not counting my labor.) But that’s your point, isn’t it?

          We are *starting* to move towards the best of both worlds, though, with intensive crop surveillance and localized interventions. Eventually large farms will reach the same level of productivity as your obsessive “square foot” gardener can reach. Drones using hyperspectral cameras will identify weeds and harmful insects, and toast them on an individual basis with lasers. Localized mineral deficiencies will be corrected. Plants will be grown in huge swaths at the most productive spacing.

          Still, the home garden does have the agro-giants beat in one area: Traceability. No worries about getting listeria from your salad if you grow it yourself.

          Speaking of: Won’t it be fun this summer when the usual listeria recalls are replaced with Covid 19 recalls?

          1. Thanks for a real answer. I did not know that about corn, for instance.

          2. Drones using hyperspectral cameras will identify weeds and harmful insects, and toast them on an individual basis with lasers. Localized mineral deficiencies will be corrected. Plants will be grown in huge swaths at the most productive spacing.

            It’s like you people don’t even farm. Why would you use drones with lasers when you can use preventative and pre-emergent herbicides more cheaply and disribute them at the same time as the fertilizer? The numbers of weeds that would need to be controlled by laser drones to alleviate the need for herbicides would burn the crops. Otherwise, there’s no need to send out the drones to kill the 20 Velvetleaf growing in a 10 acre plot, the loss/increase in yield would be negligible.

            Admittedly, it would be cool, but also impractical.

            Traceability. No worries about getting listeria from your salad if you grow it yourself.

            Assuming you’ve got a cat or a dog or stray cats or rabbits or birds or raccoons or coyotes in the neighborhood that may or may not shit in your garden there are still worries. You are right that the traceability would be a snap.

            The only way you’ve got no worries is if you’ve got intensive retired persons watching your garden for animals that carry bacteria 24/7, then you don’t have to worry about contamination.

            1. Bird poop.

              1. Have the drones track birds and swoop in to intercept the poop!

            2. Drones have real promise, and I am a rancher and an agriculture extension agent. The ability to identify and micro-target (even with conventional pest control methods) would greatly reduce operating costs and slow pesticide resistance growth. This would be especially useful in no-till systems. At MSU they are working with spray booms attached to spectrometers that will be able to identify weeds and spray only when weeds are identified. In early testing this has shown real promise to reduce herbicide usage. Insect outbreaks tend to be localized to certain parts of the field, identifying them and treating them locally would also reduce costs. It’s probably a decade before we can use these technologies, but they are being studied intensively at land grant universities and by the implement and chemical companies.

              1. Drones have real promise, and I am a rancher and an agriculture extension agent.

                Fair enough. Drones as passive and remote surveillance tools I agree with. Drones as dusters I could understand. These are significantly different ideas that laser weeding drones. One of the co-ops I used to work for had one, it was useful. Indispensable or revolutionary? I don’t think so. However, this wasn’t ranching where drones offer a more distinct advantage over terrain.

                But then, this drives against the ‘intensive small plot’ farm idea.

                At MSU they are working with spray booms attached to spectrometers that will be able to identify weeds and spray only when weeds are identified.

                I hadn’t heard spectrometers. Tailored/metered application is, of course, nothing new even GPS/region-driven application is getting a bit dated at this point.

                1. Variable rate application for fertilizer (and even seeding rates) is getting much more common. Pesticides will be the next variable rate process.

            3. re: “Why would you use…”

              For one thing, because pests can’t develop resistance to drones with lasers. It’s pretty impractical at current levels of technology but intriguing as a technical challenge – and maybe not more than a generation away.

              1. I would point out that early research into flaming weeds has not shown an improvement over herbicides, in fact the research has demonstrated poorer control, as many weeds can regrow from their roots, so any laser system would have to be effective in destroying root systems as well as above ground foliage.

              2. For one thing, because pests can’t develop resistance to drones with lasers.

                Resistance!

                I don’t disagree with it being interesting or cool and I’m sure there are tangential benefits I’m not considering (there’s probably some overlap between agricultural pest control drones and residential or other pest control drones). I’m just dubious as to the practicality even with a decade of work.

              3. Effective drone mounted lasers are a pipe dream. Or, wait, are we saying each one of them will have their own tiny nuclear and/or fission reactor?

                Weird claim to make.

      2. Standing golf clap

      3. Small, hand tilled lots are inherently less productive because you are also 1) Not eating everything you grow, 2) supporting host of pests: deer, insects, voles, moles and marauding chickens (if you have them), and 3) rationalizing what you don’t eat by throwing it in a compost pile (if you have one). The amount of productive land that to takes to be commercially viable does not fit into the hand tilled category, despite what your local subscription-based organic farmer tells you. Dreams aside they do not last unless you are growing single crop, perennial, hardy species like berries and stone fruits and pomes. Think blueberries.

        You are also host to a million faddish plow and hearth ideas on how your garden must look, and the carbon footprint associated with buying all that too-hip gardening equipment is, frankly, embarrassing.

        Precision ag is the only way to fed people efficiently.

  7. It’s Possible To Cut Cropland Use in Half and Produce the Same Amount of Food

    *** rising intonation ***

    What about social distancing?

  8. //Most global trends suggest that by the end of this century, the world will be populated with fewer and much wealthier people living mostly in cities fueled by cheap no-carbon energy sources.//

    A few sardine-state capitals, powered by wind farms, where people live in socially distanced storage units surrounded by millions of square miles of swampland, mosquitos, and wild animals. Of course, the good people of these international pickle jar metropolises will not be permitted to utilize any of that protected, bountiful land because nature is unyielding and dangerous; far too dangerous.

    But, I suppose, if you had to plug a book, pretending to write an article is one way to do it.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    1. It reminds me of one of Asimov’s books after he merged the Foundation and Robot series, where the robot detective visited a planet where people always interfaced over video connections, and meeting even a robot face-to-face was a terrifying encounter. Contemplating a face-to-face murder was even worse.

      1. Ron’s dream world.

        Insanely enough, you can buy a hardcover version of his obviously insightful book on Amazon for just $$925.89.

        https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B01L98JKI4/reasonmagazinea-20/

        No wonder he’s plugging it so hard.

        1. Must suck that Rational Optimist beat him by years.

      2. Too funny..I just put a post up at the end of this chain and talked about Caves of Steel by Asimov..my point was he was wrong and Arthur C Clarke right..people if given the choice want space not dense cities..Cities were needed at one point but are just dens of filth and disease today

        1. I do not recall Asimov ever saying that the caves of steel was a lifestyle chosen by anyone, but rather it was forced on Earth by gross overpopulation. The tiny part of humanity that had made it to other star systems did choose to have room – to an excess. The Spacers in the sequels could have built cities, or individual homes on lots of a few acres like a prosperous 20th Century suburb, but actually lived individually on vast estates with large robot staffs, and rarely came into sight of another human. In the end, Earth gained permission to resume emigration to space, and perhaps it was implied that both Earth and Space would evolve towards a healthier intermediate density of settlement.

          OTOH, in the Trantorian Empire novels, Trantor had become a planetary city. It was not as cavelike as Caves of Steel (because food was shipped from other planets rather than requiring all structures to be covered with farms), and probably not as crowded or highly populated, but the capital city covered the whole planet, and (like all capitals) people _competed_ to live there, rather than on the subject planets with some mix of farm and urban areas. But the Foundation novels imply a horrific die-off on Trantor when the Empire crumbled and the food ships stopped coming.

  9. Not mentioned in this article is that achieving the average yield of today’s US corn grower means adopting his/her methods, tools and technologies. In other words, techniques that depend heavily on fossil fuels, heavy machinery and factory-created fertilizers.

    The irony is that these technologies so viciously decried by “environmentalists” are actually the technologies that make protecting the environment possible.

    1. Getting rich saves the ‘environment’; returning to subsistence ag (as quite a few greenies propose) does the opposite.

    2. They’ll all just use Tesla Tractors powered by their local solar bank which somehow overcomes the quantum efficiency limit because we want it to.

      Or MSRs using Thorium because that’s so COOL!

      Oh, and all the fertilizer will be made from ammonia generated from beautiful wind turbines at triple the cost.

  10. It’s private property. Who’s to say they shouldn’t still farm it for what ever crop they choose? Or for livestock?

    1. Farming is hard work and ties you to its schedule. Livestock don’t go on vacation just because you want to. Cows don’t appreciate you staying in late because you partied last night or the weather looks iffy.

      Marxists like to decry factory workers as wage slaves. They ignore that factory workers voluntarily chose that life over being farm workers.

      I have little doubt that most modern subsistence farmers are exactly the same. Better to make shoes for foreigners 10 hours a day six days a week than farm 12 hours a day seven days a week.

      1. Actually, during the summer months, as long as I have someone to make sure my water pump (which is controlled by a float valve) I actually do have time to take vacation from my cows. Winter is actually harder to take a vacation because they have to be fed as opposed to harvesting (e.g. grazing) their own feed. Since I don’t grow crops and purchase hay, all I have to do to take a two week vacation in say July is make sure they are in a new paddock and that the fence is good and ask one of my neighbors to check the stock tank occasionally. It really is different than having someone feed your fish while you are gone. Even breeding is not overly troublesome. After I artificially inseminate them I turn them out with a cleanup bull that does all the work of breeding the cows that didn’t take on AI. I had 100% pregnancy rate this year and a 21 day breeding period. My friend, who has a larger herd, had a 97% pregnancy rate and 45 day breeding period.

        1. *really is no different.

        2. I’m guessing you have beef cows, not milkers. The difference in daily maintenance is … significant.

          1. Yes, beef cattle. Dairies are a different world of course. Although, larger dairies already have employees who do a lot of the work.

      2. This is a misrepresentation of history and a deliberate ignorance of modern technology and the ability or willingness of farmers to engage in it. When you don’t have chilled iron plows or 2 stroke engines, yes, farming is fucking hard but then, prior to movable type press, writing books was hard as fuck too. Assuming you’ve heard of an assembly line, interchangeable parts, and friction belt drives, farming is significantly less difficult.

        And you certainly can’t be negligent farming any more than you could be negligent with supply line shipping or practicing medicine but fields absolutely go to pasture and livestock absolutely gets put out there.

        1. “A deliberate ignorance of modern technology and the ability or willingness of farmers to engage in it”??? Did you even read TFA which is all about using modern tech which subsistence farmers aren’t using?

          The WHOLE FUCKING POINT is to get rid of subsistence farming.

          “When you don’t have chilled iron plows or 2 stroke engines, yes, farming is fucking hard”

          No Shit Sherlock here bringing up the rear.

      3. Also, a number of farmers I know take vacation after harvest has ended. A good number of older farmers up here in Montana snow bird to Arizona in the winter.

  11. There are some huge caveats to the number of acres used for animal feed, this counts hay as a cropland, despite the fact that hay is generally grown on less productive land, which should not be used to grow other crops. It also accounts for land that grows crops such as oil seeds and corn for ethanol, which then sell the byproducts of processing (meal left over after extracting oil, distillers grains left over after fermentation) which are then sold as animal feed. This actually reduces waste and produces edible products from what essentially is garbage. It also counts acres grown for human use, but for which the product is ruled unsafe for human consumption. This occurs because of mold or fungal growth that produces toxins which are harmful to humans but less so to cattle and other ruminants, as well as birds. This allows farmers to sell a product that they otherwise would have to destroy (albeit at a great reduction in price).

  12. what’s a vegan green dealer doing on Reason?

  13. Great more land for people to live on in larger estates…Ronnie seems to be living in the Isaac Asimov’s Caves of Steel world were we all live in some Mega Cosmo paradise of wokes and no one is allowed to live on the “public land” outside wokeville. Arthur C Clarke had a different view…with technology people did not have to live in Cities anymore..the Silicon Woke Social Bay Filth Area is a aberration. People want space and land…so I celebrate this as. 500 acres, a home where the buffalo roam and plenty fo shotguns and AR-15s…sound like paradise..

  14. Hey! Good news, fellow technocrats! Now hopefully everyone will live in dense cities so the next global pandemic driven by mindless open-border associations with rogue 3rd world states can kill you better!

  15. I’d be more interested in returning half of all government offices to nature.

  16. “It’s Possible to Cut Cropland Use In Half and Produce the Same Amount of Food.”

    “Restoring up to 2.2 million square miles to nature.”

    My guess is they double their output instead, hippie.

  17. Must be a very, very slow news day. I really don’t care how much acreage is planted or not. That should be a free market decision, but FDR virtually nationalized farms and so there hasn’t been a true free market for farmers since pre-FDR. Otherwise, a big wide yawn.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.