When Sri Lanka Banned Synthetic Fertilizers, the Country Imploded
Green activists have some good points. But the pursuit of a chemical-free world hurts vulnerable people the most.

Starvation. Poverty. People struggling to buy medicine and fuel.
Disaster happened after one government fell under the influence of the world's environmental extremists.
Many "experts" say pure nature is best. United Nations officials now tell politicians that the climate "crisis" demands countries make all sorts of sacrifices, like cutting nitrogen waste.
Much of that waste comes from synthetic fertilizer, so activists applauded when Sri Lanka's government decided to become the first country to really take their advice. Sri Lanka banned all synthetic fertilizers.
Oops.
Suddenly, the same farms produced much less food. Food prices rose 80 percent.
One result: riots. As my new video shows, thousands swarmed the president's mansion. Some had a cookout on his lawn.
The president resigned and fled the country.
It turns out that we need chemical fertilizers.
Environmental writer Michael Shellenberger says if countries listened to today's green activists, there would be mass starvation.
"We could only support two to three billion people on earth if we just relied on natural fertilizers like manure….There's eight billion people."
"Why can't we just make more organic manure?" I ask.
"It takes twice as much land to produce all the cows that you need to get the manure," he explains. "Synthetic fertilizers are a friend to saving nature because they reduce how much land we need."
Now the environmental purists make excuses for Sri Lanka.
Mother Jones said it's "ridiculous to single out [the fertilizer ban] as the 'underlying' cause, as Shellenberger did." Others say that Sri Lanka just needed time to adjust to organic farming.
"You might be able to become poorer over five or 10 years, rather than over six months," replies Shellenberger. "But the result will be the same."
I push back. "There were other causes of the problems: higher oil prices, COVID, other stuff happened."
"But those same problems affected other countries where the economies did not collapse," he replies. "What made the difference in Sri Lanka was its fertilizer ban."
We are right to worry about chemical fertilizer. Not only is the nitrous oxide it emits a greenhouse gas, but when nitrogen runs off into waterways, it can kill fish.
"Absolutely. We should be concerned," says Shellenberger. "But that's best dealt with through a gradual process of farmers getting better at applying the fertilizer."
Farmers are already doing that. Fertilizer is expensive, so farmers have an incentive not to waste it.
"We know you can significantly reduce pollution while producing the same amount of food," Shellenberger points out. In the Netherlands, "They reduced fertilizer pollution by 70 percent."
But that still wasn't enough for environmental zealots in the Dutch government. They want to force farmers to cut nitrogen emissions by another half, even though they admit that will force 11,000 farms to shut down.
"[This green extremism] is out of control," says Shellenberger. "You would think that Sri Lanka would be a wake-up call. But we haven't seen any slowdown."
Fortunately, most countries don't yet embrace the zealot's most destructive ideas, like banning synthetic fertilizer or the Green New Deal's demand for 100 percent renewable energy.
But many countries closed nuclear plants.
And President Joe Biden killed pipelines, stopped a long-planned sale of offshore oil rights, and imposed a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands.
This is a war on affordable energy.
"We're in the worst energy crisis in 50 years," says Shellenberger. "Yet governments are trying to make energy more scarce and expensive. It's totally insane. There's no other word for it."
The pursuit of a chemical-free world is insane. Modern technologies like synthetic fertilizer make people's lives better. They especially make poor people's lives better. Banning them brings disaster.
The hardcore environmental left got its way in Sri Lanka. Let's hope they don't destroy more countries.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who the fuck let a libritarian write an article at reason?
The horror...
I imagine the others walking around with a scowl on their mugs...
Stossel must feel like the last man standing after the invasion of the Reason snatchers.
IDK, the notion that "Green activists have some good points." feels a lot like the "Green activists take credit for resurgence of nuclear power."
Anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate are both expensive and dangerous compounds to have around. It's not like farmers would order a couple extra tons or hundred gallons just so they could use it to kill fish and fertilize the streams where they can't grow crops.
Like most things it's abused when new and then when it becomes deleterious it's use becomes more rational.
I’m by and by turning out to be further $19k or extra month-to-month from local through doing surprisingly sincere and clean task online from local. [res-04] I truly have gained expressly $20845 outrageous month from this local task. be a region of at this point this endeavor and start getting more money online through notice teaching:-
.
At the given webpage:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Awww, arthur used a vulgar ad hom fallacy attack instead of dealing with the content. Pathetic
Stop sockpuppeting, Sarcasmic. And for fuck's sake, will you please learn what the actual definition of ad hominem is?
Green activists have some good points.
Maybe 40 years ago they did. The things green activists want these days generally aren't desirable and more likely to cause evil than anything even slightly positive.
Sure, the Greenies could've been the motivation for using more expensive compounds more sparingly. Or it could've been:
Or:
Love John Stossel as much as I can.
But , NO, they dont. Not any good points at all anymore
Well, in some ways that's because their better points were absorbed into the mainstream. I do remember some executive joking that the ship channel "Smelled like money" in the early 90s. Now, it smells a lot better, and executives are angry about the "dollars up in smoke" that pollution represents. After all, ingredients are expensive and emissions represent ingredients and products wasted and not sold.
"One result: riots. As my new video shows, thousands swarmed the president's mansion. Some had a cookout on his lawn."
Well, as long as they did not use fire extinguishers.
Nancy Pelosi's desk was unharmed during this event.
Conclusion: not an insurrection.
Insurrection, you say?
"Environmental writer Michael Shellenberger says if countries listened to today's green activists, there would be mass starvation."
The absolutely kindest thing we can say about eco-luddite activists is that they are complete idiots, and can't relate cause and effect of their pet policies.
The less kind thing we can say is that some of them want to greatly reduce the human population, greatly reduce our material lifestyles, or both.
"The less kind thing we can say is that some of them want to greatly reduce the human population, greatly reduce our material lifestyles, or both."
Both. And it's clear the the kindest thing to say is NOT true. It's bad enough pushing the unrealistic energy policies that will never work. But going after food production is 100% tipping their game. It's mass famine and genocide for the undesirables.
Going from 8 billion people to 3 billion is the goal.
They have hit on the final solution.
1 billion
250 million is the best number according one of Klaus Schwab's books.
Did Klaus say whether he and his friends would be included in that 250 million?
Hey Reason finally covered it! Oh. Stossel. So regular writers continue to ignore.
Yep, I got a couple hundred words in and thought "Waitaminnit. This ain't Bailey. Not even Old Bailey, who was an actual libertarian."
Sure enough. The middlebrow-but-adequate-for-communication style and vocabulary pretty much had to be Stossel.
The in-house talent couldn't be asked to give a fuck about Sri Lanka, and so we get it here courtesy of someone not on Charlie's payroll.
They want mass starvation really. They don't give a whit about green policies or they wouldn't fly 40,000 useless politicians into Glasgow on private planes to talk about being green. They care about power. And starving people are good listeners.
Just ask Mao and Stalin.
Actually, i don't think most green activists think that far ahead. Take AOC, for instance. And, as corrupted as he may be, I don't think the Sri Lankan president actually had Holodomor in mind — i would assume that he had an incentive to retain power, and this clearly didn't work out for him... I think this is likely in the realm of "Unintended Consequences from Good Intentions"
More like "Unintended Consequences from the Greed for More Power and Money".
The fertilizer ban was only the straw that broke the camel's back.
There were a lot of other problems in Sri Lanka prior to this ban.
It is worth pointing out that the fertilizer ban was instituted in the spring of 2021. Almost 18 months ago. And since Sri Lanka is a tropical country, that means they had 2 harvests under the ban that apparently were not problematic. It was only with this most recent one where the shit really hit the fan.
If you take a look at the inflation data, you'll see that even for most of 2021, when the ban was in place, inflation was not much of a problem. It only really spiked towards the very end of 2021, and then really took off in March 2022. I don't know what happened in the end of 2021, but it's fairly obvious that the March 2022 spike was due to the Ukraine invasion and both the spike in oil prices and the shortage of grain that it caused. Plus you have a country that is heavily reliant on tourist dollars that was very severely hit by COVID lockdowns, and you have a country that had a president who brutally suppressed minority groups in a 2-decade civil war that recently concluded so he wasn't exactly loved by a large segment of the people.
If we're going to be honest here, we ought to admit all of the potential causes of the unrest in Sri Lanka and try to rationally decide how much is due to its own policies that we don't like, vs. how much is due to simply circumstances beyond its control, such as the war in Ukraine. It's tempting to blame everything on the ideology that we don't like but that is not reality.
"The fertilizer ban was only the straw that broke the camel's back.
There were a lot of other problems in Sri Lanka prior to this ban."
Ya but that specific straw is usually notable and important. Lots of revolutions/insurrections/unrest have happened due to a people unhappy about a lot of stuff who then all of a sudden have starvation or freezing or both due specifically to an incompetent and out of touch government. This has echoed over and over again throughout history.
When you are tired of getting rammed up the ass, and all of a sudden you lose the ability to do one or more of the following: eat, stay warm, provide for your family...people start to get very unhappy.
Most of these govts just cant be content with the 75% authoritarianism they normally enjoy. No, they just have to push it one step further, always. And eventually, that last straw causes revolt.
"vs. how much is due to simply circumstances beyond its control, such as the war in Ukraine."
An lol no. Like so many other things in life, the 'war in Ukraine' isnt what caused most problems. It was short sighted govt intervention to accomplish their goals over all else. The consequences of Russia/Ukraine are no different than Covid: They started, almost certainly, due to poor behavior by an adversary. But our reaction to the problem caused the majority of the pain citizens felt.
Stop being a govt trusting lefty shill. Its a bad look on a libertarian site (if you can call reason that)
Don’t you know? Everything wrong with the world can be traced back to Russia/Ukraine.
This is you substituting ideology and narratives over reason.
Your tribe wants to downplay the Russia-Ukraine war as much as you can, because you actually support Russia's side which is a quite unpopular position. So you go out of your way to twist reality to fit the narrative. It's not enough to argue that the conflict might have had some role in the affairs in Sri Lanka, even if it wasn't a large role. You must ridicule and denounce any attempt to say that it had ANY role whatsoever even if it contradicts empirical reality.
And you substitute ideology when you try to blame everything on the bogeyman of your ideology instead of letting empirical reality be your guide.
This isn't an Ayn Rand novel, this is reality here.
I didnt really get that from any of these comments at all... hypersensitive much?
This is chemjeff just making shit up. Sri Lanka had to spend 20 - 25% of their foreign exchange reserves to replace rice that they did not grow due to their green policy. That is incontrovertible fact.
Had they not spent their reserves importing rice and all of the other food that their green policies prevented from growing, they would have been able to weather the storm of higher fuel prices.
This is the second time Chemjeff has jumped in to try and confuse and obfuscate from a very clear point, despite insisting that he isn't here to defend the left. As I link below, at first he was digging up articles about how the leaders were right wingers. From there he has dropped back to merely insisting that "it's complicated."
It isn't complicated. This was a gut-shot to the economy of Sri Lanka. You cannot blame their woes on Ukraine when 60% of their crop yield was lost. Are there marginal things that exacerbate their problems? Of course. That doesn't change the fact that the primary cause of their woes was a very, very stupid economic policy.
Jeffy just gets worse and worse.
Yeah. The soil was depleted dumbfcvk
"It is worth pointing out that the fertilizer ban was instituted in the spring of 2021. Almost 18 months ago. And since Sri Lanka is a tropical country, that means they had 2 harvests under the ban that apparently were not problematic. It was only with this most recent one where the shit really hit the fan."
This is untrue. Chemjeff must not be aware that the inflation, and harvest numbers line up pretty well with the harvests. Which is very odd, because he and I discussed this 5 weeks ago:
https://reason.com/2022/07/29/europes-energy-wounds-are-self-inflicted/?comments=true#comment-9626245
"The country banned import of chemical fertilizers in April 2021. That impacted the Yala (May - August) harvest, with a 20% decrease in Rice yield. That required them to start importing food during the last quarter of 2021. And by the end of the Maha season (September - March) their Yields had decreased by upwards of 50%. All of that needing to be replaced internationally.
$450 Million dollars, or 20-25% of their foreign exchange reserves spent just on RICE let alone all the other crops they need. That was reserves that had been needed to pay loans, import fuel, and now is required to import more chemical fertilizers than they would normally use."
So there we have *5 Weeks Ago* Chemjeff being shown information that directly contradicts what he is saying today.
But he will tell us all, all day long, that we are the ones pushing a narrative. SMH.
Thanks, Overt. You've been doing really good stuff here recently. I just wanted you to know it's appreciated.
"Which is very odd, because he and I discussed this 5 weeks ago"
He just can't stop playing games, can he.
Starvation. Poverty. People struggling to buy medicine and fuel.
Is Fauci back in the news?
"Green activists have some good points."
No John, they do not. Not a single one.
Their only point is to destroy private property rights.
"For most of our history, humans lived in harmony with nature"
AYFKM?
If you mean by harmony, constantly being killed by it, sure.
Everything goes to shit when government gets involved. The slow innovation toward greener solutions can only work in the absence of government interference. Government can only destroy the environment and while they are at it people's lives.
Justin Trudeau says, hold my Molson.
Sri Lanka was the test run for the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who are the test runs for France, Germany, the UK and the US.
Ban GMOs, who cares if a Africa nation turns away perfectly good food while the nation is starving.
Sarcasm, S/ isn't enough for that bullshit.
Who will stop the madness?
Death
Everyone who's against chemical fertilizers can move to Sri Lanka, Darwin would solve the problem.
Just make sure to bring your own food.
And please don't try to convince me this is not a viable solution as it has been used, and successfully, before. In the Klondike Gold Rush those attempting to enter the region were required, enforced by armed Mounties, to bring their own food supplies for a full year before they would be allowed entry to the area where the Gold Fields were located.
Modern farming includes mapping yields on every square meter and applying fertilizers only where needed. Us rednecks in Iowa use GPS and computers to map low yield areas and use science to apply the proper inputs to correct those issues. The corn has been growing well here this year despite the limited amount of rain we got. Gardening was difficult but the professionals have come through with large yields. Corn
, Corn. And more corn in Iowa.
"Environmental writer Michael Shellenberger says if countries listened to today's green activists, there would be mass starvation."
In my opinion, the green activists are well aware of that outcome and they don't see it as a bug.
You are the carbon they want to eliminate.
Of fucking course it's Stossel. Of COURSE it is.
“We are right to worry about chemical fertilizer. Not only is the nitrous oxide it emits a greenhouse gas, but when nitrogen runs off into waterways, it can kill fish.”
Oh my…
That is technically true, but as the video points out farmers have an inherent cost incentive to minimize fertilizer run off into waterways. Fertilizer getting flushed into waterways is money spend that's not improving the yield of their crops.
I live at the confluence of the two largest freshwater rivers in North America. We have a temperate climate with plenty of rain and occasional seasonal flooding on both of these major rivers. We have all kinds of water available.
Still, we're required to use low-flow plumbing fixtures - toilets, showers, urinals, whatever - BY FEDERAL MANDATE - because it saves water. For whom? No amount of water that I save is going to help people in SoCal or Arizona or anywhere else. It all flows downhill to New Orleans - they don't need more water either. The water I could save is completely useless to anyone needing it.
I choose to live in a place with ABUNDANT water. You chose to live in a place with nice weather and a lot of sun. Deal with it yourself.
The solution to the problem, which has been identified as too many people to support with merely natural fertilizer usage, is to eliminate the people who are objecting to the use of the chemical fertilizers.
This helps to reduce the population and serves as an example to the next group of single-issue enviro-whackos that the obvious solution to ~our~ problem might actually involve them being permanently removed from the discussion
What is this chemical-free world you speak of? There is NO such place. Plants don't care where the nutrients come from, they just need what they need in the form and amount they need. If it were not for "chemical" fertilizers the population of the planet would be less than half of what it is. Malthus' future would be our world right now. "Chemical" nitrogen is simply atmospheric nitrogen in a solid form. We are breathing 78% N right now. You cannot feed the world using "organic" methods. Even most organic fertilizer is simply synthetic fertilizer that has been recovered from animal manure, animals that were fed grains grown with synthetic fertilizer.