Back in February, CBS News reported that food prices had continued to rise faster than the rise in the overall Consumer Price Index. Restaurant prices were increasing at an annual rate of 5.1 percent, while grocery prices were up 1.2 percent. But the real story is that supermarket prices are 25 percent higher now than in January 2020, while inflation had increased by 19 percent.

At the same time, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that “climate and conflict are two leading drivers of [our] global food crisis.” UN climate chief Simon Stiell chimed in that, “Rapid, sustained action to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to increase resilience is needed now to help stop [chronic hunger] from spiraling out of control.”

There are just three things wrong with the UN pronouncements. First, the slight increases in carbon dioxide have left the planet 20 percent greener than it was just 24 years ago – according to NASA. Crop yields have increased by 13 percent over the same period. Deserts are shrinking. This suggests, and science indicates, that decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would likely reverse this trend, decreasing the amount of arable land.

Second, the UN has done nothing to stop the carnage of war in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, and many other countries. UN policies and even personnel (notably in Gaza) have exacerbated conflicts in many areas. Third, UN climate-related mandates have caused major misalignments in African infrastructure development and hindered their efforts at self-reliance and food security.

The European Union, too, has gone all out on forcing changes in agriculture as part of its pious campaign to suffocate crops by lowering carbon dioxide levels in the vain belief that failing to do so will cause a minor temperature rise that will wipe out civilization.

The same nations that after World War II saw that farmers were the key to ending food insecurity have begun demanding that the same farm families quit farming or radically change the way they farm. Perhaps the most egregious example was the demand by the Dutch government in late 2022 that up to 3,000 farmers sell their land and quit unless they innovate to drastically reduce emissions (of CO2 and methane), transition to a new kind of business, relocate, or just stop.

Earlier this month, the World Bank dropped a glossy report entitled, “Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System,” a target it says is vital to achieving overall net zero and “saving the planet.” Food production, they said, generates nearly a third of humanity’s carbon dioxide, more than heating and electricity.

Yessir – food production is bad for the planet. Bad for people, too. That’s why the “solution” is laboratory-derived “meat,” crickets, and worms.

And so, to achieve this “noble” goal, the World Bank outlined a “practical guide” to rein in those evil farmers who are killing the planet with food. Countries at all income levels (including the poorest African nations) can focus on six key areas – investments, incentives, information, innovation, institutions, and inclusion.

One suspects the spokes-species for this program will be a six-eyed spider.

What this means in practical terms, says Politico, is repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost products like red meat and dairy for more “climate-friendly” options like poultry, fruits, and vegetables. One major target is the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy, where over 70 percent of the budget subsidizes livestock, and a third of all agricultural subsidy schemes support red meat and dairy production.

British journalist Andrew Orlowski, however, says that industrial action by farmers across Europe, Latin America, and Asia has returned food security to the news agenda after decades of complacency. The brand-new “No Farmers, No Food” campaign already claims four times the number of supporters that the National Farming Union has paying members. Most joined to fight against environmental decrees they say make no sense.

Orlowski notes that livestock fertilize and improve the quality of land, and the methane released by the belching of ruminants is a very short-lived greenhouse gas. Overall, the balance between livestock and crops is a virtuous, not a vicious, cycle that ensures “sustainability” of the land. Measures that reduce the food supply are counterproductive.

The World Bank, says Orlowski, used to encourage poor countries to become richer through economic development, but today’s Malthusian constraints (including Earth’s supposed “operating limits”) encourage poor nations to remain poor. They boast that “low-emitting developing countries have the chance to go straight to green technologies, leading the way toward a new development model and healthier planet.”

When Sri Lanka tried that (organic farming without fertilizer or pesticides), the result was a massive famine.

Our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just released a study claiming that cooking food pollutes the air. Those volatile organic compounds (VOC) released through cooking food negatively affect air quality, says NOAA.

NOAA’s tome flatly blames cooking for releasing aromas into the atmosphere. “If there’s one thing the researchers at NOAA’s Chemical Sciences Laboratory (CSL) have learned in their multi-year deep dive investigation into the unrecognized and underappreciated sources of urban air pollution, it’s this: If you can smell it, there’s a good chance it’s impacting air quality.”

That apple pie in the window is bad for the planet. Right?

In the study, which focused on Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Boulder, researchers determined that 50 percent of the human-caused VOC in downtown Las Vegas was due to chemical products. The other half was split between traffic and cooking emissions. They estimated that cooking emissions accounted for 20 percent of “anthropogenic VOCs” in Las Vegas. Clearly, people there are gambling with their very lives just by eating cooked food.

It gets worse. A British study found that “Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which contribute to global warming.” The “scientists” urged caution in the assumption “that emissions from humans are negligible.”

And, OMG! The “scientists” “report only emissions in breath in this study, and flatus emissions are likely to increase these values significantly.” Just as bad for the planet, they concluded, are exhaled emissions from livestock and “other” wild animals (and we thought livestock were domesticated).

Apparently, house cat emissions are just fine.

So, what’s the solution for the planet? Fewer people mean fewer crops, fewer livestock, and, of course, fewer “gas-guzzling” motor vehicles, fewer buildings, fewer everything.

In the meantime, I think I will have a hamburger with bacon and cheddar, a milkshake, and some cheesecake for dessert.