WEF Pushes Ban on Home-Grown Food to ‘Fight Climate Change’

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling on governments to ban the general public from growing their own food at home by arguing that they are causing “climate change.”

According to so-called “experts” behind a recent WEF study, researchers apparently discovered that the “carbon footprint” of home-grown food is “destroying the planet.”

As a result, the WEF and other globalist climate zealots are now demanding that governments intervene and ban individuals from growing their own food in order to “save the planet” from “global warming.”

The research indicated that resorting to garden-to-table produce causes a far greater carbon footprint than conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms.

This research, conducted by WEF-funded scientists at the University of Michigan, was published in the journal Nature Cities.

The study looked at different types of urban farms to see how much carbon dioxide (CO2) was produced when growing food.

On average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07 kilogram (kg) of CO2, according to the study.

However, the WEF-funded researchers claim that the impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual city gardens.

The paper’s first author Jake Hawes said:

“The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food, from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.”

The study recruited 73 urban agriculture sites around the world.

Those farms included some in Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

The researchers say they conducted a comprehensive life cycle assessment on the site’s infrastructure, irrigation, and supplies.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Hawes and his teammates grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.

The researchers also found other factors that they claimed are “hazardous” when it comes to impacting the alleged “climate crisis.”

Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs contribute to “global warming,” they warned.

They further advised that fruit was 8.6 times more “eco-friendly” when grown conventionally compared to in a city.

Vegetables, meanwhile, were 5.8 times better for the environment when left to the professionals, they claim.

Moreover, two-thirds of the “carbon footprint” of allotments is created by the garden itself, as per their data.

Nevertheless, they insist that people should be limited when it comes to keeping plants inside their homes, as well as growing food in their gardens.

Urban gardeners used to have no qualms about greening their indoor spaces.

For one, this reduces city living anxieties and emotional stress.

Also, being able to take care of plants inside their offices and homes could be part of interior design and a slight improvement in air quality.

However, climate alarmists are not going to give city dwellers peace of mind.

According to the WEF researchers, greening indoor spaces can also come at an environmental cost.

They cite “carbon emissions” from the trucks that transport plants, plastic pots, and synthetic fertilizers.

These, they said, are made from petroleum and the harvesting of soil components like peat can “tear up slow-forming habitats.”

Susan Pell, the director of the U.S. Botanic Garden in Washington, D.C., downplayed the narrative.

Pell argues that members of the general public should at least still be able to grow potted plants at home, even if they can’t buy them.

They just need to consider the “environmental harm of indoor gardening,” she claims.

The news comes amid a growing war against the food supply to supposedly fight “global warming.”

As Slay News reported, 14 major American cities have set a “target” to comply with the WEF’s green agenda goals by banning meat and dairy products by 2030.

The agreement also seeks to ban private car ownership and place other restrictions on public freedoms to meet the WEF’s “Net Zero” goals.

The U.S. cities have formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40) which has established an “ambitious target” to meet the WEF’s goals by the year 2030.

To fulfill the “target,” the C40 Cities have pledged that their residents will comply with the following list of mandatory rules:

  • “0 kg [of] meat consumption”
  • “0 kg [of] dairy consumption”
  • “3 new clothing items per person per year”
  • “0 private vehicles” owned
  • “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person”

Earlier this week, New York’s anti-Trump Democrat Attorney General Letitia James advanced this agenda by filing a lawsuit against the world’s largest beef producer, as Slay News reported.

NY AG James is suing JBS USA over claims the company has failed to meet its so-called “Net Zero” pledge.

The get-Trump prosecutor accuses JBS of allegedly contributing to “global greenhouse gas emissions” as “families continue to face the daily impacts of the climate crisis.”

In an announcement, James blasted the agriculture industry and argued that beef production has the largest “greenhouse gas footprint” of any major food commodity.

James also claimed that animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Essentially, the taxpaying masses must stop eating meat and using natural fuels to meet the goals of the elite.

READ MORE – Bill Gates’ Plan to ‘Fight Climate Change’ by Blocking the Sun Begins

join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Notify of


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x