Farmers across Australia are revolting against the wanton destruction of their land to satisfy the renewed and re-elected climate alarmism of Labor’s voodoo policies. It’s a growing confrontation between government and farmers. Minister Bowen, beware the fury of farmers…

In 2019, the Dutch government introduced strict nitrogen emissions reduction policies to comply with EU environmental regulations, targeting agriculture as a major emitter. The policies included plans to buy out or shut down thousands of farms, threatening farmers’ livelihoods. Dutch farmers responded with massive protests, including tractor convoys to The Hague, blockades of highways, and demonstrations at government buildings. The protests gained political traction, boosting the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB) in elections.

The farmers’ protests led to significant concessions. The BBB’s electoral success, winning the most seats in the 2023 provincial elections, forced the government to reconsider its approach.

The rollback of coercive measures and the policy’s revision marked a clear victory for farmers, demonstrating their ability to influence policy through protests and political mobilisation.

In early 2024, French farmers protested against stringent environmental regulations. Protests involved tractor blockades on highways, dumping manure outside government buildings and demonstrations in Paris, demanding relief from regulatory burdens.

The protests yielded significant concessions. In February 2024, the French government, under pressure from farmers, paused plans to phase out certain pesticides and committed €150 million in financial aid to support livestock farmers.

In September 2020, the Indian government passed three farm laws to liberalise agricultural markets, allowing private buyers to purchase crops directly and potentially undermining minimum support prices (MSP). Farmers, primarily from Punjab and Haryana, viewed these laws as favouring corporations and threatening their livelihoods. Farmers launched a massive protest movement, including marches to Delhi, prolonged sit-ins at border points like Singhu and Tikri, and nationwide strikes. They demanded the repeal of the laws and legal guarantees for MSP, using non-violent resistance and gaining global attention.

The farmers’ persistence paid off. In November 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the repeal of the three farm laws due to sustained protests and political pressure. Parliament formally repealed the laws in December 2021.

In 2023-24, European farmers, particularly in France, Ireland, and Poland, protested against the proposed EU-Mercosur trade agreement, which would allow tariff-free imports of South American agricultural products like beef and poultry.

The protests achieved a significant victory. In February 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron publicly opposed the EU-Mercosur deal, citing its threat to French agriculture. This stance, backed by other EU nations like Ireland and Austria, effectively stalled the agreement, as the EU requires unanimous consent to ratify trade deals. As at May 2025, the deal remains unratified, with farmers’ actions credited for halting its progress.

Australian farmers have demonstrated against wind turbines and solar panels through rallies, blockades, grassroots campaigns, and advocacy, with notable actions in February 2024 (Canberra), 2023-24 (Western Renewables Link and HumeLink), and 2023-24 (Stanley). While achieving some concessions, such as rerouting lines or delaying projects, farmers face challenges in fully halting developments due to national climate policy goals. So far.

The push for renewables to defeat fossil fuel as the main energy source are framed in ideological terms. But measurable outcomes are undefined and over the horizon. What will be achieved by the forest of wind turbines and sterile solar panels on farming land? This is where the reality on the ground crashes into the ideology in the party room.

The alarmist narrative is built on what became labelled ‘the science’. This is the claim that contradicts long-standing scientific observations about fossil fuels: the more of it in our atmosphere, the warmer the planet becomes. But no, that has never been shown. (I make the observation that if it had been shown, the evidence would be quoted in response to the critics…) In over 30 years of climate alarmism, that claim stands as the central sleight of hand. As attention is directed over there, the trick takes place over here.

Setting up ‘fossil fuels warm the planet’ as the subject, proponents argue over ‘the science’ while the real agenda is not about climate but breaking down the market economies of the wicked West.

Remember, it all started when the IPCC was given the directive to ‘address dangerous human-made climate change’. The brief started with the conclusion it intended to prove, a classic circular argument. It came from the UN.

There’s no more powerful metaphor for the narrative of dangerous man-made global warming than how it was first presented at the US Senate, a political forum, not a scientific one.

At a congressional session on June 23, 1988, to emphasise the warming claims to come, Senator Tim Wirth scheduled the hearing on a day forecast to be the hottest in Washington that summer. To emphasise warming, Wirth sabotaged the air-conditioning the previous night, hoping to ensure the TV cameras could show everyone sweating in the heat. Wirth later told Deborah Amos (NPR News) how he did it:

‘What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred … it was really hot … the wonderful Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing…’

In other words, the debate we now call climate change was always dishonestly mischaracterised as being a scientific matter.

What if the real agenda has always been about the redistribution of wealth where Western economies are hurt by policies that need cover to appear acceptable? Where fear is the tool to push otherwise anti-democratic policies (as was done during Covid) ‘to keep you safe’?

‘The cost-of-living pain is obvious but, rather than tackling symptoms before causes, what needs to be explained is how much of this is due to poor government,’ writes Tony Abbott (The Weekend Australian, 31 May, 2025).

‘Australia is one of only two developed countries where average real disposable incomes, after tax, after inflation, and after living expenses, have gone backward across the past three years.

‘This 8 per cent decline in living standards, the worst since these statistics have been kept, has been exacerbated by key government decisions. Labor’s almost manic determination to drive fossil fuels out of our electricity generation is driving prices up and reliability down, and forcing heavy industry offshore. Its industrial changes have made it harder to run businesses and sent productivity backwards. Its green concerns, plus licensed lawfare, have made new resource projects almost impossible.’

And the benefits are hypothetical.

Qui bono? It can be argued that climate alarmism fuels profiteering and political agendas.

Companies producing solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and other ‘green’ technologies often receive substantial government subsidies, tax incentives, and market demand driven by policies addressing climate change.

Organisations gain funding, public support, and influence through climate alarmism. Some sources suggest these groups leverage fear to attract donations and push ideological agendas, such as wealth redistribution or anti-capitalist policies. Surely not…

Alarmist narratives justify large-scale aid and development programs, channelling funds to governments and communities in the Global South. The ‘beneficiary pays’ principle argues that wealthy nations, historically responsible for emissions, should fund these efforts. This is one of the key objectives of the climate orthodoxy.

Alarmism drives demand for ‘sustainable’ investments, creating opportunities for firms managing green bonds or ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) funds. Wealthy investors, including ‘carbon billionaires,’ are accused of profiting from fossil fuel investments, creating a complex dynamic.

Some posts on X suggest fortunes have been amassed through climate advocacy and green investments. Enriching the Renewables Party faithful while the population suffers a decline in living standards is not to be confused with reducing emissions to save the planet. Only the naive believe it, only the activist beneficiaries pursue it.

Forget ‘the science’; it was never really about climate science; see what’s under the cover. Follow the money … and the socialist agenda.

Perhaps that explains why the voluminous fact-checking that debunks ‘the science’ has had no effect on policymakers. But farmers might.

Andrew L. Urban is the author of Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson Publishing).