[Diggers350] The Gatekeeper: George Monbiots Multi-Level Marketing of Ecomodernism but wheres the evidence?
Tony Gosling
tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Mon Dec 5 13:52:42 GMT 2022
The Gatekeeper: George Monbiots Multi-Level
Marketing of Ecomodernism
but wheres the evidence?
https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/
<https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/>5
December 2022
<https://tlio.org.uk/author/tony/>Tony
Gosling<https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/#respond>Leave
a comment
http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml
The environmental debate in Britain is maintained
by a few unaccountable figures elevated to the
role of eco-gate-keepers which is why the
ecological debate fails to make any real progress
Welcome to
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blogs/index.html>Ramblinactivists Blogs
Paul Mobbs:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/rambles/index.shtml>Rambler;
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc1ESFg4fkA>Activist/<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHRtrGciSUo>Hacktivist;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/meir/ebo_book.shtml>Author;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/meir/writing.shtml>Researcher;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/lwap/index.shtml>Deep
Ecologist;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/aac/index.shtml>camp
cook; but none of the subsequent parameters in
that list exists without the influence of the first.
To keep up with new information you can follow me
on social media and YouTube (click icons at top
of page) and please subscribe if possible, as
in todays digital analytics popularity contest
its the only way to get a wider audience.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blogs/accessibility.shtml#keyboard>click
© 2022 Paul Mobbs; released under the creative commons
Page bookmarks
(Use Hotkey & number to jump to that section)
*
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s1>MLM:
Through a glass, darkly
*
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s2>George
Monbiots accuracy problem
*
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s3>Ecomodernisms
data problem
*
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s4>Georges
fallacies on fermentation
*
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s5>Conclusion:
If ecomodernisms tinkering has failed, it suggests that their model is wrong
Keywords:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#affluence>Affluence;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#champ_glass>Champagne
glass;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#colonialism>Colonialism;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ccc>CCC;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#deep_ecology>Deep
ecology;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#degrowth>Degrowth;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ecological_crisis>Ecological
Crisis;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ecomodernism>Ecomodernism;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ev>EVs;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#XR>XR;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#food>Food;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#gnd>GND;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#monbiot_george>Monbiot,
G.;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#mlm>MLM;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#nuclear>Nuclear;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#poth>Planet
of the Humans;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#porritt_jonathon>Porritt,
J.;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#poverty>Poverty;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#property_rights>Property
rights;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#renewable>Renewables;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#rewilding>Rewilding;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#soclass>Social
class;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#thermodynamics>Thermodynamics;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#uranium>Uranium;
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#zcb>ZCB.
We should be holding the political
establishments feet to the wild-fire on
ecological issues. Instead, a handful of
reformers, promoting schemes or proposals which
dont radically up-end the ideological landscape,
are given preferential access to the public
debate; to peddle, multi-level marketing-style,
demonstrably wrong ideas about how to solve the
ecological crisis. How do we hold these
media-constructed pundits, who claim to represent
our interests, to account? Its all about the evidence.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/metablog_24-monbiot_mlm_ecomodernism.pdf>download
the PDF version of this post
1. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/eom_2018.pdf>Social
class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status
di erences in antecedents of support for
pro-environmental action, vol.77 pp.60-75, March 2018
2. New Scientist:
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2248729-extinction-rebellion-were-not-veteran-protesters-new-analysis-shows/>Extinction
Rebellion were not veteran protesters, new analysis shows, 15th July 2020
3. Guardian On-line:
<https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot>George Monbiot.
4. Guardian On-line:
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/18/countryfile-political-country-life-david-cameron>Why
Countryfile is the most political show on TV, 18th April 2016
5. British Journal of Social Psychology:
<https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12251>The
psychology of social class: How socioeconomic
status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour,
vol.57 no.2 pp.267-291, April 2018
6. Architectural Science Review:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/gatersleben_2010.pdf>Values
and sustainable lifestyles, vol.53 pp.37-50, 2010
7. Palgrave Macmillan:
<https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-29519-6>Working-Class
Environmentalism An Agenda for a Just and Fair
Transition to Sustainability, Karen Bell, 2020 (ISBN 9783-0302-9518-9)
8. BBC News:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058>Huge
survey reveals seven social classes in UK, 3rd April 2013
9. Environment Agency:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-environment/state-of-the-environment-health-people-and-the-environment#environmental-inequalities-and-health>State
of the environment Environmental inequalities and health, 23rd July 2021
This is a necessarily long and detailed dive into
the role green pundits have in the ecological
debate and whether that role is truly
representative given the available evidence. To
be clear, this isnt just about George Monbiot
specifically. By its nature, this also a
discussion about the overwhelming
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/eom_2018.pdf>class
divide1 in the
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/2248729-extinction-rebellion-were-not-veteran-protesters-new-analysis-shows/>English
environmental movement2 (since its the
London-centric English media and campaign groups which dominate this space).
As a
<https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot>Guardian
columnist3, George Monbiot essentially states
opinion, not facts. The problem is, in the public
debate which then ensues from those opinions, his
narrowly focussed articles are cited as if what
is said were wholly true when in fact the wider
evidence base is being strategically ignored.
10. Politico.eu:
<https://www.politico.eu/article/extinction-rebellion-hometown-stroud-pushes-radical-green-activism-into-mainstream/>Extinction
Rebellions hometown pushes the radical into the
mainstream, 5th September 2020
11. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_radicalism>Classical radicalism.
12. Guardian On-line:
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/a-working-class-green-movement-is-out-there-but-not-getting-the-credit-it-deserves>A
working-class green movement is out there but not
getting the credit it deserves, 11th October 2019
13. Extinction Rebellion:
<https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/12/11/tell-the-truth/>XR
Fundamentals Tell the Truth.
14. Extinction Rebellion:
<https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/08/31/act-now-extinction-rebellion-demands/>XR
Fundamentals Act Now.
15. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism>Statism.
16. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics>Radical politics.
Monbiot is not alone: I could equally cite
journalists such as David Shukman; ideological
media constructs such as
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/18/countryfile-political-country-life-david-cameron>Countryfile4;
pundits like Mark Lynas; or green entrepreneurs
such as Dale Vince. As these figures
overwhelmingly embody the
<https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12251>affluent
middle class values5 of the establishment, that
debate not only
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/gatersleben_2010.pdf>downplays
the trends6 which are the result of that
lifestyle; but also fails to connect to the
people who
<https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-29519-6>stand
to benefit7 the most from this debate the
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058>average
person8 living within the
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-environment/state-of-the-environment-health-people-and-the-environment#environmental-inequalities-and-health>increasingly
precarious9 UK economy.
Instead,
<https://www.politico.eu/article/extinction-rebellion-hometown-stroud-pushes-radical-green-activism-into-mainstream/>what
passes for10 radicalism in English
environmentalism are groups like Extinction
Rebellion or Just Stop Oil. But these groups
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_radicalism>are
not radical11: They are once again dominated by
the middle class; their metropolitan focus
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/a-working-class-green-movement-is-out-there-but-not-getting-the-credit-it-deserves>alienates
them12 from the rest of Britain; and they have no
specific project other than that governments
<https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/12/11/tell-the-truth/>tell
the truth13 and
<https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/08/31/act-now-extinction-rebellion-demands/>take
action14 on climate change.
Therein, like the medias green pundits, the
groups considered to be radicals in the public
debate are
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism>statist15:
Their unwillingness to look beyond the ideology,
structures, and lifestyle created by Western
affluence and consumption, cannot encompass in
terms of its original meaning of,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics>from
the roots16 any truly radical solution to the ecological crisis.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks>jump
to bookmarks list
MLM: Through a glass, darkly
That preface made, we come to the reason for this
article: There are subtle changes in green
lobbying taking place, driven by changes in the media.
17. LSE Blogs:
<https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-revolutions-of-1989-marked-the-rise-of-political-ecology/>Lost
legacy How 1989 marked the rise of environmental politics, 25th July 2014
18. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics>Green politics.
19. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairshirt_environmentalism>Hairshirt
environmentalism.
20. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing>Greenwashing.
21. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_consumerism>Ethical consumerism.
22. Global Environmental Politics:
<https://direct.mit.edu/glep/article-abstract/16/1/21/14836/Death-and-Environmental-Taxes-Why-Market>Death
and Environmental Taxes: Why Market
Environmentalism Fails in Liberal Market
Economies, vol.16 no.1 pp.21-37, 2016.
23. Yale Environment 360:
<https://e360.yale.edu/features/environmental_failure_a_case_for_a_new_green_politics>Environmental
Failure A Case for a New Green Politics, 20th October 2008
24. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_media>Old media.
25. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing>Multi-level marketing.
26. MIT Press Reader:
<https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-american-environmentalism-failed/>How
American Environmentalism Failed, 31st August 2021
27. Euractiv:
<https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/the-green-brief-eu-parliament-hit-by-tsunami-of-lobbying/>The
Green Brief EU Parliament hit by tsunami of lobbying, 8th June 2022
28. WIRED:
<https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-why-degrowth-is-the-worst-idea-on-the-planet/>Why
Degrowth Is the Worst Idea on the Planet, 6th October 2020
29. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt>Jonathon Porritt.
30. Routledge Books:
<https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-as-if-the-World-Matters/Porritt/p/book/9781844071937>Capitalism
as if the World Matters, 2007
31. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomodernism>Ecomodernism.
In the 1990s I was an elected director of Friends
of the Earth
<https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-revolutions-of-1989-marked-the-rise-of-political-ecology/>at
an auspicious moment17. Green
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics>had
gone mainstream18, and the pressure was on to
drop any
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairshirt_environmentalism>hair
shirted ideas19 for ecological change: Not only
to ride that media machine to get coverage; but
also to soak-up the cash sloshing around from
government and corporate interests desperate
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing>to
greenwash20 their image. I opposed the idea, and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_consumerism>green
consumerism21 in general; but the pressure from
the staff of nearly all mainstream campaign
groups was to take the money, because of the
access and influence that it promised.
Three decades on and that approach
<https://direct.mit.edu/glep/article-abstract/16/1/21/14836/Death-and-Environmental-Taxes-Why-Market>has
clearly failed22 and arguably has
<https://e360.yale.edu/features/environmental_failure_a_case_for_a_new_green_politics>diluted
the movements influence23 within the noise
created around these issues. More recently,
though, this process has shifted, reflecting the
economic pressures on the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_media>legacy
media24, driven by the new on-line/social
influencer
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing>multi-level
marketing25 (MLM) machine.
As green issues have matured against that
background noise of the ecological crisis; and
as government inaction has shifted to the
lackadaisical definition of targets, quotas, and
especially subsidies; the
<https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-american-environmentalism-failed/>pressures
for environmentalists26 to promote certain issues
has shifted from one of making change, to
promoting
<https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/the-green-brief-eu-parliament-hit-by-tsunami-of-lobbying/>a
business plan27. In part the result of
neoliberal values infiltrating all levels of
society, green ideas
<https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-why-degrowth-is-the-worst-idea-on-the-planet/>have
ceased to be28 an advocacy for political action.
Instead they advocate for one infrastructure plan
or another which seeks to green the modern lifestyle without changing it.
This position was openly articulated by
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt>Jonathon
Porritt29 one of those most directly
responsible for ejecting radical thinking from
first the Green Party, then Friends of the Earth.
In his 2005 book,
<https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-as-if-the-World-Matters/Porritt/p/book/9781844071937>Capitalism
as if the World Matters30, he states:
Incremental change is the name of the game, not
transformation. And that, of course, means that
the emerging solutions have to be made to work
within the embrace of capitalism. Like it or not,
capitalism is now the only economic game in town
For fear, perhaps, of arriving at a different
conclusion, there is an unspoken (and largely
untested) assumption that there need be no
fundamental contradiction between sustainable development and capitalism.
(my emphasis in bold)
As regulation, let alone limits or
prohibition becomes a dirty word in the
skewed-to-the-right media environment, so
ecological issues are expected to perform within
the processes of the corporate world. This is the
environment which has spawned,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomodernism>ecomodernism31.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks>jump
to bookmarks list
George Monbiots accuracy problem
32. Sustainability:
<https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/780>Marketing
and Sustainability: Business as Usual or Changing
Worldviews?, vol.11 no.3 pp.780, 2019
33. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot>George Monbiot.
The basis for most discussions about future
change today, is stasis: Proposals do not
challenge
<https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/780>business
as usual32, which is why the ideas being
publicly debated seek to preserve the core of the
way things are. This is the contradictory
paradigm within which
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot>George Monbiot33 is trapped.
I specifically use the word, trapped: If he
moved out of that niche Im sure he would lose
that media profile. He is permitted to perform
that role in the media environment precisely
because of the values he advocates, not because
of the veracity of the ideas he promotes. It is
his own, personal cost-benefit exercise that he
chooses to occupy that role but that doesnt mean it is evidentially correct.
I first bumped into George Monbiot at events in
Oxford, and on roads protests, in the early
1990s. We occasionally corresponded, but that
ended when he gave support to nuclear power in
the late 2000s. Or to be more precisely, I kept
trying to advance the alternative case and he
simply refused to respond even when we met in public.
These days, when I publicly challenge his
assumptions he never responds. He also blocks
people on social media who query his work.
34. Medialens:
<https://www.medialens.org/2019/dump-the-guardian/>Dump
The Guardian, 12th February 2019
35. Private Eye:
<https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1585/street-of-shame>Truly,
Hadley, deeply
, no.1585, November 2022
36. The Meta-Blog:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml>Cooking
scones with The Prodigy or, why do climate
campaigners not understand logical fallacies?, no.6, 18th May 2020
37. <https://planetofthehumans.com/>Planet of the Humans website.
38. Guardian On-line:
<https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/oct/28/observer-readers-editor>Readers
Editor.
39. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent>Affirming
the consequent.
40. Forbes:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/04/21/new-michael-moore-backed-documentary-on-youtube-reveals-massive-ecological-impacts-of-renewables/>New
Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube
Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables, 21st April 2020
41. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy>Embodied energy.
42. Nature Energy:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9>Understanding
future emissions from low-carbon power systems by
integration of life-cycle assessment and
integrated energy modelling, vol.2 pp.939-945, 2017
43. US Energy Information Agency:
<https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php>Electricity.
44. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes>Digest
of UK Energy Statistics Electricity.
45. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility>Ivanpah
Solar Power Facility.
The difficulties with The Guardian the largest
remaining allegedly politically liberal
broadsheet within Britains right-biased media
have been growing for some time. Recent campaigns
to
<https://www.medialens.org/2019/dump-the-guardian/>dump
The Guardian34, and
<https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1585/street-of-shame>high-profile
resignations35, have called into question the
quality of their reporting. Once again, this
highlights both the intellectual boundaries
within which George Monbiot operates, and the
conformity those pressures may apply to the subjects he covers.
His columns in The Guardian are sparsely sourced,
and sometimes factually flawed. My last
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml>public
deconstruction36 of one of his columns was
published in May 2020 when he attacked the then
recently released film,
<https://planetofthehumans.com/>Planet of the Humans37.
At the time I published a short blog post, which
had been extracted from a twenty page complaint
(with forty references, mostly to academic
journals and official data sources) which I wrote
to The Guardians
<https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/oct/28/observer-readers-editor>Readers
Editor38. I never received an acknowledgement
despite sending it twice!
Critical of Michael Moore, the structural flaw in
that article was the fallacy of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent>affirming
the consequent39: It suggested that as
right-wing climate deniers liked Michael Moores
new film; then the position that Moore depicted
must be friendly to climate denial too. In
reality, many anti-greens
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/04/21/new-michael-moore-backed-documentary-on-youtube-reveals-massive-ecological-impacts-of-renewables/>didnt
like40 the films message. The reason they
talked-up the film was precisely because its
message made liberal environmentalists feel uncomfortable.
The article attacked the films assertion that
photovoltaic (PV) panels produce little energy
once the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy>manufacturing
costs41 are considered stating that, On
average, a solar panel generates 26 units of
solar energy for every unit of fossil energy
required to build and install it. It would
appear he hadnt
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9>read
his source42, which stated those statistics could
not be quoted in that context because it would
under-estimate the impacts of PV by 30% to 250%.
In that paragraph he also attacks the film-makers
statement that, You use more fossil fuels to do
this than youre getting benefit from it. You
would have been better off just burning fossil
fuels in the first place. That quote has been
taken out of context. That statement is not about
solar PV, or wind power; its about the gas-fired
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility>Ivanpah
Solar Array45 a wholly different type of technology to PV.
Analysis of electricity generation in USA from my
May 2020
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml>blog
post36: The statistics from the
<https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php>USA43
demonstrate that the scenario shown in the film is correct.
The article then goes on to state, Planet of the
Humans also claims that you cant reduce fossil
fuel use through renewable energy: coal is
instead being replaced by gas. Unfortunately
that is precisely what the official energy
statistics in the USA show is happening (see
graph, right). From 2010 to 2019, as old
coal-fired plants were retired, they were
replaced with new, larger gas-fired plants using
the large quantities of fracked natural gas being
produced at that time. There is also
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/economics/york_2019.pdf>academic
research46 to back-up the point made in the film.
46. Energy Research & Social Science:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/economics/york_2019.pdf>Energy
transitions or additions? Why a transition from
fossil fuels requires more than the growth of
renewable energy, vol.51 pp.40-43, May 2019
The article then goes on to state that, in the
third quarter of 2019, renewables in the UK
generated more electricity than coal, oil and gas
plants put together. As a result of the switch to
renewables in this country, the amount of fossil
fuel used for power generation has halved since 2010.
That statement is a manipulation of objective fact:
The third-quarter is late Summer, when power
demand is at its lowest and solar hits maximum.
Its not representative of average demand and supply.
Analysis of electricity generation in UK from my
May 2020
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml>blog
post36: The statistics from the
<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes>UK44
show the percentage growth of renewable power is
more influenced by the collapse in electricity
demand rather than the increase in renewable generation capacity.
More significantly though, whats been dominating
energy trends in Britain has been the collapse of
electricity demand (see graph, right). That is in
part the result of austerity choking growth, and
especially heavy industries, such as metals and
chemicals, moving off-shore. Those effects are
far more significant than new renewable capacity
in cutting fossil fuel use but that doesnt even merit a mention.
Especially over 2015/16, much of the retired
coal-fired capacity was matched by natural gas,
not new renewable capacity. And the fact
electricity demand shrank by a over a fifth from
2010 to 2019 means that in percentage terms
without adding a single wind turbine or solar
panel the proportion of renewable energy would have increased anyway.
47. BBC News:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959>Population
control Is it a tool of the rich?, 28th October 2011
The article then introduces the most
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959>toxic
argument47 which ecomodernists promote to silence
opposition: Accusations of Malthusian population
control where again the film is misquoted:
The film offers only one concrete solution to
our predicament: the most toxic of all possible
answers. We really have got to start dealing
with the issue of population
without seeing some
sort of major die-off in population, theres no turning back.
That ellipsis the
highlighted above: Thats
not skipping a few words or a sentence; it skips
about 80 seconds of discussions. In running those
statements together, it completely ignores the
context within which each was made
specifically, the issue regarding the use of energy in agriculture.
The article then concludes this section by stating:
High consumption is concentrated in countries
where population growth is low
When wealthy
people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this
issue without the necessary caveats, they are
saying, in effect, its not Us consuming, its
Them breeding. Its not hard to see why the far right loves this film.
I challenge The Guardians editors to find any
point in the transcript of the film where this is
implied and to listen to the caveats about
rich-nations consumption which were made
throughout the film. In fact, during that
ellipsis where Monbiot omits what is discussed,
it is stated, We have to have our abilities to
consume reigned in, because were not good at
reigning them in if there are seemingly unrestrained resources.
George Monbiot is not promoting an objective,
evidence-based view of our predicament. He is
promoting an ideological, idealised vision where
the affluent states can continue their current
lifestyle by adopting new and more efficient
technologies a sort of ecological, have your cake and eat it too.
Thats not a problem: Objectively, Im doing the
same, too, by making these observations albeit
from a radically different perspective.
What we need to pursue is why George Monbiot,
apparently willingly: Misquotes what is said in a
film to cast slurs about right-wing conspiracies;
uses academic research in a manner that is
specifically excluded by its authors;
misrepresents official energy statistics to imply
something they do not show; and thus, overall,
denies what a large body of research evidence now
demonstrates to be a fair assessment of our ecological predicament.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks>jump
to bookmarks list
Ecomodernisms data problem
48. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Brand>Stewart Brand.
49. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)>Kevin Kelly (editor).
50. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins>Amory Lovins.
51. <http://www.ecomodernism.org/>The Ecomodernist Manifesto website.
52. <https://thebreakthrough.org/>Breakthrough Institute website.
53. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas>Mark Lynas.
54. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger>Michael Shellenberger.
55. Wiley:
<https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Ecomodernism%3A+Technology%2C+Politics+and+The+Climate+Crisis-p-9781509531202>Ecomodernism
Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis, 2019
56. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics>Second
law of thermodynamics.
57. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency>Energy
conversion efficiency.
58. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-economic_decoupling>Eco-economic
decoupling.
59. PLOS One:
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164733>Is
Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact
Possible?, vol. 11(10) art. e0164733, 14th October 2016
60. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth>The Limits to Growth.
61. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrzzW9Zms>The
Limits to Growth (1972) A Book in Five Minutes, No.1, September 2021
62. Global Environmental Change:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/turner_2008.pdf>A
comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years
of reality, vol. 18 no.3 pp. 397-411, August 2008
63. Journal of Industrial Ecology:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/herrington_2021.pdf>Update
to limits to growth Comparing the World3 model
with empirical data, vol.25 no.3 pp.614-626, June 2021
64. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint>Ecological footprint.
65. PNAS:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/wackernagel_2002.pdf>Tracking
the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy, vol.99 no.14, 2002
66. EWG:
<https://www.energywatchgroup.org/blog-post/>EWG
study accurately predicted todays decline in uranium mining, 31st May 2022
67. Forbes:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/>Uranium
Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable, 1st July 2016
68. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium>Peak uranium.
69. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy>100% renewable energy.
70. Resources:
<https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/29>Enough
Metals? Resource Constraints to Supply a Fully
Renewable Energy System, vol.8 no.1 art. 29, 2019
71. Nature Communications Earth & Environment:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0011-0>Future
availability of non-renewable metal resources and
the influence of environmental, social, and
governance conflicts on metal production, vol.1 art.13, 2020
72. Annual Review of Environment and Resources:
<https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941>Research
On Degrowth, vol.43, 2018
73. Ecological Complexity:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/tainter_2006.pdf>Social
complexity and sustainability, vol.3 no.2 pp.91-103, June 2006
74. Ecological Economics:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/rees_2020.pdf>Ecological
economics for humanitys plague phase, vol.169 art.106519, March 2020
75. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Committee>Climate
Change Committee.
76. Natural History Museum:
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html>Leading
scientists set out resource challenge of meeting
net zero emissions in the UK by 2050, 5th June 2019
77. Climate Change Committee:
<https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-uks-transition-to-electric-vehicles/>The
UKs transition to electric vehicles, 9th December 2020
78. <https://bettertransport.org.uk/>Campaing for Better Transport website.
79. Geological Survey of Finland:
<https://www.gtk.fi/en/current/a-bottom-up-insight-reveals-replacing-fossil-fuels-is-even-more-enormous-task-than-thought/>A
Bottom-up Insight Reveals: Replacing Fossil Fuels
is Even More Enormous Task Than Thought, 1st September 2021
80. Geological Survey of Finland:
<https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf>Assessment
of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative
Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely
Replace Fossil Fuels, GTK Open File Work Report 42/2021, August 2021
81. Nature Communications:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5>Renewable
energy production will exacerbate mining threats
to biodiversity, vol.11 art.4174, 1st September 2020
82. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal>Green New Deal.
83. Energy:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544212009139>The
impact of copper scarcity on the efficiency of
2050 global renewable energy scenarios, vol.50 pp.62-73, 1st February 2013
84. Resources:
<https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/36>Decreasing
Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining A
Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?, vol.5 no.4 art.36, 2016.
85. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery>Sodium-ion battery.
86. Centre for Alternative Technology:
<https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate-emergency/>Zero
Carbon Britain.
87. Nature Sustainability:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00708-4>The
importance of resource security for poverty
eradication, vol.4 pp.731-738, April 2021
First advanced by figures such as
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Brand>Stewart
Brand48,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)>Kevin
Kelly49, and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins>Amory
Lovins50, ecomodernism came out of the American
environmental movement in the 1980s proposing a
simple idea: The only way to beat the destructive
business process is to do business better than
they can, in an ecological way; the assumption
being that higher efficiency would enable
economic competition due to higher productivity, and hence profitability.
Though there are various
<http://www.ecomodernism.org/>manifestos51 and
<https://thebreakthrough.org/>institutes52,
ecomodernism is not a coherent group. It
represents a spectrum of ideas stretching from:
The loosely ecological (e.g. George Monbiot); to
progress-obsessed techno-Utopians (e.g.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas>Mark
Lynas53); to ideologically right-wing
libertarians (e.g.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger>Michael
Shellenberger54); to corporate-oriented
eco-technocrats (e.g.
<https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Ecomodernism%3A+Technology%2C+Politics+and+The+Climate+Crisis-p-9781509531202>Jonathan
Symons55).
Generally, though, ecomodernism is heavily
influenced by liberal economic theory: The idea
of free, globalised markets; a reliance on
technological innovation and efficiency, to drive
down impacts while driving up productivity; the
maintenance of property rights; and moreover, an
unquestioning adherence to the economic hegemony
of the Western lifestyle and the need to
perpetuate the affluence and material consumption that lifestyle demands.
This is where ecomodernism hits the reality of
the ecological crisis. For all their
protestations, basically
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics>the
thermodynamics says no56. In particular:
*
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency>Energy
efficiency57 is not open-ended it is a one-time
saving, after which wholly new technologies must
be invented, or systems significantly changed
and in general it is a diminishing return with
fixed theoretical limits, where each improvement saves less-and-less;
* The heart of this idea is
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-economic_decoupling>decoupling58
the assumption that the use of technology can
break the link between human lifestyles and their
ecological impact which currently has
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164733>no
strong evidence59 to support it;
* As with neoliberal ideology in general,
ecomodernism will not accept strong
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth>ecological
limits60 despite the fact recent research
confirms that
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrzzW9Zms>after
50 years61 the
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/turner_2008.pdf>Limits
to Growth62 study is
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/herrington_2021.pdf>still on-track63; and
* They do not consider the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint>embodied
footprint64 of their activities on
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/wackernagel_2002.pdf>resource
depletion and pollution65 and often invoke the
quasi-mystical power of innovation to solve
that without proof of its feasibility.
Perhaps the area where the ignorance of
ecomodernism reigns supreme is in the area of
energy resources. It is assumed that we can
simply turn-off fossil fuels and switch-on clean renewables:
For the strongly technocratic end of the
ecomodernist spectrum that transition is innately
connected to nuclear power despite the fact
theres
<https://www.energywatchgroup.org/blog-post/>not
enough uranium66 to do this (they argue that
theres more than enough
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/>uranium
in sea water67, despite the fact this process has
yet to be commercialised, and has
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium>questionable economics68).
For the strongly ecological end of ecomodernism
that transition is connected to the use of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy>100%
renewable energy69 despite the growing
evidence to show that there are
<https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/29>insufficient
mineral resources70, and
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0011-0>complex
barriers71, to construct the scale of
infrastructure required to replace the energy service of fossil fuels.
When I give lectures, this is the point where
people are often confused: If the highly
technological solution to climate change is not
possible, and the renewable solution to climate
change is not possible, then what option is there?
The fact people commonly ask this question
demonstrates why George Monbiot, and the other
ecomodernists pundits in the media, have become
an obstruction to the ecological debate.
There is an entire movement around
<https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941>degrowth72,
and the
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/tainter_2006.pdf>simplification73
of human lifestyles, which is not currently being
referenced within the UK media debate.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/rees_2020.pdf>It
challenges74 the implicit bias of mainstream
environmentalism: It entails reducing material
affluence, and tackling the excesses of consuming
lifestyles through the national and global redistribution of resources.
Take, for example, electric cars: The media
debate is presented as a divide between petrol
heads and affluent green consumers but
neither side ever enters in to a discussion to
justify maintaining the private car as the priority for moving around.
In 2020, the
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Committee>Climate
Change Committee75 (CCC) canvassed opinion on
electric vehicles. An expert panel assembled by
the Natural History Museum
<https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html>told
the CCC76 that:
To replace all UK-based vehicles today with
electric vehicles, assuming they use the most
resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811
batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt,
264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate, at least
7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in
addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper. This
represents, just under two times the total annual
world cobalt production, nearly the entire world
production of neodymium, three quarters the
worlds lithium production and 12% of the worlds
copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the
annual supply of electric vehicles only, from
2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually
import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry.
Mineral resources are a significant barrier. And
the CCCs response to this critical issue, being
spelled-out by Britains pre-eminent geological
institute was
silence.
<https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-uks-transition-to-electric-vehicles/>A
briefing77 they published later doesnt even mention the issue.
Put that case differently: A grid-powered
trolleybus moves passengers many-times more
efficiently than multiple battery-powered cars.
So where is the lobby for the elimination of
cars? <https://bettertransport.org.uk/>It does
exist78, but gets little media coverage as it
challenges the dominant assumptions of the
consumer lifestyle in this case, the primacy of the private car.
Renewable energy and green technologies, such as
electric cars, are dependent upon mass
electrification; and as a result,
<https://www.gtk.fi/en/current/a-bottom-up-insight-reveals-replacing-fossil-fuels-is-even-more-enormous-task-than-thought/>a
huge expansion79 in metal production
<https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf>using
resources80 which have a finite, limited supply.
There is also growing evidence that the
extraction of those resources across the globe
could be especially
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5>damaging
to biodiversity 81.
Some of these metals such as copper, cobalt, or
rare earths are so limited that they are a
barrier to a
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal>Green
New Deal-type plan82; and the energy return of
renewable technologies
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544212009139>will
continually fall83 in the future, as these metals
deplete, as the energy
<https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/36>used in
their extraction84 increases. Even if we
innovate, such as
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery>swapping
lithium with sodium85 in batteries, trace amounts
of rare earths and other metals are still
required; and the yet to be invented
nano-technologies proposed as substitutes have an
uncertain efficiency or efficacy.
How then can groups promoting the Green New
Deal such as the
<https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate-emergency/>Zero
Carbon Britain86 (ZCB) advocate 100% renewable
energy without also advising of the resource or
pollution risks inherent in that project? The
reason, from my own experience arguing with ZCB
for over a decade, is they just ignore them: They
ignore them because people in power like the
CCC dont want to hear them, and so they
exclude them from their considerations.
What is certain is that while a segment of the
globally affluent may be able to scrape a
carbon-free lifestyle, there are not sufficient
resources to
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00708-4>allow
everyone else87 on the planet to consume in that
way. And the over-riding reliance on a single
metric to judge progress carbon emissions is
leading to a willing ignorance over both the
global pollution, resource depletion, or
biodiversity loss, that would result from such a green future.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks>jump
to bookmarks list
Georges fallacies on fermentation
Firstly, as others have demanded my opinion on
this recently, do I think that George Monbiot is
being funded by corporate interests to talk about precision fermentation?
I really dont think that matters at all! Whether
hes being funded or not doesnt change the
underlying technical arguments; and to raise that
as an issue distracts from the evidence for why
he is wrong. Motive is not the issue here; the issue is evidence.
Lets address the big issue first: Technically
there is no food production crisis!
88. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka99kBJrggw>George
Monbiot on Ending Hunger Without Destroying Our Planet, 19th May 2022
89. Action Against Hunger:
<https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/>What
Causes World Hunger?.
90. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_fermentation#Precision_fermentation>Industrial
fermentation Precision fermentation.
91. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat>Cultured meat.
92. Nature Communications:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y>Scientists
Warning On Affluence, vol.11 art. 3107, 19th June 2020
93. Global Environmental Change:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512>Providing
decent living with minimum energy A global
scenario, vol.65 art.102168, November 2020
94. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/finley_2014.pdf>The
Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water, vol.65 pp.6255-6262, June 2014
95. UN Development Programme:
<http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1992>Human Development Report, 1992
96. Oxfam:
<https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf>Extreme
Carbon Inequality, 2015
As George Monbiot commented in his
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka99kBJrggw>interview
with Owen Jones88, world hunger is rising now
probably extending to a billion people or more,
including in the most developed states. That last
part is the critical issue: The reason people in
affluent states skip meals is the same reason
those in poor states die of malnutrition its
an issue of allocation, not production.
The
<https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/>reasons
for world hunger89 and malnutrition in both poor
and rich states are variously, depending upon the location, the result of:
* Economic inequality;
* Climate change;
* Conflict or displacement;
* Natural disasters;
* Urbanisation and/or isolation from the
land, restricting access to food except by payment;
* Poor diet due to the economic or social
barriers to accessing good quality food; and
* Social/state imposed barriers restricting
access to land or food by certain groups.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_fermentation#Precision_fermentation>Precision
fermentation90 is the idea that by using
genetically engineered micro-organisms, grown
inside industrial vats, protein can be produced
far more efficiently; and with secondary
processing and chemical additives, those simple
proteins can be engineered into nutritious
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat>meat substitutes91.
Given that brief summary, does anything stated
there address the points in the list above of the
primary reasons behind global hunger? No.
To even talk about precision fermentation in the
same context as hunger belittles the the
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y>global
inequalities92 that drive it; and distracts from
the
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512>necessary
changes93 to national and
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/finley_2014.pdf>global
governance94 in order to address those issues.
The Champagne Glass Graph made popular by the
<http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1992>UN
Human Development Report95 in 1992, then
resurrected by Oxfam in their
<https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf>Extreme
Carbon Inequality96 reports this shows the
unequal share of global carbon emissions, but
its general proportions are also correct for
energy consumption, metal consumption, digital devices, etc.
The root of global hunger is inequality: Global
inequality is not the fault of those who are
hungry; it is due to the choices of those
running national and global governance systems.
That system is dominated by a globally affluent
elite (see graph, right): Where the
<http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1992>10%
of the worlds population95 benefiting from that
mechanism
<https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf>consume
half of everything96; while the bottom half consume just 10%.
Lets be absolutely clear on this: There is a
<https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23970&LangID=E>Human
Right to Food97. The fact hundreds of millions
are hungry, yet enough food is produced for all,
is a
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/013/index.shtml>matter
of political choice98, not fate.
97. UN OCHR:
<https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23970&LangID=E>Article
25 Right to Adequate Standard of Living.
98. The Meta-Blog:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/013/index.shtml>Why
is there no right to food, or to grow food in
Britain?, no.13, 25th March 2021
99. Abe Books:
<https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780241447642>Regenesis
Feeding the World without Devouring the Planet, 2022
100. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Y4Nd0AJcE>Proudhon
What is Property?, 22nd September 2020
101. Guardian On-line:
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author>Half
of England is owned by less than 1% of the population, 17th April 2019
102. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eaTIe_TBZA>REGENESIS
George Monbiot calls for the end of (almost
all) animal farming, 15th June 2022
103. Science of The Total Environment:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721008317>An
attributional life cycle assessment of microbial
protein production A case study on using
hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria, vol.776 art.145764, 1st July 2021
Ive read George Monbiots book,
<https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780241447642>Regenesis99.
Personally, Ive found his recent books rather
rambling lamenting the ills of the world, yet
ignoring the radical solutions available if he
could remove his mental shackles to society, as
it is. We need to stop worrying about how bad
things are, and concentrate on the simplest ways to make them better.
For example, in chapter 5 he says:
City farms, allotments, and guerrilla gardens
help us to feel a sense of connection to the land
and engage our minds and hands in satisfying
work. But, with one or two exceptions its
unlikely to satisfy more than a tiny fraction of
demand. The reason should be obvious: land in cities is scarce and expensive.
Why is land in cities expensive? Because it is
owned by a minute minority of the population
called landlords. Why is that an ecological issue?
Climate change is a physical restriction on
humanity. How much food you can grow on a square
metre of soil is also a physical restriction.
Property rights
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Y4Nd0AJcE>are
completely abstract100 they do not exist, just
like the monetary values property rights are
traded with. They are not a physical restriction.
If we are truly saying that climate change and
ecological breakdown are existential that
society lives or dies by what we do in the next
decade who could support a wholly abstract
division of the land in a way which prevents
people from providing their needs in the most low impact way?
Once again, we come back to the issue of
inequality: In Britain,
<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author>less
than 1%101 of the population own ~50% of the
land. In Regenesis, George argues that the
intellectual property rights on the technological
solutions to climate change must be weakened.
Why, then, cant we also restrict property rights
on the land, or cap land values or tax excess
wealth, to facilitate low impact lifestyles?
In <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eaTIe_TBZA>a
short film102 on Regenesis, George states:
in Finland, scientists are brewing-up an
entirely different kind of food. Inside these
tanks, protein is being produced by
bacteria.
The only inputs are water, carbon from the air, a
sprinkling of nutrients and electricity to split
the water into hydrogen and oxygen. And the only waste product
is water.
In the previous section I outlined the problems
with ideas like the Green New Deal, and the
material and geopolitical barriers to expanding
renewable energy to match fossil fuels. By
advocating the use of electricity to produce
protein perhaps
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721008317>up
to 25 times more103 energy per unit of protein
it necessarily involves: A certain level of
mineral extraction; a certain level of pollution;
and a certain level of biodiversity loss as a result of those operations.
Are any of those impacts factored into Georges
presentation of the process? No.
Finland is a good example: While 26% of their
electricity comes from hydro and wind, around the
same comes from nuclear and that is projected
to rise as their new, delayed, and massively
over-budget EPR nuclear plant comes on-line. Does
the fermentation process, therefore, consume
uranium and produce high-level nuclear waste?
Arguably yes. Is that considered in Georges model? No.
I dont want to labour the point, but this model
of how the process works is highly misleading: It
does not measure the related impacts of creating
the electricity; or extracting and purifying the
artificial nutrients; or the associated energy
and pollution costs of processing the protein
gloop into cultured meat. It is very much like
the nuclear industrys argument that nuclear
power doesnt emit carbon dioxide; and yet from
the concrete in the reactor, to ore processing at
the uranium mine, greenhouse gases are embodied throughout that process.
104. Geoforum:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016718594000208>The
pattern of world protein consumption, vol.26 no.1 pp.1-17, February 1995
105. Medium:
<https://medium.com/illumination/overconsumption-of-protein-across-the-world-2c4d654256e8>Overconsumption
of Protein across the world, 24th November 2021
106. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients>Dietary
Reference Intake Macronutrients.
107. Our World In Data:
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-protein-supply>Daily
per capita protein supply, 2017.
108. Guardian On-line:
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/green-technology-precision-fermentation-farming>Embrace
what may be the most important green technology
ever. It could save us all, 24th November 2022
109. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma>False dilemma.
110. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture>Permaculture.
111. Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyculture>Polyculture.
112. Global Environmental Change:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/betancourt_2020.pdf>The
effect of Cuban agroecology in mitigating the
metabolic rift A quantitative approach to Latin
American food production, vol.63 art.102075, July 2020
113. Sustainability:
<https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5429>Productivity
and Economic Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems
for Sustainable Production of Food and Non-Food
Products, vol.12 no.13 art.5429, 2020
114. Sustainability Science:
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-020-00792-z>The
contribution of small-scale food production in
urban areas to the sustainable development goals
a review and case study, vol.15 pp.1585-1599, 2020
115. PNAS:
<https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/1/129.full.pdf>Small-scale
urban agriculture results in high yields but
requires judicious management of inputs to
achieve sustainability, vol.116 no.1 pp.129-134, 2019
116. University of Sussex:
<https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/56961>City
allotments match farming productivity per square metre, 17th December 2021
117. Global Food Security:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417301293>How
much of the worlds food do smallholders produce?, vol.17 pp.64-72, June 2018
118. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIO73DIcOE>Eating
Meat is the New Oil Aaron Bastani meets George Monbiot, 5th June 2022
119. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism>Fully
Automated Luxury Communism.
120. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality>Externality.
In affluent states the major source of protein is
meat; but in poor states the major source of
protein
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016718594000208>is
vegetables and cereals104. How does that square
with Monbiots assumption that meat production
<https://medium.com/illumination/overconsumption-of-protein-across-the-world-2c4d654256e8>for
the global population105 is a homogeneous issue?
Likewise, humans need
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients>roughly
50g to 60g106 of protein per day. On average most
countries scrape that amount in their national
diet; but in the affluent world people on average
consume
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-protein-supply>at
least twice that107 amount or more. Does George
Monbiot discuss the inequality of global protein
intakes, and how that too leads to damaging
health impacts, just as too little protein does? Not that I can find.
Turning to George Monbiots
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/green-technology-precision-fermentation-farming>recent
column108 in The Guardian, we see this same
simplistic, narrow-boundary analysis applied as a justification:
The first is to shrink to a remarkable degree
the footprint of food production. One paper
estimates that precision fermentation using
methanol needs 1,700 times less land than the
most efficient agricultural means of producing
protein: soy grown in the US. This suggests it
might use, respectively, 138,000 and 157,000
times less land than the least efficient means: beef and lamb production.
According to both his book and his column, then,
the choice is between intensive animal
agriculture, intensive soy production, or
precision fermentation: Thats an entirely
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma>false
dilemma109, ignoring the large body of evidence on viable alternative options.
His book, Regenesis, doesnt discuss
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture>permaculture110,
or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyculture>integrated
polyculture111 even though
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/betancourt_2020.pdf>recent
research112 shows those systems to be far less
polluting, and
<https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5429>as
much if not more113 productive, and economically
far more beneficial to those involved, than the
intensive farming system he rails against. Even
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-020-00792-z>urban
allotments114 which he dismisses in the book
are
<https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/1/129.full.pdf>as
good as, if not more115 productive than intensive
agriculture, with
<https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/56961>higher
levels of biodiversity116.
If we know there are easily implementable systems
that can produce the same, if not more food, with
less impacts, why doesnt George evaluate these
other options? Why doesnt he investigate the
the details behind why a third of the worlds
food is grown by small farmers
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417301293>using
only a quarter117 of the farmed land area?
(hence, a third-more productive than intensive
agriculture) And how does his characterisation of
the problem of protein production fit to the
varied models of small-scale agriculture or
indigenous animal herders or hunters who do not
practise intensive production? These alternatives
are dismissed without investigation.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIO73DIcOE>Interviewed
by Aaron Bastani118 the man who wrote the book
on,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism>Fully-Automated
Luxury Communism119 one-hour in George states:
By doing it this way you can localise your food
production, and you can it can be much cheaper.
Youre not paying soft currencies for hard
currencies, youre not using your local currency
to buy stuff on the dollar market. Youre
producing your own food locally, and it could
have a massive impact in reducing hunger but also
in allowing people to assert sovereignty over their own food supply.
Those points apply even more strongly to
locally-based agriculture, or small-scale
production on plots or urban allotments, than to precision fermentation.
He also fails to note the up-front demand for
electricity, water, concentrated nutrients, and a
processing capacity to turn the protein gloop
into an appetising foodstuff. Are those factors
which are all locally available? Clearly, not.
Even locally produced solar electricity
requires photovoltaic panels which are the
product of a globalised mining, manufacturing,
and logistics chain, that operates on the hard
dollar currencies hes being critical of.
George Monbiots analysis of the land required to
support cultured meat is incomplete. It doesnt
include the land-take of the systems
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality>externalities120
such as: Power generation; nutrient production;
or the land mined for metal or phosphate
resources. Unless that essential part of the
system is included, he is not making a
like-for-like comparison, and so no claims can be made as to its advantage.
In contrast, what do localised permaculture or
integrated polyculture systems depend upon?
Seeds. Literally, the most complex part of a
local food system is developing the right seed
variety for the local climatic conditions; and
once obtained, they can be simply grown and
shared no hard currencies or mechanised logistics chains required.
Small-scale animal agriculture, integrated into
fodder cover and nutrient cycling, may be part of
that process especially at higher latitudes
where the growing season is shorter. That, again,
is something that requires a local assessment of
the best options for food production. But to
reduce this entire debate to, Technology Will
Save Us All!, is simplistic, illogical, and not based upon evidence.
I have wrestled with Regenesis since I read it.
His recent Guardian columns only add to my
concern about his public pronouncements. I can
rationalise their flaws and failures in only one
way: The levels of compromise George Monbiot
engages in, to maintain his position within the
media environment, mean that he can no longer
represent ecological reality to his audience.
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks>jump
to bookmarks list
Conclusion: If ecomodernisms tinkering has
failed, it suggests that their model is wrong
121. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard>Vance Packard.
122. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHaFBYHbb4>The
Hidden Persuaders, Vance Packard (1957) A
Book in Five Minutes no.18, 4th October 2022
123. International Journal of Information Management:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268401220314456>Identifying
influencers on social media, vol.56 art.102246, February 2021
124. Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent>The
Engineering of Consent.
125. YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJlyxygLh4>Bing
Sings Accentuate the Positive.
126. European Journal of International Relations:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/dunsford_2015.pdf>Peasant
activism and the rise of food sovereignty
Decolonising and democratising norm diffusion?, vol.23 no.1 pp.145-167, 2017
127. Journal of Natural Resources:
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/devall_1980.pdf>The
Deep Ecology Movement, Spring 1980
128. Lancet Planetary Health:
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00044-4/fulltext>National
responsibility for ecological breakdown a
fair-shares assessment of resource use,
1970-2017, vol.6 no.4 pp.342-e349, April 2022
Multi-level marketing, created off the back of
the social media boom, is as revolutionary as the
fears raised by
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard>Vance
Packard121 about the
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHaFBYHbb4>marketing
boom of the 1950s122. Whether by direct payment,
goods-in-kind, or just because of the group
identity it confers, the manipulation of
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268401220314456>social
influencers123 by political, financial, and
industrial interests, represents a new wild
west in to use Edward Bernays famous phrase
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent>The
Engineering of Consent124.
George Monbiot is such an influencer and a
valued one as his audience is largely made-up of
the affluent middle class with disposable
incomes. And in the marketing of that message
unlike other advertisers he is wholly
unaccountable as he
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJlyxygLh4>accentuates
the positive125 and buries the bad news.
Although Jonathon Porritt may have felt either
the honesty, or entitlement to state the
assumptions behind the ecomodernist viewpoint,
many do not. They bend and twist their ideas to
avoid ever confronting reality: That their
technocratic machinations are devised to maintain their material entitlements.
We must
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/dunsford_2015.pdf>revivify
the radicalism126 that Porritt and others
excluded from the movement in the 1980s as they
sought compromise with the establishment; and
reinvigorate the
<http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/devall_1980.pdf>deep
ecological debate127 on
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00044-4/fulltext>materialism
and inequality128 that has been suppressed for too long.
Ecomodernism can never address the economic and
social inequalities which benefit the globally
affluent, while creating suffering or hunger for
other living beings (humans included). Just like
the establishments failure to address
colonialism, doing so would question their own
political and economic advantage in the
here-and-now raising difficult questions of
justice and accountability for past policies.
When I raise the issue of class identity,
affluence, and the ecological crisis, a number of
people in the environment movement especially
of the ecomodernist persuasion are driven to apoplexy.
I understand that: It challenges the very basis
of their self-identity, and hence their security
and well-being. But its equally valid to require
anyone objecting to this approach, to view the
issue from the opposite side: From the majority
who are economically excluded from the debate;
and why the low-tech/low impact options for
change are excluded from that debate, as the
privileged pundits leading it feel uncomfortable talking about them.
Through his columns in The Guardian, and his
recent book, George Monbiot has created talking
points that seek an ecologically-benign stasis
in the human system ignoring the needs and
current predicament of the nationally and
globally poor: To even mention the word hunger
in the context of precision fermantation, I find
offensive; to talk of technocratic solutions that
are reliant upon globalised commodity systems,
when the barriers to accessing food are the
result of the neocolonial domination of the
resource production, I find repugnant.
129. <https://www.rebootfood.org/>Reboot Food website.
130. Reboot Food:
<https://www.rebootfood.org/_files/ugd/dccfdc_ccdcd3668c264d6bb5dfaf7d3c3f5a44.pdf>The
Reboot Food Manifesto.
What I have not raised here is his
<https://www.rebootfood.org/>Reboot Food129
initiative, and in particular his
<https://www.rebootfood.org/_files/ugd/dccfdc_ccdcd3668c264d6bb5dfaf7d3c3f5a44.pdf>manifesto130
including its: Calls to legalising gene editing
(without specifying which of the many processes
available should be made legal); calls for
rewilding (without specifying what that means,
and to what extent rewilding people is
permitted); and calls for greater food labelling
(which presumes the perpetuation of the highly
centralised industrial food production and
distribution system). That manifesto deserves a deep-dive of its own!
If ecomodernism is focussed on enabling certain
technological or consumer choices, when many are
excluded from those choices not simply by price,
but by the fact they can barely scrape the basics
for a viable lifestyle, then how is that debate
going to ever create a mass movement for change?
Worse still, the political-right that George
seems so afraid of, will weaponise that failure
to engage across the social spectrum, to obstruct
change, and alienate those making such arguments.
George Monbiot has a highly privileged position
which he could use positively: He could
deconstruct the economic and social processes
that created his privilege; and through that
process, both advocate for radical ecological
change, and build bridges with those economically
excluded from the advantage that he has benefited from.
He chooses not to do that. Instead, he advocates
for solutions which preserve the economic
advantage of the Western lifestyle above any
criticism that it is physically and practically beyond salvage.
We need seeds, not solenoids; plots not vats;
gardens, not economic globalism. Above all we
need land rights, and access to land, to
disengage from the global economic system that is
the root of human exploitation and ecological
destruction. For a catchy soundbite to encompass
that, lets say, we need to rewild the people
alongside all the other animals.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZks2Jwsw2U>Click
to watch the YouTube video of this post
As I have reviewed here: George Monbiots
representation of ecological issues in the media
has become increasingly narrow; biased towards
the perpetuation of affluence and establishment
power; and as a result, he is apparently
twisting, misquoting, or stating incomplete
information, in order to maintain that position.
What he promotes is an extreme centrism, which,
through highly questionable technocratic schemes,
seeks to preserve the entitlements of affluence
against the inevitable crash of that lifestyle.
As a result, he is sanitising ecological
destruction and global inequality, to maintain
the artificial lifestyle of the affluent minority
who have benefited the most from
industrialisation which, in the end, is what
has created the ecological crisis, and which must be curtailed to avert it.
NB please reply with any unsubscribe request in
the email body, leaving the subject line intact,
if you do not wish to recieve further emails - thanks
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them,
he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and
gave to them.
<http://biblehub.com/luke/24-31.htm>31 And their
eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he
vanished out of their sight. http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm
'Capitalism is institutionalised bribery' TG
https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos
"And I think, in the end, that is the best
definition of journalism I have heard; to
challenge authority - all authority - especially
so when governments and politicians take us to
war, when they have decided that they will kill and others will die. "
--Robert Fisk
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk
http://www.tlio.org.uk
Download, donation only, Tony's three watermarked
books http://www.bilderberg.org - My books https://payhip.com/TonyGosling
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16
You can donate to support Tony's work here http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm
Or buy Tony's three ebooks for £10-£15 here
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling or paperback here
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161
TG mobile +44 7786 952037
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20221205/2287014a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Diggers350
mailing list