<html>
<body>
<h1><b>The Gatekeeper: George Monbiot’s Multi-Level Marketing of
Ecomodernism… but where’s the
evidence?</b></h1><font size=5><b>
<a href="https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/" eudora="autourl">
https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/<br>
</a></b></font>
<a href="https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/">
5 December 2022</a> <a href="https://tlio.org.uk/author/tony/">Tony
Gosling</a>
<a href="https://tlio.org.uk/the-gatekeeper-george-monbiots-multi-level-marketing-of-ecomodernism-but-wheres-the-evidence/#respond">
Leave a comment</a><br>
<font size=5><b>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml<br>
</a></font><h2><b>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<br><br>
</b></h2><h5><b>Welcome to<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blogs/index.html">‘Ramblinactivist’s
Blogs’</a></i></b></h5>Paul Mobbs:
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/rambles/index.shtml">Rambler</a>;
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc1ESFg4fkA">Activist</a>
/<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHRtrGciSUo">Hacktivist</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/meir/ebo_book.shtml">Author</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/meir/writing.shtml">Researcher</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/lwap/index.shtml">Deep Ecologist</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/aac/index.shtml">camp cook</a>; but none
of the subsequent parameters in that list exists without the influence of
the first.<br><br>
To keep up with new information you can follow me on social media and
YouTube (click icons at top of page) – and please <b>subscribe if
possible</b>, as in today’s digital analytics popularity contest it’s the
only way to get a wider audience.<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blogs/accessibility.shtml#keyboard">
click </a><br><br>
© 2022 Paul Mobbs; released under the creative commons<br><br>
<h4><b>Page bookmarks</b></h4>(Use Hotkey & ‘number’ to jump to that
section)
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s1">MLM:
‘Through a glass, darkly’</a>
<li><a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s2">George
Monbiot’s ‘accuracy problem’</a>
<li><a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s3">
Ecomodernism’s ‘data problem’</a>
<li><a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s4">
George’s fallacies on fermentation</a>
<li><a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#s5">
Conclusion: If ecomodernism’s tinkering has failed, it suggests that
their model is wrong</a>
</ol><br>
Keywords:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#affluence">
Affluence</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#champ_glass">
‘Champagne glass’</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#colonialism">
Colonialism</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ccc">CCC</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#deep_ecology">
Deep ecology</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#degrowth">
Degrowth</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ecological_crisis">
Ecological Crisis</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ecomodernism">
Ecomodernism</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#ev">EV’s</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#XR">XR</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#food">Food</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#gnd">GND</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#monbiot_george">
Monbiot, G.</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#mlm">MLM</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#nuclear">
Nuclear</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#poth">‘Planet of
the Humans’</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#porritt_jonathon">
Porritt, J.</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#poverty">
Poverty</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#property_rights">
Property rights</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#renewable">
Renewables</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#rewilding">
Rewilding</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#soclass">‘Social
class’</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#thermodynamics">
Thermodynamics</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#uranium">
Uranium</a>;
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/subject.shtml#zcb">ZCB</a>.
<br><br>
We should be holding the political establishment’s feet to the wild-fire
on ecological issues. Instead, a handful of ‘reformers’, promoting
schemes or proposals which don’t 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? It’s all about
the evidence.<br><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/metablog_24-monbiot_mlm_ecomodernism.pdf">
download the PDF version of this post</a> <br>
1. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.77 pp.60-75, March
2018<br>
2. New Scientist:<br>
<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2248729-extinction-rebellion-were-not-veteran-protesters-new-analysis-shows/">
‘Extinction Rebellion were not veteran protesters, new analysis
shows’</a>, 15<sup>th</sup> July 2020<br>
3. Guardian On-line:<br>
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot">‘George
Monbiot’</a>.<br>
4. Guardian On-line:
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/18/countryfile-political-country-life-david-cameron">
‘Why Countryfile is the most political show on TV’</a>, 18<sup>th</sup>
April 2016<br>
5. British Journal of Social Psychology:
<a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12251">
‘The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts
thought, feelings, and behaviour’</a>, vol.57 no.2 pp.267-291, April
2018<br>
6. Architectural Science Review:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/gatersleben_2010.pdf">‘Values and
sustainable lifestyles’</a>, vol.53 pp.37-50, 2010<br>
7. Palgrave Macmillan:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, Karen Bell, 2020 (ISBN
9783-0302-9518-9)<br>
8. BBC News:<br>
<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058">‘Huge survey reveals
seven social classes in UK’</a>, 3<sup>rd</sup> April 2013<br>
9. Environment Agency:<br>
<a href="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’</a>,
23<sup>rd</sup> July 2021<br><br>
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 isn’t just
about George Monbiot specifically. By its nature, this also a discussion
about the overwhelming
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/eom_2018.pdf">class
divide</a><sup>1</sup> in the
<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2248729-extinction-rebellion-were-not-veteran-protesters-new-analysis-shows/">
‘English’ environmental movement</a><sup>2</sup> (since it’s the
London-centric English media and campaign groups which dominate this
space).<br><br>
As a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot">Guardian
columnist</a><sup>3</sup>, 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.<br>
10. Politico.eu:
<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/extinction-rebellion-hometown-stroud-pushes-radical-green-activism-into-mainstream/">
‘Extinction Rebellion’s hometown pushes the radical into the
mainstream’</a>, 5<sup>th</sup> September 2020<br>
11. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_radicalism">‘Classical
radicalism’</a>.<br>
12. Guardian On-line:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, 11<sup>th</sup> October 2019<br>
13. Extinction Rebellion:<br>
<a href="https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/12/11/tell-the-truth/">‘XR
Fundamentals – Tell the Truth’</a>.<br>
14. Extinction Rebellion:<br>
<a href="https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/08/31/act-now-extinction-rebellion-demands/">
‘XR Fundamentals – Act Now’</a>.<br>
15. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism">‘Statism’</a>.<br>
16. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics">‘Radical
politics’</a>.<br><br>
Monbiot is not alone: I could equally cite journalists such as David
Shukman; ideological media constructs such as
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/18/countryfile-political-country-life-david-cameron">
<i>‘Countryfile’</a></i><sup>4</sup>; pundits like Mark Lynas; or ‘green’
entrepreneurs such as Dale Vince. As these figures overwhelmingly embody
the
<a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12251">
affluent middle class values</a><sup>5</sup> of the establishment, that
debate not only
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/gatersleben_2010.pdf">downplays
the trends</a><sup>6</sup> which are the result of that lifestyle; but
also fails to connect to the people who
<a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-29519-6">stand
to benefit</a><sup>7</sup> the most from this debate – the
<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058">‘average’
person</a><sup>8</sup> living within the
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-environment/state-of-the-environment-health-people-and-the-environment#environmental-inequalities-and-health">
increasingly precarious</a><sup>9</sup> UK economy.<br><br>
Instead,
<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/extinction-rebellion-hometown-stroud-pushes-radical-green-activism-into-mainstream/">
what passes for</a><sup>10</sup> ‘radicalism’ in English environmentalism
are groups like <i>Extinction Rebellion</i> or <i>Just Stop Oil</i>. But
these groups
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_radicalism">are not
‘radical’</a><sup>11</sup>: They are once again dominated by the middle
class; their metropolitan focus
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/a-working-class-green-movement-is-out-there-but-not-getting-the-credit-it-deserves">
alienates them</a><sup>12</sup> from the rest of Britain; and they have
no specific project other than that governments
<a href="https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/12/11/tell-the-truth/">‘tell
the truth’</a><sup>13</sup> and
<a href="https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/08/31/act-now-extinction-rebellion-demands/">
take action</a><sup>14</sup> on climate change.<br><br>
Therein, like the media’s green pundits, the groups considered to be
‘radicals’ in the public debate are
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism">‘statist’</a><sup>15</sup>
: Their unwillingness to look beyond the ideology, structures, and
lifestyle created by Western affluence and consumption, cannot encompass
– in terms of it’s original meaning of,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_politics"><i>‘from the
roots’</a></i><sup>16</sup> – any truly radical solution to the
ecological crisis.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks">
jump to bookmarks list</a><br><br>
<h4><b>MLM: ‘Through a glass, darkly’</i></b></h4>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.<br>
17. LSE Blogs:
<a href="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’</a>,
25<sup>th</sup> July 2014<br>
18. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics">‘Green
politics’</a>.<br>
19. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairshirt_environmentalism">
‘Hairshirt environmentalism’</a>.<br>
20. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing">‘Greenwashing’</a>
.<br>
21. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_consumerism">‘Ethical
consumerism’</a>.<br>
22. Global Environmental Politics:
<a href="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’</a>, vol.16 no.1 pp.21-37, 2016.<br>
23. Yale Environment 360:<br>
<a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/environmental_failure_a_case_for_a_new_green_politics">
‘Environmental Failure – A Case for a New Green Politics’</a>,
20<sup>th</sup> October 2008<br>
24. Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_media">‘Old
media’</a>.<br>
25. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing">
‘Multi-level marketing’</a>.<br>
26. MIT Press Reader:
<a href="https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-american-environmentalism-failed/">
‘How American Environmentalism Failed’</a>, 31<sup>st</sup> August
2021<br>
27. Euractiv:
<a href="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’’</a>,
8<sup>th</sup> June 2022<br>
28. WIRED:<br>
<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-why-degrowth-is-the-worst-idea-on-the-planet/">
‘Why Degrowth Is the Worst Idea on the Planet’</a>, 6<sup>th</sup>
October 2020<br>
29. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt">‘Jonathon
Porritt’</a>.<br>
30. Routledge Books:<br>
<a href="https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-as-if-the-World-Matters/Porritt/p/book/9781844071937">
‘Capitalism as if the World Matters’</a>, 2007<br>
31. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomodernism">‘Ecomodernism’</a>
.<br><br>
In the 1990s I was an elected director of Friends of the Earth
<a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-revolutions-of-1989-marked-the-rise-of-political-ecology/">
at an auspicious moment</a><sup>17</sup>. <i>‘Green’</i>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics">had gone
mainstream</a><sup>18</sup>, and the pressure was on to drop any
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairshirt_environmentalism">‘hair
shirted’ ideas</a><sup>19</sup> 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
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing">to
greenwash</a><sup>20</sup> their image. I opposed the idea, and
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_consumerism">‘green
consumerism’</a><sup>21</sup> 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.<br><br>
Three decades on and that approach
<a href="https://direct.mit.edu/glep/article-abstract/16/1/21/14836/Death-and-Environmental-Taxes-Why-Market">
has clearly failed</a><sup>22</sup> – and arguably has
<a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/environmental_failure_a_case_for_a_new_green_politics">
diluted the movement’s influence</a><sup>23</sup> within the ‘noise’
created around these issues. More recently, though, this process has
shifted, reflecting the economic pressures on the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_media">‘legacy
media’</a><sup>24</sup>, driven by the new on-line/social influencer
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing">
‘multi-level marketing’</a><sup>25</sup> (MLM) machine.<br><br>
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
<a href="https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-american-environmentalism-failed/">
pressures for environmentalists</a><sup>26</sup> to promote certain
issues has shifted from one of ‘making change’, to promoting
<a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/the-green-brief-eu-parliament-hit-by-tsunami-of-lobbying/">
‘a business plan’</a><sup>27</sup>. In part the result of neoliberal
values infiltrating all levels of society, ‘green’ ideas
<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-why-degrowth-is-the-worst-idea-on-the-planet/">
have ceased to be</a><sup>28</sup> an advocacy for political action.
Instead they advocate for one infrastructure plan or another which seeks
to ‘green’ the modern lifestyle – <i>without changing it</i>.<br><br>
This position was openly articulated by
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt">Jonathon
Porritt</a><sup>29</sup> – one of those most directly responsible for
ejecting radical thinking from first the Green Party, then Friends of the
Earth. In his 2005 book,
<a href="https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-as-if-the-World-Matters/Porritt/p/book/9781844071937">
<i>‘Capitalism as if the World Matters’</a></i><sup>30</sup>, he
states:<br><br>
“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… <b>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.”<br><br>
</b>(my emphasis in <b>bold</b>)<br><br>
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,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomodernism"><i>‘ecomodernism’</a>
</i><sup>31</sup>.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks">
jump to bookmarks list</a><br><br>
<h4><b>George Monbiot’s ‘accuracy problem’</b></h4>32.
Sustainability:<br>
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/780">‘Marketing and
Sustainability: Business as Usual or Changing Worldviews?’</a>, vol.11
no.3 pp.780, 2019<br>
33. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot">‘George
Monbiot’</a>.<br><br>
The basis for most discussions about ‘future change’ today, is ‘stasis’:
Proposals do not challenge
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/780">‘business as
usual’</a><sup>32</sup>, 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
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot">George
Monbiot</a><sup>33</sup> is trapped.<br><br>
I specifically use the word, ‘trapped’: If he moved out of that niche I’m
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 – <i>but that doesn’t mean it is evidentially correct</i>.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
These days, when I publicly challenge his assumptions he never responds.
He also blocks people on social media who query his work.<br>
34. Medialens:
<a href="https://www.medialens.org/2019/dump-the-guardian/">‘Dump The
Guardian’</a>, 12<sup>th</sup> February 2019<br>
35. Private Eye:
<a href="https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1585/street-of-shame">
‘Truly, Hadley, deeply…’</a>, no.1585, November 2022<br>
36. The Meta-Blog:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml">‘Cooking
scones with The Prodigy – or, why do climate campaigners not understand
logical fallacies?’</a>, no.6, 18<sup>th</sup> May 2020<br>
37. <a href="https://planetofthehumans.com/">‘Planet of the Humans’
website</a>.<br>
38. Guardian On-line:<br>
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/oct/28/observer-readers-editor">
‘Reader’s Editor’</a>.<br>
39. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent">
‘Affirming the consequent’</a>.<br>
40. Forbes:
<a href="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’</a>, 21<sup>st</sup> April 2020<br>
41. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy">‘Embodied
energy’</a>.<br>
42. Nature Energy:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.2 pp.939-945, 2017<br>
43. US Energy Information Agency:
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php">‘Electricity’</a>.<br>
44. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy:<br>
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes">
‘Digest of UK Energy Statistics – Electricity’</a>.<br>
45. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility">
‘Ivanpah Solar Power Facility’</a>.<br><br>
The difficulties with <i>The Guardian</i> – the largest remaining
allegedly ‘politically liberal’ broadsheet within Britain’s right-biased
media – have been growing for some time. Recent campaigns to
<a href="https://www.medialens.org/2019/dump-the-guardian/">‘dump The
Guardian’</a><sup>34</sup>, and
<a href="https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1585/street-of-shame">
high-profile resignations</a><sup>35</sup>, 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.<br><br>
His columns in <i>The Guardian</i> are sparsely sourced, and sometimes
factually flawed. My last
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml">‘public’
deconstruction</a><sup>36</sup> of one of his columns was published in
May 2020 – when he attacked the then recently released film,
<a href="https://planetofthehumans.com/"><i>‘Planet of the
Humans’</a></i><sup>37</sup>.<br><br>
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 <i>The
Guardian’s</i>
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/oct/28/observer-readers-editor">
‘Reader’s Editor’</a><sup>38</sup>. I never received an acknowledgement…
<i>despite sending it twice!<br><br>
</i>Critical of Michael Moore, the structural flaw in that article was
the fallacy of
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent"><i>
‘affirming the consequent’</a></i><sup>39</sup>: It suggested that as
right-wing climate deniers liked Michael Moore’s new film; then the
position that Moore depicted must be friendly to climate denial too. In
reality, many ‘anti-greens’
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/04/21/new-michael-moore-backed-documentary-on-youtube-reveals-massive-ecological-impacts-of-renewables/">
didn’t like</a><sup>40</sup> the film’s message. The reason they
talked-up the film was precisely because its message made liberal
environmentalists feel uncomfortable.<br><br>
The article attacked the film’s assertion that photovoltaic (PV) panels
produce little energy once the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy">manufacturing
costs</a><sup>41</sup> are considered – stating that, <i>“On average, a
solar panel generates 26 units of solar energy for every unit of fossil
energy required to build and install it”</i>. It would appear he hadn’t
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9">read his
source</a><sup>42</sup>, which stated those statistics could not be
quoted in that context because it would under-estimate the impacts of PV
by 30% to 250%.<br><br>
In that paragraph he also attacks the film-makers statement that, <i>“You
use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You
would have been better off just burning fossil fuels in the first
place.”</i> That quote has been taken out of context. That statement is
not about solar PV, or wind power; it’s about the gas-fired
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility">
Ivanpah Solar Array</a><sup>45</sup> – a wholly different type of
technology to PV.<br>
<i>Analysis of electricity generation in USA from my May 2020
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml">blog
post</a><sup>36</sup>: The statistics from the
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php">USA</a><sup>43</sup>
demonstrate that the scenario shown in the film is correct. <br><br>
</i>The article then goes on to state, <i>“Planet of the Humans also
claims that you can’t reduce fossil fuel use through renewable energy:
coal is instead being replaced by gas.”</i> 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
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/economics/york_2019.pdf">academic
research</a><sup>46</sup> to back-up the point made in the film.<br>
46. Energy Research & Social Science:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.51 pp.40-43, May 2019
<br><br>
The article then goes on to state that, <i>“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.”<br><br>
</i>That statement is a manipulation of objective fact:<br><br>
The ‘third-quarter’ is late Summer, when power demand is at its lowest
and solar hits maximum. It’s not representative of average demand and
supply.<br>
Analysis of electricity generation in UK from my May 2020
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/006/index.shtml">blog
post</a><sup>36</sup>: The statistics from the
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes">
UK</a><sup>44</sup> show the percentage growth of renewable power is more
influenced by the collapse in electricity demand rather than the increase
in renewable generation capacity. <br><br>
More significantly though, what’s 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 doesn’t even merit a mention.<br><br>
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.<br>
47. BBC News:<br>
<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959">‘Population
control – Is it a tool of the rich?’</a>, 28<sup>th</sup> October 2011
<br><br>
The article then introduces the most
<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959">toxic
argument</a><sup>47</sup> which ecomodernists promote to silence
opposition: Accusations of Malthusian <i>‘population control’</i> – where
again the film is misquoted:<br><br>
“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<b>…</b> without seeing some sort of major die-off
in population, there’s no turning back.’”<br><br>
That ellipsis – the <b>‘…’</b> highlighted above: That’s 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.<br><br>
<br>
The article then concludes this section by stating:<br><br>
“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, ‘it’s not Us
consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far right
loves this film”.<br><br>
I challenge The Guardian’s editors to find any point in the transcript of
the film where this is implied – and to listen to the <i>“caveats”</i>
about rich-nation’s consumption which were made throughout the film. In
fact, during that ‘ellipsis’ where Monbiot omits what is discussed, it is
stated, <i>“We have to have our abilities to consume reigned in, because
we’re not good at reigning them in if there are seemingly unrestrained
resources”</i>.<br><br>
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, <i>“have your cake
and eat it too”</i>.<br><br>
That’s not a problem: <i>Objectively, I’m doing the same, too, by making
these observations – albeit from a radically different
perspective.<br><br>
</i>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.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks">
jump to bookmarks list</a><br><br>
<h4><b>Ecomodernism’s ‘data problem’</b></h4>48. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Brand">‘Stewart
Brand’</a>.<br>
49. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)">‘Kevin Kelly
(editor)’</a>.<br>
50. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins">‘Amory
Lovins’</a>.<br>
51. <a href="http://www.ecomodernism.org/">‘The Ecomodernist Manifesto’
website</a>.<br>
52. <a href="https://thebreakthrough.org/">‘Breakthrough Institute’
website</a>.<br>
53. Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas">‘Mark
Lynas’</a>.<br>
54. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger">‘Michael
Shellenberger’</a>.<br>
55. Wiley:
<a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Ecomodernism%3A+Technology%2C+Politics+and+The+Climate+Crisis-p-9781509531202">
‘Ecomodernism – Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis’</a>,
2019<br>
56. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics">
‘Second law of thermodynamics’</a>.<br>
57. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency">
‘Energy conversion efficiency’</a>.<br>
58. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-economic_decoupling">
‘Eco-economic decoupling’</a>.<br>
59. PLOS One:<br>
<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164733">
‘Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible?’</a>, vol.
11(10) art. e0164733, 14<sup>th</sup> October 2016<br>
60. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth">‘The Limits
to Growth’</a>.<br>
61. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrzzW9Zms">‘‘The Limits to
Growth’ (1972) – A Book in Five Minutes, No.1’</a>, September 2021<br>
62. Global Environmental Change:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/turner_2008.pdf">‘A
comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality’</a>, vol. 18
no.3 pp. 397-411, August 2008<br>
63. Journal of Industrial Ecology:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/herrington_2021.pdf">‘Update
to limits to growth – Comparing the World3 model with empirical
data’</a>, vol.25 no.3 pp.614-626, June 2021<br>
64. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint">‘Ecological
footprint’</a>.<br>
65. PNAS:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/wackernagel_2002.pdf">
‘Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy’</a>, vol.99
no.14, 2002<br>
66. EWG:<br>
<a href="https://www.energywatchgroup.org/blog-post/">‘EWG study
accurately predicted today’s decline in uranium mining’</a>,
31<sup>st</sup> May 2022<br>
67. Forbes:
<a href="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’</a>, 1<sup>st</sup> July 2016<br>
68. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium">‘Peak
uranium’</a>.<br>
69. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy">‘100%
renewable energy’</a>.<br>
70. Resources:<br>
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/29">‘Enough Metals? Resource
Constraints to Supply a Fully Renewable Energy System’</a>, vol.8 no.1
art. 29, 2019<br>
71. Nature Communications Earth & Environment:<br>
<a href="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’</a>,
vol.1 art.13, 2020<br>
72. Annual Review of Environment and Resources:<br>
<a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941">
‘Research On Degrowth’</a>, vol.43, 2018<br>
73. Ecological Complexity:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/tainter_2006.pdf">‘Social
complexity and sustainability’</a>, vol.3 no.2 pp.91-103, June 2006<br>
74. Ecological Economics:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/rees_2020.pdf">‘Ecological
economics for humanity’s plague phase’</a>, vol.169 art.106519, March
2020<br>
75. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Committee">‘Climate
Change Committee’</a>.<br>
76. Natural History Museum:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, 5<sup>th</sup> June 2019<br>
77. Climate Change Committee:<br>
<a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-uks-transition-to-electric-vehicles/">
‘The UK’s transition to electric vehicles’</a>, 9<sup>th</sup> December
2020<br>
78. <a href="https://bettertransport.org.uk/">‘Campaing for Better
Transport’ website</a>.<br>
79. Geological Survey of Finland:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, 1<sup>st</sup> September 2021<br>
80. Geological Survey of Finland:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, GTK Open File Work
Report 42/2021, August 2021<br>
81. Nature Communications:<br>
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5">‘Renewable
energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity’</a>,
vol.11 art.4174, 1<sup>st</sup> September 2020<br>
82. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal">‘Green New
Deal’</a>.<br>
83. Energy:<br>
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544212009139">
‘The impact of copper scarcity on the efficiency of 2050 global renewable
energy scenarios’</a>, vol.50 pp.62-73, 1<sup>st</sup> February 2013<br>
84. Resources:<br>
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/36">‘Decreasing Ore Grades in
Global Metallic Mining – A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?’</a>,
vol.5 no.4 art.36, 2016.<br>
85. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery">‘Sodium-ion
battery’</a>.<br>
86. Centre for Alternative Technology:<br>
<a href="https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate-emergency/">
‘Zero Carbon Britain’</a>.<br>
87. Nature Sustainability:<br>
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00708-4">‘The
importance of resource security for poverty eradication’</a>, vol.4
pp.731-738, April 2021<br><br>
First advanced by figures such as
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Brand">Stewart
Brand</a><sup>48</sup>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)">Kevin
Kelly</a><sup>49</sup>, and
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins">Amory
Lovins</a><sup>50</sup>, ‘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.<br><br>
Though there are various
<a href="http://www.ecomodernism.org/">manifestos</a><sup>51</sup> and
<a href="https://thebreakthrough.org/">institutes</a><sup>52</sup>,
‘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.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas">Mark
Lynas</a><sup>53</sup>); to ideologically right-wing libertarians (e.g.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger">Michael
Shellenberger</a><sup>54</sup>); to corporate-oriented eco-technocrats
(e.g.
<a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Ecomodernism%3A+Technology%2C+Politics+and+The+Climate+Crisis-p-9781509531202">
Jonathan Symons</a><sup>55</sup>).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
This is where ecomodernism hits the reality of the ecological crisis. For
all their protestations, basically
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics"><i>
‘the thermodynamics says no’</a></i><sup>56</sup>. In particular:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency">
Energy efficiency</a><sup>57</sup> 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;
<li>The heart of this idea is
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-economic_decoupling">
‘decoupling’</a><sup>58</sup> – the assumption that the use of technology
can break the link between human lifestyles and their ecological impact –
which currently has
<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164733">
no strong evidence</a><sup>59</sup> to support it;
<li>As with neoliberal ideology in general, ecomodernism will not accept
strong
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth">‘ecological
limits’</a><sup>60</sup> – despite the fact recent research confirms that
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrzzW9Zms">after 50
years</a><sup>61</sup> the
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/turner_2008.pdf"><i>‘Limits
to Growth’</a></i><sup>62</sup> study is
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/herrington_2021.pdf">still
on-track</a><sup>63</sup>; and
<li>They do not consider the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint">embodied
footprint</a><sup>64</sup> of their activities on
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/wackernagel_2002.pdf">
resource depletion and pollution</a><sup>65</sup> – and often invoke the
quasi-mystical power of ‘innovation’ to solve that without proof of its
feasibility.
</ul><br>
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:<br><br>
For the strongly technocratic end of the ecomodernist spectrum that
transition is innately connected to nuclear power – despite the fact
there’s <a href="https://www.energywatchgroup.org/blog-post/">not enough
uranium</a><sup>66</sup> to do this (they argue that there’s more than
enough
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/">
uranium in sea water</a><sup>67</sup>, despite the fact this process has
yet to be commercialised, and has
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium">questionable
economics</a><sup>68</sup>).<br><br>
For the strongly ecological end of ecomodernism that transition is
connected to the use of
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy">“100%
renewable energy”</a><sup>69</sup> – despite the growing evidence to show
that there are
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/29">insufficient mineral
resources</a><sup>70</sup>, and
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0011-0">complex
barriers</a><sup>71</sup>, to construct the scale of infrastructure
required to replace the ‘energy service’ of fossil fuels.<br><br>
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, <i>then
what option is there?<br><br>
</i>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.<br><br>
There is an entire movement around
<a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941">
degrowth</a><sup>72</sup>, and the
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/tainter_2006.pdf">
‘simplification’</a><sup>73</sup> of human lifestyles, which is not
currently being referenced within the UK media debate.
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/limits/rees_2020.pdf">It
challenges</a><sup>74</sup> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
In 2020, the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Committee">Climate
Change Committee</a><sup>75</sup> (CCC) canvassed opinion on electric
vehicles. An expert panel assembled by the Natural History Museum
<a href="https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html">
told the CCC</a><sup>76</sup> that:<br><br>
<br>
“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 world’s lithium production and 12% of the world’s
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.”<br><br>
Mineral resources are a significant barrier. And the CCC’s response to
this critical issue, being spelled-out by Britain’s pre-eminent
geological institute was… <i>silence</i>.
<a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-uks-transition-to-electric-vehicles/">
A briefing</a><sup>77</sup> they published later doesn’t even mention the
issue.<br><br>
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?
<a href="https://bettertransport.org.uk/">It does exist</a><sup>78</sup>,
but gets little media coverage as it challenges the dominant assumptions
of the consumer lifestyle – in this case, the primacy of the ‘private
car’.<br><br>
Renewable energy and green technologies, such as electric cars, are
dependent upon mass electrification; and as a result,
<a href="https://www.gtk.fi/en/current/a-bottom-up-insight-reveals-replacing-fossil-fuels-is-even-more-enormous-task-than-thought/">
a huge expansion</a><sup>79</sup> in metal production
<a href="https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf">using
resources</a><sup>80</sup> which have a finite, limited supply. There is
also growing evidence that the extraction of those resources across the
globe could be especially
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5">damaging to
biodiversity </a><sup>81</sup>.<br><br>
Some of these metals – such as copper, cobalt, or rare earths – are so
limited that they are a barrier to a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal">‘Green New
Deal’-type plan</a><sup>82</sup>; and the energy return of renewable
technologies
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544212009139">
will continually fall</a><sup>83</sup> in the future, as these metals
deplete, as the energy
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/36">used in their
extraction</a><sup>84</sup> increases. Even if we ‘innovate’, such as
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery">swapping
lithium with sodium</a><sup>85</sup> 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.<br><br>
How then can groups promoting the <i>‘Green New Deal’</i> – such as the
<a href="https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate-emergency/">
‘Zero Carbon Britain’</a><sup>86</sup> (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 – don’t want to hear them, and so they exclude
them from their considerations.<br><br>
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
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00708-4">allow
everyone else</a><sup>87</sup> on the planet to consume in that way. And
the over-riding reliance on a single metric to judge progress – <i>carbon
emissions</i> – is leading to a willing ignorance over both the global
pollution, resource depletion, or biodiversity loss, that would result
from such a ‘green’ future.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks">
jump to bookmarks list</a><br><br>
<h4><b>George’s fallacies on fermentation</b></h4>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?<br><br>
<i>I really don’t think that matters at all!</i> Whether he’s being
funded or not doesn’t 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 <i>evidence</i>.<br><br>
Let’s address the big issue first: <i>Technically there is no ‘food
production’ crisis!<br>
</i>88. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka99kBJrggw">‘George Monbiot on
Ending Hunger – Without Destroying Our Planet’</a>, 19<sup>th</sup> May
2022<br>
89. Action Against Hunger:<br>
<a href="https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/">
‘What Causes World Hunger?’</a>.<br>
90. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_fermentation#Precision_fermentation">
‘Industrial fermentation – Precision fermentation’</a>.<br>
91. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat">‘Cultured
meat’</a>.<br>
92. Nature Communications:<br>
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y">‘Scientists’
Warning On Affluence’</a>, vol.11 art. 3107, 19<sup>th</sup> June
2020<br>
93. Global Environmental Change:
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512">
‘Providing decent living with minimum energy – A global scenario’</a>,
vol.65 art.102168, November 2020<br>
94. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/finley_2014.pdf">‘The
Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water’</a>, vol.65 pp.6255-6262, June
2014<br>
95. UN Development Programme:
<a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1992">‘Human
Development Report’</a>, 1992<br>
96. Oxfam:<br>
<a href="https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf">
‘Extreme Carbon Inequality’</a>, 2015<br><br>
As George Monbiot commented in his
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka99kBJrggw">interview with Owen
Jones</a><sup>88</sup>, 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 –
<i>it’s an issue of allocation, not production</i>.<br><br>
The
<a href="https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/">
reasons for world hunger</a><sup>89</sup> and malnutrition in both poor
and rich states are variously, depending upon the location, the result
of:
<ul>
<li>Economic inequality;
<li>Climate change;
<li>Conflict or displacement;
<li>Natural disasters;
<li>Urbanisation and/or isolation from the land, restricting access to
food except by payment;
<li>Poor diet due to the economic or social barriers to accessing good
quality food; and
<li>Social/state imposed barriers restricting access to land or food by
certain groups.
</ul><br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_fermentation#Precision_fermentation">
Precision fermentation</a><sup>90</sup> 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’
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat">meat
substitutes</a><sup>91</sup>.<br><br>
Given that brief summary, does anything stated there address the points
in the list above of the primary reasons behind global hunger?
<i>No</i>.<br><br>
To even talk about precision fermentation in the same context as hunger
belittles the the
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y">global
inequalities</a><sup>92</sup> that drive it; and distracts from the
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512">
necessary changes</a><sup>93</sup> to national and
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/finley_2014.pdf">global
governance</a><sup>94</sup> in order to address those issues.<br>
‘The Champagne Glass Graph’ – made popular by the
<a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1992">UN Human
Development Report</a><sup>95</sup> in 1992, then resurrected by Oxfam in
their
<a href="https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf">
<i>‘Extreme Carbon Inequality’</a></i><sup>96</sup> reports – this shows
the unequal share of global carbon emissions, but it’s general
proportions are also correct for energy consumption, metal consumption,
digital devices, etc. <br><br>
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
<a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1992">10% of the
world’s population</a><sup>95</sup> benefiting from that mechanism
<a href="https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf">
consume half of everything</a><sup>96</sup>; while the ‘bottom half’
consume just 10%.<br><br>
Let’s be absolutely clear on this: There is a
<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23970&LangID=E">
<i>Human Right to Food</a></i><sup>97</sup>. The fact hundreds of
millions are hungry, yet enough food is produced for all, is a
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/013/index.shtml">matter of
political ‘choice’</a><sup>98</sup>, not ‘fate’.<br>
97. UN OCHR:<br>
<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23970&LangID=E">
‘Article 25 – Right to Adequate Standard of Living’</a>.<br>
98. The Meta-Blog:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/013/index.shtml">‘Why is there
no ‘right to food’, or to grow food in Britain?’</a>, no.13,
25<sup>th</sup> March 2021<br>
99. Abe Books:
<a href="https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780241447642">
‘Regenesis – Feeding the World without Devouring the Planet’</a>,
2022<br>
100. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Y4Nd0AJcE">‘Proudhon – What is
Property?’</a>, 22<sup>nd</sup> September 2020<br>
101. Guardian On-line:
<a href="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’</a>,
17<sup>th</sup> April 2019<br>
102. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eaTIe_TBZA">‘REGENESIS – George
Monbiot calls for the end of (almost all) animal farming’</a>,
15<sup>th</sup> June 2022<br>
103. Science of The Total Environment:
<a href="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’</a>, vol.776
art.145764, 1<sup>st</sup> July 2021<br><br>
I’ve read George Monbiot’s book,
<a href="https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780241447642"><i>
‘Regenesis’</a></i><sup>99</sup>. Personally, I’ve 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.<br><br>
For example, in chapter 5 he says:<br><br>
“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 it’s unlikely to satisfy more than a tiny
fraction of demand. The reason should be obvious: land in cities is
scarce and expensive.”<br><br>
<i>Why is land in cities expensive?</i> Because it is owned by a minute
minority of the population called ‘landlords’. <i>Why is that an
ecological issue?<br><br>
</i>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’
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Y4Nd0AJcE">are completely
abstract</a><sup>100</sup> – <i>they do not exist</i>, just like the
monetary values property rights are traded with. They are not a
‘physical’ restriction.<br><br>
If we are truly saying that climate change and ecological breakdown are
<i>‘existential’</i> – 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?<br><br>
Once again, we come back to the issue of inequality: In Britain,
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author">
less than 1%</a><sup>101</sup> of the population own ~50% of the land. In
<i>‘Regenesis’</i>, George argues that the intellectual property rights
on the technological solutions to climate change must be weakened. Why,
then, can’t we also restrict property rights on the land, or cap land
values or tax excess wealth, to facilitate low impact
lifestyles?<br><br>
In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eaTIe_TBZA">a short
film</a><sup>102</sup> on <i>‘Regenesis’</i>, George states:<br><br>
“…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.”<br><br>
<br>
In the previous section I outlined the problems with ideas like the
<i>‘Green New Deal’</i>, and the material and geopolitical barriers to
expanding renewable energy to match fossil fuels. By advocating the use
of electricity to produce protein – perhaps
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721008317">
up to 25 times more</a><sup>103</sup> 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.<br><br>
Are any of those impacts factored into George’s presentation of the
process? <i>No</i>.<br><br>
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? <i>Arguably
yes</i>. Is that considered in George’s model? <i>No</i>.<br><br>
I don’t 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 industry’s
argument that <i>‘nuclear power doesn’t emit carbon dioxide’</i>; and yet
from the concrete in the reactor, to ore processing at the uranium mine,
greenhouse gases are embodied throughout that process.<br>
104. Geoforum:<br>
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016718594000208">
‘The pattern of world protein consumption’</a>, vol.26 no.1 pp.1-17,
February 1995<br>
105. Medium:<br>
<a href="https://medium.com/illumination/overconsumption-of-protein-across-the-world-2c4d654256e8">
‘Overconsumption of Protein across the world’</a>, 24<sup>th</sup>
November 2021<br>
106. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients">
‘Dietary Reference Intake – Macronutrients’</a>.<br>
107. Our World In Data:<br>
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-protein-supply">
‘Daily per capita protein supply, 2017’</a>.<br>
108. Guardian On-line:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, 24<sup>th</sup> November 2022<br>
109. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma">‘False
dilemma’</a>.<br>
110. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture">‘Permaculture’</a>
.<br>
111. Wikipedia:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyculture">‘Polyculture’</a>.<br>
112. Global Environmental Change:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.63
art.102075, July 2020<br>
113. Sustainability:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.12 no.13 art.5429, 2020<br>
114. Sustainability Science:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.15
pp.1585-1599, 2020<br>
115. PNAS:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.116
no.1 pp.129-134, 2019<br>
116. University of Sussex:<br>
<a href="https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/56961">‘City allotments
match farming productivity per square metre’</a>, 17<sup>th</sup>
December 2021<br>
117. Global Food Security:<br>
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417301293">
‘How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce?’</a>, vol.17
pp.64-72, June 2018<br>
118. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIO73DIcOE">‘Eating Meat is the
New Oil – Aaron Bastani meets George Monbiot’</a>, 5<sup>th</sup> June
2022<br>
119. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism">
‘Fully Automated Luxury Communism’</a>.<br>
120. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality">‘Externality’</a>.<br>
<br>
In affluent states the major source of protein is meat; but in poor
states the major source of protein
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016718594000208">
is vegetables and cereals</a><sup>104</sup>. How does that square with
Monbiot’s assumption that meat production
<a href="https://medium.com/illumination/overconsumption-of-protein-across-the-world-2c4d654256e8">
for the global population</a><sup>105</sup> is a homogeneous
issue?<br><br>
Likewise, humans need
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients">
roughly 50g to 60g</a><sup>106</sup> of protein per day. On average most
countries scrape that amount in their national diet; but in the affluent
world people on average consume
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-protein-supply">
at least twice that</a><sup>107</sup> 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? <i>Not that
I can find</i>.<br><br>
Turning to George Monbiot’s
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/green-technology-precision-fermentation-farming">
recent column</a><sup>108</sup> in <i>The Guardian</i>, we see this same
simplistic, narrow-boundary analysis applied as a justification:<br><br>
“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.”<br><br>
According to both his book and his column, then, the choice is between
intensive animal agriculture, intensive soy production, or precision
fermentation: That’s an entirely
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma">‘false
dilemma’</a><sup>109</sup>, ignoring the large body of evidence on viable
alternative options.<br><br>
His book, <i>‘Regenesis’</i>, doesn’t discuss
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture"><i>‘permaculture’</a>
</i><sup>110</sup>, or
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyculture"><i>‘integrated
polyculture’</a></i><sup>111</sup> – even though
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/betancourt_2020.pdf">
recent research</a><sup>112</sup> shows those systems to be far less
polluting, and <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5429">as
much if not more</a><sup>113</sup> productive, and economically far more
beneficial to those involved, than the intensive farming system he rails
against. Even
<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-020-00792-z">
urban allotments</a><sup>114</sup> – which he dismisses in the book – are
<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/1/129.full.pdf">as good
as, if not more</a><sup>115</sup> productive than intensive agriculture,
with <a href="https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/56961">higher
levels of biodiversity</a><sup>116</sup>.<br><br>
If we know there are easily implementable systems that can produce the
same, if not more food, with less impacts, why doesn’t George evaluate
these ‘other’ options? Why doesn’t he investigate the the details behind
why a third of the world’s food is grown by ‘small farmers’
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417301293">
using only a quarter</a><sup>117</sup> 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.<br><br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIO73DIcOE">Interviewed by
Aaron Bastani</a><sup>118</sup> – the man who wrote the book on,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism">
<i>‘Fully-Automated Luxury Communism’</a></i><sup>119</sup> – one-hour in
George states:<br><br>
“By doing it this way you can localise your food production, and you can
it can be much cheaper. You’re not paying soft currencies for hard
currencies, you’re not using your local currency to buy stuff on the
dollar market. You’re 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.”<br><br>
Those points apply even more strongly to locally-based agriculture, or
small-scale production on plots or urban allotments, than to precision
fermentation.<br><br>
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. <i>Are those factors which are all
locally available?</i> 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 he’s being critical of.<br><br>
George Monbiot’s analysis of the land required to support ‘cultured meat’
is incomplete. It doesn’t include the land-take of the system’s
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality">‘externalities’</a>
<sup>120</sup> 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.<br><br>
<br>
In contrast, what do localised permaculture or integrated polyculture
systems depend upon? <i>Seeds</i>. 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.<br><br>
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, <i>“Technology Will Save Us All!”</i>,
is simplistic, illogical, and not based upon evidence.<br><br>
I have wrestled with <i>‘Regenesis’</i> 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.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/blog/posts/024/index.shtml#bookmarks">
jump to bookmarks list</a><br><br>
<h4><b>Conclusion: If ecomodernism’s tinkering has failed, it suggests
that their model is wrong</b></h4>121. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard">‘Vance
Packard’</a>.<br>
122. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHaFBYHbb4">‘‘The Hidden
Persuaders’, Vance Packard (1957) – ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ no.18’</a>,
4<sup>th</sup> October 2022<br>
123. International Journal of Information Management:<br>
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268401220314456">
‘Identifying influencers on social media’</a>, vol.56 art.102246,
February 2021<br>
124. Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent">‘The
Engineering of Consent’</a>.<br>
125. YouTube:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJlyxygLh4">‘Bing Sings
‘Accentuate the Positive’’</a>.<br>
126. European Journal of International Relations:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/dunsford_2015.pdf">
‘Peasant activism and the rise of food sovereignty – Decolonising and
democratising norm diffusion?’</a>, vol.23 no.1 pp.145-167, 2017<br>
127. Journal of Natural Resources:<br>
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/devall_1980.pdf">‘The Deep
Ecology Movement’</a>, Spring 1980<br>
128. Lancet Planetary Health:<br>
<a href="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’</a>, vol.6 no.4 pp.342-e349, April
2022<br><br>
Multi-level marketing, created off the back of the social media boom, is
as revolutionary as the fears raised by
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard">Vance
Packard</a><sup>121</sup> about the
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHaFBYHbb4">marketing boom of
the 1950s</a><sup>122</sup>. Whether by direct payment, goods-in-kind, or
just because of the ‘group identity’ it confers, the manipulation of
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268401220314456">
‘social influencers’</a><sup>123</sup> by political, financial, and
industrial interests, represents a new ‘wild west’ in – to use Edward
Bernays’ famous phrase –
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent"><i>
‘The Engineering of Consent’</a></i><sup>124</sup>.<br><br>
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
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJlyxygLh4">‘accentuates the
positive’</a><sup>125</sup> and buries the bad news.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
We must
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/simplicity/dunsford_2015.pdf">
revivify the ‘radicalism’</a><sup>126</sup> that Porritt and others
excluded from the movement in the 1980s as they sought compromise with
the establishment; and reinvigorate the
<a href="http://www.fraw.org.uk/data/ap/devall_1980.pdf">deep ecological
debate</a><sup>127</sup> on
<a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00044-4/fulltext">
‘materialism’ and ‘inequality’</a><sup>128</sup> that has been suppressed
for too long.<br><br>
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 establishment’s
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
I understand that: It challenges the very basis of their self-identity,
and hence their security and well-being. But it’s 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.<br><br>
Through his columns in <i>The Guardian</i>, 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.<br>
129. <a href="https://www.rebootfood.org/">‘Reboot Food’
website</a>.<br>
130. Reboot Food:<br>
<a href="https://www.rebootfood.org/_files/ugd/dccfdc_ccdcd3668c264d6bb5dfaf7d3c3f5a44.pdf">
‘The Reboot Food Manifesto’</a>.<br><br>
What I have not raised here is his
<a href="https://www.rebootfood.org/"><i>‘Reboot
Food’</a></i><sup>129</sup> initiative, and in particular his
<a href="https://www.rebootfood.org/_files/ugd/dccfdc_ccdcd3668c264d6bb5dfaf7d3c3f5a44.pdf">
‘manifesto’</a><sup>130</sup> – 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!<br><br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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, let’s say, <i>“we need to rewild the people alongside all
the other animals”</i>.<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZks2Jwsw2U">Click to watch the
YouTube video of this post</a> <br><br>
As I have reviewed here: George Monbiot’s 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.<br>
</body>
<br>
<body>
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<br>
<font size=4><b>And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took
bread, and blessed <i>it</i>, and brake, and gave to them.
<a href="http://biblehub.com/luke/24-31.htm">31</a> And their eyes were
opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
<a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm</a> <br>
'Capitalism is institutionalised bribery' TG<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos<br>
</a></b></font>"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. "<br>
--Robert Fisk <br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos<br>
</a><font size=4><b>
<a href="http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149" eudora="autourl">
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149<br>
</a><a href="http://www.thisweek.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.thisweek.org.uk<br>
</a><a href="http://www.911forum.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.911forum.org.uk<br>
</a><a href="http://www.tlio.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.tlio.org.uk<br>
</a>Download, donation only, Tony's three watermarked books
<a href="http://www.bilderberg.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bilderberg.org</a> - My books
<a href="https://payhip.com/TonyGosling" eudora="autourl">
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling<br>
</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw<br>
</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q" eudora="autourl">
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q<br>
</a><a href="https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling" eudora="autourl">
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling<br>
</a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16" eudora="autourl">
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16<br>
</a>You can donate to support Tony's work here
<a href="http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm<br>
</a>Or buy Tony's three ebooks for £10-£15 here
<a href="https://payhip.com/TonyGosling" eudora="autourl">
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling</a> or paperback here
<a href="https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161" eudora="autourl">
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161<br>
</a></b>TG mobile +44 7786 952037</font> <br><br>
</body>
</html>