continuing conversation

Obligatory disclaimer...


Just for a quick rehash, this is in response to the article at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/30/the-road-well-travelled/ and the issues it brought up. At this point, rather than fill the list with this discussion, I will instead post this on my blog and the discussion can continue there, if anyone wishes.

First off, the author talks about a book he feels "is the most important environmental book ever written." The books turns out to be a fictional novel portraying a doomsday world where the only living things left on earth are humans. Apocalyptic novels are nothing new, of course. It sells. What caught my attention was that, even after asserting the unlikelyhood of this sort of thing happening, he still says "it will change the way you see the world," and seems to be associating this fictional novel of a catastrophic human future with today's reality in a way that makes me immediately put my guard up.

Next, he talks about the UN's state of the planet report. At this point, I will openly admit my bias here. I don't trust anything from the UN (or the their IPCC). They are a political organization that have long since abandoned their original mandate and have developed into what I believe to be one of the must corrupt and harmful organizations in the world. The IPCC in particular is more about furthering their agenda than truth or scientific fact. link So for me, siting a UN report isn't enough. I'll have to see it corroborated from an unconnected source before I accept it. Here are a few points I wonder about, with links added as I go along. These will be incomplete, as some of the my sources are books that I've had to return and cannot currently look up.


Crop production has improved over the past 20 years (from 1.8 tonnes per hectare in the 1980s to 2.5 tonnes today), but it has not kept up with population. “World cereal production per person peaked in the 1980s, and has since slowly decreased


This is news to me, since I've seen numerous reports that crops in recent years have *increased,* not decreased. Granted, these weren't just cereal crops, but all plants in general, so perhaps my information isn't as specific.
(warning: just to people know, some of my sources are on the list of people you're not supposed to listen to, because they're supposedly "in the pockets" of big oil and industry. Most of these accusations are false or misleading, but that's another issue altogether)

link
link
link
link
link (see agriculture for numerous links)

He, however, mentions cereal crops vs. population. This is one of the population myths being perpetuated - that we don't/won't have enough food to feed the world. Right now, we have more than enough food to feed every man, woman and child in the world. The problem is politics, not production. Food isn't getting to the people who need it.


“(3). There will be roughly 9 billion people by 2050: feeding them and meeting the millennium development goal on hunger (halving the proportion of hungry people) would require a doubling of world food production(4).


Population estimates are one of those areas that defy prediction. As I mentioned before, predictions that overpopulation will lead to the end of the world as we know it go back centuries (I believe the earliest quotes I've read go back to the time of Socrates, but I may be remembering that wrong).

link
link

link (recommended reading: Simon's "Hoodwinking the Nation")
link
link

Monbiot then goes on to discuss water scarcity, which is another misleading point. The earth cannot 'run out' of water - it is constantly recycled. While water use and abuse is a serious issue, the phraseology is misleading.

link
link (links to full report on the right hand sidebar)
link


Next we have


Last week we learnt that climate change could eliminate half the world’s species(9); that 25 primate species are already slipping into extinction(10); that biological repositories of carbon are beginning to release it, decades ahead of schedule(11).


This is another area particularly difficult to predict and define. The current trend is to blame everything bad on humans and climate change. There are a lot of reasons species become extinct. Climate is one of them, and has been since life showed up on earth. What I have a problem with is that prediction that half the world's species could be eliminated (at least they say "could" not "would" - I'll grant them that), which is first of all, alarmist, and second, misleading. We don't even know how many species currently exist. New species are constantly being discovered, and surely some have become extinct without us ever discovering them. This is an area greatly prone to extrapolation and supposition. Like many, I assumed that when "experts" made these predictions, they had real world evidence to base it on, so I was greatly surprised that these predictions are often nothing more than mathematical calculations. See Facts Not Fear and Taken by Storm for more on that. Both books have extensive source listings. Also
link
link

The issue of carbon is one that drives me bonkers. The more I research it, the more I want to just throw my hands up in frustration. Especially when I see people using the terms "carbon" and "carbon dioxide" interchangeably. Carbon is a solid, CO2 is a gas. You'd think people would differentiate. Also, we are carbon based life forms on a carbon based planet. Our very existence depends on it. While I certainly wouldn't want to breath pure carbon, particulate matter not being very good on the lungs, it is neither pollution nor poison. And what's with this "ahead of schedule"? How do we know what's "normal" in the first place? Truth is, we don't. We can only, once again, only extrapolate using proxies with varying degrees of accuracy. Also, while you'll hear plenty about how much carbon is being released (usually when it's in the form of CO2), you won't catch many stories about what's being absorbed at the same time. link Nor will you read about how this freed up carbon is being taken advantage of by plant growth. link or how it may be beneficial. link

I am particularly disturbed by the incredible spin used to push for carbon trading caps and carbon credit schemes. These schemes accomplish nothing for the climate. They can't! We just don't have that sort of control. But people are making an awful lot of money off of other people's guilt and fears.

link
link
link
link


To prevent runaway climate change, we must cut the greater part - possibly almost all - of the world’s current emissions.

Another area of exaggeration with extremist proposals. First of all, there is no "runaway climate change." Study after study in many areas related to climate show that current climate changes are not at all unusual in the Earth's history. While we humans may be having a very slight effect on the overall climate, with a greater effect on local climate, if we immediately stopped all human industrial activity and human caused carbon/CO2 emissions, as we're being told we need to do in order to "fix" the climate, and removed what we've contributed to the atmosphere, it would make NO difference at all! This is something I've discussed before here so I won't repeat it again here. Even those who support the Kyoto Accord say that 100% adherence would only make a difference of 0.07C to the average global temperature by the year 2050.

This paragraph also touches on what I've come to believe is the greatest money scam ever invented - carbon trading and carbon credits. What a concept! It makes as much sense as gamers using real money to buy virtual money and/or virtual items, yet there are people who actually make a lot of money doing that.


link
link
link
link
etc.

In his concluding paragraphs, I found it amusing to read "The media, driven by fear and advertising, is hopelessly biased towards the consumer economy and against the biosphere." The main stream media has been the biggest promoter of AGW and catastrophic climate change. Recent front page spreads on Newsweek and Time magazines are just a couple of the more blatant examples, but not a day goes by that doesn't have a new batch of articles featuring AGW and climate change as tragedies.
link
link
link

Finally, he ends his article by returning to the fictional novel he started with, with a rather typical doom filled conclusion.



After reading the article, I made a point of looking up just who Monbiot is, as I was pretty sure I had come across him before. It was interesting to see just where I'd heard of him before, in light of the comment

"About the "anti-human attitude", Monbiot is one of the few who is trying to raise awareness that it those in poor nations who will suffer most from climate change. "

when I referred to the quoted portion of Monbiot's article and had written

"That would be rather harmless and embarrassing, except that these Malthusians have an anti-human attitude that is truly frightening."


Turns out I was more correct than I thought. When looking at his biography, the first thing I noticed is that this guy is an extremist. That, right off the hop, is a huge warning sign for me. Extremism is pretty much always harmful - I won't say always, since I suppose there has to be an exception somewhere, but I have yet to find one.

Here's an example of some other things I found...

"Every citizen is given a free annual quota of carbon dioxide. He or she spends it by buying gas and electricity, petrol, and train and plane tickets. If they run out, they must buy the rest from someone who has used less than his or her quota."

(Proposal by British columnist George Monbiot, October 31, 2006 presaging what has since been leaked as a government proposal)

This from a guy up supposedly supports the poor? It's the poor who would suffer most under such a proposal. Or is this how he supports the poor?

"[E]very time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."

Then I went and read some of his columns. Extremist is probably the politest thing I could say about him. This is hardly someone I'm going to take at all seriously, other than to be concerned about the harm he might cause.

.