The problem with George Monbiot's solution to the climate crisis | Chris Smaje interview

[@Hill_Walker]

Fossil fuels aren't cheap, they're increadinly costly. They are however very profitable. There's a big difference in the distinction.

[@jim-es8qk]

Fossil fuels are cheap. It's why we use them.

[@oystercatcher943]

costly in terms of unaccounted damage perhaps?

[@cg986]

​@@jim-es8qk Cheap? Worldwide there's going 11 million dollar in subsidies to fossil fuels every minute. In total that is 5,4 trillion dollar and growing. Renewables are way more profitable luckily and that's why they are growing exponential.

[@Notalloldpeople]

If fossil fuels aren’t cheap why are other financial disincentives to there use such as congestion charge necessary? If fossil fuels aren’t cheap why do we waste vast amounts? The phenomenon of fugitive light alone which wastes a huge amount of energy/money is an obvious example of why the price of fossil fuel energy isn’t a disincentive to waste.

[@evilreligion]

Nope. If you can create the same product (energy) from cheaper sources then you can make more profit. It’s basic business. The reason fossil fuels are used is they are cheap. The reason they are cheap is that we do not cost in externalities but that’s a different discussion.

[@Milesenberg]

When are you having George Monbiot on to defend his position?

[@richardbainbridge5258]

Wasn't Smaje defending his position from Monbiot's ad hominem assault on a previous show? That's how I understood it.

[@albertbrammer9263]

Great point.

[@Internonalla]

Pretty sure there's an interview a few months ago with Monbiot where he sets out his position.

[@monkeytrousers6180]

US military empire and permanent Globalist wars are killing the planet... Single biggest polluter on the planet... I've never heard Monbiot mention this fact in 20 years of environmentalism.

[@mwmingram]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gp-8XoaJrsyNf6c

[@cleonawallace376]

Great to have Joe starting to talk about this! I practice permaculture, and work at FAO, so it's a subject I think about a lot. For anyone interested to think more on this, I highly recommend CAT, the Center for Alternative Technology in Wales, who have a few really interesting masters programmes on this topic. My personal thought is that the govt should start buying up these huge farms which can only be sustained with fossil fuel inputs, and either turning them into allotment communities, or actually inviting people who want to get out of cities to join an agricultural community with self build eco homes... they could receive training in permaculture, community building etc But it would also need transport planning to connect them to cities and amenities.

[@jakegrievescook6733]

Great idea but I wouldn't rely on the government to do anything sensible. Perhaps some sort of Trust could be set up to do what you suggest!

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Do you believe this is how society will actually develop? Serious question.

[@jujutrini8412]

It’s as likely the Tories would do this as them putting the cares of workers on a par with multinational corporations.

[@chookbuffy]

@@GeoffV-k1h those of us who practice permaculture hope. but likely it is two worlds we will be facing (and many shades in between). World 1 looks like Mordor as we continue to mine, manufacture our way out of this mess but get smaller and smaller ecological safe zones and we all know where that leads World 2 is something abit like what Chris says. Less material wealth but more busy humans living and dying wihtin natural systems. Some places might do well , some might not, there might be conflict, there might be not, but i can be sure that technology wont save us

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@jakegrievescook6733 "Great idea but I wouldn't rely on the government to do anything sensible" It's time to retire the mindless government-bashing that Thatcher, Reagan, and all the other neoliberals taught us to do. Unless corrupted by big money/corporations, governments do many things better than the private sector.

[@EarthPoets]

18:35 "and then of course you do get the milk and some meat" *Ah! The magic milk and meat trees!* Cows, like humans, only make milk for their baby, in this case a calf. The calves are taken from their mothers so humans can steal the milk created for the calf by it's mother. If the calf is male he cannot produce milk for the dairy farmer and is just a food burden so gets a bullet in the head - a gift from the caring farmer. The 'meat' mentioned is the flesh of the calf who has been shot, or of his mother who has had her throat slit to save on bullets once her yield drops or her body gives up after 3 or 4 enforced pregnancy cycles. And absolutely zero questioning or any mention of this by either of these beautiful people.

[@DingbatWallop]

You are correct in what you say and in your implication.

[@juliewake4585]

Absolutely. I don’t know whether the interviewer knew very little about the damage we are doing to the world with our obsession with animal products but if not he really ought to research it before he does these interviews.

[@EarthPoets]

@@juliewake4585 He is a fully cognisant, might is right, taste trumps all consumer I'm afraid, and like so many in his position he peeks through the legs of the elephant in the room while pretending to be helping to solve the problem. Sad and a great shame. I hope he wakes up and makes the change very soon, at his age he has a lot to lose.

[@alexandrabarnes4511]

Actually, cows (and humans) can produce more milk than is needed by their calves (and babies). Milk is produced by the body to fulfil demand, hence mums being able pump and store milk for future use or even to donate for other babies that need it without depriving their own babies. Therefore, milking cows while they still have calves at foot is perfectly possible and has been practised for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. There are even farms in Britain that use this approach today, such as the Calf at Foot Dairy near Kidderminster Meat is another matter and if you don't like to eat meat for non-environmental reasons, that's your prerogative. I agree with Chris that consumption of meat needs to be reduced quite a lot but I would add that treatment of animals could be vastly improved in a setting where the humans know each animal as an individual and where animals are valued for much more than just their flesh.

[@EarthPoets]

@@alexandrabarnes4511 "where animals are valued for much more than just their flesh" But not where they are valued so much that they are not repeatedly forcibly impregnated and killed though eh?

[@schumanhuman]

If you want to know who owns the land just evaluate it's site value and tax it (LVT), if the owner doesn't come forward to pay it within a certain time it can either be held by the state or auctioned off.

[@MrBlooDeck]

based and Georgist take

[@Damomasts]

Most land is owned by the Crown Estate. Good luck taxing that.

[@schumanhuman]

@@Damomasts That land is effectively state owned and taxed. From the website. 'The history of The Crown Estate before that goes back to 1760 when George III handed over land and property to the Government - with the revenue going to HM Treasury. This was in return for a fixed salary, which before the Sovereign Grant was called the Civil List. To this day, we continue to give all of our net profit to HM Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances..'

[@schumanhuman]

Also the total value of crown estate land is estimated at £15.6bn, that sounds a lot but the total land value of the UK is £6.3 trillion so that's only about 0.25% of the total.

[@valq10]

@@schumanhuman Isn't a lot of that £6.3 trillion urban land though? I would have thought land in the centre of London for example outstrips any agricultural land by miles.

[@andrewroberts8959]

I was recently reading a book on economic growth in Asia, and the author made the point that industrialised farming is not efficient in terms of land, energy or water usage. It is the most profitable way to farm for capital, but that is pretty much it. This blew my mind - but is absolutely true when given any thought. Another feature of industrialised farming, as this guy mentions, is that it prioritises high yields over flavour or health. So most fruit you buy in the UK is bland, but if you have access to decent fruit tree the fruit can be great. It's not the climate, it's the system. When you also consider UPFs and the amount of money wrapped up in supplying us with semi-food rubbish, you realise that the system is not working for the general public and it really has to change.

[@chookbuffy]

definitely! We really have to get more people aware of this

[@charliebrandt2263]

I don't understand. For me the glaring problem is the destruction of soils, having destroyed more than half the viable soils on Earth. The restoration of desertified or ruined soils can at the same time lift impoverished communities into a sustainable existence, with people, ruined land, knowledge harnessing existent technology to restore water catchment and cut watercourses, etc. No chemicals, and minimal financial input. It is already happening on a small scale in Africa and south America. Even USA has a lot of desert due to mechanical giant scale farming that has destroyed the soil and poisoned the waterways etc. A return to the land with small farmers organised carefully to sell locally rather than transporting all over the world. Sadly the grip of Big Ag. the most destructive and fossil fuel intense producers dominate in America, lost to corporate power. But the rest of the world waking up to the poisonous approach to farming should prevent the domination of corporate agriculture in the developing world. A sensitive local approach with understanding of nuance, absolutely not one size fits all. Ruined land can be seized by government and distributed carefully to smallholders organised into the framework of local food distribution, importantly restoring the soils. The insensitive cutting of fossil fuels with no new replacement is slow suicide. Start off with ending fracking, the most methane releasing technique. Slow and safe The restored soils will create CO2 conversion into plants. Monbiot has been captured with his own theories. He has lost the big picture and throws the baby out with the bathwater. He is the enemy of understanding. Farming can relate to natural ecology, it does not have to destroy it. Gathering an encyclopaedia of farming knowledge from around the world to add our total knowledge. Also, notice unemployment rising? No shortage of people.

[@chookbuffy]

@@charliebrandt2263 agree with you there. I do think the “wake up” Though is a fundamental brain shift equivalent to a religious experience. I can’t remember what got me off the green tech world view but i am and focused on building soil and regenerative systems in small farm in a new local community that my wife And i moved into last year It has been amazing finding similar people searching for a new way. But back to Mombiot…i think he might just have double downed and unable to face a personal truth about the world. Maybe he needs a mushroom trip

[@Scruffed]

Can't help but agree with Monbiot's side of this debate. There's nothing in this proposal that can convince me that it can viably produce enough food, at a politically and economically workable price, in an ecologically sound way, for the current UK population, let alone the world population.

[@pguk83]

Read E.H.King - 'Farmers of 40 Centuries' - we had agricultural systems that fed vast cities well over one hundred years ago. With appropriate technology it is not neccessary to return to back breaking surfdom. Monbiot is ideologically captured and wholly politically motivated, and I for one will not eat chemical protein sludge over what God has bountifully provided for eons. Take the management of land out of corporate hands - they are only in it for the profit. If you are unconvinced by the arguments in this one video cast your net a bit wider - there are examples of just 2 couples producing huge quantities of produce from a tenth of an acre and farms with incredible productivity (Takota Coen in Canada for example). There are many other models out there. What worries me is that the authoritarians will try to force the masses to comply with their dictats justified by 'paid for' science. (We know best).

[@tommy3141]

The UN data shows that 70percent of the world is fed by small farms. Most of the mass farm industries we see in wealthy nations goes into producing mass food. Much of which is wasted. In the UK that was at 30persent of food wasted.

[@adam2403]

A lot of assumptions here, he seems like a reactionary with extra steps. He somewhat implied a preference to common ownership of land, which I am fully behind. Other than that, it was all fairly opaque and definitely didn't address much of anything. "Instead of doing this, we should do this" - but why? And in what way would that address the vast ecological damages we have caused through profit-seeking and monopolisation on a global scale? He also deflected a lot by using examples which were completely outlandish and unrelated to back up his points. He also mentions 'techno fixes', and absolutely implied that if we rewilded some places, it would be worse because they would just burn more frequently. He didn't go into those at all. So all-in-all, yep, that's just a reactionary farmer. We aren't short of those, unfortunately.

[@AYoutubeAccountName]

I think his input is somewhat useful if you consider it as a wider piece of the puzzle for future food production. A more hands on local approach to food production could have some great social benefits while also utilizing land that would be unlikely to fit into "techno farming" solutions he was describing. Ultimately he does have experience interacting with whole ecosystems which we should view as valuable because it's easy to oversimplify that which we don't understand.

[@clivepierce1816]

This vision of our food future simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny on so many levels. We live in a world of 8 billion people. Monbiot explains that we need to grow as much food on as small a land area as possible, while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions to negligible levels and restoring global biodiversity, all within a generation. This is because a substantial fraction of existing farmland must be returned to nature to act as a buffer against climate and ecological breakdown. This isn’t Monbiot’s personal opinion. It is supported by a vast body of quantitative, peer reviewed scientific research, and crucially, is central to the UN’s mitigation programmes, devised by scientists to address climate and ecological breakdown. Smaje simply cannot dismiss decades of peer reviewed science with qualitative, hand waving arguments. The fact that he does so renders his own position and arguments untenable. PoliticalJoe has lost the plot here. If you are going to invite an author to present their work, you had better first establish whether their arguments stand up to any kind of scrutiny. This isn’t politics. This is about hard evidence, scientific rigour and logic. Other media have made similar errors of judgement. The suggestion for a follow-up debate between Smaje and Monbiot is on a par with BBC radio 4’s debate between a climate scientist and Nigel Lawson. That went well didn’t it? An atmospheric and environmental scientist.

[@MichelleBlessing]

For many years I grew most of my food on my balcony!

[@col.hertford9855]

Samje is kinda doing the same as oil companies in a way. He’s trying to protect his idealistic way of life.

[@SimonApsud]

George is a corporate stooge pushing corporatised food. Don't follow him. Do some research. His arguments for rewilding appeal to sentimentalists and venture capitalists. For starters, you need to understand the carbon cycle and why pastures are better for Net Zero than trees.

[@ceeemm1901]

Yep, spot on. Joe's gone tabloid...

[@cleonawallace376]

I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but I work at a UN agency and I think you have to bear in mind that the UN system is 'owned' by governments, and until people start voting in governments who prioritize their needs over the capitalist economic system, the UN will never make extremely radical suggestions, such as communities farming at local scales, degrowth, reducing meat consumption etc. Also the idea of urbanization and intensive farming systems means that of course big business will always own and control the food supply. There's actually also evidence that people living close to the land and growing food in regenerative ways can hugely increase biodiversity and ecological health, more than just planting a few saplings (many of which die) and calling it 'return to nature'. If we recognize that the initial push for urbanization was to take people from the land and use them as a cheap input for the industrial revolution, we should stop and think whether this has been a good thing, and question the push from the UN and others for endless urbanization and urban densification. There may be a need for factories with engineered food like Monbiot proposes to supply urban populations, and as a back up in case of crop losses due to extreme weather, but to assume that it's the only solution because the global political system tells you is surely not aligned with Joe's approach to politics.

[@Pobotrol]

I don't think he's given a good case for the practical scalability of this to make any meaningful difference.

[@zacharyb2723]

why not/? by some estimates we simply need even more labor/farmers to replace oil. and produce more per acre organically, as Nature magazine, the leading science journal, highlighted a few years ago.

[@headgirlblues]

Thanks for this. Permaculture addresses much of what Chris is talking about here - is this what he means? It's much more than a farming system, but more a mindset which places food production, soil-building/revivifying, water conservation/management etc with - importantly - social integration. I'm all for a range of sustainable systems which can employ tech, too.

[@jeffbain6817]

As GM points out permaculture cannot produce enough food to feed 8 to 10 billion people.

[@headgirlblues]

@@jeffbain6817 Not sure any one system can - but then permaculture isn't just a system, more a modus cogitare. Monocultural systems are collapsing. Many tech solutions eg Vertical Farming, are financialized up the wazoo. "...a range of sustainable systems" was what I'm getting at.

[@jeffbain6817]

@@headgirlblues the math has already been done. Just give up animal farming and the eating of sentient beings. That's what the science has been saying since at least 2015. Why is it so fucking hard for people to get over. Farmers are as much self interested in serving their interests and those involved in mining fossil fuels

[@headgirlblues]

​@@jeffbain6817 Steady on, Jeff. Personally, I'm all for not farming animals to eat. Screeching to the converted won't help.

[@gwynedd1]

Its something Adam Smith pointed out. Small estates are well managed while the large royal own lands went to waste. We need less mechanized farming and more human labor. We have people talking about guaranteed basic income because there is not enough things for people to do while more labor on land is clearly indicated.

[@john1boggity56]

Just moved to a new village in Australia - first priority was to set up a no-till food system in our backyard. So much fun!! I follow Jessie from No-till in Kentucky - very generous with his knowledge. Richard Perkins an exceptionally talented small-scale farmer who hails from Sweden. And of course, the essential Charles Dowding who is referenced by everybody who knows anything about vegetable growing. Dr. Vandana Shiva talks about the philosophy of the seed in her verbal attacks on the colonizing corporates. The up-shot from all of my personal heroes in this space is that I will produce surpluses from our garden to share with others - no money will be involved. If we succeed in this, we will partially protect our little community from the broader global economic processes. Community will build, skills will develop, healthier lifestyles, new philosophies and energies....

[@pr7730]

Interviews such as this one are pointless. Politics Joe needs to get Smaje and Monbiot in the studio at the same time.

[@Dawuuud]

‘FIIIIIIGHT’ has its place - especially on YT but long-form explanation of ideas has its place too.

[@andrewtrip8617]

What so we can all get used to the concept of eating industrial vegan gloop produced by a corporation instead of food .He doesn’t seem to have anything else to offer .

[@stephenwood2172]

​@@andrewtrip8617grains, nuts, beans, legumes, veg, fruit isn't "gloop". Where has Monbiot said only super processed foods should be consumed?!

[@mq1563]

Monbiot will never do that. He never answers challenges to his positions except in long form articles so he can avoid the tough questions.

[@humanoid8344]

​@@mq1563he just debated savory and destroyed him

[@cuttysark57]

There are 70+ million people now living in Britain. How exactly are we supposed to go back to some distant past which struggled to maintain a population of 5 million? Unless the idea is that most people need to die. This seems hideously immoral to me, especially as a lot of technology does not really involve energy at all (such as genetic modification of plants); and technology which is dependent on local energy can be served by nuclear power. It would have been helpful if the interviewer had pressed the author on these glaring issues.

[@genepoole1771]

Production of vegetation is by orders of magnitude more efficient use of land and water than farming of animals, and there is enough land in the UK to feed everyone a vegetarian diet. This narrows the disagreement down to whether people should or should not consume meat. For conservative minded people like you, such a change would be so repellent and unworkable that the detriment would outweigh the consequences of climate change. Conservative minded people say that the consequences of climate change cannot be proven and therefore assume that they aren't so bad and we'll muddle through, with a ham sandwich in our hands just like always, so the reasons for abandoning meat are not compelling. Sadly most scientists agree that the consequences of climate change are going to be horrific and far worse than changing to a vegetarian diet.

[@flickthenick]

It's all a valid point of view however when, here in the UK, 'society' is unable to accept (on the whole) small changes like the London ULEZ to pollute the air we breath slightly less you have a long long way to go...

[@baltasarnoreno5973]

'On the whole?' ULEZ costs £12.50 each time you take your car out on the road. That's over £3,000 a year if you take it out each working day. Most folk don't happen to have £3k just lying around to pay extra taxes without feeling the pinch.

[@kaieden]

@@baltasarnoreno5973 So most people will opt for more sustainable forms of transport and only drive when they really need to… Which is the point.

[@flickthenick]

@@baltasarnoreno5973 £3k you can by a compliant vehicle, don't be selfish and let more than you breath...

[@fho-gg7wr]

​@@flickthenickThe government should provide grants for switching to compliant vehicles.

[@flickthenick]

@@fho-gg7wr And your reasoning? Owning a vehicle is not a right it's your private concern. Take this up with Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson who introduced this legislation 8 years ago, that's quite some time to save up your pennies and sort yourself out?

[@brianarmstrong3731]

Very interesting and thought provoking. Maybe Chris and George Monbiot should get together, thrash it all out and produce the definitive book on the future of farming.

[@Sashan2012]

Why? Monbiot is backed by peer reviewed science and analysis, Chris is backed by what? Nostalgia, an "i'm right" attitude and? The thing lacking is peer reviewed science and analysis, that is what is lacking. It would be like platforming a climate change denier with an expert of climate change. You don't lift up the crazies and legitimise them.

[@andrewtrip8617]

@@Sashan2012scientific farming has given rise to most of the ecocide ,why would you expect science to be able to rectify the problem now ?

[@stephenwood2172]

​@@andrewtrip8617science fuelled by the capitalist drive for profits and the UKs insatiable demand for animal flesh produces wholly different results from science fuelled by the genuine desire to understand and mitigate impacts of climate change!

[@michaelrch]

Will you have an oil exec on to justify the use of fossil fuels next? Interesting that Chris doesn't mention that he also farms animals... including sheep which are brutal for the landscape. BTW if you read Monbiot's book Regenesis, he talks for a long time about making farming sustainable. He has a very enthusiastic chapter on a plant-based farming system run by his friend "Tolly". He is supportive of this model. He just points out that getting food with farms is more efficient and has a much lower impact on the land.

[@Alephu5]

Animal farming can benefit the landscape if well-managed, the problem is the scale.

[@poguemahone5476]

Crops are by far the most profitable farming in the UK so why don't all farmers give up livestock? Because it's not always possible. Sheep aren't generally put onto land that can be used for crop production on a meaningful scale. Most sheep farming is done on hill farms that are less suitable or untenable for cattle, or because sheep are cost effective on smallholdings. You can't grow crops everywhere due to soil type, topography or access for the machinery needed for arable use. Trying to legislate against livestock production will not convert more farming to arable, only put smaller farms out of business, and turn the land into more and more housing estates, or subsidise farmers to do nothing with the land at all. 🤷

[@michaelrch]

@@poguemahone5476 there is a big flaw in your picture there. A large proportion of crops are actually grown to be fed to animals. Which is extremely inefficient. Only about 12% of calories in the crops fed to animals make it to the humans who eat the animal products. If you want to cut down on arable farming, the most effective way to do that is to switch to much more plant-rich diets, and dramatically reduce animal agriculture. That sheep farming is mostly happening on deforested land. 24% of uk land is used for grazing sheep. That produces 1% of the protein consumed in the Uk. That land should be returned to nature so we can start to recover the huge amount of wildlife we have lost and to sequester the carbon that we have polluted the atmosphere with. Btw animal ag makes plenty of money. It's just that about 80-90% of the profits are subsidies that we pay for through our taxes.

[@michaelrch]

@@Alephu5 farming ruminants is only sustainable at stocking densities that are far too low to be commercially viable.

[@evolassunglasses4673]

I hope they do. We need to get out of our echo chambers.

[@alexandrabarnes4511]

I love this guy! As a student of permaculture, I was totally disillusioned with George Monbiot when he started talking about everyone going vegan and getting rid of animal agriculture. It's *industrial scale* agriculture that is problematic, whether animal or plant based, including the separation of the two. As Chris says, animals can play a much bigger role than just being food in a mixed ag system. Take chickens: they provide meat and eggs, yes, but also fertility, pest and weed control. And that's without getting into the health benefits of caring for animals or the companionship they can offer. There are so many possibilities for forest gardening, woodland agriculture, community horticulture/market gardening and much more - with options that can help combat not just climate change but the soil degradation crisis, the insect apocalypse and rewilding too - that I can only assume Monbiot has never actually looked into these things. Either that or he's actually too tied to the current flavour of capitalism we live in to conceive of genuine alternatives. Thank you for this brilliant interview. I'm off to order both of Chris's books.

[@commentarytalk1446]

You're spot on! Monbiot is a policy worker so he'll propel what the spreadsheets say is for "everyone everywhere". Something like eg "Those chicken take-aways on every high street" from industrial chicken farms need to go. He's right there but he's trying to reach most urban people. He's not talking to people such as yourself who see a complex reality and are in touch with that... That never scales in messaging to promote popularism. Eg again the idiots bleating about murdering animals and other stupid language, they're part of the macro policy messaging Monbiot is the flag-bearer for. As such arguments of what is vs what is effective to scale human change are very different creatures.

[@paulbaker9879]

Is anyone actually suggesting that there should be a farm-free future? No, there isn't. It's that animal agriculture is excessively resource intensive and it would be one of the easiest ways to tackle climate change, but farmers want to make money and people are obsessed with animal products. It's not possible to sustain the worlds population on small holdings, or growing tomatoes in your back garden. 40 minutes of talking when this problem was solved many years ago but the world refuses to implement the solution.

[@oystercatcher943]

There is data that shows small farms produce more food per unit land area than larger farms. They question is really do we have enough willing farmers needed? I'm certain we don't unless it gets a lot more attractive or necessary

[@Pobotrol]

@@oystercatcher943 Not going to happen whilst the vast quantity of land is owned by a handful of people.

[@tfender4957]

@@oystercatcher943 Just out of interest, does that factor in the farm land not used for growing crops? If you have a lot of small holdings you'll surely have a lot of "farm" land not used to grow crops.

[@xbriskx]

BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Ian_James_Storer]

meat production the the USA that is hugely industrialised still only accounts for 3% of total emissions

[@TinyRaven]

If we can eat word salad then this guy can feed the world.

[@schumanhuman]

He's making a sizeable contribution to wind power.

[@rungus24]

In what sense was it a word salad? It sounded very coherent to me.

[@ceeemm1901]

He's got an "8x10" of Alan 'Senile' Savory on his bedside table.

[@lat1419]

​@@schumanhuman wind power is hugely destructive, inefficient and gobbles resources in non-recyclable machines. Large wind farms are destroying wildlife and changing weather. If you take the energy out of air, or water, it is not "renewable", look at the physics. Seriously people, get a grip.

[@tomdudley5314]

The main problem I can see here is that majority of the labour force does not have the agricultural skills available for such mass small-holdings. Further the difficulties of farming plus low incomes will deter people from using 'organic' methods over what low-energy inputs can provide. Would require huge amounts of investment to retrain and distribute the land effectively.

[@timmk94]

May be it's low income, but you can also be self sufficient.

[@rungus24]

Lots of people do it after just a couple of years of informal training working on other people's farms, so the question of skills isn't such a big deal. The question of economics is., like all economics questions, just a question of political will: if we want more of something, then politicians have to incentivise it.

[@tomdudley5314]

@@timmk94 indeed, but you have got to attract people to that economic activity. Cost of rents, standard or living etc would deter many people from transitioning to that agricultural economic orientation.

[@japey88]

I'm not sure if the fact that he keeps saying 'you know' makes me less likely to agree with him, or whether I don't agree with him and therefore it annoys me whenever he says 'you know'. He simply dodged the question about how it would work in practice - I'm firmly with Monbiot on this one.

[@mh1593]

Well this was a waste of time. Lots of waffle on CO2 from fossil fuels and no waffle on animal production and high capacity / high density animal farming being a primary cause for high food prices (because they use up something like 30% of all global arable ), as well as being a principle cause for deforestation worldwide (helping CO2 increasses) and the animals themselves are kept in often horrific conditions and their natural cycles (in high density) also contribute to global warming (methane).

[@editing5157]

To be fair, high density / monocultural food production plus low labour costs and access to international produce relying on such, and little or no internalised ecological cost is the reason food accounts for a lower proportion of people's spend than in the past. Food prices may be rising, particularly the cost of high quality food, but cheap shite food is still available, and that is a product of a whole raft of inequalities underpinning industrial production of veg as well as meat. Solution there is to re-localise a lot of production and increase universal wages in labour, both of which will bring the international orientation of the market back down to earth.

[@Lewisb1001]

Not sure about this at all! Get Monbiot on!

[@MaxwellGouldEsq]

The challenge we face with most, if not all, of humanity's existential crises is that self-restraint is not one of our strengths. When we believed in gods and monsters we had mechanisms by which abstinence and and temperance could be encouraged or enforced. Unless we can find a new way to contextualise our place on the planet, whichever of the so-called solutions we pursue will be in vain. The chances of a grass-roots led revolution in thought and deed gathering sufficient momentum to radically alter the behaviour of the entrenched powers, who are hell-bent on our mutually assured destruction, being even partly successful seem exceptionally slim. But embarking on that revolution is the only real chance we have.

[@MadnessQuotient]

As with all things, the eventual solution will likely ultimately be a mix of both concepts. Especially with the paradigm shifts going on with population density and workforce allocation. A lot of the jobs in services and management are going to be delegated to chatbots soon enough, and those who can work remote are moving out of cities and into more human scale towns and villages.

[@mq1563]

If your job can be done remotely it can be done by AI.

[@101survivalist]

Feel like im just pissing in the wind with this comment because I still love what 'Joe has done in gwneral and will stay a fan but this talk honestly stinks. The lack of challenge in Chris points when trying to critique George's supposed points is so disingenuous its frustrating. Also what is that title? Now I do love Chris' points on how a part of the issue we find ourself in might be that we produce unecasssrily in the furst place. Thats such a good point! However, I dont see how George, who is an advocate for a greener world, also apparently never says we over produce, what? That doesnt track at all. Id understand if George said in the same breath: we need to completely move to renewables and maintain the status-quo but he hasn't, hes put forward what we can change and why. Chris needs to stop huffing cow farts because hes clearly presumed something thats not true. Id love to see the two in the same room to get this cleared up but id be surprised if George would even want to with how hes been thrown to the wolves. Cant believe im even having to speak up for him i never heard of Chris until today. Apologies if this is a little incoherent, on mobile i find it tricky to leave longer comments but hope my point is clear. For what its worth theres still some amazing insights across this talk, thank you.

[@clivesmith9377]

Every new house must have a room for Hydroponics and solar/wind energy. All cars should be electric and cheaper. Ban all airplanes from flying. Countries should invest on Green Energy and all people should turn Vegan.

[@vfta7906]

Completely agree it’s so easy it’s painful to listen to these opinions…

[@vfta7906]

@@simonjohn6156 you don’t need child slaves any more than we need chimney sweeps or scavengers in textile mills. Child Labour is a choice of that countries government, why we do any business with countries that treat children like this just shows how awful capitalism is.

[@condal32]

Localisation not globalisation. And, break up the monopoly of the supermarkets!

[@joshl2380]

How many planets would we need to use these cows in a cycle and then "get the meat"? Its more than 3. THREE whole planets.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

Right. Regardless of how they are raised, cattle just use vastly more land and water to produce the same amount of calories and nutrients you could instead get from lower-eco-impact foods (mostly plants).

[@uhoh2825]

“My feeling is we can’t” okay but…the predictions and understanding of the technology suggest that it will be cheaper. I think there’s an argument to be made- “Telling people things will stay the exact same with the same amenities and luxuries and accessibility is dishonest and damaging”. I would make that argument! We need to do more to change the culture of capitalism. But specifically, stopping extraction and burning is a no brainer and has scientific and economic consensus.

[@LeornianCyng]

All the government need to do is build the infrastructure. All people like farmers need to not factory farm or farm meat but instead grow things like vegetables, fruits, wines, crops etc… It’s all about buying locally, sustainably, ethically, organically and economically. Reducing or stopping mass consumption will go a long way. The lockdowns helped by forcing people to cook at home, not buying things they didn’t need, growing their own food whenever they could or community gardens springing up. Air pollution in the UK alone was reduced to the lowest level in decades, so much so the air we breathed was cleaner. Now everything is worse than before than lockdown and the world is literally on fire. Just reducing consumption a little bit goes a long way.

[@GaryParris]

I think there is somewhere between Chris and Georges narratives that is the workable solution, both are right to an extent! but both have an idealised viewpoint and both are definitely worth listening to on matters of sociological aspects!

[@antbiggs6652]

Great that this conversation is happening. Time ti reverse the enclosures!

[@editing5157]

Great interview thanks. I also think the most sensible solution is a combination of both perspectives, with some caveats. I am an urban ecologist as well as a small holder in the Scottish Highlands, and try to integrate experiences of the city and countryside in my thinking and doing. Anyway, in urban contexts where populations have been artificially bouyed by fossil fuels and the abstraction from production such technologies and resources have enabled, I think they do need to pull their weight more in terms of resource generation, and while more urban farms can tick the experience of nature and production box, as well as shared community building activities, lab based processes have more production potential. On the other hand, we still need food systems that produce a range and diversity of products, and we also need people to have hands on engagement with food systems, and I think small to medium scale agriculture can be both more diversily productive than the current large-scale dominated agricultural configuration, as well as cover less territory if we focus more on essential crops first and foremost, and more wildlife friendly than it currently is. With the artificial production of protein, there is also very problematic issues on the social and economic front. Principally it can enable even more concentration of power over the means of production, and further abstraction of people from the actual productive ways the world is shaped. I need to read Regenesis, but it seems to me Monbiot's perspective also relies heavily on how such technology is deployed, and their are significant amounts of uncertainties there. Over and above all this we need to tackle the artificially high levels of consumption demand created by our fossil fuelled economy.

[@stephenlawley8776]

Very good outlook .with a very practical.

[@jasongaylard2547]

What happened in Zimbabwe when they tried to make everyone a small time farmer.

[@PeidosFTW]

Just ignoring how cows fart

[@randylahey2607]

To be honest I don't respect Chris's perspective. There is objectively a climate disaster, the climate does not care about us looking at the 'wider economic context'. The solution necessarily involves all of our lives changing dramatically and in ways that make us very uncomfortable. OR, we just keep going as normal and our economic and social systems face collapse. Personally I've got no kids, no car, savings, I'm set because I saw this coming when I was a teenager. I don't see why I should make the necessary lifestyle changes when no one else does so honestly, fix it or don't. I couldn't care less which option we pick at this point.

[@DandelionGum1]

True. What good will economic prosperity do to a world on fire?

[@davidmcdowell2888]

An expert farmer I am sure and a sincere person. But his ‘feelings’ about an energy future and renewable energy isn’t worth much.

[@coopsnz1]

Left politics is screwing over farmers outside UK green & labor

[@lat1419]

Agreed. Renewable power is an oxymoron.

[@Haforn-ng2vy]

It would be interesting to bring more about the economics of precision fermentation into this discussion and perhaps spread the debate wider than just those areas which are not experiencing agricultural collapse and desertification? If projections are correct than precision fermentation will in cost terms significantly undercut land food production for most of the staple crops - which if true will lead to a collapse in the current system? If that happens then - whilst the small holding may well continue as a life style choice - won't major food production transfer into the factory? - which would be a good thing presumably for those countries with an abundance of sun but both increasing desertification and increasing populations. ..... If I recall Monbiot's argument correctly he also states that fruit and veg farming will always be required (he waxes lyrical about the Tollhurst farm/smallholding)- it is the large industrialised livestock and bread basket enterprises which he argues need replacing and doesn't he suggest that the factory alternatives will be able to compete both economically and with a fraction of the land usage utilising solar power? As such I am not convinced that this critique of Monbiot is correct. It seems to me that the position is more and/also rather than either/or?

[@Jay...777]

I agree George can be a bit blind to small is beautiful. But eating veg & rewilding is healthy for everyone. I agree with the fact that small farms are the most productive. Experimentation with permaculture incorporating animals should be encouraged. But our meat/grain based diet is very unhealthy. Whole plant foods are a much better base for a healthy diet. Recent research on the gut biome confirms a variety of 30 veg a week is optimum. Health is a pillar of survival.

[@coopsnz1]

Why you think produce & dairy expensive globally , blame left poltics

[@ceeemm1901]

@@coopsnz1 How far left?

[@coopsnz1]

@@ceeemm1901 poltics joe communism media like novara media, they both want to abolish property rights that communism

[@commentarytalk1446]

Which research on gut biome? I think it is likely more complex picture than that.

[@Jay...777]

@@commentarytalk1446 Gut bugs that do good things for your health love to eat fibre. Fibre is only found in veg. The 30 veg is from Zoe, Tim Spector

[@spijkerpoes]

With both your and Monbiot's arguments: I still can't see the point of wanting 8 billion people. But.. .. How exactly does Chris envision the conversion to local handcrafted food production? Who is going to want to do that? In the rain in the mud, spade in hand? Deer? too many? Compare the number with UK's pigs, cows and chicken. To want to use deer as food is just ridiculous.

[@commentarytalk1446]

You're right too many people fundamentally whatever is said. At some point UN are going to have to come clean about Fertility rates in human females and how to control that reduction. It's not meant to be heard now but it is going to end up being part of the future agenda.

[@spijkerpoes]

Birthrate in Niger seems to do just fine. Agenda. An agenda. I would welcome any agenda. Anything is better than this effin chaos. We have as much agenda as bacteria in a bottle of coke.@@commentarytalk1446

[@HedgeWitch-st3yy]

Would also be good to have a programme about the people's plan for nature, produced a few years ago by a people's assembly.

[@laurahamlyn3247]

I want to see a debate between this guy and Monbiot.

[@matthewbaynham6286]

this guy has no idea what on earth he is talking about with the energy mix and just how much of the energy mix is now renewables. The UK has been replacing coal with wind and it's been doing a very good job at it.

[@michaelrch]

I know. It's honestly embarrassing how bad this channel is on environment and energy policy.

[@evolassunglasses4673]

Good job? Its been a disaster. We should of gone for Nuclear 20 years ago like the French. But the Lib Dems blocked it

[@evolassunglasses4673]

We reduced our energy use by letting international finance move our manufacturing and industrial base to China.

[@jedjones9047]

No it hasn't its pretty useless and massively subsidised with tax payers money.

[@GrowYourOwnLife]

The content I've been waiting for. Cheers, Olie. I'll stop stalking you on instagram now 😂 👍

[@NaMe-ku4cl]

I like George Monbiot 😄

[@albertbrammer9263]

Talks more sense than this pillock.

[@NaMe-ku4cl]

But since the debate against Allan Savory i think that Monbiot does not understand Climate Change entirely.

[@HedgeWitch-st3yy]

There are lots of examples of ecological grazing (roots so deep in the US) food forests (India Senegal US UK) no till farming, permaculture etc. Land in the UK is a massive problem in terms of both corporate and individual estate ownership. Tax non ecological, food production use like shooting estates - see anything about restoring land for nature and people in Scotland. High tech solutions are relatively untested and expensive to set up. Use historic knowledge and make production local as we need local food security. Also if we're going to individually produce food we need time and education - redirect jobs, changes to education and a four day week for everyone so they have time and energy to garden. Building community has to be part of it as it helps restore social structures as well as food health - see urban food forests and community gardens - we have parks, set aside a portion of them for community gardening. We do have to restore native woodland but the process needs managing. What they've discovered in the US that their 'untouched' forests were managed by the indigenous population and when they stopped that, disastrous wildfire escalated. Humans are one of the factors that moved grazing animals around the landscape allowing rest periods from grazing. More people more in touch with land, environment and food production is healthier for society. Food forests and permaculture in places like Senegal and India are restoring land, replenishing water tables, increasing food production and providing a year round living for local people on what was marginal land. Use deer and rabbits as food sources to manage their numbers and the distruction excess populations cause ecologically. We are part of the balance of nature and that's what we need to get back to.

[@lshwadchuck5643]

This whole Transition Town, Permaculture ideal has not anticipated the terrifying acceleration of the climate catastrophe that the models have failed to time accurately. Smaje's reversal of Enclosure is a very parochial way of looking at the problem. What about drought-starved South countries? Even the late great James Lovelock was saying, no more organic farming manure runoff in the streams, eat Quorn (which isn't far from eat precision fermented bacteria). In Chris's good old days pre industrialisation there weren't 60 million peasants hoeing allotments in Britain.

[@stephenwood2172]

Sounds too good to be true and unaware of any peer-reviewed scientific literature that backs up this view. Assuming the reason the view has gained traction is combination of farmers spreading misinfo and the audience's desire to hear good news about their bad habits!

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

Chris’s idea of keeping cattle is more in line with Alan Savory. One problem is that we are a highly organised society with a. a lot of mouths to feed and b. most people living in cities. The ideas of George monbiot are more in line with current practices, with changing animals by micro organisms. We probably need a combination of both! One important part of any solution must be a carbon tax, that will help to drive individual decisions to change from meat consumption to a more sustainable diet.

[@kevoreilly6557]

There are three basic factors for modern farming and the cheap cost of calories production (this is the green revolution) 1. Cheap energy (barrel of oil equivalent at the lower range, 2000 hrs work) 2. Cheap potassium and pesticides (from cheap oil) 3. Cheap water As all these change the cost of food production changes exponentially and have been in the last 2 years

[@marktaskerlyngfarm7596]

"Saying no to a Farm Free Future". Just finished reading it for the second time. It is as it says, a great polemic agin Monbiots Regenesis. Well set out, thoroughly researched and referenced, and without being cruel it offers to Monbiot, the chance to get his own hands into the soil, become part of the growing local Agrarian movement and stop whinging about how its farming as a whole thats destroying the planet. Why not read it yourselves and join the band..

[@9hawklord]

The poor would be left out of this, where will they get the money to set up farms? Live in 15 minute cities? English romanticism no, middle class fundamentalism yes.

[@albertbrammer9263]

He starts from the wrong point. Renewables can replace fossil fuels if there is a willingness. Poor people do not create the same carbon footprint of the rich, but just a small fraction. Thus we should be taxing the rich to pay for it.

[@ericajohnson3504]

Interesting about not knowing the ownership of the UK land. In Scotland all land has to be Registered every time it changes hands, including via inheritance, so it can be tracked. I think it is only if owned by a company it never gets re-registered.

[@Djordj69]

Engles has some good ideas about agriculture,and breaking down the urban rural divide.

[@peterfoster8004]

'The right to farm'? When councils have sold off their smallholdings and when social media moguls and industrialists are buying up vast tracts of land, very unlikely. The traditional family farm can indeed produce enough food as they usually make better use of the acres available than do larger units.

[@keithfoster6042]

The elephant in the room here is that the free market system and it’s marriage to capitalism is unsustainable. Permanent growth, both economic and population is folly.

[@patrick_laslett_allotment]

Input costs have massively increased - even on a small scale - a bag of blood fish and bone costs me 50% more this year than last year. How much it will cost next spring remains to be seen. The cost of farmers fertiliser has massively increased as a result of our war with Russia. Farming isn't easy in the UK no matter how you practice it.

[@flangeclamp4239]

Y' know.

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

How to talk bollocks for an entire 43 minutes without anyone noticing.

[@Tom-sf6nc]

Oli got to talk about his neo peasantry that he mentioned on the pubcast I'm so hyped

[@shaundodson7852]

I don’t know - ‘you know’

[@cardboardmusic]

It is/was a very interesting interview, but I find, I very frustrating one. It would have been good to have heard Oli Dugmore(?), pinning down Chris Smaje to more precise explanations or examples. He talked eloquently, but often didn't give an example, just more words as if he was avoiding having to make a stand on something.

[@keithfoster6042]

Access to land in the modern economy?? Oh mate access to land has been a problem since 1066 for Christ’s sake.

[@LouieJago]

Imagine a planet, on that planet the lifeforms where carbon based and everything was in some way comprised of carbon. These lifeforms needed carbon for nearly every aspect of life, even to the point where the food they ate used carbon to gain energy and in turn gave them life. BUT all of a sudden the most intelligent form of life on that planet came to the conclusion that this element was dangerous and was causing "unspeakable" damage to there way of life.. Imagine a planet like that! These lifeforms continued to slowly remove this precious element from nearly every aspect of there life's but wondered why everything started to die, there food source began to whither, all other forms of life became sick and receded, even there atmosphere become colder and inhospitable but they continued undeterred from there relentless fight against this invisible enemy.. Imagine a planet like that

[@jedjones9047]

Stop talking sense they'll cancel you' 97% of co2 is natural so they can't stop that.

[@jamieparry6420]

We need carbon but too much is dangerous, it's not complicated. We need water to live but you drown if you drink too much.

[@ceeemm1901]

Imagine a planet where all species relied on water to stay alive and the most intelligent species was treading water in the middle of Lake Victoria ....and that water drowns him.....Ever heard of context and portion size?

[@DandelionGum1]

@LouieJago Mate, what are you on. No one is disputing that all life on earth relies on carbon. But what can't sustain life is having too much of that carbon in the atmosphere. That's the problem here.

[@LouieJago]

@@DandelionGum1 We are in a carbon deficit, honestly we are. Imagine looking at a picture but only seeing one small corner, with that very small amount of knowledge of said picture you still think you know what that picture is depicting. I know that's hard to believe and it's against everything you might think is real but the data doesn't lie, but the perception in which that data has been present is a lie. Joseph Goebbels said it very well " If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" It's funny how the loudest voices are the only ones that gets heard these days, I'll get mocked for seeing the data in the way it should be interpreted. I don't mind though. Don't ask me for the data, it's all there. Just have to look at ALL the data and step back to see the BIGGER picture. The story goes back much further.

[@dermotdonnelly5495]

Ŵhy not have Monbiot and Smaje on together?

[@DeanJuvenal]

Why isn’t Mr Smaje the subject of a Wikipedia page or two? All I can find are sycophantic reviews of his publications or self-penned articles praising his own work.

[@wildmatters8578]

I find his position really vague and more based on personal experience than on data.

[@deancostello14]

Whilst I think he has good ideas, I think this sort of thinking is wholly unrealistic still from a global perspective. I'm sure it will help if more people are doing their own food growing but it's not the ultimate solution. I'm not sure China could go back to supporting a billion people with their rural way of China pre-Mao, same with India.

[@noahsark2009]

I think you're distorting george Monbiot's book. He has long chapters on farming truly ecologically. He is, though, trying to move beyond meat.

[@richardallan2767]

Wicked talk. That's the thing: We think we are somehow above nature and beings of pure thought, but we still seem to be driven entirely by the need to use all available resources and expand into the environment like the rest or organic life. We need to get we are potentially both, because at he moment we aren't doing a good job of either being natural, or rational.

[@GarethReecewood]

I just wish he'd said "you know" more, you know

[@nazeerahmedsonday5071]

15k views in 4 months of Monbiot vs 19k views in just 8 days with Chris tells a story just saying.

[@keycuz]

Stand up noble diggers. Looking more like the obesity crisis will be solved in a couple decades, when we start eating each other.

[@lat1419]

Polycrisis is a term first used at Davis last year. Strange how its now on the tip of tongues.

[@lat1419]

@dondoodat I had, but it has been given a whole new lease of life after being the topic of a major theme at WEF Davos last year. An even darker meaning.

[@dragonfyahh4457]

if we don't address climate change and do it now (actually 40 years ago ffs)... he won't even have a farm... and the rest of us won't have any food... doh...

[@warrenwood3212]

I love what you are talking about , and think this is where we are going. But we have artificially increased our population through fossil fuel, nitrogen use tractors etc. If we don’t use all tools, yours and Monbiots then some serious social problems will overrun a democratic system.

[@danielthacker7785]

Unfortunately George does not do debate very well. His way or the highway or in the case of X he just blocks you which is sad

[@ricardoarevalo6369]

Yiel per acre is false,it has to be nutrition per acre because high yield crops lose 60% nutrition value. When 30% of the food goes to the trash, do we really need to produce more?

[@DeanJuvenal]

Gosh, is that really him? Not the photo image of a MUCH younger chap on his self-promoting websites.

[@Czechbound]

Farming in Europe has been unprofitable for decades. It's only subsidies that make it pay. So too much food is being produced. Reducing food production will free up land for housing (no, green fields aren't a god given right ); higher prices and lower production levels will provide a living wage to farmers, reduce the power of supermarkets, and allow food subsidies to be recycled into lower taxes for the poorest. Building compact vertical towns with good public transport will reduce the use of fossil fuels too. Here in Czech Republic it's not unusual to see apartment block developments built tightly around market towns. Makes them "10-15 minute" towns. Smaller town footprints = more space for leisure activities. Tax the hell out of inheritance to break up large estates and free up even more land for development. The country is crying out for houses. Houses in the UK, not on the moon. So either demolish swathes of suburban 2 storey houses of no architectural merit and build upwards, or build upwards on new ground. Either way, building up is the only way the deficit in housing will be filled.

[@chadimirputin2282]

First it's "eat ze bugz" Then comes "soylent green"

[@dragonfyahh4457]

you can tell this man is a sociologist at heart... pointless

[@mikethepigeonwhisperer]

I think Chris isn't a podcast natural and his arguments came across a bit weaker as a result, but I'm willing to read his books and see if there's value, he seems like a friendly guy. He definitely didn't counter Monbiot's key points though, if everyone farms their own plots you end up with beaches and mountains being the only thing left for everything else. It's a complex issue but looking to older/arcane farming methods is a very middle class fantasy, you can't support a global population with those ideals without considering degrowth and population reduction, then you slip into precarious and controversial territory. Even localism requires tech and modern ideas to make feasible. I like Chris, but I disagree with him based on this interview. Also Oli came across a bit upper class hunting party haha stay away from my local deer you bloodthirsty carnists 😂

[@commentarytalk1446]

Monbiot's camp can live in megacities and eat gloop made in labs. Most people will choose this. Smaje's camp can live out in the sticks like peasants. Few people will choose this. The main question is choice however. But you're right: Above all depopulation is needed along with reduction in resource use. UK would decline in population without Mass Immigration policy via the UN for the past 25 years... +10m.

[@tonywebster5768]

I heard permaculture plus pol pot. Internet what Internet.

[@davephillips1987]

george monbiot is delusional

[@sabaidaniel555]

At 33,13 he admits to being a "haughty culturalist". Why then should I believe a word he says?

[@theanimaticalmanac]

That's "horticulturist" basically a gardener.

[@sabaidaniel555]

@@theanimaticalmanac yeah. I dun a dadjoke 🙂

[@johnfalkenstine8377]

Is this fellow a farmer?

[@LimeyRedneck]

🤠💚

[@andyheavyside]

Another great interview guys. Keep it up. Smashing it.

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

A return to peasantry and regular European famines - yay

[@tomfrancis7920]

Sadly we are returning to peasantry one way or the other with the increasing wealth gap and lack of supply chain control at a local level

[@cybergornstartrooper2157]

@@tomfrancis7920 agreed I can well see us heading to a future of indentured servitude. However what this guy is talking about is Maoism dressed up in fancy Ecco nonsense - 55 million people died of starvation due to Mao’s “great leap forward”

[@JJ-zg1hh]

Could the two models not coexist?

[@nazeerahmedsonday5071]

Chris is right. What we need to do is de urbanise, move back on to the land because really cities are a huge vector for CO2 emissions, unemployment, urban hunger, poverty and ecological unsustainability. In the past the global north could 'export' poverty to colonise the global south. Today that's not possible and the reverse is happening and is a political nightmare. Part of the solution is to change farming from commodities to real food, local production for local production, protect and encourage through policy, peri-urban small scale farming, invest in land reform to get people to return to the land in the rural, and peri urban areas and invest in rural economies, and change farming from industrial to agroecology or regenerative farming. Monbiot wants the world to eat factory food. Its just more of the same made worse- industrial farming on steroids. There is no one magic silver bullet to address the ecological crises. It will take like Chris says us experimenting with many local solutions. Many countries and cities are doing just that- trying to address the polycrises in many different ways. Melbourne, Auatralia is trying to protect the city's food bowl. Rosario, Argentina is focusing on securing as much food from its urban and peri urban areas as possible. Belo Horizonte is making the right to food a key objective to address food insecurity among its poor citizens, etc, etc. In the Philippi Horticultural Area activists are battling developers and government to protect land that is feeding the city of Cape Town, ZA for local production for local consumption, smart land reform, smallholder agroecological farming and combat climate change.

[@stevenmarkhansen]

this guy does seem bit smart yet knot one word bout 2 B V gan d'Oh❣

[@MichaelDowds1986]

What are the bets Chris voted ‘Leave’…

[@bobbobbing4381]

I tend to agree with Chris's criticisms of George's position. I think Chris has a more nuanced understanding of the role of the human on this planet and which does not artificially separate us out of 'nature.' We are also a part of 'nature' and human the gardener, the steward and custodian of the 'wild', is more in keeping with what we are as a species or, more specifically, should return to being.

[@ferret9800]

It's quite simple, no farms, no food!