Why is George Monbiot SUCH AN IDIOT?

I think Prince Charles's idea of the countryside is obviously ludicrously false, but that doesn't make me support GM foods. Most of those who destroy GM crops are *not* upper-class or right-wing, and fall way outside what I call "the Robin Page lobby".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/14/climate-change-battle-redefine-humanity

jesus h. christ.

Blimey

He's not as good a rhetorician as he likes to think, eh?

We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.

...

I been reading Vaneigem a lot lately he's much better and funnier at the big gesture statements.

BTW, a propos of what shd probably be a new thread, does it make any sense to talk of a "Green movement" in the 09? (Instinctive answer - not really except to define a bunch of existing but already anachronistic and kinda stupid interests) and more importantly does "Green politics" desperately need some clear-thinking and rigorous theoreticians (e.g. its own Marx all obvious caveats about Marx aside.)

Read that this morning and writing aside (I dream of aurochs, wtf?), I didn't think it was a bad analysis.

"He's the Universal Ape and he really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from here and there and you and me
And brothers can't you see
This is not the way we put the end to war"

I didn't think it was a bad analysis

I think the biggest non-stylistic problem I have with it is that Monbiot casts Copenhagen as this tremendous ideological struggle without any discussion or understanding of the real state of politics in the world now and the realpolitik that is the only deciding factor in an event like Copenhagen.

I think his POV is that this issue is transcends all of that and whether or not you accept the science, and are prepared to act on it, is a basic ideological stance.

Not as bad as this:

This afternoon I sobbed for an hour, and I’m still choking a little. I got to Copenhagen’s main Lutheran Cathedral just before the start of a special service designed to mark the conference underway for the next week. It was jammed, but I squeezed into a chair near the corner. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, gave the sermon; Desmond Tutu read the Psalm. Both were wonderful.

But my tears started before anyone said a word. As the service started, dozens choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa. As I watched them go by, all I could think of was the people I’ve met in the last couple of years traveling the world: the people living in the valleys where those glaciers are disappearing, and the people downstream who have no backup plan for where their water is going to come from. The people who live on the islands surrounded by that coral, who depend on the reefs for the fish they eat, and to protect their homes from the waves. And the people, on every corner of the world, dealing with drought and flood, already unable to earn their daily bread in the places where their ancestors farmed for generations.

Those damned shriveled ears of corn.

Possible challops: is it so bad that Monbiot and Johann Hari are basically spending half their newsprint allotments attempting to write the perfect climate-change call-to-arms? At least it's a worthy cause.

How not to go about it though

Well, it's overwritten, but at least it's there. He has a point, even if he is hyperrealising and overdramatising a 'battle' which is actually a whole load of grey areas.

Let's face it, the more people roused, the better! Skeptical as I am about broadsheet journalism, I can't see that article not pushing a few earnest folks in the right direction.

Anyway, if you want batshit, here's a comment:

EvilTory

14 Dec 2009, 8:18PM

Not buying it George, sorry.

Even if the whole AGW thesis is correct, we still need to expand; we need to get off this tiny little world and out into the wider universe. It's the stars, George; it always has been, ever since we pulled ourselves out of the primordial gloop and looked with wonder at the night sky. Go out past the cities to where there's no light pollution and look up at our real neighbourhood.

And if it takes the resources of the planet to get us out there, so be it. However we use them, however we utilise the energy of the sun and the mineral wealth of this world and the others of our planetary system, either we do use them to expand and explore other worlds, and become something greater than a mud-grubbing semi-sentient animal, or we die as a species.

The 'green' way, your way, we contract into obscurity, desperately hanging on to the few gems of a dwindling hoard. Or we can use the resources we have to develop the ability to go out and look for more. I don't think the greens want us to do that; I think the greens don't actually like humanity and would rather deny that basic insatiable curiosity that makes us human.

Just my opinion.

'Just my opinion' = madchallop insanity enclosed within

IMO when the Earth dies, humanity must die with it; there's no redemptive arc involving space which I'm prepared to buy

(and actually, it kinda IS a battle, albeit one that isn't fought on the same lines as myself and my fellow climate protestors wish it was)

"when the Earth dies"

um dude this *is* bats.

becomes difficult to inhabit for humans != dies

OTM

Rhetorical license? I'm not saying this is happening for a few millennia, btw. I just mean that when (and it's a when) the earth becomes uninhabitable, inorganic, whatever, that I don't like the idea of a chosen few blasting off and perishing somewhere en route to Proxima Centauri; it's kinda lame

this point (of the earth 'dying') is not directly related to the current climate issue, whose victims will not be universal

Here's Monbiot again in the comments stream, making a good point about overpopulation even while handwringing:

So why does such a large congregation of no ones keep banging on about this issue? Well I can't help noticing that at least nine out of ten of them are post-reproductive, middle-class white men. They come from a group which is, in other words, more responsible for environmental destruction than any other class in history. Their consumption of just about every known resource outweighs that of most of the world's people put together. There's just one major issue for which they aren't to blame: current increases in population. And ? wouldya believe it? ? this is the one they want to talk about.

I think nine out of ten people commenting on Guardian blogs are from that demographic but hey that's a fair shout

Also, there's different grades of batshit. Mine or Monbiot's might be a rhetorical error, but then there's the plutonium:

ClimateCommunion

14 Dec 2009, 9:05PM

This whole climate thing seems to me to be about competition.

The West has China, India and Brazil on it's heels. I see no reason to give them any more of an advantage than they already have. They want to be richer than us, more powerful than us. They want to run the world.

Only a fool would think otherwise. I want the West to dominate them in every way. I would rather have 400 McDonalds on every corner than to have some Chinaman, indian, or power hungry Brazilian dictating anything to us.

Monbiot can redefine humanity all he wants, but the world is a competitive place.

I have no reason at all to think that any of those countries want to 'work together'. They feel they have been under western domination for too long, and this is there big chance to make us pay...and its genius.

Giving them, what they want is George Monbiot and others, whose tax brackets immunize them from the problems we witness today. If the financial crisis gets any worse, the aristocrats will just jet off to another country anyway, or remove their financial interests from the UK, and we'll be left here to deal with it.

We need to defend Western interests, and I'm sorry but that means that multiculturalism gets the gas face. We need to tell these countries 'no way'.

Get real, this is about our survival as the West.

O_O

Post-reproductive? LOL

oh shit there's like 900 comments, do I read them

Not if you want to retain your sanity.

oh shit there's like 900 comments, do I read them

― dyaaaow (acoleuthic), Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:52 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark

my advice to to you is to do what your parents did. get a job, sir!

i only wish that were possible...my MA course director might be a bit put out if i did (we're supposed to treat it as a full-time job anyway! the holiday has now begun, however)

There's just one major issue for which they aren't to blame: current increases in population. And ? wouldya believe it? ? this is the one they want to talk about.

I didn't think anything could make me like this guy, but this does.

that post does kinda bring it megahard

reading guardian comment logs is always, always a waste of time, , like bbc hys, it is a magnet for green ink weilding mentalists.

I generally find monbiot sort of interesting and agree with him on a lot of things, but todays article was unreadable.

I don't like the idea of a chosen few blasting off and perishing somewhere en route to Proxima Centauri; it's kinda lame

your rhetoric & outlook on this is weird and kind of small and depressing to me.

well if we are forced to leave the planet then we have to accept whatever happens. when then last remaining humans are spinning off into outer space without a solitary hope of landed survival, it'll be quite sad. maybe there should be a film of this. maybe there already has. oh wait silent running amirite

the comments for this monbiot = bottomless pit of o_O

There are other possibilities i.e. space exploration needn't be desperate scramble for new home, in fact that scenario is one of the least likely and workable I'd've thought.

when the sun expands, move to mars!

when the sun shrinks again, move to mercury! oh wait mercury was swallowed by the sun

and we'll all have evolved into time-travelling wildebeest by then anyway

lol at me saying this but continuing and expanding human culture is a good and worthwhile enterprise I think, maybe one of the only good and worthwhile enterprises we are capable of. Going gentle into that good night as a species is a sucky option imo

my own stance is that we must be allowed to further technology, culture, communication &c but it SHOULD be possible to do this with a much lower energy demand; my only material wants in life REALLY are musical instruments, laptop and internet connection; i don't see why people ought to want much more. with the internet, and with electronic technology, so much is possible. human culture will be mingled, expanded, furthered for sure. we will harness fusion, solar energy, wind. electronic cars! good ones! electronic motherfucking AIRCRAFT! this is the future as i see it, but until then we've gotta stop things getting out of hand. culture has already furthered itself so much in manners that do not require enormous amounts of energy, and must continue to do so. this is a political issue and it concerns the way in which unnecessary, gluttonous cultural tropes are marketed and engineered for our 'benefit'. imo socialism is necessary anyway but a sort of technological, educated socialism where individuality and liberation are still paramount. if i'm talking in oxymorons plz tell me to stfu

you are and you aren't

i kind of envy yr... optimism?

kinf of.

otoh i don't share your pessimism.

xpost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQvGRpCG5gs

I have no great hopes for strict-definition Socialism. But there are no unfettered free markets now anyway, and I can't see how even a belief in laissez-faire will survive in an era of dwindling resources.

Attempts to tell people what they ought to want from life are always doomed to failure I think.

Of course I believe we should sort our shit out on this planet - more equitably distribute the world's resources, more equitably distribute people's self-determination, more equitably distribute happiness really. I also think as a species or as creatures we need over-arching goals, a sense that we're working to some kind of purpose. All that needs to happen all at once, all the time, everywhere. But to make any of that happen I think you have to allow yourself no assumptions that human nature will become radically different or that deus ex machina will happen. The only rational way to think about any political goal is - how do we get there from where we are now, given people as they are now?

a wage-cap of £100,000 a year, haha!

contraception, healthcare and infrastructure in 3rd-world states. 'green' energy in 3rd-world and 1st-world states. massive-scale solar-energy developments. mechanisation of jobs leading to a great increase in the number of adults employed in an entirely revamped 'social services'.

there's more.

why am i still reading this comments thread

fuck it, blast them all into space, i can't stand it any more

he does open himself up for a tidal wave of comments when he writes stuff like this (from a Nov 30th guardian piece):

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party. So amazingly destructive has Canada become, and so insistent have my Canadian friends been that I weigh into this fight, that I've broken my self-imposed ban on flying and come to Toronto.

The last sentence is particularly pompous.

All goodwill now revoked.

"may we live long and die out"

This is also amazing:

By the year 2500, Alaska could be home to millions of climate refugees from the Lower 48 and Central and South America who will have migrated north, seeking safe harbor from the devastating impact of global warming in those future times.

Many parts of the Alaska coastline will be under water, and Juneau will find itself home to new kinds of visitors from the Lower 48 and beyond. They won't be coming on cruise ships or airplanes, since there will be no fuel for such services. They will be coming by road, on foot and bicycle. Prepare yourselves.

we should have sufficient supplies of unobtanium by then to make things right.

Prepare yourselves. Only have 500 years until Alaska is invaded by climate refugees.

When he changes his mind about something, he really changes his mind...
. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

cdn't read, too aspie

tactically speaking, id wait for this whole 'japan situation' to blow over before committing myself to a position on nuclear

he strikes me as a total lunatic.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week
I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week
I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week

i dont think ive read anything by him since about 2006 btw

tactically speaking, id wait for this whole 'japan situation' to blow over before committing myself to a position on nuclear

um... I'm really hoping it doesn't.

http://www.toimg.net/managed/images/10159553/w482/h298/image.jpg

^ that's the promo shot for something called "George Monbiot's Left Hook", which is a bit daft cos that's his right he's about to swing.

For tonight's main event, will you please welcome In the red corner, the Guardian newspaper's unbeaten intellectual heavyweight champion of free speech, one of the UK's foremost thinkers and environmentalists, and polemicist supreme 'GENTLEMAN' GEORGE MONBIOT.

The gloves are off for a barnstorming evening of topical debate in which our man Monbiot selects a hot topic for his first half lecture and then invites members of the audience to contest this with him. In the second half, he throws down the gauntlet to all comers and will take any subject from A to Z as the audience pit their wits against him in bouts of verbal fisticuffs.

The real reason is that Monbiot spent a couple years actually calculating what was necessary to reduce Britain's greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2030 (just a little faster than the pace neccessary to avert runaway feedbacks). With maximal deployment of conservation and renewables, a modern nation still needs baseload generation, and that's either carbon capture and sequestration on fossil plants (unproven, as yet) or more nuclear.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dsoonnmHL._SS500_.jpg

Sea level rise is about the least of our worries in a runaway greenhouse. The more people aware of what the real worst case scenario is (see anoxic event for example), the more trivial present day risks taken to avert it will seem.

yeah, with you there, I've come round to the idea that increasing nuclear power in the short to medium term is about the only way to have a chance at reducing climate damage realistically

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist

i haven't actually read this but it seems mostly otm from the standfirst

except i don't think the hard-done-by taxpayers of great britain have chipped in too much for my research chiz chiz

it's not even just that academic publishers charge people lots of money to read their generally poorly written and frequently shitty research (im talking humanities here obvi), more that they don't pay the writers a dime -- hence the shittiness

this is indeed OTM, though I don't think claiming breaches of human rights is necessarily the best way to advance open access.

As someone who's job it is to advocate for OA, it's one of the best things to happen professionally on that front for a v long time.

The other day I misheard my friend who I thought was talking about "George Mongo"

ya, v otm. the journal issue hasn't been such a problem for me and people i know because we're academically scattered around so it's usually easy enough to find someone who has access to an article (though obviously if you're not ~connected~ then you are ~buggered~) but i'm regularly outraged by the price of newly published books. i'm sure it'll be a glorious day when i can afford to buy someone's polished-up phd thesis for £80, but i'm not there quiiite yet.