I know sod all about agricultural economics and food security, maybe I'll badger my missus in the morning but...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/europe-bung-landowners-farm-subsidies
Doesn't George Monbiot's argument for unsubsidised farming smack a little of "shooting oneself in the foot" considering we would then have to import more food and pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. Unless that is, the cut in food production didn't cause household food prices to rise above what each household contributes to farmers in tax?
In short, is George a bigger idiot than I could possibly fathom?
Well he does write for the guardian......
Subsidies are bad in general but then again farming doesn't exactly make much money as people don't want to pay what it costs to produce. The eu puts a huge amount of regulation and standards on farmers that the rest of the world doesn't bother with. We cant tax imports heavily to protect European farmers so it's rock and hard place time.
Some of the largest land owners are also some of the richest but most don't farm their land ifs rented out to small farmers who collect the subsidy.
It's not a simple argument and there is no simple solution. The UK continues to have some of the highest welfare and production standards in the world for food but that comes at a cost. I have met more poor than rich farmers in my life. I've yet to come across a lazy one.
if you look at his 'views' over a long period, they are all over the place, that means he either is receptive of different thinking,or a complete incompetent that blows with the wind.
...you decide.. 😆
I have met more poor than rich farmers in my life. I've yet to come across a lazy one.
...... or a satisfied one
I read to this point...
The single payment scheme, which accounts for most of the money, is an award for owning land. The more you own, the more you receive.
Which is wrong, there's far more in the assessment than just the amount of land owned. So he's either knowingly lying or he got so outraged he forgot to do his research.
Read a bit more and found some more bollox..
All over Europe essential wildlife habitats are destroyed – often on agriculturally worthless land – simply to expand the area eligible for subsidies.
They don't have set-a-side land as whole fields like before but instead they now get payments for countryside stewardship schemes. So again the opposite of what Monbiot claims.
truth is he doesn't really do his research-- whether its deliberate or incompetent it amounts to the same thing-- he should write about stuff he knows,like middle-class angst.
George Monbiot is a clown. As a Guardian Reader I regularly roll my eyes while reading his columns.
He's just a leftie version of Richard Littlejohn, or a London cabbie
It seems to me that he reaches a conclusion in his own head, based on his Islington-centric, right-on world-view, and pretty much nothing in the way of actual information. Then he works backwards to make the evidence fit this foregone conclusion, casually discarding anything that contradicts this worldview.
That's why he got into trouble for tweeting unfounded accusations about potential child-abusers. In his mind it was true because [i]he wanted[/i] it to be true. And that seems like evidence enough. Yet in his mind this certainly wouldn't put him in the same frame as populist oiks like Phillip Scholfield. Well guess what George? It does!
bit harsh on cabbies 😯
So all in all Monbiot is a 100 percent ****badger of the highest order then? Would we have to import more food and therefore pollute more if we cut the subsidies?
Not read the article cos it's by Monbiot and he's probably just tetchy cos his twee little small holding didn't get a handout, but IIRC the carbon footprint of Western farmers is so large that importing stuff still causes less pollution - whether that's justification for doing so is another matter.
Fair point rudebwoy. I'll retract that 😉
George Monbiot is a clown. As a Guardian Reader I regularly roll my eyes while reading his columns.He's just a leftie version of Richard Littlejohn, or a London cabbie
+1
I'd pay an extra 10p a copy not to have to read him or Polly Toynebe (or whatever she's called).
I actually always wanted to live in the country that Polly Toynbee had been living in from 1997, through to CMD getting elected. From reading her columns, it sounded absolutely ****ing brilliant! A proper socialist Nirvana!
Unfortunately it must have been in a foreign far-off land, as it bore absolutely sod all resemblance to the nation I was saddled with inhabiting 😥
Subsidies as a rule distort thinking, same way the tax does.
For every 'idea' that a Govt/EU thinks of and decides that a subsidy is needed to achieve its 'goal', somebody somewhere will work out there is cash to be made by working in a certain way.
For example there is a sign next to our house pointing across a field, its says 'xxx Hills' (we live in Scotland BTW, so open-access). The way pointed has never been a path/route to get to 'xxx Hills' but the local landowner saw a chance to receive a payment for opening up 'new' walking routes...
And its not a way you'd choose to go.
On a larger scale, this applies to everything from wind turbines through to housing benefit - and all Govts do it, so a bit rich ours pointing at the EU.
Monbiot frequently talks sense & does listen to evidence, hence his changed opinions on windfarms (now neutral / against) & nuclear power (now pro). At least he had the guts to apologise to McAlpine immediately, no hanging about.
[i]All over Europe essential wildlife habitats are destroyed – often on agriculturally worthless land – simply to expand the area eligible for subsidies.
They don't have set-a-side land as whole fields like before but instead they now get payments for countryside stewardship schemes. So again the opposite of what Monbiot claims. [/i]
He's right. In many cases planting the right crop on previously untilled land can get good subsidies. Stewarship is something different again.
In short, is George a bigger idiot than I could possibly fathom?
Charlie Windsor thinks highly of him...
Not read the article cos it's by Monbiot and he's probably just tetchy cos his twee little small holding didn't get a handout, but IIRC the carbon footprint of Western farmers is so large that importing stuff still causes less pollution - whether that's justification for doing so is another matter.
Expand on this. Where's the evidence? Arable farming in South America and Asia is often leading to vast swathes of tree's being destroyed, then those farmers move onto the next patch as they're unable to keep the soil fertile.
If European food production plummeted it would be offset by increased food production in countries that still have plenty of land not used for agriculture such as Brazil. This could perhaps lead to further desertification, habitat loss and a decrease in the amount of carbon capturing trees. Is it not better to intensively farm land that has already been changed beyond recognition?
At least he had the [s]guts[/s] financial acumen to apologise to McAlpine immediately, no hanging about.
FTFY
Expand on this. Where's the evidence?
See -> IIRC
They don't have set-a-side land as whole fields like before but instead they now get payments for countryside stewardship schemes. So again the opposite of what Monbiot claims.
I think it's changed a few times, it used to be that they could claim for a few meters round the edge of fields (easy for the farmers as hedges are rarely straight and have tres in them but it's easier to plough/plant in straight lines) which was usefull as it allowed wildlife to travel between wooded areas. IIRC that's now stopped so farmers plough right upto the edge.
Surely the farming standards argument is a none starter, just ban the import of anythign that doesnt meet the local standard (c.f. German DIN and birtish BS standards becoming the EU standards almost by default).
Monbiot is right. The CAP is a mess, which encourages overproduction, and the dumping of subsidised produce on developing countries, with the result that their farmers struggle much more than they need to. Then we need to supply them with emergency aid.
Those of you who think that farming subsidies should remain would do well to look at the New Zealand experience. They removed all their subsidies some years ago, and after short-term pain, they are now much more productive, to the point of being self-sufficient in food.
It seems to me that he reaches a conclusion in his own head, based on his Islington-centric, right-on world-view, and pretty much nothing in the way of actual information.
He lives in rural Wales.
Having just read the article - and dear god, it pains me to say this - I think on this occasion he's right. There. I've said it. 😥
He lives in rural Wales.
Not really the point though, is it? I could move to Benidorm. It wouldn't make me a Spanish waiter. His opinions are pure Islington Guardianista
Not really the point though, is it? I could move to Benidorm. It wouldn't make me a Spanish waiter. His opinions are pure Islington Guardianista
If you want to be a Spanish waiter, move to Stamford Bridge...
Whether you think Monbiot's right or wrong, if you look at how he lives his life, he's the very opposite of what you claim.
Except that living in rural Wales is less environmentally friendly than living in a city.....so yes, he's a hypocritical champagne socialist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jun/30/sustainable-cities-urban-planning
The environmental consequences depend on where you are. In the rich nations, urban living tends to have smaller impacts than rural living. Public transport requires a certain population density to be economically viable: otherwise people are forced to use their cars. The more widely distributed people are, the greater the resources required to provide their services. Most of the houses which, being off the gas grid, still use coal or heating oil in the UK are in the countryside.
ARRRHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
Here's a nice comment I'm going to quote as I'm feeling lazy.
If everyone moved from cities to the countryside, it would likely trigger an environmental crisis as there just wouldn't be enough land to go round for everyone to live the "good life". So this question must also raise wider issues of equity about the ownership and availability of land and other natural resources.
Except that living in rural Wales is less environmentally friendly than living in a city.....so yes, he's a hypocritical champagne socialist.
Except that a) cities can't exist without countryside and b) you've no idea how he lives his life. Why not find out, and tell us what you think? Or you could carry on with silly knee-jerk labelling.
monbiot is a muppet but he does have some good points here
surprisingly on many levels!
for a start ending eu subsidies is very much a telegraph rant
i suppose his equivalent over there would be dellingpole, now he is a ****
xcept that a) cities can't exist without countryside and b) you've no idea how he lives his life. Why not find out, and tell us what you think? Or you could carry on with silly knee-jerk labelling.
He's going to have to drive to get anywhere right? Or does he lock himself in a dark room all day everyday to write his articles and procrasterbate a bit? Even if he owns a Prius he's still going to pollute a sod load to get anywhere compared to a city dweller.
He's an elitist who's into green issues because he probably doesn't like being surrounded by people and their dirty noise and pollution. In other words, it's not about the planet it's about his quality of life.
And yes, I find it hilarious to character assassinate George Monbiot for a variety of reasons.
Even if he owns a Prius he's still going to pollute a sod load to get anywhere compared to a city dweller.
maybe he cycles
though here he is arguing your point!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/jun/30/sustainable-cities-urban-planning <
Maybe he flouts on a big cloud of moral outrage
*Typo returned for Kinmbers*
is flouting a combination of flouncing and floating?
edit
hey put your typo back
maybe he cycles
Yes because in rural wales you can totally cycle everywhere to do your weekly shop or take the children to school or or.....etc ad nauseum.
Even if he owns a Prius he's still going to pollute a sod load to get anywhere compared to a city dweller.
Aye he should own a chelsea tractor in that there London then drive that to the countryside each week
Have you some data or are we just going on your hunches?
It's clear that neither binners or bwaarp have bothered to do the most cursory checks about Monbiot, and parade a great deal of ignorance about environmental issues. A pity, because there was an interesting discussion to be had here.
Aye he should own a chelsea tractor in that there London then drive that to the countryside each week
Have you some data or are we just going on your hunches?
At least you have the option of decent public transport in London. It's not as if anyone else has bothered to post any data yet to defend Monbiots claims 😛
I actually always wanted to live in the country that Polly Toynbee had been living in from 1997, through to CMD getting elected. From reading her columns, it sounded absolutely ****ing brilliant! A proper socialist Nirvana!Unfortunately it must have been in a foreign far-off land, as it bore absolutely sod all resemblance to the nation I was saddled with inhabiting
she lives in Italy IIRC, she just comes back for the TV appearances to fund her lifestyle as a multi property owning millionaire
you've no idea how he lives his life
He bangs on about it enough in his articles so I'm pretty sure we all do.
Why does thinking George Monbiot is a self-righteous, self-serving twonk make me ignorant of environmental issues?
Nuclear power is the root of all evil, and I shall rail against it. Until I change my mind completely, and hereby herald it as the solution to our problems and the future of energy
Wind power is the solution to our energy problems and the future of energy. Until I change my mind completely, and hereby herald it as the root of all evil, and I shall rail against it.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
he lives near CAT in machynleth , artists valley nearby, strong smell of patchouli in the district...
Those of you who think that farming subsidies should remain would do well to look at the New Zealand experience. They removed all their subsidies some years ago, and after short-term pain, they are now much more productive, to the point of being self-sufficient in food.
NZ and the UK are very different places. NZ has a population half that of London and is an island in the middle of nowhere with a land mass slightly larger than the UK. It's not part of a massive trade organisation like the EU and can do what it wants.
Surely the farming standards argument is a none starter, just ban the import of anythign that doesnt meet the local standard (c.f. German DIN and birtish BS standards becoming the EU standards almost by default).
You would think so but we don't. The traceability of British food is all there. It's not there elsewhere. It's not a comparable playing field.
FWIW CAT near Machynleth is not rural Wales it's an annex of Islington held in it's own special bubble of self righteousness.
I have promised myself that should I ever meet him I shall punch him quite hard in the face with the intention of breaking his nose.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
LOL Grum - I think that is AKA an internet forum....
It did start with an attack on the article, strange use of information and lack of point then used his "Previous" to establish that he may be lacking in suitable credibility.
This isn't an online version of the Oxford Union or a forum version of Nature.
Or should we all start Harvard referencing and spoil basically what is a bit of banter.
I wouldn't mind it if someone posted some good articles that back up Monbiot but I have a feeling that instead of totally abolishing farming subsidies perhaps they just need some reform.
It's mostly not ad hom... Ad hom would be "He is a cock. Therefore his argument is invalid". But this thread is mainly just focusing on the "he is a cock" part and not worrying itself too much about his argument.
He IS a cock.