The Ideological Bubble of

George Monbiot

Part 2 of 6:

Health & The Environment -

2017 Articles

Part 1 of 6: Health & The Environment - 2016 Articles

Part 2 of 6: Health & The Environment - 2017 Articles

Part 3 of 6: Health & The Environment - 2018 Articles

Part 4 of 6: Politcs, Culture & Society - 2016 Articles

Part 5 of 6: Politcs, Culture & Society - 2017 Articles

Part 6 of 6: Politcs, Culture & Society - 2018 Articles

 

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: November 27, 2018

Image Copyright belongs to Getty Images/Barcroft Media

 

*All parties receive one full day (24 hours) of pre-publication notice.

 

In a May 2017 article, Guardian writers talk about one major policy they would include in their manifesto to make the UK a better place. And for Monbiot that mean cycling. Yes, of all the things to choose from, Monbiot believes that safer roads for cycling will make the world a better place. [1]

 

 Sigh.

 

And liberals wonder why people don't want them in power.

 

In a July article, Monbiot decries the global corporate fast food industry and animal agriculture in general. [2] Fair enough. But despite antibiotics used in the meat industry, many people continue to eat a variety of meats and are still healthy. Why? Because a healthy body is quite capable of getting rid of pesticides and compounds that are toxic to it. The problem is that most people aren’t healthy. My solution is natural health and radical dualism (see Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media and Part V: Naturally Unhealthy Big Gov't, Big Ag, Big Industry).

 

In an August article, Monbiot again laments the invention of cars due to clogged roads. [3] Maybe he would change his mind if cars can fly and the infrastructure is like the capital in the Star Wars movies.

 

Interestingly enough, Monbiot mentions the support that the auto industry receives from media outlets. And that's a good point. Even with declining readership, many mainstream newspapers across the world rely on automotive industry ads.

 

In a request for comment, I ask Monbiot:

2. Would you support an advertising ban for gas/diesel cars by major newspapers around the world that claim to support the fight against climate change? In regards to climate change, do you believe that it’s ethical for journalists to receive pay from a media outlet that takes money from the gas/diesel automotive industry?

He doesn't respond.

 

I believe that it's disingenuous for anyone to drive a gas car while claiming to support the fight against climate change. Many liberal media outlets claim to support climate change, so why do they continue to run gas/diesel car ads?

 

In a request for comment, I ask various newspapers:

1. Does your newspaper run print or online advertisements for gas/diesel cars? If so, what is the average annual revenue from those ads? And if so, do you believe that it’s hypocritical for a media outlet to accept money for gas/diesel advertisements while claiming to fight climate change?

 

New York Times:

"Our advertising policies are available here. Advertising revenue is disclosed in our quarterly earnings reports.

Is there a specific ad you are inquiring about?"

 

Umm...what? You didn't answer the damn question. The first part is a yes/no question. I don't know if there are gas/diesel car ads in the New York Times. That's why I'm asking. I couldn't even get a straight answer to whether there are car ads or not.  And their online policy doesn't mention anything about gas/diesel car ads.

 

F*ck sakes.

Even if there were car ads, I didn't expect to be given the actual revenue amount. But I wanted to know what they would have said. I did NOT ask for the total advertising revenue.

 

And they couldn't bother to answer the third part of the question.

 

Either the New York Times has no gas/diesel car ads in their newspaper/online and have incompetent people on their staff. Or...they have car advertisements in their paper and are being evasive about the issue because it would be hypocritical while claiming to support the fight against climate change.

 

Washington Post:

They don't respond.

 

Los Angeles Times:

They don't respond.

 

Guardian:

"The acceptance of advertising from any organisation in no way affects or reflects our editorial position. We are free to, and often do, challenge the activities of companies and organisations that are also our advertisers and sponsors."

 

Umm...again, that doesn't answer the yes/no question. Again, I honestly don't know if there are gas/diesel car ads. A simple yes or no would suffice. I feel that their answer is evasive and that there are gas/diesel car ads in their newspaper/online.

 

I believe that the Guardian is trying to say that they do take money from gas/diesel car companies but it doesn’t affect their criticism of the gas/diesel car industry. That's nice, but that's not what I asked.

 

While I usually expect conservative and alternative media outlets to be evasive in their answers, I'm honestly surprised in getting it from mainstream liberal media outlets that claim to support the fight against climate change.

 

Toronto Star and Globe & Mail:

Both don't respond.

 

This is more interesting because I KNOW that both the Toronto Star and Globe & Mail have gas/diesel car advertisements in their newspaper/online.

 

I would have been very interested to hear their answers.

 

Some may say that I didn't give them enough time to respond. But if foreign companies like the New York Times and the UK Guardian can respond within 6 hours, 24 hours should be enough time. Unless of course, they're having trouble in figuring out how to respond because both media outlets are taking advertising money from car gas/diesel car companies. I wanted to know how they would rationalize that action in regards to their claims of supporting the fight against climate change.

 

I'm disappointed in their lack of response. And no, I won't be posting their response if they send it after I publish.

 

In the same article, Monbiot even sh*ts on electric cars because of the resources to develop them and the lack of road infrastructure to support more cars. [3] He concludes with his glorious dream of people cycling and taking public transport. Maybe he's referring to the UK's public transport system. But in most major cities, there are very few smiling faces on public transit. It's usually grumpy, angry, and hard faces looking back at most people. While the carbon impact may lesson, the stress and anxiety of the public riders will increase. But that's the thing about atheist liberals. When in doubt, they'll pop some anti-depressants. Well done. Atheist liberals are some of Big Pharma's biggest customers.

 

In another August article, Monbiot blames Hurricane Harvey on man-made climate change. [4] Sorry, but there's no causation. You can argue for the influence but you can't quantify it. Why not? Because the theory in quantifying the effects of climate change is unfalsifiable. And unfalsifiable theories don't belong in the realm of objective falsifiable science (like chemistry and physics).

 

And what about the sea level rise you ask?

 

If everyone in the world stopped using groundwater and got their water from ocean desalination plants, there would be very little sea rise. In fact, there would probably be such a significant drop in the oceans that the practice would be banned.

 

Again, the world has been getting naturally warmer since the last ice age (10,000 years ago). If the ice melts, it melts. It won't be the end of the world. Most animals are capable of adapting to sea level rise. For those that can't, don't let evolution hit your butt on the way out. And for the people who are at risk, I welcome you to Canada. We have the second largest land mass on the planet and only 1/10 the population of the US. We can support at least 10 times our current population. I recommend that you get in while the Liberals are still in power.

 

In a September article, Monbiot condemns the capitalistic modern world and the carbon environmental apocalypse that's coming soon to planet near you. [5] Like I've said before, many climate change believers want a blank slate.

 

While many conservatives decry liberal media outlets and the public education school system, many environmentalists decry our modern world and would rather die in an environmental apocalypse just to say I told you so.

 

In reality, there's only the cycle of birth and destruction. Everything that's created will eventually get destroyed. Everything destroyed will eventually become something else. To use the California wildfires as an example, the wildfires destroyed numerous houses. They'll be rebuilt. And that will be the case for most natural disasters (aside from sinking islands).

 

Climate change believers don't realize that there is a whole industry built on rebuilding infrastructure. It's a multibillion dollar industry that never sleeps. Wherever environmental disaster/war follows, the building industry follows. The model is sound. Monbiot doesn't realize this. The economy will rebuild itself because the private banks in most Western-European countries will never fail. Birth or destruction, either way the banks never lose.

 

In another September article, Monbiot rightly places much of the climate blame on Angela Merkel. [6] It was German diesel manufacturers of the past that gave rise to the diesel industry throughout the world and caused immense damage in air pollution for generations. And Monbiot rightly points out that Merkel enabled it to continue.

 

It's similar to Canada and Saudi Arabia's weapons deal. The previous Conservative Harper government agreed to it. But the current Liberal Trudeau government could have refused the export licenses, but he didn't. Hence, Trudeau is also responsible for enabling the Saudi family to crush their citizens with Canadian manufactured weapons.

 

In an October article, Monbiot talks about the end of animal agriculture due to new vegan substitutes. [7] I say it's far too early for climate change believers to claim their victory. Just because something new exist doesn’t mean the end of the old. The factors are cost, carbon footprint, quality, and health.

 

Obviously if the vegan substitutes cost significantly more, it's dead on arrival for low to mid-income shoppers.

 

The carbon footprint is more of a tactic to sway the global public. Personally, I believe that land use is a more significant barometer. I don’t support destroying forests in the name of animal farming. While chicken farming has a smaller footprint, they're pumped full of antibiotics and capable of developing antibiotic resistant strains which can be passed onto humans.

 

Quality (or lack of quality) has been the most significant determining factor for the global public in choosing to adopt vegan meat substitutes. There's a lot of hype with Beyond Meat and the Impossible Burger. But as of November 2018 they're not available in Canadian grocery stores, so I can't judge it. And no, I won't be paying three times the price of a regular burger for a vegan one at A&W Restaurants in Canada. Again, if the price isn't right for low-mid income people, it's dead on arrival. Vegan meat priced for mid-high income people won't work.

 

And the last factor is health. Is the vegan substitute healthy or will it have significant negative effects on health in the future? We need peer-reviewed studies done by third parties to prove it instead of friendly vegan scientists.

 

In an October article, Monbiot again talks about the environmental apocalypse. This time it's due to pesticides killing honeybees. [8] Luckily there's no hypocrisy in Monbiot's claim aside from the WHY. Monbiot is against GMOs (pesticide based), not because of their supposed negative health effects, but because it consolidates power in the hands of Big Agriculture.

 

Monbiot's numerous claims about climate Armageddon, ecological breakdown, and the carbon apocalypse is starting to annoy me. Like conservative administrations, liberals, liberal media outlets, progressives, and climate change believers are marketing a fear based reality onto the global public.

 

Just as conservative administrations of the past use fear to rally the people and rationalize wars, the climate change movement is doing the same. Humanity can never be empowered through fear based ideologies/movements. Even if the end result is a good one, no meaningful empowerment can come from fear based ideologies.

 

In a November article, Monbiot talks about the climate impact of cars and how he's tried to get his daughter's school to start cycling. [9] You know, I wonder if there's a connection between cycling and prostate cancer. Someone should Google that and check out the peer-reviewed literature.

 

But only the best will do for Monbiot. He wants plate recognition cameras in the school parking lot.

 

Oh dear god. Another atheist liberal using technology to solve their problem.

 

Sigh.

 

In another November article, Monbiot trashes shopping blitz promotions during the holidays. [10] Look, if you don't want you or your child to participate, go live in a communal hippy place. I'm sure they exist in the UK.

 

There's nothing more annoying than listening to global warming cult believers b*tch about their sh*tty middle class life. Migrants in developing nations would literally kill you for that life. Those Honduran migrants at the Mexico border would take your air pollution school parking lot situation anytime over their life and death scenarios. I'm starting to understand the larger picture for the infamous George Monbiot.

 

In a December article, Monbiot claims that the world is running out of food and almost everyone other than the rich are going to starve because we're raping the Earth. [11] Getting back to reality, we know that the myth of scarcity and climate doom is completely false. No one is starving because of a lack of supply in global food. They're starving because of the unequal distribution of resources. And if you take a look at your nearest grocery store, you'll see that all the shelves are fully stocked. Again, Monbiot is peddling more fear based catastrophes that have no basis in reality whatsoever. The worst part is that he actually believes it. I'm starting to lose serious respect for George Monbiot.

 

In another December article, Monbiot laments the loss of ecological diversity and the destruction that humans have caused throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. [12] Sigh. Yes, humans since ancient times have been killing animal/insect species for business, protection, or just for fun. And what's the result? Everyone is still here. Yes a few species are gone. That's the way evolution works. I find it odd that a person who leans conservative would have to remind liberals about this.

 

But for the animals/insects that do survive humanity's poisons, they become that much stronger. It reminds me of the tree seeds I was growing indoors. I scarified the seed (cracked it) to help it grow. And though the seeds sprouted all of them died a few days after. All I have left are heirloom hot pepper plants.

 

The lesson of the day? If you make things too easy for living organisms in the beginning of their life, they'll have a difficult time adapting to the harsher environment as they get older. Hence, a degree of stress/anxiety for living organisms can produce beneficial results in overcoming obstacles and making them stronger in the future. Or, it can stunt their growth and kill them. It's up to you to make the judgment in balancing out the two extremes. Good luck.

 

References:

[1] Okolosie, Lola, et al.  'If Only...' Guardian writers on the one policy they'd have in their manifesto. Guardian. May 15, 2017.

[2] Monbiot, George. Chlorinated chicken? Yes, we really can have too much trade. Guardian. July 25, 2017.

[3] Monbiot, George. The car has a chokehold on Britain. It's time to free ourselves. Guardian. August 1, 2017.

[4] Monbiot, George. Why are the crucial questions about Hurricane Harvey not being asked? Guardian. August 29, 2017.

[5] Monbiot, George. A lesson from Hurricane Irma: capitalism can't save the planet – it can only destroy it. Guardian. September 13, 2017.

[6] Monbiot, George. Who's the world’s leading eco-vandal? It's Angela Merkel. Guardian. September 19, 2017.

[7] Monbiot, George. Goodbye – and good riddance – to livestock farming. Guardian. October 4, 2017.

[8] Monbiot, George. Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown. Guardian. October 20, 2017.

[9] Monbiot, George. Dirty air is killing our children. Why does the government let this happen? Guardian. November 29, 2017.

[10] Monbiot, George. Too right it's Black Friday: our relentless consumption is trashing the planet. Guardian. November 22, 2017.

[11] Monbiot, George. Mass starvation is humanity's fate if we keep flogging the land to death. Guardian. December 11, 2017.

[12] Monbiot, George. Our selective blindness is lethal to the living world. Guardian. December 20, 2017.