monbiot

>
> I think Christopher posted something by this author a
> few days back, which I thought was terrible.

I just re-read it and it now seems even more coherent and well-argued than
it did the first time. You'll have to poke some specific holes in it to
convince me that it's "terrible."

Unless of course, you mean stylistically. . . but that's a taste issue,
each to her/his own.

cb

> > I think Christopher posted something by this author a
> > few days back, which I thought was terrible.
>
>
> I just re-read it and it now seems even more coherent and
> well-argued than it did the first time. You'll have to
> poke some specific holes in it to convince me that it's
> "terrible."

Hi Chris,

I'd have to re-read it to recall my objections in detail,
but what I'm remembering:

() He doesn't define puritanism, but it hardly seems
unique to the time and place he targets.

() He doesn't define capitalism, but it hardly seems
unique to the time and place he targets.

() Correlation does not imply causation.

() Even if one did cause the other, why should we care?

-Carl

Oh THAT one. I thought you meant the biofuel one.
The Puritanism=capitalism one is more debatable, I'd agree, but I thought
it was at least interesting speculation.

>
>
> > > I think Christopher posted something by this author a
> > > few days back, which I thought was terrible.
> >
> >
> > I just re-read it and it now seems even more coherent and
> > well-argued than it did the first time. You'll have to
> > poke some specific holes in it to convince me that it's
> > "terrible."
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'd have to re-read it to recall my objections in detail,
> but what I'm remembering:
>
> () He doesn't define puritanism, but it hardly seems
> unique to the time and place he targets.
>
> () He doesn't define capitalism, but it hardly seems
> unique to the time and place he targets.
>
> () Correlation does not imply causation.
>
> () Even if one did cause the other, why should we care?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

> Oh THAT one. I thought you meant the biofuel one.
> The Puritanism=capitalism one is more debatable, I'd
> agree, but I thought it was at least interesting
> speculation.

Did you catch my follow-up where I resinded "terrible"
in favor of "interesting but wrongly reasoned"?

:)

Did you post the biofuel one? I thought I read it on
his site. In any case, I had problems with that one
too. I do agree that a booming biofuel market could
increase starvation, but not to the degree he fears.
And it doesn't seem impossible that it could have the
reverse effect, by brining money into agriculture
markets (lowering the cost of equipment and/or raising
the price of edible crops).

I think the much stronger point is that we don't have
enough land, and even if we did the required amount
of growing would be very hard on the environment.

It may also be worth noting that fossil fuels are
biofuels, and the same carbon dioxide homeostasis
thingy applies, just over a much longer time span.
That is, if you believe fossil fuels are indeed fossil
in origin (which I understand some experts are
beginning to doubt).

-Carl