This debate just feels like a useless distraction from what the people on the ground of sustainable farming are saying. We should be talking about how we can get high yield without destroying the ecosystem.
If you read his blog, which features hundreds of well thought out and thoroughly researched articles, he talks about this constantly. Someone wrote a book talking shit about him specifically (while making wild and often absurd claims about society and food systems).. I think we can allow him to spend a few paragraphs thoroughly refuting it.
It feels really useless and dead to keep "talking away" like this. I dont know who either of these people are, but have they actually saved an indingenous community or improved the diet of a large group? Finding, promoting and selling good engineering and technology solves problems. These guys just seem to want to talk. I find this beyond useless.
Want to find solutions? Build them.
I'm not in this field and can't hazard a guess at the exact utility of this dispute, but when I see specialists and the impassioned debating vigorously on their principles, I trust it's because of relevant disagreements in the field, because that's what I observe in my preferred domain. Some amount of slapfighting is inevitable - we're all human - but this is a particularly humane way to hash out differences.
This text does not appear much related to a lot of science, more like "someone said something about me and Id like to refute it" but its 40 000 words or something instead of just a small text.
I'm not sure this is how George Monbiot defines himself, but for me he's an intelectual. There's a place and a value in what intelectuals do. They think, they talk, they discuss. Historically, good intelectuals have helped societies identify problems by asking questions and challenging common assumptions (something very difficult to do well).
And, of course, we need engineers and people with the right technical skills to develop solutions that improve life in practical ways.
The unfortunate reality is declarations about existential peril and what we "should" be doing fall on deaf ears of policymakers and regulators where particular governments are de facto run by the billionaires. Most necessary changes cannot happen without first defenestrating corporate lobbyists and the money politicians receive. This won't happen by elections, by reform from within (Sen. John McCain discovered this), or by wishing for it. And honestly, most US politicians should be in prison because they do more than just take stacks of cash and gold bars to fund reelection media buys, many allow their attention and votes to be curried for it, and even propose bills verbatim from the lobbyists of their benefactors.
Change can only happen externally by many, sustained, nonviolent mass demonstrations sufficient to achieve specific policy objectives. ("World peace" and "save the planet" aren't policies, while "phase out all coal power plants in 5 years" is.)
In absence of the people demanding specific actions and changes, the "green revolution" will be half-assed for renewables in electricity (currently at 30% worldwide, may top out at 80-90%), but that's about it. No net negative global emissions and not much carbon sequestration. Ultra-processing and megafarming practices sure as shit won't change by debate or wishful thinking alone.