Clive Bibby and Graham Gibson fall into the same trap when one uses the word “longevity” and the other “final consequences”, each revealing a shortsighted understanding of such words.
The Greens are quite clear that there is no such thing as longevity if we destroy our environment. They are aligned with the scientists urging us to change fast, and not to restore or continue the old habits that produced the current climate emergency.
The farming question is interesting. It is amazing that our little country feeds 40 million people, and more efficiently, in carbon terms, than most countries, surpassed only by individual regenerative farmers all around the world. However, if “farming is the most human activity ever to have blighted the earth” (George Monbiot in the book Regenesis), then what we do is not really better than others; just less bad. To be less bad by a small percentage, in order to feed just 0.5 percent of the world, which could all do much better, is not exactly good leadership. Or leadership at all. Or intelligent. Or farsighted.
We all know — perhaps farmers know better than the rest — that lower stock numbers can be sustainable, requiring far fewer inputs and imports, and, best of all, much smaller bank loans.
The intelligent (no sarcasm intended) Mr Gibson is partly right about biofuels, because they could be a serious threat to more important food-growing. But they don’t need to be. After all, forestry slash is a potential biofuel. He then assumes all the protesters, mostly young, principled and non-partisan, are Green Party members. They are not, and for better or worse, the official Green policies are rather more moderate than they.
