James Lovelock was on the radio this morning talking about global warming. He made the chilling prediction that about six billion people will die before the end of this century. When asked about what we should do in Britain he said we should prepare to receive vast numbers of refugees.
I have already written about the catastrophe that will probably strike our children or grandchildren (See Global warming: what do we do now). It is vaguely shocking that Lovelock recommends that the UK should receive large numbers of refugees. No doubt he would like to appear generous with our land and resources when he speaks on the radio but the issue is not so simple. At present the UK produces about 65-70% of its staple food requirement (see DEFRA report) and so Britain's own agriculture can support about 45 million of its 65 million people. The introduction of advanced farming techniques and the induction of more land into agriculture might feed 65 million. So, in the best conditions the UK can feed its current population.
The really big problem is not whether Britain can feed its current population, it is how many people Britain can feed when global warming is fully under way, sea levels have risen by over a metre and there has been a collapse in the global food economy. The answer is simple: Britain will be able to feed less than 65 million, probably far less. Lovelock's proposal that Britain should welcome an increase in population because the refugees have nowhere else to go seems like a desire to see us all die. We might begin OK, we might be able to feed the people for a few years but then there will be a catastrophic drought, the population will consume every last drop of water and everybody will be at risk from dying.
Lovelock's thinking on the population issue is typical of the British. It is 50 years since the sun set on the British Empire but British political thinkers still think globally. This is very dangerous because global stability depends upon a diversified global economy with each political unit striving for local self sufficiency. This is obvious because, for example, if all ships were to be produced in China and China underwent a catastrophe then the whole world would be without ships. Stability of supply depends upon diversity.
Lovelock's globalized thinking is ironic because it is globalization that is largely to blame for global warming. Fossil fuels are acquired from overseas to power our cars, population growth is driven by cheap food production in other countries and international trade encourages India and China to produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide at precisely the moment when this should be stopped. The British have been at the forefront of this globalizing tendency for the past two centuries but if we are to survive the next two centuries we need to think in terms of local self sufficiency and maintaining a careful balance between our population and our natural resources.
DEFRA. Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World. A Defra Discussion Paper. July 2008 www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/policy/pdf/Ensuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf
I have already written about the catastrophe that will probably strike our children or grandchildren (See Global warming: what do we do now). It is vaguely shocking that Lovelock recommends that the UK should receive large numbers of refugees. No doubt he would like to appear generous with our land and resources when he speaks on the radio but the issue is not so simple. At present the UK produces about 65-70% of its staple food requirement (see DEFRA report) and so Britain's own agriculture can support about 45 million of its 65 million people. The introduction of advanced farming techniques and the induction of more land into agriculture might feed 65 million. So, in the best conditions the UK can feed its current population.
The really big problem is not whether Britain can feed its current population, it is how many people Britain can feed when global warming is fully under way, sea levels have risen by over a metre and there has been a collapse in the global food economy. The answer is simple: Britain will be able to feed less than 65 million, probably far less. Lovelock's proposal that Britain should welcome an increase in population because the refugees have nowhere else to go seems like a desire to see us all die. We might begin OK, we might be able to feed the people for a few years but then there will be a catastrophic drought, the population will consume every last drop of water and everybody will be at risk from dying.
Lovelock's thinking on the population issue is typical of the British. It is 50 years since the sun set on the British Empire but British political thinkers still think globally. This is very dangerous because global stability depends upon a diversified global economy with each political unit striving for local self sufficiency. This is obvious because, for example, if all ships were to be produced in China and China underwent a catastrophe then the whole world would be without ships. Stability of supply depends upon diversity.
Lovelock's globalized thinking is ironic because it is globalization that is largely to blame for global warming. Fossil fuels are acquired from overseas to power our cars, population growth is driven by cheap food production in other countries and international trade encourages India and China to produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide at precisely the moment when this should be stopped. The British have been at the forefront of this globalizing tendency for the past two centuries but if we are to survive the next two centuries we need to think in terms of local self sufficiency and maintaining a careful balance between our population and our natural resources.
DEFRA. Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World. A Defra Discussion Paper. July 2008 www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/policy/pdf/Ensuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf
Comments
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2009/11/209-booker-debunks-agw-climate-change.html
regards,
Greg L-W.