George Monbiot Wows the Green Living Show Via Longpen
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04.28.07
It is the first time I have seen a standing ovation for a video monitor. Margaret Atwood interviewed George Monbiot via Longpen, which was a challenge because the internet connection to Wales was a bit rough and she had to do a song and dance at the beginning until it got going and boy, with George on the line it got going. George noted that 1.5 metric tons of CO2 were saved, more than we should generate in a year. He speaks so well, answered Margaret's questions but also questions from the floor on war, north/south relations, vegetarianism and responding to Elizabeth May's questions about the Canadian green plan with words that are hard to repeat on a non-partisan website. The audience was captivated.
Margaret Atwood didn't develop the Longpen specifically to fight global warming, but it is such a fabulous way of bringing great authors to smaller centers where they otherwise might not go, and to get the George Monbiots of the world on the road, carbon free. That so many people could respond so positively to an interactive interview by internet was a revelation.
George is so thorough and articulate that they ran out of time before the Longpen could be put into action to sign my copy of Heat. However I am thrilled with my sketch of a TreeHugger by Margaret Atwood, sent seven feet by the remarkable ::Longpen.
Is video available of this interview?
This guy is a total idiot, and gives sustainability a bad name with all his ranting about how we should close our airports, and how Virgin's Branson is lying when it comes to his bio-fuels plans (hey Monbiot, can you spell. .. no not ethanol. Butanol?).
Monbiot's ideas would result in travel becoming the preserve of the rich.
Sure, lets video-conference meetings rather than drive or fly. But you can't video-conference a tropical beach vacation.
The future iis in eliminating the waste caused by what we do, not in doing less.
So we can all travel around covering 10,000 miles at 500mph, there's enough clean energy to run that?
Steady Freddy.
He's not an idiot at all but one of the best UK journalists covering sustainable development. His arguments are always rational and very well researched.
You may not agree with a lot of his views but I don't think you should dismiss him out of hand like that. He has a lot to offer the debate.
So we can all travel around covering 10,000 miles at 500mph, there's enough clean energy to run that?
No, only people like Monbiot are allowed to fly -- like he did to Canada for his book which tells us how flying is the same as terrorism.
So if you're self-righteous and feel you're the One True Worldsaving Hero, then you can do whatever you want. Just say you "really struggled over it" and it's OK. Otherwise, according to George, you're the same as a murderer.
LA: if you read the post, you would know that George Monbiot is sitting in his study in wales and did not fly to Canada.
For a long while i didnt like Monbiot--jealosy.
Now i know that i respect him because the anonymous slaging him of really annoys me!
He does his research and he is very perceptive...i`ve looked at certain issues before and missed things that he has picked up on.
I disagree with some of his points, but never lightly he definetly has a contribution to make, and a valuable one.
LA: if you read the post, you would know that George Monbiot is sitting in his study in wales and did not fly to Canada.
I read the post. I was referring to this:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/george_monbiot_3.php
Monbiot is one of the clearest and most consistent writers on the environment. Much more so than all those people who have a hissy fit about his comments about flying.
Best and Freddy should take a moment to read--and think about--what he's said on flying. They (might) realize that he takes a very nuanced but morally consistent position on this very complex ethical issue--not a knee-jerk "right of wrong" approach that appeals to the simple-minded.
Right or wrong, clear intelligent commentary is what we need more of, not emotional rushes to judgment, like Freddy & Best.
Best and Freddy should take a moment to read--and think about--what he's said on flying. They (might) realize that he takes a very nuanced but morally consistent position on this very complex ethical issue--not a knee-jerk "right of wrong" approach that appeals to the simple-minded
I've read his writing carefully and considered it thoroughly. There is nothing "nuanced" to be gotten from what he is saying. He claims that flying a normal amount is equivalent to a medium-sized terrorist event and that we simply need to stop flying altogether. Then to get on a plane to promote those very words? It's inane beyond pretty much anything one can imagine.
I realize how utterly important he is to some people, as he is quite the hot-blooded moralist and doom-and-gloomer, but perhaps you and people like yourself need to stop calling people knee-jerk idiots for disagreeing with Monbiot and his antics and consider that others are going to have different opinions than you do about someone and their words, behavior, and its effects on things we all care about.
A series of ad hominems does not a good argument make.
A series of ad hominems does not a good argument make.
Neither does claiming "ad hominem". Just read the articles.
Neither does claiming "ad hominem". Just read the articles.
Perhaps you should read my comment. I read the articles.
Thanks for proving my point with another ad hominem. See ya.