Episode 243: Dear George

May 8, 2024

Central Thesis

George Monbiot, in his book Regenesis, distorts facts about potential solutions like biochar to further his anti-meat agenda, undermining his credibility and aligning him with the very disinformation tactics he previously criticized.

Key Arguments

• Monbiot's selective dismissal of biochar: Jim argues that Monbiot unfairly dismisses biochar as a viable solution for mitigating the environmental impact of industrial chicken farming. Monbiot acknowledges biochar's potential to sequester carbon and improve soil fertility, but focuses on its current high cost and potential for toxic emissions if improperly produced.
• The solutionism critique: Monbiot criticizes "solutionism," the idea that attempts to solve problems can inadvertently create more complex and counterintuitive systems. Jim argues Monbiot uses this to dismiss reasonable mitigations to industrial farming because they prolong the unsustainable raising of animals for consumption.
• Monbiot's ideological bias: Jim argues that Monbiot's vegetarianism and opposition to the meat industry lead him to selectively present information to support his predetermined conclusion. He believes that this bias causes Monbiot to downplay or dismiss solutions that could make meat production more sustainable.
• The "glorified dustbin" argument: Jim takes issue with Monbiot's description of DIY biochar production as being made in a "glorified dustbin," calling it a supercilious dismissal. He argues that this description is misleading and that responsible, small-scale biochar production is possible without creating significant pollution, comparing the level of toxicity to campfires.
• Betrayal of trust: Jim expresses disappointment that Monbiot, whom he previously admired and cited as an expert on disinformation, is now engaging in similar tactics of misdirection and selective fact presentation to promote his own agenda.

Notable Passages

• "Referring to the natural ratio of carbon to nitrogen in the soil, he does note that Some people claim that we can escape the constraints of this equilibrium by adding biochar to soils. Yeah, that's true. He then deigns to note that biochar appears to remain stable once it has been buried and it can improve the texture and fertility of some soils. Note those caveats. Appears. Can improve. Some soils. Uh-oh."
• "Not only is biochar comically expensive, but it's also an extremely dear means of saving carbon."
• "The only cheap way of obtaining biochar is to make it yourself in a glorified dustbin. Wow! Technically, that is correct, but rhetorically, that's evil."
• "Therefore, if someone can use chicken shit to heat a chicken shed, and in the process not only sequester buttloads of carbon by trapping it in the biochar it produces, but also help the shed's owner remain more profitable, to Monbiot, that very idea poses a clear and present danger to the future survivability of mankind. Why? Because it continues to make meat available for consumption."

Rhetorical Approach

Jim employs a mix of personal anecdote (his research into biochar), direct quotes from Monbiot's book, and sarcastic commentary to dismantle Monbiot's arguments. He uses "fun facts" ironically to highlight the problems of industrial farming and Monbiot's dismissive tone. He emphasizes his disappointment in Monbiot as a respected figure, framing the critique as a betrayal of trust.

Connections

• References to previous episodes like 132 ("irony"), 188 (the "Hypo-Reality Vortex" inspired by Monbiot's term), 236 (agnotology), 71 & 72 (distortion factories), 73 (gobbledygook), and 74 (bunkum).
• References Quickie Dictionary for definitions of words like "aftermath" and "hectare".
• References a 20-year science writer for The Guardian, George Monbiot.