What George Monbiot thinks about sustainability
Guardian columnist and environmental writer. He republishes every column at monbiot.com with its original date, which makes him one of the few public writers whose reversals can be read against the pieces they reverse.
George Monbiot did not write this page.
We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.
Filter sustainability · Newest first
Only George Monbiot on sustainability. See everyone on sustainability
12 dated positions, 2004 to 2025, in their own words. Our reading of what George Monbiot has said — not written or endorsed by them.
-
Their wordsIn reality, beef and lamb are the most land-hungry and climate-damaging of all farm products.
- 19 months earlier
-
Our readingRaising yields on land already farmed is what keeps farming from taking more of the wild world.
Their wordsIt was achieved almost entirely through higher crop yields per hectare.
↗The Cruel Fantasies of Well-Fed Peoplemonbiot.com 2nd of 6 in this piece
- 4 months earlier
-
Their wordsTheir solutions, such as pasture-fed meat, with its massive land demand , are impossible to scale without destroying remaining wild ecosystems: there is simply not enough planet.
-
Their wordsBut it leads, if enacted, to hunger, ecological destruction or both, on a vast scale. Our arcadian fantasies devour the planet.
-
Their wordsThe answer is not more fields, which means destroying even more wild ecosystems. It is partly better, more compact, cruelty-free and pollution-free factories.
- 9 years earlier
-
Our reading · no longer heldMeat produced from waste and rangeland is efficient enough that giving up meat is not the only ethical answer to world hunger.
No longer holdsI was swayed by his argument. But now I find myself becoming unswayed. In the spirit of unceasing self-flagellation I think I might have been wrong about being wrong.
SaidPart of the problem is that while livestock could be fed on waste and rangelands, ever less of the meat we eat in the rich nations is produced this way.
-
Their wordsWasteful and destructive as feeding grain to livestock is, ranching appears to be even worse.
-
Our reading · no longer heldMeat raised on feed humans cannot eat, on land that cannot grow crops, can be eaten with a clear conscience.
No longer holdsIn the spirit of unceasing self-flagellation I think I might have been wrong about being wrong.
SaidWhile researching my book Feral, I also came to see extensive livestock rearing as a lot less benign than I – or Simon Fairlie – had assumed.
- 3 years earlier
-
Their wordsI no longer believe that the only ethical response is to stop eating meat.
-
Their wordsBut if we were to adopt it, we could eat meat, milk and eggs (albeit much less) with a clean conscience.
- 5 years earlier
-
Our reading · no longer heldThe chief danger of biofuels is that growing them for vehicles takes arable land away from food and causes hunger.
No longer holdsI am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong.
SaidI was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact.
- 12 months earlier
-
Their wordsIf the production of biofuels is big enough to affect climate change, it will be big enough to cause global starvation.