From the Amazon to Australia, why is your money funding Earth’s destruction? | George Monbiot

Fossil fuels, fisheries and farming: the world’s most destructive industries are protected – and subsidised – by governments

In every conflict over the living world, something is being protected. And most of the time, it’s the wrong thing.

The world’s most destructive industries are fiercely protected by governments. The three sectors that appear to be most responsible for the collapse of ecosystems and erasure of wildlife are fossil fuels, fisheries and farming. In 2021, governments directly subsidised oil and gas production to the tune of $64bn (£53bn), and spent a further $531bn (£443bn) on keeping fossil fuel prices low. The latest figures for fisheries, from 2018, suggest that global subsidies for the sector amount to $35bn a year, over 80% of which go to large-scale industrial fishing. Most are paid to “enhance capacity”: in other words to help the industry, as marine ecosystems collapse, catch more fish.

Every year, governments spend $500bn on farm subsidies, the great majority of which pay no regard to environmental protection. Even the payments that claim to do so often inflict more harm than good. For example, many of the European Union’s pillar two “green” subsidies sustain livestock farming on land that would be better used for ecological restoration. Over half the European farm budget is spent on propping up animal farming, which is arguably the world’s most ecologically destructive industry.

Pasture-fed meat production destroys five times as much forest as palm oil does. It now threatens some of the richest habitats on Earth, among which are forests in Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Australia and Myanmar. Meat production could swallow 3m square kilometres of the world’s most biodiverse places in 35 years. That’s almost the size of India. In Australia, 94% of the deforestation in the catchment area of the Great Barrier Reef – a major cause of coral loss – is associated with beef production. Yet most of these catastrophes are delivered with the help of public money.

The Great Barrier Reef near the Whitsunday region, Australia
The Great Barrier Reef near the Whitsunday region, Australia. Photograph: Jumbo Aerial Photography/AP

The more destructive the business, the more likely it is to enjoy political protection. A study published this month claims that chicken factories being built in Herefordshire and Shropshire are likely to destroy far more jobs than they create, wrecking tourism through the river pollution, air pollution, smell and scenic blight they cause. But none of the planning applications for these factories has been obliged to provide an economic impact analysis. Planning officers, the paper found, are highly dismissive of the hospitality industry, treating it as “non-serious and trivial”. By comparison, the paper found, “attitudes to farming were very different; described as serious, ‘proper’ (male) work”. The “tough”, “masculine” industries driving Earth systems towards collapse are pampered and protected by governments, while less destructive sectors must fend for themselves.

While there is no shortage of public money for the destruction of life on Earth, budgets for its protection always fall short. According to the UN, $536bn a year will be needed to protect the living world – far less than the amount being paid to destroy it – yet almost all this funding is missing. Some has been promised, scarcely any has materialised. So much for public money for public goods.

The political protection of destructive industries is woven into the fabric of politics, not least because of the pollution paradox (“the more damaging the commercial enterprise, the more money it must spend on politics to ensure it’s not regulated out of existence. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the most damaging commercial enterprises.”) Earth systems, by contrast, are treated as an afterthought, an ornament: nice to have, but dispensable when their protection conflicts with the necessity of extraction. In reality, the irreducible essential is a habitable planet.

In 2010, at a biodiversity summit in Nagoya, Japan, governments set themselves 20 goals, to be met by 2020. None has been achieved. As they prepare for the biodiversity Cop15 summit in Montreal next week, governments are investing not in the defence of the living world but in greenwash.

The headline objective is to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030. But what governments mean by protection often bears little resemblance to what ecologists mean.

Take the UK, for example. On paper, it has one of the highest proportions of protected land in the rich world, at 28%. It could easily raise this proportion to 30% and claim to have fulfilled its obligations. But it is also one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. How can this be? Because most of our “protected” areas are nothing of the kind.

One analysis suggests that only 5% of our land meets the international definition of a protected area. Even these scraps are at risk, as scarcely anyone is left to enforce the law: the regulators have been stripped to the bone and beyond. At sea, most of our marine protected areas are nothing but lines on the map: trawlers still rip them apart.

All this is likely to become much worse. If the retained EU law bill goes ahead, the entire basis of legal protection in the UK could be torn down. Even by the standards of this government, the mindless vandalism involved is gobsmacking. To prove that Brexit means Brexit, 570 environmental laws must be deleted or replaced by the end of next year. There will be no public consultation, no scope for presenting evidence and, in all likelihood, no opportunity for parliamentary debate. It is logistically impossible to replace so much legislation in such a short period, so the most likely outcome is deletion. If so, it’s game over for rivers, soil, air quality, groundwater, wildlife and habitats in the UK, and game on for cheats and con artists. The whole country will, in effect, become a freeport.

Never underestimate the destructive instincts of the Conservative party, prepared to ruin everything for the sake of an idea. Never underestimate its appetite for chaos and dysfunction.

The protected industries driving us towards destruction will take everything if they are not checked. We face a brutal contest for control over land and sea: between those who seek to convert our life support systems into profit, and those who seek to defend, restore and, where possible, return them to the indigenous people dispossessed by capitalism’s fire front. These are never just technical or scientific issues. They cannot be resolved by management alone. They are deeply political. We can protect the living world or we can protect the companies destroying it. We cannot do both.

  • George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

Contributor

George Monbiot

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
It’s time to act against the oil companies causing death and destruction | John Sentamu
Repentance, reparation and remedy for the terrible damage done to the people of Bayelsa state, Nigeria, is long overdue, says the archbishop of York John Sentamu

John Sentamu

10, Dec, 2019 @12:58 PM

Article image
Cuadrilla is to start fracking in Lancashire. But we will not give in | Caroline Lucas
The high court’s decision in favour of the shale gas giant will not end mass resistance, says Green MP Caroline Lucas

Caroline Lucas

13, Oct, 2018 @6:00 AM

Article image
The UN climate talks ended in deadlock. Is this really the best the world can manage? | Aruna Chandrasekhar
COP25 should have been about new science and ambitious targets. Instead, nations dodged responsibility, says environment journalist Aruna Chandrasekhar

Aruna Chandrasekhar

21, Dec, 2019 @8:00 AM

Article image
Something else is out of control in Australia: climate disaster denialism | Ketan Joshi
Myths about the bushfires grow online before being voiced by the rightwing press and politicians, says climate science expert Ketan Joshi

Ketan Joshi

08, Jan, 2020 @11:45 AM

Article image
You can find utopia in India – if you’re willing to close your eyes | Ian Jack
On a visit to the Auroville spiritual community, I found a world walled off from the crowds and consumerism outside, says Guardian columnist Ian Jack

Ian Jack

05, May, 2018 @5:00 AM

Article image
The destruction of the Earth is a crime. It should be prosecuted | George Monbiot
Businesses and politicians should be liable for the harm they do, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

George Monbiot

28, Mar, 2019 @7:00 AM

Article image
Want to cut air pollution? Get rid of your car | John Vidal
Governments must accept the stark fact that cars must be removed from the street altogether, says environmental writer John Vidal

John Vidal

19, Sep, 2018 @12:38 PM

Article image
The famine facing Yemen is a war crime – it must be investigated | Emily Thornberry
The Saudi-led coalition has deliberately targeted civilians. The UK must press for answers, says shadow secretary of state for foreign and Commonwealth affairs Emily Thornberry

Emily Thornberry

22, Nov, 2018 @1:24 PM

Article image
Human rights have become the kryptonite of the populist west. It wasn't always like this | Afua Hirsch
The spirit that produced the NHS also gave birth to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We choose to forget that.

Afua Hirsch

27, Jun, 2018 @4:59 AM

Article image
Carcinogens in your cosmetics? Welcome to Brexit Britain | Caroline Criado-Perez
Leaving means losing stringent EU rules on hazardous chemicals, says the freelance journalist Caroline Criado-Perez

Caroline Criado-Perez

08, Jan, 2019 @10:00 AM