Academics are part of the "howling". The model and format alweays seems the same. It starts with a "false or exaggerated preimise" against which they focus their "intelligence" to propose their solutions.

You got it in one when you said "In paper after paper, academics across the country have been pushing the same line. Climate change, peak oil and the financial crisis.."

But that's what they do and they are becomming increasingly frustrated that "we" don't understand. They feel increasingly irrelevant as they begin to realise that it is "they" who don't understand.

Please keep them occupied whilst the rest of the country gets on with something productive.

Thanks.

This article is premised on some logical fallacies based upon what appears to be the authors religious type beliefs in economic theory.

For example they talk about the 'fundamental laws of supply and demand.' Firstly, this is not a law, it is a theory. If it was a law it would work in all circumstances, however this is clearly not the case. Take for example phosphorous. Phosphorous is essential to plant growth. It cannot be replaced by anything else. Phospate based fertilisers have been essential in increasing agriculture yields over the last half century or so. It appears however that we are approaching peak phosphorous, after which time there will be progessively less phosporous available. No doubt the price of phosphorous will rise in response, as the market attempts to do its thing. But the core problem remains, it doesn't matter if the price of phosphate based fertilisers increase 10x, 100x or a 1000x, there is no replacement for phosphorous and as a result humanity will adapt, either functionally or otherwise, to a world with less fertiliser and less food.

Perhaps if the authors premised their views on actual laws, such as those of thermodynamics, as opposed to economic theory, they might present an argument that makes some sense.

Another green bashing piece that uses *economics* as the untouchable axiom. What a joke.
Most articles I've seen want public transport and rational zoning because it is better for sustainable living...not for theoretical reasons nor green fundamentalism.
Could this be a stealthy defence of our corrupt planning/land-banking/housing debarkle?
I see the industry hacks are blaming "Green" for our energy price hikes when the real culprit is just the deferred profits from privatisation combined with a lack of investment (maximising profit involves minimising reliability: You can't maximise both!)
Our city planning is being held to ransom not by green laws, but by criminal influence on government. Blaming academics and greenies is not really credible!