Hmm, I think you really do need to visit a farm to open you eyes. Contrary to what you wrote, farmers do as much as they can with the currently available scientific knowledge to prevent the degradation of their land. This reason for this is quite simple, the land is their lively hood: without healthy land they can't grow crops or animals. This is why BILLIONS of dollars worth of research has been invested into improving soils and fertility.

By-the-way: I remember reading years ago that part of the reason why fish stocks have decreased is due to farmers improving their land. The connection between fish and farming is that improved farming practices have reduced the number of naturally occurring dust storms. Regular dust storms used to take iron particle out to sea and fertilize the ocean's plankton. Apparently iron is a required mineral for the growth of plankton- a slight increase in iron greatly increases the amount of plankton. Indeed I believe there are recent start-up companies that plan to spread iron dust over the sea to increase fish stocks. (I'll see if I can find you web-links about this. Admittedly, I must be honest and say that it was years ago that I read this- the science may have change since then)

Continuing from my last comment: found some links- not the same articles that I read years ago but they give a similar story:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0815oceancarbon.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1014

Also found a link to a company that plans to spread iron-dust over the oceans to improve the biological activity:

http://www.planktos-science.com/

The author’s article rests on differences between the market price and the asserted:
a) ‘real cost’, and
b) fair price.

But these assertions raise more problems than they solve.

The fair price is the difference between what the farmers receive, and what the author thinks the farmers should receive. As the author blames “the supermarkets” for “screwing” the farmers, he implies is the fair price is more than the market price. But the author does not provide, and is unable to provide, any way to calculate what this supposed fair price should be in any given case. As he himself points out, the source of the economic signals that give rise to the fair price do not originate with the supermarkets, but with the consumers. As the supermarkets are themselves in competition with each other, it is not clear that any of them either could or should pay any price over the market price.

The ‘real cost’ refers to damage to the environment that is not accounted for in the market price. This can be conceived in terms of damage to the environment apart from human utility; or damage to human utility such as future use value not taken into account in the market price.

But if we took all the humans away, there would be no value in the environment to speak of. There is no such thing as values over and above human values; or who presumes to speak for God as against his fellow humans’ lives? Talk of such values can only ever be a cipher for one human being’s ambition to wield arbitrary power over another; such as Ludwig’s dreams of total power and radically curtailing the human population.

In terms of utility, how can these “real costs” be known? We can assess them directly, by looking at such photos. But that does not answer the questions in issue, which are, how are buyers to know the “real cost” price they should be paying to balance current consumption against future needs? Or how could the price mechanism ever be replaced without mass starvation *and* environmental devastation?

The problem with the author’s, and with Malthus’s, God’s-eye view, is that this is not the perspective in which the decisions are being made. We are not studying atoms or rocks, but human beings, whose actions are purposeful. The decisions are made by individuals assessing the marginal utility of individual transactions. No-one is given to decide at the species level. Extrapolations of positive data are not valid, as Malthus and Ehrlich have inadvertently proven.

The author gives no reason to assume that decisions pretending to be at the species level, and without benefit of economic calculation, would be better than the current problem; and there is more than enough reason to think they would be worse in both economic and ecological terms.

Pericles,
I'm surprised, as you usually make such sense.
One can always take a relativistic view of crises--what ya gonna do?
One can always cite precedent--man, this is nothin!
The climate is fu-- up anyway.
Are you kidding?
Personally, I think it is too late for us to substantially alter the course of events, but we have a moral obligation to try! It's not just the human party that's been spoiled; humanity will survive while we drive other species to extinction. You can vacillate on global warming (it's a big club), but species extinction is irrefutable, and habitat destruction is visible from space. Humanity is a global cancer, yet We're the thinkers down here. The evidence of human depredation is irrefutable, and all you can say is, "that a changing climate is a normal part of our life, and the clear choice is to adapt to each change, rather than pretend we can control it."
This global warming is not a normal part of anybody or anything's life; global warming, or cooling, hitherto, has been a geological event, in terms of chronology, imperceptible within the average organism's lifespan. We are faced with the probability, indeed irrefutable evidence, that this abbreviated event was caused by us! And if we are not prepared to rouse ourselves from the couch and make a few adjustments to our collective state of sloth, then we deserve to go the way of the innocent species that precede us.
But this is an emotive issue, isn't it, and, I do apologise, beneath the dignity of a philosopher.

So why did Julian write this bit of purile pap, after all he is a science communicator, & could hardly have done any worse.

Well obviously he was told, by his superiors to do so, to demonstrate his solidarity with his fellow academics. After all they are bringing in lots of dollars, in research grants.

Also obviously, he did not like this instruction. So, either he disagrees with AGW, & wrote this dreadful bit, to show his disdane for the instruction, & the topic, or just because he takes instruction poorly.

I think it must be the former, as it is so bad, it must have convinced quite a few people that those who advocate AGW are a bunch of dills.