Ed. note: For the next few days, we are helping long-time regular contributor Chris Smaje highlight the UK release of his new book, Saying NO to a Farm-Free Future (available in the US on 20th July). Today we are posting a review by one of our long-time contributors, Mary Wildfire.
Before reviewing this book I need to state three caveats. First, I’m totally a Smaje fan. I’ve read his Small Farm Future twice, and did a review of it on this site (here). Second, this book is a rebuttal to ecomodernist claims—and I have no respect for ecomodernism. And last, a key issue in the latest ecomodernist claims is that we should replace farmed food with food manufactured in vats, like the fake meat lately being pushed…and I find the idea creepy, appalling, shuddersome. Now, having enumerated my biases, on with the review.
The first thing to note is that this book is both shorter and easier to read than Small Farm Future…it has a lower level of diction. But this is largely because it has a much smaller purview, being basically a rebuttal to recent ecomodernist claims, primarily those of George Monbiot. Smaje notes that Monbiot used to put forth incisive, radical thinking on ecological issues, before being kidnapped and inducted into the ecomodernist camp. He once refers to the recent writings as coming from “George Monbiot, Mark Two.”
You may wonder why a whole book needs to be devoted to a rebuttal of mostly one writer. Smaje addresses this early by pointing out that Monbiot has earned a major platform that gives him a lot of credibility; Smaje seems to think ecomodernists in general are gaining an increasing audience, with their prescriptions for nuclear power, genetic engineering, urbanizing and rewilding, and now “rebooting food” so that it’s manufactured in factories. (Of course, we already manufacture a lot of food in factories, although we still start with farm produce of some sort. I note that this highly processed food has been found to be nutritionally inferior, blamed for the epidemics of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer—an aspect Smaje doesn’t focus on.) He notes that this “techno-solutionism” suits the powerful and wealthy as it purports to allow industrial, high-energy-throughput modes to keep on keeping on.
Much of the argument is over “land sparing versus land sharing,” meaning whether more wildlife will survive if 90% of us live in dense cities and manufacture our food there, leaving perhaps half the Earth untouched by humans, the prescription of Monbiot et al—called land sparing—or we instead learn to farm and produce other necessities in ways that don’t decimate wildlife, land sharing. One of Smaje’s arguments here is over the enormous drain on resources to provide housing and such for the two billion additional people who’d need to move to cities. Yes, he does acknowledge that his prescription for a small farm future involves a similar movement, in the opposite direction, though he finds reasons to claim it would be less onerous.
Speaking as a rural resident, I ain’t going voluntarily—they’ll have pry my homestead from my cold dead fingers. Is this how most rural people feel? I expect so.
The key argument here is that the manufactured food scheme might produce 15 tons of protein in a hectare, as opposed to just 1.1 tons from an acre of soybeans—as claimed in a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—but Smaje comes up with a calculation that the energy costs of growing the world’s protein this way would require 89% of its low-carbon electricity, meaning nuclear, hydro and renewables—and that’s just the protein. Then there’s the “energy” or carbohydrates. Clearly this makes no sense at all—how many hectares of solar panels would be needed to supply that one hectare of protein vats? Yet Monbiot is on a European tour of his book Regenesis that touts all this, and tech billionaires are busy investing in it. This doesn’t surprise me as I see the same thing happening within the energy sector, where large amounts of public money are going into Carbon Capture and Storage, blue hydrogen and small modular nuclear reactors—a little investigation shows that none of these will help with climate change, but they will preserve the fossil fuel industries and status quo.
Incidentally, one lesser point from a chart in the book is that the whole cow fart claim about why we should stop eating beef has been blown out of proportion. The contribution of the agricultural sector to climate change is broken into parts, most of them rated at less than two percent. “Enteric digestion” is one of only three that are higher, at just under five percent. “Forest conversion” is five percent (razing forests to grow crops). Then there’s “energy”—at 60%!
Smaje said he took time to write this book because he’s afraid these nonviable “solutions” will waste precious time, which we can’t afford.
A few quibbles I have with the book: Smaje said on page 92 that trees only sequester carbon for their first few decades, thereafter becoming carbon neutral. This is the opposite of what I recently read, and I believe it was in Suzanne Simard’s book, Finding the Mother Tree; she’s been studying forests all her life so I’m inclined to trust her on this.
He does mention, but not enough, that the optimum way to feed any local community varies greatly depending on climate, terrain, even culture. There is no one right protocol for farming.
And he says we need a rural, localized agricultural system that is “job-rich.” I think a lot of our problems come from the assumption that people are passive, dependent, unable to find a way to make a living and in need of some Big Daddy Entrepreneur to come along and provide a job. If the subsidies directed to those large, profitable corporations were instead used to assist would-be small business people, we’d all be much better off. Of course, as Smaje notes, we’re also better off if most of us own our homes and have a little land where we can cultivate our own food—we may need additional income but with that security we’re in a position to choose the best option.
Who needs to read Saying No to a Farm-Free Future? Anyone thinking that the ecomodernist prescription might be a good idea; and anyone arguing with ecomodernists and looking for data to back up their feeling that “food” factories in megacities is not the best path.






Comments
Welcome to the new Resillience commenting system!
We have moved from the former Disqus commenting system to a new system as of September 10, 2026.
We made this change because of privacy concerns regarding Disqus. It's also part of a set of changes to bring more services to the Resilience community under a single login: commenting, (coming September 2026), and online courses (coming 2027). Unfortunately, your old Disqus comments may not reliably link to your account in this new system. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
What are you meaning by “efficient” here, Daniel? Efficiency is generally a simple ratio — units of a in relation to units of b– e.g., units of labor in relation to units of production, units of land in relation to units of production, etc. Efficiency doesn’t have a singular kind. Which kind do you have in mind here?
I believe Smaje does exactly what you ask for – rebutting GM’s calculation – and he isn’t the first.
I have also done it several times. https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/do-we-need-farmfree-food and here https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-farming
It’s not a comprehensive assessment of options, so doesn’t make the grade for me.
Well, GM’s article is hardly “comprehensive”….
His book “Regensis” is – I recommend you read it.
Ad I recommend you read the book reviewed here which is a comprehensive rebuttal of Regenesis. Gunnar’s links focus more on the vertical farming idea, which like solar roads, may sound good if you haven’t looked into it. But Smaje’s books are full of depth on farming question and this one is squarely focused on Monbiot’s proposals.
Well I’m certainly not promoting tree plantations. Even if they sequester as much carbon as an equal area of natural forest, what they do for biodiversity is a small fraction of what a real forest does. And the biodiversity crisis is just as critical as the climate crisis. Most I want to see existing forests left alone. Or at least, logged selectively and lightly.
Apparently the ancient forests do sequester more carbon than tree plantations, and are a lot less vulnerable to fire and other disasters. They are weather creators, and they are nearly gone. In addition, we need to set aside more forests that are established but not mature in any real sense, as well as protect the old ones. The current forest service, especially in the eastern forests, now “log selectively” in older forests to manage for commercially viable oak hickory which are not doing well with climate change. The consider a 30-50 year tree to be mature, and insist they are creating edge habitat for declining species. Never mind that edge habitat as widespread, and that the closed canopy is what we need. What needs to go is the multiple use philosophy that puts human use at the top of the chain. How all this fits in with 8+ billion people I can’t say. But then–we were warned about that as well.
Anyone who follows George Monbiot knows it is nonsense to suggest that he has been “…kidnapped and inducted into the ecomodernist camp.”
But in the same way that he has always taken on vested interests in government and industry to expose the fallacies in their arguments, he is also prepared to call out nonsensical thinking by the environmental movement.
He clearly sets out here how his proposed approach is more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/24/green-technology-precision-fermentation-farming
I see no attempt by *any* of his detractors to properly rebut these calculations, and to provide alternate calculations of their own as to the global impact of adopting their proposals (e.g. on the total area of land required etc.)
I haven’t had the opportunity to read the book as yet, I just want to comment on the “trees sequester carbon”. I believe it is very much dependent on the situation and wheter we discuss “trees” or “forest ecosystem”. Most natural eco-systems will sequester carbon, forests as well as grasslands. However. it is also important to understand that those process can be reversed. And we should be happy for it, if not the planet would be frozen…..
having said that, I believe tree plantation for carbon sequestration has been somewhat overpromoted. True, if you take arable land out of production, you will mostly sequester a lot of carbon, but if you plant trees on grasslands, deserts or bogs it may very well be the opposite. In Sweden, there is a lot of emissions from drained peatland which was planted with forests in the period 1850-1950. Also, in many dry places forests will burn regularly and the carbon will be released again. Finally, if you log most of the annual growth, which is the case in Sweden, there will be little carbon sequestered in the forest/plantation.
Thanks Mary, great piece.
The Monbiot link (Guardian) tells us he is energy-blind. Nice fellow, well-meaning, intelligent, empathetic – but energy blind.
All those tech ideas need feedstock; energy input and mass. That doesn’t conjure up by magic. One way or another, it come back to solar-drenched acres.
Good essay. I haven’t read Smaje’s Book, but I have read enough to know that so called “ecomodernism” is a sort of smokescreen for keeping the unbalanced consumer society from crashing. Like Mary, I also live in a rural area, and already the farms here are mainly monoculture corn and soybeans, about 70% of which already go to make biofuels, and the rest are grow out houses for turkeys or egg production. When I was growing up here in the late 1940s and 1950s, small farmers made up about 80% of the population. Today, that’s about 3%. Earl Butz and his “get big our get out” mentality in the 1980s , along with much political juggling at top government/business agencies, provided the impetus for that swing. I can still remember when farm people went “into town to trade”,and people were not yet called consumers. While I have a decent grasp on modern history, I cannot see that using the system we now employ to live on this finite world has a chance of being successful without a huge change in the way we view nature. Endless growth is simply not possible on a circular planet like this one. Those in the know recognized this from the very beginning, and people like Donella Meadows’ THE LIMITS TO GROWTH and William Catton’s OVERSHOOT along with many others, have been speaking about these things for decades, as we watch Earth get paved over , polluted and flooded/burned. What does it take to wake people up? It certainly isn’t the voices of those who speak on behalf of an out of control technocracy, which has been a cause (one of many) as our future savior. I fear that unless we save the entire interconnected web of life, that what would be left would be a planet not worth inhabiting. Old timers around here have a saying: “If you don’t listen, you are likely to have to pay in spades.”