That doesn't mean that efforts to suppress awareness and subsequently action against climate change isn't being done to this very day. Some of it is done by governments (such as mentioned here, or with the EPA dismantling in the US), some by hostile governments (e.g. Russia funding a lot of the Western far-right parties that all run on climate change denial), some by fossil fuel companies (e.g. BP creating the "CO2 footprint" to individualize responsibility), and the rest by utterly braindead clown individuals (we used to call them "village idiots") that, thanks to the Internet, now have a global audience.

Most countries could easily adapt to other types of food. There are multiple source for carbs, fat and proteins, as well for various micronutrients. Some countries where obesity is rampant could also adapt to eating a lot less than they do now. That would bring the number from 3 (assuming that's true) to a lot more.

For only three countries to be self-sufficient, I suspect there is some funny definition like, "Well Americans eat 100pounds of pork each year, and they have to import pork to hit that number, ergo America is not food self sufficient." When instead you could switch calories to any number of alternatives.

> The UK is consistently amongst the lowest household expenditure on food in the entire world.

How?

> Only 3 countries in the world are self sufficient in food.

Surely a small island nation is not one of them?

> The great migration of the local population to the city to get a good factory or a bank job is over I believe. But the country side is still empty.

My major belief/bet is that young professionals that work in front of the computer all day will figure out that living in a very expensive city doesn’t make much sense and there are a ton of cheap rural houses in the beautiful countryside and we’ll have a reverse migration for young, educated white collars. Right now it’s just a trending topic for youtubers, but most people, especially Gen-Z existing in an economic limbo, have not caught on.

At least that’s my plan because it makes so much economic sense, I have had enough of city life and I am too old to care about urban amenities vs quality of life.

Europe’s big problem is the hindered of millions of climate refugees on the doorstep. Even the most open heart liberal will baulk at the population doubling or more in 20 years. The only ones promising a solution will be the neofeudalists

> your politicians hate independent people so they are not gonna encourage it

Your politicians are actually subsidising the rural lifestyle with direct and indirect transfers. Eg in Europe, you can buy land, leave it more or less abandoned and cash in agricultural subsidies.

I think you’re talking about subsistence farming, which plenty of places in Europe do practice. But it is hard work.

Spaniard there, from rural background. Self-suficient... you wish. Post civil war even oranges were a luxury, something to be give as a present in Christmas. Any autharchic attemp, be left or right, just produced famines and misery.

Moving from the current situation to the situation you describe is impossible, because the UK has far too much debt and far too small an annual government income to pay for even the popular kinds of infrastructure spending, let alone the degrowth proposition you articulate. The millionaires really do take their assets and leave if taxes are raised and a Mossad-style international program to repatriate them in duffel bags would see the government that initiated it both out of power permanently and in cells themselves.

How is having a bunch of people move to the countryside going to make for a more sustainable future?

I think the fundamental problem is the conflict between climate, family and live-style vs corporate interest and economic growth.

Ideally, we should want populations that are either not growing or slowly shrinking, but we can't have this because multi-national corporations don't want to invest in countries with a declining consumer base. We must therefore sustain population growth indefinitely.

Similar humans would presumably prefer more space – perhaps a home with a few bedrooms and a decent sized garden where they can grow a little food and the kids and play in the summer. But we can't have this because it's more economically productive if we increase population density such that people increasingly live in small flats within high-rise buildings with no gardens and little natural light.

And I get it, money is nice... People will trade a lot of things for more money, but the government ideally should not encourage this.

Ideally the government should be encouraging people to have a home with a garden. To have a couple of kids. To grow some of their own food. To work in their local community, and therefore obtain an education which will help them to be productive members of their community – rather than say taking a punt at studying journalism at university and hoping they'll get a job in some city 200 miles from home and their family.

Just speaking personally, the city I grew up in in the UK has become hell to live in over the last couple of decades. It's almost impossible to drive around today because of densification which has taken place. All of the local fields that I played on as a kid have been turned into cheap flats which has transformed the semi-rural area I used to live into an ugly anti-human concrete jungle. And because of the number of people now living around here no one seems to know anyone anymore – I walk outside my house and it feels like there's random people everywhere, and I've noticed many people around me don't even seem to speak English anymore.

It's such a strange thing we are doing... It really makes no sense for us to want to live like this.

Farmland is ~69% of the total area of the UK with it being quite stable in the last decade, and most of that being grassland. Solar accounts for ~0.1% of (former) agricultural land, and after 2030 it should be around ~0.6%. The Land Use Framework aims for 1% of land (mainly agricultural, so ~1.5% of ag) for renewables by 2050. Housing doesn't have as comparable figures, but I'm envelope mathing it to about 1.5% by 2050 again. Which makes 3% of ag land, of which crops are roughly 1/3rd, and google says 60% of solar is on good crop land. So a reduction of up to ~6% at the top end.

There are a few flip-sides here - things that many don't like to hear or acknowledge:

There are alternate diets that are suitably nutritious that are achievable on this land, largely by reducing meat consumption. Meat production uses much more land than other food sources, and a lot of that is input crops. Its inefficient. A change in diet can make the UK self-sufficient on much less land.

Solar is a developing technology; it will improve, requiring less land for the same production. If long term trends push up the value of crops and down solar production, the panels can be removed and crops grown instead - its either/or but it is reversible. This is especially important for bringing in non-solar power sources which take longer to realise (nuclear, tidal). I will also note that solar farms are built on the good crop land because it is convenient and the price is right. We will see south facing hills covered soon enough.

Housing and social housing are the same problem; where housing prices are so high compared to salaries, social housing demand increases. Building houses - any houses - solves the problem. The question of density, location, style is a question about what kind of problems we want in 10-20 years time. High rises did not work well at all.

> > It lacks enough land to feed its population or rear livestock to maintain current consumption patterns and price levels.

> Yet they're pushing to use farmland for solar farms and social housing.

Cities, you may note, never ever make enough food to feed themselves. Always been true, everywhere and everywhen since the invention of the city.

Farmers choosing between cash crops and food crops was literally a game the teachers got the kids to play when I was in school in the 90s. Cash crops, and PV is kinda a cash crop, let you make enough money to buy food. That said, how much money depends on what industry you have to use the power, because nobody else in the world will care for the £ if the UK employment consists entirely of baristas, hairdressers, and Amazon warehouse staff/delivery drivers.

The biggest problem with using farmland for social housing is that a lot of the good farmland is a flood risk.

But the only case where the UK has to care that it doesn't make enough to feed itself is if the economy becomes an autarky, at which point it cannot help but suffer a massive population reduction because it's a small island quite close to the arctic circle which has spent or depleted most of its natural resources, first the wood (1600s-1700s), then the coal (1930s or so), then the fish (1980s or so), then the natural gas (early 2000s).

I don't think it's been possible to feed the UK domestically since before WW2.

I note you put the word "social" in there; very little social housing is being built, it's mostly private. Agrivoltaics are also possible, but of course everyone would rather do the politics of emotions ("hate farmers") than discuss the issues. Such as how we grow enough electricity, too.

The farmers are the ones selling the land off and living off the million pound proceeds

Farmland is worth £100/acre/year, at most that’s £3k an acre. But people pay £10k because it’s a way to avoid tax and if you get the right planning permission a way of making millions.

There's certainly a justified hatred of faux-farmers of convenience such as Clarkson et al.

I suspect that's the hatred being mischaracterised and amplified by the GBNews Farrage crowd.

There’s no real hatred of farmers on the left, other than the fact that farmers generally vote small-c conservative.

There’s certainly a hatred of land owners, and vast amounts of UK farm land is privately owned, renting the land to farmers. It’s the right wing parties and press that takes that to mean that the left hate farmers.