Large-scale solutions
The article by Peter Rosset in your issue on pesticides (NI 323) was one of the best that I have read in your magazine for several months now. This is because it actually offered some large- scale, constructive solutions with surprising information instead of the usual articles which just illustrate and decry a problem or offer small-scale stories of hope involving the courage and resilience of individuals.

I didn't know and wouldn't have guessed that traditional farming methods which clearly minimize the use of chemicals while avoiding monocultures and so fostering biodiversity, also produce ten times the value of crops per hectare. However, the article does not explicitly make the next, seemingly logical point. We all know that capitalism seeks to maximize profits; why then would investors choose a system which is ten times LESS productive? The only possible answer is that, despite the increased productivity, profitability is still lower.

Why is this? The use of pesticides is another (economic, never mind environmental) cost. Offsetting these additional costs and lower productivity can only be through increased labour costs. On a polycultural farm large combine-harvester-type agricultural vehicles cannot be used and many more people need to be employed. However this employment is a way of redistributing the wealth created by agriculture. Therefore the only impediment to more efficient (in real terms rather than the limited economic terms currently used), more environmentally friendly and more socially beneficial agriculture is the profit maximization that our current economic system fosters. This is something that we need to change.

David Crawford
Edinburgh, Scotland

Global nonsense
I am shocked at some of the shoddy logic applied to the issue on global warming (NI 319 Gathering Storm). From the keynote, in regard to temperature fluctuations the editor states: 'Take the sub-Saharan Sahel region where summer highs have doubled in some cases.' What exactly is that supposed to mean? That, in the Sahel, if the normal average summer temperatures over, say, the last 100 years were 40-450C, they are now 80-900C? If he wishes to speak of temperatures doubling, then he should refer to the Kelvin scale, based on the concept of absolute zero, and not the Celsius scale where zero degrees is actually some 280 degrees Kelvin (give or take a few degrees - my high physics are a bit rusty here).

In the very next paragraph he then states, 'The world's weather today is more unpredictable than it ever was, showing its violent side far more often.' Tell that to the dinosaurs who many believe were wiped out by rapid global cooling, or if that's not enough, hearken back to the halcyon days of the earth's formation when presumably, by either scientific or biblical accounts, the world's atmosphere consisted of turbulent storms.

Argue if you must against the dangers of global warning, but please don't distort the facts.

Steve and Bev Swartz
Alice Springs, Australia

Opened eyes
As a student in my final year of school studying economics in Australia, your edition on Fair Trade (NI 322) opened my eyes. The current economics syllabus that unfortunately future generations are learning, makes no mention of issues such as fairness, environmental and human rights considerations when teaching the topic of free trade. In all the textbooks, 'free trade' is the holy grail of economics and we are fed the propaganda that it benefits everyone down from Bill Gates to your poorest farmer in the South.

I'm worried though. Not all my peers read the NI and consequently they still believe the free-trade myths taught to them. Realistically, fair trade will only become a worldwide phenomenon if the generations that design and build this millennium are made aware of its merits. Let's spread the word.

Joanna Mascarenhas
Sydney, Australia

No opposing voices
I was very interested in your issue on Fair Trade (NI 322) but somewhat concerned when I discovered that all the articles viewed the subject favourably. Activists as eminent as Andre Gorz long ago questioned 'fair trade' as being a prolongation or even an exacerbation of the inability of people in the developing world to feed themselves by encouraging the orientation of their economies towards commodity production in the first world.

Unquestioning enthusiasm for 'fair trade' and a failure to question the current global utilization of agricultural resources leaves us with a politics which suggests that we should accept the role of consumer (albeit an ethically discriminating variety) rather than ask fundamental questions about what is produced, for whom and why?

Mihail Dafydd Evans
Oxford, England

Will to change
I feel Rob Buchanan's letter in the April issue (NI 322) needs an answer. The action in question related to Greenpeace campaigns to stop new oil exploration in the Atlantic Frontier and the Arctic. If the oil companies concerned did as Greenpeace asks and shifted from fossil fuels to renewable energy, there would be no need for 'gas-guzzling inflatables' to be out protecting the oceans. Research has shown that a switch to clean renewable technologies is economically and technically feasible. All that is needed is the will to change on the part of industry and government.

Greenpeace has pioneered green technologies and production techniques from 'greenfreeze' refrigerators to PVC-free credit cards.

It is ludicrous to suggest that an immediate ban on all fossil fuels is practicable. Does Rob Buchanan think it would be effective to go to sea in a wooden rowboat and no lifejackets? If he can source eco-friendly inflatables and lifejackets Greenpeace will, I know, offer him one of their organic cotton T-shirts!

Liz Baker
Falmouth, England

Kosovo stance
Lorna Diggle ('Lies and fraud' Letters NI 322) claims that 'the atrocity stories used by NATO to justify the bombing of Serbia are proven unfounded. The bodies are not there.. this has been established.' But she provides no grounds for believing these assertions and disregards the many reports by equally independent European journalists of massacres and mass graves in Kosovo and Sanjak dating back at least to 1997. She also fails to explain what 'perceived economic advantage' NATO was pursuing in bombing Serbia, an action which in fact did considerable economic damage to several NATO members, notably Hungary and the Czech Republic.

I can understand why the NI finds room for this letter, which is entirely consistent with the magazine's own stance against the Kosovo intervention. But please don't present this as the triumph of enlightened citizens' 'truth' over those duped by cynical superpowers' 'lies and fraud.'

Alan Shipman
London, England

Colonial discourse
In the 'Worldbeater' profile on Rupert Murdoch in NI 322 you attribute his unpopularity with 'educated classes' to him denying Enlightenment ideals such as understanding and knowledge.

In my experience, he is vastly more unpopular in Britain than he is anywhere else I have been. The fact that this rich, powerful man is of Australian origin seems to be the cause of significant amounts of criticism of him. You get the feeling that should Richard Branson decide to buy up all of Rupert's media holdings, Britain's 'educated classes' would find it a lot easier to cope with.

The portrayal of white Australians as crass, brash and cultureless means that when a white Australian holds significant power in the world, many of those from colonial Britain see it as an affront. Colonial discourses continue to affect representations of people from 'other' cultures, even when those people are white. Isn't this worth acknowledging where it occurs? Even if in the case of Rupert Murdoch racist stereotyping is clearly not interfering too much with his pursuit of ever more power and influence.

Sandra Dickson
New Zealander living in London, England