PART TWO: THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE CARBON THEORY OF VALUE. |
||
THREE: THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THE CARBON THEORY OF VALUE.It was not god but Micro-organisms, Plants, and
Wildlife who created the Earth. It was not god but Wildlife who created humans.
Humans owe a huge ecological debt to Wildlife because Wildlife created the Earth’s
habitability, and they owe an existential debt to Wildlife because Wildlife
created humans.
Geocentrism is the belief that all value derives
from the Earth.[1] The more a species contributes to the maintenance
of the Earth’s habitability the greater its Earth value. Conversely, the more
a species destroys the Earth’s habitability the greater its negative Earth value.
The scale of the pollution and ecological devastation caused by each species
determines its Earth value. It is possible to measure the exact contribution
of each species to the Planet’s geophysiology and thus scientifically determine
its Earth value. Whilst most Animals produce little pollution and protect the
Planet’s ability to carry out Photosynthesis, humans dump huge quantities of
pollution into the environment and are devastating the Planet’s life support
system. Bacteria, Ants and Worms contribute more to the Planet’s life-sustaining
processes than humans. In fact, all Animal species are doing more to protect
the Planet than humans. From the Earth’s perspective humans not merely have
a lower Earth value than Wildlife species they are the most geophysiologically
destructive species on Earth and thus have the largest negative Earth value.
Why is it, then, that the only Animals on the Planet with votes are those causing
the greatest ecological destruction?
Geocentrism is capable of extreme precision and could measure
the contribution made to the Planet’s life-sustaining processes not merely by
each species but by each individual within each species. This is of especial
relevance to humans given the wide disparity between those in the over-industrialized
world who cause a considerable amount of destruction to the Earth’s life support
system and those in third world countries who make a far smaller impact - some
may even have a positive impact on the Earth.
The only way to create a sustainable Planet is to allocate
land to each species according to their Earth value since species with a high
Earth value protect and preserve the Earth’s life support system. The greater
the Earth value, the greater the entitlement to land. Whilst Wildlife should
be allocated huge areas of land because they protect the Planet’s life sustaining
processes, humans would be entitled only to a much smaller area. However, humans
could increase their Earth value by reducing their pollution and ecological
devastation.
The first step on the road to ecocide is allowing humans with
a negative Earth value to suffocate habitats owned either by humans with a positive
Earth value or by Wildlife. It is the height of ecological stupidity to allow
humans in ecological destructive countries to go on expropriating more and more
land at the expense of Wildlife because all this does is to replace Planet-saving
creatures with Earth-wreckers - this is more absurd than replacing bank managers
with gangsters.
The cultural origin of the modern age was the scientific
rediscovery of the fact known to the ancient greeks that the sun did not revolve
around the Earth. It was a profound shock for the christian world to discover
that the Earth was not the centre of creation. However, christians were still
left with the consolation that god had created humans and had given them dominion
over the Earth and its Wildlife. This view became secularized during the modern
age into various forms of humanism in which humans became the measure of all
value, the Lords and Masters of the Earth, the most important species on Earth.
This entitled humans to do whatsoever they wished to the Earth and allowed them
to maim, mutilate and murder as many Animals as they wished.
It has become transparent in the most recent cultural revolution,
however, that it is the Earth which is the measure of all value,[2] and that humanism is the biggest threat to the Planet’s life
support system. Until humans accept that they are currently the most ecologically
destructive species on Earth, and therefore far less valuable to the Earth than
any other creature, then they will not survive. The crucial issue of our time
is not global warming but the dismantling of humanism.
I: The Need to Regulate the Climate.
As has been pointed out above, if there were no
humans around, the Earth would currently be heading into the next ice age and
vast ice sheets would gradually be spreading across the north american and euroasian
continents. However, since the industrial revolution the over-industrialized
nations have caused so much atmospheric pollution and ecological devastation
they are heading towards a global warming disaster. There is little choice about
the matter. Humans have got to regulate the Planet’s climate to avoid either
of these extremes.
II: The Feasibility of Regulating the Planet's Climate.
There are a small number of commentators who believe
it is possible to regulate the climate, “Humanity is beginning to determine
the course of the global climate. Our influence is so profound that we are now
powerful enough deliberately to change the climate. We are able, if we choose,
easily to warm the planet, or, with somewhat more difficulty, to cool it. The
atmosphere, from now on, will be what we make it to be.” (E.G. Nisbet 'Leaving
Eden. To Protect and Manage the Earth' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1991 p.295).
Most commentators are opposed to climate regulation. There
are three reasons for opposing the idea; firstly, theoretical reasons; secondly,
pragmatic reasons; and, finally, political reasons.
The main theoretical argument against the possibility of climatic
regulation is chaos theory. This new philosophical tendency developed in the
1980s but is now old enough to have generated critiques. A number of philosophers
promote anti-chaos pointing out the underlying regularities in many phenomena.
This leaves the way open for climate control, “By making continual, tiny changes
to the atmosphere, meteorologists may one day be able to control the weather.”
(New Scientist 30.5.92 p.16).
There are a number of arguments against regulating the climate
because of practical difficulties. Firstly, there are those who believe that
the necessary information does not exist at the moment nor for a long while
to come, “Science has not provided, and will not provide in the forseeable future,
the knowledge that we need to dominate and control nature.” (Anita Gordon &
David Suzuki ‘It’s a Matter of Survival’ Harper Collins London 1991 p.53). Secondly,
there are those who argue that controlling the Earth’s Vegetation cover in order
to suit the climate would not be practical since it would mean constantly measuring
the world’s entire landmasses. What is not appreciated is that the Earth’s Vegetation
cover is already being monitored. Just like the scientific group which unbeknownest
to the public quietly measured levels of atmospheric Carbon for decades before
coming to public notice, a scientific team has been monitoring Vegetation cover
for the last decade or so.
The origins of this relatively unknown research group lay,
as is all too often the case in science, in the politics of the cold war. In
the early 1970s soviet russia experienced a severe crop failure and secretly
bought up vast quantities of American wheat at cheap prices. If the news of
this massive crop failure had become public it would have caused an instantaneous
and substantial increase in the global price of wheat. The united states government
objected to being duped by the market and decided it needed to detect future
crop failures. Nasa launched a series of landsat satellites to constantly monitor
and evaluate the state of the world’s crops, “NASA and the United States Department
of Agriculture began using data from NASA’s newly launched Landsat for direct
observation of crops. It was one of the satellites advertised purposes, and
the Vegetation Index (NDV1) was invented for use with Landsat.” (Nigel Calder
‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991 p.103). However, landsats did not turn
out to be as useful as was hoped. Compton tucker, a biologist, believed it would
be better to use a meteorological satellite for the Vegetation index. A new
weather satellite noaa-7 was launched carring the first advanced very high resolution
radiometer (avhrr) which provided better information than landsat. Unfortunately,
just as was the case with another satellite which was supposed to measure the
thickness of the Earth’s ozone layer but failed to notice the gaping ozone hole
over the Antarctic, there was a problem interpreting the data about the Earth’s
Vegetation. No one knew for certain what the noaa satellite was measuring. But
gradually the answers began to unfold .. “the vegetation index is a universal
measure of plant growth.” (Nigel Calder ‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991
p.104). Once the data was being correctly interpreted the new satellite proved
to be a considerable success, “When Tucker and Townsend mapped the vegetation
index, season by season, they were able to distinguish broad areas of rainforest,
grassland and so on, by the density of vegetation and its seasonal behaviour.
This use of weather satellites for vegetation monitoring marks a U-Turn away
from an excessive reliance on satellites of the Landsat type.” (Nigel Calder
‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991 p.99).
As the data continued to be evaluated it was discovered that
the satellite was also providing invaluable information about related phenomena
which there had been no plans to measure, “If the vegetation index from AVHRR
did no more than paint unprecedented portraits of Africa and other continents
with plants, and reveal the broad changes from season to season and year to
year, it would count as an astonishing innovation. Yet that was only the start.
The vegetation index turned out to be a prime measure of the influence of plants
in the Earth system.” (Nigel Calder ‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991 p.100).
Even better was that, “Apart from being a direct sign of the
vitality of the vegetation and therefore of its likely throughput of transpired
moisture from soil to air, the vegetation index is an indirect guide to soil
moisture.” (Nigel Calder ‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991 p.106).
Piers Sellars and his colleagues in Maryland designed a computer
model of the climate to interpret the satellite’s data. By 1986 they were feeding
the model with vast quantities of information and helping to evaluate a huge
segment of the Earth’s Carbon spiral, “Their Simple Biosphere Model takes in
conventional weather data and computes changes in leaf temperatures, the rain,
and dew wetting the leaves, and the wetness of various layers of soil.” (Nigel
Calder ‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991 p.102).
The meteorological satellites measuring the Earth’s Vegetation
discovered one more phenomena which may turn out to be of profound importance
to the issue of climate regulation - that there is a fundamental unity and structure
to the Earth’s Plant life which undermines the validity of chaos theory, “No
one has been able to think of any physical or evolutionary reason why pine needles,
maize leaves and cactuses should all be reliably shiny in the near infra-red,
and in such a strict proportion compared with red light that estimates of plant
growth and transpiration are possible. Without that convenience on the part
of nature, the vegetation index would not work.” (Nigel Calder ‘Spaceship Earth’
Viking, London 1991 p.108).
The third reason for opposing climate regulation concerns politics.
Paradoxically, the person who can be credited with giving scientific respectability
to the idea of regulating the climate[3]
is totally opposed to the idea. James lovelock has done more than any other
scientist to point out that, throughout the aeons, life has regulated the Earth’s
climate and yet he opposes the idea of controlling the Earth’s climate. If it
seems a little bizarre for someone who believes that life unconsciously regulates
the climate to oppose a conscious attempt by life to regulate the climate, it
is even more bizarre that he promotes the idea of changing the climate on mars
but not that on Earth. His two main reasons for opposing climate regulation
are firstly, that it would be an onerous burden for humans and, secondly, that
humans cannot be trusted with such a task. It is difficult not to agree with
the latter sentiment but politically it is naive - as hannah arendt has argued
it doesn’t matter that human nature may be evil as long as there is a political
constitution which creates ‘fences between people’ to prevent this evil from
having free reign. In order to regulate the climate, the ‘fences’ would be a
global constitution. Lovelock’s attitude is also unrealistic - when the damage
caused by climate change becomes severe humans are almost certain to try and
regulate the climate , “Ultimately .. it is in the nature of humanity to attempt
to set the climate to its own liking.” (E G Nisbet ‘Leaving Eden. To Protect
and Manage the Earth’ Cambridge Univesity Press Cambridge 1991 p.184).
Nigel calder, who in many ways had a similar scientific career
to James Lovelock, is another high-tech, space scientist with a predilection
for purposive analogies about the Earth who is opposed to regulating the climate.
In Spaceship Earth (sic) he argues, “A climate model is a dream in a supercomputer.”
(Nigel Calder ‘Spaceship Earth’ Viking, London 1991 p.185). Perhaps the most
obvious reason for his doubts is the disasterous prediction he made in the 1970s
about the future of the Earth’s climate, “Calder assigned a strong possibility
to a new ice age within a hundred years.” (D S Halacy Jr ‘Ice or Fire? Surviving
Climatic Change’ Harper and Row, New York 1978 p.9); “Nigel Calder warned of
a .. ‘snow-blitz’ .. an icy equivalent of wildfire .. Calder listed 15 nations
in danger of ‘complete’ or ‘almost complete’ obliteration by ice sheets.” (D
S Halacy Jr ‘Ice or Fire? Surviving Climatic Change’ Harper and Row, New York
1978 p.175).[4]
It seems to be something of a paradox that those scientists
who use the most mechanical analogies about the Earth are those who are most
opposed to climate regulation, “If the earth had an operating manual, the chapter
on climate might begin with a caveat that the system had been adjusted at the
factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials.” (JWC White of the US
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research quoted in Pat Coyne 'The Ice Age Cometh'
New Statesman and Society 3.9.93 p.30). Which begs the problem of what should
be done given that humans are have already smashed up most of the dials.
Many environmentalists are also opposed to the regulation of
the climate on political grounds. They fear the rise of a global green dictatorship
run by ecocrats using global ecology as a rationale for wielding global power,
“Satellite pictures scanning the globe’s vegatative cover, computer graphs running
interacting curves through time, threshold levels held up as worldwide norms
are the language of global ecology. It constructs a reality that contains mountains
of data but no people. In short, they provide a knowledge which is faceless
and placeless .. It offers data, but no context; it shows diagrams but no actors;
it gives calculations, but no notions of morality; it seeks stability but disregards
beauty. It is inevitable that the claims of global management are in conflict
with the aspirations for cultural rights, democracy and self determination.
Indeed, it is easy for an ecocracy which acts in the name of ‘one earth’ to
become a threat to local communities and their life-styles.” (Wolfgang Sachs
‘Global Ecology and the Shadow of Development’ in Wolfgang Sachs [ed] ‘Global
Ecology. A New Arena of Political Conflict’ Zed Books London and New Jersey
1993 p.19).
These dangers should not be dismissed but, then again, they
should not be used as an excuse to stop climate regulation. There are undoubtedly
managerialist greens in international green organizations, universities and
multi-national corporations who could develop such a nightmare system but climate
regulation does not necessarily lead in this direction. On the contrary, climate
regulation can be used not merely to stop ecological destruction and protect
the Earth’s life support system but to liberate Animals, bring about justice
between all people’s of the world, enhance local democracy and protect cultural
freedoms. It can be argued that the need for climate regulation is one of the
most compelling reasons for abolishing the huge and destructive divisions between
the rich world and the poor world. There is going to have to be a co-ordination
of human activites around the world to prevent a climate disaster because the
Planet’s ecology is a unitary entity but humans will still have many freedoms
within these geophysiological constraints.
It should not be too surprising to find that those in the ‘radical’
deep green movement are also opposed to climate regulation given their opposition
to any human intervention in any ecological habitat. They believe that humans
should live tribally like Pleistocene hunter gatherers - browsing off nature
not cultivating it. But they do have more theoretical reasons for opposing climate
regulation, “Chaos theory tells us that we can never expect to be able to predict
the weather for more than a few days ahead with any degree of accuracy. The
dynamics of the atmosphere far exceed the level of complexity at which it would
be even theoretically possible. It cannot be done.” (Mark Davis 'If It's So
Bad' Earth First! Journal Yule 1992 p.16). It seems that some deep greens can’t
keep up to date with theoretical developments because they spend too much time
in the Wilderness.
Although climate regulation is based on science this does not
mean that it conforms to the conventional conception of science, “that nature
is governed by universal, timeless and simple laws which can be understood by
technicians in the same manner as they understand the workings of mechanics.”
(Tariq Banuri & Frederique Apffel Marglin ‘Who will Save the Forests? Knowledge,
Power and Environmental Destruction’ Zed Books, London 1993 p.19). Climate regulation
is not based on universal timeless laws but on Earthly realities.
III: The Technological and Geophysiological Ways of Regulating the Climate.
There are two different ways of regulating the climate.
Although the Earth is a dynamic, living entity there are commentators who believe
it should be possible to regulate the climate through technological means, “Our
planet is in need of a new stewardship based on a scientific understanding of
how it works. But we are a very long way from achieving that end. We have only
the vaguest idea of what controls there are in the cockpit of spaceship Earth.
While we are drawing up the operating manual, we may have to come up with some
short term technical fixes to help us to get by.” (Fred Pearce ‘Turning up the
Heat. Our Perilous Future in the Global Greenhouse’ The Bodley Head, London
1989 p.189).
The technological means of regulating the Earth’s climate include
carbonization devices on power stations to capture Carbon which is then dumped
into deep ocean trenches; maintaining high levels of acid rain to curb global
warming by encouraging industry to pollute the atmosphere; storing vast quantities
of water on land to reduce the rise in sea levels; sending up thousands of aeroplanes
loaded with chemicals to seed clouds and cool the Earth; dumping hundreds of
thousands of tons of iron into the world’s oceans to stimulate Photosynthesis
by Photoplankton, etc etc. There is very little doubt that if technological
means are used for regulating the climate they will cause a climate disaster.
Technology has caused the current ecological disasters they are not going to
rescue humans from such disasters. The dangers of an ecocratic elite using sateliites
to control the Earth’s climate have been mentioned above. This ecocratic elite
will almost certainly rely on technological means for regulating the climate.
It is quite amazing how many so-called environmentalists seem to believe that
they are also technologists.
All creatures have an impact on the Earth’s life
sustaining processes and, in turn, all creatures are affected by these processes.
The main difference between humans and Animals is that only humans know that
they have an impact on the entire Planet and that they are capable of changing
the Planet’s geophysiology. In other words, only humans are Planetary beings.
Only humans realize they live on a finite Planet (even if they totally refuse
to recognize the implications of such a basic fact) and only humans have Planetary
responsibilities. Although humans have divided the Earth into segments owned
by countries (and within each country the Earth is further divided into segments
owned by individuals or collections of individuals) they all have a vested interest
in, and responsibilities for, the ecological viability of all parts of the Earth.
Any damage inflicted on any part of the Earth affects all humans, and the protection
of one part of the Earth benefits all humans. Humans can fulfil their status
as Planetary beings only when they regulate the Planet’s climate and protect
Biodiversity. When humans act as Planetary beings they increase their Earth
value.
Humans are not god’s children; they are not pilgrims; they
are not space explorers for whom the Earth is a mere launch pad for space exploration
and colonization; they are not local beings or universal beings in a ‘human-centred
universe’. They are Planetary beings; Earth-bound, finite beings living on a
finite Planet.
If humans are to protect the Earth’s life support
system they must formulate Planetary policies because the Earth’s geophysiology
is a unitary entity. Likewise, if humans are to regulate the Earth’s climate
and create a sustainable Planet they have to formulate Planetary policies because
the Earth’s climate is a unitary entity. All countries must co-operate to produce
the correct scale of global Forest cover and a specific concentration of atmospheric
Carbon. This has a number of implications:-
Firstly, it is impossible to create an ecologically sound village,
region, nation, or continent, in the midst of global ecological chaos. There
is no such thing as ecology in one village, in one region, in one country, or
on one continent. If the Earth’s life support system collapses then all humans
perish.
Secondly, it is theoretically impossible for any village, region,
nation, or continent to justify any policy as ecologically sound if there are
no global policies to maintain a sustainable Planet. It is possible to justify
a policy as ecologically sound only by showing how it accords with global policies.
Thirdly, Planet-wide policies to create and preserve a sustainable
Planet must determine national (and regional and communal) policies and not,
as at present, the other way around. At the moment, all 150 odd countries around
the world are engaging in activities which are changing the climate by dumping
pollution into the atmosphere and by ransacking their Forests. If the scale
of a country’s Carbon pollution and its devastation of Forests was duplicated
by all other countries around the world then this would give rise to 150 different
climates. In effect, the world’s 150 countries are inadvertently attempting
to create 150 different global climates - or, to put this in another way, they
are pulling the present climate in 150 different directions (but most are moving
in the direction of increasing global warming). If this is allowed to continue,
there will inevitably be a geophysiological breakdown. Supporters of national
sovereignty believe that nations have the right, in effect, to create their
own climate. (This also applies to decentralists who support communal autonomy/sovereignty,
and also to bioregionalists who support bioregional sovereignty). But, whilst
it may be possible for countries (or communities) to become economically self-sufficient,
or achieve resource self-sufficiency, it is impossible to achieve ecological
self sufficiency because there is only one climate.
Fourthly, there are, in effect, no local solutions to environmental
problems. All green problems are geophysiological, that is global, in scope
and can be solved only within a global context. Solutions to local ecological
issues can be determined only within a geophysiological context.
It is transparent, therefore, that greens need to be far more
concerned about globalization than they are about decentralization.
It has been pointed out above that whilst the human
race currently has a negative Earth value (primarily because of the oomans living
in the over-industrialized nations) all Animal species have a positive Earth
value. However, if the human race decided to act as Planetary beings and regulate
the climate this would considerably increase their Earth value. From a situation
where humans have the lowest Earth value, they could acquire the highest Earth
value.
Geocentrism is not a moral theory. It is an objective, scientific
assessment of the ecological value of the Earth’s various life-forms. It measures
the contribution of each species to the Earth’s habitability (or, as will be
seen in the next chapter, their relationship to the Earth’s global Carbon spiral).
Geocentricism would not give humans the right to increase their Earth value
by exterminating other species and taking over their ecological functions in
order to expropriate their Earth value.[5]
It would not entitle humans to kill species with a lower Earth value - assuming
that the human race decided to regulate the climate. Planetary humans would
be no more entitled to exterminate Animals because of their lower Earth value
than Animals are currently entitled to kill humans because humans have the lowest
Earth value. Humans would acquire the greatest Earth value by regulating the
climate in order to maximize Biodiversity not by purging other species. The
extermination of Animal species at the top of the food chain, the colonization
of their habitats, and the usurpation of their ecological functions may be scientifically
feasible but it is morally unacceptable.
The moral relationship between humans and Animals is determined
by the Biocentric principle that humans owe a geophysiological, and an existential,
debt to Wildlife. Humans should repay these moral debts firstly, by not using,
abusing or killing animals and, secondly, by the creation of Wilderness zones
in which Wildlife species would be free from persecution by omans.
The Biocentric principle is not the same as anti-speciesism.
The former is concerned with the moral justification for allocating areas of
land for the sovereign use of each species on Earth i.e. preserving habitats
for each species; whereas the latter is concerned with regulating the way that
humans behave towards Animals. Whilst the latter is based on humans relationship
with Animals, the former is based on the assumption that humans should be kept
as far away from Animals as possible because the vast majority of them are unable
to show any respect or decency towards Animals. It is not possible for humans
to have a moral relationship with Animals because the vast majority of humans
cannot resist the temptation of using their superior force to abuse or murder
Animals. The Biocentric principle is concerned with something positive - the
creation of Animal freedom, whereas anti-speciesism is primarily negative -
stopping the abuse of Animals. The urgency of stopping Animal abuse is diminished
if Animals do not have habitats to which they can be returned.
In Britain nearly 800 million Animals are murdered
every year (and this figure does not include the number of fish and invertebrates
which are also killed each year). Globally the figure could be in the region
of hundreds of billions. If it is true that, “The greatness of a nation and
its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma
Gandhi) then clearly Britain is a brutish society and the rest of the over-industrialized
world isn’t much better.
This tidal wave of exploitation, vile tortures, and brutality
against Animals is unprecedented. Such a scale of slaughter would have been
unimaginable during any other period of human history. Humans have killed Animals
from the earliest of times but the current, industrialized, rate of slaughter
is so astronomically larger than anything which has happened in the past it
can be regarded only as a qualitatively different phenomena.
As will be seen later, the Animal exploitation industry is
the most ecologically destructive industry on Earth. The oppression of Animals
is therefore the worst form of exploitation on Earth - far worse than classism,
racism, sexism, genderism, ageism, imperialism, etc. The extermination of Wildlife
is a greater moral depravity than nazism or genocide. The world’s major Animal
exploiters are worse mass murderers than Hitler or Stalin.
One of the basic geophysiological realities pointed
out above, is that there are pollution, Photosynthetic, climatic, and Wildlife,
limitations to human existence. There is a point at which the dumping of pollution
into the atmosphere will lead either to an increase in the greenhouse effect
or to a nuclear winter and thus mass starvation. There is a point at which the
devastation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity will cause climatic changes
which will have profound consequences for the ecological services on which humans
depend and which will, ultimately, make the Earth inhospitable for humans. There
is a point at which the killing of Wildlife species will lead to the extermination
of the human race. These turning points are more difficult to discern in some
cases rather than others. But in all cases it can be suggested that whenever
humans reach these turning points then the Earth can be said to be ‘full up’.
It has been argued that some countries already exceed their
ecological limitations, “Thus Western Europe is even more over-extended ecologically
in relation to its own resources than the United States.” (William Ophuls &
A Stephen Boyan JR ‘Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling
of the American Dream’ WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.256); “In terms
of ecological scarcity Japan’s situation is much more desperate than that of
Europe.” (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR ‘Ecology and the Politics
of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream’ WH Freeman and
Company, New York 1992 p.257).
Some theorists believe the Earth itself is full up, “Taking
the world as a whole, the point of overdevelopment has long been surpassed.
Yet most people, including many ‘greens’ are prepared to sacrifice more environments
.. by consenting to a bit more development - one more motorway, one more housing
estate, one more hotel, one more factory, one more plantation, one more quarry.”
(Sandy Irvine ‘Towards a Politics of Ecology’ 1993 p.3-4);[6] “The human enterprize has passed the point where
the energy required to support it in its present form can be obtained entirely
through green plants.” (George M Woodwell ‘Forests: What in the World are they
For?’ in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) ‘World Forests
for the Future: Their Use and Conservation’ Yale University Press New Haven
1993 p.8).
The regulation of the climate will limit the amount of pollution
dumped into the atmosphere and will determine the scale of the Earth’s Photosynthetic
capacity. Keeping within these limits should prevent humans from the damaging
consequences of climate change. As will be shown later, the regulation of the
climate is capable of determining the amount of pollution which can be released
by each country and the scale of their Photosynthetic capacity. The regulation
of the climate can indicate therefore when the Earth is full-up, when countries
are full-up, and when each region within each country, is full-up.
The regulation of the climate requires a specific
concentration of atmospheric Carbon and a specific scale of Forest cover depending
upon astronomic climate forcing factors. If humans were starting from scratch
they might decide to locate all the Forests for controlling the climate in that
part of the world where Photosynthetic productivity was at its highest in order
to allow humans to occupy more land in other parts of the Earth. The fact is
though that humans are currently rooted in nation-states and there is very little
chance of changing this in order to allow Forests to grow in those parts of
the Earth where their productivity is at its highest. The regulation of the
climate will have to take place within the framework of the current nation-state
system. The principle of global ecological equity means that each nation-state
must take an equal share of the burden in controlling atmospheric Carbon emissions
and in providing Forest cover.
Friends of the Earth have estimated that if present trends
continue then 20% of the United Kingdom will be covered in tarmac and cement
by 2050.[7] It is transparent therefore that if Britain is
allowed to get away with suffocating such a large segment of its share of the
Planet’s geophysiology then all other governments around the world will use
this as a justification for pursuing policies which will cause a similar scale
of suffocation in their own countries. Britain has not merely suffocated a large
part of its land under cement, it has considerably reduced the Photosynthetic
capacity of the rest of its land and has dumped huge quantities of pollution
into the environment. If other countries are allowed to do the same as Britain
i.e. suffocate a large proportion of its Photosynthetic capacity, diminish the
Photosynthetic capacity of the rest of its land, and dump huge quantities of
pollution into the environment, then there will be a global ecological collapse.
The principle of global ecological equity requires that all countries must not
damage its share of the Planet’s geophysiology to such an extent that if all
other countries around the world did the same then a global geophysiological
collapse would occur.
FOUR: THE GEOPHYSIOLOGICAL REGULATION OF THE CLIMATE.This chapter looks at how it might be possible to
geophysiologically regulate the climate. The three main factors influencing
the Earth’s climate have been highlighted in an earlier section. There
is nothing that humans can do about the influence of solar factors or
continental drift. The only influence humans have over the Earth’s climate
is through global warming. It has also been noted that the climate is
influenced by the Carbon spiral and the water cycle. Humans can influence
both of these phenomena. It may be possible, then, to regulate the climate
through manipulating either the Carbon spiral or the water cycle or both.
I: A Comparison between the Carbon Spiral and Water Cycle as Climate Regulators.
It has been shown above that the water
cycle has a far bigger impact on the climate than the Carbon spiral. Although
humans’ impact on the water spiral is becoming more pervasive it is still miniscule
given the vast abundance of water on Earth e.g. humans have very little direct
influence over the Earth’s oceans or clouds. It is highly unlikely therefore
that humans could ever control the water cycle to regulate the climate.
On the other hand, humans’ impact on the Carbon spiral is altogether
of a different order. Humans have a substantial influence over Trees/Forests
and Phytomass in general.[8]
It would thus be much easier to regulate the climate through the Carbon spiral
than through the water cycle. Although the former has a far smaller influence
on global average temperatures than the latter, humans are able to exert a much
greater influence over the Carbon spiral than they can over the water cycle.
Nevertheless, humans could, to an extent, regulate certain aspects of the water
cycle to help reinforce changes to global temperatures being made through the
Carbon spiral.
II: The Main Ways of Regulating the Carbon Spiral.
The two ways of regulating the Carbon spiral are
firstly, controls over the amounts of Carbon pollution dumped into the atmosphere
and, secondly, the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere through Photosynthesis. A: Curbing Carbon Emissions.
It should be fairly easy to curb Carbon emissions
from both industry and from factory pharming which produces large quantities
of Carbon emissions. B: Changing the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity.
The Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity covers a huge
range of phenomena from Trees, Grasses, Algae, Coral Reefs, and Micro-organisms.
Humans have most control over Trees and Grasses so it would seem clear that
the best means of controlling the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is through
varying the Earth’s Forest cover.
It was concluded above that global temperatures have remained
remarkably steady since the end of the last ice age despite the huge scale of
the deforestation which has taken place, and that this seems to sugest that
Forests may not an important influence on the climate. However, if it is the
case that the Earth’s orbiting toward the next ice age has been offset by global
warming caused by human activities then perhaps, after all, Forests have been
an important influence on the climate. Although it is not known how powerful
the astronomic factors are which are pushing the Earth into the next ice, nor
how powerful global warming has been to offset this tendency, it seems logical
to assume that the stronger the stronomic factors the more important has been
deforestation. If the ice age was threatening to reappear as far back as the
medieval period then it seems more likely that deforestation has been important
for offsetting global cooling and consequently that Forests are important for
regulating the climate. C: A Comparison between the Supply, and Demand, Sides of the Carbon Spiral.
Although at present global Carbon emissions seem
to be far in excess of the amounts of Carbon absorbed through Photosynthesis
- which is why the concentration of atmospheric Carbon is increasing - this
need not necessarily be the case. It should be fairly easy for humans to reverse
this relationship.
III: The Advantages of the Carbon Spiral as a Climate Regulator.
There are a number of advantages in using the Carbon
spiral to regulate the climate. A: Controllability.
Humans already have considerable power over certain
parts of the Carbon spiral even if to date this has been of an almost entirely
destructive nature, on the one hand, the Carbon pollution emanating from the
use of fossil fuels and deforestation and, on the other hand, the ecological
destruction caused by Carbon pollution, deforestation, etc.. B: Measurability.
A second advantage of relying upon the Carbon spiral
is that it is a relatively easy phenomenon to measure. It is probably easier
to measure the amount of Carbon in circulation around the Earth than it is to
measure the amount of money in circulation around the global economy - people
do not hide vast sums of Carbon under their bed; well-known international banking
institutions do not refuse to divulge how much stolen money they are stashing
in their vaults; and it is not possible to instantaneously transport vast quantities
of Carbon around the Planet using electronic means.
The ease of measuring the Carbon spiral means that even
though humans can’t control the entire spiral they are still able to keep track
of any changes it is undergoing. C: The Importance of a Lack of Total Control over the Carbon Spiral.
The fact that humans will never have total control
over the Carbon spiral e.g. humans have no influence over the volcanoes/rock
weathering sub-spiral, is far from being a liability. There is no need for humans
to have total control over the Carbon spiral because there is no point in humans
being able to control global temperatures beyond the very limited range within
which life is habitable on Earth. Given that quite dramatic climatic changes
can be produced by relatively small changes in global temperatures, humans need
to control temperatures only over a limited temperature range. The maximum extent
of the control that humans need would be only about 10C i.e. 5C warmer or 5C
colder than present temperatures. There is even the danger that humans might
abuse their power if they could control global temperatures at will. D: The Indirect Benefits of Using the Carbon Spiral.
There are two major indirect benefits of using the
Carbon spiral to control the climate. a) The Amplification of the Carbon Spiral through
the Water Cycle.
Whilst analytically it is easy to distinguish between
the Carbon spiral and the water cycle, and to discuss them as if they were two
entirely separate, independent phenomena, in reality they are closely linked
in a myriad of ways. The benefit of this association as far as the regulation
of the Carbon spiral is concerned is that changes to the Carbon spiral will
almost invariably have an impact on the water cycle thereby amplifying the intended
changes to global average temperatures. The extent of Carbon’s connections with
the water cycle is considerable; it is far greater than humans direct influence
over the water cycle. b) The Amplification of the Carbon Spiral through the Heat Effect.
Yet another indirect benefit of using the Carbon
spiral as a means of regulating the climate is the huge impact that Forest cover
has on the heat effect. Changing the Earth’s Forest cover will change the heat
effect through evapotranspiration/respirartion and through these factors the
creation of clouds whose albedo effect has a huge influence on the climate.
c) The Superiority of the Demand Side over the Supply Side of the Carbon Spiral.
It has been pointed out that, at present, global
Carbon emissions are having a bigger impact on the Planet’s concentration of
atmospheric Carbon than global Photosynthesis. Although it is possible to reverse
this relationship, so that Photosynthesis has a bigger impact on global warming
than Carbon emissions, it may be the case that even where Carbon emissions are
greater than Photosynthesis the overall effect of Photosynthesis on global warming
may be greater because of its amplification through the water cycle and the
heat effect. It is possible that the biggest impact that Trees have on the Planet’s
average temperatures is not through the Carbon spiral (absorbing/releasing Carbon)
but through the water cycle and the albedo affect. The single most important
means for regulating the Carbon spiral, and thus the climate, is by varying
the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover. The regulation of the climate will be
achieved not so much through control of atmospheric emissions, as the ipcc suggests,
but primarily through varying the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover. Humans
influence over Forests is fortunate. Forests are one of the main parts of the
global Carbon spiral and control over Forests gives humans additional influence
over gobal temperatures through the water cycle and the Earth’s albedo effect.
IV: Continental Forest Ships.
It will never be possible for humans to regulate
the Earth’s temperature like an indoor central heating system because there
are too many factors beyond human influence.[9]
Nor will it be possible to provide specific climates for specific areas at specific
times. But it should be possible to stabilize the global climate to prevent
it from veering off towards the extremes of another ice age or run-away global
warming. Over the long term it should be possible to turn up the Planet’s heat
to avoid an ice age, or to decrease the heat to avoid a heat age, by varying
the scale of the Planet’s Forest cover. If this is not done then the collapse
of human civilization is inevitable when the climate changes significantly in
the future. The prospect of billions of people living in the tropics being pushed
into temperate zones by global warming is frightening, and this prospect is
far from being unrealistic, .. “we must not fall into the trap of imagining
that two polar ice caps on Earth are inevitable. So at the present geological
time we have a rare occurrence of not just one but two polar ice caps. This
was not true a hundred million years ago and will not be true a hundred million
years hence.” (Dick File ‘Weather Watch’ Fourth Estate, London 1990 p.10). This
is not as hideous, however, as the prospect of canadians, north americans, russians,
europeans and north asians being pushed into the tropics by huge ice sheets.
Perhaps plato was right after all; politicians need to be astronomers because
the Earth’s climate is affected by its position in the solar system. Green politics
must be based on geophysiology, the science of the Earth’s climate.
200 million years ago, the Earth’s continents congregated together
into a supercontinent called Pangaea. Lovelock believes that the movement of
the Earth’s tectonic plates plays a part in stabilizing the Earth’s average
temperature. Unfortunately, he has not as yet put forward any proof as regards
this theory.[10] But,
if there is some truth in it, then continents should be seen not as fixed, immobile
areas of the Earth but more like gigantic ships sailing the world’s oceans.
If it is the case that Forests are able to influence the Planet’s climate then,
in effect, Forests could be regarded as the rudder and sails of continental
sized, wooden, sailing vessels. Perhaps the use of Forests to regulate global
warming (rather than Carbon emissions to regulate the greenhouse effect) means
that Carbon should be looked upon not in terms of a Planetary thermostat in
which the concentration of atmospheric Carbon determines global temperatures
but in terms of sailing ships navigating the oceans looking for the right winds.
The latter analogy is indicative of the fact that the regulation of the climate
will be much less precise than using a thermostat since wooden sailing ships
can tack but they can’t sail directly into the wind. Forests are not so much
the Planet’s thermostat as gigantic wooden ships sailing the seas in search
of a stable climate.
FIVE: THE CARBON SPIRAL METHODOLOGY.A geophysiological analysis is imperative to evaluate
the damage which humans are inflicting on the Earth’s life support system and
which can be used to help determine the policies needed to protect the Earth.
After all, if humans do not know how much damage they are inflicting on the
Earth and do not understand how serious this damage is to the Earth’s health
then they will never survive in perpetuity on Earth and the survival of all
other animals on Earth will also be in jeopardy.
The development of a geophysiological analysis might
seem an insurmountable problem. There are two basic problems. Firstly, how is
it possible to measure all of the geophysiological destruction caused by a particular
type of human activity or policy? It is difficult enough measuring the damage
caused by one human action; it is even more difficult measuring every single
aspect of the local (ecological) and global (geophysiological) environmental
destruction caused by an entire industry; and it seems to be next to impossible
to measure all the environmental damage caused by an entire country. The Planet’s
life-sustaining processes consist of dozens of Planetary cycles so trying to
measure the damage to each one would be a complex, difficult and highly time-consuming
endeavour. The Planet would long be bereft of life before such an intensive
analysis provided the answers needed to stop the destruction.
The second problem is that even if a full-scale geophysiological
analysis was accomplished it would be extremely difficult comparing the ecological
and geophysiological destruction caused by various human activities. One human
activity might cause damage to a number of Planetary cycles whilst another activity
caused damage to other Planetary cycles so how would it be possible to compare
them? Even assuming there were overlaps and that both caused damage to the same
Planetary spirals how would it be possible to reach a conclusion about which
had caused the most damage? If one activity caused more damage to some Planetary
cycles whilst the other caused more damage to other Planetary cycles how would
it be possible to determine which of the overall levels of damage was more significant?
It is suggested here that the way to limit these
difficulties is to focus on one of the Earth’s Planetary cycles, measure the
damage caused to that particular cycle, and then use this as an approximation
to the total damage caused to the Planet’s geophysiology. The hope is that the
damage inflicted on one Planetary cycle will be representative of the wider
damage caused to the other cycles. This would not only make it easier to measure
the impact of a particular human activity/policy it would also make it possible
to make a direct comparison between the damage caused by different activities.
There are a number of reasons for believing that the best Planetary cycle to
use would be the Earth’s Carbon spiral and that a Carbon spiral analysis would
be a legitimate substitute for a comprehensive geophysiological analysis.
I: Pervasiveness.
Although, methodologically, it is unavoidable having
to focus upon one Planetary cycle this should not mean that the rest of the
Earth’s geophysiology should be ignored. It would be an advantage if the cycle
choosen had connections with as many other cycles in order to keep the Earth’s
geophysiology in view - even if only as a background factor. If serious damage
was being inflicted on one of the Earth’s cycles it might be possible to detect
this through the chosen cycle thus enabling more attention to be given to that
particular ecological problem.
The four main Planetary cycles are the Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen
and nitrogen cycles. Although Carbon is not one of the most abundant elements
on Earth the global Carbon spiral is more pervasive, and has more connections
with other Planetary cycles, than any other cycle. The water cycle is also pervasive.
II: Life Centred.
Although four elements are crucial to life on Earth
- Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen, it was suggested above that Carbon
could be regarded as the most critical and could, in essence, be called the
life-cycle. The water cycle is also important. There is no point in choosing
as the key Planetary cycle, one which does not have a direct and immediate connection
with all of the Planet’s life-forms.
III: Linkages.
Carbon reacts with more elements, and creates more
chemical compounds, than any other element on Earth. Although there is far more
water than there is Carbon, the two elements in water, oxygen and hydrogen,
do not inter-react with other elements to same extent as Carbon. A: The Scale of Carbon’s Linkages with other Elements.
a) Carbon and Oxygen.
“About 60% of O2 production and consumption are
brought about by the carbon cycle, 30% by the sulphur cycle ...” (Robert A Berner
‘Atmospheric Oxygen, Tectonics and Life’ in Stephen H Schneider and penelope
J Boston “Scientists on Gaia’ The MIT Press Cambridge Massachusetts 1991 p.161).
IV: Convertability.
One of the advantages of focussing on Carbon is
that a degree of convertability is possible, for example, non-Carbon greenhouse
gases can be converted into Carbon equivalents to give a more accurate understanding
of what is happening to the Earth’s life sustaining processes.
V: Measureability.
A: Abundance.
Although it would be possible to measure the Planetary
quantities of virtually any element on Earth it is much more difficult measuring
elements which exist in large quantities. Thus the fact that Carbon does not
exist in such huge abundance as other elements such as oxygen or nitrogen or
hydrogen is an advantage. B: Constancy.
Carbon and oxygen have the advantage of being constant
quantities on Earth. This is not the case with hydrogen. This makes it far less
relevant to use water as the primary measure, “When geologists want to know
whether a process was geochemically significant or not, and at what scale, they
customarily prepare a geochemical balance sheet from the rock record. We can
do this for oxygen- and carbon-rich end products of photosynthesis, but not
for the end products of the ultraviolet decomposition of water vapour. In order
to write a geochemical balance sheet for that, we would need to have budgets
for both oxygen and hydrogen. An estimate for oxygen is feasible, but we are
thwarted in trying to write a hydrogen budget by the fact that there is no independent
way of estimating either how much hydrogen has escaped Earth’s gravity field
over geologic time or how much has been added by the fluctuating solar wind
over the same interval. The solar wind is the blast of ionizing radiation, rich
in hydrogen, that spreads in all directions from the sun, and from which Earth
is largely shielded by its magnetic field ..
Although we cannot properly reckon the amount of hydrogen,
we can write a balance of sorts for carbon by adding all the carbon found in
the atmosphere and hydrosphere to what is buried in sedimentary rocks. We cannot
account for carbon that may have been carried beneath the continents by descending
slabs of crustal materials during episodes of plate tectonic motion; but, since
the oxygen budget is subject to the same sources of error on a comparable scale,
and because both carbon and oxygen are presumably recycled by plate tectonic
processes, the important thing to know is how closely oxygen and carbon balance
one another geochemically in the observable parts of the Earth’s crust. That
balance is important even though the oxygen released by photosynthesis actually
results from the splitting of the water molecule as a way to get at hydrogen
as a source of electrons for biologic energy. The products of photosynthesis,
however, are just as closely associated with assimilation of carbon dioxide
in some form, while the water itself becomes linked with carbon in carbohydrates
and eventually recycled. Thus the ultimate balance we seek is in terms of a
reconstitution of carbon dioxide.” (Preston Cloud ‘Cosmos, Earth and Man. A
Short History of the Universe’ Yale University Press New Haven 1978 p.121-122).
In other words, whilst an oxygen theory of value is possible, a hydrogen or
a water theory of value are not.
VI: Connections with Global Warming.
The Planetary cycle chosen mst have a close connection
with global warming, one of the major threats to the Earth’s life sustaining
processes. There is no point, for example, in choosing the Sulphur cycle as
an ecological measure because it has such a minor role in global warming.
It has been noted above that the Carbon spiral can be used
as a means of regulating the climate. Thus, one of the huge advantages of using
the Carbon spiral as the prime measure of ecological destruction is the fact
that Carbon can also be used as a climate regulator and that a Carbon spiral
analysis can therefore be used for both of purposes.
As has been seen, however, the water cycle plays a far more
dominant role in global warming than the Carbon spiral. Although this suggests
that the main Planetary spiral to focus on should be either hydrogen or oxygen
it has just been noted that it would be difficult to measure the hydrogen cycle.
It should also be appreciated that, “Water on the Earth enabled life, but without
life the Earth would now be dry.” (James Lovelock 'Gaia. The Practical Science
of Planetary Medicine' Gaia Books Ltd London 1991. p.79). Despite the fact that
water plays a more dominant role in global warming than Carbon, it is life which
has contolled the water cycle. In conclusion, given the role played by life
in determining the climate then the Carbon spiral has enough connections with
global warming for it to be used as the key geophysiological measure.
VII: The Validity of using the Carbon Spiral as an Approximation to the Earth’s
Geophysiology.
Since it is not possible to measure every single
aspect of the damage which a particular human activity inflicts upon the Earth’s
geophysiology, there has to be some short-cut device to measure what is going
on. Given the all pervasive presence of the Carbon spiral on Earth, Carbon’s
ability to react with other elements and to create chemical compounds, and its
central role in the life process, it provides the best approximation of the
damage being inflicted on the Planet as a whole and thus the health of the Earth’s
life support system. A Carbon spiral analysis would not only measure the ecological
damage caused by a particular human activity, it would also enable a direct
comparison to be made between the damage caused by most human activities. However,
it has to be continually reiterated that the global Carbon spiral is only one
of the Earth’s many Planet-wide cycles so any analysis which confines itself
solely to Carbon will, in many instances, prove to be inadequate.
This chapter looks at the way that the Carbon spiral analysis
can be used in local, regional, national and global, politics to protect the
Earth’s life-sustaining processes by ensuring that humans live within the Planet’s
geophysiological limitations.
|
JOURNAL of CARBONOMICS - Issue 1 / Issue 2 / Issue 3 / Issue 4 / Issue 5 / Issue 6 / Issue 7 / Issue 8 / Issue 9 / Issue 10 |
JOURNAL of CARBONOMICS COUNTRIES - Issue 1 (Britain). |
JOURNAL of CARBONOMICS INDUSTRIES - Introduction |
GUIDES TO CARBONOMICS - Carb Overview - - Carb Summary - - Importance of the Carbon Spiral |
MUNDI CLUB HOME AND INTRO PAGES - Mundi Home - - Mundi Intro |
JOURNALS - Terra / Terra Firm / Mappa Mundi / Mundimentalist / Doom Doom Doom & Doom / Special Pubs / Carbonomics |
TOPICS - Zionism / Earth / Who's Who / FAQs / Planetary News / Bse Epidemic |
ABOUT THE MUNDI CLUB - Phil & Pol / List of Pubs / Index of Website / Terminology / Contact Us |
All publications are copyrighted mundi
club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy. |
We welcome additional
information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/ |
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/ |