1.5: Environmental Stocks and Flows.

This section looks at attempts to assess environmental phenomena in terms of physical stocks and flows rather than in economic terms. This approach could be used either to replace, or complement, gdp.

1.5.1: The Stocktaking of Natural Resources.
Some commentators believe a stocktaking type of environmental analysis should focus primarily on natural resources.

1.5.1.1: Advocates.
Anne Taylor.
.. "there is good reason to believe that physical indicators of damage and depletion would have a greater impact on public opinion than a highly complicated, reformed version of GNP."

1.5.1.2: Opponents of Natural Resource Stocktaking.
Some conventional economists and environmentalists are critical of natural resource stocktaking.

David Pearce.
Pearce dismisses such an approach .. "we would not recommend that the UK proceed along the path of developing a system of physical resource accounts similar to those undertaken in Norway or France.". He believes that, "Physical accounts are limited because they lack a common unit of measurement and it is not possible to gauge their importance relative to each other and to the non environmental goods and services."

Robert Repetto.
"The idea of an all encompassing inventory of natural assets has generally been discarded."

Bookchin and Rosack.
See below for the criticisms of this approach by these anarchist theorists.

1.5.2: Global Warming Potentials.
There are approximately 40 gases contributing to global warming. Their different contributions can be compared using the measure of global warming potential, (gwp). "Gwps allow the trade offs between different pollution abatement strategies to be assessed."

1.5.2.1: Advocates.
The IPCC.
The scientific working party of the inter-governmental panel on climate change (ipcc) introduced the concept of gwp .. "as a means of providing a consistent basis for comparing the global warming effect of different greenhouse gases. Gwps allow the trade offs between different pollution abatement strategies to be assessed."

1.5.2.2: Criticisms of Global Warming Potentials.
The ipcc’s concept of gwp is useful for assessing the threat posed by various greenhouse gases. Because the sources of greenhouses gases are so pervasive - from the burning of fossil fuels, Plant respiration, to ruminant, and termite, flatulence, etc - the concept covers a wide range of geophysiological and anthropogenic phenomena. Each source of greenhouse gases could be measured in terms of its impact on the greenhouse effect and thus compared to all other sources of greenhouse gases. The major limitation of the concept is that it measures only one of the four aspects of global warming i.e. the greenhouse effect rather than the Photosynthetic effect, the albedo effect, and the heat effect.

1.5.3: Environmental/Ecological Services.
This type of theory assesses environmental factors not in terms of their aesthetic qualities, heritage value, natural resource value or ecological value but for the services they provide for humans.

1.5.3.1: Advocates.
Paul & Anne Ehrlich.
"The human population is supported by services received from the Earth's natural ecosystem, which, among other things:-
control the mix of gases in the atmosphere,
supply fresh water,
control floods,
supply food from the sea and products from forests,
create soils,
dispose of wastes,
recycle essential nutrients,
pollinate crops,
and control the vast majority of pests that might attack them."

Sandy Irvine.
"Natural services include:-
the capture, conversion and storage of solar energy income,
the maintenance of atmospheric balances,
air purification,
the amelioration of weather,
the provision of shelter,
the signalling of pollution problems,
the regulation of the water cycle,
the disposal of wastes and recycling of nutrients,
the generation and maintenance of soil fertility,
pest and disease control,
pollination,
the maintenance of the 'library' of genetic information vital for new medicines, foodstuffs, and other needs,
the human pleasure, inspiration and inner renewal derived from contact with unmodified nature."

Ecological Society of America (Paul R. Ehrlich, Sandra Postel, Stephen H. Schneider, George M. Woodwell, et al).
A large number of american academics and environmentalists under the umbrella of the Ecological Society of America have produced another lengthy list of ecological services of benefit to humans, "In addition to the production of goods, ecosystem services support life through (Holdren and Ehrlich 1974; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981).

* purification of air and water
* mitigation of droughts and floods
* generation and preservation of soils and renewal of their fertility
* detoxification and decomposition of wastes
* pollination of crops and natural vegetation
* dispersal of seeds
* cycling and movement of nutrients
* control of the vast majority of potential agricultural pests
* maintenance of biodiversity
* protection of coastal shores from erosion by waves
* protection from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays
* partial stabilization of climate
* moderation of weather extremes and their impacts
* provision of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation that lift the human spirit."

These environmentalists suggest, "Such processes are worth many trillions of dollars annually. Yet because most of these benefits are not traded in economic markets, they carry no price tags that could alert society to changes in their supply or deterioration of underlying ecological systems that generate them. Because threats to these systems are increasing, there is a critical need for identification and monitoring of ecosystem services both locally and globally, and for the incorporation of their value into decision-making processes."

1.5.3.2: Criticisms.
The Earth provides a vast range of services which are indispensable to humans, "Even after 150 years of economic development, the vast bulk of the services required to keep our planet functioning are still provided by the self-regulating processes of the biosphere." This multitude of services makes up what could be called the Earth’s life support system. Although environmental services are free to humans (and all other living things) the Earth still has to be paid to continue providing these services. The Earth cannot be paid in cash (as far as is known the Earth doesn’t have a bank account) so payment can be made only by protecting these services. The financial costs involved in maintaining these services are irrelevant because either the Planet’s life support system continues to support humans or it doesn’t. The presumption of the stocktaking of environmental services is determining how much damage is being inflicted on these services so that repairs can be carried out. This approach provides the most accurate evaluation of the condition of the Earth’s life support system.

1.5.3.2.1: Complexity.
The most obvious drawback of this approach is its sheer complexity. Trying to continuously measure and monitor all of these factors would be impossible. Even measuring the main factors would be difficult. Even if they could be measured explaining the significance of these services to the public in such a way as to win their approval and financial support would necessitate an intense degree of public education.

1.5.3.2.2: Ecological Engineering.
Another major drawback is that attempts to restore environmental services after they have been damaged will entail tinkering with the Earth’s life support system which may or may not produce the hoped for consequences. Ecological engineering could end up causing more damage than it repairs.

1.5.4: PAT.
The ehrlichs proposed to measure ecological destruction through the formula I = PAT where (I) is environmental impact which equals population (P) multiplied by affluence (A) multiplied by technology (T). In other words, the bigger the population, the greater its affluence, and the greater its technological sophistication, the greater the ecological destruction.

1.5.4.1: The Advocates.
Garrett Hardin.
"The I=PAT equation may be called the third law of human ecology."

1.5.4.2: Conclusions: A Scientific Formula?
This environmental analysis is expressed in the form of a mathematical equation and thus has a scientific appearance. However, this is misleading since it doesn’t have a unit of calibration. It is not possible to measure the value of (I) in terms of people/pounds/technology. Measuring the number of humans is straightforward; measuring the amount of money they own is more difficult; but how could technology be measured? If there is no unit of measurement for (T) then there can’t be any unit of measurement for (I). This ‘formula’ cannot be converted into scientifically quantifiable terms. What is more, even if it could be, it couldn’t provide any indication as to the maximum level of destruction which could be inflicted on the Earth before the collapse of the Planet’s life support system for humans. If the maximum for (I) is unknown then it could not assess the significance of any particular damage inflicted on the Earth. The erhlich’s ‘formula’ is a good analogy for helping to provide an intuitive understanding of the seriousness of the threats caused by the fivefold population explosion in the numbers of cars, kids, Cattle, capital and carnage, but it isn’t scientific and it can’t be used as a means for formulating political policies.

1.5.5: Energy.
Whilst some commentators have sought to use the monetary value of energy as a means of assessing the environment, others use physical measures of energy .. "ecological economics is grounded on real physical flows rather than on money. An ecological theory of economics would therefore resemble the premodern ‘physiocratic’ or nature based economic theories ..." Anna bramwell (who has a marked antipathy towards greens) believes energy is such a central concept in green ideology, "The science of ecology is one that considers energy flows within a closed system."

1.5.5.1: Advocates.
Bradbury and Slesser.
Slesser promotes an energy/labour theory of value, "We have here an analysis which supports neither an energy theory of value nor a labour theory of value but a joint energy (work) - labour (decision-making) theory of value."

Jonathon Porritt.
Porritt regards an energy analysis as important, "All consumption and economic activity is ultimately linked to energy, not money, and the measure which should matter to us above all is the Primary Energy Content of any product or service. If sustainability really is the goal of our society in the future, then we have to find a way of viewing energy, not money, as the most significant indicator of economic activity." He points out that, "Farel Bradbury and Professor Slesser are just a few of those who remain utterly amazed at the way people so obstinately hang on to money as the main measure of all economic and social value."

Tim Radford.
"The greenhouse effect .. must be thought about in the currency of energy units. Economists have been counting costs in the wrong currency. Instead of pounds, dollars or yen, it should have been in units of energy expended."

William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan Jr.
"Energy is the currency of nature’s economy; the biomass and the stock of materials are its inventory, or capital."; .. "the currency of nature’s economy is energy .."; "Thus a ‘thermodynamic economy’ based directly on an accounting of energy or entrophy has become essential."

1.5.5.2: The Advantages of a Concrete Energy Analysis.
There are a number of advantages of using physical energy as a measure of environmental phenomena and human activities.

1.5.5.2.1: Quantifiability.
Physical Energy is measurable, "Modern ecologists are preoccupied with energy because this concept is easy to quantify." It cannot always be measured precisely but it’s usually possible to develop a rough estimation. This is a big advantage over some of the alternative measures noted above.

1.5.5.2.2: Comprehensiveness.
Everything on Earth whether Animal, vegetable or mineral is composed of energy. Energy could be used to measure not merely an atom but the entirety of the Earth itself. No matter how diverse a range of phenomena may be, they are all comparable because of the energy they contain, "If one were asked to pick out a single common denominator of life on earth, that is, something that is absolutely essential and involved in every action large or small, the answer would have to be energy."

1.5.5.2.3: The Advantages of Measuring Energy Flows rather than Energy Prices.
An energy flow analysis would be far more comprehensive than one measuring only energy with price tags. The latter would ignore a range of phenomena which have a substantial impact on the Earth’s life support system.

1.5.5.2.4: Environmental Benefits.
An energy flow analysis could be much more useful in protecting the environment than an energy price analysis. For example, whilst an energy price analysis of a proposed energy conservation project may conclude it is not profitable to introduce a particular energy saving technology, an energy flow analysis would make clear the benefits of conservation. It is not surprising these analyses reach different conclusions about a proposed project, "Energy conservation by quantity and by economy often results in two different conclusions."

1.5.5.3: Criticisms of Energy Analyses.
1.5.5.3.1: The Curtailment of Comprehensiveness.
Although one of the biggest advantages of an energy flow analysis is its comprehensiveness, most analysts tend to be concerned exclusively with the energy in commercial fossil fuels. A few incorporate additional forms of energy such as goods and services .. "the measure which should matter to us above all is the Primary Energy Content of any product or service." Although an energy flow analysis has the potential to be the most comprehensive of all measuring devices, capable of including everything under the sun (as well as the sun itself), most energy flow analysts confine themselves to using it in a very restricted way.

Yet another limitation is that rather than evaluating a phenomena from the ‘cradle to the grave’ many energy analysts focus on just one facet of the phenomena’s life process. For example, an energy analysis of an energy conservation technology might focus solely on its end-use. Thus if a new technological device uses less energy than before it could be proclaimed a success. However, a full energy analysis, investigating all the energy expended during the life-line of this technology, might discover that more energy is used during the mining/production/transportation/disposal of the device than is saved during its use. Energy analyses focusing solely on the end-use are bound to be inaccurate. The only way to check whether energy conservation technologies save energy is by assessing their life-line from the mining, and processing, of raw materials, to manufacturing, distribution, storage, and, ultimately, disposal, etc.

1.5.5.3.2: The Multiplicity of Energy Objectives.
Another problem of energy flow analyses is that they can be used to pursue a range of objectives. Some energy analysts might want to develop analyses whose objective is to protect the Earth’s life support system. Others aim to promote economic growth - which, of course, would damage the Earth’s life support system.

1.5.5.3.3: The Difficulties of Measuring Energy.
Although one of the main advantages of using energy as a measuring device is its quantifiability, there are limitations. Firstly, "To the seemingly simple question, ‘What is energy?’ there is no simple answer." This should not be so surprising given that although the concept of ‘energy’ is a part of everyday life in the over-industrialized nations it is a relatively new concept, "‘Energy’ as used in modern physics is a surprisingly new concept. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) first used the term ‘kinetic energy’ in 1851." Secondly, "Nothing is known about the absolute value of the energy in any system." Thirdly, official energy statistics around the world are compiled using a range of conventions which make them cumbersome to compare, "Official statistics do not differentiate between the effectiveness of different sorts of fuels."; "Unfortunately, there are many different units (of energy) that are widely used to characterize quantities of energy. A concerted effort is now being made to designate one unit (perhaps the joule or the watt) as the international unit to be used by all nations for all energies."

1.5.5.3.4: Energy does not necessarily Protect the Earth’s Life Support System.
An energy flow analysis could be beneficial in protecting the environment insofar as it shows the need for energy conservation policies which could not be justified by an economic analysis. But even though an energy flow analysis may justify a wide range of green policies this does not necessarily mean they are geophysiologically justifiable. Even if there are energy savings over a conservation technologies’ entire life-line, the technology still causes ecological damage which, in many instances, may be more than the Earth’s geophysiological tolerance. Indeed it is perfectly feasible to envisage a situation where around the world so many energy-saving projects are given the go-ahead that the ensuing geophysiological damage causes a disruption of the Earth’s life support system for humans. Energy conservation is no more capable of protecting the Earth’s life support system than an alcoholic who insists he’s getting healthier by drinking only half his usual intake. It is not possible to assume that reductions in energy consumption are enough to prevent a geophysiological collapse. It would be possible to know whether an energy conservation technology protects the Earth’s life support system only if the energy flow analysis had determined the maximum level of energy compatible with the sustainability of the Earth’s life support system.

Energy flow analyses which assess only changes in energy are irrelevant. It is only when they can determine the geophysiological significance of energy changes on the Earth’s life support system that they are of any use. Energy flow analyses which measure only energy changes are unconnected to the Earth. In effect they merely ignore the issue of measuring the destruction of the Earth’s life support system.

1.5.5.3.5: The Impossibility of Measuring Total Energy.
An energy flow analysis would be of use in protecting the Earth’s life support system only if firstly, it included an assessment of the Earth’s entire energy system and, secondly, if it could determine the amount of energy which would trigger a global burning disaster. There are a number of difficulties in generating a model of the Earth’s energy flows:-

* Firstly, it would be difficult measuring the Earth’s total energy.

* Secondly, it would be difficult to determine the level of energy on Earth which maximizes biodiversity.

* Thirdly, and much more importantly, the major sources/flows of energy on Earth would so dominate an energy model that small scale energy movements would appear irrelevant. Some natural forces are colossal, "The gulf stream .. waters release heat into the cold northern atmosphere at a rate of a trillion kilowatts (1015 W), an amount equivalent to a hundred times the world’s energy consumption. This energy warms the air over europe by about 5C .. "; "A severe storm roaring up the english channel (or down the north sea) might have as much energy as a moderate size atomic bomb .. A tropical hurricane, on the other hand, releases an incredible 10 trillion, trillion (a 1 followed by 25 noughts) ergs of energy every second." (A kiloton of a nuclear weapon) .. "would be equivalent to a trillion calories, enough to heat 10,000 tons of water from freezing point to boiling point. A healthy storm expends twenty times that energy." (Hurricanes contain far more energy). You could literally explode a hydrogen bomb in the middle of such a storm without its having any noticeable effect on it." However, it would not be possible to ignore smaller energy flows because some of them have a considerable impact on the Earth’s life support system. For example, coccolithophorids, tiny marine organisms, absorb Carbon dissolved in the sea to make their shells. When these organisms die their shells fall to the seabed and the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates eventually buries them in the Earth’s magma. This is one of the Earth’s main Carbon sinks and is thus an important determinant of the Earth’s climate. In energy terms, however, the energy involved is minuscule. The act of making shells requires a tiny amount of energy; the fall of the shells to the bottom of the sea also involves a tiny amount of energy, etc.. The energy involved in this geophysiological process is so minuscule it would be difficult to include it in a model of the Earth’s energy system. What this shows is that a global scale energy model is incapable of assessing some of the Earth’s major geophysiological processes. Energy models can be Earth myopic.

* Finally, the major sources/flows of energy would swamp not only the Earth’s smaller sources/flows of energy, but virtually all anthropogenic usages of energy. Although humans are disrupting the Earth’s heat balance this is not caused by the release of heat into the atmosphere but by geophysiological processes causing colossal changes in heat flows. Two examples can be given. Firstly, the devastation of Forests causes changes in the Earth’s albedo effect which have a huge impact on the Earth’s heat balance. Secondly, the amount of heat which humans dump directly into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels is 80 times smaller than the amount of heat retained in the Earth’s atmosphere by the greenhouse effect caused by the Carbon released from these fuels. It would therefore be difficult to use an energy model of the Earth to determine practical policy issues.

1.5.5.3.6: No Known Relationship to the Earth’s Life Support System.
It is impossible to determine the level of energy needed to preserve the Earth’s life support system. It is therefore impossible to determine how much energy humans could use without causing a geophysiological calamity. Whilst energy makes the Earth go round, it is not known how much energy is needed to ensure it continues to do so without destabilizing the climate.

1.5.5.3.7: Cosmic Energy.
The adoption of an energy flow analysis entails important political implications. An energy model, like any other model, is not value neutral. It implies that humans could use any source of energy whether coal, hydroelectric power or nuclear power, even though, from the Earth’s perspective, this might be dangerous. Secondly, although an energy model condones all forms of energy, its primary interest is almost invariably focused on solar power because it is a cheap source of energy and, in comparison to fossil fuels, seems to be environmentally friendly. Energy flow analysts are so blinded by the sun they can’t see the sun’s impact on the Earth nor the Planetary value of other forms of energy. Green energy flow analysts want to replace nuclear power and fossil fuels with solar energy whether in the form of solar power stations, photovoltaics, wind, hydro-electric, etc. The drawback, however, is that the amount of energy the Earth receives from the sun is astronomic, "Our annual solar energy budget is roughly equivalent to 500,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil." If humans managed to capture and use all of this energy it would cause a geophysiological meltdown. The switch from a fossil fuel/nuclear powered society to a solar society would be a switch from a limited supply of energy to what amounted to an almost unlimited supply. Solar power generates the temptation, just as is the case even with fossil fuels, to think, at worst, in terms of using more and more energy and, at best, of using energy more and more efficiently - rather than using only that amount of energy compatible with the Earth’s geophysiological stability. The fundamental problem about solar energy is that theoretically it is not a global, or a terrestrial, source of energy but a cosmic source of energy.

Energy flow analyses seem to throw so-called greens into confusion. Over the last couple of decades, a number of leading greens have argued that people in the over-industrialized nations have caused too much damage to the Earth’s life support system and should adopt a more frugal lifestyle in order to limit their impact on the Planet. Amazingly they then promote a green future in which humans would have at their disposal an almost unlimited amount of energy from the sun. The reliance on solar power is simply an attempt to bring the sun down to Earth, and the only outcome of this terrestrialization process will be a geophysiological burn up.

1.5.5.3.8: Little Human Control over Global Energy.
One of the assumptions behind the development of an energy flow analysis is that humans could use it to formulate policies to avert a climatic disaster. And yet humans’ current energy consumption is so negligible in comparison to the Earth’s energy flows the temptation is to allow humans to continue doing what they want, "Roughly speaking, half of the Sun’s energy gets through to heat the Earth’s surface. Direct input from geothermal sources such as volcanoes and from our own generation of heat are both negligible."
1.5.6: Life Cycle Assessments (lca).
"Carrying out a life cycle assessments (lca) involves drawing up an inventory of the resources used and the emissions associated with delivering one functional unit (a given weight of product or packaging, or some clearly defined service) and identifying and quantifying the impact on the environment. "

The problem with many environmentalists is that they tend to look at only one part of a products’ life cycle before drawing a conclusion e.g. claiming that catalytic converters are environmentally friendly because they reduce some forms of pollution, "Cleaner production has much in common with a similar approach which the World Business Council for Sustainable Development calls eco-efficiency, defined as the delivery of competitively-priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and improve quality of life while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity, throughout the life cycle of the product, to a level at least in line with the Earth's estimated carrying capacity (WBCSD 1995)."

1.5.6.1: Advocates.
"There is now ample precedent for the view that a manufacturer must assume at least some responsibility for the environmental impacts of its products throughout their life cycles. Indeed, there is mounting public pressure for products that can be reused, recycled, returned to the manufacturer or better disposed of. Many industrialized countries are introducing regulations on these issues. This means that manufacturers need to find ways of acquiring data on life cycle impacts. A technique for doing so has been developed: life cycle assessment (LCA), a process for evaluating the 'cradle-to-grave' effects that a product has on the environment over its entire life cycle (UNEP and others 1996)."

1.5.6.2: Criticisms.
"Carrying out a life cycle assessments (lca) involves drawing up an inventory of the resources used and the emissions associated with delivering one functional unit (a given weight of product or packaging, or some clearly defined service) and identifying and quantifying the impact on the environment. Whilst LCA practitioners have come a long way towards developing a consistent approach to LCA methodology, a number of stubborn problems remain. The most vexed concern is that putting a value on environmental change. A second problem concerns the system boundary. The further the study penetrates back down the supply chain, to individual suppliers and their suppliers, and the closer it examines the fate of the discharges in the environment, the more complex it becomes and the more time consuming and expensive. A balance has to be struck. The goal of the newsprint study was to see how far it was possible to determine, using ecobalances, whether recycling waste newsprint has a lower overall resource cost and environmental impact than burning it and recovering the energy. To keep the study manageable, it was decided to focus on energy and to include an assessment of CO2 emissions."
1.5.7: Wood.
1.5.7.1: Advocates.
Egon Glesinger.
Writing shortly after the second world war, egon glesinger suggested that Wood could be used to measure a wide range of commodities. As there was little understanding of the Earth’s life support system at this time he didn’t get around to suggesting it could also be used to measure environmental phenomena. Indeed, he elevated Wood to the status of a global measure because he wanted to increase the production of commodities rather than protect the environment. But there is no reason why Wood couldn’t be used to measure environmental phenomena, "What unit can function as a common denominator for the consumption of such disparate necessities as automobiles, books, underwear and houses? The answer is wood, for these and all other commodities involved in a complete standard of living can be made in whole or major part from the forest."

1.5.7.2: Criticisms of Wood Measures.
Wood is much less useful as a measure of environmental phenomena than Carbon. Although Forests have a considerable impact on global warming, the Earth’s Carbon spiral includes a far wider range of phenomena e.g. volcanic eruptions, flatulence/respiration, rice paddies, fossil fuels, etc.. Carbon is a more accurate measure of the Earth’s life support system than Wood because it encompasses far more phenomena influencing the Earth’s climate.

1.5.8: Photosynthesis.
There are those who propose using Photosynthesis as the measure of environmental destruction.

1.5.8.1: The Advocates.
Lynn Margulis.
"In the autopoietic framework, everything is observed by an embedded observer; in the mechanical world, the observer is objective and stands apart from the observed. In the autopoietic view, the only truly productive organisms are the green photoautotrophs (bacteria, algae, and plants capable of converting sunlight into the organic compounds of food) and a few of their bacterial chemoautotrophic relatives .."; "The only ultimately productive beings are the cyanobacteria. These green geniuses converted sunlight into organic matter and release gases to the atmosphere. Many of them happen to be trapped inside Plants. Ultimately, a nation’s gross national product can only be biological, not industrial."

Lester R Brown.
"Reading the daily newspapers gives the impression that changes in economic indicators such as gross national product (GNP), interest rates, or stock prices are the key to the future. But it is changes in the biological product that are shaping civilization. It is changes in the size of the photosynthetic product that determine ultimately how many of us the earth can support and at what level of consumption."

Conclusions.
Some commentators believe that Photosynthesis is a critical component of any assessment of the Earth’s life support system. It could be argued it is by far the most important measure. It was pointed out above that some commentators support an analysis of environmental services as a means of measuring and protecting the Earth’s life support system but that the complexity involved was likely to make such an approach unlikely. The advantage of using Photosynthesis as a measure of the health and vitality of the Earth is that it is a single measure. It is far easier to measure this one phenomenon than all environmental services. The question then arises as to whether Photosynthesis would be a good approximation of the Earth’s life support system. This in terms depends upon the centrality of Photosynthesis to the Earth’s life support system. If it is only a peripheral phenomena to the Earth’s life support system then it is unlikely to be a good measure of the Earth’s life support system. if, however, it is essential then it is likely to be a much more accurate measure.

It was pointed out that trying to make repairs to all environmental services would require ecological tinkering which has the potentiality to go wrong. It has to be suggested that if the Earth was allowed the space to carry out Photosynthesis according to its own tendencies then it would stand a much better chance of restoring the Earth’s life support system in the right way. Humans would have no responsibility for tinkering with local ecologies - the Earth would do it itself.

Photosynthesis is more likely to restore the Earth’s life support system if it is the base on which the Earth’s life support system rests than if it is just one amongst many of its components. There are reasons to believe that Photosynthesis is the essence of the Earth’s life support system.

1.5.8.2: Criticisms of Phytomass Measures.
Measuring all Photosynthesis would be difficult - although much less so than measuring all environmental services.

1.5.9: Conclusion.
Whilst glesinger's focus was on the limited horizons of Wood, radford's focus was the horizonless universe of endless energy. If the Tree criterion is too limited, and the energy criteria too indiscriminate, the most suitable common denominator for evaluating the Earth might be something in between these two extremes - the Earth’s Carbon spiral.

1.6: Environmental Impact Statements.

One of the most recent proposals for measuring socio-environmental phenomena is environmental impact assessments (eias). In the european union, member states are supposed to carry out an eia on proposals for large scale construction projects. Whilst eias have good intentions, their methodologies are far from clear .. "under the Commission for the European Communities (CEC) Directive 85/337/EEC, member states of the European Union are required to ensure that EIAs are carried out under particular circumstances, but the regulations provide little in the way of practical guidelines relating to either content or quality. As far as the regulations go, although, in the UK at least, the greater bulk of the legislation is concerned with determining whether an environmental assessment is required in the first place. In describing the practical (as opposed to the broad) nature of any environmental assessment (EA) and the environmental statement (ES) which emerges from that, the legislation is remarkably coy."

No attempt has been made to develop a more secure methodology for eias because many countries have been reluctant to implement them in any meaningful way. In the early 1990s the tory government under john major dismissed eias as european interference and went out of its way to ignore them. Other european countries followed britain’s lead so that they give little protection for the environment. They have come to play a comic role in the farces enacted at public enquiries into major construction projects. Richard lindsay’s denunciation of the e.u’s eias is incisive and deserves to be quoted at length, "No statutory guidance is given as to the form which an ES must take; how the developer goes about answering these questions is left entirely open. This lack of formal provision to ensure that common methods are used between different EAs also means that planning authorities, faced with two successive applications which are concerned with largely similar proposals, may not be able to transfer the knowledge and experience gained from one study over into the process of judging the second proposal. Methods adopted in the two EAs may be so different that comparison of the results between the two may not be valid. The other major, and possibly more important, problem with the EA philosophy, as practiced, is that the entire process is concerned only with the stages prior to the granting of planning consent."

"The present system therefore has three crucial short-comings:
1. the system fails to encourage any consistency of approach between developers and is thus a recipe for anarchy;

2. consequently, neither developer nor planning authority can easily draw on the results of previous studies, nor is there any provision for the collation of such accumulating knowledge - each ES is a study unto itself;

3. the system is entirely predictive, concerned only with possible events in the future and, in practice at least, fails to continue impact assessment into the future to note actual effects - not being responsible for the subsequent outcome, EA teams thus have no direct incentive to make accurate predictions."

Lindsay concludes, "The list of superficial, slap-dash, negligent and in some cases frankly laughable EIA studies or statements which arise from this dangerous cocktail is long and not very edifying."


Horizontal Black Line

Previous Page - - Top of Page - - Next Page - - Carbonomics 8 Contents - - Carbonomics Intro
GUIDES TO CARBONOMICS - Carb Overview - - Carb Summary - - Importance of the Carbon Spiral
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
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/

1