In order to illustrate the relative ease of measuring Carbon it may be as well to explore an example. Klaus lanz asks how it would be possible to measure the amount of water used to manufacture a car. This is the sort of question that would need to be answered if one factor whether Carbon, water, oxygen, or hydrogen, was used as an environmental measuring device, "How do you begin to calculate the amount of water used in making a car? For a middle of the range car made in germany, the production of the steel and aluminium alone takes 78,000 litres of water, without allowing for the extraction of raw materials or other stages in manufacture that are extremely water-intensive but virtually impossible to quantify. It is not even possible to produce reliable figures for the water consumption involved in the production of a frozen chicken." It would be virtually impossible to find out how much water is used not so much because of the difficulty in tracing the water life-line back to all the industries which contribute to the manufacture of a car but because so much water is used. In addition, as will be argued later, even if it was possible to obtain an answer to this question, the amount of water that exists around the Earth is so substantial that the amount used to manufacture cars would fade into irrelevance. What makes the use of water as a measuring device even less relevant is that it does not have as close a link to the Earth’s climate as Carbon does.

There are a number of commentators, however, who have suggested that a single measure for environmental and anthropogenic accounting is not feasible. Firstly, "There is now strong political pressure to develop credible means to quantify, compare and rank the effects of different technological strategies. A wide range of specialists have proposed various approaches: cost-benefit analysis, comparative risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis, decision analysis and environmental impact assessment are among the principal contenders. The complexity of environmental phenomena cannot be expressed by means of a single numerical index .. " This is not true. This is exactly what could be done using the global Carbon spiral.

Secondly, david pearce opposes a system of physical resource accounting because, "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 non environmental goods and services." This statement is similarly untrue. Carbon is not only the common denominator of many geophysiological phenomena it is also a common denominator for all human activities because everything that humans do affects the Earth's Carbon spiral. If physical accounts of Carbon are not kept it will be impossible to regulate the climate and create a sustainable Planet.

A minor advantage of a global Carbon audit over various types of energy analyzes is that, on the level of mass education, whilst it is difficult to envisage units of energy e.g. ‘what is a kcal or a kjoule’; ‘how much work do kcals or kjoules represent?’ etc. - it is much less difficult to conceive of a unit of Carbon since it can be seen, felt, and weighed. It would be even easier for society to appreciate the targets set by a global Carbon budget for the quantity of atmospheric Carbon and the scale of Forest cover when regulating the Earth’s climate. Both are straightforward measurements which could be given at the end of all news’ broadcasts in place of current announcements about the Earth-rapists’ dow-jones index or footsie 100.

Slesser makes a point about energy analyzes which exposes another major difference between Carbon, and energy, analyzes, "To give up meat would make for greater self-sufficiency, would release food for others to eat, but it would not make a remarkable difference to the energy budgets of the developed countries." The validity of the last part of this statement is not known. But, if it's true, it exposes another example of the superiority of a Carbon spiral analysis over an energy analysis. Whilst in terms of energy there may be little difference between a carnivorous, and a non-meat eating, society there is a vast difference in terms of the global Carbon spiral. Meat eating societies destabilize the climate whereas non-carnivorous societies would not.

The global Carbon audit and a global Carbon budget could be used not merely to diagnose geophysiological problems but to formulate policies to combat them. This is vital for many reasons:-

One of the major difficulties involved in preventing a geophysiological disaster is not the large-scale environmental disasters which grab the media spotlight and trigger green protests, but the insidious, small scale, routine, day by day, destruction of the Earth carried out by multi-national corporations and the billions of consumers around the Earth, especially in the over-industrialized world. The Earth is being destroyed bit by bit, interspersed by the occasional big bangs. A global Carbon budget would ensure that policies did not exceed the Earth’s geophysiological constraints and destroy the Earth’s life sustaining processes - even green policies designed to protect the environment. In other words, it would ensure that all green policies are not merely in harmony with each other around the world, but in harmony with the Earth’s geophysiological needs.

In 1994 greenpeace published ‘The Climate Time Bomb’ in which it dismissed the idea of green budgetary policies on the grounds that there was no such thing as a fertilization effect resulting from the billions of tons of Carbon that humans were dumping into the environment, "The idea that excess carbon dioxide can encourage the growth of certain plant species (under glasshouse conditions) has been an argument in some quarters that global warming may in some degree be good for agriculture. Swiss experimenters growing a tropical ecosystem in an elevated carbon dioxide atmosphere now find no significant change in biomass, and carbon emissions from soil. This is a very significant development. It means that any attempt to quantify the "comprehensive approach" and "net emissions" concepts in CO2 emission-limitations will be more difficult yet, and in all ultimately likelihood impossible." Greenpeace promoted this rather bizarre proposition because it believed global burning could be combated only through reductions in Carbon emissions. It dismissed Reforestation as a solution to global burning.

In the late 1990s greenpeace reversed its stance and adopted the idea of a ‘global Carbon budget’. It admitted that, "The `carbon budget' concept has the capacity to shed significant light on the implications of current fossil fuel policy for long term climate policy objectives." However, as can be seen from this quote, greenpeace surrounded the budget with apostrophes. This is because its focus is still primarily on Carbon emissions. The ‘Carbon Logic’ campaign suggest there are three options for combating - the first is reducing Carbon emissions; the second includes a smaller reduction in Carbon emissions but with a halt to some deforestation; and the third includes an even smaller reduction in Carbon emissions, a halt to deforestation and an element of Reforestation. Despite the fact that all three options have the same overall impact on the Earth’s Carbon spiral, greenpeace focuses primarily on the first option, that all countries around the world should be allowed to release only 145 billion tonnes of Carbon over the next fifty years. In the first option, greenpeace uses the idea of a ‘budget’ to ensure a cap on global Carbon emissions without mentioning Reforestation. In other words, greenpeace is promoting an emissions only ‘budget’ rather than a Carbon spiral budget which is concerned with emissions and sequestration. Greenpeace’s headline demand is reducing Carbon emissions, "A `carbon budget' - i.e. the total emissions to the atmosphere of carbon dioxide (taking into account the mix of greenhouse gases of which CO2 is most important) - can be calculated on the basis of the ecological targets." It is only in the small print at the back of the document that greenpeace includes options for Reforestation - as if it is going to be possible to combat global burning without Reforestation, "Taking the climate sensitivity to be 3.5oC, with a limit of a 1oC increase in global mean surface temperature above pre-industrial levels and assuming that other greenhouse gases contribute about one quarter of the effect of CO2 alone in the long term, the `carbon budget' over the next century can be estimated in terms of billions of tonnes of carbon (gtC). With these assumptions, the `carbon budget' is:

In other words, humans can release up to 145gt Carbon without having to bother about halting deforestation or Reforestation; humans can release 225gtC without having to bother about Reforestation; it is only if they release more than this that there must be some Reforestation, "Action to substantially reduce deforestation and to expand afforestation programmes would help stabilize the climate system. Mathematically, for a given total `carbon budget' the more action than can be undertaken to limit deforestation the more of the total budget that would be available for fossil fuel use. If, for example, a combination of programmes to halt deforestation and to re-afforest were undertaken over the next century that resulted in no net deforestation over that period then the fossil fuel budget would equal the total budget for that period i.e. 225 GtC (295 GtC).." Is it not quite incredible that even now when global burning is becoming more and more obvious, that greenpeace is willing to allow a massive increase of 225gtC without any Reforestation? The total load of Carbon currently in the atmosphere is 760gtC so another 225gtC would be a substantial increase.

The reason for greenpeace’s stance is that it is petrified that if it mentions Reforestation too prominently this will give governments around the world an excuse to release more Carbon emissions. It refuses to promote radical policies such as insisting that Carbon debtor countries curb their Carbon emissions and carry out extensive Reforestation. It prefers to opt for political expediency i.e. presenting policies which are so feeble that the world’s biggest Earth rapists might listen to them.

Like greenpeace, the global commons institute (gci) used to dismiss the idea of a Carbon budget because of its exclusive concern for Carbon emissions. However, in more recent years, it too has adopted the idea of a budget but, only, just like greenpeace, a Carbon emissions budget. If anything, the cgi is even more reluctant to talk about Reforestation than greenpeace. In an article published by ‘the ecologist’, simon retallack concentrated solely on the need for reductions in Carbon emissions and ignored Reforestation, "It is therefore the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in other words the extent of the accumulation of emissions, which must be focused on (to combat the greenhouse effect)." He supports the gci’s demands, with reservations expressed by ‘the ecologist’, "The global commons institute considers that their global framework scheme, ‘contraction and convergence’, could provide the only practical way of overcoming this obstacle (of how much countries should reduce their Carbon emissions). Under the scheme, a global Carbon budget would be set, such as 350 ppmv, to be reached by a particular date, say 2050. Gci argues that the only way to divide this budget among states in a way that is acceptable to all, and hence durable, is on the basis of convergence towards equal entitlements to emit on a per capita basis globally. The ecologist believes this is by no means ideal. (The ecologist fears this would enable third world countries to make large scale developments). On the other hand, whatever may be the Ecologist’s reservations, the adoption of per capita allocations within a global Carbon budget may prove to be the only practical way of bringing the rapidly industrializing world to agree to set a legal cap on its emissions .." Is it not amazing that one of the oldest and most respected green magazines around the world is willing to publish an article which ignores Reforestation? It has to be suggested that the green movement is not green - it is not interested in Reforestation.

A global Carbon analysis would make it possible to quantify the effect of a so-called green proposal on the Earth’s life support system. It could show that it would release ‘x’ tonnes of Carbon and decrease Photosynthesis by ‘y’ tonnes of Carbon. The estimated damage caused by a particular project could be seen in the context of a Carbon budget for the region (and country and world) which would indicate whether the proposal could be accommodated or not. It would no longer be possible for vested interest groups to claim their policies were green when there was evidence to disprove their claims and when there was no room for them in a Carbon budget.

Green politics has been about intangible values and unquantifiable, apple-pie, concepts for too long. If it is going to make any headway at all it needs to be underpinned by a system of quantification and budgetary constraints that will give it some credibility. In a sustainable future, all policy proposals would need to be Carbon costed - especially, policies put forward by greens. Given the disinterest in Reforestation, and the geophysiologically spendthrift ways of greenpeace, ‘the ecologist’, cgi, the land is ours, green decentralists, real world/eco-reformists, etc, it is all too likely that if their policies were implemented they would produce a climate not unlike that found on Venus.

In his book on a sustainable future, hartmut bossel asks one of the most common questions about money which afflicts money oriented societies, "Are there sufficient funds for the operation and maintenance of roads, hospitals, sewage plant?" Once people start posing this question about a monetary budget rather than a Carbon budget they have no chance of protecting the Earth’s life support system. In a sustainable world, the question should be, ‘Are there sufficient Carbon credits available for the operation and maintenance of roads, hospitals, sewage plant?’ The same drawbacks also apply to amory lovins basic question, "In the past, resource issues have typically been framed as, "How can we get more?" Rmi instead starts by asking, "What are we trying to do, and what’s the best and cheapest way to do it?" Thus if people want hot showers and cold beer, one starts with these end-use services, then asks how much energy, of what kind, at what scale, and from what source, would do each desired task in the cheapest way."

A global Carbon budget would enable the quantification of green politics so that it would be possible to assess a ‘green’ policy’s affordability - how much of a green budget would it use up and whether it would fit in with other desirable policies. For example, if there was a proposal for a huge green construction project which not only released a high proportion of a region’s allocation of Carbon emissions but significantly reduced its Photosynthetic reserves, the people in that region would know there would be little left in their Carbon budget to ‘geophysiologically finance’ other policies. They would have to work out what policies would have to be abandoned if they gave permission to such a construction project. Under these circumstances, it wouldn’t matter how persuasive permaculturalists might be in demanding that an area of land should be turned into a permacultural plot or how devious Earth-rapists were in using green terminology to try and win support for a construction project, people would assess its affordability and comparative costs before deciding whether to support it or not.

There are times when lovelock, one of the greatest scientists of all time, comes over as a hippy who believes that billions of people around the world should just be able to stroll gleefully through life reading shakespeare without a care or worry on their mind, "Do we want the full responsibility for (the Earth's) care and health? There can be no worse fate for people than to be conscripted for such a hopeless task - to be made forever accountable for the smooth running of the climate, the composition of the oceans, the air, and the soil."

There are reasons for believing that even if it would be a chore maintaining a global Carbon audit, it would produce some substantial benefits:-

It has been argued that many environmental analyses are far too complex to serve as environmental measures. For example, how would it be impossible to measure all of the Earth’s environmental services? If greens tried to measure, evaluate, and price, every single environmental service they would soon end up in a lunatic asylum. However, given that most of these services are dependent, in one way or another, upon Forests then as long as there is sufficient global Forest cover then there is far less need to worry about the functioning and survival of these services. The main reason why so many commentators are insisting on measuring environmental services is because these services are disappearing and some rationale needs to be found for preserving them. But once there is widescale Forest cover around the Earth, most environmental services will function satisfactorily and there will be no need to measure them.

It might be argued that a global Carbon audit/budget would also be much too complex to be used as an environmental measure. If this turns out to be the case, the Carbon budget could be dumbed down by focusing on the scale of Forest cover. Given the central role of Forests in the Earth’s life support system this could act as rough guide to the vitality of the Earth’s life support system.

Ultimately, however, a Carbon analysis could not determine all the policies needed to create a sustainable Planet. In a world which was a tabla rasa it could determine the best parts of the world for climate Forests to regulate the climate; it could determine which land should be put aside for Wildlife; and which land should be set aside for human habitation. However, such a scientific approach is not feasible in a world of nation states inhabited by six billion people for the simple reason that no country around the Earth wants to be burdened with all the responsibilities for providing the Forest cover needed to regulate the Earth’s climate - especially poor countries in the tropics. The global Carbon budget has to take account of political realities - the most important of which is that each country is going to have to take an equal share (both in terms of their Carbon emissions and Photosynthetic capacity) in looking after the Earth because no country is going to be willing to do more than its fair share. The global Carbon budget can determine the scale of Forest cover needed to stabilize the climate but how much responsibility each country must have for Forest cover is ultimately a political decision - one which must be made as a result of a political agreement between the rich and the poor nations. If countries around the world agree to the adoption of a global Carbon budget on the basis that each country would balance their historical Carbon budgets this would determine the scale of Forest cover in each country but this decision would be a political, not a geophysiological, one. In addition, the rate at which historical Carbon debtor countries would repay their Carbon debts, and the rate at which historical Carbon creditor countries would spend their Carbon credits, are not matters which could be solved scientifically by a Carbon spiral analysis. They are political decisions.

As far as human welfare is concerned, a global Carbon audit/budget could play a vital role in determining global ecological justice between all countries around the world. This would result in the abolition of global poverty - perhaps the most important factor in human welfare. There is currently no other criteria for determining global equality between the rich and poor worlds without triggering off disputes about the redistribution of wealth which would cause an avalanche of economic growth and overrun the Earth's geophysiological limitations.

As far as the depletion of natural resources is concerned Carbonomics couldn’t determine the rate at which non-Photosynthetic resources should be used to maximize human welfare. However, by helping to stabilize the climate, a global Carbon audit/budget could ensure that resources were exploited at a rate that did not destabilize the climate and thus the Earth's life support system. This would help to spread resources over more generations.

The global Carbon audit/budget is more than a measuring system for the Earth’s life sustaining processes. It can be used to stabilize the climate. If humans stabilize the climate then what, in effect, they have done is protect the Earth’s life support system and, thereby, create a sustainable Planet. Whereas environmentalists/greens have been extremely reluctant to outline the Earth’s life support system let alone indicate the nature of a sustainable Planet, the global Carbon audit leads directly to the stabilization of the climate, the protection of the Earth’s life support system, and the creation of a sustainable Planet.