A Carbonomics Analysis of Brutland

Colossal Carbon Confusion: The Need for Reforestation.

There was no comment on these figures. However, they reveal the truly appalling state of britain’s Carbon status.[2] The country is virtually deforested and absorbs only 1.4% of total emissions. This situation is grim by any set of ecological standards. It indicates the virtual decimation of the Earth’s life support system in this country. It could almost serve as a definition of a geophysiological disaster zone. In some ways it’s far worse than environmental conditions found in deserts! The country’s image as a ‘green and pleasant land’ belies its wholesale devastation of the Earth’s life sustaining processes.[3] The figures show that far from helping to stabilize the Earth’s climate, britain is causing severe destabilization. Indeed, if this situation was replicated in all other countries around the world, the destabilization of the climate would be so bad that oomans would be on the brink of mass extermination.

In order to gauge, on a common sense level, the state of britain’s Carbon status, it may be helpful to imagine trying to obtain a huge bank loan under similar conditions. The bank manager might look at the business plan and respond, “In 1990 your company spent (releases into the atmosphere) 206mtC and had an income (Carbon absorption) of 2.9mtC. This has hardly changed over the last ten years and there’s only a miniscule improvement planned for the next ten years. By 2010 your income will still be a mere 2% of your expenditure. This means you will have been running up debts for twenty consecutive years. Under these circumstances, you want my bank to invest x millions of pounds in your company? I think you’d be better off seeing a pyschiatrist than a bank manager. Goodbye.”

Greens rarely mention Reforestation.[5] Whilst they constantly demand an x% reduction in Carbon emissions by the year 200y they never add ‘And a z% increase in Forest cover by 200y’. They never promote policies for both sides of the Earth’s Carbon spiral. There’s never been a newspaper heading such as ‘Greens pressure government to Reforest 40% of the country’.[6] There are many policies for stabilizing the climate but in this article two ‘ideal type’ policies, at the opposite ends of the spectrum, will be explored for the purpose of comparing their advantages and disadvantages. The first focuses solely on reductions in Carbon emissions whilst the other focuses solely on Reforestation.

There are a number of criticisms of the first policy. The most obvious criticism is that it is scientifically untenable to ignore one side of the Carbon spiral. And yet, even though this one-sided policy wouldn’t fool a schoolboy, greens persist in pursuing such a policy. Politically the policy is inadequate for a number of reasons. Firstly, even if britain stated it was going to reduce Carbon emissions by 10-20-30% its profligate use of fossil fuels in the past would be used by other governments around the world to justify similar sins of emissions. Secondly, and more importantly, even if the british government promised a dramatic reduction in Carbon emissions, other governments wouldn’t follow suit - they’d just point out the disparity between britain’s Carbon income and expenditure and use this as a justification for policies which create similar disparities. So what if britain reduced Carbon emissions by 50%?[7] Big deal! Politically it would be meaningless. All that it would do is reduce the country’s Carbon disparity from 1.4% to 2.8%. This would continue to enable other countries to justify their excessive use of fossil fuels and their devastation of their share of the Earth’s life support system. This country’s Carbon status is so bad that even a 50% reduction in Carbon emissions would justify almost any policy by the vast majority of countries around the world.

Thirdly, it is commonly believed that policies for reducing Carbon emissions are quicker, cheaper, more cost-effective, more reliable, and more dramatic, than Reforestation. However, it has to be pointed out that such policies have hardly been initiated even ten years after the first world climate conference. Politically, such policies are far from being as quick as greens allege.

Fourthly, the exclusive focus on reducing Carbon emissions allows countries to continue deforesting their land - and this is exactly what has happened over the last ten years.

Fifthly, on the global scene, the focus on Carbon emissions allows the country which has carried out the most deforestation i.e. britain, to justify similar deforestation around the rest of the world. Whilst in britain the focus on emissions seems sensible, beyond these Algal riddled shores this priority looks completely different. It allows other countries to decimate their Forests until its scale of Forest cover matches that in britain.[8] Politically, greens seem unable to appreciate that the rest of the world is going to use britain’s bankrupt environment as an excuse to do the same to their share of the Earth’s life support system. If all other countries reduced their Forest cover to that in britain then humans have had it. Given the gross imbalance between britain’s Carbon income and expenditure then not even the Wildlife who stabilize the climate are going to save us from such stupidity.

Finally, in rich countries the priority for reducing Carbon emissions implies that poor countries should take responsibility for maintaining the Earth’s Forest cover thereby leaving rich countries to indulge in further bouts of economic growth causing even greater destruction of the Earth’s life support system. Greens seem to think poor countries should remain in a state of poverty protecting their Forests for the sake of global climatic stability whilst allowing britain and other obscenely rich countries to continue getting richer and richer by ravaging more and more of their Forests. British greens are proud of their global perspective, it’s just a shame their policies are so xenophobic.