There are two aspects of britain’s Carbon status. Firstly, its current Carbon status, the difference between the country’s imports and exports of Carbon over the last few years or decades. Secondly, its historical Carbon status which is the difference between the country’s imports and exports of Carbon since the start of the industrial revolution.

It has been stated that in 1990 britain released about 160 million tonnes of Carbon (mtC) and absorbed 2.9mtC. This means that Britain is a net Carbon debtor to the tune of 157.1mtC. The amount of Carbon it absorbs is just 1.4% of its current Carbon emissions. There is clearly a vast disparity between the country’s imports and exports of Carbon. The amount of Carbon this country absorbs is pathetic. This imbalance indicates that britain’s geophysiology i.e. the state of the Earth’s life sustaining processes in the country, is in an appalling bad condition. These facts alone are blatant proof of the need for drastic Reforestation in order to prevent the destabilization of the climate.

The figure given for the quantity of Carbon absorbed each year by the u.k’s Forests is so scandalously insignificant that it is necessary to try and find some way of checking to see whether there has been a typo over the position of the decimal point. Surely the amount of Carbon absorbed can’t be that minuscule? The Forestry commission estimates that Forest cover in the u.k. is about 2.3 million hectares. The area of land in the uk is equal to 250,000km2 or, given that 1 square kilometre is equal to 100 hectares, 25,000,000 hectares. This means the area of Forest cover in the u.k. would be 9.2% which is roughly in line with other estimates. According to fred pearce, "It takes one hectare of forest land to absorb five tonnes of Carbon a year." So, the quantity of Carbon that the u.k’s Forests could be absorbing would be five tonnes of Carbon multiplied by 2.3 million hectares giving 11.5mtC a year - which is not that far off the 3.9mtC figure. As a second check, the nerc estimates that .."one million hectares of new forest in the UK would remove 2-5% of the total current annual UK emissions of carbon dioxide." Assuming 2.5% of 160mtC this would mean the new Forests absorb about 4mtC - which is also in the same ballpark as . It does seem as if the doe’s estimate of the quantity of Carbon absorbed through Photosynthesis by the u.k’s Forests is not a mistake.

The total area of the united kingdom is approximately 244,820km2 of which 241,590km2 is land and 3,230km2 is water. For the sake of generosity towards brutland, let’s take the latter figure and then round it up to 250,000km2 to make it a rounder figure to use in these back of the matchbox calculations - even though the amount of Photosynthesis in rivers, lakes, etc is nothing like that in a Forest. This means that britain’s emissions per square kilometre are 160,000,000tC divided by 250,000km2 which equals 640tC/km2. That is, every square kilometre in the country is emitting, on average, approximately an enormous 640tC every year.

In comparison, the average amount of Carbon released per square kilometre around the world is 7.66gtC divided by 149,000,000 km2 which equals about 51tC. Britain’s Carbon emissions per square kilometre are 12.5 times the global average. Once again, this reveals the staggering scale of the devastation this country has inflicted on its share of the Earth’s life support system. It reveals all too clearly the enormous contribution that brutland is making, proportionately speaking, to the destabilization of the climate and immizerization around the world. Britain is sponging off the Earth’s resources to the detriment of rest of the world to a truly bankruptable degree. The rest of the world really needs to decide how they ought to deal with this criminal level of geophysiological vandalism.

If britain released Carbon emissions per square kilometre at the global rate its total emissions would be 250,000km2 multiplied by 51tC/km2 i.e. a mere 12,750,000tC. Its current emissions are 160,000,000tC. Yet again, this reveals the gross disparity between the super-abundant consumerism enjoyed by brutland’s obese, binge drinking, consumers in comparison to the far more moderate rates of consumption around the rest of the world. If britain was forced to put a ceiling of 12.75mtC on its emissions then the living conditions of consumers in this country would have to change to an almost revolutionary degree - although, in terms of quality of life, the changes needn’t be as dramatic if everyone works vigorously on making the green changes necessary. If politicians, greens, and consumers, do not admit the scale of their current emissions per square kilometre are totally unacceptable to the rest of the world then nothing is going to be done to change this unsustainable predicament. And unfortunately, if the rest of the world does not force britain to change there is no way that british consumers or greens are going to force the government to change - especially since the eco-nazis government is intransigently opposed to making any changes.

Britain is currently promising to reduce its Carbon emissions to 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 but if it had to reduce its emissions per square kilometre to the global average this would mean reductions of 160,000,000mtC minus 12,750,000tC equals 147,250,000mtC divided by160,000,000mtC multiplied by 100 i.e. 92%. Oh dear, it seems as if greens’ demands for curbs in Carbon emissions of 15-20% are pathetically inadequate. Such demands do virtually nothing to bring about global equality between the rich and poor worlds which is the only way of stabilizing the climate. It is imperative that the rest of the world imposes serious sanctions on britain to reduce its current emissions per square kilometre to the global average if it is to stand any chance of bring about geophysiological equality.

Another way of presenting the basic facts about britain’s geophysiological condition is to look at the state of the Earth’s climate if britain’s Carbon emissions per square kilometre were common around the world - in other words, what the state of the Earth would be like if all countries were wrecking the Earth’s life support system to the same extent as britain. Given that the land area of the Earth is approximately 149,000,000 km2 then, on the basis of britain’s emissions of 640tC per km2 per year, this would mean global emissions would be 95,360,000,000tC per year.

The country’s appalling geophysiological condition also becomes apparent through another simple calculation. Unfortunately, whilst there are figures available for britain the figures for other countries, and the world as a whole, have not been scientifically calculated - which is yet another indication of scientists’ indifference to the role of Forests on the Earth’s climate.

It is also possible to calculate from the above figures the area of land needed to absorb britain’s current Carbon emissions. Britain currently releases 160,0000,000tC per year so if this was absorbed at the rate of 51tCkm2 (the global average for the absorption of Carbon) then the area required would be 160,000,000 divided by 51 equals 3,137,254km2 - once again, let’s be generous and round this down to 3,000,000km2. Given that britain’s land area is 250,000km2 this means the country would need an area 12 times its own size in order to absorb all the Carbon it is currently emitting. Once again, this indicates that britain is so far away from sustainability that it is hard to imagine it ever being able to change - especially when the country’s biggest Earth rapists hold most of the reigns of power.

A huge area of land is required to absorb britain’s current greenhouse emissions. However, the country also imports vast quantities of Phytomass e.g. feed for bipeds and slave Animals; timber, etc. The vast overpopulation of this country, in terms of the huge numbers of both oomancruels and Animalkind, is possible only because the country extracts Photosynthetic resources from vast areas around the globe. It has been estimated that, "People in the rich countries are using 40 million acres of third world land for tea, coffee and cocoa." This was written over a decade ago about three basic crops so current Phytomass’ imports would be substantially larger. Let’s assume that the area of land around the world which is effectively growing crops for consumption in this country is 2,000,000 km2.

• 3,000,000km2 of land around the world to absorb its Carbon emissions;

• 2,000,000km2 of land to extract resources from around the world; and,

• 1,000,000km2 of land around the world to absorb the Carbon emissions released from its imports of Phytomass.

The total area of the united kingdom is approximately 250,000km2 or 25,000,000 hectares. According to fred pearce, one of the country’s leading greenless greens, "It takes one hectare of forest land to absorb five tonnes of carbon a year." If the entire country was covered in Forests which absorbed 5tC per hectare a year then this would mean the country could absorb 125,000,000tC per year. This means that even if the entire country was covered in Forests it still couldn’t absorb its current emissions - it would still be 35gtC short of being able to absorb its emissions. This clearly indicates that the country is grossly unsustainable and that all talk of britain being close to sustainability is sheer fantasy bordering on absurdity. The labour government and the national pharmers union claim the country is close to sustainability. The country couldn’t get further away from unsustainability even if it dropped off the planet and set up its own orbit around the solar system.

The global average density of humans per square kilometre is about 40. In britain, however, a population of approximately 60 million resides in an area of 250,000km2 which gives a density of 240 people per square kilometre. It is transparent from the comparison between the concentration in britain and that around the world, that britain is grossly over-populated. It has a population density six times greater than the global average.

If britain had the global average population density, the country’s population would be equal to 40 people per square kilometre multiplied by 250,000km2 i.e. a population of 10 million. This means there would have to be a dramatic sixfold reduction in the brutish population if the country was to conform to the global average.

On average, each person around the world should have an area of land equal to one square kilometre divided by 40 people which equals 0.025km2 or 2.5 hectares. They would release, on average, Carbon emissions of 51tC divided by 40 people which equals 1.3tC per capita. In britain, each person would have 1 divided by 240 or 0.0042km2 or 0.42 hectares and would release an amount of Carbon equal to 640tC divided by 240 people which is 2.7tC per person. In other words around the world, the average person would have 2.5 hectares to release 1.3tC which is feasible whereas in britain the average person would have 0.42 hectares to release 2.7tC which is virtually unsustainable. A large proportion of the land for the average british person would be taken up by burning 2.7mtC that there wouldn’t be sufficient land to grow any crops.

The above calculations are easy to make - even school kids could do them in their dinner hour. So the question which needs to be asked is why haven’t they been done? Why hasn’t the department of environment carried out these calculations. Why hasn’t any of the country’s green organizations? These calculations lead to crystal clear, completely unambiguous, albeit devastating, conclusions.

Most conventional politicians have no idea what the term sustainable means - nevertheless they argue that britain has an environment which is virtually sustainable. They might admit there needs to be some reductions in Carbon emissions before a sustainable society is created but they believe these are virtually insignificant. The above analysis reveals that the belief that britain is sustainable is utter nonsense. On the contrary, the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity>>its life support system, has been decimated in britain. The country is one of the world’s biggest Carbon debtors and is close to geophysiological bankruptcy. If britain’s geophysiological condition was a private company, it would have been forced into receivership decades ago. Even worse is that current policies are not pushing the country closer to sustainability. On the contrary, virtually everything the government is doing is boosting the country’s Carbon debts. Britain is one of the most densely populated, agriculturalized, countries in the world so it is hardly surprising it is a major contributor to the destabilization of the climate.

By far the greatest danger caused by britain’s grossly unsustainable condition is that it provides a legitimization for all other countries around the world who also want to decimate their share of the Earth’s life support system in a desperate move to emulate britain’s grotesquely obese, consumerism. Other countries around the world look at britain’s Carbon status and say, ‘Britain’s Photosynthetic capacity is an appalling 1.4% of the country’s Carbon emissions and the country is still destroying the tiny fragments of what is left of its Photosynthetic capacity, so why should we protect ours especially when we’ve got millions of poverty stricken individuals who all need homes, jobs, cars, meat, etc.’ Impoverished third world countries are not going to allow the over-industrialized nations to decimate their Photosynthetic capacity to boost economic growth whilst they have to continue protecting their Forests.

The above calculations produce some dramatic results. But, it is important to point out that these results are highly conservative. If the facts about these various phenomena were known accurately, the situation is likely to be even worse. Firstly, the estimate of britain’s Carbon emissions is lower than that which has recently been calculated for 1990 - it’s also lower than current Carbon emissions. Secondly, even today’s current Carbon emissions would still be too low because on the one hand, it ignores aeroplane emissions and, on the other hand, it ignores the release of Carbon from the massive quantities of feed and raw materials imported into the country from all around the world to sustain its gross overpopulation. Thirdly, the estimates of the Earth’s terrestrial surface grossly over-estimate the area of land that carries out Photosynthesis. There are many areas around the Earth which simply carry out little or no Photosynthesis e.g. mountains and deserts.

It is not known precisely how much Carbon the country has imported or exported since the start of the industrial revolution in 1750. It is not possible, therefore, to calculate britain’s historical Carbon status, and its historical Carbon budget. So, at present, all that can be done is show how the methodology for calculating such conclusions would work. When accurate information is obtained, the figures could be fed into the model to make it less and less unrealistic.

Britain was the first country to industrialize and has burnt a large quantity of biofuels, some in the form of fossilized Phytomass fuels such as coal and oil, the rest mainly Phytomass drawn from Forests. As a consequence, since the start of the industrial revolution, taken to be 1750, it is likely that britain has exported far more Carbon into the atmosphere than it has absorbed.

Assume that because of the dire threat posed by global burning, a world climate authority is established to stabilize the climate. It calculates each countries’ historical Carbon status. It then sets a global Carbon budget and national Carbon budgets for each country around the world. The effect of the budget would be to return the climate to the state it was in at the start of the industrial revolution. Thus britain’s historical Carbon status would be the same as its historical Carbon budget. Assume also that the global climate authority required all countries to repay their Carbon debts or, in the case of many third world countries, spend their Carbon credits, within 30 years. Britain would thus have to make Carbon repayments averaging 200 mtC per annum. In effect this would mean that britain would have to change from being a net, Carbon exporter of 157mtC per year to a net Carbon importer of 200 mtC per year.

Britain’s historical Carbon budget reveals not merely that it has huge Carbon debts but that it is virtually geophysiologically bankrupt. Even if it implemented the severest possible policies to repay its historical Carbon debts it would be difficult to repay them in the time allocated. It is possible that britain’s debts are so severe it would have to apply to the world climate authority for a dispensation to allow it to repay its debts over a longer period of time.

The common view amongst scientists, greens, politicians and the media, is that global burning is caused by excessive Carbon emissions. The implications of this view are:-

There are many examples of greens sacrificing the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity for the sake of reducing Carbon emissions. Greens are as much at fault for this policy as conventional politicians. Many examples have been highlighted:-

Conventional politicians are increasingly using the tactic of sacrificing the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity for the sake of reducing Carbon emissions. Many examples have been highlighted:-

When global burning first became a political issue scientists and then greens and politicians demanded reductions in Carbon emissions. There is reason to believe that scientists were playing politics by focusing on Carbon emissions rather than the absorption of atmospheric Carbon but let’s put this to one aside. Scientists believed this was a straightforward tactic for combating global burning which would succeed without

The preamble to this section is a reminder that stabilizing countries’ emissions is not enough to combat global burning, nor is returning to 1990s levels of Carbon emissions, "Most industrial nations are still hugely wasteful in their use of energy and have great potential both to conserve energy and generate it in ways that are less damaging to the environment. Stabilizing global emissions would not prevent disruption of the climate. Emissions of CO2 are already higher than the forests and oceans can absorb. According to John Houghton .. "stabilizing emissions of CO2 is of little help in the critical task of stabilizing concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere. To do that at current levels would require an overnight cut in emissions of 60%."

In november 1989 it was stated that the country’s Carbon emissions would continue to increase over the next couple of decades, "Planners at the Department of Energy predict that on current levels CO2 will rise by 37% by 2005 and by 73% by 2020." All efforts to reduce Carbon emissions are floundering because of the transport sector. The Earth Resources Research have .. "outlined future trends in emissions .. from the transport sector in the UK up to the year 2020. These show that whilst emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are likely to fall in the next ten to fifteen years, largely as a result of the use of catalytic converters on new petrol cars, CO2 emissions are likely to grow broadly in line with increasing demand."; "Britain's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution says that until 2020, all the increase in CO2 emissions is expected to come from transport."; In july 1993, "John Gummer admitted yesterday that the government’s transport policy and Britain’s international obligations to cut CO2 emissions are on a collision course and he does not know how to resolve the impasse."; "The projections from the modelling exercise in this study point to the fact that the car transport sector will not be able to meet the target of returning emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by 2000. However, reductions in non-carbon dioxide emissions, due mainly to the introduction of catalytic converters, do reduce total warming potential to below the 1990 level by early in the next century and keep it below this level for a number of years, despite the growth in CO2 emissions."

At the beginning of march 1995 john gummer, at the department of the environment, announced the uk would cut current Carbon emissions by 10% by 2010, "The UK was prepared to combat global warming by cutting carbon emissions by 10% by 2010, John Gummer, Environment Secretary, said yesterday."

It is commonly argued throughout the over-industrialized nations that technological innovations lead to energy savings so that it takes less energy to produce the same level of gross national product. This is the energy/gdp ratio. John gummer argued .. "getting the right energy policy is clearly central to delivering sustainable development. In recent years we have come a long way towards making our approach to energy policy more sustainable. In particular we have made great strides in decoupling economic growth from growth in energy consumption." But, then again, he said the same thing about bse. In fact the uk’s energy/gdp ratio has started increasing, "Mr Gummer was correct only in a long term perspective. The UK’s energy ratio - the amount of primary energy needed to produce a unit of GDP - has been declining steadily for most of this century, and has fallen by 40% since 1950. However, in "recent years" the trend has gone into reverse. After declining in every year but one since 1970, the UK’s energy ratio reached a low in 1989. Since then, however, it has been rising again, increasing by 3.7% between 1989 and 1992. At no other point since at least 1950 has there been a sustained three year increase of this kind." It also needs to be pointed out that even if this ratio decreases over time it does not mean there has been any reduction in greenhouse gases.

John prescott has passionately argued for action to be taken to combat global burning. In 1997, the global climate conference in kyoto, japan .. "called for a worldwide reduction of emissions of carbon-based gases by an average 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Europe is committed to cutting emissions by eight per cent, Japan by six per cent, and America by seven per cent." He agreed under the kyoto protocol to cuts british emissions by 12.5%, .. "the UK’s legally binding target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 .."

Prescott laid out his plans in a new document, "The new Climate Change Draft UK Policy produced by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (see Renew 125) seems to be a comprehensive exercise - and has been quite well received, even if it did fudge the 20% target a little. Thus it concluded that ‘the combination of existing policies and the impact of some of the measures the Government has introduced since Kyoto is forecast to reduce UK emissions of the six greenhouse gas basket to around 13.5% below 1990 levels in 2010. This would be enough to deliver the UK's Kyoto target of a 12.5% reduction. On the same projections, emissions of carbon dioxide are expected to be 7% below 1990 levels in 2010'. However, it added that ‘the full draft programme as outlined by the DETR will take the UK well beyond its international target and bring a cut of 21.5% in the basket of greenhouse gases on which the Kyoto target is based. The scope for carbon dioxide savings from quantified policies is 17.5% below 1990 levels by 2010. Beyond this core programme, the Government is confident that the large number of measures not yet quantified, will have a substantial impact and could allow emissions to fall further still, so that the UK's carbon dioxide emissions reach 20% below 1990 levels in 2010.’ The total savings in the programme amount to 17.6mtC by 2010. .. the energy supply sector contributes 2.5mtC, with renewables playing a major role. Smaller amounts come from the agricultural, public and business sectors ... As that notes, the transport sector faces a 6mtC emission increase. But the good news is that sufficient savings are seen as possible from new vehicle technology and demand management, to compensate and make a small overall emission cut. And there’s also some useful savings from the other big energy user, the domestic sector."; "In its new report ‘Climate Change: Draft uk Policies’ the department of environment, transport, and the regions (detr) looks at policies and prospects in each sector in turn. In the agriculture, forestry and land use sector, the detr report that emissions are falling, and projected to continue to do so. In 1990, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture were 24.8mtC, or around 12% of the u.k’s total greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions estimated to be 8.7mtC from land use change. In the same year, an estimated 2.9mtC were removed from the atmosphere and stored in forests, vegetation and soils – equivalent to 1.4% of total emissions. Finally, in terms of carbon sinks, the detr report that the total uptake by sinks from u.k. agriculture and forestry is projected to increase from about 1.7% of u.k. carbon dioxide emissions to 2% in 2010, although it says "not all of this could be counted towards meeting the u.k’s commitment under the kyoto protocol". Nevertheless, if the present rate of increase in tree cover continues, afforestation since 1990 could save 0.6 mtC in 2010."

"The UK Government must make drastic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, says one of its leading advisers. Sir Tom Blundell is professor of biochemistry at the University of Cambridge and chairs the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP). "We need to move to something like a 60% reduction in emissions if in fact we're going to level off at CO2 levels in the atmosphere which will give a tolerable effect on the climate."

"The UK should plan for a reduction of 60% over the next 50 years in the amounts of carbon dioxide it produces by burning fossil fuels, so as to respond to the serious problem of Climate Change. This was one of the key conclusions of a major report by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution - 'Energy - The Changing Climate'. The Commission recognised that the UK has already played a leading role in international negotiations, and felt it could and should continue to do so. However, so far, the UK's success in reducing emissions had mainly been 'fortuitous' rather than planned, due mainly to the dash for gas. The government's goal of a 20% reduction from the 1990 level by 2010 was 'a major step in the right direction' but the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the measures at present proposed will achieve it."