Welcome to Mappa Mundi no.17.

This is the third in the trilogy of works highlighting the views of those in the so-called green movement. The first of the trilogy focused on so-called green individuals. The second explored loose associations of so-called greens i.e. those who share similar ideas because they belong to the same generation or because they belong to the same family or because they’re involved in the same type of so-called green work. The final work in this trilogy explores the greenness, or rather, the lack of it, amongst green organizations and the vicious, politically conventional, muppets in the media from journalists to the rich and famous.

Green Groups.

Body Shop.

In august 2000 the body shop opened its first motorway store - the granada services on the m4 in wiltshire.

Council for Environmental Conservation>>Environmental Council.

"Changed its name in 1988 to the Environmental Council - a private company and a charity which works closely with business."[1]

Earth First! (UK).

For a young and supposedly radical, direct action, movement Efuk! seem surprisingly conventional. In their magazine ‘do or die’, they express admiration for bernard planterose’s ideas for Reforesting scotland - including some of his reactionary proposals:-

* that Forests should be exploited to produce economic wealth, “It is the forest that holds the key to any hope for a vibrant future. It is the fulcrum of ecological and social wealth in the Highlands.”[2]

* the exploitation of slave Animal i.e. the grazing of livestock Animals, “Sheep need not be purged from the highlands - bernard planterose, in the hugely inspiring ‘Rural Manifesto for the Highlands’ hints at ways in which ‘less might be more’, and Sheep farming restored to a more secure footing. Confining Sheep to smaller pastures instead of the vast ranges utilized today, more intensive management, integrating farming into an agro-forestry’ system - all could allow the Sheep to take advantage of the milder micro-climate .. ”[3]

* support for culling, “It is therefore with great reluctance that I say culling might be unavoidable ..”[4]

The author approves of better conditions for Sheep but all s/he’s doing is creating a greener abattoir. It seems as if s/he’s just wandered in from a pep talk with the countryside alliance.

In the same issue of ‘do or die’ the article 'eternal threat' gives some philosophical support for oomans’ exploitation of Animals. Greens’ proposition that oomans should live in harmony with nature is a euphemism for oomans’ invasion of Wilderness areas and their dominance over Wildlife. It is proclaimed as an integrationist ethic but it is more of an anthropogenic assimilation principle in which oomans and Animals live side by side until the time comes for oomans to slit Animals’ throats. It is not surprising then that Animal murderers like those in ‘we do, you die’ are opposed to what they rather fancifully call the "false separation between humanity and all other life". The last thing the Animal murdering cut-throats want is for Wildlife to be beyond the reach of their knives, "Conservation by segregation is the Noah's ark solution, a belief that wildlife should be consigned to tiny land parcels for its own good and because it has no place in our world." These objections to the idea of ooman-free Wilderness areas are irrelevant but their purpose is to disparage the idea without examining it. The author is just running away from a debate. Wildlife need not be confined to small parcels of land. On the contrary, they should be able to enjoy massive Wilderness areas. And, secondly, if people want Lions and Tigers wandering through their villages then that is up to them but such a system of integration would be in addition to, and not a substitute for, ooman free Wildlife areas. There are vast areas of land around the Earth which no longer have any Wildlife so why shouldn’t Wildlife have some land where they don’t have to put up with the fear engendered by the mere presence of bipeds? The idea of ooman-free Wilderness areas is designed to protect both Wildlife from oomans and oomans from Wildlife. The idea of "humanity as part of nature inextricably linked" sounds grandiose but its just a code phrase not merely to open up Wilderness areas for ooman development but, even worse, to oppose the creation of ooman free Wilderness areas.

Contradictorily then for an organization which supports a supremacist-assimilationist ethic, Efuk! insists on segregating species at its meetings, “Mass trespass in commemoration of the diggers. Meeting saturday, 12 midday for mass trespass to mystery site (no Dogs).”[5] Could you trust such green wadicals to live in harmony with Wildlife when they can’t even cope with oomanized Dogs at their meetings?

The latest issue of Efuk!’s action update contains articles on support for refugees, opposition to the prison building system, the usual out-dated anti-racist crap, and opposition to the deportation of illegal immigrants. What have any of these issues got to do with protecting Wildlife and saving the Earth’s life support system? Nothing. Efuk! is cleary drifting further and further away from its roots. Either the movement has been infiltrated by conventional oomano-imperialists or it’s about time somebody took them to court and prosecuted them under the trades description act for falsely labelling their objectives. Efuk! ought to rename themselves oomano-imperialists first! - oafs! for short.

Oafs! latest wease is, “A no border group emerged from the mayday 2000 conference in london. They are promoting critical evaluation of the border regime in the u.k. through information and interventions. The border regime includes intimidation and humiliation of refugees through vouchers, dispersal, detention centres, as well as control of internal and external borders.”[6] In the editorial, ‘whose side we’re on’ it is stated .. “many (oafs!) agreed to make anti-racism and refugee support a higher priority in response to the current climate.”[7]

The mundi club would like to question this new policy - if oaf!s supports the free movement of oomans around the Earth does it also support the free movement of Animals? If it supports ooman refugees being allowed to stay in this country does it also support giving sanctuary to the Wildlife which, around the Earth, is being persecuted and eradicated by oomano-imperialists? Earth First! was founded to combat anthropocentrism but clearly, in the uk, the oaf!s eco-nazi proclivities are coming more and more to the fore. This is inevitably what happens when bipeds gather together. Oaf!s isn’t in the slightest bit bothered about evaluating the impact of such planetless, supremacist, free market, ooman rights’ policies on Wildlife or the Earth’s life support system. It seems as if the oaf!s movement has been infiltrated by ooman-imperialists seeking to extend eco-nazis’ domination over the Earth. Oaf!s policies are indistinguishable from capitalists’ demand for global free trade, the free movement of people, and the abolition of national border controls. Oaf!s and global capitalists are just tweedle dum and tweedle dee - and they’ve even given themselves complementary names - one call themselves globalizers and the other calls themselves anti-globalizers - although which one is which is difficult to tell. What greater compliment is there to the domination of capitalism when anti-capitalist radicals promote exactly the same policies as capitalists. Oaf!s are now working in conjunction with global capitalists in a perfect pincer movement to expropriate Wildlife habitats. Giving carnivores and Animal abusers the right to roam wherever they want is sickening. Even worse the right to roam negates the right of communities to decide who they want to invite into their communities.

Over the last few years the radical green movement in this country has spent a huge amount of time acting like the socialist workers party trying to win the support of trade unionist planks. The anti-macdonald’s brigade spent years defending the rights of workers in the company rather than defending the rights of Animals. Then we had the liverpool dockers’ campaign. After the months spent courting the interests of liverpool dockers in an industrial dispute it would be interesting to find out how many of them are now active in the Earth First! movement? How many macdonald’s workers are now active in oaf!? We’ve now got the prospect of radical greens wasting years of their time on supremacist, anthropocentric, ooman rights issues. Oaf!s growing preoccupation with the promotion of ooman interests is in direct proportion to their growing support for the exploitation of Wildlife.

foE

One of the world’s biggest and most well established green organizations, foes of the Earth, believes there is no room for the Reforestation needed to combat global burning, "Given the scale of the global climate change problem, questions are raised over the availability of sufficient land for reforestation."[8]

German Green Party.

Protecting their Sausages.

“Germany’s centre-left government was last night pitched into crisis by the resignation of two cabinet ministers accused of mishandling the fallout from the spread of bse. The sudden turn of events posed a new threat to british farming since the politician tipped to take over as germany’s health minister is best known as a determined opponent of the lifting of the ban on beef imports from britain. (The resignations of andrea fischer and karl-heinz funke) marked the latest phase in a giddying turnaround in the fortunes of the government which, until recently, had been riding high in opinion polls. By yesterday, the number of confirmed bse cases had grown to ten. (Miss hohn is a green who might take over as the health minister and has vigorously opposed the lifting of the ban). “Ms fischer, a leading member of the green party, first fell foul of the crisis last month when she was forced into a u-turn over the need to recall sausages containing mechanically recovered meat products. She later admitted that a warning from government experts on practices in the sausage industry had lain unattended for 10 days in her ministry.”[9]

Green Anarchist.

Green Anarchist blames the European Community for a Conspiracy to create F&M.

Green anarchist published an article exploring the possibility that the foot and mouth epidemic was created by a conspiracy between the european union and euro-phile elements within the maffia, “The intention is clear - to make people throughout europe dependent on european control of the food supply.”[10] The contention being that the european community forced brutland to close down the country’s network of local abattoirs and this led to a dramatic increase in the length of the journeys that Animals had to endure on their way to the abattoir thereby encouraging the spread of the disease .. “the possible european origin of the (f&m) outbreak. Europe is responsible for the increased transportation of Animals about britain, because of the forced closure of many british abattoirs due to the imposition of european regulations.”[11]

Green anarchist points out that the epidemic distracted attention from electoral efforts to save brutish sovereignty. It speculates, along with the ‘ecologist’ magazine, that the ultra-nationalistic but upper crust independence party, the referendum party, and william hague, that, “The real issue, which should have been dominating the (2001 general) election, the abolition of the pound, was knocked right off the agenda.”[12] In other words, eurocrats were guilty of silencing extreme right wing, pharmer-loving, meat-eating, ultra-patriotic, eurosceptics trying to save her majesty’s mug on the country’s currency, “The people most likely to shout about the abolition of the pound are the euro-sceptic right, the uk independence party, and countryside alliance, farmers, and rural tories. With foot and mouth, these people would be deflected. .. the foot and mouth outbreak proved a master-stroke by somebody to electorally undermine the countryside alliance/conservative anti-europeans.”[13] Most radicals would say yessiree to that. To lend credence to the view that eurocrats were forcing right wing tory extremists back into their subsidized, luxury pharmyard bunkers, the author provides an earlier example of eurocrats’ dastardliness, “Gordon foxley was the director of ammunition procurement at the ministry of defence. In october 1993 he was found guilty of corruption. He accepted £1.5 million in bribes (from a fiat subsidiary, and two other european companies). As a result of his corruption, contracts .. went to these companies. The royal ordnance fuse factory at blackburn closed, losing at least 862 jobs.”[14] Green anarchist believes it is possible that foxley-ite elements within the maffia spread f&m as part of what it regards as “the european totalitarian agenda”, “After studying europe, the idea of uk officials inside acting on behalf of europe ought to be a favourite thesis by now.”[15] Green anarchist concludes this scenario by suggesting that, “Europe is also responsible for the fact that uk farmers feel forced to export to europe in order to survive economically.”[16] It ought to be pointed out that brutish pharmers export their disease ridden shit not because they are compelled to do so by eurocrats but because eurocrats provide them with subsidies to do so.

Greenpeace.

For a more in depth look at greenpeace please see sp7 ‘A Critique of Greenpeace’s Vision of a World with 1,600,000,000 Vehicles’.

Discussions with Handley.

Handley was a pharmer and one of the leaders of the september 2001 fuel tax protests. He .. “even discloses that he met senior figures from greenpeace on Friday, and acknowledges that cheaper petrol is not the long term answer to the country’s problems. “The greens and us have a lot in common,” he ventures, “we couldn’t agree on fuel prices but did on everything else.” (He declares he is not an arthur scargill), “Scargill planned everything. The first protest I was involved in, a friend just rang me the evening before and asked if I felt like coming along.””[17]

Brent Spar.

"The trail that led to Shell's humiliation began at Greenpeace International's London headquarters on January 20th. Giys Thieme, the newly appointed co-ordinator for north sea campaign logistics had come over from Holland for a chat with UK colleagues. He noticed a copy of Shell's Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) proposals for the disposal of a redundant North sea installation called Brent Spar. Mr Thieme became convinced Greenpeace should oppose the proposals. But the organization was going through a rough time financially, staff were being dismissed and campaign budgets cut, so there was little initial sympathy. The final decision to go ahead with a campaign to stop the sinking of the Brent Spar was taken in amsterdam on April 11th. (After greenpeace activists had occupied the oil platform a euro-wide publicity campaign was launched). Paradoxically, it had a disappointingly limp start in the UK, where it might have been expected to have had the most immediate impact. There was relatively little press coverage and no surge of public sympathy. This was partly because the british branch of Greenpeace was slow off the mark, launching its boycott of Shell petrol stations only last thursday. As the Brent Spar campaign clunked into gear, Greenpeace set its target on .. Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands."[18]

Land is Ours.

Whilst green aristocrats tend to be middle aged and rich, the land is ours appeals to a younger generation - although it too has its fair smattering of ‘wrinkles’ - as the young ‘know-it-all’ twinkies call them. Whilst many green aristocrats enjoy a life of luxury, the young greens live precariously with little secure means of support. They are the victims of tory taunts about being welfare radicals (in my days they used to be called bedsit revolutionaries) even though, as has been pointed out, pharmers are by far biggest welfare scroungers in the country. Unfortunately, just like the supergreens, the young greens rarely protest about what pharmers are doing to the Earth’s life support system or its Wildlife.

Many members of the land is ours were born and raised in urban areas but seek to retreat from urban life for the sake of growing their own crops on a bit of land in the countryside - preferably in the middle of an idyllic, pristine Wildlife habitat - even though there is a surfeit of allotments going to weed in urban areas. They seek

free land,

freedom from any local rates, and

lavish subsidies from the common agricultural policy.

Ah, to them the life of a pharmer must seem like bliss - endless subsidies, full compensation for epidemics, immunity from prosecution for any illegal activities, and endless drug taking (pharmers being the world’s biggest drug takers). What a life this would be, away from the oomanojunk race, a lovely quiet place in the countryside where they would be legally entitled to do what they wanted on the land, receive lavish subsidies for doing nothing, all without having to pay any rates or to sign on every fortnight. The one thing about hippies in the 1960s was that at least they engaged in politics without a desire for rewards whereas activists in ‘the land is ours’ are in grave danger of promoting policies which are almost entirely selfish. If the public suspects that the high principles and nobility of ‘the land is ours’ movement is just a tactic for getting free land and lavish, lifelong, pharming subsidies, they are going to become very disenchanted with such activists. Unfortunately, what those in ‘the land is ours’ movement don’t seem to appreciate is that there is not the slightest prospect of them being allowed to move back into the countryside precisely because pharmers’ financial benefits are so substantial. Because pharmers enjoy such a huge range of financial, and political, privileges no government would want to extend these privileges to a substantial numbers of people. So, even if ‘back to the landers’ care nothing about their own self interests they’ve got to undermine pharmers’ privileges in order to stand any chance of getting into the countryside.

Activists in the land is ours are not merely retreating from urban green politics and acting selfishly, they are basically oomano-imperialists i.e. supremacists who claim the land belongs to oomans rather than Wildlife. They demand the right to expropriate all land from Wildlife but refuse to allow Wildlife the right to expropriate land from oomans.

The land is ours also demands the right of oomans to roam but, like all other oomano-imperialists, does not demand the same right for Animals.

The land is ours promotes the idea of oomans’ living harmoniously with Wildlife and yet, in reality, they use this propaganda to justify their invasion of Wildlife areas and the expropriation of even more land from Wildlife. The consequences are inevitable. After having colonized a Wildlife habitat, they soon start complaining that Wildlife are eating or trampling over their crops and eventually, and reluctantly, they demand the extermination of the Animals causing the damage. The land is ours supports the idea of living in harmony with Wildlife - as long as they are the top predator and believe it is their right to decimate any species which challenges this supremacism. The ‘land is ours’ is full of nauseating hypocrites and ooman-imperialist shits who are no less greedy and blood drenched as any other oomano-imperialist organization.

As far as the ‘land is ours’ is concerned there’s one law for oomans who can roam, live, and steal, any of the Earth’s resources, whilst Wildlife have to be penned into smaller and smaller areas where their survival becomes ever more precarious. If, for some highly unlikely but theoretically possible reason, Wildlife numbers started increasing, the oomano-imperialists would demand that these Animals should be culled but they say nothing about culling the increasing numbers of oomans causing the increasing invasion of Wilderness areas.

The supporters of ‘the land is ours’ include simon fairlie, oliver tickell, george monbiot, edward goldsmith, charles windsor, etc all of whom are green Earth rapists and Animal exploiters. No wonder the green movement is in such a mess. With fucking shits like these around it's almost impossible to develop any links between the green, and the Animal rights, movement.

Royal Society for Prevention of Animals.

Corporate Sponsorship.

Rspca’s Logo.

"The RSPCA is to allow its logo to be put on meat from humanely reared animals."[19]

Corporate Deals.

The rspca is given substantial donations for its work but obtains additional monies from corporate deals, "The RSPCA is to allow its logo to be put on meat from humanely reared animals."[20] The countryside elite are currently plotting to take over the rspca by persuading as many ruralites as possible to join the organization and then vote on a directorship which supports their interests.

Membership.

“The rspca yesterday won a high court battle to stop pro-hunting members infiltrating its ranks. Justice lightman gave the society the go ahead to bar people from membership following “damaging” campaigns by pro-hunting groups. But the judge said the society still had to consider each application on its merits, and not just because the applicant supported hunting.”[21]

Employees.

“A former boss at a scandal-hit monkey farm has been given a senior job with the rspca. Animal campaigners last night reacted with fury at the appointment. Paul west is the welfare group’s new assistant chief vet. But his old firm - shamrock monkey farm, which bred and sold monkeys for experiments - was branded “cruel and immoral”. Shamrock, which closed last month, raised monkeys to be surgically experimented on while they were alive. The government attacked the farm’s “poor standards of care” after an undercover campaigner filmed a monkey being maltreated. He spent 8 years with shamrock, where he was responsible for looking after monkeys, eventually becoming a director. The rspca said, “He shares our view that we should be looking at reducing the demand for research animals.”[22]

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

“All nature reserves run by the royal society for the protection of birds were shut down for at least a week. The society has livestock on more than 60 of its sites and almost all having farming neighbours. National trust bosses closed all landscape parks containing livestock.”[23]

UK Forest Network.

‘Forests Memorandum’ There is no such thing as the Green Movement.

This is a review of the united kingdom Forests network’s ‘Forests Memorandum’ which outlines the common platform on Reforestation adopted by 26 of the country’s leading so-called green organizations.[24] This article shows conclusively that the green movement in this country refuses to set targets for the scale of Forest cover in each country around the world.

Outline of the Charter.

The ‘Forests memorandum’ is divided into four parts. The first highlights the scale of national, international, and global, deforestation; the second examines the causes of deforestation; the third explores the effects of deforestation; and the final part presents the ukFn’s recommendations for boosting Reforestation.

The scale of global deforestation is frightening. Unfortunately the ‘memorandum’ underplays the historical scale of deforestation. It fails to highlight the fact that Forests are a major part of the Earth’s life support system. Even worse is that it makes no attempt to estimate how close humans are getting to ecocidal oblivion because of deforestation. However, it partly makes up for these inadequacies with some juicy doom laden information .. “oil companies have now leased or earmarked virtually all remaining tropical forest areas for exploration and/or production.” (p.27) - (which, doubtlessly, will encourage fwends of the Earth and other ‘gween’ radicals to get into their cars to participate in further campaigns against the Mahogany trade).

The causes of deforestation are divided into two categories. The underlying causes consist of consumption levels in the over-industrialized countries, international debts, pressure for economic development, unequal land tenure, the inadequacy of women’s rights, and population expansion. Significantly there is no mention of the deforestation caused by the Animal exploitation industry even though it is pointed out later that the legal/illegal trade in Animal resources is only slightly smaller than the trade in tropical timber .. “it was estimated that in 1988 the value of the wildlife trade, both legal and illegal, mainly from tropical rainforest areas reached US$5 billion, not far below the value of tropical timber on the world markets.” (p.24). Hundreds of thousands of people are currently trampling through the Earth’s Forests in search of bits of Animals and yet the pamphlet does not indicate how much damage this is inflicting on Forests nor the effect that the extermination of a species has on a Forest’s ecology - for example, some corals are considerably damaged by the removal of a particular fish species.

The immediate causes of Forest loss are deemed to be pressure from human settlement, fuelwood collection, tourism, the timber trade, the impact of the industrial sector, and atmospheric pollution. This division of causes is bound to be somewhat artificial but it serves to make the point that although the world’s poor are causing extensive deforestation many are being forced to do so, sometimes against their wishes, by broader economic/political factors. It is true that .. “forest decline is one manifestation of a series of much more deeply rooted problems related to poverty, equity and the basis of power.” (p.37).

Criticisms of the ‘Forests Memorandum’.

Firstly, the ‘memorandum’ celebrates the fact that it has been compiled on the basis of a “consensus amongst environmental, development and human rights groups” (p.1). Whilst the worldwide fund for nature was one of the contributors, no other, more radical, Animal rights organization was involved. This may be one of the reasons the work is written from an anthropocentric perspective. Whilst there are a few passages expressing a positive attitude towards Wildlife; a section highlighting the damage which deforestation causes to Biodiversity (p.34-6); and a few ecocentric principles tossed in to flavour the policy recommendations at the end of the pamphlet (p.37); overall, Wildlife are valued primarily as a means of providing humans with resources, (p.35). This perspective is also transparent from the fact that the ukFn’s demands for land reforms amongst humans are not matched by similar demands for land reforms between humans and Animals i.e. the need to create human free Wilderness zones where Animals can live in peace without having barbarian bipeds sneaking up on them and maiming, mutilating, or murdering, them. This humanist myopia has lead the ukFn to promote policies which will increase the devastation of Wildlife. There is no discussion of the fact that if humans are going to combat global warming then, geophysiologically, they have no other option but to create large scale Wilderness zones in each country around the world because neither monocultural Forest plantations, nor locally controlled community Forests nor ‘back to the countryside’ permaculture plots are going to do the job not merely of extracting Carbon from the atmosphere but of storing it out of harms way.

Whilst the ‘memorandum’ provides a fairly comprehensive analysis of the multiple causes of deforestation it is not so good at evaluating their significance. The impression created is that each factor is of equal importance e.g. “The consumption class relies on, for example, imported cash crops such as coffee, tea, sugar and tobacco; animal feed grown on land that could produce human food ...” (p.14). This impression is misleading. There is one fact which puts these various factors into perspective - that 25% of the Earth’s ice-free land is now covered in pasture. A significant proportion of this pasture has been carved out of Forested land. The Animal exploitation industry is by far the biggest cause of global deforestation. The ‘memorandum’ does not mention this. On the contrary, it glosses over this fact when it refers solely to what has happened .. “in Central and South America.” (p.28) as if, over the last few centuries, it had not had a profound impact in every country around the world.

Finally, the ‘memorandum’ says little about the role played by Reforestation in curbing global warming. One scientist has suggested that the Earth is one continent short of the Forests needed for climatic stability but the ‘memorandum’ gives no indication as to whether it concurs with this conclusion or not. Finally, as far as stabilizing the climate is concerned, it does not state what priority should be given to Reforestation in comparison to other options such as halting deforestation and reducing Carbon emissions.

Abysmal Recommendations.

The most abysmal part of this work, however, is its recommendations. There is no indication of the scale of global Reforestation required to reduce global average temperatures. There is no indication as to where these Forests ought to be planted. There is no indication of the level of atmospheric Carbon needed to stabilize the climate. There is no attempt to explain the scientific rationale for Reforestation.

The ukFn’s talks of “aims and demands”. However, it does not recommend a target for global Reforestation nor a timetable for greening the Earth. Ever since the big green con of the rio Earth summit, green organizations have been demanding that world leaders should set a target and timetable for national reductions in Carbon emissions and yet here we have the same, so-called, green organizations making the same mistake over Reforestation. How is it possible to persuade world leaders (most of whom are not in the slightest bit interested in green issues - and if they are, they get sacked or sidelined) to set targets and timetables for Reforestation when greens won’t do so themselves? This failure lets politicians off the hook because all they have to do is adopt the ukFn’s waffly principles and then promote a few poxy community Forests - like the one proposed for hull which, on closer examination, wasn’t a large area of land to be converted into a Forest but consisted primarily of Trees planted alongside the roads running into the city to cover up all the bloody eyesores. Without targets and timetables the ukFn’s principles are inconsequential.

The ‘memorandum’ says nothing about the politics of global Reforestation i.e. that whatever is done in one country will be used by all other governments around the world as an excuse for doing exactly the same in their own countries - and given that in brutland “Native forests, which once covered 80% of Britain, have dwindled to about 1.5%.” (p.4); and that Forest cover is now down to 8% (although, as the leader of hull city council once said, ‘if you stand on top of the [eight storey high] library the city seems to be covered with Trees’ - it really is amazing how many car parks can be covered up by Trees when you’re 150 feet off the ground) this can only be described as horrifying. All other governments around the world would be entirely justified if they said they were going to do exactly the same as brutland. It shouldn’t need a scientist to explain what is likely to happen if the Earth’s Tree cover is reduced to 8% - there would be a dramatic increase in global warming leading very rapidly to a collapse of the life support system which the Earth provides for humans. The politics of global Reforestation have been highlighted years ago and yet the ukFn still haven’t got around to confronting these issues. If great brutland doesn’t Reforest a large area of its land (say a third) then other countries aren’t going to protect a similar proportion of their Forests. (Similarly, if this country doesn’t put say one third of its land aside solely for Wildlife then no other country is likely to do so). This is especially so given that many of these countries are in a far worse economic state than brutland. If brutland can’t Reforest a third of its land because of ‘economic difficulties’ (or because an amazingly successful land reform group had managed to give every single person in the country an acre of land) then there is absolutely no hope that other countries will be able to do so.

But even if the brutish government returned to Earth from the deepest recesses of the universe which they seem to have been inhabiting during their period in office, and accepted that a third of the country should be Reforested this would still not be the end of Reforestation politics. Those countries with extensive Forests and extreme poverty are going to say to brutland ‘this is a lot better but it doesn’t go far enough’. They’ll point out the colossal Carbon debts which brutland has built up over the last couple of hundred years and say that if this country thinks its going to get away with its historical ecological debts then why shouldn’t they. What this means is that the only way to Reforest the Earth is on the basis of global ecological equity i.e. in which all countries around the world balance their Carbon budgets.[25] Global Reforestation will never take place unless it is carried out on an equitable basis. If there is no equity between the nations of the world then the Planet will inevitably become a desert. The fact that the ukFn does not address the politics of Reforestation nor this country’s colossal historical Carbon debts is not merely inadequate, it’s an evasion of the real issues underlying Reforestation.

What the ‘memorandum’ presents is a medium term strategy (sound familiar?) for politely and gently coaxing the brutish government into some (unquantified and untimetabled) degree of Reforestation. This is a cover up for the absence of a long term strategy. Without a long term strategy it is difficult to measure the success or failure of the medium term strategy - especially so given the lack of targets and timetables! The lack of a long term strategy means that the ukFn has no vision of a sustainable Planet and, as a consequence, no concept of sustainability. The ukFn says nothing about the feasibility of regional, wood based, economies nor the fact that the only renewable source of energy/raw materials compatible with the Earth’s life-sustaining processes is Trees.

The main reason that green organizations won’t set targets and timetables for brutish, and global, Reforestation is because they are petrified they will lose public support and lose credibility in the eyes of the economic-growth loonies in government, parliament and the media. But, if greens are not willing to state what they believe is necessary; if they are not prepared to do for Reforestation what they demand of the brutish government over reducing Carbon emissions; if they are not prepared to stand up for their principles; if they are not prepared to take a lead over this vital issue; if they are not prepared to challenge the insane, public and political, indifference to Reforestation in this country and the rest of the world; then they are making an utter mockery of what they are standing for; they are letting down the Earth; and condoning the destruction of the Earth’s life support system.

‘Terra firm’ issue 5, published in march 1994, argued that the green movement refuses to regard Reforestation as the main priority for combating global warming. Terra firm 6, published in september 1994, extended this argument by suggesting that green organizations are opposed to measuring the destruction of the Earth’s life support system i.e. deforestation, because it would expose the scale of the ecological destruction which would occur as a result of the implementation of their so-called green policies e.g. whilst greenpeace has demanded that the fossil fuel/nuclear power industries carry out an environmental assessment of their policies it has failed to carry out such an assessment of its own fossil free future which would contain over a billion vehicles. See also the vast number of construction projects promoted in the green party’s ludicrous manifesto for a sustainable society.

The reason that green organizations still promote massive construction projects in this country is because they totally refuse to recognize that this country is:-

* up to its neck in ecological debts;

* is so over-developed that it cannot afford to suffocate another square centimetre of the Earth’s surface; and that,

* far from permitting further construction projects it needs to carry out a significant degree of deconstruction. The ‘memorandum’ also fails to acknowledge this basic geophysiological reality.

The ‘memorandum’ suggests that 26 of the country’s leading green organizations support Reforestation and Biodiversity, “The signatories of this memorandum call for moves to maintain and where necessary restore a well forested planet, amply providing for the full range of human and non-human needs.” (p.37). The support for Biodiversity is given on the grounds that Animals can continue to be murdered for resources - there is no demand for an end to Animal slaughter nor the creation of human-free Wilderness zones. The support for Reforestation is unquantified and even contradictory given the scale of their proposed construction projects. A green movement which does not support Reforestation cannot be called a green movement. There is no such thing as a green movement.

The ‘memorandum’ is worse than useless since it suggests that greens are doing something fundamental to promote Reforestation, combat global warming and stabilize the climate when they are doing the exact opposite. What the ‘green’ movement amounts to in this country is a new breed of yuppie, car-owning, meat-eating, Earth-rapists promoting uncosted, ‘green’ sounding projects (e.g. solar power, wind power, tidal barrages,[26] biogas from the Animal exploitation industry,[27] green diesel from rapeseed, permaculturalists tearing up the green belt,[28] the urbanization of the countryside,[29] the universal right to wander/poach/hunt,[30] etc.) which will exacerbate the destruction of the Earth’s life sustaining processes in this country. The ‘memorandum’ is an attempt by Animal exploiters/Earth-rapists to maintain their ‘green’ public image and thus preserve their obscene pay packets.

Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Sale of Corporate Logo.

"The World Wide Fund for Nature has sold the use of its logo to Proctor and Gamble for £300,00 to endorse its Pampers brand of disposable nappy."[31]

Corporate Timber Deals.

"Britain's first timber dealer to be given an ecological seal of approval this week accused the WWF of selling out its cause in efforts to sign up the mainstream timber trade. Last December, the WWF organized a meeting at which British timber purchasers such as B&Q and Sainsbury's Homebase pledged publicly to buy wood only from sustainably managed forests by 1995. But during the meeting, says Denis, industry representatives made it clear that their commitment was only to maintain the extent of the forests not their biodiversity."[32]

Profits from the sale of its Logo.

“The World Wide Fund for Nature has sold the use of its logo to Proctor and Gamble for £300,000 to endorse its Pampers brand of disposable nappy."[33]

Endorsement of Nafta.

Wwf have also endorsed nafta, the north american free trade agreement, “The leading enviro organizations .. the environmental defense fund, national audubon society, national wildlife federation, natural resources defense council, and the world wildlife fund - endorsed nafta.”[34]

Profits from Logging Rainforests.

"The WWF invests in companies involved in logging tropical rainforests, the production of nuclear weapons and pesticide sales in the west to Third World countries."[35]

Corporate Posture.

"WWF accepts large sums of money from many industrial, business and government organizations."[36]

Views of Groups about Green Politics.

National Consumers’ Council.

The Consumer end of the Animal Exploitation Industry.

.. “the national consumers’ council (ncc), a government-sponsored body under the wing of maff ..”[37]

The National Conservation Council.

At the end of the 1980s a small group of local campaigners tried to stop the labour dominated, hull city council from giving permission for another one of its interminable construction schemes - this time on a delightful area of green space called Rockford Fields. We wrote our letters and published our magazines only to discover our position had been totally undermined by the prats in the regional branch of the national conservation council (the organization may now be called something different) who decided the site wasn’t worth saving. As a result of the NCC's advice, the city council decided to give the go-ahead for housing on the site, "The NCC's view that Hull's Rockford Fields are rough species of poor grass land of no great merit has helped to persuade the city's planning councillors that part of them should be developed for housing."[38]

The reason for the ncc’s advice was because Rockford Fields was not deemed a good example of that particular type of habitat. Ncc’s objective seemed to be to preserve the best examples of particular habitats around the country and it wasn’t bothered if development took place on less exemplary sites. This demonstrated clearly that this group of middle class, over cultivated, snotty ignoramuses had no understanding of the role of Photosynthesis in the Earth’s life support system nor did they have the slightest concept of the connection between ecological destruction and the destabilization of the Earth’s climate. The reason this organization was so stupid as to believe it could allow vast areas of the country’s life support system to be cemented and yet still preserve the unique nature of a tiny number of exemplary sites of scientific interest was because they were ecologists and had no understanding of geophysiology, the science of the Earth’s life support system. The science of ecology rarely ventures beyond the study of local habitats to understand the Earth as a whole. As far as ecologists are concerned the disappearance of innumerable local habitats around the country (and around the world) doesn’t have the slightest impact on the climate and, rather peculiarly, nor does it have any implications for the survival of their sacred sites.

Revolutionary Communist Party

Seethe section ‘The Media’s Views on Green Politics’ Channel 4: Against Nature.

World Socialists.

Oomano-Imperialist Socialist Progress.

“In the age of the Internet and global production, Nader and the Greens call for a return to a small-scale, locally-based economy. This is a reactionary utopia—an attempt to reverse human progress and drag the productive forces back within the confines of the nation-state and even more primitive and provincial political forms. While Nader and the Greens paint an idyllic picture of pre-industrial or early industrial society, the reality for the masses of working people was anything but idyllic. Social inequality, poverty and economic insecurity are not the product of the global integration of the economy as such, but of the subordination of the globalized economy to capitalism. The process of globalization has brought hundreds of millions of workers into a common struggle against the transnational corporations, and created an unprecedented opportunity to break down national barriers and elaborate an international socialist strategy. The technological and productive advances associated with globalization, if placed under the control of the world's producers, make it possible for the first time in history to guarantee jobs, decent living standards and democratic rights for all people all over the globe.”[39] Especially the Animal exploitation industry!

Statutory Funded Green Organizations.

The Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

Shell funds the Shell Better Britain Campaign to the tune of £120,000 a year. This group works in close partnership with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.[40] These organizations are charities which means that although they can receive money from multinational corporations which are destroying the planet, they can't criticize what these companies are doing. This is part of the aristocratic landowning elite’s efforts to convert oomans into livestock. The ruling classes don't have to throw people in jail - they just get them to politically castrate themselves.

Countryside Council for Wales.

“David Bowen, a geologist at Cardiff University and vice-chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, said that the computer models on which claims about the effects of man-made pollution were based were flawed. There was evidence that the Earth had gone through periods of warming and cooling over the past two million years, well before man-made pollution could have had any impact.”[41] Notice the way in which bowen manages to diminish oomans’ responsibility for boosting global burning by focussing solely on greenhouse emissions. This is the same problem afflicting the entire green movement.

English Nature

"A deal between peat extractors Fisons and English Nature, the government conservation body, to save 35% of the country's remaining bogs from continued mining was announced yesterday. David Bellamy said, "This is the last 2% of ancient landscape which we are supposed to be protecting and we have done a deal to allow 2/3 of it to be dug up."[42]

National Trust.

Defence against Hunters.

“Eight qcs have combined to accuse the chairman of the national trust of using his casting votes to prevent pro-hunt members securing seats on the trust’s ruling council. One of the barristers, timothy cassel, claims that charles nunneley was using proxy votes to influence the make-up of the 51 member body. The barristers, backed by robin hanbury-tenison, former director of the countryside alliance, and other leading hunt supporters, plan to make public their opposition at the trust’s annual meeting in november.”[43]

Shares in Tarmac.

"The National Trust, Britain's biggest environmental organization and an opponent of many road schemes, owns a stake in Tarmac."[44]

Royal Society.

Corporate funding from Rhone Poulenc and Glaxo.

(The royal society is composed of fellows of the society [frs]). The society .. “publishes many of the most prestigious journals in science. Outraged by what they saw as media ‘misrepresentation’ of the experiments of arpad pusztai, the royal society established a ‘rebuttal unit’ in 1999 to ensure that journalists heard the wisdom of its elders more easily. Set up as a product of royal patronage, the society’s funds have traditionally come, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, from the public purse. More recently it has begun to receive substantial funds from transnational biotechnology corporations, such as rhone poulenc and glaxo welcome.”[45]

Royal Society for Nature Conservation.

Corporate funding from Reckitt and Coleman.

"The Royal Society for Nature Conservation is to receive an estimated £200,000 for selling its logo in an endorsement deal .. with Reckitt and Coleman.”[46]

National Trust, The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and the Council for Environmental Conservation funded by RTZ.

"RTZ subsidizes the National Trust, The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and the Council for Environmental Conservation."[47]

Corporate Green Lobbying Groups.

Introduction.

The Material Basis of a Green Planet.

One of the green movement’s principal policies is the promotion of alternative power. Slowly, ‘green’ industries are beginning to emerge which manufacture, construct, and maintain, these new forms of energy. At present these industries are small but, as fossil fuels run down, there could be a substantial increase in green energy so that perhaps, one day, they’ll become giant multi-nationals. These ‘green’ industries will be run by ‘green’ industrialists. They will be much more sympathetic to the green movement than the fossil fuelled corporations had been and may even subsidize green organizations. This will give green energy companies a bigger and bigger influence on the green movement. Ultimately, the green power industry could end up becoming the main financial backers for the green movement - just as big business funds the tories and now the labour government and as, in the past, trade unions had funded the labour party. Whilst greens might feel some relief about receiving permanent funding - after decades of having to organize green jumble sales and green fairs - this does open up the prospect of continued corruption in the political process. Conventional industries corrupted the tory party (as they are now corrupting the labour government) and the trade unions corrupted the labour party so it is unlikely that it will not happen to the so-called green movement. Corruption is even more likely when the world’s Earth wrecking corporations decide that environmental issues have become so critical that they’ve got to join in the creation of a green society. They might one day start seeing the writing on the wall for conventional energy but this is unlikely to mean that their wider attitudes will necessarily change. Having believed they didn’t have to care about the damage they inflicted on the Earth, such attitudes might persist when they are involved in introducing alternative power - this is especially likely to be the case if such attitudes merge with greens belief that anything they do must, by definition, be green. These are the reasons why societies powered by alternative energy could end up being like fossil fuelled societies without the fossil fuels. Just because the alternative power industry is supposed to be green doesn’t mean to say that the people running it are also going to be green let alone be at the forefront of promoting wider green policies for the creation of a sustainable planet. A number of green industrial associations have already begun to emerge and whilst it is not surprising that they consist of new green companies as well as conventional companies diversifying into green markets, there is the danger that greens industrialists are going to end up becoming incorporated into the conventional business world pursuing a green business-as-usual agenda.

Green Alliance.

According to ‘lobster’, “The corporations referred to above (glaxo smith kline, hsbc, unilever, tesco, royal bank of scotland, centrica, shell uk, bp) are all members or supporters of Green Alliance, arguably the most influential and well connected pressure group in britain. Immediately after the 1997 general election robin cook helped provide foreign office funding for the green globe task force (which) shares an office with green alliance in buckingham palace road, london sw1.”[48] Tarmac is also a major green alliance supporter.

Brutish State Working Parties.

The UK’s Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment.

“The government has an advisory committee on business and the environment. It is chaired by chris fay, chair of shell uk.”[49]

Global, Corporate, Green Organizations.

Various global, corporate, green organizations were set up in the 1990s.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (wbcsd).

The wbcsd was founded by stephan schmidheiny, a swiss industrial billionaire, “The wbcsd was an alliance of 120 companies - many of them among the world’s largest - from 20 sectors of industry in no fewer than 35 countries.”[50] Its members include some of the world’s biggest Earth rapist corporations. Unice’s members include huge multi-national corporations such as bp and speaks for .. “130 companies in 35 countries in 25 industrial sectors.”[51]

Business Council for Sustainable Development.

"Changing Course is the pre-summit product of the Business Council for Sustainable Development, a body of the great and green from global big business."[52]

Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (bcsef).

The bcsef’s membership consists of various high tech green businesses, “Over twenty companies and organizations were listed as members of the new business council, and they included energy-efficiency and renewables organizations like the solar energy industries association, the united states export council for renewable energy, the american wind energy association, energy conversion devices, inc.. and the north american insulation manufacturers association.”[53] In comparison to the wbcsd, the bcsef is a group of green star trek futurologists virtually without power or influence. Its biggest member is enron.

Hilary f french points out, “More recently, the u.s. based business council for a sustainable energy future - a coalition of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas companies that favour taking action to avert global warming - has begun to participate in international climate negotiations, where they counterbalance the lobbying efforts of oil and coal companies.”[54] In his 1996 book andrew rowell points out that, “Ironically, another business organization surfaced at berlin (global burning conference) - the business council for sustainable energy future (bcsef). Its name sends alarm bells ringing and it is just another vested ‘industry front group’. Made up of companies who are due to benefit from emission reduction measures (solar panel manufacturers and makers of energy conservation equipment, as well as from gas companies), the bcsef is at loggerheads with the global climate coalition.”[55]

Corporations proclaiming a Green Stance.

bp

“Yesterday the company (bp) - one of the world’s three biggest oil giants - published record figures for the half year, despite spending £7 million changing its logo from ‘BP’ to ‘bp’ in an attempt to boost its green image. Profits soared from $1.3 billion to $3.6 billion.”[56]

ICI

"ICI's company environmental specialist, Chris Hampson, said that carbon tax "could have serious implications for domestic economies without having a significant effect on global carbon dioxide emissions."