Fred Pearce
This is a general critique of pearce’s many articles/books. This article was first published in tf16 on may 11th 2000 but has been updated for mm15.
The Rural Green Ideologist Par Excellence
Introduction.
Fred pearce is one of the leading contributors to ‘new scientist’ - a populist science magazine extolling the virtues of scientific research - whatever research this might be, including that on Animals. He has been an environmentalist for many decades and has produced some first rate factual accounts of global burning and an excellent book on the global water industry. However, he needs to maintain the respect and co-operation of a wide range of scientists in order to obtain the information which is published in his magazine and this means keeping cordial relations with vivisectionists and other white coated thugs. He can’t afford to challenge their gross stupidities or else they’d ostracise him and he’d be out of a job. Not surprisingly given his social milieux, he seems to enjoy mocking the ideas of Animal rightists. Over the years his controversial remarks, often in the form of throwaway comments at the end of an article, add up to a rather sordid portrait of the values and beliefs held by many environmentalists.
Making Animals Pay their Way; Hunting and Exploiting Wildlife.
Pearce states, “Here’s a contradiction. Kenya has the toughest anti-hunting laws in africa, but the past twenty years has seen its wild animal population halved. One district has escaped the carnage. In laikipia, a plateau the size of wales, farmers have a licence to cull animals for meat - and the game is returning. People will only leave space for Animals if they pay their way. (At the lewa wildlife conservancy) .. former hunter ian craig runs a private game reserve on what used to be a cattle ranch. Craig and munyugi have helped to develop the illngwesi tourist lodge and the laikipia wildlife forum, an alliance of farmers, ranchers, herdsmen and others dedicated to enhancing the value of wildlife. But here’s the rub. .. the real profit from wildlife would come from hunting. The truth seems inescapable. If kenya is serious about protecting its wildlife then trophy hunting will be vital to making wildlife a profitable commodity. Use it or lose it. Roll on the return of the tourist hunter.”[2]
The question which has to be asked about pearce’s stance is why is he so excited about this reliance on hunting? He doesn’t seem in the slightest bit sad that the logic of his argument leads him to such a conclusion. On the contrary he seems thrilled that he has reached the conclusion that hunting is necessary for ooman survival. It’s one thing being forced into a conclusion which is logically inescapable but it’s entirely different reaching a conclusion with emotional relish.
What pearce is arguing here is basically that Wildlife have got to pay their way by being shot at otherwise they won’t survive. The problem is of course is that just like fishing, whaling, fur hunting, etc oomans can’t stop hunting Animals to extinction. Hunting is not going to protect endangered species. It is just a legalized form of poaching which will lead to the same result. The only way to protect Animals is to provided them with ooman free Wilderness areas.
Oomano-imperialist Fred.
Pearce reports that botswana’s government and scientists oppose .. “the traditional cattle herders and hunter-gatherer bushmen operating within the central kalahari game reserve. The arid reserve, which is about the size of switzerland, was set up in 1961, five years before botswana’s independence. In the mid-1980s, a system of zoning was created under which two central areas will be kept “pristine” - that is devoid of people.”[3] What this seems to suggest is that fred pearce finds it revolting that oomans are not in occupation of every single acre of the Earth.[4]
Eating Whales, Reindeer, and Seals (and then presumably Horses, Cats, Dogs and Budgerigars as well).
Pearce was in a particularly pugnacious mood when writing the following, “For adventurous eaters, tromso is a must, especially if you like your flesh gamey. During a conference earlier this month in norway, i consumed minke whale steaks, local reindeer meat, gulls’ egg quiche and several unspecified fish roe sandwiches, before passing on the antelope, boar and ostrich at the local bistro. In between, i scoffed the real local speciality, the rich dark meat of boiled seal .. But surely it is not the norwegians, but a large chunk of the rest of us, who have got it wrong. It is the blind urban pursuit of Animal rights that is adrift from proper ecological concerns for the sustainable use of natural resources. Save the Whales by all means. But first save whalers.”[5]
Here at the mundi club we believe that if people want to eat meat they ought to eat hunters. Most of the Animals that pearce proclaims could be saved by hunters have nearly all been driven into extinction by hunters. It’s a bit like insisting that mass murderers are the best people to look after people’s welfare e.g. ariel sharon is the best person to protect palestinian interests.
The Need for More and More Bipeds.
Pearce states, “Remember the great droughts of the african sahel in the 1970s and 1980s? Across the sahel, most countries now have sufficient grain most years. Mortimore believes much of africa is not overpopulated but underpopulated. More hands to work and brains to think can more than compensate for the extra mouths to feed. It means we are wrong to assume that rising population always damages the environment. And wrong to assume that global warming will mechanistically translate into so many more people going hungry.”[6]
Only an ideological bigot would argue the Earth is greener now with 6 billion bipeds than it was 5,000 years ago when there were only 10 million. According to pearce’s dippy oomano-imperialist creed, the more people who try to keep afloat on a dinghy, the more resources they have available to them, and the greater the stability of the dinghy.
Transforming Wildlife Sanctuaries into Game Reserves.
Fred pearce is one of the main commentators promoting the oomano-imperialist invasion of Wildlife sanctuaries in order to convert them into game reserves because he believes that hunting Animals is the best way to save them. But if this is true then surely the reverse is true. The only way to save oomans is to shoot them. Strangely he doesn’t encourage Animals to colonize the land currently being ruined by bipeds in order to use oomans as resources and thereby ensure their survival.
Meat eaters are Good for the Environment; Vegetarians are bad.
Pearce argues, “Vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment. A survey of the energy used to produce and distribute various foods has found that meat and processed food .. are among the most energy-efficient - and so least polluting - foods in our diet. Tea, coffee, tomatoes, salad vegetables and white fish, on the other hand, are distinctly environmentally unfriendly. David coley and colleagues of the centre for energy and the environment at the university of exeter have analyzed how much energy from fuel is used in the complete production cycle of food in a typical shopping basket. The analysis includes the manufacture and application of fertilisers and other chemicals, harvesting, processing, packaging, transport and waste disposal. Geographical differences have been averaged out. In a study of the diets of more than 2000 people, they found that it takes around 18,000 mega-joules of energy each year to get a typical Briton’s food to the table. This is almost six times the energy contained in the food itself. The most energy-intensive item is
coffee - 177mj of energy to produce 1 mj of food intake.
salad vegetables 45mj
white fish 36
beef and burgers 8mj
lamb 6mj,
fresh fruit 10-22mj
sugary confectionery, crisps, white bread and ice cream consuming less than 1mj each.”[7]
This is such garbage it has to be wondered about the author’s consumption of bseefburgers. From these bizarre views it would be extremely difficult to guess that pearce has written many books and articles on global burning. It is one of the central tenets of rural green ideology that modern industry, especially the fossil fuel industry and urban consumers, are responsible for global burning. According to this ideology it is only pharmers and meat eaters who are doing anything to prevent a run-away, global burning disaster.
The idea that meat eaters are bad for the environment whilst vegetarians are good for the environment is a commonly held view amongst environmentalists with sympathies for the Animal rights movement. However such a view is an enormous impediment to attracting carnivores into the environmental movement. So what better way is there of encouraging more meat eating Earth rapists to join the environmental movement (which is little different from the countryside alliance) than by promoting the idea that meat eating is good for the environment.
Fur Loving.
Pearce supports the killing of Animals for fur - not for the benefit of oomans of course, only the benefit of the species being slaughtered.
The More Condoms dumped on Beaches the better for the Environment.
Pearce argues, “We need more seaweed on the beach and more sewage in the water. The key to beach ecosystems is .. the high tide mark where all sorts of flotsam and jetsam wash up. This repository of dead dogs and timber, algae and plastic bottles, used condoms and rusty cans is a dynamic, ephemeral and ever-changing habitat.”[8] Rural green ideologists seem to believe that oomans’ rubbish is now a natural part of the Earth’s life sustaining processes. This fits in well with their contempt for hygiene standards in abattoirs.
Chopping Down Trees is good for the Environment.
Pearce argues, “It is one of the most fervently held of all environmental beliefs: chopping down trees in the headwaters of the world's great rivers is causing massive flooding downstream. The Yangtze, the Ganges, the Mississippi - you name the river and the floods are there to prove it. And likewise on the Ganges. Anil Agarwal, director of the Centre for Science and the Environment in New Delhi and a leading third world environmentalist, says that the Nepalese are being falsely pilloried for causing floods a thousand kilometres downstream in Bangladesh. "Rivers such as the Ganges naturally produce huge amounts of silt. There is no evidence to believe that ecological solutions like reforestation will control floods." Jack Ives, geographer at the University of California in Davis and editor of the journal Mountain Research and Development, agrees. "After floods, aid agencies queue up to spend money on planting more trees." But it is not clear that deforestation causes increased soil erosion at all in the first place. Calder says recent research suggests that the critical factor for protecting soils from erosion is not the amount of trees but the amount of ground vegetation. Thick scrub or even a crop of wheat is often as good, if not better, than a commercial forest plantation in which weeds and other undergrowth are removed. Says Calder: "It is often the management activities associated with forestry - cultivation, drainage, road construction, soil compaction during logging - which are more likely to influence flood response than the presence or absence of the forests themselves." On the Philippine island of Palawan, logging increased erosion only marginally, "but the conversion of uncut forest to road surface increased erosion by a factor of 260". “Will reforestation reduce erosion? Recreating a natural forest on degraded land might. But planting a commercial forest may sometimes be worse than useless. Pakistan spent 30 years planting trees across an area of the Himalayas the size of Yorkshire in an effort to cut the amount of silt clogging up a new dam. Result: "no discernible difference at all", according to the World Bank. Forests have many uses, ecological, economic and aesthetic. There are many reasons for keeping them intact. But to view them as a hydrological panacea may well prove an expensive mistake.”[9]
Reforestation will Boost Global Burning.
Pearce is second only to tony juniper as another great apostle of the logging industry preaching against the false gods of Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. Like juniper, pearce is another great believer in arguments which suggest there is a need for mass deforestation, “Trees do not carry on growing forever. Mature trees may continue to take up carbon dioxide for up to 1000 years, but only slowly. So to keep removing Carbon from the atmosphere the Forests would need to be harvested and, most important, some permanent use must be found for the wood.”[10]
It is quite true that Trees can’t last forever - although some have lived for thousands of years. But this doesn’t mean to say that Forests can’t. It has to be realized there is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence for pearce’s propositions which are also the basic tenets of Forest science taught in universities up and down the country and, indeed, around the world. They aren’t based on any evidence. They’re simply bits of propaganda designed to enhance the interests of the logging industry because virtually all university courses on Forest science these days are paid for by the logging industry. In other words what is being taught in Forest science these days has nothing to do with science only the logging industry profits. And pearce has swallowed this propaganda whole.
Pearce’s view leads him into the following sort of nonsense, “The kyoto protocol allows countries to meet part of their targets by planting forests to soak up CO2 instead of making cuts. Most importantly, there is no way as yet to accurately measure how much carbon is absorbed or released by forests as they grow, die or burn. Many conservationists believe that carbon credits could be disastrous for the world’s surviving forests. Adam markham of WWF fears that foresters will chop down existing natural forest to make way for fast growing carbon-guzzling trees. In the process, the millions of people who rely on these forests will lose out. Then there is the problem of what to do with carbon-sink forests once they have matured and are emitting, through decomposition, as much carbon dioxide as they absorb. These trees must then be removed or managed to ensure that the carbon they have locked up is not simply released again into the atmosphere.”[11]
Notice in this quote that pearce starts of by stressing the difficulties of measuring Carbon fluxes from Forests. He then goes on to support the logging industry’s propaganda about ‘mature Forests’. But the reality behind the concept of ‘mature Forests’ can be proved only by precise measurements of Forests’ Carbon fluxes. However, this has never been done. In other words, pearce is a fool who’s just regurgitating logging industry propaganda. If it isn’t possible to measure the Forest’s Carbon flux then how is it possible to talk about mature Forests? This is just green stupidity. Pearce’s quote is useful not merely because it exposes his contradictions but because it clearly encapsulates his anti-Reforestation bigotry.
Pharmer-Loving Reporter believes Bse will Die out.
Pearce believes that bse in Cattle will eventually die out, “In Cows, rates of transmission from animal to animal are sufficiently low that, now exposure to infected feed has been stopped, the disease should die out.”[12]
Investigative Reporter of the Decade - I wasn’t able to spot anything wrong with Macdonalds for nigh on twenny yurs’.
In may 1997 when mcdonald’s were persecuting, sorry prosecuting, two unemployed people for distributing leaflets about what the company was up to in the Rainforests, fred pearce confessed his naiveté about this multi-national corporation, “More or less honestly, we publicly accepted the company’s assurances (mcdonald’s) that this was nonsense (i.e. raising beef on recently felled rainforest).”[13]
It has to be suggested that even if a reporter had no facts about the global, Animal exploitation industry being responsible for cutting down/burning Rainforests for pastureland and then exporting beef into america, it shouldn’t require much logic to appreciate that the burger industry consumes such vast amounts of beef that there was a very strong likelihood that some of this meat would have come from Cattle grazed on former Rainforest land. In addition, what investigative journalist of any quality and integrity would accept the public relations crap dealt out by multi-national, Animal slaughtering, corporations? Perhaps the sort of person who loves eating Whales, Seals, and Rheindeer? Such utter naiveté from an investigative reporter is sad. But even sadder is that the revelation about mcdonald’s didn’t make him think that perhaps he ought to take the views of Animal rightists more seriously. On the contrary, it seems to have made him even more enthusiastic about hunting the remnants of the world’s Wildlife. Perhaps the reason for these extremist views is that pearce is compensating for being revealed as a crap investigative reporter by trying even harder to give respectability to the absurd view that the slaughter of Wildlife is vital for saving Wildlife. Just how absurd this theory is shouldn’t be difficult to appreciate when it is asked what whalers have done to protect Whales as opposed to driving them to the point of extinction? How is it possible to trust a journalist to report fairly on the Animal exploitation industry when he is such an extremist carnivore? No wonder pearce believes that meat eaters are good for the environment whilst vegans are bad for the environment.
Conclusions.
Fred pearce is a so-called environmentalists who supports meat eating, fur wearing, Whale hunting, and Elephant culling - he probably likes circuses as well as Fox hunting but this has yet to be ascertained. It is remarkable that people like pearce who often use the concept of mature Forests (which is based on the assumption that Forests’ Carbon fluxes have been precisely measured) to denounce Reforestation as a means of combating global burning, are the same people who talk about scientists’ inability to measure the Forests’ Carbon flux.
