PART THREE: THE LIMITS TO THE ANTHROPOGENIC BOOST TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS.

Part two explored the eight factors causing an anthropogenic boost to global Photosynthesis. Part three explores whether this is leading to an overall increase in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. There are reasons why this might not be happening. Each of the factors highlighted above are explored to see whether the increase in global Photosynthesis also leads to an increase in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. Firstly, many governments around the world claim they are carrying out Reforestation when they are doing no such thing. Secondly, the irrigation of desert lands may not be as successful as was originally hoped. Thirdly, the use of fossilized water for irrigation boosts agricultural productivity but all this is doing is boosting livestock numbers (both biped and quadruped) thereby further damaging the Earth's surviving Photosynthetic capacity. Fourthly, just as is the case with the use of fossilized water, the use of synthetic fertilizers is boosting crop productivity but the massive increase in livestock populations is further boosting the momentum of deforestation. Fifthly, the cultivation of leguminous crops has the same consequences as the use of fossilized water and synthetic fertilizers. Sixthly, the dumping of nutrients into the environment often damages Photosynthesis e.g. eutrophication. Seventhly, Wilderness restoration is being overwhelmed by the urbanization of Wilderness areas. And, finally, the scale of Wilderness reversion, agricultural land left to return to its natural state, is minimal.

3.1: The Illusion of Reforestation.

3.1.1: The Politicization of Forests.

3.1.1.1: The Decimation of Forests in the over-industrialized countries.

During the 1970s and 1980s, it was commonly accepted that, during the industrial revolution, many over-industrialized countries decimated large parts of their Forests. Indeed, deforestation in the developed world was so extensive it not only reduced the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, it was the main source of CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere.

Foreman, Dave.

“The United States, Canada, and Australia have devastated their ancient forests to a far greater extent than have most tropical nations their rain forests.”[1]

Gribbin, John.

"The build up of CO₂ has been going on for longer than was previously suspected and that initially the build up was almost entirely caused by the destruction of forests for agriculture. It was not until well into the 20thC that the burning of fossil fuels became the major source of anthropogenic CO₂."[2]

Houghton, J.T: Jenkins, GJ; and Ephraums, JJ.

“Until the mid 20thC, temperate deforestation and the loss of organic matter from soils was a more important contributor to atmospheric CO₂ than was the burning of fossil fuels.”[3]

Maini, Jagmohan S & Ullsten, Ola.

“During the past ten thousand years, global forest cover has been reduced by about one third, from an estimated 6.3 x 10⁹ ha to about 4.2 x 10⁹ ha. A considerable proportion of the historic deforestation has taken place in the temperate and boreal regions to meet the needs of an expanding population.”[4]

Pearce, Fred.

“The destruction of Forests in the past two centuries, mostly in temperate lands, has contributed almost as much to the greenhouse effect as the burning of fossil fuels.”[5]

Real World Resources Guide.

“It might be remembered that felling rates are greater in, say, British Columbia, than Brazil. It is said that the 'clearcuts' of Western Canada, are so big that they can be seen from outer space. Similarly deforestation rates in sub-tropical and tropical areas such as Florida and Queensland exceeded those in their poorer neighbours. In some areas, notably Central America, the 'hamburger connection' lies behind the clearance of forests for ranches.”[6]

Whyte, Ian D.

“Between 1860 and 1980 deforestation and other land use changes added between 80 and 150gt of Carbon to the atmosphere, about a third of the total Carbon dioxide released by human activities. Temperate areas provided the main source of Carbon dioxide from Vegetation changes in the late 19thc and early 20thc but, since the 1950s, tropical Forests have taken over, releasing two or three times as much Carbon as Forests in mid and high latitudes in the 1980s.”[7];

WWF.

.. “historically, temperate forests have fared at least as badly as tropical forests which are currently disappearing fastest.. The percentages of the four forest types lost are: over 60% of temperate broadleaf and mixed forest; around 30% of needleleaf forest; about 45% of tropical moist forest; and approximately 70% of tropical dry forest.”[8]

Conclusions.

Whatever the exact figure for the deforestation carried out by the over-industrialized nations, these countries are far from importing enough Carbon to counterbalance the colossal amounts of pollution they have dumped into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

3.1.1.2: The alleged Reforestation of the over-industrialized Countries.

In the second half of the 1980s, scientists (not environmentalists) pushed global burning onto the political agenda. Governments in the over-industrialized world, multinational corporations, and global corporate institutions began to realize that deforestation would invariably become a political issue. They were already being blamed for boosting the greenhouse effect through the burning of fossil fuels so they must have suspected, it wouldn’t be long before they started getting the blame for exacerbating global burning by deforesting vast areas of Forests. The last thing they wanted to do was to pay for their ecological criminality. They set about shifting opinions about responsibilities for deforestation.

The rich countries had to act to prevent themselves from being pilloried for their contribution to global burning through extensive deforestation. Firstly they tried, just like environmentalists, to focus discussion of global burning on the burning of fossil fuels rather than on Reforestation, and the extraction of Carbon pollution from the atmosphere. Secondly, the over-industrialized governments tried to cover up deforestation in their countries by pretending that, on the contrary, they had been diligently carrying out extensive Reforestation - presumably whilst no one had been watching. Suddenly, whole new Forests that the over-industrialized nations never knew they had, started to appear - not so much in the real world as in corporate, academic, and governmental, Forest statistics. During the 1990s a rash of new studies revealed that the over-industrialized nations had a much greater scale of Forest cover than previous estimates suggested. Thirdly, global institutions became much more liberal in their definitions of ‘Forests’ thereby allowing the over-industrialized nations to suggest they have far more Forests than they actually do.

What was so dismaying about the global establishment’s strategy was the reaction of both the so-called green movement and third world governments. Most environmentalists weren't concerned with the role of deforestation in promoting global burning. Their criticisms focussed almost exclusively on the excessive release of Carbon emissions into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. They insisted that the over-industrialized nations should take sole responsibility for combating global burning by reducing their Carbon emissions - and made no mention of the need for Reforestation. So, rich countries needn't have worried about the green movement accusing the rich world of boosting global burning through deforestation. True, the green movement opposed deforestation in third world countries but it wasn't interested in blaming the over-industrialized nations for boosting global burning by deforesting their land. The green movement was, and still is, much more interested in promoting green technologies rather than supporting what they see as a soppy green 'pixie' policy such as Reforestation.

It might have been thought that third world governments would object to the over-industrialized nations’ dirty tricks over Reforestation i.e. pretending they had more Forests than they really had, but third world elites quickly realized this was a game they too could play. They too could suggest they had more Forests than they actually had and thereby allow even more rapacious, get rich quick, deforestation schemes without provoking an international outcry.

Paradoxically, the only green theorist who regards Forests’ role in global burning as important was blamed for dissipating greens’ pressure on governments to combat their Carbon emissions into the atmosphere. James lovelock had demanded more importance be attached to the destruction of Forests as a cause of global burning rather than focussing primarily on Carbon emissions, "To me the vast, urgent and certain danger comes from the clearance of the tropical forests. Greenhouse gas accumulation may be an even greater danger in time to come, but not now."[9] According to one so-called green, lovelock undermined green demands for over-industrialized countries to reduce their Carbon emissions by emphasizing the climatic dangers of deforestation, “The irony was that the green guru had given an opening to those people who wanted the global warming issue to go away. It was a perfect excuse for western leaders to stall action. Their priority was a buoyant economy. They reopened the battle with the ipcc.”[10]

The over-industrialized nations’ Forest strategy has the following implications:-

* firstly, that the over-industrialized nations have no historical responsibility for exacerbating global burning;

* secondly, that deforestation is currently happening primarily in third world countries not in the over-industrialized nations; and,

* thirdly, by pretending they have far more Forests than they actually have, the over-industrialized nations can permit even higher logging rates - a propaganda trick which, not surprisingly, has been emulated by many third world governments.[11]

Doubtlessly, it won't be too long before the over-industrialized nations, the world's biggest Earth-rapists, start pronouncing that global burning would have been much worse if they hadn't carried out such drastic Reforestation schemes.

3.1.2: The Ways of Covering up Deforestation.

There are two ways for governments to cover up the deforestation being carried out in their countries.

3.1.2.1: Proclaiming Non-Existent Forests.

The first is for governments to pretend they have Forests which don’t exist. For example, they might claim an area is covered in Forests even after it has been clear-cut. This claim is made on the basis that a Forest will eventually regrow on the site. But, if Reforestation doesn’t take place for a few years or decades at what point is the land reclassified as 'Treeless’ or ‘Desert’? As far as climate destabilization is concerned, the danger of this claim is not that this helps governments to avoid being blamed for global burning, but that it enables them to permit higher logging rates under international agreements resulting in even more deforestation.[12]

3.1.2.2: Devaluing the Definition of ‘Forests’.

The second way for governments to cover up deforestation is by stretching the definition of Forests. Whilst most people would accept the distinction between a Forest and a Wood, many governments and global institutions believe there is little difference between them so their estimates of Forest cover also includes Woodlands, “The FAO Production Yearbook publishes each year figures for the area of forest plus woodland in each country .. (which) .. occupies nearly one third of the world’s land surface.”[13] Estimates of Forest cover are further bloated by including not only Woodlands but Tree plantations, "In preparing assessments of world forest cover, FAO aggregates natural forest with timber plantations .."[14] Some commentators want global institutions to include not merely Woodlands and timber plantations but crop plantations such as rubber and oil palm. Caroline sargent and stephen bass reluctantly admit that, “Many people would not consider such plantations to be forests.” but they insist that Tree plantations are like Forests, “Nevertheless, plantations may move towards a 'forest state' .."[15] (In 1997, hundreds of thousands of acres of indonesian Forests were burnt down in order to establish palm oil plantations - creating a vast blanket of smog over much of south east asia. According to these authors, such plantations should be defined as Forest). Some governments are so desperate to prevent public outrage about their excessive logging rates they classify as Forests not only Woodlands and Tree Plantations but Grasslands, “Also in some countries (e.g. india) scrub is included as Forest whilst in others it is not.”[16] The fao is run by the world’s multi-national timber corporations so it is hardly surprising that it too seeks to bloat estimates of Forest cover by any means necessary including the inclusion of Grasslands, “According to a UN Food and Agricultural Organization tabulation for 1986 .. 31% (of the Earth’s surface) is in forests, including open forests or savannahs."[17] At this rate it has to be suspected that it won’t be long before governments also define golf courses as Forests. But surely, it might be retorted, no country could be so devious as to try and get away with such a blatantly dirty trick? Of course there is! In brutland, home of the happy hour government statistic, some so-called Forests contain golf courses. Other Forests contain holiday centres made up of roads, restaurants/dance floors, indoor swimming pools, chalets, sports centres, car parks, and tennis courts. For example, centre parcs, ‘the holiday the weather can’t spoil’ - not a very sensible slogan given that global burning will trigger off more storms. It’s hardly surprising that the estimates of Forest cover given by the eco-nazis running the f.a.o. are far higher than those provided by other commentators.

3.1.2.3: Ignoring Phytomass in Climate Models.

Peter bunyard points out that even the ipcc's models of the Earth's life support system do not include an assessment of deforestation, “Models used to justify a business-as-usual approach are fundamentally flawed because they treat the Earth’s land surface as it would be had we not destroyed great tracts of natural vegetation. The models therefore ignore the impact of global agriculture on the climate ...”[18]

3.1.2.4: The Difficulties of Measuring Forests.

There are difficulties in measuring the Earth’s Forests cover. On the whole, the distinction between Woodlands and Forests is fairly clear[19] although there are always borderline cases where a classification is difficult. Whilst there may be difficulties in determining whether a collection of Trees is a dense Woodland or a sparse Forest, there are far less difficulties distinguishing between a ‘Forest’ and ‘a golf course’ - there are very few definitions of Forests as 'areas of Tree covered land interspersed by fairways and putting greens'. There are also problems in determining whether a Woodland/Forest is dying or not, “Every year, forestry authorities across europe evaluate trees for leaf loss. Doubts about using leaf loss to measure tree health were raised last year .. “An oak can lose most of its leaves one year in response to some stress, then grow them all back the next. In that case defoliation is a sign of a healthy tree.” says gunther keil. Indeed, the scientists recommend Forest assessment based on a variety of data, including the acidity and nutrient content of soil, the chemical composition of leaves, the growth rate of Trees and the state of other Forest species.”[20] The problems are even greater when trying to measure Forests’ Carbon fluxes, “The kyoto protocol allows countries to meet part of their targets by planting forests to soak up CO₂ instead of making cuts. But there is a host of practical problems with carbon sequestration. Most importantly, as yet there is no way to accurately measure how much carbon is absorbed or released by forests as they grow, die or burn. Even the european union is unsure how much its forests are soaking up. After three years examining satellite images and measuring the flow of CO₂ above 17 forests, the e.u’s best guess is somewhere between 120 and 280 million tonnes a year.”[21] The reason it is not known precisely how much of the Earth is currently covered in Forests has little to do with conceptual or technical difficulties. The main reason is the gross deception by Earth rapist governments intent on covering up their decimation of the Earth’s Forests i.e. the Earth’s life support system.

3.1.3: Propagandists of Northern Reforestation.

Unfortunately it is not only governments in the rich world who claim they have carried out extensive Reforestation. These claims are backed by a range of academic propagandists in the over-industrialized nations.

3.1.3.1: List of Northern Reforestation Propagandists.

Against Nature.

‘Against Nature’ was a series of programmes[22] broadcast on channel 4 at the end of 1997. It took the line that, “In europe there are 30% more Trees today than there were 50 years ago.”[23] Just in case anyone should be tempted to take this too seriously, the series also promoted the view that, “Over the past half century the environment in the over-industrialized world has actually improved.” and that, “The most notorious of history’s environmentalists were the german nazis.”[24] Rich areas always ensure their environment is attractive and pleasant to live in but their wealth is based on the ruination of environments elsewhere around the world.

Betts, Richard - quoted approvingly by Peter Bunyard.

“Richard betts from the hadley centre (suggests) more vigorous growth in high latitude, boreal regions (as a result of the increasing concentrations of Carbon dioxide) can accentuate warming by bringing about earlier snow melts, thus exposing the leaf-darkened surface to the sun. Should global warming cause the northwards spread of conifer forests that will bring about more warming.”[25]

Buckley, Richard.

“Indeed there has been a net gain in forest cover in the developed world since 1980. But the quality of forest cover has seriously declined as secondary growth and single species plantations have replaced many original forests and industrial pollution has degraded the trees.”[26]

Easterbrook, Gregg.

Easterbrook supports the line that whilst rich countries have been busy Reforesting their land, third world countries have been chopping down theirs, “Deforestation is without doubt currently taking a toll on forests in many tropical nations. But in most affluent countries, forest cover has not been declining but expanding for at least several decades.”[27]; “Though deforestation continues at an alarming pace in the tropics, in the developed world afforestation is the rule. The expanding boreal forests of north america and eurasia are much larger than the rainforests of the tropics. Within the boreal forests are tens of millions of acres of ‘managed’ woodlands in which trees aided by people grow faster than natural forest.”[28]; “Today europe has more forested acres than it had before world war II began.”[29] Even though logging is taking place at a frantic level around the world he still believes .. “the majority of the world’s woodlands still exist in a mainly natural state.”[30] Easterbrook is a perpetual green optimist who’s sceptical of environmentalists.

Economist.

“In the early 1980s acid rain became the favourite cause of doom. Lurid reports appeared of widespread forest decline in germany, where half the Trees were said to be in trouble. By 1986, the united nations reported that 23% of all Trees in europe were moderately or severely damaged by acid rain. What happened. They recovered. The biomass stock of european Forests actually increased during the 1980s. The damage all but disappeared. Forests did not decline: they thrived. A similar gap between perception and reality occurred in the united states. Greens fell over each other to declare the forests of north america acidified and dying. “There is no evidence of a general or unusual decline of Forests in the united states or canada due to acid rain,” concluded a ten year, $700m official study.[31] The author of this article goes on to claim that, “In 1984 the united nations asserted that the desert was swallowing 21m hectares of land every year. That claim has been comprehensively demolished. There has been and is no net advance of the desert at all.”[32]

Elsom, Derek.

“Currently fossil fuel combustion emits about 5.5gtC and land use changes about 1.6gtC. Actually forest regrowth in the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere provide a sink of 0.5gtC per year so the net release of carbon dioxide from global land use changes is reduced to 1.1gtC.”[33]

Hayward, Steve.

“It’s a common perception that we’re running out of Trees. What the facts show is that in the united states and canada and in most of western europe we have been growing more Trees than we have been cutting down for the last forty years. Trees and Forests provide a good example of how it is possible to have a growing economy and a growing population and a thriving environment. The lessons from Trees really applies across the environment. We have cleaner air, cleaner water, we grow more food, at less impact on the land, we have more wildlife diversity than we’ve had before and we’ve done all this while having a growing economy and a growing population.”[34] It ought to be pointed out that steve hayward also believes, “Air pollution has been falling in the modern industrialized countries for the last forty years and has been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even los angeles, which has the worst smog in the u.s., air pollution levels have fallen by half over the last 25 years and that’s at a time when the area’s population has doubled and when its economy has tripled.”[35] Shame about the Carbon dioxide though!

Friends of the Earth.

One of the most surprising advocates of the ‘rich countries are Reforesting their land’ propaganda is Friends of the Earth, “Before 1900, the greatest CO₂ emissions were caused by deforestation due to agricultural expansion in temperate countries. Since the 1940s, tropical deforestation has accounted for by far the greatest net emissions from the natural environment ...”[36]

Foe is one of the few green organizations which proclaims, with great relief, that once all the Forests have gone they will no longer boost Carbon emissions into the atmosphere, "The contribution of Forests to global warming is growing, as the rate of tropical deforestation is now estimated to have reached at least 17 million hectares per year. Yet towards the end of the century, and into the first decades of the next, this rate will drop dramatically if Forest resources continue to be depleted, and many nations, such as Thailand, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, the Philippines and Costa Rica are reduced to having virtually no forest outside protected areas. If there is no forest left to burn, then there will be no significant contribution to greenhouse warming."[37] Why waste time campaigning to protect Forests when everyone knows the destruction is politically impossible to stop? Far better to proclaim the benefits of deforestation and have done with it.

Keeling, Charles.

The mauna loa scientists have created the most famous graph in green politics plotting the rise in the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere since the late 1950s. The overall trend is upward but each year there is a dramatic fall and rise in the level of atmospheric CO₂, “Each year’s peak in may is about one and a half parts per million above the previous peak. In september or october, the annual bottom in carbon dioxide will not be as low as last autumn’s. Every three years, this trend results in an atmosphere that contains a percent more carbon dioxide.”[38]; "The upward curve of increasing atmospheric CO2 is made up of waves when vast amounts of Carbon are first extracted from the atmosphere and then released back into the atmosphere through respiration. There has been a 20% increase in the annual amplitude of atmospheric Carbon .since the early 1960s, "The amplitude of the cycle has swelled by about 20% since the early 1960s.”[39] Charles keeling and the other mauna loa scientists also discovered a Photosynthetic pulse, “The further poleward one treks, the more the gases (from Photosynthesis and respiration) pulse with the thermal seasons.”[40]; “The higher the latitude in the northern hemisphere, the more extreme the seasonality of photosynthesis and respiration, the more vigorous the amplitude of the CO₂ cycle.”[41]  Peter bunyard comments .. “first, that there was a pulse at all and second, that the amplitude of the seasonal pulse is greater as one travels north .. Above alaska the pulse is twice that at mauna loa, and south of mauna loa the pulse tapers off to about 22ppmv and nearly vanishes altogether below the equator, and south to antarctica. Clearly the larger land mass in the northern hemisphere is largely responsible for the size of the pulse.”[42]

Michaels, Pat.

“If the Planet gets greener, which it is, as a result of what people are doing, is this (global burning) the serious problem that the political process believes that it is?”[43] Vanessa collingridge points out that, “Patrick michaels (university of virginia) has been paid over $300,000 from companies such as the german coal mining association and western fuels.”[44]

Newman, Edward I.

“The ussr, which produced more harvested timber than brazil, reported a modest increase in forested area, and so did the four largest timber producers in europe: sweden, finland, france, and germany. Canada’s forested area probably increased during the 1980s, too, though figures are unreliable.”[45]

Sargent, Caroline and Bass, Stephen.

It has been pointed out above that sargent and bass believe that ‘Palm Tree plantations are like Forests’. They argue, "Some 500,000 hectares of agricultural land have been taken out of production since 1981, and it is thought (sic) that trees have been established over much of this area."[46] Their motto seems to be - ‘We’ll count these areas as Forest although we haven’t actually seen any Trees yet’.

United Nations Environment Programme.

“Deforestation continues at high rates in developing countries, mainly driven by the demand for wood products and the need for land for agriculture and other purposes. Some 65 million hectares of forest were lost between 1990 and 1995, out of a total of 3500 million hectares. An increase of 9 million hectares in the developed world only slightly offset this loss.”[47]; “CO₂ fertilization, together with forest re-growth in northern countries, may be absorbing up to 25% of the carbon dioxide currently produced by human activity.”[48]

Worldwide Fund for Nature.

The worldwide fund for nature argues that .. “the deforestation of temperate lands .. was largely achieved by the end of the 18thC and must have contributed substantially to the addition of CO₂ to the atmosphere.”[49] This implies that for the last two hundred years the over-industrialized nations have been combatting global burning by Reforesting their lands and that it is in the tropics where most deforestation is occurring, “The world’s forest cover, not counting plantations, decreased by 13% between 1960 and 1990, from 37millionkm² to 32millionkm².This is equivalent to an average annual loss of about 160,000 km² - an area half the size of norway - or 0.5% per year. Figure 7 shows that most of this has occurred in tropical regions. Although temperate and boreal forest area has remained more or less constant since the 1960s, (this) conceals a decline in quality, as much of it is secondary or semi-natural rather than old-growth forest.”[50]

3.1.3.2: Opponents of Northern Reforestation Propaganda.

Sarmiento, Jorge.

“Data buried for years in forestry ministries have lent new weight to the theory that the Planet’s northern or ‘boreal’ Forest has played a key role in damping down the greenhouse effect. According to the records, over the past half century, the Forest has soaked up huge quantities of excess Carbon dioxide. The science and policy associates said the boreal Forest is crucial for controlling atmospheric CO₂. Jorge sarmiento of princeton university has estimated the sizes of terrestrial CO₂ sources and sinks. Between 1920 and 1976, Forests and other Plants soaked up 35 million tonnes of CO₂. .. from 1976, the amount of CO₂ absorbed in the ocean and staying in the atmosphere equalled the amount released. Land plants had apparently started giving off as much CO₂ as they absorbed. The turning point, 1976, was the same year .. that the boreal Forests slipped from net growth to net depletion.”[51]

3.1.4: Northern Reforestation as the Missing Carbon Sink.

In the late 1950s, scientists on mauna loa, in hawaii, started measuring the concentrations of Carbon in the atmosphere. When they tried to determine how much fossil fuels were being burnt and what happened to these emissions they found they couldn’t balance the books, “When in 1958 roger revelle produced the first precise atmospheric CO₂ data, he was immediately struck by something: Half of artificial production was missing. Seven or eight billion tons of carbon dioxide are put into the air each year by human action, but when researchers test the atmosphere, only about 3 billion tons read as present. Where does the missing Carbon go? This missing-carbon problem has haunted greenhouse science ever since.”[52]; "There remains at this time a significant gap in climatologists' and geophysicists' ability to balance the global carbon cycle budget. The discrepancy between model requirements (climate models treat the biosphere as neutral!!!) and land-use based estimates has led to speculation about additional carbon sinks not presently accounted for."[53] For nearly three decades scientists have been postulating about what happens to anthropogenic Carbon emissions, “Scientists have not yet balanced the modern carbon cycle. They know that some 5.5 billion tonnes of CO₂ (measured as Carbon) are released by fossil fuel burning and other industrial emissions. To this they add an estimated 1.6 billion tonnes from deforestation and other land use changes in the tropics. Of this total of 7.1 billion tonnes, some 3.3 billion tonnes remain in the atmosphere, and an estimated 2 billion tonnes are absorbed by the oceans. That leaves 1.8 billion tonnes.”[54]

In the 1990s the over-industrialized nations started a propaganda campaign to claim they were responsible for wide-scale Reforestation. It was not surprising they would eventually get around to claiming that northern Reforestation solved the riddle of the ‘missing Carbon sink’.

Roger Sedjo.

“The forests of Europe, North America and the former Soviet Union have expanded so much in the past four decades that they are countering the greenhouse effect, according to a Washington think-tank ‘Resources for the Future’. Roger Sedjo, author of the study .. argues that new temperate forests, most planted in the past forty years, are absorbing at least 700 million tonnes of carbon a year from the atmosphere. Sedjo claims that his findings “go a long way towards explaining” the mystery of the missing carbon sink. Now it seems this missing Carbon is accumulating in new temperate Forests close to the great power plants and highways where it is emitted. Sedjo says, 24 of the 25 European countries increased their forest area between 1954 and 1984. Forest cover in the former Soviet Union has risen by more than 70 million hectares in 25 years.”[55] The views of the ‘Resources for the Future’ are not surprising but what is surprising is that this view is shared by two of the world’s leading green organizations.

World Wide Fund for Nature.

“Though there remains considerable uncertainty, much of this (missing sink) currently appears to be absorbed by non-tropical forests in the northern hemisphere, through a mixture of new forest growth and possibly the fertilisation effect.”[56]

Greenpeace International.

“Kauppi et al conclude that forest growth in Europe has increased by 30% over the last 20 years, although their estimate is hampered by the fact that good survey data are available for only one-third of European forests. But expansion of temperate forests would fit the need for a sink in the land biota: only growing forests, and/or forests responding to the putative ‘fertilization effect’ can sequester carbon on the scale needed to soak up a billion tonnes or more. Temperate forests growing back after being levelled in the 18th and 19th centuries could fit the bill. Kauppi et al conclude: “This information seemingly contradicts the commonly held view of a forest decline in Europe.””[57] This is one of the worst examples of greenpeace’s junk science. It supports a survey which covers “only one-third of European forests” then extrapolates from this to conclude that northern Reforestation “would fit the need for a sink in the land biota”/“could fit the bill.”

The Carbon Modeling Consortium.

The latest group to claim that the over-industrialized countries are Reforesting their lands to such an extent they must be the answer to the missing Carbon is the Carbon Modeling Consortium. The following quote displays some scepticism of such a claim, “American producers of fossil fuels must be rubbing their hands in glee. Forests appear to be soaking up virtually all of the carbon dioxide spewed out by american cars, power plants and factories. With the help of a few trees from southern canada, the u.s. is declared innocent of greenhouse pollution. Global warming is no longer an american problem. The results (of the paper published in science) are riddled with uncertainties. It is extremely hard to quantify how much carbon trees are absorbing, and whether they will subsequently release it through decomposition or fire. What’s more, the researchers were forced to rely on data that - especially around eurasia - are sparse, and on models whose assumptions are largely untested.”[58]; “The u.s. pumps around 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. But a new report claims that the nation’s trees could be sucking up just about all of this pollution. To try to locate it (the missing Carbon sink of 2 billion tonnes of CO₂), a team of american researchers called the Carbon Modeling Consortium divided the world into four regions - eurasia, the southern continents and north america above and below 51N. They used models to work out how atmospheric CO₂ should be distributed between these regions, based on the known carbon sources and sinks and estimates of how air moves between these sites. To the researchers’ surprise, almost all the carbon was being taken up by north america south of 51N. They suspect that some of it is being absorbed by young trees in areas cleared in the victorian era that have since been reforested. The rest could be due to improved fire prevention. But stephen schneider cautions that neither of these sinks would be long term: when a forest matures, its emissions of carbon can grow to exceed the amount it absorbs. Another concern is that some of the new results conflict with other measurements. The researchers found that continents in the southern hemisphere appeared to be emitting carbon, which conflicts with a paper .. reporting that latin american tropical forests seems to be absorbing large amounts of carbon. David schimel adds that the researchers used data from a time when the global carbon sink was fluctuating wildly. He is also dubious about the size of the reported sink, “It suggests that the forests are storing carbon at rates close to their net photosynthetic rate,” he says. “That’s just not credible.” Steve pacala of princeton university, a leading member of the carbon modelling consortium, admits that it’s hard to understand why american forests should take up so much carbon. He points out that there are many uncertainties; in particular, data for eurasia are more sparse than for america.”[59]

3.1.5: Rainforests are Mature and thus do not Absorb Carbon Dioxide.

In order to sustain the dippy argument that Reforestation in the over-industrialized nations accounts for the missing Carbon sink, it is argued that ‘Rainforests are mature’. What this means is that the amount of Carbon they absorb from the atmosphere is equal to the amount they release into the atmosphere.[60] Quite shockingly, there is no factual evidence that rainforests stable. It is basically sheer conjecture - a fantasy promoted by those wishing to extol the hypothesis of northern Reforestation.

3.1.6: Only Northern Forests Benefit from the Fertilization Effect.

The propaganda that Reforestation in rich countries is the missing Carbon sink, can be sustained only by arguing that the fertilization effect boosts the growth of northern Forests but not tropical Rainforests. The reason for this is simple - if Rainforests are defined as ‘mature’ then, by definition, they are incapable of becoming net absorbers of Carbon.

Paul Brown.

“Leaving aside the effects of acid rain on Trees there is evidence that they gain benefits from pollution in their growth rates. This could be the extra Carbon dioxide but it could also be the extra nitrogen from fossil fuel burning. In parts of the northern hemisphere with reasonable amounts of heavy industry it is calculated that pollution accounts for an average of an extra 50kg of nitrogen per hectare (45 il/acre) per year.”[61]

New Scientist.

“There is growing evidence that it (nitrogen pollution) is moderating the levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Forests in europe and north america are probably growing faster because excess nitrogen stimulates plant growth, and fast growing Trees soak up more Carbon for Photosynthesis.”[62]

3.1.7: Criticisms of the Propaganda of Northern Reforestation.

3.1.7.1: No Evidence for Northern Reforestation.

There is no evidence of net Reforestation in the over-industrialized countries and there is no proof that northern Reforestation accounts for the missing Carbon sink.

3.1.7.2: The Rainforests are Net Absorbers.

Contrary to the propaganda about the Amazon rainforest's maturity, there is empirical evidence that the Amazon rainforest is a net absorber of Carbon. What is more, this evidence suggests that Rainforests could be the missing Carbon sink rather than northern Forests, “Some of tiger’s most visible work related to Carbon and tropical Forests. The world’s land areas are thought to absorb about 1.3 billion tonnes of Carbon annually. But the eventual destination of this Carbon is unknown, and is thus referred to as the ‘missing sink’. Tiger researchers set out to study the Carbon balance of tropical Forests in Amazonia and cameroon. Conventional knowledge (sic) suggests that Forests are in a steady state - that their uptake of Carbon from the atmosphere is balanced by losses from respiration and leeching. .. tiger researchers discovered that the Brazilian amazonia is not a steady state, but absorbs Carbon in quantities comparable to the ‘missing sink’.”[63]; “A unique set of measurements has revealed the importance of forests in the global carbon cycle. Measurements made during TIGER show that forests in amazonia, cameroon and canada are all accumulating carbon, and at a scale far greater than anticipated: in amazonia alone the scale of the uptake is enough to account for the so-called ‘missing sink’.”[64]; “Oliver phillips and his colleagues report that they have measured as much as one tonne per hectare per year of growth in (the tropical forests of central and south america). .. if all the forests of the brazilian amazon, covering some 360 million hectares, put on biomass in that way, the amazon in brazil alone would be an annual sink of up to 0.56 billion tonnes of carbon.”[65] What this means is that northern Forests aren’t absorbing anything like the scale of Carbon that northern propaganda suggests.

3.1.7.3: The Inadequacies of Northern Reforestation.

Even accepting that the Forests of the northern industrialized countries are expanding, they aren’t absorbing anything like the amount of Carbon these countries are dumping into the atmosphere - one estimate is that such countries are absorbing only a third of their Carbon emissions, “Europe’s forests are absorbing up to a third of the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the continent’s cars, factories and power stations. .. the european union’s trees absorb between 120 and 280 million more tonnes of carbon than they release. This compares with current european annual industrial emissions of around 800 million tonnes.”[66] Even if a few of the over-industrialized nations have increased their Forest cover over the last decade or so, they are not importing enough Carbon to repay their historical Carbon debts let alone stabilize the climate.

3.1.7.4: The Common Sense Approach.

The likelihood of the over-industrialized countries having more natural Forests now than thirty years ago is remote. The issue could be solved only by satellite analyzes but without this it might be useful to engage in a bit of common sense reasoning. If the increase in the number of cars, kids, Cattle, capital, and carnage, that is happening in the over-industrialized countries is anything to go by then it is far more likely that deforestation is taking place on a significant scale rather than Reforestation. The greatest areas of pastureland, and thus the greatest expanses of deforestation, have been created in the over-industrialized world. The developing world may be creating new pastureland at a far faster rate than in the over-industrialized world but this is simply because there is little land left in the over-industrialized world that could be converted to this purpose. In short, it is fairly easy to work out what is happening around the world with Forests even though precise measurements are not available.

3.2: The Deterioration of Irrigation Schemes in Desert Lands.

In the previous chapter it was argued that irrigation schemes (using surface water) established on arid/semi-arid lands were boosting global Photosynthesis. However, whether this is leading to a net increase in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is another matter. This is unlikely for two reasons.

Firstly, surface water irrigation schemes rely on the construction of massive dams and water reservoirs both of which reduce the Photosynthesis taking place in those areas. No matter how much of an increase in Photosynthesis there might be as a result of irrigating crops, there is still a considerable loss of Photosynthesis resulting from the construction of dams and irrigation schemes. In addition, modern agriculture relies upon a vast infrastructure such as the oil, gas, chemical, and transportation, industries etc, to keep it functioning as efficiently as possible. The mining of fossil fuels; the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers; the transportation of synthetic fertilizers to pharmers; and the use of tractors; etc causes a colossal degree of destruction to the Earth’s life support system.

Secondly, some irrigation schemes are beginning to fail or have failed. It’s believed that, in general, the longer that irrigation is used, the greater the problems they generate in producing food whether because of waterlogging, salinization, the pollution of water supplies, siltation of dams, etc. Irrigation can be a highly vulnerable method of food production. Some commentators maintain it is not sustainable over the longer term, “Irrigation is also temporary - since dams and canals eventually silt up, underground water supplies can be drained, and irrigated land is often ruined by salting up and waterlogging.”[67] Eventually, if the problems generated by irrigation continue to increase until the growing of crops has to be abandoned then, in effect, the land returns to its previous state so there is no longer a net increase in Photosynthesis in that area. However, whilst irrigation schemes in arid.semi-arid areas are in operation, there is more Photosynthesis taking place than would have occurred naturally.

Thirdly, irrigation schemes have boosted agricultural productivity and given a considerable boost to both the biped, and quadruped, livestock populations. This is putting a considerable amount of pressure on the Earth's remaining Photosynthetic capacity. The destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity brought about by increases in the livestock populations resulting from increased agricultural productivity, is likely to be far greater than irrigation schemes' boost to crop productivity.

In conclusion, whilst irrigation schemes might boost agricultural productivity and thus global Photosynthesis, they may also bring about an overall reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. To praise irrigation schemes for greening the desert is premature because it fails to take into account the consequences of such schemes for the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

3.3: The Dangers to Photosynthesis caused by the use of Fossilized Water.

The Successful Use of Fossilized Water.

Fossilized water from underground aquifers is used to grow crops in desert/arid areas. This leads to a boost in agricultural productivity. However, the use of fossilized water in such areas has two hugely damaging consequences which result in an overall reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

Firstly, the mining of fossilized water has boosted the ooman population, “One of the less visible trends shaping our future is falling water tables. Although irrigation problems such as waterlogging, salting, and silting go back several thousand years, aquifer depletion is new, confined largely to the last half-century, when powerful diesel and electric pumps made it possible to extract underground water far faster than the natural recharge from rain and snow. Report co-author Sandra Postel estimates that the worldwide over-pumping of aquifers, which is concentrated in China, India, North Africa, the Middle East, and the United States, exceeds 160 billion tons of water per year. Since it takes roughly 1,000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of grain, this over-pumping is the equivalent of 160 million tons of grain, or half the U.S. grain harvest. In consumption terms, the food supply of 480 million of the world’s 6 billion people is being produced with the unsustainable use of water. If all countries stabilized water tables this year by eliminating over-pumping, the world grain harvest would fall by roughly 160 million tons, driving grain prices off the top of the chart.”[68] The use of fossilized water is especially critical given that, “As david pimental notes, water is the primary limiting factor for crop production worldwide.”[69]

Secondly, fossilized water has boosted the quadruped population. A considerable number of wells provide drinking water for quadrupeds which would never otherwise survive in areas with a paucity of surface water. The use of fossilized water to ensure the survival of livestock causes a great deal of damage to Photosynthesizers in the areas surrounding the wells. Livestock forage for food thereby consuming Phytomass that would not otherwise have been eaten. They also have to keep returning to the wells for water which means the surrounding areas are constantly being trampled into dust. The longer the water hole is used, the more extensive the damage, "From an ecological point of view domestic cattle are a source of environmental deterioration in hot semi-arid climates. Cattle (and goats and sheep) must walk to a water supply to drink. This results in the trampling of valuable grasses and compacting of the soil surface, especially around water holes - where bare, pounded areas continually grow in size."[70];

Livestock thus put a huge amount of pressure on the Phytomass of arid areas which is in a highly fragile state because of the adverse conditions. Not surprisingly, this leads not only to the suppression of Phytomass but its destruction. It is not known how many livestock Animals are being kept alive because of their dependence on fossilized water but it could run into tens of millions perhaps even hundreds of millions - in which case the damage they are doing by foraging and trampling Phytomass into dust, is considerable.

It can be concluded that whilst the use of fossilized water produces a considerable boost to crop productivity - enough to support an extra 480 million biped livestock plus tens of millions of quadruped livestock - it is also leading to the severe suppression, and decimation, of Phytomass over huge areas of land. Thus the overall consequence of this water usage is likely to be a significant reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

The Decline in the Use of Fossilized Water.

The sole respite for Photosynthesizers is that many aquifers are nearing the point of exhaustion, “In many instances, aquifers are becoming depleted or salinized as salts accumulate ...”[71]; "In addition to the direct damage from over-ploughing and overgrazing, the northern half of China is literally drying out as rainfall declines and aquifers are depleted by overpumping. Water tables are falling almost everywhere, gradually altering the region's hydrology. As water tables fall, springs dry up, streams no longer flow, lakes disappear, and rivers run dry. U.S. satellites, which have been monitoring land use in China for some 30 years, show that literally thousands of lakes in the North have disappeared. Official estimates show 900 square miles (2,330 square kilometers) of land going to desert each year.”[72]

3.4: The Destruction of Photosynthesis caused by the use of Synthetic Fertilisers.

This section is concerned with the boost to Photosynthesis brought about by the use of synthetic fertilizers - a later section highlights the consequences for Photosynthesis of the diffusion of synthetic fertilizers into the environment. Once again, as is the case with both irrigation schemes and the use of fossilized water, the use of synthetic fertilizers seems to have produced a huge boost in agricultural productivity but whether they have succeeded in increasing the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is another matter. The use of such fertilizers is damaging the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity in four ways.

Firstly, the extraction/drilling/mining of fossil fuels, the transport of fossil fuels to refineries, the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers from fossil fuels, the storage and transportation of synthetic fertilizers to pharmers, and the use of tractors to apply synthetic fertilizers to the soil, etc causes a colossal degree of destruction to the Earth’s life support system. Modern agriculture relies upon a vast infrastructure such as the oil, gas, chemical, and transportation, industries etc, to keep it functioning as efficiently as possible and every part of this infrastructure damages the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

Secondly, the availability of synthetic fertilizers encourages oomans all over the world to cut down Forests to create cropland. Although soils may be poor they know that the use of synthetic fertilizers will enable them to produce food. The availability of synthetic fertilizers encourages deforestation and the replacement of Forests with cropland leading to a significant reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

Thirdly, synthetic fertilizers increase agricultural productivity which has led to a huge increase in the ooman population. It has been stated, “The ready availability of ammonia, and other nitrogen rich fertilizers derived from it, has effectively done away with what for ages has been a fundamental restriction on food production. Only a puny fraction of this resource exists in a form that can be absorbed by growing plants, animals and, ultimately, human beings. Yet nitrogen is of decisive importance. This element is needed for dna and rna, the molecules that store and transmit genetic information. Humans, like other higher animals, cannot photosynthesize these molecules using the nitrogen found in the air and have to acquire nitrogen compounds from food. Yet getting nitrogen from the atmosphere to crops is not an easy matter. The relative scarcity of usable nitrogen can be blamed on that element’s peculiar chemistry. Paired nitrogen atoms make up 78% of the atmosphere, but they are too stable to transform easily into a reactive form that plants can take up. Lightning can cleave these strongly bonded molecules; however, most natural nitrogen ‘fixation’ is done by certain bacteria. The combination of recycling human and animal wastes along with planting green manures can, in principle, provide annually up to around 200 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare of arable land. The resulting 200-250 kilograms of plant protein that can be produced in this way sets the theoretical limit on population density; a hectare of farmland .. should be able to support as many as 15 people. (But the average is around 5 because crops are used for other purposes besides providing food. There are limited sources of ammonia). The real breakthrough came with the invention of ammonia synthesis .. (this) led directly to the first commercial ammonia factory in oppau, germany, in 1913. Its design capacity was soon doubled to 60,000 tons a year - enough to make germany self sufficient in the nitrogen compounds it used for the production of explosives during world war one. Commercialization of the haber-bosch process was slowed by the economic difficulties that prevailed between the (world) wars, and global ammonia production remained below 5 million tons until the late 1940s. (During the 1950s it rose to 10 million tonnes, and by the late 1980s there had been an eight fold increase). At present, developing countries use more than 60% of the global output of nitrogen fertilizer. .. careful assessment of the various inputs indicates that around 175 million tons of nitrogen flow into the world’s croplands every year, and about half of this total becomes incorporated into cultivated plants. Synthetic fertilizers provide about 40% of all nitrogen taken up by these crops. .. about one third of the protein in humanity’s diet depends on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. If all farmers attempted to return to purely organic farming, they would quickly find that traditional practices could not feed today’s population. There is simply not enough recyclable nitrogen to produce food for six billion people. Currently at least 2 billion people are alive because the proteins in their bodies are built with nitrogen that came - via plant and animal foods - from a factory using this process. Barring some surprising advances in bioengineering, virtually all the protein needed for the growth of another two billion people to be born during the next two generations will come from the same source - the haber-bosch synthesis of ammonia.”[73] The existence of two billion additional bipeds puts a colossal amount of pressure on the Earth's remaining Forests. Such people, freed from hunger, are desperate to find ways to improve their standard of living. They will invariably need firewood for cooking and keeping warm. It has been pointed out earlier that the bulk of the ooman population still depends on firewood as their main fuel. This leads to a colossal scale of destruction of Forests around the Earth.

Fourthly, the use of synthetic fertilizers boosts the numbers of bipeds and quadrupeds. A significant proportion of the crops grown around the world are destined for consumption not by bipeds but by quadrupeds. Livestock Animals are exerting a vast amount of pressure on the world's remaining Forests. Pharmers, always on the look out for cheap sources of food, raze Forests to provide extra pasture for their livestock Animals. The dramatic increase in livestock numbers, both biped or quadruped, is adding enormously to deforestation.

On the face of it, the use of synthetic fertilizers seems like an unambiguous boost to global Photosynthesis - just as was the case with irrigation schemes and the use of fossilized water. In reality, these fertilizers are having a fourfold detrimental impact on the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The greater the use of irrigation schemes, fossilized water, and synthetic fertilizers; the greater is the suppression/ destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity; the greater the overshoot will be; and, thus, the greater the disaster when the oil/water runs out.

3.5: The Destruction of Photosynthesis caused by the use of Leguminous Crops.

It has been argued that, "The cultivation of leguminous crops such as soybeans, peas and alfalfa accounts for about 25 per cent of anthropogenic nitrogen, and fossil fuel burning for about 12 per cent (Vitousek and others 1997). This has added enormously to soil fertility and has helped to boost agricultural productivity. But, just as was the case with the factors highlighted above, the use of leguminous crops has also helped to boost the livestock populations - both oomans and Animals - which is causing a significant reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

3.6: The Damage to Photosynthesis caused by the Dumping of Nutrients into the Environment.

The dumping of nutrients into the environment is causing a fertilization effect boosting global Photosynthesis. This section outlines the reasons for suspecting that this may not be causing a boost to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

3.6.1: Eutrophication - the Suffocation of Aquatic Photosynthesizers.

The anthropogenic destruction of aquatic Algae was highlighted in part one. The anthropogenic boost to aquatic Algae was highlighted in part two. However, Algal blooms also destroy other aquatic Photosynthesizers. It is only when this third impact is assessed that it will be possible to determine the net effect of these changes on the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity.

3.6.2.1: The Nature of Eutrophication.

The dumping of huge quantities of nutrients onto the land or into rivers creates Algal blooms in inland waterways, coastal areas, and the seas. When Algal blooms die they decay and deoxygenate the water killing off all surrounding life-forms whether micro-organisms, Plants, and even Animals. Eutrophication is caused either by the excessive growth of Algal blooms or by the decay of Algal blooms. Some commentators believe the former, "Although algae, like all plants, produce oxygen during the day, they have to breathe like animals at night. The overcrowded hordes in a bloom rapidly use up all the oxygen in the water, suffocating any unfortunate creature that cannot swim away."[74] Others support the latter, "Another prime cause of habitat loss lies with eutrophication brought on by sewage sludge and fertilizer run-off. The added phosphates and nitrates cause a 'bloom' of marine Algae; as they die and decompose they use up much of the available oxygen, choking out other life (except the bacteria that produce hydrogen sulphide by breaking down sulphates in their search for oxygen)."[75]; If too many nutrients are added to water .. "soon filamentous mats of cyanobacteria form a green scum over the surface of the water, and the water begins to stink from the odour of rotting organic matter. Then the serious problem begins: the bacteria that decompose the masses of dead cyanobacteria multiply explosively, consuming vast quantities of oxygen in the process, until the lake's waters become so depleted that they can no longer support other organisms that require oxygen to live. For all intents and purposes, the eutrophic lake dies."[76]

3.6.2.2: The Potency of Manure for Deoxygenating Water.

The livestock industry is by far the biggest contributor to eutrophication and thus the destruction of Photosynthesis, "Cattle slurry is 20-40 times more potent at removing oxygen from river water than untreated human sewage. Pig slurry is even stronger. There is a high risk of slurry applied to fields finding its way into rivers. British farms produce 200 million tonnes of excreta each year, with a pollution potential three times that of human excreta, so the loading in human equivalent terms is 600 million tonnes. Pollution, potentially 10 times that of the human population, poses an increasing threat to our river and lake life."[77]

3.6.2.3: Eutrophication kills Fish and Photosynthesizers.

In the united states there have been a number of mass Fish kill incidents caused by eutrophication,“25 million gallons of Hog sewage spilled in onslow county on june 21st 1995 flooding the (new) river with sewage from over 10,000 hogs. This was the largest spill in history and killed thousands of Fish, Clams and other marine life.”[78]; “It killed virtually all aquatic life in the 17 mile stretch between richlands and jacksonville and left a stench for days after.”[79]

3.6.2.4: Predatory Algae Causing Fish Kills.

Predatory Bacteria breeding in livestock manure can also kill Fish, “Since september 16th, an estimated 1.5-5 million Fish have died in a nine mile stretch of the river neuse below new bern (north carolina). Scientists say pfieesteria is the certain culprit .. First discovered in 1991, the microscopic pfieesteria has been described as a cross between a Plant and an Animal. In its predatory stage, the algae poisons Fish with a mysterious toxin, then eats its prey, leaving behind telltale red and black sores. Like other forms of algae, pfiesteria appears to be stimulated by nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen ..”[80]

3.6.2.5: The Politics of Manure.

Over the last few decades, in the over-industrialized nations, the manufacturing and smelting industries have been put under considerable public and political pressures to reduce atmospheric pollution and clean up the environment. This has yielded results for the environment. But the pharming industry has remained virtually untouched by this political pressure. As a consequence it is now one of the biggest polluters, “Today just 6% of u.s. river pollution originates with industry. 40%, the largest share, is from agriculture.”[81]

Pharmers above the Law.

The main reason the pharming industry has become the biggest polluter is because, in virtually all countries around the world, the landowning elite forms a substantial part of the ruling class - this is as true of the united states of america as the most poverty stricken third world country. The landowning elites block legislation curbing their polluting activities. In effect, they are virtually above the law. For instance in the united states, some states have passed ‘right to pharm’ legislation preventing people suffering from illnesses caused by the pharming industry, from suing pharmers. Michigan has a ‘right to farm’ act passed in 1981 which virtually allows farmers to do what they want on their land, “It was intended to protect existing farming operations from nuisance suits brought against them by a growing number of non-farming residents (i.e. suburban, ex-urban). For all practical purposes, farming in michigan enjoyed environmental immunity.”[82] Over the years the landowning elite indulged in even greater abuses of their political power when a number of states passed laws to make it a criminal offence for people to criticize pharmers' products.

There are many other examples of the pharming industry being above the law. In brutland, pharmers are not subject to planning laws or local taxes. In the united states, although livestock pharmers produce vast quantities of manure, they are not compelled to construct sewage treatment plants to prevent pollutants from damaging the environment. Pharmers are virtually free from regulations, and entirely free from regulatory supervision. As a consequence, it is easy for pharmers to dump excessive quantities of manure onto their fields even though they know a lot of it will end up in the water system. Whilst water companies face a wide range of regulations covering the spraying of ooman manure on fields the same does not apply to pharmers spraying livestock manure, “With human waste sludge there are rules that require testing and lifetime loading rates for metals. There’s no such limit for Animal waste.”[83]

Conclusions: Media Spills and Everyday Spills.

A manure lagoon in north carolina spilled 100 million litres of faeces and urine over the surrounding countryside and caused a massive political stink about the rapid expansion of Pig factories in the state. The media's spotlight on this major incident caused by the Pig industry, covered up less dramatic, but perhaps more serious, pollution incidents, “Don webb, president of the alliance for a responsible Swine industry, says the big spill on the new river was exceptional only because it was easy to photograph. “We have smaller tragedies happening every day. Millions of gallons of hog waste are being sprayed onto fields and allowed to run into ditches. In a week’s time, it probably amounts to 22 million gallons - or more.”[84]

3.6.2.6: Eutrophication by Region.

Adriatic.

"Spring has come early to italy and with it the threat of another season of the mysterious, stinking foam that has plagued the adriatic for four years. Large mucilaginous mats topped with brownish foam began to appear in the adriatic in the summer of 1989. Biologists blamed Algae but could not find the Algae responsible. It is now suspected that zeolites and polycarboxylic acid (PCAs) which are used as substitutes for phosphates in "green" detergents."[85]; "The run-off from the pig factories is so high in nutrients and so voluminous that in warm summers the entire Adriatic stinks of rotting algae and dead fish."[86]

Atlantic, North.

In the 1990s huge Algal blooms appeared in the north atlantic - although it is not known how much this was due to the nutrients released into the environment by oomans, “Satellite photographs and research ships reveal that the number of Coccolithophorids has increased dramatically. Vast clouds of them have been seen in the central north atlantic.”[87]

Baltic.

“The amount of Algae produced (by nutrients and phosphates being dumped into the baltic) is far too much for the Fish to consume. A large proportion of the Algae therefore decomposes as it sinks to the bottom, using up oxygen in the water. The micro-fauna - worms, shrimps, snakes, snails, clams and other small animals - have almost completely disappeared from some 10,000 square kilometres of the bottom layers, a quarter of the Baltic.”[88]

Black and Baltic Seas.

.. “the black and baltic seas are severely in danger of being fatally eutrophied.”[89]

China and America.

“25% of China's lakes are classified as having eutrophic nutrient overload due to human pollution while 33% of American medium to large lakes are similarly stricken.”[90]

Europe.

“Patrick holligan tells me that satellite photographs have revealed dense algal blooms clustered around the outlets of the continental rivers of Europe. Peter liss and his colleagues have found that these algal blooms emit dimethyl sulfide, apparently stimulated by the rich flow of nutrients down the rivers of europe. The excessive use of nitrate fertilizer, and the increased output of sewage effluent into the rivers feeding the North Sea and the English Channel, have gone to overnourish the sea above the European continental shelf and to make it like a duck pond.”[91]; Toxic algae .. “like the red tide of the dinoflagellate bloom, or noxious, like the smelly foam of phyocystus that often spoils the beaches of Europe.”[92]

France.

“Dinoflagellates first appeared between 1983 and 1986 off the coast of southern brittany, and on the channel coast off calvados and at the mouth of the seine. They have since been found along much of the atlantic coast and in the mediterranean ... The increase in these Algae is linked to changes in temperature and run off of phosphates and nitrates from farmland.”[93]

Jamaica.

“Researchers in florida have found that effluent is preventing marine algae from replenishing sand at negril, one of jamaica’s main resorts. Halimeda, a thick crusty alga, produces 80% of the sand on negril’s beaches. Like corals, the algae build a skeleton of calcium carbonate. Eventually this skeleton disintegrates to form sand. Halimeda and related algae supply varying amounts of sand to tropical beaches around the world.” (Over the past decade) “Several species of seaweed that are normally present in small amounts have overrun corals and the sand-forming algae.”[94]

Japan.

"The overcrowded hordes in (an Algal) bloom rapidly use up all the oxygen in the water, suffocating any unfortunate creature that cannot swim away. This is a problem for fish farms. In 1972 an algal bloom killed $500 million worth of caged yellow tail fish (14 million fish) in the Seto Inland sea off Japan in this way."[95]

North Sea.

“The thick white foam (washed up on the beaches of eastern england) is caused by Phaeocystis pouchetti, a marine plankton algae that has been present in the North Sea for as long as can be remembered. It is a naturally occurring organism which multiplies when the summer light and warmth reach the sea. Twenty years ago it came in small quantities in early August, ten years back it arrived at larger levels in July, but now it comes in huge quantities as early as June.”[96]; “Whilst Phaeocystis can give slight skin rashes to bathers through allergies, it is not a toxic algae like the Gonyaulax that brought about the North Sea shellfish ban and the closure of beaches in latvia, sweden, denmark and norway five years ago.”[97]

General: Long Island Sound, San Francisco bay, the Baltic sea, the Great Barrier Reef.

“Massive introduction of reactive nitrogen into soil and waters has many deleterious consequences for the environment. Eutrophication plagues such nitrogen-laden bodies as new york’s long island sound and california’s san francisco bay, and it has altered large parts of the baltic sea. Fertiliser runoff from the fields of queensland also threatens parts of australia’s great barrier reef with algal overgrowth.”[98]

General: Long Island Sound, San Francisco bay, the Baltic sea, the Great Barrier Reef.

“Today, virtually every coastal state is threatened by harmful and toxic algae, in many cases covering large geographic areas.”[99]

3.6.2.7: The Global Scale of Eutrophication.

Algal blooms are erupting around the Earth but primarily in the over-industrialized world, "All around the world, red tides, glutinous green slimes and filthy looking froths of yellow foam, caused by algae, have become more frequent. Blooms are an increasing sign of eutrophication."[100] It was once believed that environmental reforms would decrease the number of Algal blooms but this has not happened, “Municipal wastewater cleaning and phosphate detergents helped greatly in the more advanced countries to improve the situation (of river eutrophication), and eutrophication more or less disappeared from the environmental policy agenda. This was premature. Eutrophication is still looming large, if in different contexts. One is marine eutrophication. Notably the black and baltic seas are severely in danger of being fatally eutrophied.”[101] Algae have acquired a bad reputation because many anthropogenically induced Algal blooms look awful, smell dreadful, and are toxic. The public is increasingly being warned against entering infected streams, ponds, lakes, and coastal areas, “As scientists document the spread of algae worldwide, they are convinced we have created a monster.”[102]

3.6.3: Acidifying the Soil.

The final type of damage that the dumping of nutrients inflicts on Photosynthesis is the acidification of the soil, “Whereas the problems of eutrophication arise because dissolved nitrates can travel great distances, the persistence of nitrogen-based compounds is also troublesome, because it contributes to the acidity of many arable soils. The best hope for reducing the growth in nitrogen use is in finding more efficient ways to fertilize crops.”[103]; “Nitrogen deposition is also causing more fundamental damage to ecosystems. Elevated nitrogen levels in soils increase the leaching of minerals such as potassium and calcium, which promote plant growth and are essential as a buffer against acidity. As soil acidity is increased, aluminium ions are mobilized and can reach concentrations sufficient to damage tree roots or kill fish if the aluminium washes into waterways (Kaiser 1996).”[104]

3.6.4: Conclusions regarding Nutrient Dumping: Over-fertilization resulting from the Concentration of Nutrient Dumping.

The most significant factor limiting the fertilization effect is over-fertilization. The fertilization effect is boosting global Photosynthesis whilst over-fertilization is damaging the Earth's Photosynthetic effect. The main structural factor causing this situation is the division between the rich and the poor worlds. What is happening is that the over-industrialized world is importing vast quantities of nutrient-containing resources from the rest of the world - whether this is food for oomans, Animal feed, fossil fuels, minerals, etc. The over-industrialized world then uses/consumes these resources and then has to dump the waste products, containing vast quantities of nutrients, into the environment. The dumping of such huge quantities of nutrients into small areas of the world inevitably damages the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity in those areas. It has to be suggested that if the resources that are currently being imported into the over-industrialized nations, were consumed equally around the world and then dumped into the environment, it is highly unlikely they would cause much damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity - on the contrary, they would almost certainly boost Photosynthesis. However, because the rich world is sucking in so many resources from around the world and then dumping the waste into relatively small areas of the world, the damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity in those areas is considerable.

It is all too easy for people, including greens, to think of the huge quantities of nutrients being dumped into the environment and then conclude that these nutrients must be causing a huge upsurge in Photosynthetic growth. But this is just an illusion because, in reality, the dumping of nutrients onto the land or in the sea is happening in such unnaturally high concentrations that the inevitable result is damage to the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. The only way for the over-industrialized nations to disperse such vast quantities of nutrients without damaging Photosynthesis on land or in coastal waters is by burning it - but all this does is boost the greenhouse effect. Incinerating increasing quantities of nutrients is going to boost the greenhouse effect when such nutrients are desperately needed to combat the greenhouse effect by fertilizing Photosynthesis. Surely it is saying something profound about the self-destructive perversity of modern societies that they are turning the most precious, life giving, resources into pollutants.

3.7: The Non-Contribution of Wilderness Restoration to Global Photosynthesis.

Wilderness restoration boosts the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. But, it is happening only rarely. What is happening is the opposite process; the commercialization of Wilderness areas, in which Wildlife sanctuaries are converted into game hunting reserves for rich, white, trophy hunters. This is leading to the destruction of Wilderness areas as local people construct facilities to look after the needs of rich hunters. The profits that local people make from trophy hunters enables them to build more homes, community centres, hospitals, shops etc which invariably leads to an increase in the ooman population and even greater pressures to further exploit endangered species. The urbanization of Wilderness areas is also much more evident than Wilderness restoration.

3.8: The Non-Contribution of Wilderness Reversion to Global Photosynthesis.

Wilderness reversion is the abandonment of agricultural land which is allowed to return to its natural state. Wilderness reversion would boost the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity but the scale of this phenomenon is minimal.