Welcome to the Third Edition of SP14.

Although this work highlights Forests’ environmental, and ecological, roles the main focus is the relationship between Forests and geophysiology, the science of the Earth’s life support system. This relationship covers not merely the way that Forests influence the climate and the way the climate influences Forests but the critical role of Forests in stabilizing/destabilizing the climate. This work also explores the destabilization of the climate brought about by anthropogenic deforestation. It provides a scientific case for Reforesting the Earth in order, in the short term, to combat global burning and, over the longer term, to stabilize the climate.

The first edition of this work was published in december 1995. The second edition was published in march 1999. The reason for a third edition is the increasing number of so-called green organizations, and individuals, opposing Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. For the last 7 or 8 years, the mundi club has been condemning the so-called green movement for their silence of their opposition to Reforestation. Now they’re becoming more vocal about their opposition they’re having to explain their position which is revealing the inadequacies of their assumptions. By far and away their biggest mistake is their failure to appreciate that Forests are Carbon pumps. Forests extract Carbon from the atmosphere. Some of it is stored, some of it is returned to the atmosphere, but a part of it is pumped it into the soil where it leeches into waterways and eventually the oceans. It is true that Forests are major stores of Carbon but, according to james lovelock, their role as Carbon pumps may be their decisive contribution to the burial of Carbon which thus helps to combat global burning. Although this phenomena was stressed in the second edition it wasn’t given one of those coat-hanger titles which helps people to remember critical ideas. Lovelock has talked of the idea of Forests as Carbon pumps but it is time to make this concept more prominent so that so-called greens can’t avoid taking it into consideration no matter how much they might want to dismiss the climatic role of Forests.

This edition has been given a major overhaul to clarify the differences between the environment, ecology, and geophysiology. These distinctions are important in their own right but they are also useful in providing the foundations for the political differences between so-called greens. For example, there are those who regard themselves as environmentalists because they love Trees and rejoice in the beauty of Forests but they wouldn’t regard themselves as ecologists because they couldn’t name different Trees and know little about Forest habitats; and they wouldn’t regard themselves as geophysiologists exploring Forests’ relationship with the climate. Then again, and this is one of the fundamental problems of green politics, even ecologists have little idea about, or interest in, the inter-relationship between Forests and the climate.

This edition has also been streamlined by relocating side issues to the Addenda instead of disrupting the flow of the work. There is also a considerable amount of new material. This publication is a companion to other mundi club publications such as terra firm issues no.5 & 9 ‘The Carbon Emissions Fraud’ and Special Publications no.24 ‘The Politics of Reforestation’ - which highlight greens’ reasons for dismissing, or opposing, Reforestation.

This work sets the case for Reforesting the Earth in its geological context. In order to understand the current climate it is imperative to understand its past going all the way back to the formation of the Earth. The current climate hasn’t just popped out of nowhere and it isn’t the same one that life enjoyed aeons ago. It is just another oomano-imperialist delusion to believe the current climate is the best possible climate i.e. the optimum for the Earth. Such an attitude is just a variant of the modern belief that the world is the best possible world. The climate has been heading in a particular direction for many aeons but oomans’ impact on the climate is pushing it onto a different trajectory. Paradoxically, oomans are pushing the Earth’s climate back to what it was when the Earth was formed - when there were vast quantities of Carbon in the atmosphere and a global ocean. The main difference between the past and the present is that whereas when the Earth was formed the sun’s output of solar energy was weak, today it is much stronger.

Opposition to Reforestation.

Greens’ Opposition to Reforestation.

James lovelock is probably one of the world’s greatest living scientists - possibly one of the greatest of all time. He is the founder of a new scientific discipline called gaia or geophysiology, the science of the Earth’s life support system. So, why is it that greens frequently refer to gaia as a means of justifying their outlook on life, but have little understanding of geophysiology and no insight into its political implications? Lovelock gives considerable weight to Forests’ role in stabilizing the climate so why are greens not merely disinterested in his support for Reforestation but “scornful” of it? [1] It has to be wondered what people are doing in the green movement when they don’t support Reforestation. If greens don’t support the greening of the Earth then how can they be regarded as greens? Standing on the precipice of a collapse in oomans’ life support system, it is bizarre that greens (and scientists) should dismiss a geophysiological phenomena that:-

* covers a third of the Earth’s land surface;

* has a bigger Photosynthetic capacity than the world’s oceans;

* has a substantial influence over the scale of Photosynthesis in the world’s oceans;

* has a direct influence over a substantial part of the Earth’s water cycle;

* creates clouds which reflect a high proportion of solar radiation back into space thereby cooling the Earth;

* collects solar energy, converts it into water vapour, releases vast quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere and thus distributes vast quantities of heat around the globe; and,

* regulates the concentration of atmospheric Carbon, the second most important greenhouse gas.

Academics/Politicians/Scientists’ Opposition to Reforestation.

As far as is known, there are no academic courses in the country which teaching geophysiology. Why is this? Is higher education now so profit-oriented that it can ignore a new scientific discipline - especially one that tries to explain the nature of the Planet we live on?

As far as is known there is no work on the geophysiological role of Forests. Perhaps readers might like to ask themselves why a work on this issue has been written by a permanently-impoverished, amateur pamphleteer rather than by one of the hundreds of over-paid, over-privileged, lecturers in the country’s geography/ecology/oomanitarian departments? [2] Perhaps they might also reflect on what this says about society’s appreciation of the Earth’s life support system. This is but one more bit of evidence that this country, like all others around the world, is being run by eco-nazis whose sole concern in life is destroying the Earth’s life support system for as much profit as possible whilst pretending they are caring for the Earth. It has been an axiom of so-called green politics since the first Earth day in 1970 that the more that politicians say they are saving the Earth, the more they are actually destroying it. This deceit is not difficult to detect. If politicians, greens, and scientists, aren’t talking about Reforestation, they aren’t green, and any proposals they put forward for combating climate change are an irrelevance. Even worse such proposals are a distraction from the fundamental changes needed to restore the Earth’s life support system.

Somebody once wrote to say that the mundi club’s argument that Reforestation is the only way to combat the destabilization of the climate was unfortunate because scientists weren’t willing to support such an idea. It is not true to say that there isn’t a scientific case for Reforestation. The problem is that there no scientists left who are willing to publicize such a scientific case. Today virtually all scientists are, in one way or another, on the payroll of multi-national corporations. Most so-called scientists today are not interested in discovering the truth. Their functions are firstly, providing multi-national corporations with the propaganda needed to justify their destruction of the Earth’s life support system and, secondly, equipping students with the knowledge required to join one of the world’s eco-nazi, multi-national, corporations i.e. not so much vocational, as corporate, training. This might sound like extremist nonsense but its truth is transparent even from a common sense perspective. The reason that corporate scientists deny there is a scientific case for Reforestation is that they know their political paymasters would vehemently object if, in order to rejuvenate the Earth’s life support system, they recommended that huge areas of the over-industrialized world should be covered in Forests rather than cemented over for the sake of industrial development, shopping malls, motorways, theme parks, etc - not forgetting, back-to-the-landers engaging in ‘green’ pursuits such as so-called low-impact, perma-imperialism, organic livestock farming, [3] Fox hunting, [4] and dirt bike riding. [5]

‘Scientists’ belief that Forests have no impact on the concentration of atmospheric Carbon, and no role in stabilizing the climate, has nothing whatsoever to do with science or reason. The scientific denial of Reforestation’s climatic role is on a par with scientists’ earlier denial of the dangers of cigarette smoking or bse. The intergovernmental panel on climate change (the ipcc) is held in great esteem even by greens because, at the very start of international concern for the climate, it had the courage to demand 60-80% reductions in Carbon emissions. And yet this stance has become ideological because the ipcc refuses to make a similar recommendation for the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover needed to stabilize the climate.

Oomans’ are eco-nazis and they are on course for oblivion. They’re destroying the Earth’s life support system too quickly, and too extensively, to avoid such an outcome. This is especially true since the formation of the undemocratic, unmandated, unaccountable, world terrorist organization which has removed vast tracts of sovereignty from all countries around the world. In brutland since the early 1990s, the tories have successfully campaigned on the deception that the country’s sovereignty is being diminished by the transfer of power to an unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, bureaucracy known as the european community. And yet they say nothing about the transfer of power to an unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, bureaucracy known as the world terrorist organization - if anything the european community offers considerable refuge against the hurricane of global free trade and the free market being promoted by the wto. The people involved in running this organization are, some day, going to have to be put on trial for crimes against the Earth. However, the major political problem affecting all countries around the world is not globalization but domestication - the power of the landowning pharming elite to turn Animals into livestock producers and oomans into livestock consumers. Intellectually oomans are so far away from understanding what it means to live on a finite planet they would need a complete philosophical transplant if they were to create a sustainable planet.

Remember those Days?

Remember those days when a nondescript hollywood actor with barely more than a kindergarten understanding of the Earth’s life support system became governor of california and decided to enlighten the world with his views about Turtle island’s giant Redwoods - before moving on to become president of the united states? "President reagan achieved instant fame in environmental circles early in his political career in california when he supported the expansion of the logging operations, and opposed further protection of the giant redwood. 'After all,' he claimed, 'a Tree's a Tree. If you've seen one giant redwood you've seen them all. What's the big deal?'" [6] Doesn’t this sound just like the sort of thing george junior would say. America seems determined to set a world record for giving the most power to the dumbest oomans on Earth.

PART ONE: FORESTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

1.1: The Emergence of Trees.

Trees have not always existed on Earth. Although it is difficult imagining the Earth without Trees they are a relatively recent climatic innovation. The number and variety of terrestrial Photosynthesizers increased rapidly during the devonian period culminating in the emergence of Trees, “The first Forests, some 400 million years ago, heralded the proliferation of new life-forms. The great Trees of the Carboniferous era 320-210 million years ago laid down the coal that fired the industrial revolution .. .” [7] . Michael Allaby states, “The plants that died and eventually were converted into coal grew at various times in the past. Some lived more than 400 million years ago, but most were growing about 300 million years ago. They grew, all of them, as swamp Forests and such Forests occur only in the kind of warm, humid climates we associate today with equatorial regions. Clearly the Forests extended over vast areas - across much of what are now north america, europe and asia, for example - and this suggests that the Earth has experienced several periods when the climate over these large areas was a great deal warmer than it is now.” [8] Thomas algeo suggests that .. “in the short interval from 400 to 380 million years ago, the size of the biggest land plant soared from inch-short dwarfs to hundred-foot giants, an amazing case of evolution in action.” [9] ; “The next milestone in evolution was the rise of land Plants. From a few species of vascular Plants of primitive morphologies in silurian and devonian time, more than 300 species are found in the Carboniferous fossil record, including the first big Trees called gymnosperms. Their production was so rapid that the swampy environment of their growth would soon become oxygen deficient. Some of the organic Carbon is preserved in the form of thick coal seams.” [10]

It was Trees’ creation of lignin which enabled them to grow bigger and bigger. Jennifer robinson suggests the price for this innovation was that it took approximately a hundred million years before micro-organisms could break down this compound .. “trees became weighty producers of lignin long before other organisms developed truly effective ways of degrading it. In the interval - perhaps 100 million years - between the intervention of lignin by plants and the evolutionary scaling-up of lignin-cracking enzymes, massive amounts of carbon were buried. This lag allowed oxygen levels to climb to peaks never again reached, perhaps 50% higher than today.” [11]

1.2: The Scale of the Earth's Tree Cover.

1.2.1: The Scale of Global Forest Cover after the End of the Last Ice Age.

Much of the amero-euro-asian continents were buried under ice sheets during the last ice age. As the ice sheets began retreating some 10,000 years ago much of this land was gradually covered in Forests. Vast areas of the Earth were draped in Forests, “Before the dawn of agriculture, some 10,000 years ago, the earth boasted a rich mantle of forest and open woodland covering 6.2 billion hectares.” [12] ; “Before humans invented agriculture there were 6 billion hectares of forest on Earth.” [13] ; “Forests once covered about 90% of the surface of the Earth.” [14] ; "Before the advent of agricultural civilizations, about 10,000 years before present, forests and open woodlands covered an estimated 6.2 billion ha, or about 47% of the world's land area." [15]

1.2.2: The World’s Forest Cover by Forest Type.

Tropical Forests.

“Tropical rainforests are defined primarily by two factors: location (in the tropics) and amount of rainfall they receive. Rainforests receive from 4-8 meters a year ... Another distinctive characteristic is that rainforests have no “seasonality” - no dry or cold season of slower growth.” [16] “Running like a girdle around the equator, tropical Forests cover some 900 million hectares. They are divided between south america (58%), africa (19%), asia (10%) and oceania (10%). Brazil contains almost 33% of the total, and zaire and indonesia each has 10%. Papua new guinea, bolivia, colombia, venezuela, peru, gabon and burma each has over 2000,000 square kilometres of tropical Forest. Thus, brazil, zaire and indonesia jointly own more than half the world's tropical forests.” [17] ; “Latin America possesses 57% of the world’s tropical forests.” [18]

Temperate Forests.

Temperate Forests consist of broad leaved, hardwoods such as Oak, Hickory and Beech and in more southerly regions Magnolia. “Temperate forests include deciduous woodlands such as those dominated by oak or beech as well as the great coniferous forests of Russia and Canada and corresponding southern latitudes. The definition also includes the montane forests of the Andes, south east Asia and Africa and the pine forests of India, Pakistan and China.” [19]

The Boreal Forests (Taiga).

“The boreal Forests (taiga) .. comprise one-third of the Earth’s Forests and cover one-thirteenth of the Earth’s land surface. They are estimated to cover 4.3 million square miles, equivalent to three Europes. Some 70% are in Siberia and 22% in Canada and Alaska, most of the rest being in Scandinavia. Siberia’s sector is three times as large as the Brazilian Amazonia. It contains ..one-fifth of all trees and one quarter of the world’s wood. This means it harbours .. 30 billion tons of Carbon, according to anthony scott. We have rough estimates of how much Carbon is there. An alternative estimate is that boreal forests harbour around one-sixth of the Earth’s terrestrial Carbon above ground and one-fifth of the below ground stock, making a total of more than 400 billion tons. Unlike tropical Forests, two-thirds of the biome’s Carbon is stored in forest litter and the soil. About half of it is released in the wake of logging ... In addition, logging in permafrost areas causes the frozen ground to melt .. Melting permafrost also releases methane. Vladislav alexeyev calculates that siberia’s Forests absorb almost 10% of human-made emissions of CO₂. Rosanne d’arrigo put the total for all boreal Forests at a whopping 30%.” [20] ; "The taiga (boreal Forests) receives little precipitation - perhaps 50cm (20 inches) a year .. Deciduous Trees such as Aspen and Birch, which shed their leaves in autumn, may form striking stands in the Taiga, but overall, Spruce, Fir, and other Conifers (cone-bearing evergreens) clearly dominate. Conifers have many drought-resistant adaptations, such as needle like leaves with minimal surface area for water loss .. ." [21] ; .. "boreal Forests, which cover an area of 11.7 million km² at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere. This compares with 8.6 million km² for tropical forests and 8.2 million km² for temperate zone forests." [22]

Coastal Temperate Rain Forests.

"Now estimated to cover less than half their original area, coastal temperate rain forests are an exceptionally productive and biologically diverse ecosystem. Coastal temperate rain forests once covered 30-40 million hectares, an area less than 0.3% of the earth's land area. A preliminary study by Ecotrust and Conservation International estimates that at least 55% of the world's coastal temperate rain forest has been logged or cleared for other uses. The remaining area now span about 14 million hectares, smaller than the state of Wisconsin." [23]

1.2.3: Estimates of the Current Scale of Forest Cover.

There are powerful political and economic pressures which are bloating estimates of global Forest cover. Some global institutions and governments inflate their estimates of Forest cover by including Woodland, savannah Grasslands, and even golf courses. [24] There are a number of estimates of the Earth’s current Forest cover - the Earth's land surface covers 13 billion hectares.

Newman.

Newman estimates that .. “just under a quarter of the world’s land surface is forested.” [25]

Worldwide Fund for Nature.

“One third of the Earth’s total land surface is covered by forests, of which 45% or two billion hectares are tropical.” [26]

Michael Pilarski.

“Estimates (of Forest cover) vary from as high as 10 billion acres (FAO) to under 2 billion (John Todd).” [27]

Caring for the Earth.

"Of the 29 million square kilometres of closed forests, 32% are boreal (subarctic), 26% temperate (in both hemispheres), and 42% tropical. Three-quarters of the open forests and shrubland are in the tropics." [28] ; "Forests, wooded grasslands, and shrublands cover 53 million square kilometres or some 40% of the earth's land surface. Forests with closed canopies now cover about 29 million square kilometres, four-fifths of their extent at the beginning of the 18thC." [29]

UN Food and Agricultural Organization.

"According to a UN Food and Agricultural Organization tabulation for 1986, 11% of this - nearly 1.5 billion hectares - is used to produce crops. Roughly 25% is pasture or rangeland, providing grass or other forage for domesticated livestock and wild herbivores. A somewhat larger area (31%) is in forests, including open forests or savannahs only partly covered with trees. The remaining 33% supports little biological activity. It is either wasteland, essentially desert, or has been paved over or built on." [30]

United Kingdom Forests Network.

One of the more useful, discriminating estimates is provided by the united kingdom Forests network, “There are about 3 billion hectares of closed Forest in the world, a further 700 million hectares of open Forest, 1.7 billion hectares of other wooded area and around 29 million hectares of plantations making a global total of almost 5 billion hectares of forested land.” [31]

It has to be concluded there is no accurate measure of the current scale of the Earth’s Forest cover. This will be possible only when data from satellites has been analyzed and collated. The chances of any reliable estimates being provided by those institutions responsible for looking after Forests is negligible.

1.2.4: Estimates of Global Deforestation.

The Historical Scale of Global Deforestation.

The scale of global deforestation which has taken place since the end of the last ice age is nothing less than frightening, “Over the last 10,000 years, the earth’s mantle of forests and woodland has shrunk by a third as trees were cleared to make way for crops, pasture and cities.” [32] ; “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.” [33] ; “Before humans invented agriculture there were 6 billion hectares of forest on Earth. Now there are 4 billion (hectares of forest on Earth), only 1.5 billion of which are undisturbed primary forest. Half of that forest loss has occurred between 1950 and 1990.” [34] ; "Before the advent of agricultural civilizations, about 10,000 years before present, forests and open woodlands covered an estimated 6.2 billion ha, or about 47% of the world's land area. Relative to the original state of affairs, the (current) reduction in forest cover is at least 16%, and could be twice as much on a forest quality basis." [35]

The Current Scale of Global Deforestation.

There are a number of estimates of the current scale of global deforestation, "In less than 200 years the Planet has lost six million square kilometres of Forest .."; [36] “The planet’s mantle of trees, already a third less than in pre-agricultural times and shrinking by more than 11 million hectares per year.” [37] ; “The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization claims that forests are disappearing at the rate of 43 million acres a year.” [38] ; “The rate of global deforestation has increased by 90% over the last decade.” [39] ; “Since 1950, nearly a fifth of the Earth’s forested area has been cleared. Industrial logging has more than doubled since 1950 .. .” [40]

It has already been concluded above that there is no clear measurement of the Earth’s current Forest cover and it is likely, given the substantial degree of illegal deforestation, that there is no clear measurement of the rate at which Forests are being cleared. Any estimates are likely to be under-estimates.

The Future Scale of Global Deforestation.

For the first time in history, it is possible to envisage the eradication of the boreal Forests of canada and alaska as well as the world’s tropical Rainforests, “The rate of destruction of tropical forests means that by the end of the century and given current trends, nearly all forests will be gone in India, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Madagascar, East Africa, West Africa, and central America, and virtually all primary forest will be eliminated in Burma and Ecuador.” [41] ; “All the world’s forests could be destroyed within 60 years according to Professor Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St Louis.” [42]

Forests provide a great number of what are often called environmental services. It could be argued that the greater the number of environmental services, the greater the Earth's habitability. Without these services the Earth would be uninhabitable for many species. If livestock consumers ever think about Trees, which is probably rare indeed, they almost invariably do so from a utilitarian perspective - what benefits do they provide for oomans? This chapter takes a cursory look at Forests’ ecological roles.

PART TWO: FORESTS AND ECOLOGY.

2.1: Forests and Photosynthesis.

2.1.1: The Earth’s Main Categories of Photosynthesizers.

The Earth's Photosynthesizers consists of Micro-organisms (in topsoil, wetlands, Phytoplankton in the oceans, Coral reefs); Plants (both terrestrial and marine), and Trees (terrestrial and mangrove). [43]

2.1.2: The Process of Photosynthesis.

2.1.2.1: Gross Primary Production (gpp) and Net Primary Production (npp).

“About 50% of the initial uptake of carbon through photosynthesis (gpp) is used by plants for growth and maintenance. The remaining carbon is net primary production (npp). Part of this is shed as litter and enters the soil, where it decomposes, releasing nutrients to the soil and CO2 to the atmosphere. The remaining carbon after these emissions is net ecosystem production (nep). Much of this is lost by non-respiratory processes such as fire, insect damage, and harvest. The remaining carbon is called net biome production (nbp). NBP is a small fraction of the initial uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere ...” [44]

2.1.2.2: The Creation of Carbohydrates.

Trees carry out Photosynthesis in order to obtain energy in the form of Carbohydrates, for their metabolic processes. The use of Carbohydrates releases both Carbon and water vapour, “About half of the energy converted into chemical form (through Photosynthesis) is used in the metabolic processes of the Photosynthesizing Plants themselves. It is made available through the process of respiration, which involves the uptake of oxygen and the release into the atmosphere, or into the surrounding water, of about half of the CO₂ and water initially taken up in Photosynthetic process.” [45]

2.1.2.3: Capillary Action.

Richard fortey describes a remarkable feature of Trees. As solar radiation warms a Tree, water evaporates from the Tree’s surface. This creates a capillary force which sucks water from the base of the Tree. The water sucked from underground is cool so as it is dragged into the canopy it cools the Tree, “As a solution to an engineering problem, a tree is remarkable. Immediately a problem is posed: how to supply vital water and nutrients to the leaves so far above the ground. Without this water, wilting of the canopy follows immediately. This requires energy, yet plants have no moving parts that can supply the pumping energy needed. By a natural consequence of the structure of leaves .. the force is produced instead by evaporation. As water evaporates from the surface of the leaves under the warm sun, capillary action draws water upwards from the roots. The hotter the day, the greater this transpiration, and the faster the water is lifted.” [46]

2.1.3: The Rates of Photosynthesis.

2.1.3.1: The Rate of Photosynthesis Differs for each Tree Species.

Each Tree species has its own rate of Photosynthesis.

Sycamore.

“A hectare of Sycamore Trees in the u.s. soaks up from the atmosphere about 7.5 tonnes of Carbon per year, says marland.” [47]

2.1.3.2: The Changing Rate of Photosynthesis over a Trees’ Lifetime.

Most so-called green commentators argue that Trees’ rate of Photosynthesis changes over three stages of their lifespan. In the first stage, when a Tree is young, it extracts the most Carbon from the atmosphere. In the second stage, when it is in a mature condition, there is a balance between the amount of Carbon absorbed by Photosynthesis and the amount released through respiration. In the third stage, when a Tree is in old age, it releases more Carbon than it absorbs through Photosynthesis. This seemingly innocuous description of a Trees’ lifetime has become the rationale for greens’ opposition to Reforestation and the logging industry’s justification for the razing of old growth Forests. Because young Trees allegedly absorb more Carbon than mature and old Trees this is used as a justification for cutting/razing mature and old growth Forests and replacing them with Tree plantations. Gregg Easterbrook argues, “Growing trees require more carbon than do mature trees.” [48] It is shocking to find greens promoting and legitimizing the same analysis as loggers which clearly indicates the green movement has been infiltrated by representatives from the logging industry.

Even this description of the differences between young, mature and old Forests fails to convey the drama of greens’ and loggers’ positions. What greens and loggers regard as a young Tree varies from five to fifteen years. The implication being that any Trees over this age either have a Carbon balance or are dumping Carbon into the atmosphere so that in order to combat global burning they should all be chopped/razed. In other words, in order to use Reforestation to combat global burning it is necessary to chop down all Trees older than 5-15 years in age.

It is true that Trees, like all life forms, have various stages in their lifespan - young, mature and old is as good a division as any. However, most Trees are net absorbers of Carbon not merely in their youth but in their mature period and even in old age. From a common sense perspective, it is a little difficult to understand how a young Tree with a small number of leaves can extract more Carbon from the atmosphere than a very old Tree which has 100-10,000 times more leaves. Trees may be net absorbers of Carbon not merely for 5-15 years but hundreds of years - perhaps even 500 years.

2.1.3.3: The Rate of Photosynthesis Changes over a Forests’ Lifetime.

The green proposition presented above concerns the life of a Tree. The analogy of Trees having different stages of growth, in which different quantities of Carbon are absorbed from the atmosphere, is appealing because it based on the common sense idea that all life forms are at their most boisterous when they are young and slow down as they move towards senility. The problem comes when so-called greens start shifting from discussions about the lifetime of an individual Tree to the lifetime of Forests. The use of the life analogy to describe Forests leads greens to start talking about young Forests, mature Forests, and old Forests, as if Forests were like an individual Tree. For example, gregg marland, "Mature forests can continue to accumulate Carbon for remarkably long periods (300-1000 years) but this is at very slow rates. Carbon uptake is at its highest in young, vigorous Forests." [49] It is one thing to use the three stages of life as an analogy for a Tree’s lifespan but it is altogether a different proposition to apply it to Forests. All Forests consist of old and young Trees. As old Trees grow, new Trees take their place. As a consequence, Forests can continue survive for decade after decade, century after century, and even millenia after millenia. So long as there is a surplus of Carbon in the atmosphere then the Forests would continue to survive and perhaps even expand in scale. The attempt to pretend that Forests’ have three stages in their growth is absurd and it is untenable to use the life analogy as an excuse to cut down mature and old growth Forests and replace them with Tree plantations. A planet covered in 10 year Tree plantations would be aesthetically revolting and geophysiologically disastrous but it would typify the triumph of domestication - a domesticated planet providing cheap living conditions for the exploitation of biped, and quadruped, livestock.

2.1.4: The Scale of Photosynthesis.

2.1.4.1: The Scale of Photosynthesis Carried out by the Earth's Forests.

It has been estimated that 51% of Photosynthesis on Earth takes place on land - primarily through Forests, “Forests conduct more Photosynthesis worldwide than any other form of vegetation.” [50]

2.1.4.2: The Scale of Photosynthesis Carried out by the Earth's Major Forests.

Taiga Forests.

E G Nisbet.

“Northern Forests are of great significance in the annual transfer of the Carbon resources of the biosphere. Each year there is a spring growth spurt in the northern hemisphere, much of which occurs in the boreal Forest, which is so important that it affects the Carbon cycling in the atmosphere of the whole Planet.” [51]

Vladislav Alexeyev & Rosanne d’Arrigo.

“Vladislav alexeyev calculates that siberia’s Forests absorb almost 10% of human-made emissions of CO₂. Rosanne d’arrigo put the total for all boreal Forests at a whopping 30%. [52]

Amazon Forests - the Conventional View.

Lovelock, James.

Lovelock believes the amazon Rainforest is not important as a net absorber of Carbon, "Amazonia may not be worth much as a source of oxygen, or by the same calculation, as a sink for Carbon dioxide, but it is a magnificent air-conditioner, not only for itself but also for the world through its ability to offset, to some extent, the consequences of greenhouse gas warming." [53] Other commentators also believe the amazon is in a steady state and is not a net absorber of Carbon.

Amazon Forests - Recent Research.

Tiger Researchers.

The most recent research, however, suggests the amazon is not in a steady state. On the contrary, it is believed to be absorbing significant amounts of Carbon and that this absorption may explain where a large quantity of Carbon is going that most scientists have been unable to account for, “The terrestrial initiative in global environmental research (tiger) involved 300 researchers from a range of disciplines at 60 universities and research institutes. 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 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’.” [54] ; “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’” [55]

Oliver Phillips.

“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.” [56]

Jeffrey Chambers & Susan Trumbore.

“Trees in old-growth tropical forests in the Amazon region of Brazil live longer than previously thought, which adds to their importance in the effort to control increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, UC Irvine researchers have found. Jeffrey Chambers and Susan Trumbore of UCI's Department of Earth System Science, working with Brazilian researchers, used a combination of radiocarbon dating and long-term observations of forest growth to study the life cycles of trees in old-growth forests near Manaus, Brazil. A surprising result of their study was that the very large trees in these forests can be more than a thousand years old, far older than expected. A model developed by Chambers determined that because these tropical trees live longer, forests can accumulate carbon for more than a century if increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide promote faster tree growth, as some research suggests. The researchers' results appear in the March 22 issue of Nature. Faster growth fuelled by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause Amazonian old-growth forests to absorb as much as five percent of the airborne carbon released by worldwide fossil fuel use. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to be the main cause of global warming trends. The results of the UCI /Brazilian study disagree with other work based on measurements taken from towers situated above the forest canopy, which directly measure the flow of carbon to and from the atmosphere. These tower studies suggest that old-growth Amazonian forests are absorbing up to a third of fossil fuel-emitted carbon dioxide. The UCI researchers say these measurements are inconsistent with their observations of forest dynamics and likely have methodological flaws.” [57]

2.1.4.3: Comparisons between the Photosynthetic Capacities of the Major Forests.

Some scientists, including james lovelock, believe the amazon Rainforest absorbs little atmospheric Carbon in comparison to the boreal Forests.

2.1.5: Comparisons between the Carbon Stored in the Earth's Major Forests.

2.1.5.1: Forests and Quantity of Carbon Storage.

Norman myers states that, "Of the Earth's biomass amounting to almost 830 billion tonnes,

460 billion tonnes, 55%, are in tropical Forests,

175 billion tonnes, 21%, are in temperate Forests,

108 billion tonnes, 13%, are in the northern boreal Forests." [58]

To the extent that these figures are reliable, the Carbon storage capacity of the tropical Forests is far greater than that of the temperate/boreal Forests.

2.1.5.2: Forests and Carbon Density.

The following figures concern the size of the Earth's major Forests, "The Earth contains an estimated 4,000 x 10⁶ hectares of Forest of which:-

2,050 x 10⁶ hectares are temperate/boreal Forest,

1,750 x 10⁶ hectares are tropical Forest,

300 x 10⁶ hectares are arid Forest." [59]

When these figures are compared to those in the previous section (given that they are not wholly comparable) they indicate that whilst tropical Forests store 460 GtC in an area of 1,750 million hectares, temperate/boreal Forests store 283 GtC in an area of 2,050 million hectares. Not only is the Carbon storage capacity of tropical Forests far greater than that of temperate/boreal Forests, so is the Carbon density, "Closed forest has the highest Carbon density." [60] However, as will be pointed out in a later section, the boreal Forests carry out Photosynthesis at a faster rate than tropical Rainforests. [61]

2.1.6: Comparisons between Forests and the Earth’s other Major Carbon Stores.

The Earth’s Forests store vast quantities of Carbon.

2.1.6.1: General.

Florentin Krause, Wilfrid Bach & Jon Koomey.

"The land biota alone accounts for 420-660 billion tons of Carbon. About 90% of the Carbon in vegetation is contained in the woody biomass of Forests and Trees, and only the remaining small fraction is found in crops and grasslands. But an even larger terrestrial Carbon reservoir of about 1500btC is found in the humus materials of the surface layer (top 1m) of soils. In combination, the Carbon in land biota and humus adds up to about 2000-2500 btC. Soils also contain inorganic Carbonates of the order of 1000btC. Peat and other "subfossil" organic materials contain a further 1000-3000btC. The atmosphere contains presently about 740btC, which is only a third as much as that stored in biomass. The Carbon stored in the upper (0-75m) layer of the ocean is about the same or 600-700btC. The sum of terrestrial, atmospheric, and upper ocean reservoirs represent about 3300-4000btC." [62]

2.1.6.2: Forests and Crops.

Norman Myers.

 .. "Forests contain more than three-quarters of all terrestrial Phytomass - in fact some 950 billion tonnes. Curiously enough, our cultivated crops amount to less than 7 billion tonnes of standing Phytomass, a trifling 0.5%, even though they cover more of the land surface than tropical Forests." [63]

Florentin Krause, Wilfrid Bach & Jon Koomey.

"Note that croplands and pastures store only very little carbon in their vegetation, on the order of 3-7% of the soil-plus-vegetation total. In this respect, they are not much different from natural grasslands and woodlands. Note further that if croplands and pastures are degraded through mismanagement, they can release once again as much carbon from the soil as the original forest clearing that created them released from vegetation." [64]

2.1.6.3: Peatbogs and Forests.

Fred Pearce.

Pearce suggests that Peatbogs retain more Carbon than Trees, “Peat bogs are a giant natural store of Carbon, holding between 500 and 1000 gigatonnes of the element - more than the amount stored in the world’s Trees ... Peatlands cover about 5 million square kilometres of the Earth’s surface, ranging from frozen tundra to tropical bogs. Large peat bogs in sumatra and borneo have accumulated peat to a depth of 20 metres over 8000 years, and hold up to 100 times more Carbon per hectare than the surrounding tropical Rainforest.” [65]

Speculations.

However, if the amount of Carbon stored in Forests includes not only Trees, but all the other phenomena which derive their Carbon from Forests such as Wildlife, Soils, and Humus, etc, then Forests may well store more Carbon, and at greater density, than Peatbogs. It has been suggested that a significant proportion of the world’s soil is to be found in Forests, “Forests contain 80% of all the Carbon stored in the land’s vegetation and 40% of the Carbon in soils.” [66] In the estimates provided by krause, bach & koomey, the total amount of Carbon stored in Forests is greater than the amount stored in peat bogs (1000-3000GtC) since Forests include Trees (420-660GtC); humus (600GtC); and inorganic Carbonates (1000GtC).

2.1.6.4: Terrestrial Phytomass and the Atmosphere.

Stephen Schneider.

"Approximately the same amount of carbon (about 750 billion tons) is stored in the atmosphere as is stored in living plant matter on land, mostly trees." [67]

R A Houghton

“The amount of carbon stored in living plants of the earth, about 560 petagrams (1Pg = 1x10¹⁵g) is of the same order of magnitude as the amount of carbon stored in the earth’s atmosphere (about 740 Pg).” [68]

2.1.6.5: Terrestrial Phytomass, Soils, and the Atmosphere.

R A Houghton.

“The amount of Carbon stored in living plants of the Earth, about 560 petagrams (1Pg = 1x10¹⁵g) is of the same order of magnitude as the amount of Carbon stored in the Earth’s atmosphere (about 740 Pg). The amount of organic Carbon stored in the soils of the Earth is about 1,500 Pg, so terrestrial ecosystems hold almost three times as much Carbon as the atmosphere.” [69]

George Woodwell.

"Forests and their soils contain about three times as much carbon as is currently held in the atmosphere." [70]

2.1.6.6: Conclusions.

R A Houghton.

"Most terrestrial carbon is stored in the world’s forests. Forests cover about 30% of the land surface, yet they hold about 50% of all terrestrial carbon.” [71]

Norman Myers.

"Forests harbour much more Carbon in the form of Plant tisssue, detritus and soil than the rest of the Planet put together." [72]

2.1.7: The Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity.

2.1.7.1: The Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity as Measured in Energy.

It has been calculated that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth is about 120,000 trillion watts. This works out to 240 watts per square metre. Photosynthesis absorbs only 150 trillion watts or 0.28 watts per square metre, “Globally, that is 150 trillion watts (the total energy absorbed by Photosynthesizers). (This) is a trickle to the Niagara falls of the total absorbed by the Earth system: The value of 240 watts per square metre, summed globally, becomes 120,000 trillion watts continuously entering the planet’s various systems.” [73]

Global Photosynthesis absorbs only 0.1% of total incoming solar radiation. According to tyler volk .. “we can compute an average wattage entering the embodied energy of (all the Earth’s) photosynthesizers of 0.28 watts per square metre (let’s call it 0.3 watts). Compare that to the 240 watts per square metre absorbed by various portions of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface. The ratio of 0.3 to 240 is just over 0.1%.” [74] Edward i newman has a similar estimate, “The net primary production of the whole Earth, land plus sea, is probably within the range 30-50 x 10²⁰J yr^-1. This is about 0.1% of the incoming short wave radiation (from the sun).” [75]

Although Photosynthesis absorbs only 0.1% of incoming solar energy this is still an enormous amount of energy, “The total net primary production of the globe is 287.44 x 10²³ Ja^-1. This quantity of energy, fixed annually, is the equivalent of the total generating capacity of approximately 300 million 1000 mW power stations ...” [76]

2.1.7.2: The Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity as Measured in Carbon Phytomass.

The Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity can also be measured in terms of the amount of Carbon contained in Phytomass.

Terrestrial Photosynthesis.

According to tyler volk .. “the biomass annually forged by plants. The amount, in terms of carbon, is about 60 billion tons of carbon photosynthesized on land.” [77]

Marine Photosynthesis.

.. “most researchers would peg total marine photosynthesis (at) 40 billion tons of carbon per year ..” [78]

2.1.7.3: The Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity as Measured by Total Phytomass.

The Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity can also be measured in terms of the weight of Phytomass.

Terrestrial Phytomass.

“.. the biomass annually forged by plants. The total biomass, which includes oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and all the other essential elements, is 2.2 times the amount of carbon, or 132 billion tons per year.” [79]

Marine Phytomass.

.. “most researchers would peg total marine photosynthesis (at) 40 billion tons of carbon per year, or 88 billion tons of biomass. It is immediately evident that marine photosynthesis is less efficient than terrestrial: The ocean covers between two and three times the area of land, yet the biomass it produces is smaller.” [80]

Total Photosynthesis.

According to tyler volk, “Over a whole Earth area of 500 million square kilometres, 220 billion tons of biomass are produced.” [81]

From Weight to Rate.

Volk uses the weight of global annual Phytomass to calculate the energy obtained from the sun in terms of the watts per square metre, “With an energy content of 20 billion joules per ton, an area of 117 million square kilometres (the land area, not counting extreme desert and ice), and the number of seconds in the year, we arrive at the rate of energy flow into the products of photosynthesis: 0.7 watts per square metre.” [82]

2.2: The Earth’s Environmental Services.

The Earth provides a vast range of free ecological services. Paul & anne ehrlich point out, “The human population is supported by services received from the Earth's natural ecosystem, which, among other things:-

control the mix of gases in the atmosphere,

supply fresh water,

control floods,

supply food from the sea and products from Forests,

create soils,

dispose of wastes,

recycle essential nutrients,

pollinate crops,

and control the vast majority of pests that might attack them.” [83]

These ecological services are of considerable benefit to oomans, “Even after 150 years of economic development, the vast bulk of the services required to keep our Planet functioning are still provided by the self-regulating processes of the biosphere.” [84]

Although environmental services are free to oomans (and all other living things) the Earth still has to be recompensed for providing these services. They have to be paid for not in cash (as far as is known the Earth doesn’t have a bank account) but geophysiologically. The best way of repaying the Earth is for oomans to ensure a substantial degree of Forest cover around the Earth because most environmental services derive, in one way or another, from Trees/Forests. The financial costs involved in doing this are negligible since all that it is required is for oomans to set aside the land and leave it to Reforest itself. Even if oomans decide to do without many of the environmental services provided by Forests, there would still be a need to protect Forests because of their geophysiological role as pillars of the Planet’s life support system. Doing without a few environmental services is one thing, but doing without the Earth's life support system is quite another.

2.3: Forests and Pollution.

2.3.1: Forests Absorb Atmospheric Pollution.

Trees extract pollution from the atmosphere. However, this is only a partial environmental service since Trees do not necessarily detoxify pollutants. Pollutants often seep back into the environment when leaves fall or Trees die and decompose.

2.3.2: Forests Release Chemicals.

Forests release a range of chemicals .. “photochemical smog has been around for millions of years, and its been given off by plants! Take a look over pine covered mountainsides from scotland to australia, and there it is - nature’s very own photochemical blue atmospheric haze. In fact, the smog is so strong that mountains have been named after it: the smoky mountains of virginia or the blue mountains of australia.” [85] ; “Florida scientists have confirmed that former president ronald reagan’s most famous environmental gaffe wasn’t a gaffe. Trees do cause pollution after all. According to eric allen, an environmental engineer at gainesville, eight different types of terpenes, released from the sticky resin in pine trees, contribute to low-level ozone problem. Terpenes react with other pollutants to produce ozone, a toxic form of oxygen which is also associated with traffic exhausts. As temperatures rise because of the greenhouse effect, pines can be expected to emit more and more terpenes.” [86] "The Forests release huge quantities of terpenes (unsaturated hydrocarbons) - about 1000 megatons annually. We do not know why." [87]

2.4: Forests and the Soil.

Trees have a multiple relationship with the soil.

2.4.1: Forests Create Soils.

Although Trees need soil in which to grow, they also help to create soils. They do this by pumping nutrients into the ground through their network of roots and by shedding leaves. Leaves are either dragged into the soil by Worms and Insects or broken down by decomposers so that nutrients soak into the soil.

2.4.2: Forests Protect Soils.

Forests protect Soils in a number of ways:-

* by preventing the sun from drying out Soils, "Trees shade ground and conserve soil moisture." [88] ;

* by preventing the wind from drying out the Soil;

* by acting as a windbreak preventing soils from being blown away;

* by preventing soils from being washed away, "By means of their elaborate root systems, they literally hold the soil together, preventing erosion from even the steepest slopes." [89]

Trees play a vital role in extracting Carbon from the atmosphere and then storing it in Soils.

2.4.3: Forests Prevent Soil Erosion and Desertification.

Once Trees are removed, soil erosion begins. The more Trees that are chopped down, the greater the soil erosion, "Deserts happen because we chop down Trees. It isn't as simple as that and it isn't the only reason, but it is ultimately so." [90] ; “Soil erosion increases dramatically when Forest cover is removed, particularly on steep slopes and in hill districts.” [91]

Fred pearce is one of the few commentators to dispute such a commonplace view. He suggests that the deforestation of mountainous regions does not lead to floods downstream, “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.” [92]

Pearce then argues that the Reforestation of mountainous areas would thus play a questionable role in combating such floods. He is able to reach such a conclusion by exposing the inadequacies of commercial Tree plantations and then extrapolating from this to suggest that even natural Reforestation would be incapable of providing any benefits in combating floods - a conclusion which reveals more about his bigoted attitudes against Reforestation as a means of combating global burning than it does about the merits of the issue, “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. ” [93]

2.4.4: Forests are Nurseries for Plants.

Forests provide a nursery for a wide variety of Plants.

2.5: Forests and Micro-organisms.

2.5.1: The Symbiosis between Forests and Micro-organisms.

Trees and micro-organisms have a symbiotic relationship. Anne & paul ehrlich describe this in the following way, "While the 'dominant' plants in a Forest appear to be Trees, the true dominants may be so-called 'mycorrhizal fungi' living in and around the Trees' roots. In exchange for Carbo-hydrates, the fungi transport nutrients from the soil to the roots." [94] Lynn margulis suggests, “Symbiosis has shaped the features of many organisms. The great evergreen forests that spread across the northern latitudes would wither and die without the threads of symbiotic fungi that extract nutrients from rock and soil, and convey them to the Tree roots.” [95] Brian goodwin believes this symbiosis has a long genealogy, “There is the momentous occupation of land by unions of algae and fungi to form lichen-like partnerships that eventually evolved into plants. This union is still evident in the intimate relationship between plants and fungi, whereby the latter make minerals and basic salts available to plants while plants reciprocate with the gift of organic building blocks of life for the fungi. These are then distributed indiscriminately to all plants so that, for instance, a sunlit birch tree in a forest that is actively carrying out photosynthesis sends its sugars via the micorrhyzal fungal network to a spruce tree in the shade.” [96]

2.6: Forests and Animals.

2.6.1: Trees’ Dependence on Wildlife.

There are many cases where Trees are dependent on Wildlife for survival e.g. the pollination of Trees by Ants and Bats. Large numbers of Wildlife from Squirrels and Birds to Elephants, even Fish etc, help to distribute seeds. Some Ant species in africa help to protect Trees from other forms of Wildlife which damage Trees. [97]

2.6.2: Forests provide Food and Shelter for Animals.

Trees provide food and shelter for vast numbers of Animals. Even dead Trees provide a habitat for some Wildlife. In turn, Animals return nutrients obtained from Trees back to the soil. Because Forests provide a steady supply of water to streams, Wildlife are less threatened by drought. However, Trees are not entirely useful to Wildlife since some parts of Trees cannot be digested by Animals, “Lignin gives Tree trunks and Plant stems their stiffness. But it can be a major inconvenience. Animals cannot digest lignin, and paper mills have to use caustic chemicals to separate lignin from cellulose in wood pulp.” [98]

2.6.3: Forests and the Biosphere.

“Forests rival oceans in their influence on the biosphere.” [99]

2.7: Forests and the Oxygen Cycle.

2.7.1: Photosynthesis Responsible for Releasing Oxygen.

When the Earth was formed four and a half billion years ago, its atmosphere contained a high concentration of Carbon and a very low concentration of oxygen. Over the aeons the Earth's Photosynthesizers have extracted Carbon from the atmosphere and replaced it with oxygen thereby reversing these proportions. Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere results from Photosynthesis, “About 60% of O₂ production and consumption are brought about by the Carbon cycle, 30% by the sulphur cycle ...” [100] Photosynthesizers extract Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but it is only when Carbon is buried (whether in the form of Tree trunks, soils, but especially the ocean floor) that oxygen can survive in the atmosphere. If all the Carbon that has been buried over the last few aeons was suddenly pushed back into the atmosphere there would be no free oxygen, only Carbon dioxide.

2.7.2: Forests Responsible for Creating an Oxygen Atmosphere.

Lovelock believes that for a couple of aeons the amount of oxygen that could survive in the atmosphere was minimal but then, a few hundred millions of years ago, as Trees began to appear this brought about a considerable boost to the level of oxygen in the atmosphere, "The proterozoic period .. is poorly understood. Scientists know that for the most part it was a world of microorganisms like the archean. Unicellular life was hardly vigorous enough to bury the larger quantities of Carbon needed to sustain a high level of oxygen by counteracting its rapid removal by reaction with the rocks. I think that oxygen did not increase much above 1% until the evolution of large Plants and Animals." [101] The evolution of large Plants and Animals took place during the late paleozoic (570-245mya). This seems to contradict the idea of the constant burial of Carbon. [102] This issue is explored in more detail in the addenda.

2.7.3: Forest Fires Regulate the Concentration of Atmospheric Oxygen.

Lovelock believes that, over the last few hundred million years, Forests have not only boosted the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere, they have played a crucial role in regulating the concentration of atmospheric oxygen. They have prevented the concentration from becoming too high and triggering a global conflagration. Trees’ mechanisms for regulating the concentration of atmospheric oxygen are the creation of charcoal and the selection of certain types of Trees.

The contribution made by charcoal is as follows: Forest fires create charcoal; charcoal boosts the burial of Carbon because micro-organisms cannot digest the Carbon and return it to the atmosphere thereby boosting the level of atmospheric oxygen. Although Forest fires burn up oxygen, their net effect is to increase the level of atmospheric oxygen, “It might be that fires themselves are the regulators of oxygen. There is no shortage of lightning strikes for their ignition. If fires are the regulator it cannot be a simple relationship. Fires would lead to the burial of much more Carbon because charcoal is entirely resistant to biological degradation. Paradoxically fires lead to more oxygen in the long run. If this grim scenario is followed to a conclusion there would at first be a positive feedback on oxygen, but soon the Forests would be so devastated that Carbon production would fall to the point where oxygen was near or below its present level. A more subtle regulation involving fire would come from the effects of fire ecology on selection pressure.” [103]

Forest fires promote some types of Trees rather than others and lovelock suggests this has the effect of stabilizing the concentration of atmospheric oxygen. The selection pressure of fires on Tree species works in the following way, "But how could the oxygen-fire relationship in practice act as a Gaian regulatory mechanism? An answer could lie in the fire ecology of Forests: certain species, the conifers and eucalypts, do include fire in their evolutionary strategy; others do not. As with the dark and light Daisies in Daisyworld, the competition for space between the Trees could provide a feedback control on oxygen and fire." [104] ; "Could it be that a fiery battle for territory between oaks and conifers is Gaia's oxygen regulator? You might think Forest fires provide an answer. Too much oxygen would mean more fires, hence fewer Trees, hence less Carbon to bury, hence less oxygen: fire as a negative feedback on oxygen. The flaw is charcoal .. Fire can convert up to 10% of wood to charcoal, so that up to 100 times more Carbon would be buried if the fate of Trees were burning: fires are a positive feedback on oxygen. One intriguing clue comes from the fire ecology of eucalypts and conifers. These softwoods are highly flammable. Conifers and eucalypts can survive fire .. The fires however could destroy competing species, such as oaks. The fires set by conifers and eucalypts burn completely, leaving little charcoal. And these softwoods also produce very little Carbon for burial. But Oak is a hardwood, containing lignin, which survives burning, as charcoal for Carbon burial. A possible oxygen regulatory mechanism emerges. If Oaks become too dominant, more Carbon is buried, oxygen increases, and so do the number and intensity of fires set by Conifers and Eucalypts. These Trees then succeed, less Carbon is buried, and oxygen decreases. If the Conifers and Eucalypts are too successful, oxygen falls until the Oaks are no longer curbed by Forest fires, and so they begin to take over rival territory - and oxygen rises again." [105] Recent research has extended this analysis showing the moderation of the speed with which Carbon is buried and oxygen released into the atmosphere. [106] [107]

2.7.4: The Limitations of the Dual Role of Regulating the Carbon Spiral and the Oxygen Cycle.

Lovelock argues that Forests regulate the level of atmospheric oxygen and the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere. Forests thus have two regulatory functions. It is not known whether these two functions conflict or not.

2.7.5: Forests and Ozone.

One of the pollutants that Forests remove from the atmosphere is ozone, "Forests remove ozone, and the Amazon Rainforest is a major sink, especially in the wet season. The destruction of the Forest has the effect of increasing tropospheric ozone, and hence of warming the lower atmosphere." [108]

2.8: Forests and the Water Cycle.

2.8.1: Forests Purify Water.

Forests help to purify water by absorbing pollutants. For example, in the past, england ensured safe water supplies primarily by preserving some of its Forests. [109]

2.8.2: Forests Provide Sun Shade and Wind Barriers to Protect Water in the Soil.

Trees provide shade which limits water evaporation from Soils. Trees also act as wind barriers preventing Soils from drying out, “They act as brakes on the wind, ... Plants intervene in the transfer of water from rain to soil, and their shade reduces evaporation from the soil.” [110] Forests enable soils to retain water, “Their elaborate root system also ensures that the Earth beneath it is sponge-like and maximizes its capacity to retain the rains ..." [111]

2.8.3: Forests Store Water.

Forests store vast quantities of the rain which falls upon them. Forests are often regarded as Carbon stores but, just like all other living things, they contain more water than Carbon. So great is this storage of water that Forests have been called ‘green lakes’, “More water is stored in the Forests of the Earth - especially the tropical Rainforests - than in its lakes.” [112] If this is the case, the amazon Rainforest is one of the Earth's biggest lakes, “The Amazonian basin as a whole retains some two thirds of the world's non-polar fresh water supply.” [113]

 Forests are even able to capture water, “For centuries people have known that trees collect the tiny water droplets that make up fog. The ever-growing need for fresh water in both developing and developed countries is indisputable and both increasing populations and the contamination of existing supplies will lead to constantly escalating demands. We must, therefore, begin to consider the use of non-traditional water supplies such as the collection of fog. As clouds move over hills and mountains, the hilltops and ridgelines are enveloped in fogs. Just as the leaves and needles of trees can collect some of the water in these fogs, large artificial collectors can produce a flow of potable water.” [114]

2.8.4: Forests Ensure Rainfall; Forests Seeding Clouds.

Forests not merely enable soils to store water they also ensure a supply of rainfall. This is brought about through a combination of factors:-

* Forests hold huge amounts of water on their surfaces some of which evaporates and then condenses as rainfall.

* Forests contain huge amounts of water some of which is released by respiration.

* Forests release particles which help to seed clouds, “Land based vegetation can promote the formation of cloud-forming aerosols, according to researchers at the university of crete. Their measurements, taken above a forest in portugal, show that hydrocarbon gases emitted by trees can form organic aerosols in the atmosphere. As these aerosols are important ‘condensation nuclei’ on which clouds can form, this study adds further weight to the hypothesis that trees contribute to the regulation of the climate.” [115]

* Convection currents draw water vapour from Forests into the atmosphere, “The movement of the moisture and the roughness of the land surface when Trees are present lead to convection movements in the atmosphere that enhance rainfall. Tree cover accelerates the movement of water from the soil to the atmosphere and back again, thus keeping the cycle replenished. Experiments with models to mimic such convection processes suggests that rainfall would diminish by as much as one third were the Trees to be totally eradicated.” [116]

2.8.5: Deforestation Causes Droughts.

Conversely, deforestation often leads to a reduction in rainfall, "Cutting the (rain) Forest can be expected to have severe impacts on (local) weather patterns. When malaysian Rainforest was cut to create rubber plantations, the clouds stopped at the edge of the remaining jungle.” [117] ; “The drought in africa is not a short term cycle, it is part of a long term human induced trend of increasing aridity and it cannot be arrested until a considerable proportion of the Tree cover which has been removed right across africa over the past 150 years is replaced.” [118] ; “Droughts in west africa over the past 20 years may have been caused by the destruction of Rainforests in countries such as nigeria, ghana, and cote d’ivoire, according to a new study. Further deforestation in the region .. “could cause the complete collapse of the west african monsoon”, says xinyu zheng at m.i.t. West african coastal Rainforests, which receive copious amounts of rain from winds coming off the atlantic ocean, have helped to maintain rainfall in the drier lands of the interior. At the beginning of this century, the west african Forests covered around 500,000 square kilometres. Since then, up to 90% have disappeared to make way for farms and other kinds of human activity such as mining.” [119]

2.8.6: Forests Recycling Rainwater.

According to james lovelock, Forests generate most of the rainfall that falls on the Earth’s continents, “Rainfall on the continental land masses of the Earth is, to a considerable extent, a consequence of evapotranspiration; the pumping by Trees and large plants of water from the soil to their leaves where it evaporates.” [120] ; "Each year approximately 70% of the precipitation which occurs in the (Amazon) tropical Forests returns to the atmosphere due to the Forests’ own contribution to the process of evaporation." [121]

2.8.7: Forests Ensure Supply of Water to Streams/Rivers.

Forests hold soils together and enable them to absorb rainwater. Forest soils release the water slowly thereby ensuring a continuous supply to nearby streams, "Their elaborate root system also ensures that the earth beneath it is sponge-like and maximizes its capacity to retain the rains, by the same token, they control run off to the rivers, releasing only a fraction of what they retain." [122] ; "Provision and regulation of fresh water are other crucial ecosystem services supplied through control of precipitation, evaporation, and terrestrial water flows. Forest ecosystems are particularly important in supplying these services. In fact the world over, Forests and other vegetation types provide free flood control, soil erosion control, and drought abatement." [123]

2.8.8: Forests Prevent Floods being followed by Droughts.

Whilst Forests ensure a steady trickle of water into streams, deforestation allows downpours to rush off the land thereby creating floods. In deforested areas, the land’s inability to retain rainwater eventually leads to droughts, “In burkina faso, a landlocked country in western africa, drought has forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee rural areas to become low wage workers in the cities. Cherrapunji, a town in northern india, receives the highest precipitation on the Planet - an astounding 1,000 inches of rain annually. But the people of this himalayan town often walk long distances to get drinking water, limit their baths to once a week and have trouble irrigating their crops. According to peter sage, from amurt, the northern part of burkina faso has lost about 50% of its Forests due to deforestation: “When the Forest cover is lost, the land is no longer able to absorb the rainfall. The soil is exposed to warm winds from the sahara desert which gradually remove the topsoil.” The paradoxical situation in cherrapunji - that the wettest place on Earth is becoming a desert - is also caused by deforestation. Growing road works, increasing population and the spread of modern education have led tribals to abandon belief in the Forest’s sacredness. Trees are disappearing at an alarming rate. As a result, cherrapunji now suffers drought like conditions. Without Forest protection, the rains scour away the soil, and the remaining limestone bedrock sheds water like an umbrella. in the dry season, villagers must walk far to collect drinking water from streams reduced to trickles.” [124]

2.8.9: Forests Maintain Watertables.

By helping to retain rainwater in soils, Forests also maintain watertables.

2.8.10: Forests Prevent Salinization.

There are occasions when, as a consequence of deforestation, heavy rainfall leads to flooding. This causes a rise in the watertable which generates salinization of the soil, “Deforestation can also result in salinization by increasing the level of the watertable, so that evaporation results in the concentration near the surface of salts present in solution in the underground water.” [125]

2.8.11: Forests Recharge Aquifers.

By retaining rainwater, Forests recharge aquifers, “If excessive demand for Forest and livestock products leads to deforestation and rangeland degradation, the amount of rainfall runoff increases and the amount retained and absorbed for aquifer recharge decreases. Thus, excessive demand for timber and livestock products can reduce aquifer yields.” [126]

2.8.12: Forests prevent the Build-up of Siltation behind Dams.

Soil erosion around hydro-electric water reservoirs leads to the build up of silt behind dams. It is possible to reduce siltation by ensuring that Forests surround the water reservoir in order to hold the soil together, “Soil erosion increases dramatically when Forest cover is removed, particularly on steep slopes and in hill districts. Soil erosion has direct effects on hydrological cycles and watersheds, increasing the siltation of lakes and reservoirs and downstream flooding. About 60 million hectares of india are now vulnerable to flooding; this is more than twice as much as 30 years ago, as deforestation has intensified.” [127] ; "When Forests are cut, particularly on sloping land, water runs off unimpeded, taking large quantities of soil and nutrients with it, thus depleting the agricultural potential of the deforested area and causing increased flooding and silt accumulation downstream." [128]

Some so-called greens are becoming so desperate in their opposition to Reforestation they are even questioning Forests’ role in preventing the build up of siltation behind dams, “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.” [129] These greens believe Tree plantations does not help to prevent siltation. The trick they are playing is to use their condemnation of Tree plantations as a means for undermining the importance of Forests. Their arguments against Tree plantations are legitimate but they are then used against natural Forests where they are not legitimate. [130]

2.8.13: Do Forests Help to Determine Ocean Levels?

Lance olsen has speculated that deforestation may be responsible in part for rising sea levels, “Whether we see a tree as a rain umbrella or a sun umbrella, its effect is magnified many times over when we ponder the practical impact of an entire forest. A forested region is a massive reservoir of water, and it's one that leaks away its captured booty slowly enough to feed mountain springs and streams all through a hot Montana summer. Forested regions are so very good at hanging onto water that scientists have lately been thinking that deforestation around the globe accounts for a "significant" portion of the planet's rising sea levels, because falling rain can rush back to the sea much more quickly when there's less forest left to catch it, and delay its escape.” [131]

2.8.14: Forests Drive the Water Cycle.

Forests have such an enormous impact on the Earth’s life support system they help to drive the water cycle, “The critical aspect of the water cycle which is so often overlooked is the importance of the rate at which water travels around it. This is largely determined by the presence of vegetation: the denser and lusher it is, the more rain is retained by it, the moister the soil, the milder the climate and the more constant the flow of the rivers. The global water cycle is not a hydraulic pumping and rainage mechanism, it is a living and vulnerable organism.” [132] ; “Water transportation is driven by the activities of great Forests, primarily of neotropical trees ..” [133]

2.9: Forests as Air Conditioners.

Forests not only oxygenate the atmosphere, they act as air conditioners providing the air with both moisture and warmth.

2.9.1: Atmospheric Hydration.

Trees transpire water vapour and this hydrates the atmosphere. Just as Forests help to prevent floods and droughts by providing a constant supply of water to local streams, so they also help to maintain a constant supply of moisture to the air, “By pumping underground water back to the atmosphere, each tree irrigates our skies. Multiply this thousands, hundreds of  thousands, or even millions of  times over, and a whole forest ends up pushing a pretty serious river of water back to the atmosphere.  We see some of this airborne river's fallout as morning dew, but it also supplies atmospheric moisture for subsequent rains; a lot of this moisture goes up to recharge rainclouds that will be carried away by winds that take them to nearby or distant areas before their load of rain falls once again.” [134]

2.9.2: Global Air Circulation.

E.g. nisbet argues, "Vegetation is crucial to the global air conditioning system. Plants help to cleanse, hydrate, and circulate air. Plants transpire water and in so doing they transfer energy into the air. The transfer of heat is so large that it is an important contribution to the energy driving the global air circulation." [135] Lynn Margulis agrees, “Water transportation is driven by the activities of great Forests, primarily of neotropical trees ...” [136]

2.10: Forests as Temperature Moderators.

Forests help to moderate and stabilize local temperatures, “Temperature extremes are also moderated by forests, which provide shade and surface cooling and also act as insulators, blocking searing winds and trapping warmth by acting as a local greenhouse agent.” [137] Forests act as water moderators by reducing flooding and preventing droughts and, in the same way, they also help to moderate temperature extremes which would appear if deforestation took place. After deforestation, the days become hotter and the nights become colder whereas when Forests are present they absorb solar radiation during the day, and keep daytime temperatures cool, whereas at night they release the heat they have stored thereby keeping temperatures much warmer than they would have been without Forests. Forests are able to act as temperature moderators because they absorb heat into their structures but primarily because of their retention of water. Forests store the heat they have absorbed in water and when the water evaporates it redistributes heat into the atmosphere - in some case vast storm clouds that rise up to the stratosphere. Trees store water and when water is converted into water vapour it helps to distribute heat from the daytime to the night-time and, in some cases, from the tropics to the poles. Forests are like a water bubble over the surface of the Earth preventing solar radiation from burning the surface of the Earth during the day and freezing it at night. The Forest water bubble quickly redistributes the heat it has absorbed to cooler parts of the Earth. It cools hot regions and warms cool regions.

2.11: Forests Provide the Bulk of the Earth’s Ecological Services.

A significant proportion of the Earth’s ecological services derive from Forests. Forests help to:-

* extract Carbon dioxide and ozone from the atmosphere;

* oxygenate the atmosphere;

* regulate the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere;

* ensure rainfall;

* maintain watertables and recharge aquifers;

* ensure a water supply;

* regulate the flow of streams;

* prevent droughts;

* prevent floods;

* prevent Salinization;

* hydrate the atmosphere;

* regulate the heat in the atmosphere through the release of water vapour;

* create soils;

* prevent soils from being dried out the sun;

* prevent soils from being desiccated by the wind;

* protect soils from water erosion;

* prevent the siltation of dams;

* purify muddy/polluted water;

* provide a home, food and water for Wildlife;

* dispose of natural waste products;

* redistribute heat, energy, and water vapour from the tropics to the polar regions;

* recycle nutrients; etc, etc..

If Forests did not exist then these environmental services would not exist or would not exist on the same scale. This would make life far harsher for many Animals, particularly oomans. If oomans wish to continue benefiting from these services they have to repay their geophysiological debts to the Earth by ensuring the Planet has sufficient natural Forest cover.

There are green theorists who seek to measure the monetary value of the Earth’s environmental services as a means of incorporating the environment into countries’ economic decision-making processes. It can be argued, however, that trying to evaluate the financial consequences of such a vast range of services is futile. It is practically, and theoretically, impossible. But, to a significant extent, these services could be measured by the number of Trees. If oomans ensure there are enough Forests on Earth then most of these environmental services will function almost automatically. Ensure there is sufficient natural Forest cover around the Earth and the rest of the Earth’s life support system will fall into place.