On march 21st 1994 the mundi club published ‘terra firm’ no.5 ‘The Great Carbon Emissions Fraud’ accusing a number of green commentators and green organizations of dismissing Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. A summary of these arguments, and their implications, was published on september 6th 1994 in an article in tf6 ‘The Green Movement’s Refusal to Measure the Destruction of the Earth’s Life Support System’. Thereafter it was discovered that greens’ opposition to Reforestation was even more widespread than had previously been suspected so, on october 30th 1995, the mundi club published, ‘The Great Carbon Emissions Fraud. The Green Movement’s Opposition to Reforestation: Part Two’ naming other greens opposed to Reforestation.

In april 1998 the mundi club published an article in tf12 entitled ‘Greens’ Reasons for Opposing Reforestation as a Means of Reversing Global Burning’. This outlined, and criticized, the main reasons greens were giving for opposing Reforestation - 28 in all. After the publication of this article it became clearer that one of the most critical excuses for dismissing Reforestation is the idea of ‘mature Forests’. So an article criticizing this particular excuse was published in tf15 ‘Ten Years Down the Drain on december 1st 1999, ‘Greens still Piddling around as the Forests Burn’.

Given the widescale decimation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity; the current mass extermination of Biodiversity, the sixth biggest throughout the Earth’s history; and the increasing threat posed by global burning; it might have been assumed that one of the green movement’s main objectives would be to regreen the Earth. However, few greens believe that Forests play any role in stabilizing the climate, protecting biodiversity, or maintaining the Earth’s life sustaining processes.

These blossoming criticisms of greens’ tactics over global burning have had not the slightest impact on the green movement. Not a single green has ever bothered to dispute the criticisms of their work. Greens persist in trying to solve global burning solely through technological, rather than geophysiological, means. Despite the fact that in 1991 a commentator stated that, "The climate debate is bringing Forests to the centre of the political stage." [1] this never became true - there has never been a debate about this issue. Perhaps greens just do not like attracting publicity to the fact that they are at best indifferent to, and at worst opposed to, Reforestation.

This work has been sitting in a computer for the last year or so because there hasn’t been the time to devote to finishing it. There were three factors which pushed it to the top of the publications’ list.

It should be pointed out that robert mckie is a great supporter of organic pharming so it’s not surprising he opposes Reforestation. Meacher’s objections to Reforestation are no less surprising firstly, because the labour government in its november 2000 budget outlined a Carbon giveaway to motorists and, secondly, because only 10% of brutland is covered in Forests. The government of a country without Forests is hardly likely to support a proposal at climate negotiations allowing Forests to be taken into account in assessing countries’ contribution to global burning. The guardian returned to the Reforestation issue a few days later. Its environment section contained an item of gossip about the climate conference which, once again, sneered at Reforestation, “Inside the hangar in the conference hall, the major row is about sinks. There are claims that if you plant trees or crops that take Carbon out of the atmosphere it can be claimed as a credit to be counted against your emissions from burning fossil fuels. The u.s. gets the flak for this loophole, but the australians are the most shameless exponents, claiming anything that grows more than 15cm high can be counted as a sink. The largest cafe in the climate conference sports not flowers on the table but buckets of grass, they are labelled ‘Australian sinks’”[3] Ho, ho, ho, what a bunch of cretinous, Earth alienated, twits.

The failure of the hague conference may not sound too serious - the temptation is to believe the next meeting will enable delegates to iron out their differences. But the collapse is much more profound than such knee jerk optimism. The hague talks were meant to resolve the disagreements left over from the kyoto climate conference in 1997 so the collapse of these negotiations is, in effect, the collapse of the kyoto protocol - the first legally binding, but not yet ratified, agreement after the second world climate conference in 1990 and the rio Earth summit in 1992, “This may really be the end of the whole process of international climate negotiations that began in Rio in 1992 and created the Kyoto protocol five years later. At the very least it is a major setback, for US negotiators at the next round of talks in Bonn will be representing a sceptic Republican administration.” [6] But the collapse of the hague talks should also be seen as the latest in an even longer line of failures that stretches back nearly thirty years to the stockholm conference on the environment in 1972. Although global burning was not discussed at this conference the issues which needed to be resolved at the conference are virtually the same as the issues which need to be addressed in order to counter global burning. After all, until global poverty is abolished there isn’t going to be any hope of combating global burning. The failures of the 1972 conference are almost the same as the failures the global burning conferences of the 1990s - the rich nations persist in believing they live on another planet from the poor who can be left to rot. During the last three decades most geophysiological problems have become far, far worse. The Earth’s life sustaining processes are in a far worse state now than they were three decades ago. More damage was done during those three decades than had ever been done throughout ooman history.

It has to be pointed out that, ironically, even if the hague conference had been a success and ratified the kyoto protocol it would hardly have made the slightest difference to stabilizing the climate, “Prof Parry said that the Kyoto climate agreement "would, if successful, only reduce the rise of up to two degrees in temperature by 2050 by around 0.06°C.” [7] Even the IPCC's demands for 60-80% reductions in Carbon emissions wouldn’t do much to stabilize the climate, "All this would mean that global emissions of greenhouse gases would fall to 1/4 of their present levels by 2050, limiting the rate of warming to 0.1C per decade and eventually holding it at 2C above today's average temperatures - still a highly disruptive outcome." [8]

The failure to finalize the kyoto protocol at the hague conference means that after ten years of discussions the global community still has no legal framework for countering climate change. Even grimmer is that this failure seems to have served a vital purpose. The climate negotiation process has given national governments around the world ten glorious years of being seen as heroes struggling to combat what seems like a growing menace when in fact these eco-nazis had no intention of doing anything to disturb the rampage of economic devastation across the Earth. The failure of the global burning conferences contrasts starkly with the ‘successes’ of the gatt and wto negotiations. It is possible, then, that the eco-nazis will prevent the failure of the hague conference from leading to the demise of the kyoto protocol because the climate negotiation process is a useful political tool for assuaging the fears of the tiny minority of people around the world who are concerned about the destabilization of the climate. They might try to resuscitate the negotiations to continue reaping the political rewards of being seen to do something about the climate - even when they are doing nothing. One of the most accomplished exponents of this hypocrisy being tony blair.

These, then, were the three reasons for publishing this work on greens’ opposition to Reforestation. It combines the tf12 article, outlining 28 reasons for greens’ opposition to Reforestation, and the tf15 article criticizing the idea of ‘mature Forests’. It attempts to consolidate and update the mundi club’s critique of greens’ dismissal of Reforestation. It includes a number of new reasons why greens continue to avoid what for them must be that truly dreadful moment of social embarrassment when they have to admit to their middle class chums, their loony fleet street contacts, or Earth-rapist political colleagues, that they support Reforestation. It’s almost as taboo a subject as ‘why are pharmers the only group in society entitled to open-ended subsidies without being labelled the country’s biggest spongers?’ or ‘why is the first consequence of the feminist revolution so many white women running around after afro males?’ This work presents 42 reasons for greens’ opposition to Reforestation - and, to be honest, this is just an introductory work in what could easily be a much more comprehensive critique. But the mundi club won’t be writing this critique.

Eventually, however, the americans’ view prevailed and, by the time of the kyoto climate conference in 1997, the number of greenhouse gases designated as part of the climate negotiation process was increased to six, “The (kyoto) protocol deals with the six principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane; nitrous oxide, which is produced by fossil fuel use and in pesticides; hfcs, which are a substitute for cfcs and are therefore increasing in use; perofluorocarbons, a substitute for some cfcs and halons; and sulphur hexafluoride. The last three together constitute 1.15% of all greenhouse gases.” [11]

For many years it remained a mystery why europeans had been so critical of this american tactic. Since there didn’t seem to be any explanation for it the mundi club let the issue slip into obscurity. Of all people, it was gregg easterbrook, a corporate cornucopian super-optimist, who provided the answer. He argued the u.s. is the leading producer of CO₂ because it is a coal based economy. On the other hand, europe is the leading producer of methane because it relies much more heavily on gas to fuel its economy, “At the 1992 Earth summit, european negotiators .. fervently condemned the united states for its insufficient commitment to carbon dioxide control, while manoeuvring behind the scenes to have methane restrictions deleted from the greenhouse treaty.” [12] Basically, the europeans didn’t want climate negotiations extended to a wider number of greenhouse gases because this would mean they would be held to be much more responsible for boosting global burning. Their relative positions in the league table of CO₂ emitters wouldn’t change but the gap between america and europe would narrow. Correspondingly, it would increase europe’s burden for reducing greenhouse gases.

For example, the change to a basket of greenhouse gases had substantial implications for brutland. In 1990 the uk’s total greenhouse emissions were 212 million tonnes of Carbon equivalents (mtCe) whilst CO₂ emissions were 168 mtC. [13] This meant non-CO₂ emissions amounted to 44mtCe. The change in the number of designated greenhouse gases meant that britain’s responsibilities for global burning suddenly increased by a substantial 21%. The one element of mystery remaining in this issue is why no brutish environmental commentator has ever mentioned the implications of the change from one to six greenhouse gases. [14]

Even today, only 6 of the 42 greenhouse gases are covered by climate negotiations. Scientifically, what is of interest here is the exclusion of Carbon monoxide (CO). CO’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is regarded as marginal because it has only a short lifetime in the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean to say that it isn’t helping to boost the greenhouse effect. Firstly, just because CO has only a short lifetime in the atmosphere doesn’t mean that the Carbon it contains just disappears from the atmosphere when it reacts with other atmospheric gases. On the contrary, when Carbon monoxide reacts with hydroxyl radicals it produces Carbon dioxide. Secondly, hydroxyl radicals oxidise both CO and much more complex atmospheric Carbon compounds. When CO neutralizes hydroxyl radicals they are unable to neutralize bigger Carbon molecules which have a higher global warming potential than CO. As a consequence, this boosts global burning. So, the contribution that CO makes to the greenhouse effect is bigger than might at first be perceived. Given that CO comes from the burning of fossil fuels and Forests, then the quantity of CO going into the atmosphere might be considerable. This means its overall impact on the greenhouse effect should not be ignored, “Forests are important cleansers of the atmosphere. And concentrations of the hydroxyl radical - a highly reactive molecular fragment, largely responsible for holding down the atmospheric percentages of trace gases such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and chlorofluorocarbons - might fall significantly because of Carbon monoxide coming from Forest burnings.” [15]

From the start of climate negotiations, the mundi club’s stance has been that it is necessary to measure the Earth’s entire Carbon spiral. Any political move in this direction is welcomed. The validity of the mundi club’s purely conceptual opposition to europeans’ stance over the proposal for a basket of greenhouse gases was thus confirmed by gregg easterbrook’s exposure of america’s and europe’s underlying material interests. Europe’s opposition to the introduction of a basket of greenhouse gases wasted a great deal of time, effort, and resources over what was a petty issue. Brutish green correspondents alleged that the disagreements showed that it was america dragging its feet over climate negotiations but in reality it not america that was dragging its feet, but the europeans. It is well known that the views of many nations over reductions in Carbon emissions are influenced by their material interests - saudi arabia being only the most prominent - but to discover there had also been material interests behind what seemed like an arcane academic issue was a surprise. Thankfully, easterbrook provided not merely an insight into the degree to which material interests shape countries’ stances over global burning, but a huge lighthouse that illuminated an important feature of the climate negotiation seascape - european hypocrisy.

The mundi club didn’t discover this error until years later when easterbrook’s lighthouse accidentally flashed over this issue. It was wrong to blame the americans for what seemed to be an attempt to escape their climate responsibilities when what they were doing was legitimately trying to get recognition for what they had already done, albeit inadvertently, towards reducing greenhouse gases. The americans had done a lot to slowdown the accumulation of greenhouse gases by curbing the manufacture of cfcs but there weren’t getting any recognition for this.

If the europeans had been genuine about curbing the greenhouse effect they wouldn’t have opposed the inclusion of cfcs and they wouldn’t have denounced the change as an attempt to ‘let the americans off the hook’. They would have accepted the change and demanded an increase in the reduction of greenhouse gases to accompany the bigger basket of greenhouse gases.

In the end, the americans’ view prevailed and cfcs and related gases were included in climate negotiations. Once again this had implications for countries’ responsibilities for curbing global burning - and once again, the gap between america’s and europe’s responsibilities narrowed. What came to the aid of europe’s objections to this change was that the starting point for calculating reductions in greenhouse gases was 1990 (the date of second world climate conference). This starting point meant that a significant part of america’s reductions in cfcs, and thus the greenhouse effect, would not count because they came before this date. The starting point for calculating countries’ responsibilities for climate change is a major political issue in its own right - as will be noted later. [16]

The environmental dangers caused by cfcs were first publicized in the mid-1970s, “Molina and rowland’s report in 1974 in the scientific journal nature was alarming. New uses for cfcs were being found all the time, and production had risen from 150,000 tonnes in 1960 to more than 800,000 in 1974. There are several different kinds of cfcs, and other near-relations also damage the ozone layer; hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or hcfcs, which are used in some industrial refrigerants, and halons, which are used in fire extinguishers .. contain bromine, which also attacks the ozone layer.” [17]

Whilst the american government took a commendable precautionary line and banned some uses of cfcs such as in can propellants, the europeans, including the brutish, did nothing about curbing these gases, “In 1978 the u.s. government banned the use of cfcs as propellants in aerosol cans, and the governments of canada, norway and sweden followed suit. Most european governments were reluctant to follow america’s lead. The british government disputed the evidence of a serious threat to the ozone layer. European governments suspected america of trying to cripple trade rivals. Until 1974, the united states dominated the world market in cfcs as the major exporter, but from that year onwards european countries overtook it. The big chemical companies in britain and germany that manufactured cfcs had the ear of their governments and pressed this point.” [18] Now, where have we heard this refrain from before?

“There’s no scientific evidence that cigarettes damage ooman health.”

“There is no scientific evidence that bse is present in Cattle blood (which would mean a ban on meat) and there is no scientific evidence that bse-cjd is in ooman blood (which is why government refused for years to do anything about blood transfusions).”

“There’s no scientific evidence that dumping ooman manure into rivers or pumping it two miles out to sea (even in popular seaside resorts) has ever led to bacteria being washed back onto the shore.”

“There’s no scientific evidence that there is salmonella in eggs.”

“There’s no scientific evidence that bse poses a threat to the health of non ruminant species.”

“There’s no scientific evidence that bse poses a threat to ooman health.”

“There’s no scientific evidence that global burning poses a threat to the climate.”

Over the last thirty years successive brutish governments have issued hundreds of denialisms - virtually all of them later proved to be lies. Brutish governments are implacable liars.

The first global convention on cfcs came in march 1985, “This was a minimalist document. It said that the ozone layer might need protecting, but it did not mention cfcs. It committed the signatories to study the situation and take whatever measures were necessary.” [19] The brutish government managed to get any mention of cfcs removed from the document. Two months later joe farman discovered the hole in the antarctic ozone layer and the issue was treated more seriously but it wasn’t until september 1987 that the negotiations culminated in the montreal protocol. After all, the hole in the Antarctic was 10,000 miles from brutland. Not surprisingly, “The montreal protocol was seen to be inadequate even before the ink was dry.” [20] It was only a couple of years later that decisions were taken for some substantial action, “At the first meeting of the parties of the montreal convention, in april 1989 in helskinki, delegates agreed to aim at phasing out cfcs by the end of the century. The following year the parties met in copenhagen and agreed that industrialized countries would phase out cfcs by 1996.” [21]

So, in the decade and a half prior to the time when climate change negotiators discussed the inclusion of cfcs in the climate negotiating process, the americans had done a great deal to curb cfcs (and thereby reduce global burning) whilst the europeans, especially the brutish, had continued to mass manufacture these chemicals and make profits out of depleting the stratospheric ozone layer and enlarging the hole in the antarctic ozone layer (and boosting global burning). Is it surprising the americans wanted their environmental achievements to be given due recognition by the shabbier members of the over-industrialized world? And isn’t it slightly hypocritical of the europeans to demonize the americans over the issue of including cfcs in climate negotiations when their own policies were, proportionately speaking, contributed more to the destabilization of the climate? The europeans’ denunciation of america for supposedly evading its duty to protect the climate was just a tactic to cover up their own Earth-burning activities and their own evasion of their climate responsibilities. Over the last decade or so, the easiest way for europeans to escape taking any action over climate change has been by blaming the americans for dragging their feet - when in fact they have done more foot dragging over climate negotiations than any other country. Of course, americans’ demands for the inclusion of cfcs in climate negotiations might have been a double bluff - perhaps they were, after all, trying to evade their climate responsibilities, but at least they had acted to prevent one part of their general environment from getting worse whereas europe was, as usual, acting evasively and hypocritically. As far as the mundi club is concerned, the pendulum has swung - it is no longer the americans who have to be suspected of evading their climate duties but the europeans led, of course, by those masters of viciousness, nastiness, denialism, evasion, and hypocrisy - brutish governments. [22] No wonder hollywood looks to vinnie jones as the archetypal brutish male. No wonder it calls upon brutish actors for films about pathological murderers such as hannibal the cannibal - both films on this demented tory pharmer turned psychologist were played by brutish actors.

The consequence of the years of failure to incorporate cfcs/hfcs, etc, into climate negotiations was the continuing mass manufacture of these chemicals. Far from being phased out, they kept flooding around the world. Third world manufacturers took up the slack from manufacturers in the over-industrialized nations who began winding down their cfc production. The smuggling of cfcs all over the world is now rampant, “A flourishing black market in cfcs has developed. Russia is allowed to use recycled cfcs, but it exports more supposedly recycled cfcs than it has facilities to recycle. Mexico is allowed to manufacture some cfcs which are smuggled across the border into america.” [23] Even worse is that cfcs’ replacement, hcfc, is harmless to stratospheric ozone but a major contributor to global burning. If all of these types of chemicals had been included in climate negotiations from the start, instead of being confined to the isolation of negotiations in the stratospheric ozone layer treaty, then it is much more likely that serious action would have been taken to prevent the emergence of the blackmarket in cfcs.

The americans renewed their efforts to include Reforestation in climate negotiations in the run up to the kyoto climate convention. The europeans continued to oppose this proposal. And again, they jumped onto the (Treeless) moral high ground to denounce america for evading its environmental responsibilities. And, yet again brutish environmentalists in the media lambasted america for failing to live up to its environmental commitments - whatever these were was never mentioned. Europe had no interest in the further widening of climate negotiations - the operative word here being ‘interest’. Easterbrook’s lighthouse was flashing with greater intensity than ever over what the philistines call ‘Carbon sinks’. [25]

The most blatant reason for europeans’ objection to this policy was that whilst america has extensive Forests, conservation areas, and even Wilderness areas, europe has virtually none. Since the start of the industrial revolution, americans have carried out an appalling scale of deforestation and yet they still have extensive Forests. Wolves, Bears, wild Dogs, and large Cats, roam american Wilderness areas whilst virtually all such Wildlife has been decimated in europe. In the early 1990s, when europeans hypocritically demanded that the americans take serious action to combat global burning, they built a major international road through one of the last major Bear habitats on the european continent and the local thug farmers threatened that if the road wasn’t built they’d go out and slaughter the Bears. “Farmers who have been suffering from drought for the past few years fight for a dam project in the Vidrieros valley, part of a mammoth scheme to shunt water to the parched interior. If the government agree, the dam will split up the bears (only 80 individuals in total), rendering the gene pool in the subgroups unviable.” [26] "Spain's last remaining brown bears could disappear altogether if the government decides to give the go-ahead to build a dam in the north of the country." [27] But, it’s hardly surprising there are so few Wilderness areas and so few Wildlife left in europe when it has a massive green movement. The green movement is run primarily by members of the landowning pharming aristocracy which supports organic pharming and adores hunting, shooting, and fishing. It’s leaders consist of lord porritt, lord melchett of greenpeace, and charles windsor and his enormous entourage of green hangers-on. In effect, the green movement in brutland is not much more than a front organization for organic pharmers and, even worse, the countryside alliance. Of course european governments are petrified of including Forests in climate negotiations - they haven’t got any!! Europe’s hypocrisy over this issue is truly astounding.

Europe’s objections to the inclusion of Reforestation were ridiculous scientifically because it is impossible to ignore Forests’ role in determining the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. There should have been no need for america to make a case for the inclusion of Forests and Reforestation in climate negotiations. The onus should be entirely on the planks seeking to exclude them.

If countries’ contribution to both sides of the Carbon spiral are taken into consideration there is likely to be a dramatic change in the league table of countries’ responsibilities for global burning. America’s Carbon status means it would enjoy a considerable reduction in its responsibilities for global burning whilst europe’s Carbon status, especially brutland’s, would mean a dramatic increase in responsibilities for destabilizing the climate, “Densely populated countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, could not grow enough trees to absorb all their present CO₂ emissions, even if every existing hectare was set aside for the purpose. Yet the countries with the worst records of CO₂ pollution, such as the United States, Canada and parts of eastern Europe, do have the land.” [28]

Unfortunately, the figures for countries’ current Carbon status are not available. It is possible that the adoption of current Carbon status for measuring countries’ contribution to global burning would make europe a bigger contributor to global burning than america. It is possible that if britain’s historical Carbon status is taken into account then its contribution to global burning may not be all that different from america’s historical Carbon status. This is not because brutland releases anything like the same level of Carbon emissions as america but because whilst the country hardly absorbs any of its Carbon emissions (1.4%!!!!!!!) america absorbs a far greater proportion.

Of course brutish and european governments didn’t want Reforestation included in climate negotiations. Once again it was the brutish and the europeans who were dragging their feet over this third change in climate negotiations. It has to be suggested that it has been the europeans who have been dragging their feet throughout nearly a decade of climate negotiations. It has to be concluded that they are responsible for the collapse of climate negotiations not the americans - although it would be difficult to discern this from the propaganda written by green journalists. Of course green journalists in this country don’t support the idea of Reforestation. They not merely support organic pharmers who want to chop down the few Forests left this country, they are loyal to the implacable liars in the brutish government. They regard themselves as localists but they’re just the loyal servants of the landowning pharming elite - in many cases they’re part of the brutish state. In addition, they don’t want to be accused of being traitors’ to their country’s material interests by revealing that in terms of countries’ historical Carbon status, brutland could be the world’s biggest contributor to global burning not america. Over the last ten years, climate negotiations have had virtually nothing to do with combating global burning but everything to do with propaganda ploys for placing the blame for this growing geophysiological disaster on the americans. When the collapse of the Earth’s life sustaining processes happens, the country’s landowning pharming elite will still be insisting that it was all the fault of the fossil fuel industries whilst presiding over a Tree countryside and lauding it over a population of zombies riddled with bse and saddled with colossal debts because of the need to subsidize pharmers every time their Animals get a bad cough.

Europe was to blame for wasting huge amounts of time, effort, and resources, over america’s proposal to include methane. Europe was to blame for wasting huge amounts of time, effort, and resources, over america’s proposal to include cfcs in a basketful of greenhouse gases. Europe was to blame for blocking america’s proposal to include Reforestation. In effect, it was europe which was responsible for the failure of the hague conference in 1999 which has put the entire climate negotiation process into jeopardy. If all the time, effort, and resources, that europe devoted to blocking american proposals had been used constructively to reach an agreement to combat global burning, the climate negotiation process wouldn’t be in the complete shambles that it’s in now. It’s the europeans’ fault - especially brutland.

The inclusion of more and more greenhouse gases into the climate negotiation process has led to a major reduction in the gap between america and europe over responsibilities for global burning. This will be even more pronounced if european governments and their putrid green movements stop pretending that Forests have nothing to do with global burning and agree to the inclusion of Forests in climate negotiations.

For the last century or so, america has been the foremost environmental country in the world. It has the most comprehensive and far reaching environmental legislation in the world. It has a vast army of people whose job it is to ensure that these environmental laws are not broken and, if they are, to take the offenders to court, where they are fined or even sent to prison. In comparison to this, europe, and especially brutland, is an Earth-rapists paradise. Europe is dominated by retarded pharming thugs who have opposed every single bit of environmental legislation since the second world war. In britain, pharming thugs even have their own political institution which enables them to obtain vast subsidies to produce disease ridden meat and to veto any environmental legislation which interrupts the flow of these subsidies. Europe is far behind america in every single environmental category, “Yet the united states is the most environmentally conscious nation in the world. Eleven million americans belong to environmental organizations. No other country has such large, well protected and well managed national parks. You can drive for thousands of miles in the eastern states along roads lined with trees on both sides. Nowhere else will people leap so quickly to the defence of an obscure species of bird or gastropod that appears to be threatened. America’s clean air act is rigorous as any in the world and is enforced strictly.” [29] ; “North Americans use more energy and resources per capita than people in any other region. This causes acute problems for the environment and human health. The region has succeeded, however, in reducing many environmental impacts through stricter legislation and improved management. Whilst emissions of many air pollutants have been markedly reduced over the past 20 years, the region is the largest per capita contributor to greenhouse gases, mainly due to high energy consumption. Fuel use is high - in 1995 the average North American used more than 1600 litres of fuel a year (compared to about 330 litres in Europe).” [30] ; “The corporate average fuel efficiency bill (cafe) passed in 1973 in the wake of the sudden increase in the price of middle east oil, resulted in a doubling of the fuel efficiency of american cars. The intention was to reduce urban pollution, not to reduce carbon emissions, but this was one effect.” [31] Take for example the most basic green policy of all, recycling .. “england and wales recycle only 9% of their paper, glass and cans while holland manages to recycle 45% and america 32%.” [32]

The overall environmental record shows that america is the world’s leading environmental nation whilst europe lags far behind in all areas. So, bearing in mind this clear cut difference between the two continents, it is far more likely that it has been europe which has been dragging its feet in climate negotiations not america. If european governments, and their sychophantic agents in their countries’ green movements, stopped faffing around over what environmental laws pharmers might or might not accept, and just adopted all of america’s environmental laws and institutions, this would, of itself, lead to significant reductions in europe’s contribution to global burning.

America’s superiority over europe as regards general environmental legislation suggests that it is the europeans, not the americans, who were the troublemakers blocking policies for combating the destabilization of the climate. Until european governments have emulated america’s environmental legislative achievements, nobody should take them seriously in disputes with america over responsibilities for climate change. This also applies to the green movements in europe as well which, on the whole, pathetically mirror their national governments’ policies. Just what a bunch of pathetic, snivelling, cretinous, retarded, morons dominates europe’s green movements is apparent in the following quote, “Greenpeace’s german, dutch and british offices (the g-3) refused to distribute copies of ‘Beyond UNCED’ a fine pamphlet produced for the rio gathering by greenpeace usa and greenpeace latin america. The g-3, it turned out, strongly objected to its use of “leftist” terms like ‘social equality’ and even ‘democracy’.” [33] This is not to imply that american governments and people are perfect! Far from it. [34]

Europeans’ protests over the inclusion of Forests in climate negotiations are just the same sort of trouble making as their previous protests over the inclusion of methane and cfcs. They are trying to blame america for holding up climate negotiations whilst in reality they are the ones holding up these negotiations in order to protect their material interests and cover up their appalling Earth-wrecking activities. Every time the americans put forward a new proposal for extending climate negotiations so they bear a closer resemblance to the Earth’s Carbon spiral, the europeans, backed up by their decadent green movements, denounce them for wanting to escape their climate obligations. What is really going on here is that europeans are using american ‘intransigence’ to avoid having to do anything over climate change. European governments are getting the pharming loving green movement to back up their bigotry, and then persuading the public to blame the americans. Europeans’ anti-american ideology, which accuses americans of attempting to escape their climate responsibilities, is blatantly an evasion of their own climate responsibilities and a cover up of their own Earth-wrecking activities.

Why shouldn’t america, just like all other countries around the world, be allowed to offset their historical Carbon emissions with the amount of Carbon they have absorbed through their Forests? Brutish environmentalists claim this would be unfair because america has more Forests! The point is that america, and other countries in the same position, should be rewarded for protecting and preserving their Forests whilst brutland, and other countries in the same position, should be punished for chopping down their Forests whenever a pharmer finds another opportunity to squeeze more subsidies out of ‘wastelands’ covered in ancient Trees. The real difference between america and britain is that america makes an effort to clean up its own mess whereas in brutland successive governments force people to wallow in their own mess. Americans recycle a huge proportion of their waste material in comparison to brutland .. “england and wales recycle only 9% of their paper, glass and cans while holland manages to recycle 45% and america 32%.” [35] Americans generate a substantial quantity of energy from waste products unlike in brutland where it’s still dumped in landfills. Up until the mid 1990s this country was still dumping virtually all of its ooman manure into rivers or pumping it two miles out to sea (even in popular seaside resorts) and insisting that there was no scientific evidence that bacteria was ever, ever, ever, ever, washed back onto the shore! If it wasn’t for the european community forcing the shits in the brutish government to change their appalling policies, manure would still be dumped in the same way and there would still be massive 2 mile long turds floating down the humber - the manure used to congeal because of the oil that was also dumped into the river - and the humber used to host speed boat racing competitions!!! The americans recycle their domestic waste products; they recycle their manure waste; they offset Carbon emissions with Forests. The brutish don’t. Keeping Forests and Reforestation out of climate negotiations would reward brutland for its barbaric practices and penalize america for its environmental achievements.

Over the last decade or so, these commentators have presented climate change negotiations to the brutish public in two main ways. Firstly, that americans are without question, far and away, the world’s biggest contributors to the greenhouse effect. As a consequence, any discussion in brutland about climate change takes place on the basis that america is the biggest global burning culprit and that it is america that must take the lead in reducing greenhouse emissions. Even if members of the public don’t know the exact figures for countries’ Carbon emissions they know that america releases far more greenhouse gases than any other country and that it is to blame for global burning. There are NO greens in this country who question this belief. It has become a truism through countless repetition.

Secondly, these brutish environmental commentators have repeatedly blamed america for being the main obstacle in climate negotiations. The americans were the main obstacle to a global agreement over legal commitments for reducing greenhouse gases. Apparently whilst the europeans wanted binding commitments, the americans didn’t. The entire world wants binding commitments - primarily from america. Brutish environmentalists were outraged that such commitments were not made in 1990 nor in 1992, “Most europeans wanted to press ahead with targets and a timetable. But the americans argued against commitments .. it announced reforestation programmes and pointed out that america’s clean air legislation removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. A bloc of industrialized nations formed that stood out against commitments .. juscanz, an acronym formed out of the names of its members: japan, the united states, canada, australia, and new zealand. All are wealthy nations, and all except japan, are large thinly populated areas and profligate in their use of fuel.” [36] At cop 1 in berlin, march-april 1995, environmentalists once again pointed out how the americans resisted demands .. “for new commitments. So far as the u.s. was concerned, there were to be no specific targets or timetables; indeed these words were to be avoided.” [37] However, these environmentalists were pleased when gore managed to reverse the american government’s stance, “It announced a new policy at the next conference of the parties (cop2) in geneva in july 1996. Wirth called for a legally binding agreement to cut emissions after the year 2000. (The geneva declaration) .. instructed delegates to draw up a legally binding protocol setting targets at the next meeting .. (kyoto in december 1997).” [38] They then condemned the american congress’s refusal to ratify the blatantly biased kyoto commitments, “Under the protocol, it has signed up to a reduction (on their 1990 levels) of 12.5% in emissions of six gases by some time between 2008 and 2012.” [39]

The belief in brutland that the failure of climate negotiations has been solely america’s fault implies that the thatcherite/major/blair governments have all been sincere about curbing climate change. Do me a favour!! In 1988, thatcher promised to curb global burning within five years and then forgot about it. Her government, illegally, refused to implement europe’s laws on environmental impact statements. Tony blair has taken up the baton of hypocrisy from thatcher. Shortly before becoming prime minister he stated that the environment would be at “the centre of his government”. Soon after becoming prime minister he stated at a special session of the un general assembly on the fifth anniversary of the rio summit in june 1997, “We in europe have put our cards on the table. It is time for the special pleading to stop and for others to follow suit. If we fail at kyoto we fail our children because the consequences will be felt in their lifetime..” [40] He didn’t say anything more about the environment for three and a half years!!! Then, during the autumn 2000 and winter 2001 he:

* reduced taxes on fuel for motorists;

* agreed to the construction of half a million new homes over the next ten years;

* announced the third set of new motorways;

* agreed to the construction of a new super-jumbo aircraft; and,

* propped up the country’s pharmers, who are by far and away the country’s biggest Earth rapists, with massive subsidies of £6 billion so they could continue devastating the country’s life support system which led to the autumn floods.

He then has the gall to state that he is going to support the environment. The pathological hypocrisy of the blair government encourages him to boast that it is one of the world’s leaders in environmental reforms.

It is possible to understand greens’ bizarrely ironic opposition to Reforestation only by highlighting their material basis e.g. in brutland the green movement is dominated by members of the land-owning pharming aristocracy - of whom charles windsor is primus inter pares. Aristocratic greens want to replace industrialized pharming with organic pharming. The problem is, however, that organic livestock pharming is far more extensive than conventional, intensive, cadaver production, so if it tried to produce the same quantity of cadavers it would decimate what was left of the country’s Forests. Greens denounce the fossil fuel industry for being the cause of global burning in order to protect pharmers who, in the real world, are the biggest cause of global burning. They also try to cover up the fact that if organic pharming replaced the insanity of modern pharming this would decimate what is left of the Earth’s life support system in brutland - not forgetting that organic pharming also justifies carnivorism, hunting, and other aristocratic activities.

The livestock green movement in brutland, has faithfully followed the government’s environmental tactics. Instead of denouncing brutland for being bereft of Forests, Wilderness areas, and Wildlife, they ignore such issues and thereby condone the brutish government’s Earth-wrecking activities and its hypocrisy. The green movement follows the government’s line because its leaders are members of the landowning pharming aristocracy who support the Animal enslavement industry. It’s time the pathetic green movement in brutland started denouncing the true opponents of climate negotiations, the ‘blame somebody else’, ‘free petrol for rural pharmers’, ‘do nothing but collect subsidies’, ‘carry on Earth-wrecking’, pharmers - craggy island’s cretins. [42]

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;

* distributes vast quantities of heat around the globe; and,

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

It has to be suggested that if greens don’t support Reforestation then they are not green - in which case, the sooner that american delegates to climate conferences organize some publicity stunts to expose the ‘greenless greens’ as the frauds they are, the better. Perhaps the best slogan they could use would be something along the lines of ‘The greenless greens demand that the fossil fuel industries carry out environmental assessments of all fossil fuel developments - but they refuse to carry out assessments of their alternative energy policies and organic pharming.’

Greens are petrified about suggesting Reforestation as a means of combatting global burning because

• it would mean demanding wholesale Reforestation in the uk;

• it would mean demanding the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry which is the prime cause of global burning;

• it would mean having to confront the exponential growth in the economy and the ooman population;

• it would mean having to confront the gross inequalities between the over-industrialized nations and the rest of the world.

• it would mean having to confront the gross inequalities in land between the rich and the poor, redistributing land between climate Forests, regional Forests and ooman free Wilderness areas. Some greens own large areas of land but seem reluctant to start the redistribution process.

It is not possible to stabilize the climate through greens’ pifling technological devices nor fossil free futures. It can be done only through wholesale structural changes.

Trying to stabilize the climate by regulating only one particular environmental phenomenon is inevitably going to generate injustices. Where only one environmental phenomena is being regulated, some countries are bound to be at a greater disadvantage than other countries. These injustices will cause those being disadvantaged to reject climate regulations. At best it will prevent strong measures being taken over that phenomena because the stronger the measure the greater the injustice that it generates which means the point will eventually be reached where it is impossible to combat global burning through that measure alone. It is only if all environmental phenomena are regulated that this source of injustices could be avoided. The only way to stabilize the climate is by taking all factors into account and formulating a comprehensive climate treaty. Ten years ago one of the mundi club’s greatest fears was that climate negotiators would keep the climate debate focused on one particular factor - CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels - so we have to thank the americans for forcing climate negotiators to take into account more and more factors.

The legitimate political, and economic, objectives that so-called green protestors hope to achieve through their preoccupation with reductions in CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels can also be achieved through a comprehensive climate treaty which measures all Carbon fluxes. By insisting on an increasing number of factors, the americans are just tightening the noose around their own necks. It is up to greens to tighten the knot.