Greens’ Priorities.

1: ‘Global Burning is Caused by Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels’.

Greens’ Proposition.
Most greens, whether environmentalists or ecologists, believe that global burning is caused by the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels. Thus they argue the best means for combating global burning is through reducing Carbon emissions. They believe that deforestation has a small role in boosting global burning to the extent that Forest fires release vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. However, they dismiss geophysiological solutions such as Reforestation.

Green Proponents.
Ipcc.
The ipcc’s third assessment report says that .. “the burning of fossil fuels is going to be “the dominant influence” on climate in the next century. As the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the ability of plant life on land and in the oceans to soak it up decreases. Other attempts by man to reduce pollution for other reasons are now known to increase global warming. (Ozone depletion allows heat to escape). Stopping acid rain and reducing the burning of forests will also allow more heat to reach the Earth.” [48]

Norman Moss
“The present rate of greenhouse gas emissions is what is changing the climate.” [49]

The Global Commons Institute.
“Although Forests can assist in mitigating the effects of atmospheric Carbon build up, the problem is essentially a fossil-fuel one and must be addressed as such.” [50]

The Ecologist - Simon Retallack.
“It is therefore the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in other words the extent of the accumulation of emissions, which must be focused on (to combat the greenhouse effect).” [51]

The Ecologist - Daphne Wysham.
“What is surprising is that the world bank is doling out billions of dollars a year for fossil fuel projects - the single greatest contributor to climate change.” [52]

The Ecologist - Matthew Spencer.
“The rate and magnitude of global temperature increase are primarily governed by the amount of CO2 or its equivalent concentrated in the atmosphere.” [53]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition: Global Burning is caused by Deforestation Disrupting the Global Carbon Spiral.
Global burning is made up of four phenomena; the greenhouse effect, the Photosynthetic effect, the albedo effect and the heat effect. Whilst the release of Carbon emissions from fossil fuels boosts the greenhouse effect, deforestation boosts global burning through all four factors.


2: ‘The Best way of Reducing Carbon Emissions and thus curbing Global Burning is by using anti-Pollution Technology’.

Greens’ Proposition.
Most greens argue the best means for combating global burning is through reducing Carbon emissions using technological solutions such as pollution abatement, energy conservation, fuel switching, etc. They also support political solutions such as fuel taxes etc. They dismiss geophysiological solutions such as Reforestation.

Green Proponents.
Gregg Easterbrook.
“In greenhouse matters ample opportunities exist for the most important reform: increased efficiency in the use of fossil fuels.” [54]

The Ecologist - Simon Retallack.
He believes it is only a matter of implementing green technologies, “The technology already exists to solve this problem.” [55]

WWF - Nigel Dudley and Adam Markham.
“WWF seeks solutions that will result in the greatest levels of domestic emissions reductions in industrialized nations, while simultaneously providing incentives for forest conservation and protection. However, it is a certainty that forest projects will not be as effective as early action to reduce industrialized nations’ fossil-fuel emissions at source. This means a strongly increased emphasis on energy efficiency and co-generation, a move towards natural gas from oil and coal, the development of low emissions technologies (such as fuel cells) and economic support for renewable energy such as solar and wind power.” [56]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition: Technologies Will never Combat Global Burning.
There are a number of reasons why a technological approach will never combat global burning:-

* Firstly, in many cases pollution reduction technologies do not reduce pollution. All they do is ensure a greater dispersal of pollution e.g. smokestacks. At worst, they increase pollution e.g. catalytic converters.

* Secondly, energy conservation measures cannot reduce overall Carbon emissions because any money saved by conserving energy is spent on other energy consuming products or activities. If individuals increase their domestic energy efficiency they just go out and buy bigger cars. If the world’s biggest Earth-rapist corporations become more energy efficient this enables them to make even bigger profits and invest even more resources in the destruction of the Earth’s life support system. The only circumstances under which energy conservation could work is when the global economy is in recession;

* Thirdly, the money raised through environmental taxes to curb Carbon emissions has to be spent on restoring the Earth’s life support system or it will end up being used to destroy the environment - as was the case with brutland’s fuel tax escalator. A commentator believes the recent fuel tax insurrection in brutland has ended the prospects of any further green taxes, “The protests may not lead to any fuel tax reductions, but they have certainly driven a stake through the heart of any new proposals for British, or indeed European, carbon or energy taxes. This is causing consternation among Britain's environmental organisations, which have long been wedded to the belief that only dramatically higher energy taxes could save the planet from the ravages of climate change. They have praised Brown's green credentials, and relentlessly criticised Blair for his lack of interest in environmental matters. Much of the British environmental movement's political strategy has been based on working with Brown to promote a shift from taxing "goods", such as capital and labour, to taxing "bads", such as pollution and resource consumption. This strategy now lies in ruins. As the public has quite rightly discerned, the fuel duty escalator was always a revenue-raising device. It might have helped to maintain the green fig leaf for this tax had any of the Ł10bn in additional taxes extracted from us actually been spent on the environment.”

* Fourthly, trying to stabilize the climate by regulating only one of the factors causing the destabilization of the climate is inevitably going to generate injustices between countries e.g. why should countries covered with Forests be forced to reduce their Carbon emissions by the same percentage as countries which have burnt down their Forests? These injustices will cause those being disadvantaged to reject climate regulations. At best it will prevent strong measures being taken over that factor because the stronger the measure proposed, the greater the injustice it generates. Eventually the point will be reached where it is impossible to combat global burning through that measure alone. It is only if all the phenomena that affect the climate are regulated that such climatic injustices could be avoided. In other words, the only way to stabilize the climate is by taking into account both sides of the Carbon spiral and formulating a comprehensive approach to the climate i.e. a Carbon budget.

* Finally, even if pollution reduction technologies were successful in reducing overall Carbon emissions, the concentration of atmospheric Carbon could still increase if oomans continued to raze Forests and devastate what is left of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity.

The reliance on technology to combat global burning is not merely inadequate and self defeating, it is dangerous because it gives the public the impression that something significant is being done to combat global burning when it isn’t. It’s just a cover up for further Earth-wrecking activities. The essential means of combating global burning is through increasing the Earth’s Forest cover thereby boosting the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. the Earth’s life support system, i.e. the Earth’s climate stabilization system.


3: Halting Deforestation is the Second Priority for Combating Global Burning: ‘First we stop Carbon Emissions, then Deforestation, then we might put a Few Trees on our Organic Farms’.

Greens’ Proposition.
The greenless greens’ main priority for combating global burning is the introduction of new technologies to reduce Carbon emissions. Their second priority is stopping deforestation.

Green Proponents.
The Worldwatch Institute.
“The worldwatch institute says that before we can even address the possibilities of Reforestation we have to talk about stopping deforestation. In 1988, 25% of the Carbon released into the atmosphere (one to two billion tons of the total 7.66 billion ton emission) was generated by the felling and burning of Forests, mainly in tropical areas. Every ton of Carbon released through burning results in 3.7 tons of Carbon dioxide. Brazil for example, is the fourth largest Carbon dioxide emitter in the world, mainly because of the Carbon released in the deforestation of its tropical Rainforests.” [57]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition: Combating Global Burning by Halting Deforestation is an Example of Green Colonialism.
Greens’ second priority for combating global burning, stopping deforestation, may seem nothing less than common sense. However, it is highly colonialistic.

Firstly, most greens believe that it is imperative to halt deforestation in third world countries as opposed to the over-industrialized nations, (see proposition 11 below).

Secondly, even if greens demanded that deforestation should be halted in every country around the world the policy would remain colonialistic because it would be far more advantageous to the over-industrialized countries, which have already decimated their Forests, than it would be for third world countries, which have protected much of their Forests - albeit they are now rapidly disappearing. In effect, the policy of freezing deforestation at the current point in time, (or even at the scale of deforestation in1990 ) rewards countries which have devastated their Forests whilst punishing those countries who have protected their Forests and who have thus gone helped to protect the Earth’s life support system. This injustice means there is not the slightest hope of persuading third world countries to end deforestation as a means of tackling global burning.

It needs to be recognized that global burning doesn’t pose much of an additional danger to countries already suffocating from the intense heat, storms, and floods, of widescale malnutrition and poverty. The only possible way of convincing third world countries to limit deforestation is through a global agreement based on geophysiological equality in which all countries balance their Carbon budgets. The incentive of such an agreement for third world countries is that it would lead to the abolition of global poverty, land inequalities within each country, and global inequalities between the rich and poor countries. Unfortunately whilst many third world leaders support the abolition of inequalities between the rich and poor countries, they do not support the abolition of inequalities between the rich and poor in their own countries.


4: ‘Reforestation is the Third Priority for Combating Global Burning but it is so Insignificant we can’t be bothered about it’: ‘Of course we support Reforestation. We’ll get around to formulating policies on this issue just as soon a we’ve reversed Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.
The greenless greens’ main priority for combating global burning is reducing Carbon emissions. Their second priority is stopping deforestation. A tiny number of greens believe that Reforestation could help to combat global burning but believe its role would be so minimal they give it their lowest priority. A much greater number of greens believe this option is so risky they could not support it at all whilst a substantial number of greens regard it as a threat not merely to the climate but to their support for organic pharming and the extensification of the Animal slavery industry. Paradoxically, virtually all environmentalists/ecologists support Reforestation but only for the sake of conserving Biodiversity or, in the form of Tree plantations, providing green energy. They object to the accusation that they aren’t interested in Reforestation. They protest, ‘We love Trees, we love Woods, and we love Forests, so how can you argue we don’t support Reforestation?’ Quite easily really. The important point to make is that few greens who support Reforestation as a means of combating global burning and there are no greens who regard Reforestation as their main priority for combating global burning.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition: Greens support Reforestation in Principle not Practice.
It has been pointed out that very few greens support Reforestation for the sake of stabilizing the climate but even those who say they support Reforestation do so in principle only. (The same also applies to those who support Reforestation solely for the sake of Biodiversity). They do not support Reforestation in practice because none of them indicate:-

* the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover needed to counter global burning;

* the proportion of the global Reforestation which should take place in each country around the world; and,

* the particular localities in countries where Forests would be allowed to grow.

Whilst green organizations such as the global commons institute indicate how much Carbon needs to be extracted from the atmosphere to combat global burning and which countries ought to make the reductions in Carbon emissions, they do not make similar indications for Reforestation. Greens love the principle of Reforestation but they’re useless at pinpointing the land on which these principles could come to life.

It might be argued that this is not sufficient proof that greens oppose Reforestation. However, if a Carbonomics’ assessment is carried out of the policies of any green individual or organization it quickly becomes obvious that if all their manifesto policies were implemented there wouldn’t be any room left for Reforestation. They designate so much land for Earth-wrecking activities such as organic pharming, wind pharming, solar power stations i.e. green technological deserts, that physically there is no room left for the growth of new Forests. See for example greenpeace’s fossil free future which has over a billion cars. It has to be concluded that if green organizations don’t have policy commitments in their manifestos laying out how much land would be put aside for global/national/regional Reforestation and WHERE THESE FORESTS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REGROW then, despite all their protestations to the contrary, they cannot be taken seriously about this issue. The only reason that so-called greens protest against this accusation is because it is electorally embarrassing for them to admit they don’t have any policies for Reforestation. No matter how much greens might proclaim their support for Reforestation they’re such a bunch of andi pandi ghandis they could never demand the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry or the digging up of Earth wrecking industries in the Carbon debtor countries in order to make room for Reforestation.

The Greens aren’t green: the Green Earth-Rapists: the Greenless Greens.
The Greens aren’t green for the simple reason that they don’t support Reforestation. They are the greenless greens. They’re Earth-rapists because:-

• They know nothing about how the Earth works - how is it possible to repair the Earth’s life support system when they don’t even know what it is?

• They have no vision of a sustainable planet;

• They have no definition of sustainability - how could they have a definition of sustainability when they have no vision of a sustainable planet?

• They refuse to carry out a Carbonomics analysis of the world’s industries to determine which industries are causing the most geophysiological damage to the Earth’s life sustaining processes. This is because the biggest contributor to the devastation of the Earth’s life support system is the pharming industry and they all support organic pharming;

• They insist that all fossil fuelled industries should carry out environmental impact statements to determine the release of greenhouse gases and yet they do not insist that green/alternative energy industries also assess the amount of damage they are doing to the Earth’s life support system. they are appalling hypocrites with a strong streak of invincibility. Greens believe that because they call themselves green then anything they do must, by definition, be green - which means they don’t have to prove anything they propose. Even if they propose Earth wrecking policies they are still green and the policies are still green. It doesn’t matter to them how much devastation their policies inflict on the Earth’s life support system they keep calling themselves green. No wonder that so many multi-national corporations are calling themselves green when such a title provides them which such an all encompassing rationale for shagging the planet.

• They refuse to carry out a Carbonomics analysis of their own so-called environmental policies because they know that if they did they’d discover the vast amount of damage they would inflicted on the Earth.

To put it colloquially, greens don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re a bunch of frauds posing as serious political activists. The simplest and most essential way of assessing greens’ authenticity is to ask whether they support Reforestation and, if they say they do, then ask what their criteria is for determining the scale of Forest cover in each country around the world. Greens, whether greenpeace, the green party, friends of the Earth, or members of ‘the ecologist’, are a pathetic bunch of snivelling cretins who are incapable of proposing, let alone implementing, any of the geocentric revolutions needed to protect the Earth’s life support system. They are an utter waste of time.


5: ‘Combating Global Burning through Reforestation would Interfere with our plans for Organic Pharming and Protecting Nature Reserves’.

Greens’ Proposition.
The Greens’ Decimation of the Earth’s Life Sustaining Processes.
The fundamental reason why greens are opposed to Reforestation as a means of combating global burning is because when greens get into power they want to replace the intensive Animal slavery industry with an extensive Animal slavery industry which will require even more land than the current 50% of the country which is currently used as pastureland. There is simply no space for Reforestation in the form of climate Forests or regional Wood economies if an organic pharming system is to be created. Paradoxically greens, especially those of the ecologist/conservationist, land-owning aristocratic, charles windsor variety, would impoverishing the country’s geophysiological health in order to promote organic pharming.

Greens also object to Reforestation because of their plans to protect the country’s national parks, countryside parks, game reserves, nature reserves, sites of scientific interest, flood plains, etc. Greens are vehemently opposed to Forests growing in these areas which need to be kept free of Trees.

Greens Protecting National Parks.
Britain has only a handful of national parks. The number of national parks is far smaller than in other countries and the proportion of land put aside for national parks is also smaller than in other countries. Even worse is that britain’s national parks are national parks in name only. They are in fact pharms. One of the most surprising measures taken in the outbreak of foot and mouth subsidy disease in britain in february 2001 was that all the country’s national and countryside parks had to be closed down because most of them contained pharms. Instead of these places remaining open to the public, and thus maintaining rural industries, the parks had to be closed because they are in effect free pastureland for pharmers. Even the country’s biggest national park, dartmoor, had to be closed down because charles windsor has several pharms right in the middle of the park and one of them even managed to contract foot and mouth subsidy disease. What makes this situation even worse is that this could have led to the slaughter not only of all the slave Animals kept on these pharms but all the Wildlife in the park. Pharms are a complete and utter liability to national parks.

Greens Protecting Nature Reserves.
All over the country greens, and green organizations, are intensively managing nature reserves, conservation areas, sites of special scientific interest, etc, to protect unique habitats. The vast majority of these habitats can be preserved only by suppressing the growth of Trees. As a consequence, they possess limited forms of Phytomass which is much less capable of absorbing and retaining rainfall than Woods or Forests.

Greens Protecting Game Reserves.
Greens are also involved in protecting game reserves which, like nature reserves, can be preserved only by suppressing the growth of Trees thus decreasing their ability to extract Carbon from the atmosphere and to retain water. The north york moors, for example, are maintained as Heathland by the aristocratic-conservation-hunting-tribalistic fraternity rather than being allowed to revert back to what they would be if these greens stopped acting like demented oomano-imperialists.

Greens Preserving Sites of Special Scientific Interest i.e. Former Agricultural Habitats.

Many of the country’s nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest are former agricultural habitats or habitats shaped by traditional pharming. Over the millennia, Wildlife adapted to the spread of pharming across the country and many species thrived by specialising to exploit the conditions created by traditional pharming. The reason for the focus on preserving agricultural habitats is that many greens are either pharmers or supporters of organic pharming. They are nostalgic about earlier pharming practices and want to preserve as much of the country’s agricultural traditions as they can. They thus seek to protect pharming habitats not merely for their unique Biodiversity but as a debt of honour to their allies in the natural world. These agricultural nature reserves are like living museums of the conditions associated with traditional farming before small scale farmers were swept away by the onset of modern, industrialized pharming. Today, former pharmer conservationists pharm subsidies from the government to preserve samples of these agricultural habitats with their highly specialized species. However, whilst these conservation sites help to preserve Biodiversity on the brink of extinction, they are virtually bereft of Phytomass so they play virtually no role in combating either global burning or floods.

Flood Plains being used as Meadows.
Virtually all of the country’s flood plains which are free of industrial or housing development have been prevented from returning to their natural state, i.e. Woods or Forests which would be the best means for combating floods, because they are being used as pastureland by pharmers. This pastureland does nothing to countering floods - if anything it makes the floods even worse downstream.

Much of oxford lies in a flood plain. Although a large part of the city’s flood plain has been built on, there are many areas which have been kept free from so-called de-velopment. Unfortunately, these green areas are not in their natural state i.e. Forests which could help to reduce flooding in the city. They are used for grazing slave Animals. The city, and county, councils have a number of green councillors all of whom blame global burning and the floods on Carbon emissions from fossil fuels so they do not advocate Reforesting the city’s flood plains to combat global burning or flooding. They too believe in living in harmony with nature! Quite how they align this belief with disinterest, even opposition, to allowing these area to revert back to their natural state is not known. They prefer instead to support the Animal slavery industry which has produced some of the planet’s most artificial Animals which are able to survive only because they are artificially inseminated by oomans. To most greens, the term ‘natural’ is equated with anything that organic pharmers like to do.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition: Holding Back the Tide of Global Burning.
Paradoxically, many of britain’s so-called ‘nature’ sites are collapsing because global burning is making them less and less viable. Even more paradoxically, is that the greens managing these anachronistic agricultural museums are the same people who are the most vociferous about the need for ‘living in harmony’ with nature!


6: ‘We Can’t support Reforestation because the Land needs to be Covered in Car Parks to Reduce Carbon Emissions’. ‘In order to Reduce the release of Carbon Emissions we need to cover the Land in Car Parks’.

Greens’ Proposition.
The greens trying to curb Carbon emissions believe that one way of preventing cars from releasing pollution when they are driven into city centres is to ban cars from these areas and encourage motorists to park outside the city and use a local bus to reach the city centre. This is the basis of the park and ride system. It is a system in which basically, the Photosynthetic capacity of the land is decimated in order to reduce Carbon emissions.

Oxford’s Park and Ride Schemes.
Oxford’s decimation of the country’s Photosynthesizers doesn’t just stop at the creation of agricultural heritage museums or meadows for Animals which are increasingly creating oomans’ in their own image. The city prides itself on being the originator of the world’s first park and ride scheme. There were so many cars driving into its tiny city centre that something had to be done to stop the city from grinding to a halt. So they started covering the outskirts of the city in tarmac in order to reduce the number of cars coming into the city centre. However, as car numbers continued to rise, more and more park and ride schemes had to be introduced until eventually the only option left was to ban these poisonous mobile incinerators from coming into the city centre. Once greens started being elected to the city council they rapidly associated themselves with these ‘green’ measures. There are currently three park and ride areas in oxford - there would have been a fourth one but during the autumn 2000 floods it disappeared from view so councillors gave up trying to include it in their plans.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.
Sacrificing the Earth’s Life Support System in order to pose as Environmental Heroes.
In the early 1990s green protestors opposed the tory government’s insane road building programme but, having no understanding of how the Earth works and no appreciation of the country’s appalling Carbon status, condoned the construction of green car parks, ‘park and ride’ sites, on the outskirts of cities to reduce traffic going into city centres. They believed global burning is caused solely by the release of Carbon emissions rather than the decimation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity so it was perfectly acceptable for them to sacrifice these life sustaining processes for the sake of reducing Carbon emissions. It is remarkable that greens could be so unscientific and so willing to sacrifice green areas. It has to be asked how greens can call themselves green when they support the destruction of green areas?

Conclusions about Oxford.
The danger of the belief that global burning is caused solely by the release of Carbon emissions is clear from this example - it allows greens to believe they can freely decimate the Earth’s life support system without destabilizing the climate and that they can use the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity to reduce Carbon emissions. They can then parade themselves as environmental heroes for saving when all they are doing is devastating the rapidly deteriorating planet!! The greenless greens are Earth rapists. Greens use the tactic of focusing on reductions in Carbon emissions and condoning the destruction of the Earth’s life sustaining processes firstly to allow pharmers to carry out mass deforestation with impunity and secondly, to allow themselves to create green park and ride schemes so they can be seen as being environmentally friendly to hordes of eco-nazis panzer drivers.


Horizontal Black Line


SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS - Issue 1 - - Issue 2 - - Issue 3 - - Issue 4 - - Issue 5 - - Issue 6 - - Issue 7 - - Issue 8 - - Issue 9 - - Issue 10
Issue 11 - - Issue 12 - - Issue 13 - - Issue 14 - - Issue 15 - - Issue 16 - - Issue 17 - - Issue 18 - - Issue 19 - - Issue 20
Issue 21 - - Issue 22 - - Issue 23 - - Issue 24 - - Issue 25 - - Issue 26 - - Issue 27 - - Issue 28 - - Issue 29 - - Issue 30
Issue 31 - - Issue 32 - - Issue 33 - - Issue 34 - - Issue 35 - - Issue 36 - - Issue 37 - - Issue 38 - - Issue 39 - - Issue 40
MUNDI CLUB HOME AND INTRO PAGES - Mundi Home - - Mundi Intro
JOURNALS - Terra / Terra Firm / Mappa Mundi / Mundimentalist / Doom Doom Doom & Doom / Special Pubs / Carbonomics
TOPICS - Zionism / Earth / Who's Who / FAQs / Planetary News / Bse Epidemic
ABOUT THE MUNDI CLUB - Phil & Pol / List of Pubs / Index of Website / Terminology / Contact Us

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome
to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge
the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.
We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms.
Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk
The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/
1