Practical Problems of using Reforestation to Combat Global Burning.

10: ‘There’s no such thing as the Fertilization Effect’.

Greens’ Proposition.

When global burning first became a political issue in the late 1980s, right wing denialists dismissed the dangers it posed by suggesting that excessive Carbon in the atmosphere would trigger the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity into absorbing more Carbon. This became known as the fertilization effect - Carbon, after all, was a primary nutrient so it was believed that the more there was of it, the bigger that Plants would grow. It was a little bewildering to find greens criticizing this proposition.

Green Proponents.

Ipcc.

The ipcc believes that although the Carbon fertilization effect will initially combat global burning, eventually it will boost global burning, “Increases in CO₂ can enhance plant productivity, which is assumed to continue at a rate linked to the CO₂ concentration, and is a negative feedback. However the 1994 IPCC report concludes that "when the availability of water and nutrients is taken into account the fertilization effect is likely to be reduced; several model results suggest reduction by around a half".” [65]

Greenpeace.

Greenpeace was the first green organization to dismiss the fertilization effect.

Paul Brown on the Ipcc.

Whether brown is reporting the ipcc’s views exactly or whether he’s putting his own spin on them is not known, “As the intergovernmental panel on climate change set out yesterday, the Earth is warming faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years .. According to the report, nearly all land areas, including northern europe, asia and the united states, will warm faster than average, by as much as 8C. The 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.” [66] There are three important points in this quote which need to be highlighted to indicate the ipcc’s objections to Reforestation. Firstly, that northern lands will warm up faster - it is possible that the ipcc believes this will happen because of the taiga Forests absorbing more heat. Secondly, the warmer the climate weaker the fertilization effect. And, thirdly, given that reducing the burning of Forests will boost global burning the best thing to do would be to carry out wholesale deforestation.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The ipcc is not taking into account the clouds generated by the Taiga forests which should help to cool the Earth rather than to warm it up.

11: ‘Save Peat-Bogs Not Trees’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Oliver rackham, an ecologist, dismisses Reforestation as a means of combating global burning, "Tree planting is supposed to help the cause of conservation in various ways. The most general objective is to take Carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Undeniably, having more Trees will work in the right direction - but to a minute degree. For its practical effect, telling people to plant Trees is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea-levels. Anyone concerned about CO₂ should work at preventing the destruction of peat-bogs." [67]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Peat-bogs may well be a vital part of the Earth’s life support system but then so are Forests - even if oomans have currently diminished their role. Forests are far more important than the insignificant role assigned to them by rackham.

12: ‘There isn’t enough Land available for Reforestation’; ‘We Can’t Carry out Reforestation schemes because much of the Earth is covered in concrete, crap, and crops’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Environmentalists/ecologists join forces with Earth rapists to dismiss Reforestation as a means of combating global burning because they believe that in some Carbon debtor countries there isn’t enough land for new Forests. So much land is buried under concrete, crap, and crops there isn’t enough room for new Forests.

Green Proponents.

FoE (Foes of the Earth).

“In theory at least, forestation would seem to have the potential to absorb significant quantities of Carbon thus helping to offset the greenhouse effect. In practice, however, the situation is quite different. Various estimates have been made of the land area that is potentially available for forestation. It has been suggested that there may be anything between 385-580 million hectares available in the tropics and anything between 100-200 million hectares in temperate latitudes.” [68] This implies the over-industrialized world has covered too much of its land in Earth wrecking activities to have any spare for protecting the Earth. The following quote makes this argument explicitly, "Given the scale of the global climate change problem, questions are raised over the availability of sufficient land for reforestation." [69] Foe’s position is that once Earth-rapist settlers have colonized the land there is nothing that greens can do to eject them.

Hartmut Bossel.

(Talking about the planting of Trees to soak up Carbon emissions). “Brilliant idea, it seems, until someone does the calculations and points out that a young, growing Forest with an area of about 150 kilometres by 150 kilometres would be required to take up the CO₂ emissions of a city of 1 million people. Furthermore, in sustainable Forestry, a Forest consumes just as much CO₂ as is released by its life processes and in the final burning or rotting of its wood products. There is no room to take up additional CO₂ (from a power station) in a sustainable scheme.” [70]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The main reason environmentalists/ecologists dismiss Reforestation is because they know that if it had to be carried out on the basis that all countries balancing their Carbon budgets then most Reforestation would have to take place in the over-industrialized world. Many of these countries have covered such a large part of their land in concrete, crap, and crops, they would be able to carry out Reforestation only by demolishing their Animal enslavement industries and perhaps other parts of their industrial infrastructure. Most greens are puerile reformists who would never propose policies that inhibit a country’s economic growth, let alone contemplate the deconstruction of a country’s industrial infrastructure. As far as they are concerned, solutions to global burning have got to be found without disrupting industrial development, economic growth, capitalist accumulation of wealth, or oomano-imperialism. This is why they’ll still be demanding the recycling of glass bottles even when the Earth’s life support system for oomans burns away - especially since the world terrorist organization has banned the recycling of glass bottles. [71]

It would be easy to find the land for Reforestation in Carbon debtor countries. The vast areas of land currently being devastated by the Animal enslavement industry would provide the bulk of the land needed for Reforestation - assuming that is that the herds of tribo/anarcho/permo/primitivist green land grabbers don’t invade the land with their livestock, beaten-up cars, and gigantic stereo sound systems. It would not be necessary to buy out pharmers to obtain this land. If governments banned the sale of meat because it poses a threat to the stabilization of the climate then vast areas of pastureland would become redundant. It could then be bought up for a very cheap price.

Secondly, in many countries there are vast areas of land which have been expropriated by rich landowners but are currently not being used for agricultural purposes, “In guatemala .. half of the agricultural land, held by the landowning minority, is almost unused.” [72] ; “At least 170 million hectares of farmland lie idle. In brazil 0.8% of the landowners possess 43% of the land, while the 53% of landowners classed as small farmers own between them just 2.7%. While 3.3 million farmers work 19.7 million hectares of land, the 20 largest landlords own 20 million hectares, an area the size of syria. Multinational companies own 36 million hectares of brazilian territory.” [73] What this quote seeks to demonstrate is the availability of land - not that these specific countries are historical Carbon debtors.

Thirdly, there would be even more land available for Reforestation after the expropriation of the world’s biggest landowners. Once again the following countries are used as examples only, “In guatemala, two percent of the population owns 63% of the good land; in el salvador, two percent claims 60%; in zimbabwe, white farmers - less than 1% of the population - command 39%. In the philippines, 3% of landowners control a quarter of the country, most of the good farmland is given over to export crops, and 60% of rural families are either landless or on too little land to feed themselves. In brazil, 0.8% of the landowners own 43% of the land.” [74] There is no way of combating global burning without abolishing the world’s inequalities in land ownership and then redistributing this land for Reforestation, the landless, and for Wildlife.

The assumption underlying this green proposition is that any land covered in concrete, crap, or crops, ought to be excluded from policies to combat global burning. In other words, solutions to global burning have to be found only on land which is currently not being wrecked by oomans - most of which lies in third world countries. The truth of this allegation is easy to establish because greens refuse to discuss the abolition of the Animal enslavement industry even though it is by far the biggest contributor to global burning. It is possible to take greens seriously only when they start advocating the abolition of the Animal enslavement industry and thus the rolling back the oomano-imperialist empire.

Although at first it might seem difficult to find land for Reforestation the fact is that one third of the Earth’s surface is currently used as pastureland by the Animal slavery industry so, globally, there is no shortage of land for Reforestation. The Animal exploitation industry is by far the biggest contributor to global burning. Its products are so ecologically extravagant that consumers in the over-industrialized world have difficulty in appreciating the full extent of such a decadent luxury. For example, the american beef industry is propped up with so many subsidies (which third world governments are not allowed to supply to their pharmers) it is profitable for american pharmers to transport Cows by aeroplane into haiti for fattening and then fly them out again for slaughter whilst millions of haitians scrabble around in utter poverty.

13: ‘We shouldn’t Reforest the Earth because this would be carried out by Multi-national Corporations planting Tree Pharms’.

Greens’ Proposition.

One of the reasons radical greens are antagonistic towards Reforestation as a means of countering global burning, besides the challenge to their oomano-imperialist plans for an organic pharming paradise, and the appalling thought that they might have to take responsibility for something outside their local brewery, is their fear the policy would be commandeered by multi-national corporations planting vast Tree plantations. Indeed, al gore has plugged such an idea.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Under normal market conditions, multi-nationals will never create Tree plantations to store Carbon because their objective is maximizing profits through maximizing the production of Wood not the storage of Carbon. It would not be profitable for multi-national corporations to manage Forests as Carbon stores. Gregg marland has pointed out the conflict between these two objectives, “Forests managed for maximum production contain less Carbon than those managed for maximum biomass.” [75] Multi-national corporations don’t want to store Carbon; they want it incorporated into wood and sold as lumber. Whilst greens are correct to oppose multi-national corporations hijacking proposals for Reforestation they would be wrong to condemn Reforestation for fear of multi-nationals corporations. It is imperative to support Reforestation and then ensure that multi-national corporations are excluded from such projects.

14: ‘We don’t have the Technology to run Tree Plantations’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Greens also criticize multi-national corporations involvement in Reforesting the Earth because they believe these corporations would use all sorts of high technology e.g. genetic engineering, synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, etc. to boost Tree growth on their plantations.

Green Proponents.

Fred Pearce.

Pearce, a supporter of conventional science, likes to point out weaknesses and inadequacies in the assumptions held by the green movement. He does not believe that Reforestation can play any role in combating global burning and takes delight in any proposition that might further diminish the role of Reforestation. His latest suggestion is that the deforestation of mountainous regions does not lead to floods downstream and that the Reforestation of mountainous areas would thus play a questionable role in combating such floods, “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.” [76]

Pearce is able to reach such conclusions quite simply by exposing the inadequacies of commercial Tree plantations and then concluding from this that no type of Reforestation is capable of providing any benefits in combating floods - a conclusion which reveals more about his bigoted attitudes 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. ” [77]

The same denunciation of Tree plantations leading to a dismissal of all Reforestation is found in the following quote even though calder’s argument makes it very clear where the blame for the failure of these projects lies, “And likewise on the Ganges. Anil Agarwal, director of the Centre for Science and the Environment in New Delhi and a leading third world environmentalist, says that the Nepalese are being falsely pilloried for causing floods a thousand kilometres downstream in Bangladesh. "Rivers such as the Ganges naturally produce huge amounts of silt. There is no evidence to believe that ecological solutions like reforestation will control floods." Jack Ives, geographer at the University of California in Davis and editor of the journal Mountain Research and Development, agrees. "After floods, aid agencies queue up to spend money on planting more trees." But it is not clear that deforestation causes increased soil erosion at all in the first place. Calder says recent research suggests that the critical factor for protecting soils from erosion is not the amount of trees but the amount of ground vegetation. Thick scrub or even a crop of wheat is often as good, if not better, than a commercial forest plantation in which weeds and other undergrowth are removed. Says Calder: "It is often the management activities associated with forestry - cultivation, drainage, road construction, soil compaction during logging - which are more likely to influence flood response than the presence or absence of the forests themselves." On the Philippine island of Palawan, logging increased erosion only marginally, "but the conversion of uncut forest to road surface increased erosion by a factor of 260".” [78]

Friends of the Earth.

Foes of the Earth are also dubious about multi-nationals using hi-tech solutions to boost Carbon absorption e.g. genetic engineering to breed super fast growing Trees, "It is also thought that Forestry expertise is insufficiently developed to take full advantage of the natural genetic potential of Tree species through matching particular varieties to local conditions."

Gregg Marland.

Marland encourages multi-nationals to participate in Reforestation schemes by suggesting there is a need to introduce silviculture techniques to boost the rate of Photosynthesis.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Greens’ criticisms of synthetic Reforestation technologies are justified. It has to be suggested that genetic engineering of Trees such as that outlined by foE would not succeed in boosting the amount of Carbon absorbed by Tree plantations. They would make such plantations even more unstable and further undermine the long term storage of Carbon. However, these criticisms do not justify greens in dismissing Reforestation. It has to be suspected that greens’ criticisms of synthetic Reforestation is just an excuse for avoiding the need to give support for natural Reforestation.