The Politics of Reforestation.

15: ‘We don’t like Reforestation but if it’s necessary it should be Carried out Equally by all Countries.

Greens’ Proposition.

If countries around the world agreed to carry out Reforestation to reverse global burning then some greens would probably suggest the burden should be shared equally between all countries.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

This may seem a fair and sensible proposition but what it means is that third world countries would have to make the same sacrifices as the over-industrialized countries even though the latter have been primarily responsible for destabilizing the climate.

16: ‘We support Reforestation but only if it takes place in the Third World’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens believe that Reforestation to combat global burning should take place in third world countries.

The Green Proponents.

FoE (Foes of the Earth).

“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.” [79] ,

Worldwatch Institute.

"As noted in the opening of this chapter, two other important components of efforts to slow global warming are the reversal of deforestation, especially in the Third world ..." [80]

The Worldwide Fund for Nature et al.

There is more than a whiff of environmental imperialism in the wwf’s proposition, "In many countries natural forests are so degraded that major investments are needed to restore them in order to prevent massive extinctions of Animals and Plant species. In other countries, especially some amazon basin ones, existing Forest areas are of such global significance for biological diversity and environmental functions that most of the remaining Forest should be maintained in an old-growth or lightly modified state." [81]

Florentin Krause, Wilfrid Bach & Jon Koomey.

Florentin krause, wilfrid bach, and jon koomey, believe that Forests in the over-industrialized world are more important geophysiologically than those in the industrializing/disintegrating world but it doesn’t stop them from supporting this latest form of colonialism. They argue .. "the percentage of the biospheric Carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems outside tropical Forests is about 320-360 btC, or about 60-75% of the global stock. These figures illustrate the critical influence of forest maintenance in the industrialized regions on global climate stabilization." [82] However, in their plan to combat global burning they believe most Carbon should be extracted by tropical Forests. It would seem then that even though the authors know the facts they simply aren't willing to draw the necessary conclusions.

The Ecologists’ Manifesto - ‘Climate Crisis’.

The ecologists’ manifesto ‘Climate Crisis’ includes a plea for Reforestation, “Recognize that the avoidance of serious climate change cannot succeed without the protection of the planet’s natural sinks.” [83] ; “Measures should also be put in place to ensure massive reforestation, while avoiding monoculture plantations of fast-growing exotics where possible.” [84] Unfortunately, these statements are not all that they seem. Prior to the demand for Reforestation, the ecologist makes the following statement, “Hence, take immediate action to stop the continued destruction of the world’s remaining forests, particularly rainforests - critical for the stability of the global climate. At the international level, legally-binding forest protection must be negotiated, even if this requires the provision of compensation to countries that possess the principal standing forests.” [85]

The preoccupation with stopping deforestation in third world countries, as opposed to the over-industrialized world, appears in many guises throughout the ‘Climate Crisis’. For instance, there’s an article about saving the amazon rainforest - but no similar article about saving the taiga or other Forest systems in the over-industrialized world. Why the amazon? Because the effects of deforestation there could have a colossal impact on both america and europe (before rippling around the entire planet). In another article, stewart boyle hankers after some old greenpeace research which also sought to halt tropical deforestation, “Background work for the ffes suggested that a co-ordinated, international effort could halt net tropical deforestation by shortly after 2025, while ‘industrial’ plantations could attain a net sink of 0.57 billion tonnes of carbon per year by 2020. Added to commercial biomass, the net carbon flux would move from net emissions to a net sink around 2020, increasing from 0.5gt of Carbon to as much as 2.31gt in 2100.” [86] Finally, toward the end of ‘Climate Crisis’ a couple of articles argue that priority should be given to stopping deforestation - the green code word for halting deforestation in third world countries.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Environmental colonialism is rife amongst governments in the over-industrialized world and multi-national corporations. Their solution to global burning is for third world countries to plant Forests to soak up as much pollution as the over-industrialized nations wish to dump into the atmosphere and then pay them a pittance for this service. In fact some american free market loonies believe that third world countries should pay the over-industrialized countries for dumping so much Carbon nutrients into the atmosphere because they are fertilizing third world Forests. It is difficult to understand why the work done by economists and cost-benefit analysts is legal whilst that done by prostitutes is not.

Third world governments, however, have refused to buckle under the pressure exerted on them by governments in the over-industrialized world and by greens. And quite right too. Most Reforestation will have to be carried out in the over-industrialized world. If there is a need for Reforestation in the industrializing/disintegrating countries it could be carried out in areas uninhabited as a result of earlier deforestation. For example, there are over 3 million square miles of scrubland in brazil which have still not recovered from the failure of Cattle ranching in the 1880s. Unfortunately, although the over-industrialized countries have so far failed to impose this policy on the third world they haven’t stopped trying to do so.

17: ‘We Can’t support Reforestation because most of it will be Forced on the Third World’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Whilst some greens support Reforestation in third world countries others fear that governments in the over-industrialized world will pressure the industrializing/disintegrating nations into carrying out Reforestation schemes whilst refusing to do anything in their own countries.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposal.

This fear is justified. However, it would be a disaster to dismiss Reforestation just because the rich and powerful are trying to evade their geophysiological responsibilities. The rich and the powerful always do this but this doesn’t mean that all policies affecting them have to be put on hold? Even if the over-industrialized world forces third world countries into carrying out Reforestation schemes, those countries will gain Carbon credits which will be redeemable in the future to alleviate poverty when a more geocentric minded politicians are in power.