The Difficulties of Measuring Carbon Fluxes.

Scientists’ ignorance of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is considerable and their ignorance of the Earth’s Carbon spiral is even worse. [149] Some greens refuse to support Reforestation to combat global burning because they believe that, theoretically, it is not possible to scientifically measure the Earth’s Phytomass; others that there is no practical way of scientifically measuring the Earth’s Phytomass; others suggest there is no way of determining how much Reforestation would be required around the Earth to combat global burning; whilst others argue it is imperative to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity and scientifically prove what Forest cover is needed before any action should be taken. This work has provided the greenless greens with an additional objection to Reforestation - that if it is carried out on an insufficient scale it could boost, rather than reduce, global burning. If the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is not measured, if the scale of Forest cover is not determined, and if Reforestation is not carried out comprehensively enough, then Reforestation could end up boosting global burning.

26: ‘It’s impossible to Measure the Earth’s Carbon Spiral so there is no point in supporting Reforestation.’

Greens’ Proposition.

There are many greens who argue that scientific understanding of the Earth’s Carbon spiral is insufficient to justify Reforestation policies. The greater the demand for wholesale Reforestation, the greater the scientific uncertainty, the greater the project’s risk.

Green Proponents.

Krause, Florentin; Bach, Wilfrid; & Koomey, Jon.

"There remains at this time a significant gap in climatologists' and geophysicists' ability to balance the global carbon cycle budget. The discrepancy between model requirements (climate models treat the biosphere as neutral!!!) and land-use based estimates has led to speculation about additional carbon sinks not presently accounted for." [150]

WWF.

“Scientists have not yet balanced the modern carbon cycle. They know that some 5.5 billion tonnes of CO₂ (measured as Carbon) are released by fossil fuel burning and other industrial emissions. To this they add an estimated 1.6 billion tonnes from deforestation and other land use changes in the tropics. Of this total of 7.1 billion tonnes, some 3.3 billion tonnes remain in the atmosphere, and an estimated 2 billion tonnes are absorbed by the oceans. That leaves 1.8 billion tonnes.” [151]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Pretending that Aircraft Emissions don’t Matter.

There are a great many uncertainties about the Earth’s Carbon spiral. These uncertainties are increased by the fact that governments around the world have agreed not to include measures of aircraft emissions in their national Carbon audits. “Aircraft emissions must be entered into national emission inventories, but this is not so simple - 4% of global aviation fuel is loaded in the UK (third after the USA 41%, and the CIS 16%) a large proportion of the UK total, however, is used by non-UK airlines and travellers. Should this proportion be allocated to the UK carbon inventory?” [152]

What’s True for Reforestation is also True for Carbon Emissions.

Greens argue that because it isn’t possible to measure the Earth’s Carbon spiral then it would be foolhardy to support Reforestation. Others argue that without scientific evidence for Reforestation it would have no scientific validity. The problem is that such arguments also apply to Carbon emissions. It is absurd trying to combat global burning by dealing with only one side of the Carbon spiral. We either try to measure everything or we might as well abandon all global burning policies.

27: ‘It’s impossible to Measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity so there’s no point in supporting Reforestation.’

Greens’ Proposition.

This is a variation of the previous green proposition. Greens argue that if it isn’t possible to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity there can be no scientific validity for Reforestation.

Green Proponents.

Pearce, Fred.

“But there is a host of practical problems with carbon sequestration. Most importantly, there is no way as yet to accurately measure how much carbon is absorbed or released by forests as they grow, die or burn. Even the european union is unsure how much its forests are soaking up. After three years examining satellite images and measuring the flow of CO₂ above 17 forests, the e.u’s best guess is somewhere between 120 and 280 million tonnes a year.” [153]

UNEP.

“Environmental progress and policy effectiveness can be assessed only if quality data are routinely collected through monitoring systems. However, environmental monitoring infrastructure is poorly developed in most countries, making regular production of policy-relevant environmental data and indicators impossible. The situation is being exacerbated by the decline of some existing monitoring systems due to shrinking resources. Earth observations by satellite now provide a means of collecting data for large areas relatively cheaply and uniformly. While this technology will certainly reduce the need for ground measurements, it does not make all direct observations or ground truthing redundant. More importantly, many of the data categories that are needed to draw up policy-relevant assessments - on resource efficiency, impacts on human well-being and suchlike - cannot be detected from space.” [154]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Efforts being made to measure the Earth’s Photosynthesis - the Vegetation index.

It is true that early attempts to measure the Earth’s Phytomass did not succeed in providing satisfactory results but, a group of scientists is compiling a Vegetation index, using satellite data, which should give a better approximation of the scale of the Earth’s terrestrial Photosynthesis .. “the Vegetation index is a universal measure of plant growth.” [155] Satellite imaging systems are able to differentiate various types of vegetation cover, “When tucker and townsend mapped the Vegetation index, season by season, they were able to distinguish broad areas of Rainforest, Grassland and so on, by the density of Vegetation and its seasonal behaviour.” [156] The Vegetation index also makes it possible to measure the influence of Phytomass on the climate, “The Vegetation index turned out to be a prime measure of the influence of Plants in the Earth system.” [157] The Vegetation index could be used to assess the current state of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity.

There’s also another project might be of some use in measuring terrestrial Photosynthesis, “The first current global land cover database with 1 km resolution is now available on the internet at http://edcwww.cr.uysgs.gov/. This provides the most detailed spatial and thematic views of land cover available. The database was produced in three years by a team led by the u.s. geological survey (usgs) .. The project was an activity of the international geosphere biosphere programme.” [158]

Governments’ Efforts to cover up the Truth about their Forest Cover.

Whilst scientific efforts are made to measure global Photosynthesis, the task is made more difficult by governments around the world pressurizing scientists into producing politically conventional conclusions. Firstly, governments’ are inflating the scale of their countries’ Forest cover. They are doing this not to make it seem they are combating global burning but because it enables them to permit higher logging rates under international agreements. [159] As a consequence, many governments claim that an area is covered in Forests even after it has been clear-cut. This claim is made on the basis that they intend the site to be Reforested. But, if Reforestation still hasn’t take place after a few months, a few years, or a few decades, at what point is the land reclassified as 'Treeless?'

The second problem concerns governments’ distinction between Woodlands and Forests. This seems to be a fairly clear distinction, "By 'forests' I mean tree-dominated communities with substantial canopies (by contrast with woodlands which feature much sparser tree cover) ..." [160] ; Woodland is .. “vegetation where the Trees are far enough apart to form only an open canopy.” Whereas Forest is .. “woody Vegetation with a closed canopy.” [161] However, there are difficulties. Firstly, whilst some Foresters might classify an area as a Forest, others might classify it as Woodland. The distinction between the two is not always clear. Secondly, some global institutions, like many countries, refuse to make this distinction primarily because they include Woodlands as Forests in order to pretend there are more Forests for logging, “The FAO Production Yearbook publishes each year figures for the area of forest plus woodland in each country .. (which) .. occupies nearly one third of the world’s land surface.” [162]

Countries are so desperate to prevent public outrage about logging they cover up Forest destruction by classifying not only Woodlands but Grasslands as Forests. The fao is run by the world’s multi-national timber corporations so it is hardly surprising that it seeks to bloat estimates of Forest cover ‘by any means necessary’ e.g. including Woodlands and Grasslands, “According to a UN Food and Agricultural Organization tabulation for 1986 .. 31% (of the Earth’s surface) is in forests, including open forests or savannahs." [163] Estimates of Forest cover are often extended to include not merely Woodlands and Grasslands but Tree plantations, "In preparing assessments of world forest cover, FAO aggregates natural forest with timber plantations but, interestingly, not with plantations of rubber (which are now also used for timber), oil palm or other tree crops. Many people would not consider such plantations to be forests. Nevertheless, plantations may move towards a 'forest state' .." [164] Some of the more cynical, and politically astute, countries, are even starting to include golf courses in their figures for Forests. For example, in brutland some so-called Forests contain leisure centres (‘centre parcs’) complete with massive car parks, tennis courts and golf courses. The brutish government defines areas as green belt even if they are covered in concrete leisure facilities. [165] It is hardly surprising that the estimates of Forest cover given by the eco-nazis running the fao are far higher than those provided by other commentators.

What’s True for Reforestation is also True for Carbon Emissions.

Greens argue that because it isn’t possible to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity then it would be foolhardy to support Reforestation. Once again, such arguments also apply to Carbon emissions. It is absurd trying to combat global burning by dealing with only one side of the Carbon spiral. Whilst it is true that it is currently difficult to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity there is no reason to believe it couldn’t be done if there was sufficient political commitment - the estimates would be rough to start with but over time would become decreasingly less inaccurate. Most of the people who criticize attempts to measure this phenomenon do so either because they oppose all policies on global burning. Greens who criticize attempts to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity do so because they want to keep the focus on reducing Carbon emissions.

28: ‘Even if it’s possible to Measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity we don’t know how much Reforestation is Required to combat Global Burning.’

Greens’ Proposition.

Assume, despite the points made in the above proposition, that it is possible to measure the Earth’s Carbon spiral and the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. Greens argue that even if such information was available it still wouldn’t be possible to determine the scale of the Forest cover needed to combat global burning. It is only when it is possible to understand the way in which the Earth works, and thus the impact that Reforestation would have on the Earth’s climate, that it would be possible to determine how much Reforestation would be required. Without scientific proof of the scale of the Forest cover needed to combat global burning there is no scientific validity for Reforestation.

Green Proponents.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It is true that scientists’ understanding of the way the Earth works is not sufficient at the moment to be able to prove scientifically that what scale of Reforestation would reduce global burning. However, it would be dangerous to take no action on Reforestation until the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity has been measured completely. The advantages of Reforestation are so overwhelming it is imperative to start such a project now, and on as extensive a scale as possible, and use any measurements obtained to fine tune such policies.

29: ‘Even if we could measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity, and knew how much Reforestation was required around the Earth to stabilize the climate, there is no Criterion for determining the proportion of Forest cover which should be planted in each Country around the World’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Greens believe that even if it was possible firstly, to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity and, secondly, to determine the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover to stabilize the climate, it would be impossible to determine how much Reforestation should be carried out in each country.

Green Proponents.

As far as is known, no green has made any proposal for the distribution of the Forests needed to provide the Earth with the Forest cover to reverse global burning.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The collapse of the climate convention talks at the hague in november 2000, after ten years of wrangling, reveals the difficulties involved in negotiations over countries’ reductions in their Carbon emissions. This suggests that determining the scale of Forest cover in each country, that is how much Reforestation is needed or how much more deforestation would be permitted, is likely to prove such a nightmare as to be impossible to resolve. For the last decade, Reforestation has been kept out of climate negotiations and been confined to various global fora where it is discussed as if it were a matter not for science but political negotiation - the wealthiest countries trying to force the weakest countries to increase Reforestation. However, this work proposes that there is a criterion for determining the scale of the Forest cover in each country around the world.

The basis for a global agreement on Reforestation is geophysiological equality in which each country would balance their historical Carbon budgets i.e. the amount of Carbon released into the atmosphere (exported) during the industrial revolution would have to match the amount of Carbon absorbed (imported) during this same period. [166]

The principle of geophysiological equality would remove third world objections to Reforestation because firstly, most of the Reforestation would have to take place in the over-industrialized world. Secondly, it would allow the industrializing/disintegrating world to go on developing until they had abolished poverty in their countries. And, thirdly, the end result would be global economic equality between all countries.

Given that some over-industrialized countries have huge Carbon debts it is likely they would have to dismantle their Animal exploitation industries and a proportion of their industrial infrastructure to make way for new Forests - which, of course, would have the additional benefit of reducing their Carbon emissions. Some industries in the over-industrialized world might relocate to third world countries to take advantage of their Carbon credits, thereby helping to abolish global poverty. Once all countries around the world had balanced their historical Carbon budgets they would all co-exist in a state of geophysiological equality, where poverty had been eradicated and everyone could enjoy a convivial lifestyle. [167]

30: ‘Given that it’s impossible to Measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity and we don’t know how the Earth works, it is not possible to assess whether Climate Convention Reforestation schemes would combat Global Burning.’

Greens’ Proposition.

Greens suspect the difficulties of measuring the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity and understanding the way that Reforestation could combat global burning, means that it is difficult assessing climate convention schemes such as Carbon offsets and the clean development mechanism. They could end up releasing more Carbon into the atmosphere than they absorb.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).

“A recently released study says the provision within the Kyoto Protocol that allows for the creation of carbon sinks to extract carbon from the atmosphere is flawed. The study released by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), entitled Full Carbon Account for Russia, notes that since reductions of the magnitude sought would be difficult to achieve, the Protocol offers countries an alternative: reducing a country's carbon dioxide burden by planting more forests or creating or improving other carbon sinks. However, IIASA's research, which uses Russia as a case study, shows that benefits of the biological sinks cannot be accurately measured. Without the ability to take a full inventory of carbon emissions, countries looking to use the carbon sink provision instead of reducing their emissions may actually be able to increase their net release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, even countries signing the Kyoto Protocol can pump even more carbon into the air, worsening the problem the Protocol seeks to improve. Due to the uncertainties involved, the study says countries joining the treaty will not be able to verify their agreed Kyoto targets currently.” [168] ; “IIASA's research shows that a full carbon accounting (FCA) for a country requires not only highly detailed studies of complex natural and anthropogenic processes and their interactions, but also identification and quantification of the associated uncertainties. Based on its research, IIASA found that the uncertainty range for the estimated total flux balance in 1990 amounts to about 129 percent. The in-depth analyses of the data show that any improvement in Russia's total carbon balance falls completely within this assessed uncertainty range; thus, the uncertainties of the accounts dwarf the changes in the total flux balance well beyond the compliance period mandated by the Kyoto Protocol the authors conclude.” [169]

Kronick, Charlie.

“These (Carbon sink) developments are all the more worrying because, as biologists point out, there is not yet enough data on natural carbon cycling to establish full accounting and verification procedures for sinks. The science simply does not exist to be able to predict exactly how much carbon is being absorbed by a country’s sinks and how long the carbon moving into industrialized forests will actually stay there.” [170]

Pearce, Fred.

“Many conservationists believe that carbon credits could be disastrous for the world’s surviving forests.” [171]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Since the 1997 kyoto climate conference, the american government has been putting forward various proposals for Carbon offset schemes to reduce atmospheric Carbon emissions. The following sections highlight and evaluate such proposals to determine whether they would help to combat global burning.

Carbon Offset Schemes.

Carbon offset schemes involve companies in the rich world buying areas of Forest in poor countries to offset their Carbon emissions. For example, “Thanks to a deal struck by the government (of Costa Rica), american and norwegian businesses are about to pay farmers there to plant forests on their land. The farmers do not even have to produce timber - they just have to let the trees grow.” [172]

Criticisms of Carbon Offset Schemes.

Such schemes are a farce in their current ad hoc format where some companies get involved (often for the sake of publicity rather than combating global burning) but others are not. It is only when all businesses, in all Carbon debtor nations, support Carbon offset schemes that they would play a role in helping to stabilize the climate.

Greens oppose Carbon offset schemes because they will encourage governments to log natural Forests and replace them with Tree plantations, “The United States, Canada, Russia and other countries have been pressing to achieve as much as half their greenhouse gas reductions not at the source but by using "sinks" like forests to remove carbon dioxide. In the last round of talks, which ended last week in Lyon, France, some countries were still seeking treaty language that could allow some new planting to occur on land that was recently cleared of old forest and get credit for greenhouse-gas reductions, said Mr. Gurney, who attended the talks as an observer.” [173] In terms of the Earth’s Carbon spiral this does not make sense - as has been pointed out in green proposition no. 17: ‘Young Trees are More Virile than Mature/Old Trees’. Logging natural Forests would entail the loss of so much Carbon that Tree plantations would recover the Carbon lost only after many decades perhaps even centuries. The reason that governments persist with such plans is because they don’t measure all the Carbon fluxes involved. It should be a requirement that Carbon offset schemes could proceed only after a systematic Carbonomics analysis has been carried out into the proposed changes. If greens had been promoting Reforestation from the start of climate negotiations then the argument about the importance of natural Forests might have been accepted by now and we wouldn’t be in a situation where natural Forests are under threat. It is quite true that global deforestation over the last decade is partially the fault of greens pretending that Forests don’t matter.

Carbon Trading Schemes (Carbon Emissions Trading).

Carbon trading involves companies buying and selling Carbon emissions. Companies which have emitted more Carbon than their allowance can buy Carbon credits from companies which have emitted less than their allowance. The companies buying Carbon credits are usually those in the over-industrialized world but, sometimes they may be in the industrialized world, whilst the companies selling Carbon credits can be either in the same country or abroad.

Criticisms of Carbon Trading Schemes or Carbon Emission Trading.

This scheme could reduce Carbon emissions. It will never, however, stabilize the climate. It is theoretically flawed because it involves money to buy Carbon credits. Such a scheme should not be supported because, firstly, it is not possible for capitalism, a constantly expanding economic system, to buy a stable climate because all the money not used in stabilizing the climate would be used in ways which destabilize the climate - and at present, vastly more money is used on products or services which destabilize the climate than on stabilizing it. Secondly, the scheme is solely concerned with limiting Carbon emissions rather than implementing Reforestation schemes. Overall, however, this scheme does not pose any substantial threat to the Earth’s life sustaining processes. Although it could reduce Carbon emissions there are suspicions it could also be exploited to boost Carbon emissions. Another danger it poses is encouraging the public to think that something is being done to save the planet when it isn’t. But these are not substantial threats to the Earth’s geophysiology. [174] In practice Carbon trading schemes are also open to abuse which would exacerbate global burning rather than combat it.

Joint Implementation Schemes (Clean Development mechanism).

When, in climate negotiations, the over-industrialized nations promoted the idea of joint implementation schemes, they were rejected by the rest of the world. However, after some high level diplomacy, a new scheme was put forward, ‘the clean development mechanism’, which was basically same but contained some superficial differences. As a consequence of these diplomatic niceties, joint implementation schemes can take place only amongst annex 1 countries (the overindustrialized nations) whilst the clean development mechanism enables specific agreements between annex 1 and annex 2 countries (so-called third world countries as represented by the g77).

Jimp/cdm schemes take various forms - some are like Carbon offset schemes whilst others are like Carbon emissions trading schemes. However, jimp/cdm Carbon offset schemes are more accurately described as Carbon replacement schemes. In Carbon offset schemes a country/company buys a specific amount of physical Carbon that has been, or will be, extracted from the atmosphere through Forests or Reforestation. Jimp/cdm schemes, however, entail entirely fictious quantities of Carbon. For example, a company (in any country around the world) proposes to build a power station but, for whatever reason, has to use outdated technologies. Another company (company B) with more advanced technology comes along and offers company A better technology in exchange for a share in the reduction of Carbon emissions over the lifetime of the operation. The amount of Carbon emissions that would have been released by the proposed power station using old technology is roughly estimated and the savings divided between the two companies who can then resell them to other companies around the world. The Carbon that would have been released by the original power station is fictitious and the savings made by building the improved power station are fictitious. The fictitious nature of these schemes means they are completely distinct from Carbon offset schemes and Carbon emissions’ trading.

Criticisms of Jimp/cdm Schemes.

The consequences of creating fictitious estimates of Carbon emissions’ and Carbon credits would be disastrous for combating global burning.

Firstly, jimp/cdm schemes provide companies/countries with an opportunity to make up figures for the amounts of Carbon that have been saved and then using these fictitious savings to justify the construction of other Earth-wrecking activities. The inevitable consequence of jimp/cdm schemes is to encourage companies to propose the use of the cheapest and most polluting technologies from around the world and then find a white knight who has the best technology so they can make the biggest reductions in Carbon emissions. It would encourage companies to threaten to use the most outdated technology and tempt them to exaggerate Carbon reductions as much as possible in order to increase the Carbon credits they can sell to other businesses. The bureaucracy needed to police this farce and prevent such exaggerations would be enormous. The loophole created by jimp/cdm schemes is of massive proportions. It is significant enough to enable companies/countries to escape their responsibilities for combating global burning. There could come a point when a company/country is releasing vast quantities of Carbon emissions which would destabilize the climate and yet are justified by Carbon credits, “Monitoring joint implementation projects encounters another difficulty, and this will apply to much of the clean development mechanism: its basis is counter-factual. If a country builds an efficient gas-fired power station in place of the inefficient coal-fired plant that would have been built there otherwise, it reduces carbon emissions. But who can say by how much? Who can say how inefficient the other plant would have been? A government supplies solar power to a group of developing world villages, thus saving trees that would otherwise have been cut down for firewood. But how much wood would they have gathered if they did not have the solar power? How many trees were saved? Who can decide this?” [175]

Secondly, the introduction of fictious quantities of Carbon would make it impossible to distinguish between real and not-real quantities of Carbon in scientists’ global climate models.

Thirdly, jimp/cdm schemes would provide companies/countries with a justification for polluting the atmosphere when, in geophysiological terms, there is no such justification. Even worse, it is difficult enough at present to persuade people to reduce Carbon emissions but, in the future, if they have in their possession Carbon credits which they have paid for, it would be impossible to persuade them to forgo these ‘credits’ in order to prevent further global burning.

Fourthly, the damage that could be done to the Earth’s life support system by these schemes is considerable since they are not peripheral schemes but the only schemes in which some countries are interested, “Then protocol said that these mechanisms (the clean development mechanism etc) were to be supplemental to domestic reductions in emissions. The us administration is assuming that flex mex can be as large as it wants and the term supplemental can mean anything it wants. If flex-mex is to be totally flexible, with no limit on trading and credits under the clean development mechanism, then western countries could make all of their reductions in other countries, with many of them being phantom reductions. They would buy the quotas possessed by russia and the ukraine because these two countries are now emitting much less carbon than they did in 1990. With no limits at all on flex-mex, the u.s. could pour 20% more Carbon into the atmosphere than it did in 1990, and japan 10% more, buying reduction quotas to fulfil their obligations.” [176]

The introduction of such schemes is the consequence of trying to solve green issues using capitalist marketing methods. It is the invariable consequence of treating the Earth as a global market-place. The Earth is not a market-place and attempts to treat it as such are just going to leave it with ‘sold out’ ‘Bankrupt’ signs all over the world. In economics whilst comparative costs, or discounted prices, are an important financial consideration for commercial companies, comparative Carbon costs are a danger because they enable companies and governments to cover up the damage they are inflicting on the Earth. At some point in the future, governments around the world will announce they have enough Carbon credits to have averted global burning, but this will almost certainly be followed by a collapse in the Earth’s life support system for oomans.

Overall Conclusions.

Greens use the acknowledged difficulties of measuring the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity as a reason for opposing the principle of Reforestation and its practical implementation in Carbon offset schemes. On the other hand, this work hopes that the difficulties of measuring Photosynthesis will be overcome not in order to justify Carbon offset schemes but to justify ambitious Reforestation schemes. Whilst Carbon trading schemes do not pose any great dangers to the climate, jimp/cdm schemes do pose considerable dangers. It is imperative to oppose schemes involving fictitious quantities of Carbon.

Carbon offset schemes have severe geophysiological limitations. However, they also make some positive political contributions.

Firstly, they raise Reforestation as a political issue. They open up considerable opportunities not so much in the practical sense of boosting Reforestation and thus combating global burning but politically, in publicizing the importance of Reforestation in combating global burning. The last ten years of campaigns and conferences over global burning have been a disaster not so much because climate negotiations at the hague ended in failure but because Reforestation schemes have been kept off the political agenda. Ipcc scientists, academic meteorologists, and especially greens, have been responsible for deliberately downplaying this issue. This has been a political disaster of the first order for greens as well as a tragedy for the Earth’s life sustaining processes. Who could possibly have imagined a decade ago, before the start of climate negotiations, that greens, of all people, would have done their best to prevent Reforestation from becoming a political issue? This is a calamity bordering on madness. Sad to say, the american government has to be congratulated for turning Reforestation into a political issue. If it wasn’t for the american government publicizing this issue it would still be a non-issue. The greens have a lot to answer for. Even in terms of their own political advantage, the tactic has been disastrous. Instead of insisting on Reforestation from the very start and setting out the basic parameters about the sorts of Reforestation needed, they just allowed the america government to set the agenda for this debate.

Secondly, Carbon offset schemes encourage all governments around the world to measure the scale of their countries’ Photosynthetic capacity and their Carbon fluxes. They encourage a greater scientific understanding of what is happening to Phytomass. Eventually, this will enable a picture of the Earth’s Carbon spiral to be put together. As ernst-detlef schulze, christian wirth, and martin heimann have stated, “The Kyoto protocol evoked an unprecedented effort in biogeochemical sciences. As nations were asked to verify the anthropogenic contribution to the terrestrial carbon sink at scales ranging from plots to continents ..” [177]

Thirdly, they encourage governments/companies/people to take an interest in, and focus on, the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. its life support system. They encourage governments/companies/people to think about all the Carbon implications of what they are doing. Hopefully this will lead them to make the connection between Forests, the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, the global Carbon spiral, and the Earth’s life support system - which would be a truly staggering breakthrough considering their current oblivion of such connections.

Finally, and most importantly, these schemes should lead governments to the conclusion that the over-industrialized countries are Carbon debtors whilst the industrializing nations are Carbon creditors which should entail the transfer of massive resources from the rich to the poor countries. So, the more emphasis is placed on Carbon offset mechanisms, the more beneficial it could be for industrializing countries. It is essential to exploit the political potential of these policies so that the industrializing countries obtain their historical Carbon credits in order to abolish global poverty. It would be wrong, however, to support Carbon offset schemes solely because of these possible advantages. These advantages are only a consolation of such schemes not a justification for such schemes.

31: ‘We shouldn’t make any decisions about Reforestation until it has been incorporated into the Ipcc’s Climate Models.

Greens’ Proposition.

Greens suggest that it would not be sensible to promote Reforestation when it is not yet possible to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity and when there is a lack of understanding about the way in which the Earth works. Current global climate models do not include the role of Forests in the Earth’s life support system - in fact these climate models don’t even try to model themselves on the Earth’s life support system at all. They incorporate only factors which it is currently practical to measure i.e. the atmosphere and oceans. Some greens argue that Reforestation policies should not be implemented until the ipcc has included the role of Forests in its global climate model which could then be used to formulate Reforestation policies.

Greens Proponents.

Ipcc.

The ipcc has recommended a reduction in Carbon emissions but it has not made a parallel recommendation about the scale of Forest cover needed to stabilize the climate.

Gregg Easterbrook.

“Today’s greenhouse computers do not acknowledge the effects of the living world on climate trends. Current greenhouse models take into account only one biological effect - the negative human action of generating carbon dioxide through combustion.” [178]

Greenpeace.

In the early 1990s, greenpeace dismissed what it called the “comprehensive approach” and “net emissions” concepts, “The continuing uncertainty over the size of the two main sinks for carbon dioxide (the land and the oceans) means that any attempt to quantify the “comprehensive approach” and “net emissions” concepts, as advocated currently by many governments, will be difficult to the point of impossibility.” [179] ; “The idea that excess carbon dioxide can encourage the growth of certain plant species (under glasshouse conditions) has been an argument in some quarters that global warming may in some degree be good for agriculture. Swiss experimenters growing a tropical ecosystem in an elevated carbon dioxide atmosphere now find no significant change in biomass, and carbon emissions from soil. This is a very significant development. It means that any attempt to quantify the “comprehensive approach” and “net emissions” concepts in CO² emission-limitations will be more difficult yet, and in all ultimately likelihood impossible.” [180]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The Vegetation Index.

The scientists compiling measurements of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity in the Vegetation index have designed a computer model of the climate to interpret the data they obtain from satellites. By 1986 piers sellars and his colleagues were feeding the model with vast quantities of information, “Their simple biosphere model takes in conventional weather data and computes changes in leaf temperatures, the rain, and dew wetting the leaves, and the wetness of various layers of soil.” [181] Whilst the Vegetation index could be used to determine the current state of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, the computer model might one day formulate the scale of the Reforestation needed to combat global burning.

The Hadley Centre.

It has recently been pointed out that the brutish met office has also started modelling the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, “The Hadley Centre, part of the Met Office, is one of the world’s leading climate research institutions. It has been developing intricate climate models for many years, with each new model introducing greater complexity than the last. The new model is the first to model feedback effects of climate change on vegetation, soils and the oceans. ” [182] It is far from clear whether it has attempted to model all the factors by which Reforestation influences the climate or whether it is confining itself to just a couple of what it believes are the major factors. Although, as was noted earlier, the hadley centre casts serious doubts about the role of natural Reforestation in combating global burning, these are early days in the met’s climate modelling. In the future, if they are able to assess Forests role in the climate, then they might change their minds about the necessity for Reforestation.

Conclusion

It will take a long while for the ipcc to include the role of Forests and Reforestation in its global climate model but this should not stop the implementation of Reforestation policies. It is never going to be possible to prove the need for Forests until after a geophysiological disaster has occurred.

32: ‘It’s theoretically impossible to Model the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity so it will never be possible to say whether Reforestation would combat Global Burning or not’.

Greens’ Proposition.

The previous proposition argued that Reforestation policies should not be implemented until the ipcc has included the role of Forests in its global climate models. Some greens argue, however, that it is theoretically impossible to measure the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity or model the climate so that it will never be possible to predict Reforestation’s impact on the Earth’s climate.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

This is basically the view that the Earth is a chaotic system which could never be understood. The fact is, however, the Earth didn’t get where it is today after 4 billion years of geolution simply by sheer chance. There are structural elements involved in the way that Photosynthesis has acted to preserve life on Earth which should help to indicate the scale of the Forests needed to combat global burning.

33: ‘It’s too Early to spend Money on Reforestation to combat Global Burning’; ‘There’s got to be Scientific Proof that Reforestation can save the Earth before we Carry out such a Project.’

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens object to Reforestation on the grounds that it is far too early to waste money on large scale Reforestation: there has got to be scientific proof that Reforestation would work before they would even consider supporting such an expensive policy.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It should not be necessary to Prove Scientifically that Global Burning could be Ecocidal.

The implication of this view is that scientists should measure the Earth’s Carbon spiral and its Photosynthetic capacity; model the Earth’s life support system; assess the role of Reforestation on stabilizing the Earth’s climate; determine the scale of the Forest cover needed to combat global burning; determine the scale of Forest cover in each country around the world, and, then, finally, use this information as scientific proof of the case for Reforestation. It is highly likely that by the time these objectives had been reached it would be too late to carry out any Reforestation.

There is ample scientific evidence that global warming exists. It is a natural part of the Earth’s dynamic, interacting system. It is as tangible a phenomena as mountains and oceans. There is also evidence that, over the aeons, the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity has played a vital role in determining the degree of global warming and played an essential, and critical, role in stabilizing the climate. However,

* there is no way of scientifically proving that global burning will cause an ecocidal disaster;

* there is no way of proving what the turning points are that will lead to such a disaster;

* there is no way of proving the scale of the disaster it will cause (on the same scale as an asteroid?);

* there is no way of proving what shape the disaster will take (whether it will be a runaway global burning disaster);

* there is no way of proving how much life will be left on Earth after the disaster is over (some life forms or no life forms?);

* there is no way of proving what conditions will be like on Earth after the disaster is over; and,

* there is no way of proving whether the Earth could returned to some sort of stability after the disaster (a martian or venusian climate?).

Scientists understand a phenomena by dismantling it and then putting it back together again. Scientific proof consist either in predicting a future event or showing how something can be taken apart and then restore to its previous state. In the case of global burning scientists will only fully understand global burning after a global burning disaster. But if no humans are left after the disaster then the opportunities of learning from it will be irrelevant. Proof is of no help to the deceased. Scientific proof that relies on corpses is not merely immoral it could be unscientific in the sense that there might not be anyone left to learn the scientific lessons. Politicians who ask for proof that comes only with corpses are exterminists, nihilists, ecocidalists. If people demand scientific proof that global burning is ecocidal the only scientific answer is that there is no a priori proof which means they have got to make policy decisions about global burning on the basis of common sense not science. Theologians might see this as an important example of humans’ free will to determine their own fate; existentialists might relish the challenge that oomans face in creating their own future in a bleak meaningless universe; grumpy geophysiologists might moan about having to look after a beautiful planet that they were once able to take for granted; whilst geocentrics insist it is imperative to get the eco-nazis out of the cockpit knowing all too well this will never happen.

A Moment of Non-Truth.

The greater the scale of deforestation, the greater the likely increase in climate disasters, the more that greens and Earth rapists argue there is no role for Reforestation in combating such disasters. For the Earth wreckers there is likely to be virtually no gap between the moment they stop arguing ‘there is no such thing as global burning’ and the moment they start arguing ‘it’s too late to do anything about climate change’. For some greens there is likely to be virtually no gap between the moment they stop arguing that Reforestation has a low priority in countering global burning and the moment they start arguing ‘it is too late for Reforestation to do anything about climate change’. This is very much like the political arguments concerning the spread of bse. For over a decade the tory government, not forgetting pharmers, butchers, renderers, and livestock consumers, denied there was the slightest chance that oomans could contract bse from Cattle and yet, in march 1996, within a matter of hours of being forced to admit publicly there were ten victims of bse-cjd, they were arguing the epidemic was now over and there was nothing further to worry about. On the morning of wednesday march 20th 1996, pharmers and tory mps were insisting on the safety of brutish bseef; in the afternoon they admitted there were 10 ooman victims; and in the evening they went back to insisting on the safety of brutish bseef. And consumers ate it!