Miscellaneous Criticisms of Reforestation.

37: ‘We want Countries to ‘Contract and Converge’ - but we ain’t bothered about what happens to the Earth’s Forests’.

Greens’ Proposition.

The strategy of the global commons’ institute (gci) for reducing global Carbon emissions is called ‘contraction and convergence’. It is an important step forward because it endeavours to show how policies designed to combat global burning could help to create an equitable world. There is not the slightest chance of creating a sustainable world in which there is a divide between rich and poor countries. The gci strategy has been explained in the following way, “Effectively this would create a global ‘budget’ of greenhouse gas emissions. Convergence allocates shares in that budget to the emitting nations on the basis of equity. This has three components. First, the budget is global; every country has a share in the atmosphere and any treaty that allocates its absorptive capacity only to a selection of countries effectively deprives the others. Second, the current situation whereby allocations are generally proportional to wealth would cease. Third, allocations should converge over time to a position where entitlements are proportional to population. No inflation of national budgets in response to rising populations would be permitted after an agreed set date.” [216]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

There are a number of criticisms which could be made of the gci’s strategy for stabilizing the climate and creating an equitable world.

Firstly, it is based solely on equitable per capita emissions. It does not entail any element of Reforestation. It is hardly surprising, then, that the word Reforestation is rarely mentioned in articles explaining this theory. The theory has nothing to say about the Earth’s life support system.

Secondly, it is a-historical. It ignores the massive Carbon debts the over-industrialized nations owe to the industrializing world for stabilizing the climate during the industrial revolution.

Thirdly, it is yet another anthropogenic theory which gives oomans emissions’ rights but not Animals. It makes no proposals for creating Wilderness areas. It is concerned solely with ooman welfare not the welfare of Wildlife or the Earth. ‘Contraction and convergence’ is a transparently planetless, oomano-imperialist theory. It is a theory pursued by Earth rapists claiming to be green.

In the past, the fact that ‘contraction and convergence’ did not feature Reforestation (Biodiversity and the Earth) wasn’t of any political significance. It was just one of many narrow minded, second rate green theories floating around the green movement. However, over the years it has attracted the support of an increasing number of individuals and organizations thereby turning it into a political issue. The theory’s indifference to the Earth’s life sustaining processes has become much more serious.

38: ‘We Can’t Reforest the Earth because there wouldn’t be anywhere to store the Wood’; ‘What are we Going to do with all of this Wood?’

Greens’ Proposition.

A variation on the green whinge that ‘there isn’t enough land’ for Reforestation is the green proposition that a reliance on the continual harvesting of new Tree plantations would produce so much Wood there wouldn’t be enough uses for it. What is the point of massive Tree plantations when it produces too much Wood?

Green Proponents.

Fred Pearce.

“So to keep removing Carbon from the atmosphere the Forests would need to be harvested and, most important, some permanent use must be found for the wood.” [217]

Edward I Newman.

“If Carbon is to be removed from the atmosphere year by year on a long term basis, we should need to establish Carbon-sink plantations, harvest them while they are still growing actively, replant the site, and store the harvested wood permanently so that it does not rot (since that would return CO₂ to the atmosphere). This storage would be a formidable activity. It has been estimated (Vitousek 1991) that the total amount of Carbon stored in all cut timber, worldwide, in use in houses, furniture, fences, etc., plus wood products such as paper, is 4-5 gtons. This is about equal to a year’s release of Carbon from burning fossil fuels. Therefore we would need to add to the world’s Carbon sink store an amount of wood equal to the present total; and this wood has to be stored for ever." [218]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It shows the depths of greens’ opposition to Reforestation when they fear it might produce too many resources! In the history of ooman civilization there are few societies which have had the luxury of protesting that they suffer from a surplus of resources. In the 1970s environmentalists were worried about the ‘just over the horizon’ shortage of raw materials and yet here they are now deploring the prospect of excessive Wood resources deriving from Tree plantations. They don’t know what to do with all of these resources! They make it sound as if Wood is a highly dangerous waste product like spent nuclear fuel rods! It has thus been suggested that if uses for the Wood can’t be found then it would have to be buried in deep underground chambers to prevent the Carbon from seeping back into the atmosphere.

A number of criticisms could be made of this green proposition. Firstly, it is a fantasy to believe that Tree plantations could continually produce such vast quantities of Wood resources that much of it would be surplus to requirements. Over time they would become more and more inefficient producing fewer and fewer quantities of Wood. Wood is an important raw material which could even be concerted into a vast range of plastics thereby widening the scale of its possible long term uses. Secondly, the first criticism is useful for making a point about the inefficiency of Tree plantations but it is irrelevant to the major criticisms of this proposition because the critical point is that the Reforestation carried out to combat global burning would not be in the form of Tree Plantations but natural Forests and they would not be used to produce any resources. Stabilizing the climate requires Natural Forests, otherwise called Climate Forests, which would be left undisturbed to maximize their storage of Carbon. Natural Forests lock up Carbon in the form of Trees, Animals, soils, and, roots and lock up far more Carbon than Tree plantations. Thirdly, the reason that commentators suggest that Tree plantations would continually need to be logged is because of the erroneous belief that once Forests reach maturity they become Carbon neutral.

Fourthly, on a sustainable planet people would live in regions and would obtain renewable resources from Forests. This means the resources they would have to live on would be neither negligible nor abundant. The quantity of resources they would have available for their use would be nothing like that envisaged by the Tree plantation fantasy. In regional wood economies the reliance on wood, a renewable form of energy, would replace the use of fossil fuel energy and prevent the installation of Earth-wrecking, alternative sources of energy. Fossil fuels would be banned except during periods of global cooling when its use would help to boost global temperatures and thus stabilize the climate. Many of the materials that had previously been derived from fossil fuels could be produced from Phytomass resources.

Greens are opposed to Reforestation as a means of averting global burning so it is not surprising they use the Tree plantation/excessive resources issue as an easy sound-bite excuse for dismissing a natural means for stabilizing the climate. Of all the greens’ propositions for dismissing Reforestation that have been discussed in this work this is one of the most trite and fictitious. It is important to appreciate that greens’ opposition to Reforestation reveals their opposition to renewable forms of energy. Greens prefer to support geophysiologically damaging forms of energy such as alternative energy.

39: ‘Reforestation would provide so much energy it would boost Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens oppose Reforestation because they believe it entails covering the Earth in Tree plantations which would produce vast quantities of alternative energy. This is a variation on the ‘Reforestation would produce too much wood’ scenario outlined above. However, whereas in the previous proposition the assumption was that wood was not used, in this proposition the assumption is that the wood would be used to generate alternative energy which would then cause widescale pollution thereby exacerbating global burning.

Green Proponents.

Renew.

“In fact, far from being a conveniently limited resource, which could perhaps define a sustainable society, biomass is probably one of the largest potential renewable sources. At the 4th international wood fuel conference last year (see renew 111) roger booth noted that ‘the total chemical energy stored in new (biomass) growth is over 5 times the current global demand for energy’ and he predicted that ‘by 2050 biomass could be supplying more energy to meet the global demand for primary energy than coal is today’.” [219]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Greens’ opposition to Reforestation on the grounds that it means not merely global Tree plantations but global pollution is bizarre since the whole point of restoring the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is to extract Carbon from the atmosphere rather than using it to provide energy which would push Carbon back into the atmosphere. It is true that if the Phytomass generated around the world in one year could be collected together and used as energy this would provide a substantial amount of energy. Some commentators estimate that global Photosynthesis produces 2,3,4 or 5 times current global energy consumption. Edward newman estimates it is ten times greater than current energy consumption .. .. “to replace the whole of our present fossil fuel use by biomass would require only about 10% of the world’s net primary productivity.” [220] But even if the global community was determined to use every ounce of Phytomass produced each year, it would not be possible to do so because the energy expended in collecting Phytomass from around the Earth would be too great. In effect the Phytomass that is available for oomans to use is only a fraction of annual Photosynthesis.

The proposition that Reforesting the Earth would cause global pollution and provoke global burning is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no intention of covering the Earth with Tree plantations. Secondly, there is no intention of Reforesting the whole Earth even with natural Forests. Thirdly, the areas Reforested to act as climate Forests to stabilize the climate would be used to store Carbon not to provide energy - it would be self-defeating to use climate Forests as a source of energy. Finally, whilst roughly one third of the Earth’s terrestrial habitats would be Reforested and used as climate Forests from which no resources would be used, another third would be put aside for Wildlife as ooman-free Wilderness areas; and the last third would become regional Forests from which oomans would be able to provide themselves with the resources they need to survive on a sustainable planet. As has been stated above, regional Forests would provide energy which would be neither abundant nor negligible.

40: ‘We don’t need Forests to Sequester Carbon’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens argue that if Carbon pollution could be collected and stored in former oil/gas fields then no Reforestation would be necessary at all.

Green Proponents.

Brutish Government.

“Geological storage of carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs is the most developed of any novel sequestration option and currently offers the greatest potential. Removal of carbon dioxide from flue gases followed by engineered disposal in geological formations is a technique currently used by the oil industry to enhance oil recovery from depleted reservoirs and promote methane production from coal beds that cannot be mined.” [221]

Renew.

Renew has highlighted schemes for Carbon burial, “Current favourites for storage as compressed gas are in depleted oil and natural gas fields and deep aquifers. However, there are limits to the space available. For example one fairly optimistic estimate for oil fields was that they could take up to 100gtonnes of Carbon (gtC), while gas fields might take 400gtC. A more pessimistic set of figures (from the ipcc) is 40gtC for oil and 20gtC for gas. The prospects of aquifer storage are not any better (50gtC) unless we use ‘open’ aquifers - which would not provide such secure storage. But the storage potential for the latter is very large, 14,000gtC according to rh williams. He links the idea of Carbon storage with the use of fuel cells (in which hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels). .. he argues that when you convert fossil fuels into hydrogen it is much easier to collect the carbon dioxide produced than when you burn them to generate heat and then power. “If the H₂ is produced in a large, centralized, production facility, the cost of separating the CO₂ can be relatively modest. It has been estimated that for a large plant (e.g. one large enough to support about 2 million fuel cell cars) these costs would add, with current technology, 23% and 28% to the cost of producing H₂ with CO₂ venting, for natural gas and coal feedstocks respectively, for a case where the CO₂ is stored in a depleted natural gas field some 70km from the H₂ production site.” By comparison he quotes the cost of CO₂ recovery and sequestration from conventional combustion plants as 50-75% extra. Williams does admit that renewable energy sources could also supply hydrogen by electrolysis, but he suggests that “until fossil fuel prices are much higher than at present, electrolytic H₂ will be much more costly than fossil fuel-derived H₂, except where low cost off-peak hydroelectric power is available - supplies of which are very limited.” But he omits to say that there would be no Carbon dioxide production and sequestration costs associated with the use of renewable resources for hydrogen generation.” [222]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Renew.

‘Renew’ is a magazine covering developments in, and the promotion of, alternative energy. It highlights green technologies for solving the world’s environmental problems. However, it is disinterested in carrying out a geophysiological analysis of the consequences of such forms of energy. Like most academic politics, it is full of politically conventional bigotry dressed up as objective impartiality. It seems to believe it is imperative to get the new (alternative) energy systems in place around the world and then clear up any problems, assumed to be negligible, after the event. It is almost as if it is so confident that alternative energy involves minimal environmental costs, that it believes it doesn’t have to carry out an environmental analysis of its proposals. This is what common sense would call ideological bigotry. It is an attitude which is common amongst greens. Greens are so self righteous they cannot take seriously any criticisms of their ideology. What has happened here is that greens’ goal of creating a sustainable planet has given way to a total preoccupation with the means for achieving this goal. As far as greens are concerned it is a foregone conclusion that switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy is the only route leading to the creation of a sustainable planet. Most of them have no vision of a sustainable planet - they just believe that if they use alternative energy then this will automatically bring about a sustainable planet - which of course it won’t. The only outcome that alternative energy is likely to produce is to reinforce the nature of a fossil fuelled society but without the fossil fuels. As has just been noted, ‘renew’ also highlights technological schemes for Carbon storage.

In recent times, however, ‘renew’ has started to realize the limitations of alternative energy - unlike the cretinous greenless greens. It has started to reflect on the issue of limits not merely to fossil fuels but to alternative energy, “In principle, renewables could eventually support perhaps twice the current level of world energy use. There may thus be some room left for growth, which means that the developing world could get access to their fair share of energy resources. However, there are obviously limits to growth - and they may be reached long before we have doubled energy use - for example, there could be environmental reasons why we might not want, or be able, to go that far.” [223] ; .. “what we now need are some detailed assessments of the limits (of the Earth’s carrying capacity).” [224] Unfortunately, it has not yet pointed out what form these limits would take, nor the level or scale of the limits, nor the implications this would have for the popularization of alternative energy.

Unlike most greens, ‘renew’ does not “scorn” the idea of Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. However, it turns the table on those advocating Reforestation by suggesting there is a limit to this tactic, “While this sounds sensible (creating new Forests to combat global burning), there are limits to what can be done by reafforestation. The scale of reafforestation that would have to be undertaken to make a serious impact on Carbon dioxide levels would be vast. However, the question arises - is this the best way to deal with storing or ‘sequestering’ carbon dioxide?” [225] This is a little odd considering that, at present, deforestation is an overwhelmingly greater problem than Reforestation. So, just as Reforestation seems to be getting some reluctant support it is being undermined by calls for techno-sequestration. Since renew has not carried out a geophysiological analysis of techno-sequestration, the following section will explore the basic features of such an analysis.

Techno-Carbon Sequestration.

In the following, assume that it is technologically and economically feasible to store Carbon in former oil/gasfields. These extreme assumptions make it possible to tease out any dangers involved in techno-Carbon Sequestration in as stark a way as possible. Imagine that all industries around the world could collect their Carbon emissions, dump them into the nearest convenient underground hole, and then forget about them. This would, at a stroke, reduce the greenhouse effect. After a decade of incessant worries about Carbon emissions’ triggering off global burning, oomans around the world would no longer have to bother about this problem. The consequence of this pollution free paradise, which greens like greenpeace call a fossil free scenario, would be a stampede of new industrial and construction developments which would accelerate the damage that has already been inflicted on the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. Once politicians/industrialists/greens no longer have to fear their Carbon emissions will boost the greenhouse effect, the biggest obstacle to their colonization of the Earth’s remaining Forests would disappear - the last obstacles to further industrialization would be medicinal e.g. the possibility that drugs could be extracted from the Biodiversity living in Forests or, aesthetics, i.e. where Forests are looked on as mere decoration for the environment - like a christmas Tree in a consumer’s living room. The consequence of accelerated industrial de-velopment would be increased deforestation. If Forests were burnt down to make way for the new factories/housing estates this would increase greenhouse gas emissions - after all, it’s one thing to be able to collect Carbon emissions from industrial smokestacks but it would be much more difficult to do this for Forest fires. However, let’s say these eco-nazis were of a less unenlightened nature so that, instead of burning the Forests, they chopped down the Trees and burnt the wood in alternative energy generators, collected the Carbon emissions and then buried it deep underground. This would prevent a rise in the greenhouse effect.

In this alternative green paradise, industrialists would be free to roam the Earth boosting economic de-velopment without any worries about releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is possible that the concentration of atmospheric Carbon may fall over time. Unfortunately, however, global temperatures would go on rising. The destruction of Forests would reduce the Photosynthetic effect which would make it more difficult to extract the Carbon that was in the atmosphere. However since massive quantities of Carbon would no longer be dumped into the atmosphere, this would not be as critical an issue as it is at the moment. Of much greater significance, however, is that deforestation would also reduce the Earth’s albedo and heat effects. The deforested land would have a lower albedo effect than the Forest which would boost global burning. Without Forests there would also be a reduction in cloud cover which would decrease the Earth’s albedo effect. In addition, the buildings which replaced the Forests would further decrease the Earth’s albedo. Without Forests the heat effect would no longer push so much heat into the atmosphere. The overall impacts of these phenomena would be significant global warming. The world would soon be back to where it was before it implemented the technological solution that was supposed to permanently solve the greenhouse problem. As the mundi club has continually pointed out, reducing the greenhouse effect is irrelevant if deforestation continues because deforestation boosts global burning.

Even the most casual of geophysiological analysis of techno-Carbon sequestration reveals it could be a major geophysiological disaster - the greater the technological storage of Carbon, the more profound the disaster. The geophysiological implications of Carbon storage are so blatant it has to be wondered why such schemes continue to be given any publicity. This imaginary example of perfect techno-Carbon sequestration illustrates clearly that the greenhouse effect (the release of Carbon emissions) is not the same as global burning. The two are so distinct that reductions in the greenhouse effect may even boost global burning.

In the real world techno-Carbon sequestration would be nothing like as efficient as in the extreme example just outlined. There will be huge energy losses and thus Carbon pollution resulting from attempts to collect, process and dispose of Carbon. A Carbonomics analysis would also involve exploring the mining, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal, of the materials used to create, and maintain, Carbon dumps not merely the release of Carbon emissions but the amount of land that would be damaged or suffocated. It would also be imperative to assess the deforestation that is likely to take place if industrialists around the world no longer had to bother about their Carbon emissions. If Carbon dumps are to be established around the world and become as common as litter bins then a thorough study of the geophysiological implications of this policy needs to be drawn up. However, at present, there is not the slightest indication that greens are willing to do this.

41: ‘Global Burning won’t pose a Threat once the Forests have gone’.

Greens’ Proposition.

The criticism of techno-Carbon sequestration conjured up an image of a planet which could be scalped of its Forest cover because there was no need to worry about the release of Carbon emissions. The implication was that a scalped and barren Earth would trigger off global burning. However, some greens disagree. As surprising as it might seem some greens will be glad to see the back of the Earth’s Forests because they are seen as being nothing but environmental trouble - Forest fires releasing vast amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere; old Forests releasing Carbon as the decay; and respiration boosting global burning at exactly the wrong time i.e. when global temperatures are rising. Like most Earth rapist loonies around the world they believe that Forests are the world’s biggest polluters so that, quite obviously, the sooner they’ve been eradicated the less pollution they will release into the atmosphere, the safer it will be for the green eco-nazis to continue shagging the planet. No wonder most of these lunatics live in brutland whose environment closely resembles that of a frying pan covered in lard from the Animal exploitation industry.

Green Proponents.

The WWF

The worldwide fund for nature points out that once all Forests have been burnt down then the terrestrial biosphere would no longer contribute to the greenhouse effect, "The contribution of forests to global warming is growing, as the rate of tropical deforestation is now estimated to have reached at least 17 million hectares per year. Yet towards the end of the century, and into the first decades of the next, this rate will drop dramatically if forest resources continue to be depleted, and many nations, such as Thailand, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, the Philippines and Costa Rica are reduced to having virtually no forest outside protected areas. If there is no forest left to burn, then there will be no significant contribution to greenhouse warming." [226]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It is quite true that once the Forests have gone they will no longer boost the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, as was highlighted in the last green proposition, the greenhouse effect is not the same as global burning. Global burning is made of four phenomena, the greenhouse effect, the Photosynthetic effect, the albedo effect, and the heat effect. Forests contribute to global burning through all four of these effects. The destruction of Forests will certainly end their contribution to the greenhouse effect and the Photosynthetic effect but it will also involve changes to the other two factors influencing the climate. The eradication of Forests would reduce the formation of clouds causing a decrease in the Earth’s albedo effect, thereby boosting global burning. The wwf is right to argue that the eradication of all Forests on Earth would mean the greenhouse effect couldn’t get any worse but it completely fails to acknowledge that such devastation would accelerate the momentum of global burning. The destruction of a significant portion of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, its life support system, would boost the momentum of global burning and have a catastrophic impact on oomans and all other life forms.

It is dangerous for greens to protest solely about Carbon emissions (i.e. the greenhouse effect). This tactic ignores the influences on global burning of the Earth’s Photosynthetic effect, the albedo effect, and the heat effect. Destroy the Earth’s Forests and this will certainly lead to a reduction in Carbon emissions but, overall, it is also likely to lead to an increase in global temperatures. What is so amazing about greens is that they are so ungreen they make non-greens like gregg easterbrook seem green. How is it that someone like easterbrook can perceive the simple point that zero emissions could be a threat when they can’t? .. “a zero-pollution economy might actually represent a bigger threat to the land, since once genus homo can expand without causing gross ecological harm, the guilty conscience will no longer be a restraining influence.” [227]

Since life first emerged on Earth, the surface of the Earth has been coated with living systems. Over the last few hundred million years, this has been primarily in the form of Forests. The role of this coating of life on Earth is to cool global temperatures as the sun gets hotter and hotter. When oomans burn, slaughter, and torch, these living systems off the surface of the Earth and replace them with dead, or at best comatose, systems such as concrete, crap, and crops (which includes pastureland) all this does is boost global burning. Oomans are supposed to be the most intelligent creatures on Earth and yet they do not know the first thing about living on this planet. The sooner this garbage is gone the better. [228] The only hope is that oomans might disappear before they trigger off an irreversible form of global burning which will leave the planet with a climate like that on venus. Without the parasol of life on Earth, the planet’s global temperatures will move into triple figures. In contradistinction to the impression given by the ipcc scientists who talk about a planet without global warming, the Earth’s natural state is not the cold of outer space but the boiling temperatures of venus. Sure, there will be sadness at the loss of some incredible ooman culture but, overall it’s not enough to sacrifice the wonders and beauty of a four billion year old living system. Oomans will have proved themselves to be eco-nazis and the sooner they recognize this, the better their chances of surviving.

42: ‘Reforestation is an act of Planetary Managerialism whereas Reducing Carbon Emissions is not’.

Greens’ Proposition.

The forty second reason that environmentalists have concocted for opposing Reforestation as a means of combating global burning (who says the greenless greens aren’t dedicated to their task of shagging the Earth?) is that it is an example of planetary ‘managerialism’. Yes indeed, what a devastating critique this is - if only anyone knew what it meant.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The main proponent of this view is peter bunyard. In his book, ‘The Breakdown of the Climate’ bunyard provides some hints about his opposition to Reforestation. Firstly, the fear that the Reforestation of the boreal Forests would boost global burning, “Richard betts from the hadley centre (suggests) more vigorous growth in high latitude, boreal regions (as a result of the increasing concentrations of Carbon dioxide) can accentuate warming by brining about earlier snow melts, thus exposing the leaf-darkened surface to the sun. Should global warming cause the northwards spread of conifer forests that will bring about more warming.” [229] Unfortunately, this conclusion is reached solely on the basis of an analysis of the flux of Carbon emissions. This fails to take into account the roles played by the albedo, and heat, effects.

Bunyard’s most explicit statement against Reforestation is dressed up as a dismissal of Tree plantations. In a section discussing the way that life on Earth unconsciously regulates the climate he states, “For many it goes against the grain that unconscious life may be effective in generating a workable system of regulation on a global scale. That would diminish our claim that we know better than Nature and that through our knowledge we can manage the system intelligently rather than leaving it to haphazard forces. Are we not now managing the ozone hole by limiting the use of certain chemicals, or on our way to managing greenhouse gases, by planting forests of carbon-mopping trees, like plantations of monteray pine down the length and breadth of new zealand’s north island.” [230] This is one of the oldest tricks in greens’ encyclopaedia of ‘Basic Green Deceptions for Avoiding any mention of Reforestation’ i.e. pretend they’re only criticizing Tree plantations and then at the very end add that the same arguments also apply to natural Reforestation. The most obvious reason why greens won’t promote Reforestation is because of their social embarrassment about being regarded as Tree lovers.

In the last paragraph of his book, bunyard reiterates his opposition to Reforestation, “Certainly climate change is teaching us some crucial lessons. One is that we cannot predict the future of climate, we can only guess it. That conclusion makes it glaringly obvious that we should disabuse ourselves of any notions that we can manage the climate. Management of climate will emerge quite naturally from a world in which communities, rather than states or corporations, become responsible again for their lands and for seeing that they are maintained in a good state. (Can you believe this nonsense??? If multinational corporations made such a statement greens would ridicule them). We need to learn how to manage ourselves and our relationship with our environment.” [231]

Bunyard’s anti-managerialism is inconsistent. In contrast to the absence of any discussion of Reforestation, he devotes a considerable amount of space in his book to the views of his chums in the global commons institute (gci) who demand reductions in Carbon emissions to bring about a stable climate. What this suggests is that whilst he opposes recommendations for an increase in natural Forest cover because he believes it involves managerialism, he supports recommendations for reductions in greenhouses gases because he believes this does not involve managerialism ....... This is illogical. Why is the reduction of Carbon emissions an example of non-managerialism whilst Reforestation is a gross manifestation of managerialism? He supports a global Carbon emissions budget because it is non-managerialist but says nothing about a global Carbon budget, which promotes Reforestation, because presumably Reforestation is managerialist. Even weirder is that bunyard believes that reducing emissions of cfcs is a type of managerialism, “Are we not now managing the ozone hole by limiting the use of certain chemicals ..?” but reducing Carbon emissions is not.

Bunyard does not believe that global burning is a geophysiological problem which can be solved geophysiologically i.e. through Reforestation. He believes it is a technological problem requiring technological devices to reduce Carbon emissions. Even after a decade or so of listening to the greenless greens denouncing Reforestation it is still shocking to discover more examples.

Bunyard is a localist who shares similar ideas over the climate to anarchists, and right wing, free marketeers, “Suppose humanity decided to devote itself to preserving the correct form of the environment. The idea has certain attractions. There is also a drawback: It would be impossible to determine what the Correct environment might be.” [232] ; “The Earth’s ecosphere is ever in flux, knowing no fixed or proper alignment.” [233] “There has never been and can never be any fixed, correct environmental reality.” [234]

Perhaps the most fundamental inconsistency of bunyard’s stance is that he, like many other greens, believes in the idea of ‘mature Forests’ in which managerialism is feasible and yet also believes the Earth’s climate is in a state of chaos and thus cannot be managed.

43: ‘We don’t have to worry about the Destruction of Forests because the Earth’s Photosynthetic Capacity is Indestructible’.

Greens’ Proposition.

This work has explored many reasons for greens’ opposition to Reforestation>>the Earth’s life support system. At times greens seem to have failed to follow through the implications of their arguments so it has been necessary to highlight these implications and then evaluate their validity. This section provides another argument which the greenless greens could have used if only they had drawn out the implications of their own assumptions. The following section takes green arguments to an extreme in the hope of showing the errors involved.

Some greens have implicitly made a startling scientific discovery: the second law of thermodynamics applies not only to energy but to the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. whilst it is possible to change the location of Photosynthesis it is not possible to destroy it. Photosynthesis (like energy) can neither be created nor destroyed. If a Forest is burnt down, it will eventually regrow. Even if, for whatever reason, it doesn’t regrow, the scale of global Photosynthesis will eventually recover because the Carbon released into the atmosphere will enable Forests to regrow elsewhere around the Earth. This leads to the conclusion that no matter how much damage that oomans do to the Earth’s Forests Photosynthesis will just spring up again, like kids on a bouncy castle, somewhere else around the Earth. In the situation where all Forests and terrestrial habitats around the world are being devastated, some greens believe the oceans will take up the Photosynthetic slack - see propositions 5 and 6. The eco-nazis conclude they can do whatever they want to the earth because they believe the Earth will look after them.

Green Proponents.

Wilfred Beckerman.

Wilfred beckerman responded to the proposition that oomans are destroying the Earth’s life support system for oomans by seeking the views of one of oxford’s many quack academics. He reported, “One of the latest ‘finite resources’ fairy tales is the story of Photosynthesis. As explained in box 4.1, the Photosynthesis scare story is so absurd that when, just to make sure, I rather shyly consulted one of my eminent scientist colleagues in oxford about it he burst out laughing and expressed surprise that I had bothered even to take notice of such an idea.” [235] Beckermann doesn’t seem to appreciate that the Word of one nameless, over-privileged, oxford hack no longer carries any weight since their integrity has taken a nose dive after richard southwell produced a report in 1988 stating that bse was a dead end disease posing no threat to oomans. [236] Oxford’s professors are over-paid tarts supplying intellectual services to the increasing number of multi-national corporations funding the university brothel.

There are a number of ways in which land can be damaged to such an extent that Photosynthesis is permanently destroyed:-

* the suffocation of land through cementation - whether urbanization, roads, housing, etc.

* the suffocation of land by oil spills - especially when the sun bakes the oil into a tarmac like surface;

* overgrazing, over-cultivation, and over-pharming, leading to soil exhaustion, soil erosion, and eventually desertification. Oomans have created vast areas of deserts around the world which will never regrow whilst global temperatures continue to rise;

* soil erosion, whether by wind or by water, may transfer nutrients from one area to another where they may be used by other types of Photosynthesizers but this does not necessarily restore the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity to its previous level. When huge amounts of soil from large expanses of land are washed away by floods it often piles up as sediment in estuaries and covers only a fraction of the original area thereby producing far less Photosynthesis. What is more, the length of time taken for nutrients to travel from one area, and one form of Phytomass, to another also has an impact on the Earth Photosynthetic capacity. Half of the Carbon released into the atmosphere as a result of the razing of Forests still remains in the atmosphere after two centuries and during this time plays no part in the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. The same applies to Carbon nutrients washed off the land into the seas - whilst nutrients are being transported they cannot play any role in promoting Photosynthesis;

* the poisoning of soils prevents Plant growth, “In the 1960s and 1970s the vietnam war had widely publicized effects on the mangrove vegetation of the mekong delta. The use of defoliant chemicals there had long term impacts on biodiversity from which the environment is only just recovering.” [237]

Oomans are not merely destroying Photosynthesis and temporarily preventing Carbon nutrients from fertilizing Photosynthesis elsewhere around the planet, they are diminishing the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity by replacing highly productive Photosynthetic systems, such as Forests, with much simpler ones such as pasturelands, scrubland, lawns, etc. Beckermann believes this decimation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is not significant, “But this is no cause for concern. It simply means that a lot of the Photosynthetic product that had previously been produced was of no use to us. It was, in effect, wasted. Now there is less of it. So what? Would it be better if 99% of the total Photosynthetic product had been of no use to the human race, as was the case a few centuries ago?” [238] Beckerman seems to believe that unless Trees are of use to oomans they are of no use - the typical view of oomans suffering from an acute case of Earth alienation. Photosynthesis is a vital part of the Earth’s life support system and without it oomans will perish.

Richard North.

Richard north holds similar views in so much as he argues there is no such thing as geophysiological limits - which, presumably, means that oomans can go on destroying the Earth’s life support system with impunity because it will just repair itself, "But what do we know about this business of the world already being beyond its limits? In cold blood, we know nothing. Locally, there are problems in some places: that is obvious. All the rest, all the planetary talk, is speculation." [239] He continues, "In short, while there are ecological rules on this Planet - naturally - there are no limits that we know of." [240] This is just the sort of view that the world’s corporate Earth-rapists pay millions to obtain.

Criticisms of Greens’ Proposition.

If oomans destroy more and more Phytomass so that it cannot recover, and if they suppress more and more of the remaining Phytomass preventing it from reaching its Photosynthetic potential (as it would do if left to itself), then they will seriously diminish the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. If this diminution continues it will eventually undermine oomans’ life support system and destabilize the climate. The greater the reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity, the greater the destruction of soils, the greater the extermination of the Wildlife maintaining the Earth’s soils/Phytomass, the greater the destruction of the Earth's life support system, the greater the destabilization of the climate. It seems unlikely that oomans would ever be able to destroy all Photosynthesis on Earth. No ooman is ever going to pluck the last flower and find ever-lasting fame that s/he has ended 3 billion years of continuous Photosynthesis on Earth. But oomans could damage enough of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity to destabilize the climate so that it too contributes to the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. If this further boosted global burning and eventually causes a runaway global burning disaster it could, ultimately, result in the eradication of all Photosynthesis on Earth i.e. the eradication of all life on Earth. If oomans boost the momentum of global burning to such an extent that it accelerates out of control then global temperatures could continue rising until it reaches the Earth’s natural temperature i.e. the Earth’s temperature if there had never been life on Earth. This temperature is closer to average global temperatures on venus than mars. But all life on Earth, including that of Photosynthesis, would be eradicated long before the Earth reached this temperature. If the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is destroyed then the rest of the Earth’s life support system will disintegrate. The oxygen in the atmosphere will decline; hydrogen will escape into space; water will disappear; soils will disappear; etc. If the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is destroyed then the Earth will not remain as it is now. On the contrary, the Earth will lose its uniqueness and will increasingly resemble all the other planets in the solar system.

Coming in the next edition:

44: ‘The best way to combat the Destruction of Forests is to let vast numbers of people invade the countryside to grow their own food and build their own roads, schools, hospitals, shops, libraries, garages, etc’. And let’s not forget all the abattoirs they’ll need to build in order to keep Organic Pharmers from Spreading Foot and Mouth.

Conclusions: the Greenless Greens’ Betrayal of the Earth.

It is not possible to combat global burning solely through reducing Carbon emissions. Even if reductions in Carbon emissions are made, the concentration of atmospheric Carbon will continue to rise and global burning continue to get worse if there is no Reforestation. If oomans decimate all of the Earth’s Forests then there will be a great reduction in the quantities of Carbon being released into the atmosphere but, ignoring the fact that there will also be massive quantities of Carbon in the atmosphere as a result of burning these Forests, the Earth’s heat and albedo effects will boost global burning. Third world countries are not going to reduce their Carbon emissions by the same percentage as the over-industrialized nations because, since the start of the industrial revolution, the latter have polluted the planet far more than poor/third world countries. In addition, it is not politically feasible to combat global burning solely through halting deforestation because third world countries, who have far more of their Forests left than the over-industrialized nations, refuse to be stopped from doing what the over-industrialized nations have already done. Only Reforestation, carried out on the basis of geophysiological justice, can halt global burning even though this option would allow the release of further Carbon emissions and further deforestation in poor/industrializing countries.

It has to be admitted that oomans do not yet understand the Earth’s Carbon spiral; they have not yet measured the Earth’s Carbon spiral; they have no precise assessment of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity; they have not yet modelled the Earth’s life support system; and they have not modelled the impact of Reforestation in combating global burning. Given these uncertainties, it might seem irresponsible recommending Reforestation as a means of reversing global burning and stabilizing the climate - whether this might be the paltry schemes suggested under the kyoto protocol or the grander scheme suggested in this work. Under such circumstances the only option is to look at the wider picture. It is highly likely that over the last three aeons, Photosynthesizers have stabilized the Earth’s climate and that, over the last couple of hundred million years, Forests have played the prime role. It is therefore highly likely that Reforestation could play an essential role in stabilizing the climate. If oomans continue to decimate the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, especially its Forests, then more than likely they are going to cause a runaway global burning disaster. The uncertainties in this set of assumptions are less substantial than its certainties.

Oomans are responsible for the fivefold, exponential, growth in the numbers of cars, kids, Cattle, capital, and carnage, which is causing the rapid increase in Carbon emissions (boosting the greenhouse effect) and the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity (affecting not merely the Photosynthetic effect but the heat and albedo effects) which is boosting global burning. This cannot possibly end in anything other than a calamity for oomans and all other life forms left on Earth. Whilst Reforestation may pose a slight risk to the climate, continued deforestation leads to the likelihood of climate destabilization.

To dismiss Reforestation because of bogus concepts such as ‘mature Forests’; or a lack of evidence, or a failure to understand the essence of the Earth’s life support system, or because there isn’t enough land available, are such outrageous excuses that it leads to the suspicion that these objections are designed to protect vested interests. There are many alternative energy industries beginning to emerge whose material interests will lead to the financing of new greenless green ideologies but, at present, none of these industries are rich or powerful enough to block Reforestation. The only industry that is the organic pharming industry. The greens who keep trotting out the most pathetic excuses against Reforestation are almost invariably supporters of organic pharming. Why is it that they are so adamant that it is not possible to measure the damage being done to the Earth’s life support system? Of course it would be difficult but unless an effort is made there will be no hope of creating a sustainable planet, based on equality between nations. The reason for greens’ unreasonable opposition to measuring Photosynthesis is because they don’t want the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity to be measured. They know that their plans for organic pharming and urbanizing the countryside would cause even more damage than is being done today. Organic pharming can only create an unjust world divided between a rich meat eating elite and a mass of poverty-stricken, landless peasants.

Reforestation is not merely a geophysiological solution to combating global burning. It is a means of:-

 stabilizing the climate against both global burning and global cooling;

the basis of a sustainable Planet,

the only source of sustainable i.e. renewable, energy, “Tree planting may lack the glory and grandeur of a huge hydropower dam (sic) but its unmatched potential for stabilizing simultaneously the Carbon cycle, land and water resources .. energy supplies and people’s livelihoods makes it a top priority ...” [241]

Unfortunately, the amount of time it would take for livestock consumers to understand the need for Reforestation is far greater than the time left in which Reforestation projects have to be started in order to reverse the spiralling increase in global burning. Over the last ten years greens have played virtually no role in helping people to understand the role of Forests in the Earth’s climate or the role of Photosynthesizers in the stabilization of the Earth’s climate. This is not merely a failure of green politics but a tragedy. Despite years criticizing greens for their opposition to Reforestation, and despite this outline of 41 reasons why greens have adopted this stance, it is still difficult believing this is the case. But the fact remains that virtually all the major green organizations from greenpeace to foes of the Earth, from ‘new scientist’; ‘tiempo’; ‘the Cornerhouse’; to the ‘ecologist’, possess the same “scorn” for Reforestation. The only people on the planet who supposedly love Trees and Forests, are the most vigorous opponents of Reforestation. This is a betrayal of green politics, a betrayal of life on Earth, and, ultimately, it could be a betrayal of the Earth itself. To be more specific, green politics and the Earth are being sabotaged by green, organic pharmers. Since the second world war most of the damage to the Earth has been done by the industrialized Animal enslavement industry but if greens ever managed to replace the intensive, Animal slavery industry then organic, free range pharming would finish off the Earth’s life support system. The Animal enslavement industry is killing the Earth and green organic pharmers will strike the fatal blow.

Addenda

I: Mature Forests.

This section takes a quick look at the origins of the concept of ‘mature Forests’. It has been pointed out that Forest science promotes the idea of a Forest life cycle which consists of three stages: ‘young Forests’; ‘mature Forests’; and ‘old Forests’. When Forests are young they absorb more Carbon than they release into the atmosphere. ‘Mature’ Forests are deemed to be in a stable state in which the Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere equals the Carbon released into the atmosphere. In a mature Forest, Carbon absorption and release are deemed to be in balance. ‘Old Forests’ are those in a state of decay which release more Carbon into the atmosphere than they absorb.

The Origins of the Concept of Mature Forests.

Origins in Common Sense.

The idea of Forests having a life cycle could have derived from, or been reinforced by, common sense insofaras living things tend to be vigorous when they are young, moderate when they are mature, and increasing slow as they get older. Whilst the idea of a life cycle for an individual Tree seems like common sense using this as a model for the supposed life cycle of Forests is absurd.

Academic Origins.

There are many sciences which rely heavily on the concept of balance. One of the most fundamental manifestations of the concept of balance is the equation. The concept was also common in 18thc theories of natural law. It is found in meteorology where it is used to suggest that incoming solar energy is, supposedly, in balance with outgoing solar energy - even though it is precisely the lack of balance that has been the primary characteristic of the Earth’s climate over the last three billion years. In more recent times, the concept of balance has also found its way into green theory where greens talk about the balance of nature even though they are hard pressed to explain exactly what they mean. In Forest science, the concept of balance refers only to the mature stage of a Forest’s so-called life cycle. The concept of ‘mature Forests’ has connotations of stability, balance, and equilibrium.

It is possible that, centuries ago, Foresters may have borrowed the idea of balance from other sciences in order to provide Forest science with some of the scientific credentials it needed to be taken seriously. Since then it has probably been used as an abstract construct solely in arcane academic discussions. The notion of ‘mature’, ‘balanced’, ‘stable’, Forests is clearly an abstraction since there is no way of measuring Forests’ Carbon fluxes. There has never been an experiment to prove the existence of ‘mature Forest’.

The hypothesis of ‘mature’ Forests may have originated from the scientists theoretical use of the concept of balance, and common sense may have given it an element of reality. Unfortunately, over the centuries, it has festered in the minds of academic Foresters until by the late 20thc it has become a cast iron truth.

Current Examples of the use of the Concept of Balance.

Lovelock.

Lovelock believes the amazon Rainforest is not important as an absorber of Carbon. The most recent research, however, suggests the amazon is absorbing significant amounts of Carbon and that it may be the missing sink, “Conventional knowledge suggests that Forests are in a steady state - that their uptake of Carbon from the atmosphere is balanced by losses from respiration and leeching. .. tiger researchers discovered that the Brazilian amazonia is not a steady state, but absorbs Carbon in quantities comparable to the ‘missing sink’.” [242]

Tyler Volk.

Volk talks about the Earth’s Carbon balance - the balance of supply and demand: “The supply (of Carbon in the atmosphere) comes from several sources: from the dissolution of rocks such as whitish limestones that contain calcium carbonate, from the oxidation of fossil organic carbon in rocks such as shales, and from the fumes of volcanoes. All together, these sources provide about half a billion tons of carbon per year.” [243] Tyler volk believes that about half a billion tons of Carbon enters the atmosphere from space whilst approximately half a billion tons of Carbon leaves the system in the form of Carbon burial on the ocean floors. He asks, “How does life know enough to bury about the same amount of carbon as that which enters the gaian system? It doesn’t, of course. There is no easy explanation, unfortunately, for this balance between inputs and outputs on the global level, for most elements over long enough time scales.” [244] Not surprisingly, the idea of a balance of Carbon in the atmosphere is mirrored by a balance of Carbon in the oceans, “In the steady state, which must be close to what we have in the ocean at all times, the bicarbonate ions in deep water diffuse upward and exactly replace the carbon lost as detritus from the surface.” [245] This implies that this steady state has been in existence throughout the Earth’s existence. This is manifestly wrong. It implies that no change has happened in the past.

Greenpeace.

“There is an important difference between the CO₂ produced by nature and that emitted by human activities. While nature produces about 30 times more CO₂ than human activity, the carbon emitted by nature is part of a finely balanced cycle. The emissions by humans are over and above the natural balance, and consequently result in a net increase in the concentrations of atmospheric CO₂. Since the industrial revolution about 850 billion tonnes of CO₂ have been emitted due to combustion of fossil fuels, oil, coal and natural gas. An additional 370 billion tonnes have been added through changes in land use and deforestation.” [246]

UNEP.

“Carbon dioxide produced by human activity enters the natural carbon cycle. Many billions of tonnes of carbon are exchanged naturally each year between the atmosphere, the oceans, and land vegetation. The exchanges in this massive and complex natural system are precisely balanced; carbon dioxide levels appear to have varied by less than 10% during the 10,000 years before industrialization. In the 200 years since 1800, however, levels have risen by almost 30%. Even with half of humanity's carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed by the oceans and land vegetation, atmospheric levels continue to rise by over 10% every 20 years.” [247] Is it not amazing that unep proclaims this stability with such scientific certainty when it admits there is no scientific certainty about the Earth’s Carbon flux.

The Decadence of Forest Science.

It might be suspected that Forest science is an uncontentious academic discipline in which independent, objective, and impartial, scientists work carefully and considerately to learn the truth about Forests. Not a bit of it. Forest scientists are intellectual prostitutes employed by multi-national logging corporations and are just as decadent as any other corporate scientists:-

Geology.

“Over half of the professional geologists in countries such as the UK and the USA are employed directly to find oil and gas. Others work for the government energy agencies. Some academic geologists run research programs funded by petroleum companies. Add to these the numbers involved in finding and producing coal, and probably between 65-75% of the profession is dependent on the fossil fuel business.” [248]

Lynn margulis on Scientists in General.

.. “scientists, like everyone else, generate information to bolster the philosophies of those who pay them.” [249]

Propaganda Value.

It is possible that one of the reasons why such an abstraction as ‘mature Forests’ has become such an unquestioned truth is because it is also an invaluable propaganda resource for promoting the interests of logging corporations. Once an abstract idea is supported by material interests it is bound to take on a life of its own and thus become difficult to eradicate.

The Fictional Nature of the concept of ‘Mature Forests’.

The idea of ‘mature’ Forests is a pure fiction. It is based on a false analogy with the life cycle of individual Trees. There is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis because there is no way of measuring such a phenomena. There is no such thing as a stable state Forest. There is no academic who could point to any Forest around the world and state, with any scientific certainty, that it is in a stable state.

The Concept of Mature Forests is Indicative of a lack of understanding of the Earth’s History.

Another reason that conventional, corporate, Forest scientists believe in the concept of mature Forests is because they tend to look at Forests over the short to medium term rather than understand them in the context of the Earth’s history. The key process that has transformed the planet over the last 4 billion years is the Photosynthetic removal of 10,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of Carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon from the atmosphere has been transformed into the vast array of life-forms we see around the planet - it’s Soils, Peatbogs, Forests, limestone cliffs, Animals, etc. The extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere not merely brought about this miraculous transformation but, seemingly as a mere bonus, kept the Earth cool. Throughout this vast period of time in which the quantity of Carbon in the atmosphere has been reduced to just 746gtC there was no point at which Carbon absorption matched Carbon emissions. Because of the long term trend of Carbon absorption, the system has never been “in balance”. The amount of Carbon absorbed by Photosynthesizers, including Forests, has usually been greater than the Carbon released back into the atmosphere, (although there have been periods when this has not been true) because for the last couple of aeons this has been the only way to stabilize the Earth’s climate.

To put these arguments in a slightly different way. Forest scientists fail to understand the relationship between Forests and the atmosphere. It is much more feasible to argue that Forests grow when there is a surplus of Carbon in the atmosphere and, correspondingly, decline when there is a less Carbon in the atmosphere. Forests move into a state of equilibrium only when there is a stable climate.

The science of Forestry contains a truly wondrous selection of barmy ideas such as Forests’ life cycle; ‘young’ Forests; ‘mature’ Forests; ‘old’ Forests. These concepts are supposed to give Forest science some scientific credibility but all they do is enable it to join other, modern-day, bogus sciences such as vivisection, ecology and astrology. Given the accumulated barminess of Forest science, it is not surprising that Foresters dismiss Reforestation as a means of moderating global burning.

It is strange that the greens who believe in the idea of ‘mature Forests’ also tend to believe the Earth’s climate is in a state of chaos and thus cannot be managed.