3. Criticisms of the Ipcc’s Focus on Carbon Emissions.

3.1: The Scientific Problems.

3.1.1: Scientifically One-Sided.

The most obvious criticism of the ipcc’s emissions-only propaganda is that it is scientifically one-sided. It focuses on one side of the Earth’s Carbon spiral (the supply side of the Carbon spiral - Carbon emissions) whilst ignoring the other (the demand side of the Carbon spiral - Photosynthesis) - even though this one-sided policy wouldn’t fool a schoolkid. It has to be suggested that the seriousness of global burning doesn’t become apparent until the damage that oomans are doing to both sides of the Carbon spiral has been calculated.

3.1.2: Scientifically Lop-Sided.

The ipcc’s focus on Carbon exports is not merely one-sided. In terms of all the factors contributing to global burning it is also lop-sided. Global burning is caused by four main factors: the greenhouse effect (the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere); the Photosynthetic effect, the albedo effect, and the heat effect. Focusing on only one of these factors is not scientifically tenable. For example, the heat effect is a powerful influence on the climate, “Any reduction in the mass movement of water vapour as a result of rainforest destruction will perturb climate every bit as powerfully as the addition of greenhouse gases.” [7] The ipcc’s lop-sided analysis of global burning seriously underestimates the possible rise in global average temperatures.

The one-sided and lop-sided inadequacies of the ipcc’s policies on global burning are by far and away the most important criticisms of scientists’ work. All other criticisms are, to a large extent, irrelevant in comparison to these criticisms. Other criticisms are useful only to the extent that they prevent politicians and greens from feeling they are free from attack once they dismiss these fundamental criticism of their work.

3.1.3: The Scientific Vulnerabilities of the Emissions’ Only Approach.

Another criticism of the emissions-only approach is that such a policy is easy to attack for opponents of policies to combat global burning. There are a number of factors which suggest that, as an emissions-only problem, the greenhouse effect does not pose as significant a danger as is often suggested:

* Firstly, there is no linear correlation between an increase in Carbon emissions and a rise in global average temperatures.

* Secondly, there is a threshold beyond which additional Carbon emissions will not boost the greenhouse effect, “There is so much CO₂ in the atmosphere already that even doubling the concentration does not produce a dramatic change in world temperature.” [8] The radiative forcing of CO₂ is limited because it blocks infra-red radiation across only a short section of the electromagnetic spectrum.

* Thirdly, there are scientific doubts that the greenhouse effect alone is powerful enough to push the Earth’s climate into a self-sustaining runaway climate disaster - even if methane becomes a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than CO₂.

* Finally, and most importantly, it is not true there has to be an increase in global average temperatures because of the Carbon pollution dumped into the atmosphere over the last two centuries. If large parts of the Earth are reforested this would not merely reduce the concentration of atmospheric Carbon but would increase the Planet’s albedo and thereby cool the Earth. Despite woodwell’s belief that vegetative respiration could dump more Carbon into the atmosphere than is being extracted from it through Photosynthesis, it is possible that if global Reforestation is carried out on a sufficiently large scale then the Planet’s albedo effect could be increased significantly enough to prevent the rise in global temperatures from boosting respiration. Even at this late stage, global Reforestation could still avert the threat of climate change.

These four criticisms of the ipcc’s emissions-only policy gives credence to the anti-global burning case that the greenhouse effect is not as serious an issue as scientists are trying to suggest. These criticisms make the greenhouse effect a much more dubious proposition than would be the case if all factors contributing to global burning were taken into account.

3.1.4: Making Reductions in Carbon Emissions seem as if they are Saving the Earth.

The absurdity of the emissions-only ideology is revealed by the fact that brutland, which absorbs only 1.4% of its Carbon emissions, deems itself to be a world environmental leader because it is one of the few countries around the world to meet its extremely modest kyoto targets, “Britain and germany are on course to meet their kyoto emissions targets ...” [9] The emissions-only tactic allows countries to deceive the world into believing they are making serious efforts to contribute to the stabilization of the climate when they are doing the exact opposite. It is only if all countries around the world adopt a global Carbon budget but that such propaganda deceptions could be avoided.

3.1.5: Reductions in Carbon Emissions are far less Significant than they might Seem.

The inadequacy of the emissions-only approach is also revealed by the fact that they allow Earth wrecking countries to boast about their future reductions in their Carbon emissions. Such boasts are a lot emptier than they seem - even if a country manages to keep its promise, which is rare in the global burning field, “Britain and germany are on course to meet their kyoto emissions targets ... but the european union as a whole is not.” [10] Take for example brutland. Brutland is one of the world’s biggest Carbon debtors because, being virtually bereft of Forests, it absorbs a minuscule 1.4% of its Carbon emissions. It is currently promising to reduce its Carbon emissions by 20% over the next twenty years. [11] This might seem like a major reduction in its contribution to the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately it is not - it wouldn’t be a serious contribution to the stabilization of the climate. So what if brutland reduced its Carbon emissions by 50%? Big deal! Politically it might be flogged as a major achievement around the world and yet, geophysiologically, it would be meaningless because all that it would achieve is to increase the proportion of Carbon emissions to Carbon absorption from a minuscule 1.4% to a hardly less minuscule 2.8%. Brutland’s Carbon debts are so bad that even if it cut its Carbon emissions in half, its debts would not be significantly reduced.

3.2: The Political Problems.

3.2.1: The Third World objects it is not responsible for Pollution Emissions.

When the ipcc announced its recommendation for a 60%-80% reduction in CO₂ emissions, the implication was that each country around the world should make similar percentage reductions. However, third world countries instantly objected they hadn’t been responsible for atmospheric Carbon pollution and thus weren’t going to play any role in combating global burning. They turned their back on climate issues and continued polluting the atmosphere. Ten years later the involvement of third world countries in climate negotiations remains an unresolved, and festering, political issue. The ipcc’s recommendation for reductions in Carbon emissions was made in the hope of being able to combat global burning quickly and efficiently, but it has become mired in politics and has become a justification for countries to continue polluting the environment.

3.2.2: The Conflict over Statistics.

Many governments around the world question the criterion that all countries should make an equal percentage reduction in Carbon emissions. Why not equal reductions in the quantity of greenhouse gases or reductions leading to equal emissions per capita so that everyone around the planet would have the same entitlement to pollute the atmosphere? The fact that there are a number of options by which reductions in Carbon emissions could be made, makes it difficult for countries around the world to agree on just one option. The disputes over the criterion to be used for reducing countries’ Carbon emissions shows the depth of the difficulties to which the emissions-only tactic descends. Whilst it is easy making demands for reductions in global greenhouse emissions the fact that these reductions have, in one way or another, to be shared out between all countries means that this scientific issue rapidly ends up becoming an intensely political issue.

3.2.3: The Biggest Carbon Polluters provide a Justification for all other Countries to Continuing Polluting.

Politically, the focus on reducing Carbon pollution opens the possibility for countries to use the world’s biggest polluting country to justify their continuing release of Carbon pollution into the atmosphere. At its simplest, governments seem to believe that if america has released x billion tonnes of Carbon then so should they. Within the confines of the emissions-only strategy there is no way of preventing countries from using this excuse to justify whatever pollution they want to dump into the atmosphere.

Brutland’s Carbon debts are so bad that even if it cut its Carbon emissions in half, its debts would enable all other countries around the world to justify a major increase in their use of fossil fuels and a major increase in the devastation of their share of the Earth’s life support system. Even a 50% reduction in brutland’s Carbon emissions would still enable the vast majority of countries around the world to justify almost any policy they could imagine no matter how much it might boost global burning.

3.2.4: Economic Development Justifying continuing Pollution.

Industrializing countries argue that during the industrializing phase of their development they are bound to release disproportionately large quantities of Carbon emissions - just as all the over-industrialized countries did when they went through the same process in the past. Thus, equal percentage reductions hurts them far more than it does the over-industrialized countries. The industrializing countries thus argue they should be allowed to continue releasing greenhouse emissions until they have industrialized and then they would be willing to consider equal percentage reductions in their Carbon emissions.

3.2.5: The Starting Date Conflict.

The industrializing countries argue that if they can’t be allowed to go on releasing greenhouse gases until they have finished industrializing, then the 1990 starting point for measuring countries’ Carbon emissions ought to be shifted back into the past, prior to the start of the industrial revolution, so a global agreement on combating global burning would cover all countries’ industrialization process. In other words, to ensure parity between countries, it would be necessary to take all countries’ industrialization process into account, so the starting date for Carbon reductions either ought to be moved forward to a time when all countries have finished industrializing or it should be moved back to a time when no country had started industrializing. Given that the industrialization process is an important key to global burning it is absurd to believe that a starting point which cuts across countries’ stages of development could be fair. Such a cut off point is bound to generate injustices which leads countries to refuse to support a global agreement over combating global burning.

3.2.6: Pollution Taxes Increase Pollution.

Another political problem of the emissions-only policy is that it encourages governments to use environmental taxes and then used the money raise to fund Earth-wrecking projects. The money raised through environmental taxes to curb Carbon emissions has to be spent on further reducing atmospheric pollution (or restoring the Earth’s life support system) or it will end up being used to increase pollution. This was what was happening with brutland’s fuel tax escalator. The brutish chancellor was raising huge sums of money from fuel taxes and then using the money for all sorts projects which had nothing to do with protecting the environment. He was exploiting public sympathy for environmental issues simply in order to raise taxes to pay for policies which brought about further damage to the environment.

A commentator believes the recent fuel tax insurrection in brutland has ended the prospects of any further green taxes, “The protests may not lead to any fuel tax reductions, but they have certainly driven a stake through the heart of any new proposals for British, or indeed European, carbon or energy taxes. This is causing consternation among Britain's environmental organisations, which have long been wedded to the belief that only dramatically higher energy taxes could save the planet from the ravages of climate change. They have praised Brown's green credentials, and relentlessly criticised Blair for his lack of interest in environmental matters. Much of the British environmental movement's political strategy has been based on working with Brown to promote a shift from taxing "goods", such as capital and labour, to taxing "bads", such as pollution and resource consumption. This strategy now lies in ruins. As the public has quite rightly discerned, the fuel duty escalator was always a revenue-raising device. It might have helped to maintain the green fig leaf for this tax had any of the £10bn in additional taxes extracted from us actually been spent on the environment.”

3.3: The Technological Problems.

It is commonly believed that policies for reducing Carbon emissions are quicker, cheaper, more cost-effective, more reliable, and more dramatic, than Reforestation. However, it has to be pointed out that, even ten years after the first world climate conference, few of these policies have been initiated so such a proposition cannot be true. Most of the policies touted for reducing Carbon emissions rely on technological innovations. There are many reasons why a technological approach will never combat global burning:-

3.3.1: Technologies for Reducing Carbon Emissions do not Work.

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

3.3.2: Energy Efficiency/Conservation is a Fraud.

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

3.3.3: The Technological Sequestration of Carbon is Limited.

It is not possible to prevent the release of Carbon emissions from many industrial processes .. “for reasons of physics it today seems nearly impossible to invent affordable devices that would strip carbon dioxide from auto exhaust or the smokestacks of power plants burning fossil fuels. The only currently practicable means to reduce society’s carbon output is fuel-conservation technology that reduces the volume of fuel combusted.” [12]

3.3.4: The Pollution from Pollution Reduction Industries.

The pollution from pollution reduction industries is also substantial, “In 1991, u.s. firms exported $362 million in pollution-control devices, a small figure by the standards of global trade but the largest amount recorded by any country. Overall the u.s. balance of trade in environmental goods and services was a positive $6 in 1991 ...” [13] ; “The global environmental market is already estimated to be worth $410 billion, if waste and water management are included.. Germany is estimated to have a trade surplus in environmental goods of $10 billion, the US is said to have boosted its surplus to $8 billion, while japan’s is $3 billion. Britain has a much smaller surplus of just over $500 million. Tough environmental laws made german firms devise innovative strategies. The products they designed and built to clean up domestic environments are those with which they are now cleaning up in the world market. The same pattern applies also to america and japan.” [14]

3.3.5: Technology Ignores Deforestation.

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

3.3.6: Technology can’t get Carbon out of the Atmosphere.

No matter what technology can do to prevent Carbon getting into the atmosphere it can’t get Carbon out of the atmosphere. It has been estimated that on average Carbon resides in the atmosphere anywhere between one and two centuries. Technology can do nothing to decrease this average.

3.3.7: Conclusions.

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

3.4: The Geophysiological Problems.

3.4.1: Only Ooman Emissions Count not Natural Emissions.

The emissions-only recommendation is one-sided and lop-sided. But it is even more inadequate given that it assesses only Carbon emissions from anthropogenic sources, primarily fossil fuels, not natural sources. Thus a country could set fire to its entire Forests releasing vast quantities of Carbon emissions and yet, if it then used less fossil fuels, record a reduction in its Carbon emissions. It doesn’t matter that oomans were responsible for razing Forests - emissions from razing Forests don’t count because they come from a natural source!

3.4.2: The Dangers of Ignoring the Deforestation/Reforestation Factor.

One of the biggest danger of the ipcc’s exclusive focus on reducing Carbon emissions is that it does nothing to discourage countries from pursuing deforestation or policies which entail deforestation e.g. road building. Theoretically, all governments around the world could reduce their Carbon emissions, and hail themselves as environmental heroes on the world stage, even though, having razed their Forests, they could help to trigger off a global burning disaster. But then, this epitomizes the ipcc/kyoto climate negotiating process. Over the last ten years nothing of any significance has been done to combat global burning. Politicians have corrupted the climate negotiating process into a first class publicity stunt to persuade the world they are doing something about global burning whilst in reality they are continuing to shag the planet for all they’re worth. It is inherent in the emissions-only approach that its many flaws and injustices can be exploited by countries who present themselves as climatic heroes combating global burning whilst exacerbating the destabilization of the climate. The tragedy of the ipcc’s proposition, that reductions in Carbon emissions are the only way of combating global burning, is that scientists are virtually speechless when countries raze their Forests.

3.4.3: The Injustices of Ignoring the Deforestation/Reforestation Factor.

The ipcc’s emissions-only approach generates gross injustices by failing to take into account the scale of countries’ Forests. If, over the last few centuries, all countries around the world had deforested their land by an equal percent then they could argue that they are all equally culpable on this criteria and could thus focus on reducing Carbon emissions. But countries have not deforested their land to the same extent. Some countries deforested their land long ago. Some deforested their land long ago and then found that much of it has been reforested. On the other hand, some countries have hardly deforested their land at all. Why should countries covered with Forests be forced to reduce their Carbon emissions by the same percentage as countries which have burnt down all their Forests? This does not make the slightest bit of sense.

Brutland is entirely happy with the ipcc’s focus on reducing Carbon emissions because its Forest cover is only around 8-10% and because it is implacably opposed to Reforesting its land - no matter what it might say to the contrary. With Forest cover this low it’s hardly surprising brutland opposes demands for Reforestation to be included in climate negotiations. However, beyond these deforested lands, and shit infested shores, the ipcc’s priority looks completely different. Many countries still have extensive Forests so why should they be forced to ignore the contribution their Forests have made to stabilizing the climate and have to reduce their Carbon emissions? It’s unfair and absurd. What is surprising is that brutish greens should look upon this situation with complete indifference and insist that stabilizing the climate requires only reductions in Carbon emissions. [15]

3.4.4: Global Burning is caused by many Factors and it is hopeless negotiating only on one Factor.

It is possible that the injustices arising from the ipcc’s refusal to take into account countries’ Forest cover will cause countries with extensive Forests to reject climate regulations. At best these injustices will prevent strong measures being taken to reduce greenhouse emissions because the greater the proposed cuts in Carbon emissions, the greater the injustice will become.

Assume that country A chops down all of its Forests whilst country B does not. If there is a global agreement to reduce Carbon emissions by 5% (such an agreement ignores countries’ Forest cover) then the injustice perceived by country B would be small. If, however, there is a global proposal for serious reductions in greenhouse emissions, say 50%, then the injustice perceived by country B would increase significantly thereby increasing the likelihood of its opposition to such a proposal. As climate negotiations get tougher and tougher to meet the increasing destabilization of the climate, the point will be reached when it will become impossible to agree about the scale of the reductions in Carbon emissions because of the opposition from countries with extensive Forests who would find the injustices of such an agreement intolerable.

There is a generalized phenomena which occurs in many types of negotiation. At first efforts will be made to negotiate over a single issue. This invariably benefits some of the negotiators whilst disadvantaging others. The disadvantaged negotiators then attempt to incorporate into the negotiations, additional factors to decrease their disadvantaged position. This process goes on until all participants are happy about the number of criteria to be included so that an agreement can then be reached on all the accepted criteria. Imagine a situation where 10 people are trying to reach an agreement about living together in a community where there are 5 sources of disagreement between them. At first some may try to focus on one issue but gradually, to win the support of all those involved, all the issues will have to go up for negotiation. It is only when there is an agreement between all ten people over all five issues that there will be justice.

This phenomena has occurred in climate negotiations. At the beginning of climate negotiations, europe insisted there should be reductions only in CO₂ emissions. The americans opposed this because they had contributed to reductions in greenhouse emissions via methane/cfcs and Reforestation, so they wanted these factors included in the negotiations.

In conclusion, it is only if all the phenomena that affect the climate are part of climate negotiations that the climatic injustices arising from attempts to reach an agreement over a single factor can be avoided. In other words, the only way to stabilize the climate is by taking into account both sides of the Carbon spiral and formulating a comprehensive approach to the climate i.e. a Carbon budget.

3.4.5: Earth Rapists’ Scouring the Earth for Carbon Sinks.

Another danger of the emissions-only approach is that it encourages countries to make desperate efforts to find all sorts of Carbon sinks as a means of evading reductions in their Carbon emissions. The argument that countries seek Carbon sinks to evade reductions in Carbon emissions is often used by those opposed to the inclusion of Carbon sinks in climate negotiations. however, the argument being put forward here is different: that by not including Carbon sinks and determining which ones are legitimate and which ones aren’t this leaves the door open for the emissions only brigade to scour the Earth for whatever Carbon sink might offer them some relief from the burden of Carbon reductions.

Ben matthews is typical of the greenless greens who oppose the inclusion of Carbon sinks in the climate negotiation process. He invariably criticizes the political dangers of multinational corporations exploiting Carbon sinks rather than reducing their Carbon emissions. In particular he is worried that attempts will be made to boost the spread of marine Algae around the world to extract Carbon from the atmosphere, “If the TNCs were directly liable to purchase emissions quotas or pay a carbon tax, they also would have an incentive to claim credit for climate engineering schemes to pull CO₂ from the atmosphere. So we might envisage several TNCs rushing to claim their own share of the algae in the Southern Ocean. Not even the tiniest creatures in the remotest seas would be independent of the might of the company executives!” [16] This is a perfectly valid argument but it is being used to promote an emissions-only policy which is far from being valid. His argument could be turned against him. Is it possible that scientists’ and greens’ emphasis on reducing Carbon emissions is pushing the polluters into an open-ended exploration of all the ways of boosting the extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere? Increasingly, multi-national corporations are analyzing all of the Earth’s mechanisms for extracting Carbon from the atmosphere to find the cheapest and most effective way of getting Carbon out of the atmosphere. Even the smallest microcosms and deepest crevices of the planet are being explored as a potential sink not merely to counter global burning but to reduce their burden of reducing Carbon emissions. If greens insisted the only way that oomans should exert some control over the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is through Reforestation, and that only natural Forests should be used to counter the climate, then they might be able to stop this ransacking of the Earth’s resources. Unfortunately, by arguing that the only thing that matters, as far as combating global burning is concerned, is reducing Carbon emissions, greens are pushing Earth rapists into an even more intense exploitation of the Planet’s life support system to escape such a constraint.

3.4.6: Leave the Poor to Carry out Reforestation.

The implication of the rich countries’ priority for reducing Carbon emissions is that poor countries should take responsibility for maintaining the Earth’s Forest cover - conveniently leaving rich countries to indulge in further bouts of economic growth causing even greater destruction of their share of the Earth’s life support system. Brutish greens support the ipcc’s emissions-only tactic implying that poor countries should remain in a state of poverty protecting their Forests for the sake of global climatic stability whilst allowing brutland, and other obscenely rich countries, to continue getting richer and richer by ravaging more and more of their Forests there adding to the destabilization of the climate. Brutish greens are proud of their global perspective - it’s just a shame their policies are so xenophobic. Of course they would protest vigorously about this criticism but this is the implication of their emissions-only stance.

3.5: Exacerbating Geophysiological Problems.

3.5.1: Deforestation legitimates Further Deforestation.

It was pointed out above that countries could use the biggest Carbon polluting country to justify their continuing pollution of the atmosphere. The same argument is also possible as regards Forests. For example, brutland’s appallingly low Forest cover could be used by other countries to justify a similar scale of deforestation to their own lands. [17] Politically, brutish greens, all of whom support the emissions-only approach and are disinterested in Reforestation, seem unable to appreciate that the rest of the world is going to use brutland’s Forest-free environment as an excuse to do the same to their share of the Earth’s life support system. If all other countries reduced their Forest cover to that in brutland then oomans are going to find themselves in a struggle for survival - and its doubtful biosphere II is going to come to their rescue. [18]

3.5.2: The Focus on Carbon Emissions encourages Governments to Destroy Forests in order to Reduce Carbon Emissions.

The emissions-only tactic allows countries to continue cutting down their Forests and to use the world’s biggest deforesters as an excuse for doing so. Even worse than these follies, however, is that some governments are carrying out deforestation as a means of reducing their Carbon emissions! Such is the appalling mess caused by the ipcc’s one-sided, lop-sided, focus on reducing greenhouse emissions that, for example, in brutland, the labour government is trying to justify an increase in its road construction scheme as a means of reducing Carbon emissions! The government’s 10 year transport plan is, “£180 billion of investment and public spending on transport over the next ten years to cut congestion and reduce pollution.” [19] This will further devastate the country’s share of the Earth’s life support system for the sake of allegedly reducing Carbon emissions! [20]

3.5.3: Greens’ Decimating the Environment in order to Reduce Carbon Emissions.

Even worse than governments using the ipcc’s emissions-only tactic to cut down Forests in order to reduce their Carbon emissions is that greens themselves are also demanding the decimation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity as a means of reducing Carbon emissions and thus supposedly combating global burning. Greens are as much at fault for such an appalling deception as conventional politicians but their guilt is greater since they should know better. The greenless greens are exploiting the emissions-only tactic to:-

• protect pharmers who want to carry out mass deforestation in order to grow so-called green energy crops;

• introduce alternative energy and energy conservation schemes to reduce greenhouse emissions even though such schemes devastate the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity;

• protect game reserves by suppressing Tree growth - thus decreasing the land’s ability to extract Carbon from the atmosphere e.g. the north york moors which is used for Grouse shooting;

• protect nature reserves by suppressing Tree growth - most nature reserves are types of pastureland whose ecologies have been created by organic pharmers;

• encourage loggers to chop down Forests because they fear Forests will eventually die and thereby boost global burning [21] ;

• try to reduce car journies (and thus car exhaust emissions) through the creation of park and ride schemes which devastate the Earth - see for example the work of greens on oxford city council [22] ; and,

• allow floodplains to continue being used for the grazing of slave Animals rather than allowing the land to revert back to Forests - for example, once again, see the work of greens on oxford city council.

If this trend continues then one day the point will be reached when Carbon emissions will have been reduced to a much lower level but there’ll hardly be a Tree left on Earth, all the planet’s Wildlife will have disappeared, and icebergs will be floating around the world’s oceans.

The danger of the belief that global burning is caused solely by the release of Carbon emissions is clear - it allows politicians, and the greenless greens, to believe it is possible to decimate the Earth’s life support system without destabilizing the climate. The greenless greens are Earth rapists.

Scientists originally decided to focus on Carbon emissions as the first step to protecting the Earth’s life support system but in the continuing deluge of capital-intensive construction projects it is transparently obvious that the eco-nazis have turned this tactic inside out so that reductions in Carbon emissions are just a green legitimization for further geophysiological devastation - often these alleged reductions are completely unrealizable.

3.5.4: The Link Between Carbon Emissions and GDP hides the continued Decimation of the Earth’s Life Support System.

Up until the early 1970s it was possible to get a rough gauge of a country’s economic prosperity from its consumption of fossil fuels. The greater the consumption of fossil fuels, the richer a country. The two factors went hand in hand. However, after the first oil price hike, countries turned to energy efficiency so that more and more wealth was produced by using less and less energy. The generalization here is transparent - the greater the energy efficiency, the greater the creation of wealth, the lower the energy consumption. This gave rise to a utopian vision - increasing prosperity and increasing environmental protection. This seemed to be a win-win situation enabling greens to celebrate alongside conventional politicians and even the polluters themselves. And this is where the discussion has ended. As far as the greenless greens are concerned nothing else matters - if oomans implemented this win-win scenario they could sail happily towards a sustainable planet.

Unfortunately, this vision is delusory. Continually boosting economic growth by using less and less fossil fuels, and releasing less and less Carbon emissions, is not going to lead to the creation of a sustainable planet. On the contrary, it could create a geophysiological collapse. The fundamental flaw in this argument is simple. The greater the energy efficiency, the greater the economic growth, the greater the reduction in atmospheric pollution, the greater the devastation of the Earth’s life support system. The price that is paid for reductions in Carbon emissions is greater Photosynthetic devastation.

The following quote from norman moss celebrates china’s success in boosting economic growth and reducing Carbon emissions but completely neglects to mention the vast scale of geophysiological devastation, “China’s carbon emissions are no longer rising, but falling. China’s emissions rose by 28% between 1990 and 1997. But in 1997 its emissions dropped slightly, and in 1998 they fell 3.9%. This despite the fact that its economy continues to expand, and its gnp increased by 7.2% in 1998. China has broken the link between rising carbon emissions and rising gnp.” [23] The link between economic growth and increases in Carbon emissions may be broken; it may be possible to create more and more economic growth whilst producing fewer and fewer Carbon emissions; but it is not possible to break the link between increasing economic growth and increasing geophysiological devastation. Economic growth means geophysiological devastation. What this means, in extremis, is that a country could raze its Forests, use the land for the construction of factories producing energy efficiency products, be hailed as an environmental hero for being energy efficient, whilst triggering off global burning. Ultimately, it won’t matter how significant energy efficiency is, nor the scale of the reduction in greenhouse gases, because the devastation of the Earth’s life support system would lead to a geophysiological disaster.

When lester brown and the worldwatch institute argue that Carbon efficiency is the main way of reducing Carbon emissions, and thus the greenhouse effect, they ignore the damage that such efficient use of Carbon is inflicting on the Earth’s life support system, “The key indicator for measuring progress in stabilizing climate is the carbon efficiency of the world economy - the value of goods and services produced per unit of carbon emitted. From 1950-1979 carbon efficiency increased little. After the second oil price hike, it increased much more rapidly - raising economic output per kilogram of carbon emitted from $2.67 in 1979 to $3.19 in 1991.” [24] Even worse, the propaganda about breaking the link between increasing economic growth and increasing Carbon emissions becomes just another means for covering up the increase in the devastation of the Earth’s life support system.

3.5.5: The Focus on Reducing Carbon Emissions allows Greens to Ignore the Way the Earth Works.

The ipcc’s emissions-only tactic allows scientists and greens to ignore the way the Earth works. It promotes ignorance. It suggests that if people want to do something about global burning all they need to know is how to reduce Carbon emissions - which usually means knowledge about technologies. This means that greens:-

• cannot repair the Earth’s life support system - how could they when they don’t even know what it is?

• have no definition of sustainability;

• have no vision of a sustainable planet - how could they when they don’t have a definition of sustainability?

• refuse to carry out a Carbonomics analysis of their so-called environmental policies - even worse is that they know that, if they did, they’d discover the vast scale of the damage they’d inflict on the Earth through alternative energy and organic pharming.

• refuse to carry out a Carbonomics’ analysis to determine the industry causing the most geophysiological damage to the Earth’s life sustaining processes. They refuse to do this because they know that pharming is the biggest cause of geophysiological damage - and that if organic pharming ever succeeded conventional pharming it would take over this position.

• have no grounds for insisting that the fossil fuel industry carries out environmental impact statements. If the greenless greens refuse to carry out a such an analysis of their own policies (let alone carry out a Carbonomics analysis) or of the world’s most damaging industry, they have no moral grounds for insisting that the fossil fuelled industries should carry out such an analysis.

The focus on reducing Carbon emissions means that greens emphasize technological, rather than ecological, solutions to global burning - even though it is a geophysiological problem. They do not believe it is important to measure the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. the Earth’s life support system, when evaluating the threat posed by global burning. They refuse to measure the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity caused by their own so-called green, solar-powered, policies. They promote policies which cause geophysiological destruction - one of the benefits of refusing to geophysiologically cost their policies is that greens can promote policies which cause geophysiological destruction! As far as they are concerned, the only industry which ought to carry out an environmental impact statement is the fossil fuel industry.

To put it colloquially, greens don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re a bunch of frauds posing as friends of the Earth who believe that living in harmony with Wildlife means encouraging hunting in Animal sanctuaries. The simplest and most essential way of assessing greens’ authenticity is to ask about their commitment to Reforestation and their criteria for determining the scale of Forest cover in each country to combat global burning. Greens, whether greenpeace, the green party, friends of the Earth, or members of ‘the ecologist’, are a pathetic bunch of snivelling cretins who are incapable of proposing, let alone implementing, any of the geocentric revolutions needed to protect the Earth’s life support system. They are an utter waste of time. 

4. Conclusions.

4.1: It’s Impossible to Create a Definition of Sustainability from the Emissions-Only Perspective.

At present there is no green organization anywhere around the world which has a scientific definition of sustainability. Neither greenpeace, friends of the Earth, the wwf, nor the global commons institute, have such a definition. If they don't have a definition then how can they say what is sustainable or not? [25] What this means is that they will never be able to formulate a vision of a sustainable planet. Even worse, however, is that so-called greens’ focus on Carbon emissions precludes them from developing a definition of sustainability or a vision of a sustainable planet. The greenless greens have locked themselves into an emissions-only ideology from which there is no view of the Earth, no vision of a sustainable Earth, and no definition of sustainability.

4.2: Reducing Fossil Fuels is pain relief not a Cure.

The ipcc’s recommendation for reducing Carbon emissions is a proposition solely about technological reforms slowing down the momentum of global burning - or, at best, preventing global burning from getting worse. It has nothing to do with reversing or solving the global burning problem - which, by definition, means that the emissions-only recommendation is a band-aid solution only. The greenless greens are so ideological they believe they can stabilize the climate just by reducing Carbon emissions - thereby ignoring all the Carbon that has been dumped into the atmosphere over the last couple of centuries. Just because they might, one day, stop the dumping of so much Carbon into the atmosphere isn’t going to extract the Carbon already in the atmosphere not prevent it from continuing to contribute to global burning. They don’t seem in the slightest bit interested in reducing the concentration of atmospheric Carbon only in reducing the headline rate of Carbon emissions.

4.3: Green Deceptions.

Brutland possesses a minuscule 1/600 of the Earth’s total landmass, but, in one way or another, exploits roughly 6 million square kilometres around the Earth - which is 4% of the Earth’s land area or 24/600s of the Earth’s landmass. [26] This means it is using, for its own benefit, roughly 24 times its own land area. When, in the late 1980s, global burning first became a political issue, tory politicians like john gummer used to insist there was not the slightest chance that bse could spread to oomans and that all bseef was safe to eat. They were also wont to point out that brutland’s contribution to global burning was a minuscule 3% of global Carbon emissions. It’s amazing how much geophysiological devastation, not forgetting immizerization, can be hidden behind such a seemingly insignificant statistic.

Politicians, and greens, are thus able to mislead the public into believing they are doing something to combat global burning when in fact global burning is getting worse because of the damage they are continuing to inflict on the Earth’s Forests. In brutland, the autumn 2000 floods revealed that the country is not as sustainable as common phrase ‘a green and pleasant land’ would suggest. This phrase is little more than a roadside hoarding covering up the devastation behind it. Brutland is grossly unsustainable. It has devastated its share of the Earth’s life support system. It is devastating even more of the Earth’s life support system in virtually all other countries around the world by extracting their resources and leaving local populations in a state of immiserization. It is one of the most unsustainable countries in the world. And yet politicians are using the focus on reducing Carbon emissions to cover up these appalling realities. Anyone who believes this country could become sustainable through reductions in fossil fuels is suffering from oomano-imperialist delusions of grandeur compounded by gross geophysiological ignorance.

Prescott is a prime example of a (well meaning) environmentalist who believes global burning is caused solely by Carbon emissions from fossil fuels and that the devastation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity has no impact on global burning. It is this ipcc-induced ignorance that enables him to support the construction of new roads, millions of new homes, and the rights of pharmers to flatten their land of all life until it resembles a car park. He simply doesn’t understand, or refuses to understand, that all of these measures will devastate the country’s life support system and boost global burning. Despite the sincerity of his efforts to combat global burning, his exclusive preoccupation with reducing Carbon emissions whilst covering the countryside in endless new developments, reveals he is just as much of a greenless green as the rest of the green movement.

Giving priority to policies for Carbon reductions is scientific nonsense and, politically, ecocidal. It is irrelevant to combating global burning. Even seemingly dramatic reductions of 50% in brutland’s Carbon emissions would be a waste of time. If anything Carbon reductions are just a big green con designed to mislead people into thinking greens are protecting the environment when they are not. There have got to be policies for Reforestation in brutland - as in many other countries. This is the only way for the brutish government/greens to acquire the political credibility they need for saving Forests around the rest of the world. There is no escaping scientific and political responsibilities for tackling both Carbon income and expenditure.

4.4: Greens see nothing wrong with a deforested Planet.

It is dangerous for scientists and greens to protest solely about the greenhouse effect (i.e.  Carbon emissions) whilst ignoring 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 the greenless greens is that they are so ungreen they make non-greens like gregg easterbrook seem green. He’s the only other commentator besides the mundi club who seems to be worried about the fixation on reducing Carbon emissions. Although he’s a green corporate cornucopian who believes that .. “in the western world pollution will end within our lifetimes, with society almost painlessly adapting a zero-emissions philosophy.” [27] he rightly points out that even .. “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.” [28] 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.” [29]

4.5: The Americans forcing the IPCC to consider more Factors affecting the Climate.

Ten years ago one of the mundi club’s fears was that climate negotiators would keep the climate debate focused on one particular factor - CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels. The americans have to be thanked for forcing climate negotiators to take into account more and more factors. By insisting on an increasing number of factors, the americans are just tightening the noose around their own necks. It is up to greens to tighten the knot.

4.6: It's Time for Greens to admit their Tactics over the Last Decade have been wrong.

The collapse of the vague talks and america's determination to force Reforestation onto climate negotiations means that in the future it is no longer going to be possible for europe, climate scientists, and greens, to continue shunting the issue of Reforestation to one side and pretending it's possible to combat global burning solely by reducing Carbon emissions. Greens have wasted ten years on this scientifically one-sided, lop-sided, campaign. Whilst they've been piddling around indulging in their emissions-only fantasies, the world's Forests have been burning. Their tactics have been a complete waste of time and effort. What is more, these tactics are never going to be successful. It is no longer possible for greens to go on pretending that Forests are unimportant to climate change and that Reforestation is irrelevant to curbing global burning. If greens don't dramatically change their position over Reforestation, then america isn't going to go back into climate negotiations. If countries agree to include Reforestation and america does go back into climate negotiations, what is the green movement going to do - stand outside climate conference centres chanting 'Down with the Trees?' 'Down with the Trees?' They've got to come up with proposals for Reforestation if only to entice america back to the negotiating table. They need to put Reforestation onto the agenda in such a way that it puts the onus for curbing climate change back onto those countries which are primarily responsible for destabilizing the climate or else climate negotiations will continue to be a charade pretending that something is being done about global burning when nothing is. It's time that the greenless greens fundamentally reassessed their emissions-only tactic because the american government gives them no other choice.

The argument being put forward here is that the priority for combating global burning should be Reforestation rather than the emissions-only approach. However, it is not being argued that only Reforestation is essential and that reducing emissions can be ignored. A Forests-only solution to combating global burning, ignoring reductions in greenhouse emissions, would not succeed. When it is argued that the conservation of energy is a waste of time what is meant is that the conservation of energy without Reforestation would be a waste of time. The conservation of energy is an essential part of the fight against global burning ­ BUT NOT WITHOUT REFORESTATION. The critical issue is that there needs to be a global Carbon budget. Countries with Carbon debts should repay their debts through Reforestation and reductions in Carbon emissions.

If greens continue with their emissions-only fantasy they’ll end up contributing to the global burning disaster. Forests aren’t an adornment which oomans can either love or loathe - they are the essence of the Earth’s life support system and its climate stabilization system. At the end of the day the issue is simple. Are greens going to support an emissions-only policy which ignores what is happening to the Earth’s Forests or are they going to support a Carbon budget approach which requires recommendations for both Reforestation (in Carbon debtor nations) and emissions reductions (in Carbon debtor nations)? Why settle for one issue when you can have two?

4.7: All or nothing!!

Scientists originally decided to focus on reducing Carbon emissions as the first step to stabilizing the Earth’s life support system but, a decade later, it is obvious this tactic has failed because it enables governments, and even greens, to legitimize further geophysiological devastation.

Oomans should either try to measure, and regulate, both sides of the Carbon spiral or they might as well abandon green politics and just get on with indulging themselves before the refugees and the wars start sweeping around the world. In politics the middle ground is usually regarded as the realm of moderation and safety but in this instance, the focus on reducing greenhouse emissions, is just a waste of time. All or nothing!!

The legitimate political, and economic, objectives that so-called green protestors hope to achieve through their preoccupation with reductions in CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels can also be achieved through a comprehensive climate treaty which measures all Carbon fluxes i.e. the abolition of global poverty, land redistribution.

The challenge which global burning poses to the over-industrialized world is immense but the leaders of these profligate Carbon brothels have no intention of repaying their Carbon debts. Many of them would argue that repaying historical Carbon debts would be impossible. And yet it is the impossible that is needed.

Addenda.

Assumptions of this work.

The assumptions of this work are that:-

* the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is the essence of the Earth’s life support system;

* the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is the prime element in the Earth’s climate stabilization system;

* the devastation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is just as critical, perhaps even more so, than the release of Carbon emissions;

* the biggest cause of the damage to the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, and thus the biggest contributor to global burning, is the global pharming industry;

* the pharming industry also releases a considerable proportion of global Carbon emissions; [30]

* all the land colonized by livestock pharmers should be expropriated and pastureland allowed to revert back to Forests, Swamps, and Wilderness areas, preferably ooman-free Wilderness areas, in order to combat global burning;

* by themselves reductions in the use of fossil fuels are insufficient to stop climate change;

* Reforestation is a necessity for combating global burning;

* greens who sacrifice the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity for the sake of reducing Carbon emissions are boosting global burning; and, finally,

* it is more important to tackle the pharming industry than it is to tackle the fossil fuel, transport, and power generation, industries - which is not to say that the fossil fuel, transport, and power generation, industries aren’t important.