THREE: THE WORLD'S EFFORTS TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING;

THE STORY SO FAR.

Before exploring the green movement's opposition to Reforestation it is necessary to look at the wider context because this has helped to shape the green movement's position on Reforestation. This chapter looks at the conflict between the over-industrialized nations and the rest of the world [1] over the priorities for combating global warming. Whilst the over-industrialized nations want poor third world countries to Reforest their lands to soak up atmospheric pollution, third world countries demand that the over-industrialized countries reduce their Carbon emissions. Whilst there is undoubtedly some justice in the third world's position, in the final analysis, both sides are using each other as an excuse to continue cutting down their Forests and dumping pollution into the atmosphere.

The existence of global warming was discovered in the 19thC but it emerged as an important scientific issue only in the early 1970s. At this point there were disputes between scientists who believed the Earth was heading towards another ice age and those who believed that anthropogenic pollution would exacerbate global warming. It took about a decade for a scientific consensus to emerge that the Earth would get hotter. A number of major scientific reports on the prospects of a rise in global average temperatures were published in the mid to late 1980s. Even at this early stage it was clear that scientists were more preoccupied by the greenhouse effect (the release of pollution into the atmosphere) than they were about global warming (the Photosynthetic effect and the heat effect). [2] Nevertheless, it was through their pressure that a series of international, scientific and political, conferences were organized at which it was hoped that governments around the world would examine the issue and implement policies to tackle this new environmental danger.

i) The First World Climate Conference.

The first conference which attempted to promote an interest in global warming and formulate policies to combat the damage it might cause, was the first world climate conference held in 1979.

ii) The Toronto Conference.

In 1988 a conference was held in toronto for the world's governments to discuss the dangers posed by the greenhouse effect. "What emerged from the June meeting attended by more than 300 scientists from around the world was the first global scientific consensus .. (about global warming)." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.210). It was agreed that countries should reduce CO2 emissions by 20% "as soon as possible".

iii) The Nordwijk Conference.

At the nordwijk conference on the greenhouse effect the over-industrialized nations insisted that Reforestation was needed to combat a rise in global temperatures, "The strongest move in this direction so far (Reforestation) originated at the Nordwijk Conference in 1989 when it was proposed that an annual goal of 12 million hectares of net afforestation (an area three times the size of Denmark) be adopted for the next 20 years." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3).

iv) The Hague Declaration.

The 72 nation conference held in holland to discuss the greenhouse effect reiterated the need to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The united kingdom, the united states of america, and japan blocked a proposal to impose quotas on all countries. A number of european countries, led by the french government, proposed that a world body should be set up with the power to enforce any agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, "The Hague declaration, a French initiative signed on March 12th 1989 where 24 heads of state proposed a UN agency empowered to impose sanctions on governments that did not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases." (Guardian 8.11.89. p.24). This was defeated.

v) The IPCC.

The inter-governmental panel on climate change (ipcc) was set up by the united nations environment programme and the world meteorological organization in November 1988 to explore the threats posed by the greenhouse effect. The panel was divided into three working groups; the scientific working party researched the science of the greenhouse effect; the second explored the impact of climate change on society; and the political working party examined the need for political measures to minimize the economic costs of the greenhouse effect. Each group produced a report which was debated at the second world climate conference held in November 1990.

I: The IPCC Scientific Group.

The ipcc scientific working group, the ultimate scientific authority on the greenhouse effect, [3] published the final draft of its first report in September 1990. The report pointed out that the rise in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon over the last couple of centuries, but especially since the second world war, had been dramatic. There is approximately 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was before the industrial revolution [4] but, if all greenhouse gases are taken into consideration, there is the equivalent of 50% more CO2. [5] The ipcc believe this could lead to a correspondingly dramatic increase in global temperatures, "Under the Business-as-Usual scenario emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before the end of the next century." (JT Houghton: GJ Jenkins and JJ Ephraums 'Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 p.xi). [6]

The ipcc scientific working party issued a grim warning that the predicted rise in global temperatures could lead to ecological calamities and recommended an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions of 60-80% in order to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric carbon at the 1990 level, "The long lived (greenhouse) gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilize their concentration at today's levels." (JT Houghton: GJ Jenkins and JJ Ephraums 'Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 p.xi). It also recommended reductions in other greenhouse gases.

II: The IPCC's Failure to Recommend Global Reforestation.

Although the scientific working group recommended cuts in Carbon emissions it made no parallel recommendation for an increase in the Planet's Forest cover [7] This failure may be one of the main reasons, but not the only one, why the international community has still not reached an agreement on the world's Forests, .. "the halting progress of the continuing discussions on forests in the Prepatory Committee of the UNCED. The critical observation .. was that in no case has there been political progress in addressing environmental issues internationally without consensus from the scientific community as to the definition of the problem and an equally clear definition of potential solutions." (Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.xii).

III: The Priority given to the Reduction in Carbon Emissions by the IPCC.

The priority given by the ipcc, and in its wake green organizations, to reducing atmospheric emissions is based on three assumptions. Firstly, that atmospheric pollution has a bigger impact on the climate than Forests, "it is likely that the increased use of energy resources will play the most significant role in future environmental change." (A M Mannion 'Global Environmental Change. A Natural and Cultural Environmental History' Longman New York 1991 p.323). Secondly, that the reduction in atmospheric pollution combats the greenhouse effect more than Reforestation, .. "the most direct way of countering global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions" (Ian Guest Guardian 1.11.91. p.34). And, thirdly, that over the short term Reforestation is of little importance in reducing global average temperatures because it is not able to remove the huge quantities of Carbon pollution in the atmosphere. It would not have an immediate impact on reducing global temperatures which are destined to rise because of the huge levels of pollution dumped into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution.

IV: Criticisms of the Priority given to the Reduction in Carbon Emissions by the IPCC.

The ipcc states that there has been an increase in global temperatures over the last century and correlates this with the increase in atmospheric Carbon emissions. It points out that these emissions could have produced an even bigger increase in global temperatures but that there might have been factors which offset a larger increase. However, the ipcc does not state how much of the actual increase in global temperature has been caused by Carbon emissions and how much has been caused by an increase in the albedo effect as a result of the global deforestation. The change in the Planet's albedo effect may have had a much more substantial impact on global temperatures than the change in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. The multiplicity of factors influencing global temperatures have not been evaluated to determine their relative contribution.

As has been pointed out above, the case of the Amazon Rainforest suggests that deforestation has a bigger impact on the climate than atmospheric pollution and, correspondingly, that Reforestation will cause bigger reductions in global warming than a reduction in atmospheric emissions. Finally, contrary to the ipcc's assumptions, Reforestation has a critical, short term, role in reducing global temperatures. Although Reforestation cannot combat global warming in the short term via a reduction of the greenhouse effect (extracting Carbon from the atmosphere), it can do so via a reduction in the albedo effect, "Changes in the terrestrial biota will also effect the overall albedo of the planet. Lashof believes this to be 'probably the most significant feedback produced by the terrestrial biota'." ('Global Warming. The Greenpeace Report' p.38); "The evaporation of water from forests is part of Gaia's cooling system." (James Lovelock 'Gaia. The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine' Gaia Books Ltd London 1991. p.179). It is imperative to reduce Carbon emissions and prevent further boosts to the greenhouse effect. However, this does not mean that cutting Carbon emissions is the most important policy for combatting global warming. The most urgent priority is global Reforestation.

vi) The Failure of the Second World Climate Conference.

In the lead up to the world climate conference a number of governments made conditional promises to reduce their countries' Carbon emissions. They seemed anxious to show the public they would take action to combat the greenhouse effect. However, whilst these governments wrapped up their plans in the ipcc's phraseology, their target of stabilizing CO2 emissions at 1990 levels came nowhere near to fulfilling the ipcc's recommendation to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at 1990 levels - which seems to indicate they were primarily intent on confusing the issues and stalling public pressure to implement effective measures. Promising to stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, whether in five, ten or fifteen years' time, would not merely not stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at 1990 levels, but would lead to an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, "Stabilizing global emissions would not prevent disruption of the climate. Emissions of CO2 are already higher than the forests and oceans can absorb. According to John Houghton, "stabilizing emissions of CO2 is of little help in the critical task of stabilizing concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere. To do that at current levels would require an overnight cut in emissions of 60%."" (New Scientist 26.6.93 p.13). The brutish government's plan to cut CO2 emissions by 30% by 2005 was even more devious. Whilst it may have seemed a significant move toward meeting the ipcc's target, all that it amounted to was curtailing the projected 30% increase in Carbon emissions over the next fifteen years. This goal was even more vaccuous given that the brutish government made it plain it would only implement its own proposal if every other country followed suit.

It was hardly surprising when all the nations of the world met in Geneva (29 Oct - 7 Nov 1990) for the second world climate conference, that they not only failed to agree on any joint actions to meet the ipcc's recommendation, the only decision they made was to meet again in 18 months' time at the rio Earth summit.

In the period between the world climate conference and the summit, none of the proposals put forward by the over-industrialized nations were implemented. Far from starting to radically reduce pollution, they continued to do their best to boost economic growth, and thus the output of Carbon emissions, as much as possible. The conference had been an utter sham.

Whilst the work of the ipcc scientific group had proceeded smoothly because it was conducted on the basis of a general consensus amongst its participants, which consisted of most of the world's atmospheric scientists, [8] the work of the ipcc political group had been the focus for yet more conflicts between the rich and poor countries. The following sections explore the positions of the over-industrialized world and the industrializing world in regard to the proposals for combatting global warming.

vii) The Battle over Priorities for Combatting the Greenhouse Effect.

I: The Position of the Over-Industrialized Nations.

The over-industrialized nations developed a wide array of responses to the threat posed by the greenhouse effect and to the ipcc scientists' recommendation for dramatic cuts in Carbon pollution. The following sections examine these responses; firstly, the emphasis on Reforestation; secondly, the challenges made to the ipcc's recommendations; thirdly, diasgreements about the allocation of responsibility for polluting the atmosphere; and, fourthly, challenges to the theory of the greenhouse effect.

A: Reforestation.

The over-industrialized nations' almost instinctive response when confronted by scientific predictions about the threat posed by the greenhouse effect was to argue that third world countries should use their Forests to soak up the pollution dumped into the atmosphere by the over-industrialized nations. The former colonial powers believed the simplest solution to the climatic problems caused by their atmospheric pollution was for the former colonial countries to store the pollution in their extensive Forests which, after all, thrived on such pollution! This neat solution to the greenhouse effect overlooked one PROBLEM - the former colonies weren't too keen on the idea. Despite the objections, the over-industrialized nations persisted with the idea because they were reluctant to reduce their atmospheric Carbon emissions. Paradoxically then, although many of the over-industrialized nations must have been extremely pleased that the ipcc scientists' failed to make any recommendation for global Reforestation, their main response to the recommendation for cuts in CO2 emissions was to promote Reforestation. The over-industrialized nations put forward a number of variations on the Reforestation theme as a means of evading their responsibilities for meeting the ipcc's recommendation.

a) Using Poor Countries to Soak up Carbon Emissions.

The over-industrialized countries' proposed to combat global warming by giving grants to poor countries for Reforestation projects.

1. Britain.

"The UK government, in its recently published white paper on the environment, has declared that: "The part that forestry can play in keeping levels of CO2 in the atmosphere down is one of the reasons for Britain's contribution to the international efforts to conserve and regenerate the tropical rainforests"." (Aubrey Meyer Econews no.54 Dec1990/Jan 1991 p.9).

b) The Historical Reforestation Carried out by the Over-Industrialized Nations.

The over-industrialized nations also argued that they needn't reduce their Carbon emissions because they'd Reforested their own countries.

1. Resources for the Future.

Although many commentators believe that Forests in the over-industrialized world are being decimated, and that those that are left are dying as a result of pollution, one commentator has argued that the over-industrialized nations have Reforested their lands and that this has helped to reduce the greenhouse effect, "The forests of Europe, North America and the former Soviet Union have expanded so much in the past four decades that they are countering the greenhouse effect, according to a Washington think-tank 'Resources for the Future'. Roger Sedjo, author of the study .. argues that new temperate forests, most planted in the past forty years, are absorbing at least 700 million tonnes of carbon a year from the atmosphere. Sedjo claims that his findings "go a long way towards explaining" the mystery of the missing carbon sink. (7 billion tonnes of carbon [7Gt] are dumped into the atmosphere; 3Gt stay in the atmosphere; 2-3Gts are absorbed by the oceans; but the rest disappears). Now it seems this missing carbon is accumulating in new temperate forests close to the great power plants and highways where it is emitted. Sedjo says, 24 of the 25 European countries increased their forest area between 1954 and 1984. Forest cover in the former Soviet Union has risen by more than 70 million hectares in 25 years." (Fred Pearce New Scientist 11.7.92).

2. Worldwide Fund for Nature.

This position is supported, surprisingly enough, by the Worldwide Fund for Nature .. "the deforestation of temperate lands .. was largely achieved by the end of the 18thC and must have contributed substantially to the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3). The over-industrialized nations have apparently been Reforesting their lands for the last two hundred years.

3. Criticisms.

The ipcc, however, believes that deforestation in the over-industrialized world was the main source of atmospheric CO2 emissions until the 1950s when it was overtaken by emissions from fossil fuels, "Until the mid 20thC, temperate deforestation and the loss of organic matter from soils was a more important contributor to atmospheric CO2 than was the burning of fossil fuels." (JT Houghton: GJ Jenkins and JJ Ephraums 'Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment' Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 p.xxxii); "The destruction of forests in the past two centuries, mostly in temperate lands, has contributed almost as much to the greenhouse effect as the burning of fossil fuels." (Fred Pearce, New Scientist 10.12.88).

Of course it is feasible, even if the main source of atmospheric Carbon emissions was the deforestation of temperate lands, that Forests in these countries could have increased in scale. Feasible, but highly unlikely. Whatever the exact figures for deforestation, the over-industrialized nations are far from having imported enough Carbon to have absorbed the colossal amounts of pollution they have dumped into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

c) Using Reforestation Projects as a Greenhouse Offset.

It gradually became clear to the over-industrialized nations that they couldn't solve the greenhouse effect by dishing out a few grants to poor countries for Reforestation schemes. But, far from giving up on the Reforestation issue, the over-industrialized countries demanded that Reforestation schemes should be used as a means of offsetting reductions in greenhouse emissions, "Mr Heseltine's plan would allow governments to add their tree planting programmes, reductions in ozone-depleting substances, methane, and other exhaust gas reductions into the equation." (Guardian 28.5.91. p.3). A number of plans were put forward for large scale Reforestation projects in the over-industrilaized world.

1. The United States of America.

"In his 1990 State of the Union address, US President George Bush announced a programme that would increase the nation's forest cover by a billion trees annually for the next 10 years." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-226).

2. Australia.

"Last year the prime minister of Australia announced a program to plant one billon trees by the end of the decade." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.226).

3. Britain.

.. "the Countryside Commission announced the creation of a new national forest of 30 million trees." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.226).

4. Criticisms: Reforestation as a Cosmetic Response to the Greenhouse Effect.

These proposed Reforestation schemes were utterly cosmetic, "As grand as the Bush plan sounds, an additional 10 billion trees over 10 years would absorb only 1-3% of the CO2 produced in the US during that same period. Considering that the country produces 1.3 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide a year - over 20% of the total that enters the global atmosphere - 10 billion trees seem to be a Band-Aid." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-226); The United States's "'billion trees per annum' carbon off-set forestry programme will (at best) sequester 2% of their annual CO2 output concurrent with their 15% CO2 emissions increase over the next 15 years." (Global Commons Institute 'Equity and Survival' 42 Windsor Road NW2 5DS).

Steve Ellsworth, Greenpeace's atmosphere campaigner said, "If accepted this proposal (Reforestation as a means of offsetting Carbon emissions) will let the US off the hook and allow business as usual throughout the world, exactly what the scientists warned against. The World Climate Conference would be seriously undermined." (Guardian 28.5.91. p.3).

The proposed Reforestation schemes also acted as a public relations exercise to persuade the public that they were doing something positive to combat what a large number of people at that time were beginning to fear could be a major ecological disaster.

d) Using Other Countries as Greenhouse Offsets.

As will be seen later, the over-industrialized countries have still not given up on the idea of using poor countries to soak up atmospheric pollution. They are promoting Reforestation schemes scientifically to offset precise quantities of Carbon emissions. If this recourse to science shows that the over-industrialized countries are at least takingseriously the idea of meeting their Carbon targets (for which see below), it also exposes just how little they are prepared to do to combat the global warming threat.

B: The Demand for Collective Greenhouse Gases.

The united states government under George Bush opposed the idea of setting targets for the reduction of Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. It demanded that the ipcc recommendation should be interpreted loosely so that reductions in any greenhouse gas could be counted as an equivalent reduction in CO2 emissions. In particular, it wanted its reduction in cfcs emissions (which were being discussed at another conference to protect the ozone layer) to be counted as part of its reduction in CO2 emissions, "Almost all industrialized countries now accept that the most direct way of countering global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions. This has been fiercely resisted by the US which accounts for a third of all world CO2 emissions. The US had justified its footdragging by insisting that all greenhouse gases be seen as a package. This has the effect of minimizing the US contribution to global warming because the US is well on its way to phasing out CFCs." (Ian Guest Guardian 1.11.91. p.34). The result of this tactic would have meant that the united states could have met the ipcc's demand for reductions in CO2 emissions by increasing its CO2 emissions, "The US .. insists that the freeze applies to all greenhouse gases taken together and that there should not be targets for individual gases. The US EPA calculates that if the effects of banning CFCs is taken into account, the country could increase its emissions of CO2 by 23% by 2005 and yet appear to be making no net contribution to greenhouse warming." (New Scientist 22.6.91. p.16). What made the tactic even more evasive was that the united states conveniently ignored the fact that the ipcc had made recommendations for reductions in a number of greenhouse gases not just CO2. If the united states had been serious about using CO2 equivalents, then it should have calculated the total cuts in various greenhouse gases in terms of CO2 equivalents which would have been much bigger than the ipcc's recommendation for a 60-80% cut in CO2 emissions.

The result of this ecological gerrymandering was that it, "lets CO2 off the hook." (Paul Honan, chief negotiator for greenpeace). "Overall emissions could be cut simply by reducing methane emissions, without any real effort to cut the worst culprit, CO2." (New Scientist 22.6.91. p.16).

The danger involved in such an approach became transparent a couple of years later when it was confirmed that although cfcs boosted global warming, the consequence of cfcs' depletion of the ozone layer was to allow heat to escape from the Earth's atmosphere. This caused a cooling effect which, according to the ipcc, matched the global warming effect caused by cfcs. The united states' attempt to use reductions in cfcs as its contribution to tackling global warming no longer had any plausibility. If it had been allowed to use CO2 equivalents to boost its CO2 emissions it would have increased global warming.

C: The Industrializing Countries causing the most Emissions.

Another tactic used by the over-industrialized nations to evade its responsibility for the greenhouse effect was to challenge the statistics about countries' Carbon emissions. It was suddenly discovered that it wasn't the over-industrialized world that was polluting the Planet after all but the industrializing countries.

1. The World Resources Institute (WRI).

"The World Resources Institute (WRI) contends that developing countries contribute almost half the greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming." (Anil Agarwal & Sunita Narain 'Global Warming in an Unequal World. A Case of Environmental Colonialism' Centre for Science and Environment India 1991 p.4); "The latest World Resources guide to the global environment has created furore in the Third World by suggesting India, China and Brazil are now responsible for nearly 21% of global warming, with other developing countries taking the third world total to nearly 45%. The US share of the responsibility drops accordingly to 17%. The WRI's bright idea was to apportion (oceanic) 'sinks' between each country .. and did this by the simple technique whereby the more a country emits, the greater the sink it is allowed. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) .. apportions the sinks to each country on a population basis. They have thus calculated the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions each country is emitting in excess of, or below, its permissible limit." (Vicky Hutchins New Statesman 10.5.91. p.19-20). The world resources institute was one of the founding organizations of the now discredited tropical forestry action plan.

D: The Challenges to the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect.

One of the most obvious ways to avoid doing anything about the greenhouse effect was to challenge the idea that the world was warming up or that it would warm up.

a) The George C Marshall Institute.

The george c marshall institute in the united states suggests that in the next few decades there should be a little ice age, "that cold spells in recent history may have been linked to changes in solar activity, and that such a cold spell is now due and will save us from the greenhouse effect." (New Statesman 14/4/90). The institute is, "a Washington based think tank best known for its advocacy of President Reagan's 'Star Wars' Strategic defence Initiative." (Stephen Schneider 'Global Warming. Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century?' The Lutterworth Press, Cambridge 1989 p.289). What a surprise that these cold war warriors should see another ice age coming over the horizon.

b) Solaris.

Solaris is a Scandinavian research institute which believes that the Planet's average temperature is determined primarily by the Earth's orbit around the sun. The ipcc scientists argue that the decrease in solar energy reaching the Earth as a result of changes in the Earth's orbit is less significant than the boost to the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic changes.

E: The Challenge to the Dangers Posed by the Greenhouse Effect.

One of Russia's leading climatologists supports the ipcc's view that there will be an increase in the greenhouse effect because of anthropogenic pollution but regards this not as a threat but as a great benefit for his country. An increase in global temperatures will mean the thawing of the Arctic tundra which allow the spread of agriculture and, as the ice in the Arctic ocean begins to melt, a new trading route could be opened around the north of Russia which would boost Russian, and world, trade.

F: Rewarding the Polluters.

The World Bank decided to put forward a suggestion of its own to help the over-industrialized nations evade their responsibilities for curbing Carbon emissions. Although it acknowledged the dangers posed by the greenhouse effect, it opposed the ipcc's recommendation for global cuts in CO2 emissions because this would have meant that each country around the world would have had to make the same percentage reductions. This was grossly unfair to the over-industrialized countries, the biggest polluters. Its criteria for determining how much greenhouse gases a country could emit, was a proportion of gross domestic product. In other words, the greater the gdp the greater the pollution a country could release - which, of course, was just another way of shafting poor countries with small gdps, "The World Bank and others advocate .. that environmental rights should be allocated by income. The 1992 Development Report contains a description of why they feel CO2 emissions entitlements should be allocated by income. Allocating rewards to income is normal in the bank's normal line of business." (Climate Change and the Precautionary Principle The Global Commons Institute undated c.1993 p.4).

II: The Position of the Industrializing Nations.

Having looked at the various suggestions put forward by the over-industrialized nations for combating, or rather evading any action over, the greenhouse effect, this section explores the position taken by the industrializing nations. As has already been noted, as a result of the rise of interest in the greenhouse effect, the industrializing countries suddenly found themselves confronted by the latest manifestation of colonialism.

A: The Need for the Over-Industrialized nations to Reduce Carbon Emissions.

In January 1990, third world delegates at a meeting of the ipcc's political working group in sao paulo presented a joint agreement on their position as regards action on the greenhouse effect. The sao paulo declaration proposed that the most important way of tackling the greenhouse effect was for the over-industrialized nations to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, "Although forests can assist in mitigating the effects of atmospheric carbon build up, the problem is essentially a fossil-fuel one and must be addressed as such." (Global Commons Institute 'Report on GCI and Recent Activities' 42 Windsor Road NW2 5DS January 1992); "The industrialized countries .. are advocating strong measures to conserve and protect the world's forests. The developing (sic) countries .. see an equally urgent need to minimize harmful emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels by the North." (Jagmohan S Maini & Ola Ullsten 'Conservation and Sustainable Development of Forests Globally: Issues and Opportunities' in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.112).

B: Opposition to the IPCC's Recommendation for Global cuts in Greenhouse Gases.

Third world countries regarded the ipcc scientific group's recommendation for global cuts in Carbon emissions as unfair because it required all countries around the world to make the same percentage cuts, "Equal percentage emissions limitations for each nation may make international politics simpler, but from a global point of view, reducing emissions by a fixed fraction for all nations may be neither the most cost effective plan, nor the fairest." (Stephen Schneider); "Across the board cuts in CO2 emissions will not make much headway with Third World countries who currently consume 15 to 20 times less energy than we do." (Wayne Ellwood New Internationalist April 1990). To insist that all countries reduce their Carbon emissions by the same percentage would be to reward the polluters and penalize the non polluters. [9]

The industrializing countries are quite correct on this matter. Given that half the Carbon released during the industrial revolution is still in the atmosphere, responsibility for preventing the pending ecological disasters clearly lays with the polluters, the over-industrialized countries. It is they who must take the main responsibility for reducing Carbon emissions.

C: The Third World's Opposition to the Use of their Forests as Carbon Sinks.

The industrializing countries were opposed to the idea that their Forests should be used as Carbon sinks to soak up pollution released by the over-industrialized nations, "The main discord (about a forest convention) is over whether the forests should be seen as global resources - mopping up excess CO2 - or national resources to be developed for each country's needs." (Guardian 12.6.92. p.22). The refusal of the bush administration to reduce the united states' Carbon pollution because it would be an infringement of national sovereignty produced a reaction amongst third world countries who proclaimed that their Forests were also sovereign. [10] There were two main reasons for third world countries opposition to the idea that they should be primary responsible for combatting the greenhouse effect by implementing Reforestation schemes.

a) Deforestation Already Carried out in the Over-Industrialized Countries.

Third world countries objected to Reforesting their land because the over-industrialized countries had already deforested their own lands and were deforesting what was left of them at an even faster rate than was occurring in the industrializing world.

b) The Necessity of Continued Deforestation.

The third world insisted on its right to go on plundering its Forest resources for the sake of economic growth and the alleviation of poverty - even though the last people who saw any benefit from logging were the poor, "The forest crisis is rooted in the agricultural sector and in people's need for employment and income. Deforestation will be stopped only when the natural forest is economically more valuable than alternative uses for the same land." (Global Commons Institute 'Report on GCI and Recent Activities' 42 Windsor Road NW2 5DS January 1992).

To put the issue at its bluntest, "No one in the developing countries will plant trees only to create carbon reservoirs that will allow citizens in industrialized countries to drive their cars and run their factories." (Jagmohan S Maini & Ola Ullsten 'Conservation and Sustainable Development of Forests Globally: Issues and Opportunities' in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.116).

D: The Secondary Importance of Reforestation.

Third world countries believed that the priority for combatting the greenhouse effect was for the over-industrialized to reduce their Carbon emissions. In order to resist the over-industrialized nations' pressure to Reforest their lands, third world countries stated that they would support a Forest convention only if there was a global agreement affecting Forests in all countries, "At a workshop organized under the auspicies of the IPCC and held in Sao Paulo during January 1990, the participants supported developing a world forest conservation protocol within the context of a climate-change convention. This initiative came about to ward off attention on tropical forests as a universal panacea for the carbon ills of the industrialized countries." (Kilaparti Ramakrishna 'The Need for an International Commission on the Conservation and Use of World Forests' in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.127). Whilst both the over-industrialized nations and third world countries were opposed to Reforesting their own countries, a protocol, outlining an inconsequential set of promises about the need for ethereal Reforestation, was quite acceptable. And a proposal, first made at the nordwijk conference for the Reforestation of 12 million hectares every year for the next 20 years, "was accepted, in principal, by the IPCC in its report to the Second World Climate conference in November 1990." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3) primarily because it did not commit any country to planting new Forests.