FOUR: GREENS STANCE ON REFORESTATION.

Before looking at the green movement's opposition to Reforestation, the following chapter provides a cursory examination of the views of a few green commentators as regards the priority they give to Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming. This chapter also enables the issue of the nature of a sustainable Planet to be discussed. The low esteem in which greens hold Reforestation as a priority for combatting global warming is much less surprising given that, in general, greens do not regard Wood economies as being the basis of a sustainable Planet. The vast majority of greens, especially the supergreens who have been leading the green movement over the last decade or so, have not given any prominence to the geophysiological and political importance of Forests [1] which is due to their general lack of interest in ecology. It is difficult to discern how it is possible to pursue green politics without the slightest interest in, or acknowledgement of, the Planet's life support system . Its a bit like a garage mechanic who knows nothing about car engines.

i) Sandra Postel and Lori Heise.

As far as is known, Postel & Heise have not outlined their views on the priorities for combatting global warming. However, they are amongst the few greens who support large scale Reforestation and who have pointed out that Reforestation is a means of helping to stabilize the carbon cycle, "Tree planting may lack the glory and grandeur of a huge hydropower dam (sic) but its unmatched potential for stabilizing simultaneously the carbon cycle, land and water resources, rural energy supplies and people's livelihoods makes it a top priority for economic and social development." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.54).

The importance given in this quote to the role of Reforestation in stabilizing the Carbon cycle is, however, quite deceptive. Carbon cycle stabilization has been included in the quote solely as a means of highlighting some of the additional (almost accidental) benefits involved in Reforestation. The reason the authors give "top priority" to Reforestation is overwhelmingly because of its importance in boosting economic and social development, not because of its geophysiological benefit in combatting global warming. The real objectives of their support for a massive level of Reforestation are revealed in the following quote, "This report (has) provided ballpark estimates of reforestation needed for fuelwood, industrial wood and ecological rehabilitation of 55 million hectares, 10 million hectares and 100 million hectares, respectively. For the sake of a rough estimate, assuming 35 million hectares of overlap seems reasonable, leaving the equivalent of 130 million hectares of needed planting." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.45). The ecological rehabilitation mentioned in this quote is not the stabilization of the Carbon cycle but the prevention of soil erosion, the stabilization of the water cycle, and other ecological benefits which forests provide for third world communities. The emphasis is entirley on local ecological benefits not global geophysiological benefits. The authors have no interest in putting land aside solely for the sake of stabilizing the Carbon cycle. As the authors point out, when Forests are used to meet local needs then their Carbon-fixing role is limited, "Some of the trees planted for fuel wood would offer little carbon-fixing benefit, since the carbon they accumulate during growth would quickly be released to the atmosphere when they were burned." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.45). [2]

If it is bad enough that Postel & Heise have not calculated how much land should be Reforested as a means of combatting global warming, it is even worse that they want to industrialize virgin forests since this would boost global warming, "Better management of natural forests also holds potential for increasing sustainable production of industrial wood. Though a managed forest is clearly altered from its original state, it continues to offer many of the ecological and social values that a monocultural plantation cannot. Most management schemes result in annual yields between a fifth and a third as much as from plantations. Less than 5% of the tropical forest resources base is being managed at all, and 3/4 of that area is in India." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.31).

The authors propose a new, high-tech, green revolution for their massive Reforestation project - implying, of course, that the previous green revolution has been a success, "A focused effort on breeding multi-purpose trees that endure droughts and grow well in marginal environments could greatly improve prospects for successful reforestation. Indeed, what is needed in the coming decade is an effort somewhat akin to the agricultural Green Revolution of the sixties: a dedication to developing genetically improved tree species and to extending widely the technical and financial resources for reforestation." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.53). These advocates of the high tech school of ecological exploitation even welcome the tfap, "The late 1985 launch of the Tropical Forstry Action Plan .. holds promise of elevating forestry to its rightful place among development priorities." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.50). It is not known whether they have changed their position after the disclosures regarding the tfap's failures - for which see chapter six.

The low priority which these greens give to Reforestation as a means of stabilizing the Carbon cycle is not surprising given that at the time of writing global warming was still primarily a scientific issue not a political one. But another reason for this low priority is that they are members of the worldwatch institute which is committed to high tech solutions to the world's ecological and economic problems - as will be seen in chapter six.

The fact that these authors have emphasized that Reforestation is a way of boosting industrialization and economic growth ought to be emphasized, however, from a politically point of view given the green movement's objections to the over-industrialized nations' proposals for Reforestation in third world countries. The green movement has generally tended to see Reforestation in third world countries as an imposition on these countries rather than as a significant source of economic and industrial growth - as long as the tfap's failures could be avoided. It is wrong for the over-industrialized nations to force third world countries to Reforest their lands merely as Carbon sinks for the atmospheric wastes of the over-industrialized nations but Reforestation could still be of considerable help in promoting economic growth in poor countries in preference to some of the other industrialization projects such as hydro-electric dams and monocultural tree plantations. The economic importance of Forests also reveals the failure of left wing radicals who have opposed Reforestation projects in third world countries because they are not regarded as being advanced industrialized projects. This just goes to show the extent to which they are divorced from the real interests of third world people whom they proclaim to support from the comfort of their over-priveleged, over-motorized, over-industrialized and cement lined existence.

ii) Anita Gordon & David Suzuki.

Anita gordon & david suzuki summarize some of the main reasons for the low opinion which many greens hold about the role of Forests in countering global warming, "Massive new forests covering the globe and acting as gigantic storage vaults for carbon - it's an image that governments and policy makers have exploited to demonstrate that they are dealing with global warming. Plant some trees and deal with global warming - it has a nice ring to it; its clean, green, easy to do, a motherhood solution, but unfortunately the problem is not that simple." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228).

The authors look at the views of a scientist on Reforestation, "Greg Marland of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was one of the first to look at this possibility, and he thinks the dimensions of the "fix" (sic) are staggering; to take five gigatons a year of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, an amount roughly equal to what we are adding annually, would require between 517,996,860 hectares (1.28 billion acres) and 667,730,250 hecatres (1.65 billion acres) of new forests. To put that into perspective: it would be like planting trees over 73% of the United States." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228). It is amazing that such prominent greens could debase Reforestation by calling it an ecological "fix" i.e. no different from technological 'fixes' proposed by the world's Earth rapists to avoid reducing pollution; and that they regard the prospect of "planting trees over 73% of the United States" with horror rather than being welcomed as a geophysiological necessity.

Gordon & suzuki give priority to the reduction in Carbon emissions. They do not oppose Reforestation but believe that, at best, it can serve only as a stop-gap, "Some scientists are suggesting that trees could be our temporary salvation and could buy us time in the race against global warming. Planting trees could give us decades while we develop and put in place an energy system that doesn't depend on fossil fuels."(Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228). They would like to see the replacement of fossil fuels with solar power. This is the first of many examples amongst greens where Reforestation is regarded as subsidiary to the creation of solar energy.

iii) Sandy Irvine & Alec Ponton.

There is no mention in 'A Green Manifesto' of the priority given to Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming. But, then again, at this point in time there was still a great deal of scientific uncertainty regarding the threat posed by the greenhouse effect. The authors support the creation of Wilderness areas, "Globally we should work to create a network of wilderness areas kept free from exploitation in perpetuity." (Sandy Irvine & Alec Ponton 'A Green Manifesto. Policies for a Green Future' Optima 1988 p.47). However, support for Wilderness areas is not the same as support for Reforestation - although there overlaps between the two. Unfortunately the authors are a little vague on the 'global network of wilderness areas'. It is not clear how much Wilderness they believe should be put aside in each country.

iv) Ola Ullsten

Ola ullsten, a former swedish ambassador, headed the independent review team of the tropical forestry action plan. S/he advocates a world forest convention to protect all the world's Forests. Unfortunately, his idea of protecting Forests is to exploit them as fully as possible, "We must now enlarge the debate, from "combatting deforestation" to "the conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest worldwide. This crucial change provides a more cohesive and comprehensive framework with which to address a wide range of issues and opportunities associated with forests. The world's forests first and foremost represent a renewable economic resource of immense importance for any country's economic development." (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). This is a good example of the way in which the promotion of a good green concept such as renewability could be used to destroy Biodiversity.

v) Fred Pearce.

Fred Pearce has done more than any most greens to popularize the threat posed by global warming. He believes there is a need to regulate the Earth's natural processes such as global warming - although he does not seem to believe this could be done through global Reforestation. He argues that because there is not enough knowledge about how to control global warming, the short term techno-fixes will have to be used, "Our planet is in need of a new stewardship based on a scientific understanding of how it works. But we are a very long way from achieving that end. We have only the vaguest idea of what controls there are in the cockpit of spaceship Earth. While we are drawing up the operating manual, we may have to come up with some short term technical fixes to help us to get by." (Fred Pearce 'Turning up the Heat. Our Perilous future in the Global Greenhouse' The Bodley Head, London 1989 p.189). Some of these techno-fixes, such as those involving polystrene balls, are far too obscene to mention in an ecologically friendly pamphlet such as this. Like the ipcc, he does not believe there is a role for Reforestation in combatting global warming in the short term.

Pearce accepts the possibility of Reforestation as a means of combating the greenhouse effect, "If we could replace fossil fuels with wood from permanent plantations, the greenhouse effect would be neutralized. The carbon would be cycled endlessly from smokestacks into the atmopshere, back into new forests and thence to power stations again. We would have a renewable source of energy and a tightly managed carbon cycle." (Fred Pearce 'Turning up the Heat. Our Perilous Future in the Global Greenhouse' The Bodley Head, London 1989 p.195). But, he does not give priority to Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming nor does he support a wood based sustainable Planet. On the contrary, as yet another conventional, high-tech supergreen, he is a keen advocate of a solar society,"Hydroelectric power from the remote north (Alaska and Canada) could become the key to the development of a new global energy source .. Hydrogen could be the fuel of the future - a cheap, clean greenhouse-friendly substitute for oil and gas that can burn in cars and home heating systems as well as in power stations. When it burns, it produces mainly water vapour - no carbon dioxide. The key to its development is its large-scale manufacture, which requires passing electricity through water. What better job for a hydro-electric dam, where the water and the power are on tap? In addition .. if the water in the river were converted on site into hydrogen, then there would be no need to store water for conversion into power when it is needed. The storage function would be performed by the hydrogen rather than the reservoir." (Fred Pearce 'The Dammed. Rivers, Dams and the Coming World Water Crisis' The Bodley Head, London 1992 p.340).

vi) William Ophuls.

As far as is known, William Ophuls has not indicated his priorities for combatting global warming. He is one of the few green theorists, however, who has cast doubts upon the effectiveness of efforts to reduce pollution, "Since the 1970s, the United States has spent about a trillion dollars on pollution-control efforts. What does the country have to show for it? Unfortunately, not much." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.136). Despite all of the vast efforts which have been made over the last couple of decades to reduce pollution the scale of pollution has continued to rise. This has implications for the priority given to combating the release of greenhouse gases. If, in the past, efforts to reduce poisonous or carcinogenic pollution have failed, despite the fact that this pollution has caused immediate health risks to humans, then what chance is there of reducing the main greenhouse gas which does not have any adverse effects on human health? [3]

Ophuls cast serious doubts about energy conservation as a means of combatting global warming .. "energy conservation can never be more than a short term palliative." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan Jr 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.108).

Neither of these important insights makes Ophuls any more amenable either to the priority of Reforestation for combatting global warming or to the role of wood economies as the basis for a sustainable Planet. For someone who became renowned for highlighting the politics of scarcity and the need to make a virtue out of the inherent scarcity of living on Earth, his dismissal of Reforestation is couched in rather surprising terms, "Unfortunately, biomass energy has significant disadvantages as an energy source; the scarcity of its resource base." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.111). Despite the importance he attaches to moderation and frugality, he seems quite content to deprecate a system of energy based on the Earth's most fundamental form of scarcity.

Even more paradoxically, he supports the creation of a solar economy because of the vast amounts of energy which could be created by solar energy, "solar hydrogen is virtually inexhaustible and pollution free." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.122). Solar energy would be used to create hydrogen which many greens regard as being the fuel of the future, "Energy from the sun can generate electricity, which can be passed through one electrode to another in water. The process splits water into two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The hydrogen can be burned in place of oil, coal and natural gas." (William Ophuls & A Stephen Boyan JR 'Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. The Unravelling of the American Dream' WH Freeman and Company, New York 1992 p.119). Ignoring for the moment the laughable proposition that solar hydrogen is pollution free, if Ophuls believes that moderation and frugality are such important virtues, why does he promote a solar economy which will provide almost astronomic quantities of energy?

vii) Jonathon Porritt.

Jonathon porritt has expressed virtually no views at all, in any of his major works, on the role of Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming. He has not outlined the role of Forests on a sustainable Planet. Come to that he hasn't even outlined the nature of a sustainable Planet.

viii) Derek Wall.

Just as is the case with jonathon porritt, there is no mention of the priority given to Forests in combatting global warming in the works of derek wall. Is it not a little strange for a so-called green that the 'steps to a green society' do not involve a major role for Reforestation? He believes that, "Relying on any one source (of energy) is likely to result in energy shortages, uncertainty and ecological damage." (Derek Wall 'Steps to a Green Society' p.44) so presumably this diversification of energy supplies does entail some, unquantified, level of support for Reforestation. He certainly has not specified how much of each country should be covered in Forests. The focus on the need for diversification reveals an almost thatcherite determination to ensure that society is not held to ransom by any monopolistic power supply industry as it was by the miners.

ix) Wallace Arthur.

Wallace Arthur has a simple solution to the problem of global warming, "What I'm suggesting is that we buy the (world's) rainforests." ('The Green Machine. Ecology and the Balance of Nature' Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1990 p.209).

FIVE: SCIENTISTS STANCE ON REFORESTATION.

This chapter looks at scientists' prioritities for combatting global warming. Once again, this discussion will raise the issue of the nature of a sustainable Planet.

i) James Lovelock.

As far as is known James Lovelock has not outlined his priorities for combatting global warming. His vision of a sustainable society (in great brutland) does, however, include large scale Reforestation and the creation of Wilderness areas, "The return to small, densely populated cities, never so big that the countryside was further than a walk or a bus ride away. At least one-third of the land should revert to natural woodland and heath. Some land would be open to people for recreation; but one-sixth, at least, should be "derelict", private to wildlife only. Farming would be a mixture of intensive production where it was fit so to be, and small unsubsidized farms for those with the vocation of living in harmony with the land." (James Lovelock 'The Ages of Gaia. A Biography of Our Living Earth' Oxford University Press 1988 p.231). It is not at all clear whether his support for Reforestation and the creation of Wilderness areas has anything to do with his ideas for combatting global warming. Lovelock's green utopia is not as pleasant and rustic as it seems given that some of its energy would be generated by nuclear power.

ii) Mick Kelly.

Again, not much information about the views of this scientist. He does, however, support the idea of Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming, "It may be necessary to create as much as 200 million hectares of new forests." (Mick Kelly 'Halting Global Warming' in Jeremy Leggett (ed) 'Global Warming. The Greenpeace Report' Oxford University Press 1990 p.103).

iii) George Woodwell.

Woodwell is one of the few scientists who has devoted a considerable amount of time to evaluating the role of Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming.

I: The Role of Forests in Mitigating Global Warming.

Woodwell believes that Forests have a role in mitigating global warming, "The role of forests in affecting climate has been grossly underestimated by climatologists, largely as a result of too heavy a focus on the role of the oceans. The distortion persists in the recent report of the scientific sessions of the second World Climate Conference held in Geneva (WMO, 1990). The role of forests is acknowledged as potentially contributing to solution of the problem by storing additional carbon through reforestation, but the need to stop deforestation is not emphasized." (George Woodwell 'The Role of Forests in Determining the Composition of the Atmosphere' World Bank Forest Policy Issues Paper 14.11.90 p.5).

II: The Scale of Reforestation to Combat Global Warming.

Woodwell believes the scale of Reforestation needed to combat global warming would be enormous, "A new forest covering 1-2 million square kilometres, possibly more if soils are poor, would be required to store annually 1 billion tons of carbon. The forest would continue to store additional carbon annually throughout its period of rapid growth, as much as 50 years." (George Woodwell 'The Role of Forests in Determining the Composition of the Atmosphere' World Bank Forest Policy Issues Paper 14.11.90 p.1).

III: Support for Biodiversity.

Woodwell is one of the few greens who believes that Forests are needed as a means of protecting Wildlife, .. "there is a need for forests that reaches far beyond well-defined commercial interests. That need has two major elements: stabilization of the atmospheric burden of heat trapping gases and the protection of the biotic potential of the land." (George M Woodwell 'Forests: What in the World are they For?' in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.4).

IV: The Importance of Stopping Deforestation.

Although Woodwell believes that Forests can help to counteract global warming, a more important priority is stopping deforestation, "There is general agreement on the urgency of defining and protecting remaining forests globally." (Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.xvii).

V: The Dangers of Reforestation.

There are a number of reasons for the limited role Woodwell gives to Reforestation.

A: Creating Carbon Stores.

In order to create Forests which will act as Carbon stores it will be necessary, as has been noted above, to prevent them from being harvested, "The trees have to be put into forest that will remain forest and not be .. harvested ..." (George Woodwell quoted in Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228).

B: The Scarcity of Land.

"Impoverished land is no better for forests than for agriculture. The richer the land, the more rapid the growth of forest plants and the greater the storage of carbon. Since it is unlikely that large areas of productive land can be made available because most productive land .. is in intensive agriculture, the first objective in forest management must clearly be the cessation of deforestation .. Efforts at reforestation seem destined to play a secondary role, however attractive they may appear initially." (George Woodwell 'The Role of Forests in Determining the Composition of the Atmosphere' World Bank Forest Policy Issues Paper 14.11.90 p.13); "I don't like to be pessimistic, but to store a billion tons of carbon in a forest requires about one million square kilometres (386,130 square miles), perhaps two million square kilometres (772,260 square miles) of new forest. It's hard to find areas on that scale available for reforestation. I doubt that there are millions of kilometres available, which is what's required globally to reestablish forest." (George Woodwell quoted in Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228); .. "most of the suitable land in the world is already used for agriculture. Woodwell cites India as an example. One-third of that country is not used in agriculture, but that land is either salinized or rocky and barren, and not capable of supporting plant life." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228)

C: The Ecological Difficulties of Reforestation.

"Planting trees doesn't mean that we naturally have a forest. It took 400 years to grow these monstrous Sitka spruces on the west coast the last time around; it'll take another 400 years to reestablish trees and forests that contain a pool of carbon that's equivalent. Also we can't just take wasteland (sic) and turn it into carbon-storing forest. Trees have soil requirements for growth, .. The trees have to be put into forest that will remain forest and not be damaged by disease, harvested, burned in forest fires, or destroyed by climate change. Any one of those steps would release carbon back into the air." (George Woodwell quoted in Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228).

D: The Dangers of Respiration.

One of the biggest ecological threats caused by Reforestation to global warming is respiration, "The increase in respiration from (global) warming will dominate all other biotic effects and accelerate rates of release of CO2 and CH4 from the respiration of plants and the decay of organic matter in soils." (George M Woodwell 'The Effects of Global Warming' in 'Global Warming. The Greenpeace Report' Ed by Jeremy Leggett Oxford University Press 1990. p.15). "The probability is high that a warming will stimulate the respiration of terrestrial ecosystems, including the decay of organic matter in soils, sufficiently to exceed any net primary production." (George M Woodwell 'The Effects of Global Warming' in 'Global Warming. The Greenpeace Report' Ed by Jeremy Leggett Oxford University Press 1990. p.123).

VI: Woodwell's Priorities for Combatting Global Warming.

"It is possible to store carbon by reforestation, but it would be much wiser to stop deforestation now and reduce the use of fossil fuels on a global basis. Planting trees is a stopgap, not a panacea." (George Woodwell quoted in Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228).

VII: Criticisms of Woodwell.

A: More than Enough Room for Reforestation.

It really is quite staggering that a scientist of his international stature could come up with such nonsense that there is no room for Reforestation - "I doubt that there are millions of kilometres available, which is what's required globally to reestablish forest." Although scientists are as prone to making mistakes as anyone else the absurdity of this argument defies belief and is a testimony to the political naivety of many scientists - 'sorry, we can't stop a global ecological collapse because the Earth's terrain has already been covered with Earth wrecking activities'. His next reason for opposing Reforestation will probably be that it isn't possible to plant large scale Forests because people are too busy engaged in Earth wrecking activities to save the Planet.

It would be easy to carry out Reforestation on a vast scale simply by banning livestock ranching. Given that the Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to global warming it seems not only sensible to ban livestock ranching but imperative to convert pastureland to Forests. In addition, even more land could be acquired by demolishing many of the world's major dams. Given the gross energy inefficiency of some dams, huge areas of land could be reclaimed for Reforestation without harming the supply of energy. In fact some dams are so inefficient it would be possible to generate more energy by deconstructing them, planting Forests and using Wood as an energy source. Deconstructing these monstrosities would also stop the ecological damage which these dams continue to cause.

B: The Scale of Reforestation Needed to Combat Global Warming.

Woodwell argues that to store 1 billion tons of Carbon each year a new Forest covering 1-2 million square kilometres would be required. At present some 5-6GT Carbon are being dumped into the atmosphere each year. The world's oceans absorb approximately half of this Carbon, which means that the net increase in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon is approximately 2-3 GtC a year. Assuming there was no reduction in global Carbon emissions then, in order to extract 2-3 GtC, a Forest between 2-6 million square kilometres in size would be required. This would be a substantial continent-wide scale of Reforestation. However, this calculation entirely ignores the albedo effect of Reforestation projects which should be able to reduce global temperatures without having to plant such an extensive new area of Forest. In addition, there would have to be a reduction in Carbon emissions which would also reduce the area of land which needed to be reforested.

C: The Geophysiological Benefits of Reforestation.

The fear of extensive Reforestation is politically naive in that if america, and other over-industrialized countries, were compelled to implement a huge scale of Reforestation then this would have the added ecological benefit of preventing such countries from suffocating more and more of their share of the Planet's life-support system with roads, factories, office blocks and death factories etc. This would be of considerable significance in combatting Carbon emissions. The best way of reducing pollution is not pollution reduction technologies but preventing land from being suffocated by Carbon emitting industries by covering the land in Forests.

D: Overcoming the Dangers of Respiration.

Woodwell's view that Reforestation may be dangerous in a world which is warming up must be taken seriously. It is possible, however, that if Forests are planted as rapidly as possible, on as extensive a scale as possible, then the change in the Planet's albedo may rapidly reduce global temperatures and thus prevent the Forests from being damaged by global warming. In addition, there is another advantage of rapid Reforestation. At present, the Soil which is not covered by Trees or which has recently been exposed by deforestation, also suffers from respiration which is putting huge amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere. There is just as much Carbon in the Soil as there is in Trees. Thus, if land is covered in Forests this will decrease respiration from the Soil. The only other way to stop Soil respiraton would be to smother it in concrete - but even this would have an albedo effect which could boost temperatures e.g. the heat island effect. Finally, there is an ecological factor which Woodwell has not considered which might boost the growth of Forests whilst the Earth warms, "Another possibility is that higher temperatures would increase rates of organic decomoposition, which in turn would release nutrients to the soil and thus potentially boost the productivity of trees." (Sandra Postel and Lori Heise 'Reforest the Earth' Worldwatch paper no.83 April 1988 p.44).

E: The Political Difficulties of Deforestation.

Woodwell's view that priority must be given to stopping deforestation rather than Reforestation is extremely attractive since it seems to be nothing more than common sense. Indeed, it would be marvellous if countries could be persuaded to stop deforestation. This is especially the case given the damage which deforestation is causing to the Earth's Biodiversity. The problem with this strategy, however, is political. The over-industrialized nations have already destroyed much of their own Forests (and are even logging what's left at a faster rate than the industrializing nations) and the industrializing nations are using this as an unanswerable excuse to continue destroying their own Forests. It is absurd to expect nations not to do what other nations have already done.

One solution to this problem is for the over-industrialized nations to pay countries to preserve their Forests - as was suggested above by Wallace Arthur and by others who promote 'debts for nature' schemes. It is difficult, however, to imagine governments which are hacking down their own Forests giving money to other countries to stop them cutting down theirs - not to mention that the industrializing countries don't want to sell their Forests. But, even assuming the political will was there on both sides any solution which involves money will never save the world's Forests. Firstly, the over-industrializing nations would only be able to buy Forests by exploiting the Earth at an even more rapid rate than they are doing at the moment and, secondly, the industrializing nations would spend their income from protecting their Forests on commodities which had been produced by damaging the Earth and then using these commodities to carry out further acts of ecological destruction. In both cases the Earth will continue to suffer even if large areas of Forest are saved. What both sides are doing is trying to make the Earth pay the price for saving a part of the Earth. Neither side wants to lose out financially on such deals and will simply seek to pass the costs onto the Earth. Its the old phoney green politics of destroying one part of the Earth to save another part - always conveniently forgotting that the land destroyed is always bigger than the amount of land saved. Obviously, in the course of time, this can lead to only one result - a total ecological collapse.

The demand for every country to stop deforestation might seem fair but it is not because it would hurt third world countries far more than it would the over-industrialized countries. This is not merely because the former have more forests which they want to develop than the over-industrialized nations, but because they are in screaming need of the economic development that could be achieved from exploiting that land (albeit that they would be better off developing the Forest rather than burning it down). It is not possible to stop deforestation in a situation of ecological injustice.

It has been stated above that the ipcc did not recommend an increase in the scale of the Earth's Forest cover. Assuming that it did then its recommendation would have been couched in global terms suggesting that each country should increase its Forest cover by the same percentage. But, third world countries aren't going to accept the same percentage increase in Forests as the over-industrialized nations which have chopped down most of their Forests. A country with 90% of its Forests intact isn't going to accept the same percentage as another country with only 5%. The criterion for Reeforestation should not be a general percentage increase in Forests, but the proportion of each country which should be forested i.e. the ipcc should demand that a third of the land in each country should be Forests.

At the end of the day the over-industrialized nations and the industrializing nations have got to come to some agreement (without recourse to financial transactions) about how much land in each country must be covered in Forests in order to prevent a global warming disaster. In some countries this will require massive Reforestation projects whilst in other countries this may permit some deforestation. If they fail to reach such an agreement then the Earth will die. In other words, the real priority is not Reforestation, let alone deforestation, but the Founding of a Sustainable Planet in which global ecological responsibilities are shared out on a just and equal basis amongst all countries around the world. As has been pointed out above, the basis of this ecological justice is for each country to balance its historical Carbon budget.

iv) Gregg Marland.

I: The Subsidiary Role of Reforestation.

Marland believes Reforestation could play a subsidiary role in combating global warming, "Greg Marland of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was one of the first to look at this possibility, and he thinks the dimensions of the "fix" (sic) are staggering; to take five gigatons a year of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, an amount roughly equal to what we are adding annually, would require between 517,996,860 hectares (1.28 billion acres) and 667,730,250 hectares (1.65 billion acres) of new forests. To put that into perspective: it would be like planting trees over 73% of the United States. Marland concludes his anlaysis with the comment that looking to forests to solve the CO2 problem is "unrealistic" but he adds an important qualifier; reforestation could play a significant role "as one component among a variety of measures" implemented to address the CO2 crisis." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228).

Marland points out, presumably in an attempt to make Reforestation a more attractive proposition, that it is possible to increase the Carbon absorbing capabilities of Forests through the adoption of a number of biotechnologies,"The point is that net annual growth can be very much higher than at present if fast-growing species are grown with advanced silviculture techniques on optimum sites. Silviculture techniques can include species selection, genetic screening, spacing, thinning, pruning, weed control, fire and pest control, fertilization, irrigation, harvest cycle time control, site preparation, etc." (Gregg Marland 'The Prospect of Solving the CO2 Problem through Global Reforestation' Office of Energy Research, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Washington DC 20585 Feb. 1988. p.38).

II: Criticisms of Marland.

A: Heightening and Allaying Fears about Forest Plantations.

What frightens many greens about proposals for Reforestation is that governments will rely on multi-national corporations to plant vast tree plantations (probably necessitating the use of all sorts of fertilisers and pesticides) in order to soak up as much Carbon as rapidly as possible. This is a fear which marland heightens with his remarks about silviculture techniques. But, he also points out that there is a conflict between Forests grown for maximum Wood production and Forests grown to absorb Carbon which means that it would not be profitable to manage Forests as Carbon stores. This fact makes it less likely that multi-national corporations will be interested in Reforestation. Multi-national corporations want to mass produce Wood as rapidly as possible, they don't want to look after unprofitable Carbon stores, "Forests managed for maximum production contain less carbon than those managed for maximum biomass." (Gregg Marland 'The Prospect of Solving the CO2 Problem through Global Reforestation' Office of Energy Research, Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Washington DC 20585 Feb. 1988. p.58).

v) Norman Myers.

"One of the most cost-effective and technicaly feasible ways to counter the greenhouse effect lies with grandscale reforestation in the tropics." (Norman Myers 'Tropical Forests' in Jeremy Leggett (ed) 'Global Warming. The Greenpeace Report' Oxford University Press 1990 p.399). "1 million square kilometres is a lot of land. It is equivalent to Britain, France and west Germany together. Planting 1 million square kilometres with trees would cost $40 billion." (Norman Myers 'Tropical Forests' in Jeremy Leggett (ed) 'Global Warming. The Greenpeace Report' Oxford University Press 1990 p.398).

vi) E G Nisbet.

Nisbet has outlined his priorities for combatting global warming. His short term priority is to stop deforestation - not the deforestation of the world's Forests but tropical Rainforests, "Protecting the tropical forest is the most urgent single priority in global environmental management." (E G Nisbet 'Leaving Eden. To Protect and Manage the Earth' Cambridge Univesity Press Cambridge 1991 p.247). As has been pointed out above, concentrating upon stopping the deforestation of tropical rainforests is futile without a political soiluton to global warming involving the creation of a new ecological order.

Nisbet's long term priority is not so much the reduction of pollution as energy conservation and the creation of a new energy supply system, "With intelligent use of conservation (of energy) and of nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power, and with a switch to electric public transport and to hydrogen as a currency of energy, it is quite possible to imagine a global economy in 2020 that has no net production of CO2 or CH4." (E G Nisbet 'Leaving Eden. To Protect and Manage the Earth' Cambridge Univesity Press Cambridge 1991 p.226); "A successful global economy of the period 2000-2050 - may be a nuclear-electric-hydrogen economy. In such an economy the electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to power industry and to produce hydrogen to power independent transport." (E G Nisbet 'Leaving Eden. To Protect and Manage the Earth' Cambridge Univesity Press Cambridge 1991 p.297). Here again then, is another example of a green who supports solar power in preference to energy drawn from phytomass. In the past, during the heyday of nuclear power, many green theorists would have given priority to the creation of nuclear powered socieities. Given the technlogical doubts, and the widespread public fears, about nuclear power a number ofcommentators are tending to give to high-tech solar power the role which they had previously given to nuclear power.

There may be those who are undecided about whether to support a solar economy or a wood economy as the basis of a sustainable Planet. In such cases it is often useful to draw back from the debate to look at the wider views of the protagonists. It has already been noted that Nisbet supports nuclear power. Whereas there are those who believe that trade and economic growth are responsible for large scale ecological destruction, Nisbet believes the reverse is true, "More successful and more important (than a law of the atmosphere) is GATT. A General Agreement on Trade and the Environment could become a powerful force for protecting the biosphere."

vii) Stephen Schneider.

Schneider seems to be a pragmatist and has argued that, "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. Supposing each developed country had to reduce its CO2 impact on the world by something equivalent to 20% of its present production. Let's say that Japan's quota is to cut 100 million tons of CO2 annually. Why not structure an international agreement so that the Japanese need to be responsible either for reducing 100 million tons of CO2 from their own industries, or else paying to cut 150 million tons in another country (or some combination of both)? The obvious candidate is China. It is likely to be much cheaper per unit of CO2 saved for the Japanese to improve Chinese energy efficiency, since China is starting out so inefficient, than for Japan to improve its own efficiency. We need a world emissions agreement that provides incentives for such bargaining and trading to take place. From the point of view of the minimum global investment for the maximum amount of global pollution reduction." (Schneider p.300-301). This suggests that he would be in favour of the over-industrialized countries investing in Reforestation projects in third world countries in return for a share in offsetting their Carbon emissions.

One of the common themes running through the works of many supergreens is that, despite the vast scale of ecological destruction being caused by the car, and car related, industries, they always promote policies not to combat global warming or to create a sustainable Planet but to ensure the survival of their cars .. "nor do I want to abandon our cars." But if one person has a car then what possible objections are there to all 5.3 billion going on 10 billion people also having their own cars? Here again is another absurd narrow minded, politically naive scientist.

viii) John Gribbin.

.."if the rich countries of the world are worried about rising sea levels and other consequences of the greenhouse effect, why shouldn't they offer simply to buy the forests for the cost of the Brazilian debt or even more on the single condition that it is left alone."

ix) Alexander Abian.

Professor Alexander Abian is quite unique amongst the scientists mentioned in this chapter since his priority for combatting global warming is neither the reduction of pollution, stopping deforestation, nor Reforestation. For him the problems caused by global warming could be solved much more easily by blasting the moon out of its orbit around the Earth, "Alexander Abian, a professor at Iowa State university, .. considers the moon to be responsible for the bad weather on our planet. If only the moon could be got rid of, the earth would rotate more evenly, the sun would warm the planet more temperately and we would all enjoy what the professor refers to as 'eternal spring'. Albian seriously proposes that the moon be blasted with nuclear powered rockets."