SIX: THE GREEN MOVEMENT'S OPPOSITION TO REFORESTATION.

This chapter explores the priorities of some of the country's leading environmental organizations for combatting global warming. Two non British environmental organizations are also included. The first section looks at the position of the green movement as regards the ipcc and the Earth summit.

i) The Position of the Green Movement as regards the IPCC and the Earth Summit.

I: Environmentalists' Failures over Carbon Emissions.

Green organizations in this country gave a positive response to the ipcc's scientific report even though many of them must have been severely embarrassed by the recommendation for such extreme cuts in CO2 emissions since their own demands had been far more modest - and, shockingly enough, continue to be so.

II: Environmentalists Oppose Reforestation Schemes.

The majority of environmental organizations in this country rightly denounced the over-industrialized nations' various proposals for Reforestation projects because these proposals were designed solely to enable the over-industrialized countries to evade their responsibilities for reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions. Green organizations tended to side with the third world firstly, in demanding that the priority should be to reduce Carbon pollution in the over-industrialized nations and, secondly, in regarding third world Reforestation as being unjust.

The ipcc's focus on reducing Carbon emissions, and the fears that the over-industrialized nations wanted to carry out cosmetic Reforestation schemes in their own countries and to pressurizie the third world into massive Reforestaton schemes, had the unfortunate effect of pushing green organizations into a complete preoccupation with the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They virtually ignored the roles played by Forests in moderating global warming. This had two major consequences. Firstly, no pressure was put on governments prior to the second world climate conference and the rio Earth summit to increase the scale of the Earth's Forest cover and, secondly, no demands were made that the ipcc scientists should make recommendations for Reforestation. None of the green organizations in this country criticized the ipcc for failing to recommend wholesale Reforestation.

It was at this point that the public began to perceive the world's biggest polluters and earth-rapists as saviours of the Planet for demanding Reforestation, whilst regarding environmentalists with suspicion for opposing a praiseworthy green initiative, "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 .." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.225-228).

Clearly, the over-industrialized nations out-manoeuvered environmental organizations over the issue of Reforestation. Rather than calling the over-industrialized nations' bluff and supporting the principle that countries must offset their historical Carbon emissions by planting Forests and then condemning the over-industrialized nations for not implementing schemes which matched this principle, the country's green organizations simply abandoned the idea of Reforestation as a means of combatting the greenhouse effect. One the one hand they believed they had to oppose the over-industrialized nations' Reforestation initiatives in case the over-industrialized countries used these initiatives as a means of evading their responsibilities for reducing Carbon emissions. On the other hand green orhanizations knew that if they demanded that the over-industrialized nations Reforest their land to absorb the amount of Carbon they had dumped into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution they would have been dismissed as green extremists. They also knew that even if they had been much more moderate and demanded that the over-industrialized nations should Reforest their lands to absorb current rates of Carbon emissions they would also have been dismissed as extremists. As far as the over-industrialized nations were concerned, cosmetic Reforestation of their own lands, or large scale Reforestation of third world countries, was entirely acceptable but Reforesting large tracts of their own land to soak up present or past levels of atmospheric Carbon would not only be expensive but a gross misuse of scarce resources which could be used much more profitably for further acts of ecological devastation and environmental pollution such as the construction of new car factories, new office blocks, new roads, etc.. Instead of demanding that the over-industrialized nations pursue home-grown Reforestation as the primary means of combatting global warming, the country's leading environmental organizations sacrificed Reforestation for the sake of being mocked as moderate green irritants (or welcomed as servile opportunists) by the world's worst Earth-rapists. Fearing, on the one hand, the over-industrialized nations' Reforestation proposals as a means of evading from their reponsibility for reducing Carbon emissions and fearing, on the other hand, the radical scale of Reforestation which the over-industrialized nations would need to implement to repay their historical Carbon debts, green organizations declined to give priority to wholesale Reforestation in the over-industrialized nations. But perhaps the biggest fear preventing environmentalists from promoting such a priority was that they would no longer be invited to prestigous international conferences in exotic locations around the world where, after a long transcontinental flight, and a good rest in a plush hotel, they could hob-nob with the world's worst Earth-rapists in some utterly futile effort to persuade them that the huge wealth they were enjoying as a result of exploiting the Earth was not sustainable. Game, set and match to the Earth rapists.

ii) Greenpeace.

Prior to the ipcc's first report on climate change, greenpeace proposed a pathetic level of reduction in atmospheric Carbon emissions as a means of combatting the greenhouse effect. After the publication of the report, greenpeace became slightly more radical proposing the abolition of fossil fuels as the primary means of reducing Carbon emissions, "Greenpeace International decided to assess the feasibility of a Fossil Free Energy Scenario ... Using mainly conventional assumptions for economic growth, industrialization and population, the results are encouraging. A combination of efficiency improvements, renewable energy technologies, and fuel switching, could achieve long-term reductions in CO2 emissions." (Stewart Boyle Hot News issue 7 Summer 1993 p.1). The policy of abolishing fossil fuels to prevent global warming is not quite as radical as it seems, "Forecasts (about the proposed measures to bring about a fossil free future) show annual CO2 emissions peaking around the year 2000, declining to 48% and 29% of current global levels by 2030 and 2075, respectively, before reaching the fossil-fuel target of zero net CO2 emissions by 2100." (p.1). In other words, the abolition of fossil fuels won't happen for another 110 years. Quite a big assumption that - that the human race is going to be around for another 110 years. As for meeting the ipcc's 1990 target of immediate 60-80% reductions in CO2 emissions, all that greenpeace offers is a rather dismal cut of 50% of 1990 levels by 2030, and 30% by 2075.

When Greenpeace says that its modelling work for a fossil fuel free future was based on "conventional assumptions for economic growth, industrialization and population" this is not just some value-free, parameter inherent in the computer model. It is a political statement indicating that Greenpeace has no interest in challenging current global rates of growth in the economy, industrialization and population. It believes these growth rates are acceptable and all that needs to be done is to tackle Carbon emissions. Although greenpeace admit that such growth rates in its fossil fuel free future will boost global warming, it is believed that the Planet will not suffer irreparable damage. Looking back from an imaginary position in 2030 greenpeace surveys the consequences of its policies, "Despite record temperatures, an increased level of damaging storms and hurricanes, disrupted rainfall patterns and sea level rise - in the past few decades - outright climate disaster appears to have been averted." (p.1). Its forecast for current rates of economic growth is already outdated since the signing of the gatt agreement.

What greenpeace seems to have ignored in its fossil fuel free model is the current rate of deforestation. To believe that its forecast will remain unaffected by almost total deforestation across large parts of the Earth is utter phantasy. If, as Norman Myers contends, nearly all forests disappear in India, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Madagascar, East Africa, West Africa, central America, Burma, and Ecuador, then, far from having to cope with the tolerable level of global warming which greenpeace envisage in its modelled future, global warming could become much less tolerable.

Greenpeace's fossil fuel free future is heavily dependent upon energy efficiency, "Energy efficiency is a crucial component of the fossil free energy scenario." (p.1). In other words, the greenhouse effect should be solved through the introduction of new technologies and, hopefully, new technological innovations. Technological solutions, however, often divert pollution from one place to another without reducing the quantities involved (smokestacks were introduced to eject pollution higher into the atmosphere so that it affected other countries); sometimes they cause more pollution than they are alleged to have reduced because they simply shift the pollution from one stage of the product life-line to another; and, invariably, they are used as an excuse to go on releasing, rather than abolishing, pollution. As has already been noted, historically, pollution reduction has not been a success, .. "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); .. "there is inescapable evidence that the massive national effort (in the US) to restore the quality of the environment has failed." (Barry Commoner 'Making Peace with the Planet' Victor Gollancz Ltd 1990 p.27).

There is no indication that greenpeace, an environmental organizaton, believes that the greenhouse effect is an ecological problem requiring an ecological solution such as Reforestation. It is pointed out that, "An ambitious afforestation programme aimed at making a significant difference to climate change would be useless if the destruction of tropical forests were to continue at its present accelerating rate." (Stewart Boyle and John Ardill 'The Greenhouse Effect. A Practical Guide to the World's changing Climate' New English Library Stodder and Houghton 1988 p.154). This is quite correct. But this does not imply that Reforestation is not important. After all, it is also true that if the tropical Rainforests are destroyed then energy conservation, no matter how successful, would also be useless.

Greenpeace's fossil fuel free future makes transparent the link between the preoccupation with reductions in Carbon emissions as a means of combatting the greenhouse effect and the creation of a solar economy, "Renewable energy supplies more than half the energy needs in most countries. Wind parks, both onshore and offshore, biofuel plantations [using little or no fertilisers or pesticides], small scale hydro power schemes, and banks of solar cells on roofs and derelict land, are an accepted part of the scenery." (p.1). Perhaps even more importantly for these highly mobile environmentalists, such a future still ensures the survival of their favourite love-object, "Vehicles achieve around 100 mpg and are based heavily on solar/wind electric systems and liquid biofuels." Neither greenpeace nor stephen schneider nor most of the other supergreens, with the honourable exception of jonathon porritt, want to abandon their cars.

What greenpeace is proposing in its model future is not merely a reduction in Carbon emissions, it is smuggling in the creation of a solar economy. This is a major change in direction for the green movement and yet how many greens have been involved in the decision to create a solar economy? When greenpeace was first set up, the need for direct action to publicize the slaughter of whales and pollution etc., necessitated the establishment of a non-democratic organization. The group was organized along the lines of activists and fundraisers. But greenpeace has long since changed. It is no longer the radical organization it was and has taken on a wider range of responsibilities and is fighting a broader range of green issues. And yet, it has not changed politically. It is promoting policies covering a wide range of social and economic issues and yet it is still hiding beyond the undemocratic facade of a radical, direct action, green organization. Certainly all greens want a reduction in Carbon emissions but greenpeace, as one of the country's and the world's biggest environmental organizations, is now dictating to greens that they've also got to buy a solar economy.

Solar economies will turn out to be every bit as destructive as fossil fuelled societies. Vast areas of land will have to be covered in crops to provide biofuels for consumers, and supergreens, to drive to out of town hypermarkets. Every unexpropriated bit of land could end up being covered in monocultural biofuel crops to meet the ever-growing demands for fuel. Deserts will be covered in solar power stations. Wind-swept beauty spots will be covered in wind farms and their soul-mates electricity pylons. Greenpeace will also end up reinforcing the survival and profitability of factory pharming as animal waste products are used as another source of so-called renewable energy - the more animals which can be pharmed, the more waste products they produce, the greater the energy they can create. There is no evidence, however, that greenpeace have ecologically costed their proposals for a solar economy. They may have modelled some of the factors involved but they have not modelled the vast majority of factors entailed by a solar society.

Greenpeace's attitude towards Reforestation, however, remains the same, "Reafforestation cannot solve the greenhouse effect." ('The Greenhouse Effect', The Greenpeace Solution). The greenpeace 'realists' are petrified about suggesting Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming because it would mean demanding that this country Reforests at least 25% of its land (a policy which the Green party supports) and perhaps even 70%; it would mean demanding the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry which is the prime cause of global warming; it would mean having to confront the exponential growth in the economy and the human population; and it would mean having to confront the gross inequalities between the over-industrialized nations and the rest of the world. Global warming is not going to be solved through greenpeace's pifling technological devices, especially when many of these solutions merely displace Carbon emissions to other phases of products' life-lines. In order to combat global warming, wholesale structural changes are required.

iii) Friends of the Earth.

Prior to the ipcc report, friends of the earth's demand for reductions in atmospheric Carbon emissions was even more pathetic than that proposed by greenpeace. It claims to base its recommendations upon strict scientific evidence and yet it failed to propose anything like the reductions which were eventually recommended by the ipcc scientists - even though prior to the ipcc's scientific report a number of major scientific institutions had published recommendations for similar large scale Carbon reductions. Even worse is that since the publication of the ipcc's recommendations, friends of the earth still does not demand immediate reductions in Carbon emissions nor does it map out a long term strategy which would achieve the same level of emissions' reduction but over a longer, more practical, timescale i.e. if it is not feasible to produce 60% reductions immediately then policies will have to be implemented to reduce emissions by say 70% in a decade's time to compensate for the extra Carbon dumped into the atmosphere in the meantime. If the ipcc's recommendations exposed friends of the earth as a bunch of servile, establishment environmentalists who have used science as a means of avoiding serious proposals, even worse is that friends of the earth's failure to support the ipcc's recommendation for drastic cuts in Carbon emissions has the effect of undermining the credibility of the ipcc and the gravity of these recommendations. The only factor which diminishes friends of the earth's responsibility for undermining the ipcc is that greenpeace have been just as bad.

As regards Reforestation, friends of the earth recently criticized Tree planting as a means of soaking up pollution, "Such a wrong headed approach is no solution to the global environmental problems this planet faces." (Fiona Weir, Guardian 26.5.92. p.16).

Neither greenpeace nor friends of the Earth give top priority to global Reforestation in the fight against global warming. It has to be suspected that both groups are being run by over-privileged, over-paid, jet-setting, car-owning, Carbon debtors, looking for techno answers. [1] It has become blatantly obvious over recent years that a number of animal rights groups in this country have been infiltrated by their opponents and it is unlikely that the environmental movement is free from such entryism. It is time to start asking questions about the legitimacy of two of the country's leading environmental organizations.

iv) UK Earth First!

Earth First! in Britain have not made any statement about their priorities for fighting global warming; the scale of Reforestation they would like to see in this country; let alone how much land ought to be put aside as Wilderness.

v) The Global Commons Institute.

The global commons institute (gci) is another green organization which gives priority to the reduction in atmospheric emissions, "Our research so far has been primarily focussed on an equal rights base assessment of greenhouse gas emissions.". It supports the sao paulo declaration (see chapter three) which argued that Reforestation is of secondary importance. It too, like greenpeace, demands the banning of fossil fuels .. "the case for initiating immediately the displacement of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, is now more compelling than is the case for refining their use through 'efficiency gains' so as to justify their retention." (Climate Change and the Precautionary Principle The Global Commons Institute undated c.1993 p.3).

I: Global per Capita Carbon Emissions.

The original gci analysis estimated global per capita Carbon emissions. This was a useful propaganda technique since it was possible to compare the Carbon emissions released by, for example, the average american and the average indian, and also showed the degree to which they either polluted more than, or less than, the global average citizen.

This Carbon analysis was refined by working out the permissible level of global Carbon pollution (i.e. after the 60% reduction in Carbon emissions recommended by the ipcc) and then dividing this figure by the global population to determine the global per capita Carbon emissions permissible for stabilizing the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. Those people who emitted more Carbon pollution than the average were not merely polluting the atmosphere but were guilty of changing the climate, whilst those below the average were preventing a global warming disaster, "The IPCC advises that to stabilize atmospheric concentrations requires a reduction to less than 40% of current levels. On average each person in the world contributes 1.65 metric tonnes of carbon and equivalents each year. 40% of this figure i.e. 0.66 MtCE, thus represents each individual's output threshold for forcing future climate change. The current global per capita average (1.5 metric tonnes carbon MtC per person per annum) is reduced by 60% (0.6 MtC pp pa) consistent with the IPCC reduction requirement for stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of carbon. Against this threshold countries' average per capita figures are calculated as being 'forcing' or 'non-forcing' by the amount they are or are not in excess. This figure is expressed as a positive or negative percentage." (Global Commons Institute 'Equity and Survival' 42 Windsor Road NW2 5DS).

This analysis allowed the cgi to argue that the over-industrialized nations owed the rest of the world a huge ecological debt because whilst the former were polluting the atmosphere far in excess of the climate stabilization level, the latter were causing levels of pollution that were helping to stabilize the climate.

II: The Sustainable per capita Fossil GDP Threshold.

The gci has recently refined its analysis even further by adopting the concept of a sustainable per capita fossil GDP threshold. Whilst the previous analyses calculated the scale of the ecological debts which the over-industrialized world owed to the third world in terms of quantities of Carbon, the gci seems to have thought that it would now be better to rely on financial calculations, "the 1990 global average per capita carbon emissions from CO2 .. was 6GTC divided by 5.2 billion people or 1.15 metric tonnes of carbon per person. This figure reduced by 60% - consistent with the IPCC stabilization cut - gives an "allowable" 0.46 tonnes per person per annum. The sustainable per capita fossil GDP threshold for 1990 is simply calculated by seeing what globally averaged level of dollars could be generated , given the $3,075 per tonne efficiency average and the allowable 0.46 of a tonne per capita." (Climate Change and the Precautionary Principle The Global Commons Institute undated c.1993 p.7). The result of this analysis is that, "In total, the energy subsidy received at the present by the debitor countries (those who polluted the atmosphere in excess of sustainable per capita fossil GDP threshold) from the creditor countries (those who polluted the atmosphere less than this threshold) is worth $3.4 trillion annually in 1990 values." (Climate Change and the Precautionary Principle The Global Commons Institute undated c.1993 p.9).

III: Criticisms.

Of all the environmental groups in this country, the gci has created the most original analysis to determine countries' responsibilities for the greenhouse effect. The insights provided by this analysis have helped to clarify the politics of the greenhouse effect. The gci has also generated some hard-hitting propaganda for third world countries in their negotiations with the over-industrialized nations over the implementation of measures to stabilize the climate. It has been primarily responsible for initiating the new language of Carbon politics. However, the gci's analysis has some fundamental limitations.

Firstly,the gci gives priority to reducng Carbon emissions. The corrollary of this priority, as has been seen with greenpeace, is the tendency to try and combat atmospheric pollution through pollution reduction technologies which, as has been seen above, simply shift pollution from one stage of the product life-line to another.[2]

Secondly, the gci's work has been focussed almost entirely upon Carbon emissions and has not sought to take into account Carbon sinks.

Thirdly, the gci does not make any demand for global Reforestation. It is one thing to give priority to reducing Carbon emissions but it is an entirely different matter to forget about the need for, and the ecological importance of, Reforestation.

Because of the historical injustices perpetrated against third world countries, the gci rightly attempts to help them in the climate negotiations with the over-industrialized nations. Its support, however, does seem politically naive at times given that many third world elites are just as anxious to scupper negotiations over climate change as politicians in the over-industrialized world. The sao paulo declaration seems like the perfect excuse for third world elites to go on lining their own pockets.[3]

The gci's support for the allocation of Carbon emissions on a per capita basis is a disaster because it encourages further population expansion - which, of course, will have a further devastating effect on Forests.

The gci's original analyses, which relied upon a quantification of Carbon, were extremely useful but its more recent analysis adopting gross domestic product is dangerous. Once environmentalists get into the habit of costing environmental pollution or ecological devastation in financial terms they are lost because money is an infinitely expandable commodity which is incompatible with a finite Planet.[4]

Finally, there are two generalized criticisms which need to be made of the gci's political views. Firstly, the gci supports 'global commons' which implies that the land, sea, and air are commodities which humans have the right to use and exploit - albeit in an ecologically sound way - if only they knew what ecologically sound meant. There is no place for Wilderness within the concept of global commons. Without Wilderness areas and human free zones there is no way of protecting the Earth's Biodiversity. The gci is just as anthropogenic as the polluters it criticizes.

Secondly, the gci uses the terms developed world/developing world as if the "developed world" is better than, and superior to, the "developing world". The concept "developed world" implies not merely that it is some acceptable state which ought to be replicated throughout the rest of the world but that it is ecologically feasible to "develop" the whole world. Britain and America are not "developed" countries - they are geophysiologically grossly over-developed, ecologically unsustainable, Earth-wreckers.[5]

iv) The Green Party.

I: The Green Party's Priorities.

The Green party's priorities for combating global warming are firstly, reducing atmospheric greenhouse emissions; secondly, stopping deforestation; and lastly, Reforestation. After the publication in 1990 of the ipcc's first report on the greenhouse effect the Green party made a rather pathetic demand for 40% cuts in england's Carbon emissions. This moved up to 60% as a result of later policy changes. Once the Green party had realized the inequalities of the ipcc's demand for a global cut in CO2 emissions it demanded that the over-industrialized countries should take on the burden of making even more substantial cuts.

II: Criticisms.

The Green party's policies on the greenhouse effect have just been tacked onto the manifesto for a sustainable society without changes to the party's other policies. Its earlier policies are not in the least bit integrated with its policies on global warming. It seems to believe that the policies needed to combat this ecological disaster have no consequences for the implementation of its other policies. As a consequence, if all the Green party's policies were subjected to a Carbon analysis it would be found that they would not even reduce the country's Carbon emissions by the 60-80% recommended by the ipcc let alone their own, more stringent, commitments.

One of the most immediate consequences of the Green party's focus on Carbon emissions was to condone the widespread ecological destruction entailed by the Green, and ron bailey, party's publication, 'Roads to the Future'. This report was actually a considerable achievement since it outlined policies which would meet the ipcc's target of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions - although only by 2005 rather than immediately. However, it totally ignored the effect of these policies on the country's Photosynthetic capacity. As a consequence, the implementation of these policies would involve a considerable level of ecological destruction across the countryside which would boost the country's contribution to global warming.

Although the Green party does not give priority to Reforestaton it nevertheless advocates that 25% of the country must be Reforested. This policy is not linked to its policies on combatting the greenhouse effect. It provides no geophysiological reason for this scale of Reforestation. It seems a nicer, cuddlier, figure than 24% or 26% or even 96%. Even worse is that it has to be suspected that this policy is just a flowery decoration on the Green party stage given that the areas of the country which would be Reforested have not yet been outlined. Reforestation is just a fig leaf to cover up the ecological ignorance of many green party members many of whom are not in the slightest bit interested in green issues.

v) The Worldwatch Institute.

I: Priority given to Stopping Deforestation.

The wwi gives top priority to stopping deforestation, "The Worldwatch Institute says that before we can even address the possibilities of reforestation we have to talk about stopping deforestation. In 1988, 25% of the carbon released into the atmosphere (one to two billion tons of the total 7.66 billion ton emission) was generated by the felling and burning of forests, mainly in tropical areas. Every ton of carbon released through burning results in 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide. Brazil for example, is the fourth largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world, mainly because of the carbon released in the deforestation of its tropical rainforests." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.227).

II: Reforestation as a means of Delaying the Greenhouse Effect.

Unlike some of the other groups mentioned above, the wwi does at least support Reforestation. It sees Reforestation as a means of delaying global warming, "Worldwatch says a combined global strategy of both halving tropical deforestation and of planting the equivalent of 130 million hectares (321 million acres) of trees in developing and 40 million hectares (99 million acres) in industrial countries (sic) would chop the carbon emissions from human activities by 25% at current levels. And those two together, says Worldwatch, are the insurance we need to "slow the pace of warming by several decades, buying precious time to adapt and respond to climate changes in other ways." (Anita Gordon & David Suzuki 'It's a Matter of Survival' Harper Collins London 1991 p.227).

III: Criticisms.

The wwi has long been regarded as one of the world's leading environmental organizations. It publishes a range of books and pamphlets which are highly respected throughout the green movement. However, such longevity is not a guide to its ecological soundness. On the contrary, it has to be suspected that the longer an environmental group has been around the more it has been afflicted by the need to compromise in order to make itself vaguely credible to an ecologically ignorant, and implacably hostile, political establishment.

One of the main problems with the wwi is that it supports the creation of a solar economy - indeed many of its ideas have been picked up by greenpeace. It regards Reforestation as a stop-gap before the creation of a solar economy. The wwi, just like greenpeace, does not believe that Reforestation is essential either for the long term regulation of global warming or as the basis of a Wood economy and a sustainable Planet. As has been stated above, proposed solar economies have not been ecologically costed, and there are critical reasons for believing that a solar economy would be even more ecologically destructive than a fossil fuelled economy.

There are also a number of doubts as to the wwi's political soundness. As can be seen in one of the quotes in this section, the wwi regards Brazil as the world's fourth biggest polluter. This may have been true over the last few years as a result of the land grab frenzy prompted by tax credits for colonizing the Amazon - some of which were taken up by multi-national corporations based in the over-industrialized nations such as the supposedly environmentally friendly, Volkswagen. It has been far from being this bad over the past few centuries. Unlike most of the over-industrialized nations, Brazil has never before reached such dizzy heights in the league table of global polluters.

The fact that the wwi relies upon the statistics compiled by the world resources institute for countries' greenhouse gas emissions is another cause for concern. Even assuming that the statistics could be relied upon, the wri's manipulation of the figures - by apportioning oceanic sinks to countries according to their recent levels of pollution (see 'The second World Climate Conference') - is a blatant attempt to reduce the over-industrialized nations' culpability for polluting the Planet over the last two centuries. This ploy simply rewards the world's worst polluters. Whilst the wwi cannot be blamed for such manipulation it did lead them to recommend the Reforestation of 130 million hectares in the so-called "developing" countries as compared to a mere 40 million hectares in industrialized countries. This reveals a degree of bigotry behind the wwi's seemingly scientific and ecologically sound policies. The industrialized world has not merely polluted the enviroment far more than third world countries, it has destroyed far more of its Forests than third world countries. Why should the burden of responsibility for Reforesting the Earth fall so heavily upon the third world? There is no justice in this.