viii) Reforest the Earth.

This is one of the few environmental organizations which gives top priority to Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming. Its aims are to:-

1) immediately institute a moratorium of all timber coming from primary/old growth forests or from areas where indigenous peoples are struggling for land rights or where there are human rights abuses occuring.

2) encourage and promote major re-afforestation in Britain, where so much forest has already been destroyed, and

3) adopt the Forests Memorandum for Britain.

The priority which reforest the earth gives to Reforestation, however, is based on a romantic appeal to the public's love of Forests. It does not rely on a geophysiological analysis to justify such a demand. This leads to a number of ecological errors.

Firstly, it is unable to specify:-

* how much of the Earth needs to be reforested;

* which countries must implement Reforestation schemes;

* the scale of the Reforestaton projects needed in these countries, and

* the criteria for determining how much Forests go in what countries.

Whilst there is certainly a need for many third world countries to protect their Forests and carry out Reforestation, the bulk of the Reforestation to offset global warming should be planted in the over-industrialized nations. The reason that reforest the earth will not say how much land should be Reforested in these countries is presumably because this might cause a loss of support amongst those consumers with a mere romantic attachment to Forests.

Secondly, the demand for global Reforestation overlooks the possibility that there are countries in which deforestation could legitimately be carried out without causing geophysiological damage. In other words, the need is not to Reforest the Earth but to Reforest those parts of the Earth which, over the last couple of centuries, have contributed most through deforestation to global warming.

Thirdly, reforest the earth does not support the idea that some of the new Forests which need to be created should be designated as Wilderness areas completely off-limits to humans.

It is all very well for reforest the earth to demand Reforestation - such a sentiment is invaluable - but, ultimately, if it can't explain the scientific basis of its demands, then it is unlikely to win political support. Without a geophysiological case for specifying the scale of the Forests which should be planted in specific countries then its demands are eventually going to be exposed as wishy washy sentimentalism by the Earth-rapists promoting the increasing destruction of the Planet, and it is never going to convince third world countries, which demand global ecological equality, that there is any reason to stop deforesting their own countries. Many people around the world love Forests but there are fundamental reasons why green entrepreneurs have not met these needs by Reforesting huge areas of the Planet.

ix) The Centre for Science and the Environment.

The cse's analysis of global warming and the political injustices caused by anthropogenic global warming is the most comprehensive of all the environmental groups discussed so far. It supports what could be called a biomass economy [1] and has demanded the replacement of gross domestic product as a measure of a country's wealth , in favour of natural domestic product which takes into account countries' Forest resources, "Economists will have to redefine poverty not as a shortage of cash but as a shortage of biomass resources to meet basic survival needs. .. a concept like Gross Nature product will be more relevant to measure the survival economy of the rural poor than the prevalent concepts of Gross National Product ..." (Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain 'Towards Green Vilages. A Strategy for Environmentally Sound and Participatory Rural Development' Centre for Science and Environment 1989 p.3).

Unlike the groups mentioned above, the cse has demanded that Forests should be taken into account when assessing global warming. It believes it is necessary to calculate not only a country's Carbon emissions but the amount of Carbon absorbed by Forests in order to ascertain a country's net Carbon status, "Ideally, the approach should have been to prepare each nation's budget of greenhouse gas emissions by taking into account each nation's sources of emissions and its terrestrial sinks, that is, its forests, other vegetation and soils." (Anil Agarwal & Sunita Narain 'Global Warming in an Unequal World. A Case of Environmental Colonialism' Centre for Science and Environment India 1991 p.7).

Unfortunately, the cse then goes astray when trying to counter the propaganda of the world resources institute which allocated oceanic sinks to countries according to their levels of pollution. The cse, on the other hand, demanded that oceanic sinks be allocated to countries according to their population, "We argue .. that in a world that aspires to such lofty ideals like global justice, equity and sustainability, this vital global common should be shared equally on a per capita basis." (Anil Agarwal & Sunita Narain 'Global Warming in an Unequal World. A Case of Environmental Colonialism' Centre for Science and Environment India 1991 p.13). This demand will simply encourage global over-population and thereby exacerbate ecological devastation. The Photosynthetic role of the oceans should be discounted by humans. There are other ways of achieving global justice between the rich and the poor nations than by the use of per capita assessements - ways which do not entail ecological destruction.

The cse supports Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming in so far as it believes that country's ability to absorb Carbon through Forests should be taken into account when assessing Carbon emissions but it does not give priority to Reforestation. Its priority for tackling global warming is the reduction of Carbon emissions through a system of tradeable permits, "The Centre for Science and Environment believes that a system of global tradeable permits should be introduced to control global greenhouse gas emissions." (Anil Agarwal & Sunita Narain 'Global Warming in an Unequal World. A Case of Environmental Colonialism' Centre for Science and Environment India 1991 p.20). Whilst this would produce a number of benefits it is not as comprehensive a way of tackling global warming as the balancing of historical Carbon bugets.

x) The Worldwide Fund for Nature.

The wwf is one of the world's leading environmental organizations and has the most cogently argued position on the priorities for combatting global warming.

I: The WWF's Priorities; Reducing Atmospheric Carbon Emissions and Stopping Deforestation.

The wwf gives priority to emissions' reductions, "To extend the (Integrated Pollution Control) [2] metaphor to the climate/forest debate, the question should not be how to control climate change by increasing carbon storage in plantations but how to prevent emissions in the first place." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3). As far as the wwf is concerned it is more important to stop deforestation than it is to promote Reforestation, "The crucial issue, then, is to reduce the rate of deforestation drastically. Only then will carbon held in the existing forests be kept out of the atmosphere and reforestation efforts start to have some impact." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3). The wwf's priorities are reducing Carbon emissions, stopping deforestation and, finally, Reforestation.

II: The Dangers of Reforestation.

The wwf believes there are a number of dangers in relying upon the creation of Forests as a means of countering global warming.

A: The Ecological Damage Caused by Tree Plantations.

There is a fear that Reforestation would mean the creation of large scale tree plantations which could cause ecological damage, " Large scale commercial plantations can, after all, be extremely environmentally damaging." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3). "There is a very real danger that strategies will be proposed for reducing climate change impacts through the planting of trees which, if carried out in an environmentally insensitive way, will have an extremely negative impact on the environment." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3). "A purely "climate driven" forest policy, if carried out to its theoretical extreme, would result in massive eucalyptus plantations across the tropics to soak up fossil-fuel emissions." (Worldwide fund report no6 p.31). The wwf are against commercial plantations to counter global warming.

B: The Dangers to Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity.

If natural Forests are cut down and replaced by tree plantations this would destroy a vast array of Wildlife. Even if relatively barren land is used this would not be of much use to Wildlife as tree plantations do not provide a healthy habitat for Wild animals. As far as indigenous peoples are concerned, if Forests are cut down and replaced by plantations then the people who have been dependent on those Forests for firewood and other materials will face considerable hardship, "It is, then, essential to ensure the convention leads to balanced forestry policies which take into account other concerns such as biological diversity and the rights of indigenous peoples." (Worldwide fund report no6 p.31).

C: The Potential Failure of Tree Plantations.

"To reach the 12 million hectares per year target, approximately 30 million hectares of trees would need to be planted every year (to offset deforestation). According to the ecologist Norman Myers, only around 730,000 hectares of commercial timber and fuel-wood plantations are being established yearly at the moment. Estimates vary as to the failure rate amongst these plantations, but it must be high." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3).

D: The Dangers to Tree Plantations Posed by Local People.

If indigenous people find that natural Forests are replaced by tree plantations they are likely to be forced to try and sabotage these plantations, "At any rate, if the current root causes of deforestation are not dealt with, any reforestation or afforestation efforts will not be immune from the same destructive processes." (Worldwide Fund for Nature Special Report no.6 May 1991 p.3). The wwf claim they support community participation in Reforestation projects to ensure that local people are able to benefit from such projects because this will help to ensure the projects' success.

III: Criticisms.

The wwf has pointed out many of the dangers caused by tree plantations but a number of criticisms can be made of its views. Firstly, there is more than a whiff of colonial thinking in the assumption that the only Reforestation to combat global warming will take place in the tropics rather than in the over-industrialized nations. There is, therefore, less need to worry about indigenous peoples when the bulk of Reforestation should be carried out in the over-industrialized nations. If there is a need for Reforestation in the industrializing countries it could be carried out in areas which are currently uninhabited because of deforestation. For example, there are over 3 million square miles of scrubland in Brazil which have still not recovered from the failure of cattle ranching in the 1880s. It should also be pointed out that if humans are to prevent a global warming disaster and create a sustainable Planet then they will have to create Wilderness areas in each country, so there would little need to worry about the social and political impact of Reforestation in human free zones. Secondly, if the over-industrialized nations decide to support Reforestation to counter global warming they do not have to rely on the creation of tree plantations - the land could be left to recover on its own.

xi) The World Rainforest Movement.

The wrm was set up primarily to highlight the plight of tribal peoples living in tropical Rainforests. It is focussed primarily upon humans and human rights, not Wildlife or Rainforests. It wants to protect the Rainforests not for their own sake but for the sake of the tribal peoples who exploit them. As a consequence it has no position on global warming, let alone the priorities for combatting global warming, although it is concerned about the way in which Reforestation policies aimed at combatting global warming could impinge upon the interests of tribal peoples. If it was concerned about combatting global warming it would focus on Forests in general not just Rainforests. Nevertheless it is worthwhile outlining the views of the wrm since over the last decade it has direct experience of international efforts to 'save' the Rainforests and there are some valuable lessons to be learnt from these experiences. The wrm has been one of the leading critics of the international community's attempts to save the rainforests and produced a devastating report of the tropical forest action plan's failures. [3] It concluded, "The official plan to halt rainforest destruction being promoted by the World Bank and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization is fatally flawed and will actually accelerate forest loss, according to a recent report from the World Rainforest Movement." (Teresa Apin 'T-FAP Clap Trap' Econews no.52 Aug/Sept 1990 p.9).

I: The Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP).

It is, however, a little absurd condemning tfap for not saving the Rainforests given that it was never set up to do this. Tfap was not established to preserve the Rainforests as ecological habitats, nor to combat the threat posed by the greenhouse effect - the greenhouse effect was not a political issue in 1985 when tfap's objectives were determined. Tfap's goal was to stop the indiscriminate destruction of the Rainforests by landless settlers [4] who were burning down vast areas of Rainforest to pursue subsistence farming. Firing the Rainforests entailed a colossal waste of resources because none of the billions of Trees burnt down were logged. The tfap's aim was to maximize the economic exploitation of the Rainforests and thus destroy them in a profitable and orderly fashion, "With a contemplated $8 billion to spend, their own figures for budget-allocation are something of a 'self-indictment': 25% for 'industrial use'; 30% for agro-forestry; 30% for 'bureaucracy with 10% for ecosystem preservation (1.5% in Latin America)." (Aubrey Meyer Geographical Magazine February 1990 p.14-15). The idea of preserving the Forests in order to exploit their genetic diversity and exotic products had not yet come into vogue in 1985.

II: The WRM's Critique of the Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP).

The wrm believes there are two reasons for the tfap's failure. Firstly, its failure to consult the tribal peoples living in the Rainforests and, secondly, its failure to stop the invasion of the Rainforests by the landless poor.

A: The TFAP's 'Top-Down' Management Approach.

The wrm believes that tfap does not consult the people who live in the Rainforests about proposed development projects, "The need is to replace the present technocratic, project dominated approach with a bottom up approach that takes its lead from local peoples, and which aims to promote development policies which have as their primary goal the securing of their needs and rights." (Marcus Colchester quoted in Teresa Apin 'T-FAP Clap Trap' Econews no.52 Aug/Sept 1990 p.9); "TFAP is failing adequately to address issues of land tenure, land ownership and land use planning. The national plans do not give priority to the needs and rights of the poor, to women or to marginalised social groups. There is inadequate consideration of the rights of indigenous forest dwellers." (Teresa Apin 'T-FAP Clap Trap' Econews no.52 Aug/Sept 1990 p.9).

This criticism has been recognized by other commentators, "Its critics believe rightly that its failure in large measure is due to its "top-down" approach, which provides inadequate participation for people who live in and depend on tropical forests and non-governmental organizations." (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.126). [5]

B: The Failure to Tackle the Causes of Rainforest Destruction.

Whilst some commentators believe the main agents of tropical deforestation are governments or multi-national corporations, the wrm believes it is landless settlers. [6] However, the wrm does not blame landless settlers for the destruction. It blames the tfap because of it refusal to confront the cause of the Forest invasions i.e. landlessness, "Although it is well known that the invasion of forest areas by landless settlers is the single largest cause of forest destruction, the national plans (formulated through the TFAP) have fatally avoided confronting this politically delicate issue." (Teresa Apin 'T-FAP Clap Trap' Econews no.52 Aug/Sept 1990 p.9). But, then again, it is hardly the role of what is, in effect, only a glorified international forestry commission to solve class conflicts. The failure is thus blamed on governments.

The wrm believe the way to prevent deforestation is to find land (or jobs) for landless peoples outside the Rainforests, "The scale of the present forest crisis demands that we confront the root causes of deforestation", says Colchester, "and that means resolving conflicts of interest between rich and poor. If landlessness is the main cause of forest loss in Amazonia, we need to check that by promoting land reform outside the forests." (Teresa Apin 'T-FAP Clap Trap' Econews no.52 Aug/Sept 1990 p.9). Unfortunately, most of the land outside of the Forests is owned by the landowning elites which control Rainforest governments which, as a consequence, far from wanting to redistribute land, tend to protect these inequalities. If anything, governments are pushing landless settlers into the Rainforests as a way of preventing social unrest and thus heading off demands on the landowning elites for land redistribution.

C: Conclusions.

It would be inappropriate to complain that the tfap has failed to protect the Forests; failed to protect the interests of the indigenous peoples who live in the Forests; and failed to stop the destruction caused by landless settlers because, putting aside all the lies and deceptions, there never was a plan to 'save' the Forests or tribal peoples or landless settlers. On this account the tfap has been a spectacular success. Huge parts of the tropical Rainforests have been, and continue to be, ravaged.

III: The WRM's Views on Reforestation as a Means of Combatting Global Warming.

Given the wrm's criticisms of the tfap, it is not surprising that it views proposals for the Reforestation of tropical Rainforests to combat global warming with considerable suspicion, "In the interests of pragmatic negotiability, such a process looks likely to leave out crucial and controversial issues, such as community participation, land ownership, forest dwellers' rights, and the relations with agrarian structure, debt, and trade and aid policy. Consequently, we risk ending up with a "tree planting, logging and forest parks convention" which will further marginalize the rural poor and powerless that make up the world's population." (Marcus Colchester World Rainforest Movement New Scientist 19.1.91. p.65).

This position is not, however, satisfactory. Whilst it is entirely legitimate to worry about the implementation of Reforestation it seems unwise to oppose the priority which needs to be given to Reforestation solely on the basis of such concerns. The dangers of not giving priority to Reforestation are greater than dangers of giving it priority.

IV: The Lessons provided by the TFAP.

There are lessons to be learnt from wrm's experiences of tfap. Firstly, it is simply not possible to deal with Reforestation in isolation from wider social or political issues. Secondly, whilst the wrm blames Rainforest governments for not confronting the issue of landlessness this can only be regarded as a cop out since these governments are never going to confront the inequalities of land ownership when their members is drawnly largely from the landowning elite. The only way in which land inequalities in third world countries is going to be ended is either through internal reforms, revolution, or presures from the international community. But the governments of the over-industrialized nations aren't going to force third world countries to carry out land redistribution because firstly, they'd be exposed as hypocrites and, secondly, Rainforest governments wouldn't buy the over-industrialized nations' military weapons. The only way in which this problem in third world countries is going to be solved is part of a more general agreement about combating global warming by adopting historical Carbon budgets in which third world countries are given ecological justice. Ecological justice would mean that whilst most Reforestation would take place in the over-industrialized nations, third world countries would be allowed to go on developing. Third world countries would be allowed to go on developing only if they created a sustainable society which would involve not only putting land aside as Wilderness but redistributing land to end poverty. The third lesson to be learnt is that the prospects of saving the Rainforests for the sake of global warming are negligible.

xii) Green Groups.

Virtually all of the country's main green groups from the decentralists centered around 'The way forward' (which after 14 issues still hasn't discussed Reforestation), the eco-socialists, Green Anarchist, Green revolution, green 2000/realignment/eco, etc., say virtually nothing about the geophysiological role of Forests nor the role of Wood economies in a sustainable Planet.

xiii) Animal Rights Groups.

Animal rights groups do not regard global warming as being of relevance to their causes and have no views about the priorities needed to combat it - even though it will change the habitats of many species; cause the deaths of huge numbers of Animals; and will eventually become a major cause of species extinctions. It is quite astonishing that no part of the Animal rights movement has become involved in this issue. It is even more astonishing given that Reforestation would be one of the best ways not merely of protecting Animal habitats but of creating Wilderness areas in which Animals would be completely free from persecution by moronic humans.

xiv) Conclusions.

The country's leading green organizations believe that reducing Carbon emissions is the most important means of combatting global warming. What this priority entails is a reliance upon technological solutions to reduce Carbon emissions - even though pollution reduction measures have been an almost complete failure over the last three decades; even though some technological solutions exacerbate, rather than reduce pollution; and even though more and more commentators are beginning to argue that energy conservation measures are insufficient to combat global warming. Much more profoundly, the reliance upon technology and energy conservation will gradually lead to the introduction of a solar economy/society. Whilst many greens would welcome such a development, it is necessary to point out that the ecological viability of a solar economy has not been demonstrated. On the contrary, there are reasons for believing that it would be even more ecologically destructive than a fossil-fuelled economy and that it will eventually decimate the Planet's life support system. The terrestrialization of the sun's energy can lead only to a very hot Planet. What boosts the ecological destruction of a solar economy is that it reinforces all the most ecologically destructive elements of a fossil fuelled economy. It legitimizes the global inequalities between the rich and the poor countries; the Animal exploitation industry; continued population growth; continued economic growth; and the car, and car related, industries. A solar economy is simply a fossil fuelled economy without fossil fuels.

Conversely, the priority given to Carbon emissions is a way of avoiding Reforestation; it is a way of avoiding the wholesale Reforestation of the over-industrialized nations; it is a way of avoiding the necessity for challenging the global inequalities between rich and poor nations; it is a way of ignoring the need to abandon the ecological devastation caused by the Animal exploitation industry; it is a way of evading any action to stop population growth, economic growth, and the growth of the car, and car related, industries; and, finally, it is a way of avoiding the creation of Wood economies which are the basis of a sustainable Planet. Only the creation of Wood economies necessitates the abolition of the inequalities between rich and poor, the Animal exploitation industry, and curbs on the growth in the numbers of cars, people and capital.

Green organizations, however, claim that the priority they give to the reduction in Carbon emissions should be supported because it is tantamount to taking the side of third world countries against the over-industrialized nations in the disputes over responsibilities for combatting global warming. Green organizations support the third world's demand that priority should be given to the reduction in the Carbon emissions released by the over-industrialized world, and oppose the over-industrialized world's attempts to avoid reducing its Carbon emissions by demanding that third world countries should carry out huge Reforestation projects. Thus, not giving priority to Reforestation is tantamount to taking the side of the over-industrialized nations against the third world. But, greens support for the reduction in Carbon emissions is just an evasion of the real issue - the Reforestation of the over-industrialized nations. The reason that green organizations concentrate upon Carbon emissions is not because they wish to support the third world but because they are too gutless to demand the wholesale Reforestation of the over-industrialized nations. In fact, by not giving priority to Reforestation, green organizations are selling out third world countries whose strongest negotiating card at global warming conferences is the existence of their Rainforests. By not putting pressure on the over-industrialized governments to carry out Reforestation schemes in their own countries, greens are also giving third world governments the excuse they need to go on chopping down their own Forests. In other words, greens are not merely failing to support Reforestation in their own countries they are encouraging the continued destruction of third world Forests.

These car-owning, chop-the-Forests-down greens, reply that this argument doesn't stand up. That if countries had to offset their Carbon emissions then this would have no effect on the world's biggest Earth rapist, America, "Densely populated countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, could not grow enough trees to absorb all their present CO2 emissions, even if every existing hectare was set aside for the purpose. Yet the countries with the worst records of CO2 pollution, such as the United States, Canada and parts of eastern Europe, do have the land. The United States, despite being responsible for more than one-fifth of the world's CO2 emissions, could absorb every last tonne if one-third of its land were forested for carbon sequestration." (Fred Pearce New Scientist 17.7.93. p.26-29). This would, as greenpeace have argued, "let America off the hook". The demand which is being made in this work is not that country's should offset their "present CO2 emissions" but that they should offset their historical Carbon emissions. Offsetting current emissions would mean that Brazil, as the so-called fourth worst polluter, would have to Reforest its country almost as extensively as America. This is absurd because it does not take into acount that over the last 200 years Brazil has been a net Carbon importer whilst America has been a colossal, net Carbon exporter. It is time that America, and the other over-industrialized nations, paid of their historical Carbon debts to third world countries and stopped sponging off the ecological resources of poverty stricken third world countries. And it is time that green organizations got back to supporting green issues instead of pretending that they are technologists and economists.

Superficially, the support for the priority of reducing Carbon emissions may seem just a sensible means of combatting the greenhouse effect. But, the green organizations are using this priority to perpetrate a gigantic fraud on the rest of the green movement which:-

firstly, diverts attention from the ecological devastation being inflicted on the Planet's life support system i.e. global deforestation and the general destruction of the Planet's Photosynthetic capacity such as coral reefs, phytoplankton, mangrove forests and savannah grasslands;

secondly, allows green organizations (as well as governments and multinational corporations) to promote further acts of ecological devastation - see the green and ron bailey party's so-called ecologically sound transport policies in 'Roads to the Future';

thirdly, hastens the creation of an ecologically uncosted solar powered society which will eventually destroy the Planet's life support system; and,

finally, deceives the public, and the wider green movement, into believing that the creation of a sustainable Planet can be achieved without the need for massive structural changes such as the abolition of global injustice, capitalism, and the Animal exploitation industries.

The focus on reducing Carbon emissions is thus a major turning point in the green movement because it is enabling greenpeace, and other green organizations, to surreptiously push through policies aimed at creating a solar economy. They have not discussed this with their supporters or the wider green movement; they have simply decreed it and the consequences of this dictatorial decision for the green movement will be colossal.

Whilst green groups downplay Forests whether because they believe that atmospheric emissions are a bigger contributor to global warming and thus a more immediate danger to the Earth's life support system; or because they fear that Forests will be turned into monocultural tree plantations; or because they fear the over-industrialized nations will try to off-set their Carbon emissions by planting Forests in third world countries, etc., the net effect is the same - as deforestation increases, greens' demand for Reforestation decreases, and the Planet becomes more and more uninhabitable. Greens have not merely reacted against the difficulties entailed by Reforestation but have over-reacted by denying Reforestation virtually any validity. The belief that Reforestation can be ignored is utterly absurd and not a little horrifying. The fact is that, at the very least, the Earth is one continent short of the Forests it needs to maintain climatic stability. The green organizations in the over-industrialized nations are petrified of confronting this problem because most of them know that these Forests are going to have to be planted in the over-industrialized nations and they don't want to ruin their careers by confronting their governments over such an issue. And yet the longer the issue is ignored, the bigger the problem becomes, until, eventually, it becomes insoluble.

In many ways the green movement has yoked itself to a green version of the monetarist, supply side madness promoted by successive tory governments over the last fifteen years. Whilst greens make endless noises about reducing atmospheric pollution the world's remaining Forests are quietly being ripped to shreds and this can lead only to a global ecological calamity. Greens are not merely ignorant about ecological issues they are becoming increasingly dangerous because the dust they kick up over atmospheric pollution is not merely camoflauging the wholesale ecological devastation which is taking place around the world, it is blinding them to the damage they themselves are promising to inflict on the Earth if they ever get into power.

What is unquestionably true is that deforestation will have to stop at one point: not because the green oomano-exterminists suddenly realize their mistake and hurriedly strat promoting massive Reforestation schemes but because there won't be any Forests left.