Introduction

This pamphlet consists of a series of essays centering around one theme - the fact that the world’s scientists, politicians, and environmentalists are refusing to measure, for one reason or another, the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. the Earth’s life support system. This statement may not cause shock so much as disbelief. Surely this can’t be true - after all, there’s been nearly a quarter of a century of battles to save the environment since the first Earth Day in 1970. And yet,

Climate scientists aren’t interested in measuring ecological destruction because many of them are physicists or meteorologists whose computer models consist solely of the coupling of the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere - the biosphere is not included in these models. One of the leading figures of the inter-governmental panel for climate change (ipcc) recently published a book in which he admits that, “Very little has been said in this chapter about the biosphere. The large three-dimensional global climate models described in this chapter contain a lot of dynamics and physics but no interactive chemistry or biology.”[1]

Politicians aren’t interested in measuring ecological destruction. Firstly, it would expose the critical scale of ecological devastation in the over-industrialized nations and lead to demands for a ban on any further destruction. This would make it difficult for them to continue promoting the construction of more and more factories, office blocks, housing estates, hospitals, roads, nurseries, etc - which is what they were elected to do and what an ecologically ignorant electorate expects them to provide. Secondly, in the over-industrialized nations where there has been large scale deforestation, it would lead to demands for Reforestation which would mean even less land available for new construction projects. Thirdly, it would mean that in the over-industrialized nations the main issue would not be construction but deconstruction.

Environmentalists protest vociferously against ecological destruction but they won’t measure the scale of the ecological destruction entailed by their so-called green policies. They want to continue pretending that they are promoting green policies whilst destroying the Earth’s life support system. Although, over the last couple of decades, the green movement has made endless demands for an ecological assessment of fossil fuels and nuclear power, it has not ecologically costed its own proposals for alternative forms of energy. Some green organizations are aiming to create a solar powered society even though this could seriously exacerbate ecological destruction. The green movement refuses to promote Reforestation as the main priority for combating global warming and as the only basis of a sustainable Planet because, just as is the case with conventional politicians, such a policy would stop them from implementing a plethora of so-called green construction projects.

The Earth’s life-support system is being dismantled at a faster and faster rate and yet everyone either believes that this is not happening, or pretends that it can go on and on and on and on ad infinitum, or refuses to face up to the consequences of trying to stop the devastation.

The following articles have been written over the last two years. They have been rewritten and updated for this publication. There overlaps between some of the essays have been reduced to a minimum. If a paragraph sounds vaguely familar please scan on to the next one.

THERE IS NOTHING GREEN ABOUT THE GREEN MOVEMENT

The green movement:-

* believes the priority for combating global warming is reducing Carbon emissions not Reforestation;

* does not believe that Reforestation has any vital role in combating global warming;

* opposes the Reforestation of the over-industrialized nations, the world’s Carbon debtors;

* does not believe Reforestation has a central role in a sustainable Planet;

* supports the creation of solar economies (thereby legitimizing the global injustice between rich and poor countries as well as the Animal exploitation industry); and,

* opposes the creation of regional Wood economies (which necessitates global justice between rich and poor countries as well as the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry).

THE GREEN MOVEMENT’S GREAT BIG FRAUD

After decades of demanding that the nuclear and fossil fuel industries ecologically cost their policies the green movement:-

* refuses to measure the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. its life support system when evaluating the threat posed by global warming;

* refuses to measure the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity caused by its so-called green policies;

* refuses to measure the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity caused by its so-called green, solar-powered, policies;

* has no means for harmonizing and systematizing local, national and global green policies.

THE GREEN MOVEMENT IS JUST A FRONT FOR EARTH-RAPISTS

The green movement uses the priority of reducing Carbon emissions to:-

* emphasize technological, rather than ecological, solutions to ecological problems;

* divert attention away from the destruction of the Earth’s life support system;

* promote policies which cause ecological destruction (one of the benefits of refusing to ecologically cost its policies is that the green movement can promote policies which cause ecological destruction!).

WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON IN THE GREEN MOVEMENT?

Background Details about the Articles in this Work

1. A Ghostly Transformation.

This article was written what seems like a lifetime ago (october 1992) in response to a position paper produced by sandy irvine and alec ponton after the decentralists took over the green party. Copies of this article were sent out to a number of people but the only person to respond was sandy irvine. The criticisms of their position paper do not undermine my admiration for these leading deep greens.

2. Mundimentalism.

A copy of ‘A Ghostly Transformation’ was sent to the editor of the west yorkshire green party’s newsletter who promised to publish the article if all the ‘critical’ remarks about prominent green party members were removed. This was accepted. It took a couple of weeks of hard slog to rewrite the article which outlined a deep green philosophy/policies to show that there was another perspective from those put forward by the decentralists and green realignment. The article was not published. There was no acknowledgement of the article; and no reason was given for not publishing it. Such are the manners and consideration with which green party members treat each other; such is greens’ desire for debates about green issues. About a year later i heard that what had happened was that someone in the west yorkshire green party had decided to spend a huge amount of money publishing a nondescript pamphlet on the coal industry, which was of interest solely to a rapidly decreasing number of ex-miners. This meant the regional party could not afford to continue publishing its large newsletter. This article became the basis of a pamphlet entitled, ‘A Manifesto for a Sustainable Planet’.

3. An Ecological Critique of the IPCC.

This essay was originally a chapter in Terra Firm issue no.3 ‘An Ecological and Political Critique of the Rio Earth Summit’ first published in 1992.

4. A Political Critique of the IPCC.

This essay was also chapter in the same Terra Firm issue.

5. The Need for a Global Carbon Cycle Budget.

This was first written in july 1993 soon after the mundi club moved to oxford. It was a gesture of friendship towards the oxford green party to introduce some of my ideas to people i did not know. My request to have the article published in the local newsletter went unanswered. The article was updated in December 1993 and then distributed to oxford green party members at the monthly party meeting. An informal meeting was organized in case anyone was interested in discussing such ideas. One person attended.

The above ideas were first put forward in 'The Carbon Theory of Value'. They were used to analyse the car industry in 'Ban Cars' and further elaborated in 'A Manifesto for a Sustainable Planet' and then 'The Principles of a Manifesto for the Earth'.

6. Permaculture.

This article was first written in december 1993 in response to a request from the editor of the green party’s permaculture newsletter. It was written in good faith and was used as an opportunity to clarify my ideas about a branch of green politics i had not written about before. I was rather naive, however, in believing that people might be interested in hearing what i had to say and should have known i was expected to write something which pandered to the prejudices, bigotry and stupidities of this particular sect within the green movement. The editor demanded wholesale changes. I refused. After my experiences with the west yorkshire green party i wasn’t going to spend another few weeks slogging away to produce a new article which would be ignored.

The article was also sent to a number of other editors primarily as a flyer to see if anyone was interested. They weren’t. One editor, an old friend, not merely refused to publish it but refused to explain why he didn’t like it. It was then passed on to another editor who duly forgot about it. It was difficult to believe that so much animosity could have been generated by such a piddling little essay which would have been read by at most a couple of hundred people. The editor of ‘Permaculture’ didn’t bother to acknowledge it. The editor of ‘Resurgence’ sent a letter explaining that he’d commissioned works until the end of the millennium so ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’.

The article has been considerably rewritten for this pamphlet. It displays more confidence in the criticisms which had been put forward so tenatively in the first version and a number of additional criticisms have been included.

7. The Great Carbon Emissions Fraud.

This article is based on Terra Firm issue no.5 ‘The Great Carbon Emissions Fraud: The Green Movement’s Opposition to Reforestation’ first published in early 1994. An earlier draft of this article was published in greenline no.114 May 1994 p.12-13. There were two responses to the greenline article for which i was very grateful. But, it has to be asked, why is it that only two greens are interested in the fact that the green movement does not support Reforestation?

8. The Danger of the Priority given to Reducing Carbon Emissions.

This article is an elaboration and clarification of some points made in Terra Firm issue no.5 ‘The Great Carbon Emissions Fraud: The Green Movement’s Opposition to Reforestation’. An earlier draft of this article was submitted to greenline.

9. Which is the Biggest Environmental Disaster?

This article is a summary, and a reworking, of Terra Firm issue no.4 ‘Which is the Biggest Environmental Disaster’. It has not been published before.

10. The Carbon Theory of Value.

This article summarizes a recently published pamphlet of the same name. It has not been published before.

11. The Green Party is a Total Shambles.

This article has been assembled from various sections in ‘The Principles of a Manifesto for the Earth’. It marks my decision not to renew my membership of the green party.

I joined the green party a few months before thatcher’s ‘green’ speech at the october 1988 tory party conference. Her sudden conversion to green issues was partly to do with pressure from the scientific community and the need to promote nuclear power, but there was also a domestic political element since in the run up to her speech it had been rumoured she would introduce ‘citizenship’ and ‘community’ as the new themes for her future administration. These themes were being advocated primarily by the then home secretary, douglas hurd. Whilst thatcherite tories had been promoting unrestrained free trade, the sovereignty of the market, the enterprize culture and the virtues of greed, hurd was worried about the consequent breakdown of moral values. He came to the anti-thatcherite conclusion that a lot of the current social troubles including that by ‘lager louts’ (a newly coined phrase) and gangs of football thugs who travelled around the country in the first class compartments of inter-city trains, was caused by the fact that these people “had too much money in their pockets”. Thatcher, however, was far from comfortable with ideas such as community and citizenship and was thus looking for an escape when green issues came to her rescue.[2]

On the personal level it was a great disappointment that thatcher’s 1988 speech went on and on about the environment and said nothing about the two themes with which i’d been primarily interested over the previous 15 years. (I was one of those who wrote to anthony barnett applauding his ideas on citizenship, outlined in a guardian article, which eventually led to the estabishment of charter 88). Although i’d developed an interest in environmental issues in the early 1970s (when acid rain was coming into public prominence and no one had heard of global warming) i believed it was necessary for people to win power in their communities before there was any prospect of protecting the environment. The first article i wrote after i’d joined the green party was ‘village green’ which emphasized both citizenship and community - and was virtually bereft of any geophysiological, ecological and even environmental thinking. In many senses i could define myself over this period as having been a social ecologist even though i did not know the term at the time. Soon after joining the green party i discovered deep green philosophy and james lovelock which led to a major re-evaluation of a vast range of issues. I no longer believe the decentralist, community option is either viable or correct. Decentralization is still vital but globalization is much more fundamental.

12. Doctor Leggett’s Notebook.

This is a review of ‘The Climate Time Bomb’ published by Greenpeace International. In terms of the theme being explored in this pamphlet, this article is imortant because, for the first time, it explains why greenpeace refuses to measure the scale of the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity.

13. Spreading Doom and Despondency.

This article is only incidentally related to the main theme of this work but it still deserves an airing. It was written in june 1992. A prominent earth first!er asked if i would like to write an article for a radical, hard hitting newsletter he wanted to publish. The article was duly sent off - and that was the last i heard about it. Whether it failed to reach its destination, whether it reached him but was not appreciated; whether it was appreciated but not suitable - who knows????

I do not belong to either of the Green party’s two main factions (the decentralists/green 2000) since both of them display varying levels of political naivety and ecological ignorance. The following article is a response to sandy irvine and alec ponton’s recently published paper, 'Crisis in the Green Party'.

1. A Ghostly Transformation.

ONE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE GREEN PARTY'S CURRENT PROBLEMS

Sandy’s eulogy to sara parkin is somewhat bewildering. It is difficult to regard her as an "outstanding advocate of Green politics" let alone "the Party's greatest asset in recent years" ('Crisis' p.2) primarily because she has not published her views on a wide range of issues let alone outlined her vision of a green future. What makes this eulogy seem even more perverse is that it is not true that, "no members of this coalition (the anti-green 2000) have made any lasting mark on the outside world" ('Crisis' p.5). Unlike sara parkin, a number of those opposed to green 2000, such as david icke, derek wall, and penny kemp, have written books detailing their views of green politics whilst ron bailey's 'Road to the Future' is a landmark in transport policies.

If it is difficult to understand how greens can be expected to trust sara when they don't know what she stands for, it is even more difficult to accede to her demands for a leadership role when she seems reluctant to be limited by any constraints, "I am simply not willing to take responsibility for something over which I have no control."[3] Perhaps sara's withdrawal from involvement in the green party will give her the time to put her ideas into print so that greens can make a better judgement as to whether to entrust her with power.

Sandy's admiration for another globe-trotting, carbon spendthrift, jonathon porritt is also rather surprising. Jonathon has stood on the sidelines whining about the green party for the last couple of years and yet complains about the green party’s lack of success. If this supergreen won’t contest for power in the green party openly and honestly[4] then few of those in the green movement who admire him are likely to join the green party.

It is also puzzling why sandy seems to be providing excuses for green 2000. Whilst many of his criticisms of eco-socialists and green anarchists are valid, it is surprising to find him blaming these factions for the present chaos in the green party. The chaos stems primarily from the disruption caused by green 2000’s attempted takeover of the green party. First of all they were responsible for sacking two key individuals. Although 'Econews' had its editorial bias and its problems, it was nevertheless an excellent newspaper. Through hard work, dave bradney was building up a successful publication which could have been a considerable asset in promoting the green party. It was scandalous that he was forced out and that the paper was closed down.[5] The sacking of ron bailey was just as bad. He may have failed to consult greens about the green party's new transport policies (so much for empowerment!) but, despite some fundamental ecological flaws, 'Road to the Future' was a major innovation. It is transparent, then, that it is not the green party which has “adopted a ‘throw-away’ approach to talent and experience” ('Crisis' p.5) but green 2000. When green 2000 dispenses with people of such obvious talents then it seems not merely incompetant but wilfully self-destructive. 

In addition, sara’s authoritarian attitude exacerbated the chaos in the Green party not so much because she antagonized her opponents but, much more critically, because she undermined the confidence of many of those who originally supported her and green 2000. It also ought to be noted that the anti-green 2000 victory at wolverhampton was achieved by much fairer means than green 2000's somewhat unethical victory using block proxy votes.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, sandy’s support for green 2000 is also difficult to understand given that it is all too likely that few of its members support what he has called 'ecopolitics'. The first issue of ‘Real World’ had a couple of articles by genuinely ecologically minded greens but the bulk of it was the usual light green mulch.[6]

TWO: GREEN PARTY ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES.

i) The Leadership Issue.

The green party needs a national leader. Leaders are imperative to inspire people both inside and outside the party. However, this centralization must be carefully institutionalized, according to the political principle of ‘checks and balances’, to ensure the individual weilding such power can be removed if they no longer provide inspiration - the party cannot afford another david icke fiasco.

ii) A Green Party Shadow Cabinet.

The regional council is vital for the success of green politics (this refers to the regional council as an institution not its current policies and personalities). The party’s executive council should be abolished and an enlarged regional council should be made the sole executive body and turned into a green 'shadow' cabinet composed solely of regional green party representatives. For ecological reasons, it is imperative that national (and global) power should be geographically rooted in regions. Without this regional basis there is no chance of creating an equitable and sustainable society (or Planet).[7] The party leader should be chosen from the members of the green cabinet rather than being elected by the party’s membership or by conference.[8]

iii) The Policy Community.

The policy community has been very useful for encouraging greater participation in the green party. Its deficiencies could be remedied by providing it with the resources it needs to function properly.[9] However, the policy community needs to be institutionalized. Each working group should be assigned to the relevant cabinet member to provide support and backing, e.g. the economics working party should become the economics’ ‘department’ headed by the cabinet member with the economics’ portfolio. Each department would also scrutinize the effectiveness of their respective shadow cabinet member and thus provide another element of 'checks and balances'.

THREE: SHADES OF GREEN.

The classic distinction within green politics is between deep greens and light greens.[10] The basic tenets of deep green politics are equity with Wildlife and the ecological necessity for Wilderness areas. It is quite true that there is an irreconciliable division between deep greens and light greens; between those who oppose anthropocentrism and those who support humanism; and between those who put the Earth first and those who put humans first. For example, it is quite staggering that whilst light greens such as eco-socialists and green anarchists oppose all forms of human oppression, they totally ignore, if not condone or even participate in, the human exploitation of Animals. This country murders nearly 800 million Animals every year which represents a tidal wave of exploitation, vile tortures, and brutality and yet light green radicals don’t seem to regard it as being in the least bit significant. Light greens seem unable to understand that the oppression of Animals is the worst form of exploitation on Earth - far worse than racism, sexism, genderism, etc., and that the extermination of Wildlife is a greater moral depravity than genocide.

It is extremely doubtful, however, whether many activists within Green 2000 support deep green politics as opposed to the watered down nonsense known as 'ecologism'. For example jonathon porritt does not regard eating meat as unethical - and, from his recent manifesto, sees nothing wrong with it ecologically either!!

In case greens might be deceived into thinking that a green 2000 victory would produce unanimity around the basic tenets of 'Ecopolitics' it needs to be pointed out that 'ecologism' is just as split as light green politics ranging from tribalism, raw foodism, Gaians, back to the landers, 'One Worlders', 'Whose Worlders', 'sandy irvine's 'ecopolitics', and jonathon porritt's 'dark greens'.

FOUR: GREEN POLICIES.

i) Animal Freedom and the Creation of Wilderness Areas.

The key issue of green politics is the need to go beyond Animal welfare and animal rights to ensure that a substantial part of the land in each country around the world is put aside as Wilderness for the exclusive use of Wildlife.

ii) Immigration.

Sandy is right to point out the weakness of removing “all restrictions on migration”.

iii) Overpopulation.

Overpopulation is a considerable ecological danger and, given the current rates of exponential growth, threatens to become the biggest threat to the Planet's ecology. Unfortunately, whilst members of green 2000 seem to be all too willing to talk about, and to take measures against, overpopulation they seem reluctant to do the same as regards capitalism. Ironically, here is an issue on which Green party activists of all factions ought to be able to agree and yet, far from green 2000 using this issue to unify the party, they laugh approvingly at an ecological ignoramus’s schoolboy joke about 'Marxist-Lentilism, ('Crisis' p.4). If greens do not oppose capitalism they don't know what they are talking about and should go and join one of the capitalist, Earth-raping, GATT-loving, loony, ecocidal, parties.

The real overpopulation issue consists of the five Cs; cars (the car, and car related, industries), kids (human overpopulation), cattle (the Animal exploitation industry), capital (i.e. the overconsumption of the Earth's capital resources, the colossal growth of capital construction projects and the huge expansion of wealth), and carnage (the arms industry and war). The fact that many green 2000 members will not face up to all of these issues but concentrate upon just one or two, reveals all too clearly that they are not supporters of ‘ecopolitics’ but light greens posing as radicals to get back into power.

iv) Alternative Energy.

What reinforces these suspicions is the widespread support amongst members of green 2000 for alternative forms of energy rather than renewable energy obtained from Phytomass. Jonathon porritt (and to a lesser extent richard lawson) supports the construction of tidal barrages around the country's estuaries - and sod the fact that these are sites of international importance for Wildlife. Alternative energy has the potential to cause vastly more ecological damage than fossil fuels. Those greens who support alternative energy are just fools who have been chanting ‘alternative energy’ for so many decades they've forgotten to assess its ecological implications. It is time to start making a distinction between alternative, and renewable, energy. New Zealand thought it had a 'renewable' source of energy until last winter when river levels fell and hydro-electric power dropped dramatically. It has to be suggested that supergreens like porritt are stuck in the green politics of the 1970s and 1980s and have failed to think through the political and ecological consequences of the ipcc’s scientific assessment. Putting supergreens in power would lead to the promotion of ecologically defunct policies.

FIVE: THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A GREEN PROGRAMME.

None of the factions within the green party deserve monopoly power since none of them have an ecological analysis, none of them have developed ecologically costed policies, and none of them have outlined the nature of a sustainable green Planet. It is imperative that the green party adopts the following elements as part of its MfSS:-

i) An Ecological Analysis.

This would outline the ecological problems currently facing the Earth i.e. the scale of global, ecological devastation; the major social/political/economic/cultural forces causing this destruction; and the ecological calamity which poses the biggest, and most immediate, threat to the survival of life on Earth. This should provide the Green party with a more accurate assessment of what needs to be done to prevent an ecological collapse.

ii) A Carbon Methodology and Carbon Costed Policies.

The green party needs to understand the Earth's Carbon cycle. It should develop both a global, and a national, Carbon budget. This would show how nationals budget fit into the global budget. The global budget would be designed to tackle global ecological problems. Each region within a country would also be given a Carbon budget. The green party should also adopt a Carbon methodology in order to evaluate all policies (and policy proposals) in terms of their effects on its national Carbon budget. The Green party would have to ensure that Carbon emissions AND ABSORPTION (i.e. Photosynthesis) were kept within the country's Carbon budget. Such a scientific stance would divorce the green party from david icke's whacky spiritualism and sara parkin’s moralism. Jonathon porritt's promotion of an energy based gnp accounting system and/or basket of environmental, social and economic indictors, is misplaced. The new, ecological, gold standard is Carbon.

iii) The Nature of a Sustainable Region/Planet.

Whilst the green party has formulated short term and long term policies it still hasn't outlined the nature of a sustainable Planet. It is necessary to specify the structure, functions and purpose of the global, national and regional institutions needed to maintain a sustainable Planet/country/region. It is simply not possible for each country around the world to create its own climate. The Earth's climate is a unitary entity. This means, in effect, that there are no local environmental problems. All environmental problems are ecological, that is global, in scope. Humans have got to regulate the climate to maximize Biodiversity and the way they can do that is through geophysiology, the science of the Earth's climate. It has to be pointed out that one of sara parkin's most admirable qualities is her internationalist outlook. Green politics is both devolution and globalization.

In conclusion, it is difficult to support any of the green party's various factions until they have made a commitment to develop such elements to their programme. Without an ecological analysis the green party will never tackle the real issues. Without a Carbon methodolgy to guide the formulation of its policies, the green party will end up damaging the Planet's ecology rather than protecting it. It is doubtful whether the public would support the green party if it didn't have clear answers to the crucial ecological issues of our time.