THE NEED FOR A GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE BUDGET

The purpose of this article is to outline the need for a Carbon cycle budget to formulate policies to combat global warming. The advantage of such a budget is that it can firstly, systemmatize local, national, and global, green policies; secondly, ensure green policies are in harmony with the Earth’s geophysiological needs; and, thirdly, assess the ecological viability of current local, national, and global, green policies.

i) The Scientific Inadequacy of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Earth's global average temperature is influenced by the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. The level of atmospheric Carbon is determined by the release of Carbon emissions into the atmosphere (the supply side of the Earth’s Carbon cycle) and by Photosynthesis (the demand side of the Carbon cycle). Atmospheric Carbon has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution when the industrializing countries began dumping increasing quantities of pollution into the atmosphere and deforesting an increasing proportion of their lands. In order to combat global warming it is necessary not only to reduce anthropogenic Carbon emissions but to increase the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover.

Unfortunately, whilst the world’s leading authority on the greenhouse effect, the ipcc, has made recommendations for reducing greenhouse emissions it has not made any recommendation concerning Reforestation. This could be disastrous because even if the required reduction in Carbon emissions was eventually achieved, the level of atmospheric Carbon could go on rising if the Planet’s Photosynthetic capacity continued to be decimated. If action is not taken soon to Reforest large parts of the Earth, global warming could get out of control and further discussions about reducing Carbon emissions will become irrelevant. The ipcc’s focus on Carbon emissions has led politicians and green organizations to dismiss the vital role of global Reforestation in reducing global warming. The ecological priority for combating global warming is not, as suggested by greenpeace and friends of the Earth, the reduction in greenhouse emissions, but Reforestation.

Assume, however, that eventually the ipcc decides to recommend Reforestation. Given the ipcc’s non-political remit it will doubtlessly couch its recommendation in the same way as it did the reduction in Carbon emissions i.e. in global percentage terms. This will be taken to mean, especially by the over-industrialized nations, that each country around the world should increase the scale of its Forest cover by the same percentage.

ii) The Global Politics of Global Warming.

The disintegrating/industrializing countries, however, are no more likely to accept a global percentage increase in Forest cover than they are to accept a global percentage reduction in Carbon emissions. Why should they? During the industrial revolution, the over-industrialized nations have released far more Carbon into the atmosphere and have destroyed a far greater proportion of their Forests than the disintegrating/industrializing countries. The over-industrialized nations have made the biggest contribution to global warming and, correspondingly, must take primary responsibility for combating this ecological threat. The disintegrating/industrializing countries will play their part only if the over-industrialized nations repair the damage they have inflicted on the Earth’s life support system during the industrial revolution.

But why, it might be asked, should the over-industrialized nations take responsibility for the ecological damage they have caused over the last couple of hundred years? The answer is that half the Carbon released during the industrial revolution is still in the atmosphere. Whilst it is impossible for the over-industrialized nations to rectify the centuries old political injustices they have perpetrated against disintegrating/industrializing countries, they cannot escape their historical responsibilities for boosting global warming. The over-industrialized nations’ crimes against the Planet are not dead and buried in the long distant past like so many imperialist crimes but are about to take their toll not merely on present, but on future, generations. The over-industrialized nations have been sponging off disintegrating/industrializing countries’ ecologies for centuries and if this is not stopped there will be a global ecological breakdown.

iii) The Basis of a Global Agreement over Global Warming.

Disintegrating/industrializing countries will never agree to global policies to combat global warming unless these policies are formulated on a just and equitable basis i.e. in which the different contribution each country has made to global warming since the start of the industrial revolution is taken into account. The basis of global ecological equity is that each country must balance its historical Carbon budget so that Carbon emissions equal the amount of Carbon absorbed through Photosynthesis. This means that most of the over-industrialized nations, which are Carbon debtors, will have to carry out wholesale Reforestation, whilst disintegrating/industrializing countries, which are Carbon creditors, will be able to go on releasing Carbon emissions whilst they develop and eradicate poverty.

If no agreement can be reached between the over-industrialized world and disintegrating/industrializing countries as to how much each country should reduce its Carbon emissions and increase its Forest cover then every country around the world will continue polluting the atmosphere and deforesting the Earth until there is a global ecological collapse - and, on present trends, this collapse could happen within the next three decades. The only way to create a sustainable green world is through the establishment of a global Carbon budget which can ensure global ecological justice between all countries. This global agreement will be one of the foundation stones of a New Ecological Order.

iv) Going Global.

The ipcc should draw up an audit of the Earth’s stocks and flows of Carbon,[1] and then formulate a global Carbon budget to combat global warming. This would make it possible to establish national Carbon budgets for each country around the world and, in turn, each country would establish Carbon budgets for each of its region. Only when there is a global Carbon budget would it be possible to calculate national, and then local, budgets. National/local ecological policies can be drawn up only within the context of global ecological policies. It is not possible to develop ecologically sound policies on a local, regional or national level without a global Carbon budget. The Earth comes first.

All national policies should be assessed in terms of their contribution to a national Carbon budget. (The same would apply to local policies and local Carbon budgets). Any policy which exceeded this budget by dumping too much pollution into the atmosphere, or by suffocating too much land under tarmac or cement, or by reducing terrestrial Photosynthesis, would have to be abandoned.

A global Carbon cycle budget has three vital advantages over other forms of ecological assessment.

Firstly, as has just been noted, it can assess the ecological viability of current local, national, and global, policies - as well as proposed local, national, and global, green policies.

Secondly, whereas many green policies are in conflict with other green policies at different levels (national policies may be in conflict with international policies; international policies may be in conflict with local policies etc.) a global Carbon cycle budget systemmatizes local, national, and global, green policies. It ensures that green policies at all levels from the local to the global are compatible with each other.

Thirdly, and most importantly, whereas many green policies exceed ecological constraints and are ecologically destructive, a global Carbon cycle budget would ensure that all green policies are in harmony with the Earth’s geophysiological needs.

v) Living within Our Ecological Means.

The plain and simple fact is that if the current exponential growth in the number of cars, kids, cattle, capital, and carnage, is allowed to continue then THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE AN ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE. The over-industrialized countries are responsible for most of this exponential growth and the consequent exponential growth in ecological damage. They are living far beyond their ecological means. A global Carbon cycle analysis can provide the most accurate gauge of the Earth’s geophysiological limitations, and is the most accurate means of measuring the extent to which countries are (or are not) exceeding these limitations.

vi) In a Nutshell.

The proposal for global, national and local, Carbon cycle budgets may seem somewhat bizarre but, in a number of respects, it is merely a substitution for monetary-based budgets. The advantage of a Carbon budget is that whilst money is capable of astronomic growth which will eventually lead to the destruction of the Earth’s ecology, Carbon is rooted in, and thus limited by, the Earth’s natural processes. Whilst money is infinite, Carbon is finite - or as Edward Goldsmith argues, “money is not the currency of nature, nor does nature obey the laws of modern economics.”[2] Whilst money knows no standards (whether gold, dollar, or yen), Carbon can be fixed by the concentration of atmospheric Carbon and the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover needed to maintain climatic stability.

In a sustainable green world, Carbon budgets would replace monetary budgets; a living economy (based primarily on Trees) would replace a dead economy (based on fossil fuels); and, sustainable Wood economies would replace an unsustainable global economy. Carbon would be a green currency in comparison to ecocidal currencies such as petro-dollars, the yen or gold. There is no such thing as a steady state economy, only a steady state climate. A steady state climate can be built only on Carbon not cash. Just as economists meticulously measure the demand and supply sides of a monetary economy to promote economic growth, so greens will have to do the same for the Earth’s Carbon cycle if they are to protect the Earth’s life support system.

One of the key objectives of global green politics must be the maintenance of climatic stability by regulating the demand and supply sides of the Planet's Carbon cycle. This means, on the one side, reducing the concentration of atmospheric Carbon when the Planet is moving towards global warming and, on the other, increasing the concentration when the Planet is heading toward an ice age. Carbon is the Planet’s thermostat and humans must regulate this thermostat to prevent a climatic disaster.