THE DANGER OF THE PRIORITY GIVEN TO REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.

It was claimed in (the previous) article that the green movement’s priority for combatting global warming is the reduction of Carbon emissions rather than Reforestation. This issue is not merely a question of tactics because whilst policies to reduce Carbon emissions lead to the creation of a solar powered economy, policies promoting Reforestation lead to Wood economies. It was argued that a solar powered economy would condone the inequalities between the rich and poor nations; reinforce the Animal exploitation industry; boost the exponential increase in the numbers of cars, kids and capital; and, eventually, lead to an ecological collapse. This article explores these arguments in more detail by looking at the global warming proposals put forward by one of the country’s leading green organizations.

i) Greenpeace’s Priority of Reducing Carbon Emissions.

Greenpeace holds that “Reafforestation cannot solve the greenhouse effect.”[1] Its priority for combatting the greenhouse effect is the reduction of Carbon emissions. It proposes to abolish the use of fossil fuels.

ii) Greenpeace’s Focus on Energy Conservation and Solar Energy.

Greenpeace’s fossil fuel free policy is heavily dependent upon energy conservation and the introduction of solar power.[2]

Both friends of the Earth and the green party also support the priority of reducing Carbon emissions and thus the critical importance of technology in combatting the greenhouse effect. They also advocate the construction of tidal barrages which threaten to cause significant ecological damage to coastal estuaries and pose a threat to the hundreds of millions of birds which depend upon mudflats during their migrations.

iii) Greenpeace have not Ecologically costed their Policies.

Over the last decade or so greenpeace, friends of the Earth and the green party have all attacked the exploitation of fossil fuels and nuclear power because no account was taken of the ecological costs. It might have been thought they would have learnt from their own protestations but, clearly, this is not the case since they have not ecologically costed their proposals for solar energy. Greenpeace may have calculated the reduction in Carbon emissions as a result of abandoning fossil fuels but it has not costed the impact of solar energy on the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. the Planet’s life support system.

iv) Greenpeace’s Naivety Concerning Nuclear Power.

A number of commentators have suggested that one way in which solar power could reduce Carbon emissions would be by developing hydrogen as the fuel of the future. For example, fred pearce supports the construction of hydro-electric dams to generate hydrogen[3] whilst e.g. nisbet advocates the use of nuclear power.[4] In a hydrogen fuelled society there is a high degree of compatibility between nuclear, and solar, power.[5] It would be relatively easy, therefore, to add nuclear power to a solar based economy. And given that solar energy is not evenly spread around the world, the temptation to use nuclear power in temperate regions to back up solar power would be considerable.

An increasing number of commentators believe that in the short term natural gas will increasingly take over from oil as the world’s primary fuel and that this will pave the way for the creation of a hydrogen fuelled society. Although natural gas is often found with deposits of crude oil, these two types of energy are not compatible as fuels. The fact is, however, that the multi-national corporations which extract oil also exploit natural gas, “The newly-perceived advantage of natural gas as a low carbon fuel can only encourage an already growing appetite for it. Although the ways of distributing and using liquid and gassy fuels differ greatly, the oil and natural gas industries are thoroughly intertwined, with the same companies engaged in finding and recovering both.”[6] If multinational oil corporations restructure society so that natural gas supercedes oil, the greater will be the likelihood of a hydrogen fuelled economy. Multi-national oil corporations have a vested interest in promoting natural gas and then a hydrogen powered society which wil open up opportunities for nuclear power. Greenpeace, friends of the Earth and the green party are naive in believing they can promote solar power and hydrogen based economies whilst opposing nuclear power. Solar power is nuclear friendly and will almost certainly guarantee the survival of nuclear power.

v) The Growing Environmental Unpopularity of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

In the past greenpeace, friends of the Earth and the green party have alienated a large section of the green movement because of their support for biomass energy generated from Animal exploitation; wind pharms; and, as far as friends of the Earth and the green party are concerned, tidal barrages. In the future, once solar power’s compatibility with nuclear power becomes more of a political issue then, hopefully, the unpopularity of these so called environmental organizations will increase even further.

vi) The Need for a Democratic Decision about a Solar Economy.

Greenpeace advocates a solar economy and yet how many of its members have been consulted about this future?[7] Greenpeace was set up to engage in direct action against pollution, the slaughter of Whales, etc., and it was entirely legitimate for it to be a non-democratic organization, organized along the lines of activists and fundraisers. But greenpeace is no longer a radical, direct action organization risking its existence by breaking the law. It has started to formulate a wide range of policies concerning the reduction in Carbon emissions and alternative energy. Yet even though it is now advocating social and economic policies it is still hiding beyond the undemocratic facade of a radical, direct action, organization. Certainly all greens want a reduction in Carbon emissions and an end to the threat posed by a runaway greenhouse effect but greenpeace, as one of the country’s (and the world’s) biggest environmental organizations, is now dictating to greens that they have not only got to buy a solar economy but oppose Reforestation and the creation of Wood economies.

vii) Technologists or Ecologists?

Greenpeace, friends of the Earth and the green party, believe the greenhouse effect should be solved technologically. They do not believe the greenhouse effect is an ecological phenomena requiring an ecological solution. It is bad enough that ‘greens’ pretend they are technologists rather than ecologists; it is even worse when they oppose the priority of Reforestation and the creation of Wood economies. But there is something fundamentally wrong with these organizations when they refuse to measure the contribution which the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity has on global warming, and when they promote policies, supposedly to combat the greenhouse effect, which will inflict further damage on the Earth’s life support system.