Acknowledgements.

The mundi club would like to acknowledge the help of those people who have sent in articles used in this work. It would be marvellous to thank these people openly and fully but, unfortunately, naming names is likely to put their careers, reputation or social status at stake. As a consequence acknowledgements are indicated by initials enclosed in brackets and are to be found usually in the footnotes. None of these people have helped in the writing or publication of this work and thus cannot be blamed for its contents - although we hope they will not disapprove too strongly about what has been written.

Welcome to Terra Firm number 8.

Issue 8 of the terra firm is published jointly with issue 7. This issue consists of two essays. The first explores the geocentric basis for celebrating the colossal damage which the car, and car related, industries inflict on humans - or, to be more precise, the econazis. This is not so much a case of ‘triumph in the midst of adversity’ as geocentric consolations during the final ecocidal phase of humans’ monstrous dominion over the Earth. The second essay looks at the prospects for the introduction of green cars. There are so-called greens who haven’t got the slightest conception of either the scale of the damage which cars are inflicting on the Earth or the scale of the collapse of the Earth’s life support system, and who are thus all too prone to make inane proposals for reducing car traffic by 10% by the year 2010[1] or for believing that the introduction of 1,600,000,000 cars by the end of the next century is geophysiologically tolerable.[2]

The car is inflicting a considerable amount of damage on humans and a critical level of damage on the Earth. From a humanistic perspective the damage which cars inflict on humans is bad whilst that inflicted on the Earth is irrelevant. When seen from a geocentric perspective, however, the damage which the car inflicts on humans may be either good or bad, whilst the damage inflicted on the Earth is bad. The wholesale and critical level of damage which humans (especially those in cars) are inflicting on the Planet’s life support system is destabilizing the Earth’s climate and causing climatic disasters which are causing even more damage to humans. It is almost as if the Earth is responding to the abuse which humans are heaping upon it by retaliating against humans. From a humanistic perspective this retaliation will never be just but, geocentrically, there is justice in the response. The damage which cars inflict on the Earth is emotionally distressing. This essay seeks consolation from this distress by highlighting firstly, the damage which the car life-line inflicts on Earth-rapists and, secondly, the damage which the Earth inflicts on Earth-rapists.

ONE: GEOCENTRIC CELEBRATIONS OF THE CAR

i) Cars in Hot Times.

I: The Consumerist Rave Nightmare.

The widespread violence which the car inflicts on humans, human societies, human artefacts, Wildlife, and the Earth's life sustaining processes, is grim and demoralizing - made even more so by the attitude of both pro-car bigots, who refuse to face up to the violence they are perpetrating, and carless victims who seem pathetically indifferent to the slaughter going on around them. The intense revulsion over the widespread geophysiological damage caused by the car life-line cannot be offset, or even diluted, by the positive benefits which oomans derive from the car. On the contrary, there is a considerable degree of frustration that the huge range of pleasures, economic benefits and social liberation derived from the car is distracting attention from the gravity of the threat which cars pose to the Earth’s life support system. The attempts by multi-national road/car/oil corporations, pro-car bigots in government, motorists in general, and green motorists, to ignore, cover up, or condone the car’s war against the Earth adds to the nightmarish sense of a species raving its way into oblivion.[3] Under such circumstances, the response is to look for palliatives to mollify the sadness and pacify the outrage. Fortunately, there is some relief from this tidal wave of nausea - even if these consolations and celebrations will appall those who look at life from an oomanistic point of view.[4] But then, given their ecocidal behaviour, so much the better.

II: The Geocentric Perspective.

From a geocentric point of view there are consolations when either the car life-line damages eco-nazis[5] or when the Earth retaliates against such oomans. These conclusions derive from a scientific, not a moral, analysis.[6] Attempts have been made in this essay to avoid treating scientific conclusions as morally correct.

III: Geocentrism and GDP.

Scientific theories often reach conclusions which diverge from those suggested by common sense. A geocentric analysis is no different but it still compares favourable with the whacky, immoral and brutal nature of conventional economic theory. As was highlighted in terra firm 7, the economy expands not merely because of the construction of goods and services but, under certain circumstances, because of destruction. The theory of gdp leads to appallingly immoral conclusions e.g. injuries and fatalities caused by traffic accidents boost economic growth. Gross domestic product flourishes not because it benefits human health and well being but because it benefits itself. If humans want a measuring device to calculate their benefits they will have to develop a new set of indicies because gdp is not capable of doing this. But, even when a measuring system is invented to measure human well-being e.g. cost-benefit analyses, it still leads to bizarre conclusions because they are rigged to promote the interests of particular groups of humans not all humans.[7]

IV: Geocentrism and Cigarette Smoking.

Similar whacky, immoral and brutal conclusions prevail as regards government policies over tobacco. Even though tobacco causes a huge death toll successive brutish governments have refused to take action against it. The reasons are well known. Firstly, governments receive a huge income from the taxes imposed on the sale of tobacco. Even though governments have to give extra resources to the health service to take care of those who die from lung cancer there is still a substantial profit left over for the government. The money raised from tobacco taxes would pay for a substantial proportion of the national health service. In addition, the premature death of tens of thousands of smokers every year enables governments to save even more money because it does not have to fork out for their old age pensions. What exacerbates governments' reluctance to act against smoking is that tens of thousands of people would be put out of work if a ban was imposed on tobacco - not merely pharmers but manufacturers, distributors, retailers, tax and customs’ inspectors. Thus successive governments, including labour governments, have done their best to protect this invaluable source of income. This is hard minded realpolitik. It is appalling, immoral and dirty.

Conventional thinking about gdp and government revenue raising is zany, immoral and hard hearted. Geocentrism is a new measuring system which measures the interests and the needs of the Earth. It determines what human interests are possible on a finite Planet. Although at first it may seem controversial, it is much less zany, immoral and hard hearted than either gdp or tobacco taxes.

ii) Geocentric Consolations: The Damage which Cars Inflict on Earth-Rapists.

I: The Environmental Benefits of Traffic Congestion.

From motorists' point of view traffic jams are a curse. From both an economic, and a humanistic, point of view traffic congestion is also regarded negatively. But, from a geocentric perspective, congestion is the lesser of two evils. Whilst it undoubtedly boosts atmospheric pollution, it causes less pollution than free flowing traffic or the continual construction of new roads intended to reduce traffic jams.

A: Congestion Reduces Traffic Pollution.

It has been estimated that in the united states .. "traffic congestion causes annual delays of some two billion hours and two billion US gallons of wasted fuel." [8] In brutland, one of the main rationales for the government’s massive road building programme announced in 1990 was that new roads reduce pollution caused by traffic jams. Unfortunately, this nonsense is taken seriously even by radical oomanistic critics of the car, "Increased congestion implies .. additional pollution .."[9]

Although motorists pollute the atmosphere by revving their engines in traffic jams, they release far more pollution when charging down the motorway at high speed. The roads’ lobby demands more roads to create free-flowing traffic but this would burn up more fuel than if cars were stuck in traffic jams. It has been calculated that to minimize atmospheric emissions from cars, speeds must be kept between 25-35 mph, "The optimal speed for fuel consumption and emissions has been found to be between 25 and 35 mph by the California Air Resources Board.”[10] And yet the measurements on which this conclusion has been based may not be accurate.[11] It may be better, and simpler, to argue that ‘the faster the speed the greater the pollution’ and that all free flowing traffic causes more pollution than traffic congestion - this is especially the case when a wider analysis is carried out into the pollution generated by the construction of roads to relieve traffic congestion.

The main reason traffic congestion produces less atmospheric pollution than free flowing traffic is because it deters large numbers of motorists from taking to the roads. Congestion is a benefit to the Earth because it reduces atmospheric pollution. From a geocentric point of view, traffic jams should be welcomed since they deter huge numbers of motorists from using their cars.[12]

B: Congestion Reduces the Pollution Caused by Economic Growth.

From the point of view of homocentric economists, traffic jams waste people’s time and thus limit economic growth. The confederation of brutish industry (cbi) .. "estimates that present traffic congestion problems could cost the UK economy as much as £24 billion each year .."[13]; whilst it has been estimated that in the US .. "traffic congestion causes annual delays of some two billion hours ..."[14]

From a geocentric point of view, however, traffic congestion is a benefit not merely because it reduces pollution from the ‘road environment’ but because it decreases economic growth which is the main cause of pollution.[15] It is better for the Planet's health if highly paid, Earth-rapist jobholders are immobilized in traffic jams rather than being at work contributing to the capitalist war against the Earth. Whilst the eco-nazis are sitting in their cars, stewing in their anger, they are unable to organize further damage to the Earth.[16]

C: Reducing Comparative Ecological Destruction.

Another ecological advantage of traffic congestion is that although fuel is wasted and the atmosphere polluted by motorists idling their engines, at least the fuel won't be used in other ways which could have caused even more damage to the Planet e.g. driving bulldozers carving out a new road.

II: Government Subsidized Traffic Congestion.

It is pleasing that there are environmental benefits from traffic congestion, but there is even more pleasure in the fact that many traffic jams around the world are self-inflicted. The main reason for traffic jams in both brutland and america is the vast government subsidies given to motorists whether in the form of company car perks in the former, or cheap fuel in the latter. There are further ecological benefits of such subsidies in so far as the huge sums of money spent on creating traffic jams could have been spent on more ecologically destructive projects such as road construction. When governments are willing to subsidize traffic jams and seem utterly intent on investing huge sums of money to keep the country's top business leaders stuck in their cars, this shows all too clearly that such politicians are not acting rationally, let alone economically, but are displaying the all too obvious symptoms of autocratic bigotry. Carists are willing to promote the interests of cars even if this runs against the interests of individuals, the economy or the Earth’s life support system.

What better way is there of reducing economic growth than paying company directors to sit in traffic jams or providing them with huge financial incentives to race around the country clocking up mileage, "The notorious practise of clocking up 'business' miles will also stay. As a speaker at a recent CBI conference put it; "The perk cars that sit in home counties station car parks 10 months of the year often find themselves used for a spate of "essential" business journey's as each tax year draws to a close - surely not an effective use of British management time.""[17] The existence of such a subsidy has been defended to the hilt by various tory governments whose creed has been ‘efficiency’ and ‘value for money’. From a geocentric perspective, the more financial whizzkids and corporate highfliers, etc., who can be persuaded to sit in their cars all morning listening to radio one and training for a heart attack the better.[18]

III: Economic Recession and Car Sales.

The economic recession in great brutland during the early 1990s caused a decline in car sales. There are those who believe that this is not a reason for any great celebration. But, given the paucity of occasions on which to celebrate such caution seems misplaced, "There are many environmentalists who see it as a cause for celebration. However much the gut instinct encourages this amongst those who see the motor car as public enemy number one (with, after all, good reason) they shouldn't celebrate so soon. There's no joy in the decrease in car sales here because it is temporary, is not necessarily linked to a decrease in pollution, and only indicates an increase in human misery and job insecurity."[19]

IV: Public Transport Loonies.

In some countries under some circumstances, public transport could be cheaper and more efficient than private transport. It could also be better for the Earth. However, this is by no means certain - it could be worse if a highy efficient public transport system increased economic growth. Although the pollution and ecological destruction caused by private transport may be greater than that caused by an efficient public transport system, the pollution and ecological destruction generated by the economic growth triggered by a highly efficient public transport may be greater than that produced in an economy dominated by private transport. The net effect would be that, overall, public transport would cause more ecological damage than private transport. Under these circumstance, private transport would be an impediment to economic growth - where for instance millions of tourists and casual shoppers clog up the roads preventing commuters getting to work.

However, the car is such a major factor in modern economies that it is difficult to imagine how economies could be more productive without cars. After all, it is quite true that, "The motorcar is .. the superstar of the capitalist system."[20] As far as is known no work has compared economic growth in private/public transport dominated economies. Even though it is highly unlikely that a public transport dominated economy could promote more economic growth than a private transport dominated economy, it is not beyond feasibility. The real danger arises when a new public transport system is put in place alongside a private transport system rather than completely replacing cars. A combined private/public transport system could well promote economic growth and thus ecological damage. Those light green reformers who simply demand more public transport without reductions in the number of cars are dangerous Earth-rapists.

V: Car Theft.

Motorists are infuriated by the theft of their love-objects.[21] From an economic point of view, however, car theft brings a number of economic benefits. If a car is stolen by professional car thieves it will be recertified and sold again either at home, where it will count as a boost to economic growth, or abroad where it will count as boosting exports. In addition, the motorist whose car has been stolen may be forced to buy a new car which will further boost economic growth.

From a geocentric point of view the theft of cars could have a detrimental impact on the Planet. If the car is stolen and resold it will extend car ownership. In addition, if motorists who have had their car stolen, buy a replacement this further increases ecological destruction. However, when the economy is contracting and motorists cannot afford a replacement, the ecological calculation would be entirely different.

VI: Joyriding, Hotting and Torching.

‘Joyriding’ involves stealing cars for illegal leisure trips. 'Hotting' involves stealing a car and performing high speed stunts in front of an audience. In both cases, the police may be encouraged to give chase. After the entertainment the car is dumped, sometimes smashed up, and perhaps even torched.

From an economic point of view, joyriding/hotting/torching boost economic growth. If joyriders or hotters purchase petrol in order to race around the countryside or perform stunts this increases economic growth. If joyriders/hotters are chased by the police the expenditure of police resources will further increase economic growth. As was the case in the previous category, if motorists can afford to buy a replacement for their burnt out cars this will boost economic growth.

From a geocentric point of view. If joyriders or hotters race around the countryside or perform stunts this increases car exhaust pollution. If joyriders or hotters are chased by the police this entails a further bost to atmospheric polution. If cars are raced around the countryside this endangers Wildlife. Torching stolen cars damages the Planet's ecology. If motorists can afford to buy a replacement for their burnt out cars this will boost ecological destruction. If they are not able to do so then torching cars may produce less pollution than if the car had continued to be used in the normal way. In addition, when cars come to the end of their abnormally short, obsolescent, lives they are taken to a scrap yard where the disposal process causes ecological damage. There is no scientific evidence as to which method of disposal, the legal or illegal, creates the most pollution.[22]

VII: Car Vandalism.

The same reasoning outlined above also applies to car vandalism. Car vandalism is good for capitalism. As far as the Earth is concerned, although vandalism may take a car off the road for a few days it could well involve the purchase of replacement parts which will, to that extent, add to the damage inflicted on the Earth's ecology. Once again, however, if replacements are not available or are too expensive, etc., this would be beneficial to the Earth since it would mean one less car on the road.

VIII: Car-Tels.

In great brutland, multi-national road/car/oil corporations operate cartels to raise the price of cars, petrol, cement, and tarmac.[23] To the economist, cartels are bad because they stifle economic growth; they mean that fewer people can afford to buy cars, fewer roads are built, and fewer journeys are made, etc.. From the Earth's point of view, however, these forms of corruption clearly have beneficial consequences which should be welcomed. Geocentrics should encourage multi-national road/car/oil corporations to indulge in this type of corruption as extensively as possible.

IX: Damage to Roads.

Cars cause considerable wear and tear to roads.[24] In the united states, current government policy is not to repair roads but to allow them to deteriorate. This leads to vehicle damage. Economists condemn such a situation because it costs the state less to repair roads than it does for motorists to repair the damage to their cars, "According to the US Department of Transportation, “highways in poor condition cost users as much as 30% more per mile than highways in good condition.” Furthermore, “the cost of keeping roads and bridges in adequate repair .. is generally much lower than the cost imposed on users by poor conditions.””[25] It is hardly surprising that motorists demand the expenditure of more money on road repairs.

From a geocentric perspective, it id difficult to ascertain whether repairing roads causes more ecological damage than not repairing roads. If roads are not maintained then motorists have to make more frequent purchases of tyres, suspension systems and, perhaps, even a new car - all of which increases economic growth and thus ecological devastation. On the other hand, repairing roads is a very energy-intensive activity. Another factor which needs to be taken into consideration is that when roads are pitted with holes this tends to force motorists to drive less quickly. New roads lead to a significant increase in traffic speeds and atmospheric pollution. The only time when spending money on road repairs could be welcomed would be where the money had previously been allocated to the construction of a new road.

X: The Role of the Car in the 'Disintegrating Nations'.

Geocentrism is not a deep green philosophy but a scientific theory. It deplores the racist statements made by some american deep green propagandists who advocated that famines in african countries should be allowed to take their toll because this is the natural consequence of over-population.[26] Historically,this view is utterly unjust. Third world poverty is the highly unnatural consequence of centuries of colonial, imperialist, and currently capitalist, exploitation. The over-industrialized countries have plundered the resources of the disintegrating/industrializing countries for centuries and they are without doubt the prime cause of many famines in these countries. When the ruling elites of the disintegrating/industrializing countries allow the export of crops for Animal feedstuff whilst allowing their own people to starve, there is only one culprit for the consequent mass starvation and that is the over-industrialized nations who prop up these corrupt elites.

A: The Carbon Debtor Countries and the Carbon Surplus Countries.

It is possible to determine a species’ Earth value by assessing its relationship to pollution and ecological devastation. Earth value can be quantified by focussing on a species relationship to the Earth’s Carbon cycle. Carbonomics can not only determine the Earth value of each species it can determine the Earth value of each country. A country’s Carbon status is the difference between the amount of Carbon pollution it releases and the amount of Carbon pollution it absorbs through Photosynthesis.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, some countries (mainly the over-industrialized countries) have exported far more Carbon (through atmopsheric pollution) than they have imported (through Photosynthesis - primarily because they have cut down huge areas of their Forests). These countries can be defined as historical Carbon debtors. On the other hand, other countries (mainly the disintegrating/industrializing countries) have imported more Carbon than they have exported (because they have preserved their Forests and not industrialized on the same scale) and can be deemed historical Carbon creditors. The over-industrialized countries have been exploiting the disintegrating/industrializing countries’ resources for centuries but it has become apparent only in recent years, since the discovery of the threat posed by global warming, that they have also been sponging off the third world’s ecological resources. It is time for the over-industrialized countries to repay their ecological debts to third world countries by balancing their historical Carbon budgets.

Global warming has been caused by the Carbon debtor countries and the only way of preventing a climatic disaster is if these countries balance their Carbon budgets. In the interests of global ecological justice, the Carbon surplus nations would be allowed to continue developing until they have balanced their Carbon budgets, whilst the Carbon surplus nations would have to de-industrialize and Reforest their lands until they too have balanced their Carbon budgets.

As far as the car is concerned, whilst the over-industrialized nations with historical Carbon debts should reduce their dependence on cars (and possible also public transport) the disintegrating/industrializing countries with a historical Carbon surplus would have the right to continue expanding their car industries - if that is what they wanted to spend their Carbon resources on.

B: The Bias Towards the Car in the Disintegrating Nations.

Since the end of the second world, global financial corporations such as the world bank have pumped more resources into the development of private, rather than public, transport in the disintegrating/industrializing countries. A few commentators have complained about the spread of autocentricity around the world, "Public transport plays a central role in any urban transport system. In developing countries, failing to give priority to public transport would be disasterous."[27] It has been argued above that although public transport is likely to cause less pollution than private transport, it is theoretically possible that a highly efficient public transport system could boost economic growth more than a car-dominated economy and thus overall cause more pollution. Thus carism in the world bank and imf could be a blessing in disguise since it could lead to the release of less pollution than might otherwise be the case. However, given that many disintegrating/industrializing countries are Carbon surplus countries it would be geophysiologically acceptable for them to create an efficient public transport system which generated more pollution than an autocentric society - as long as they did not overrun their Carbon surplus.

C: Unecological Road Schemes in the Disintegrating Nations.

There are proposals for road schemes in the disintegrating/industrializng countries which are so ecologically extravagant that even countries with a huge Carbon surplus would have to think seriously about proceeding with them since they would almost inevitably entail foregoing other developments which might benefit a larger number of people. It is a source of great celebration, therefore, when these roads schemes fail to materialize - even if the reason for this might be corruption.

a) Bangladesh.

"A system of kickbacks and embezzlement involving money intended for Italian development projects in the poorest countries of the Third World was emerging yesterday after the arrest and interrogation of Italy's representative at the United Nations, Giuseppe Santoro. Mr Santoro, who was made Italy's ambassador to the UN and IMF only last February .. received a cautionary warrant from judges examining funds earmarked for the building of a motorway in Bangladesh. The funds were paid, but the motorway was never built. The companies involved in Third World development include Italy's most prestigious, with the Fiat Cogefar subsidiary and Lodigiani, Italy's largest construction company, prominent among them. Directors of both are already under arrest for corruption in Milan."[28]

D: Bangladesh’s Fantasy of a National Road Network.

The bangladeshi government has proposed the construction of a national network of roads. This proposal is not only ecologically unsustainable it is ecologically absurd. It reveals the extent to which carist lunacy has infected the elites of many disintegrating countries. The only way it would be possible to construct and maintain this road network would be through the creation of a national flood protection scheme which would stop the annual inundation of the country by the three great rivers of the Indo-Gangetic plain and by the floods whipped up by cyclones in the India ocean. The bangladeshi government has estimated the cost of flood protection is $5 billion (at current prices) and hopes that global institutions will cough up the money to pay for the scheme.

To believe that a flood control system could prevent bangladesh from being inundated is human arrogance on a grand scale. The country is confronted by two colossal natural forces; firstly, two of the world’s greatest rivers, "Almost the entire country is built on the delta where two of the greatest and most ferocious rivers on earth, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, reach the Indian ocean."[29] And secondly, by cyclones which push tidal waves over bangladesh’s coastal areas and then far inland. Basically the country is one huge floodplain. To put it prosaically; bangladesh is a huge river bed which is, periodically, dry. The bangladeshi government wants a flood defence system to make the country suitable for the car.[30] What is so staggering about the proposal is not merely that the government could believe it is possible to hold back such colossal forces of nature, and that it should be done for the sake of cars, but that it is willing to sacrifice a perfectly satisfactory mode of travel i.e. boats, to make way for the car. It would be like draining venice and telling the gondalerios that they’re now able to drive around in cars which, unfortunately, they cannot afford. The modernized, urbanized, bangladeshi ruling elite are imposing carism on people who cannot afford cars, simply so that its members can use their expensive imported cars. After all, as far as the bangladeshi elite are concerned, what is the point of importing expensive cars if they can’t drive them anywhere they wish around a semi-waterlogged country? "Modernization is turning Bangladesh from a water-based to a land-based economy. Everywhere roads are being built. To get anywhere, the roads require hundreds of bridges, underlining the fact that the most obvious and direct means of transport is usually by boat."[31]

E: The Squandering of Loans in the Disintegrating Nations.

Susan george was right when she reflected on the squandering of loans to the ruling elites of the disintegrating nations, "In a sense, it is the planet's good fortune that billions of borrowed dollars (money loaned by the west to third world countries) were never invested at all but used to pay for higher-cost oil or squandered on luxury consumption."[32]