INTRODUCTION

Terra Firm Publication no.5.

The main thesis of 'Terra firm' issue 5 'the great Carbon emissions fraud' [1] was that the green movement, following in the footsteps of the inter-governmental panel on climate change (ipcc), believes that the main priority for combatting global warming is not Reforestation but reducing Carbon emissions. [2] It is bad enough that the so-called green movement does not regard Reforestation as crucial in preventing a climatic disaster but, even worse, is that it doesn't have any interest in Reforestation - despite the fact that most greens, as individuals, love Trees. Anyone who knows anything about the green movement will know that most green organizations couldn't give a toss about Animals and Wildlife (for example, the green party has never launched a campaign on Animal rights issues) but ignoring Reforestation seems utterly incredible - but then again, as porritt has pointed out, in the run up to the 1987 general election the green party had no environmental policies and had to hurriedly cobble together policies to establish its green credentials. It was argued that green organizations have no interest in Reforestation because they have no understanding of the Earth's life support system i.e. its Photosynthetic capacity. [3]

Terra firm issue 6.

The ramifications of this critique of the green movement took some time to unravel and were discussed in two articles in the following 'terra firm' issue. [4] It was suggested that green organizations are refusing to carry out a geophysiological assessment of their own policies because to do so would expose the scale of the ecological destruction entailed by these policies. It became clear that they have no interest in Reforestation or any understanding of the Earth's life sustaining processes because they have no vision of a sustainable Planet. What was developed in 'terra firm no.6' was not so much of a critique of the green movement as a condemnation - how could so called green organizations call themselves green:-

when they didn't support Reforestation;

when they refused to carry out a geophysiological analysis to determine how close the Earth is to a geophysiological collapse;

when they were quite prepared to implement policies which would suffocate even more of the Earth's life support system;

and when they had no vision of a sustainable Planet?

The question which then arose was that if green organizations aren't interested in greening the Earth then what are they up to? The answer seemed to be that the green movement is a big fraud. It has been taken over:-

* by Earth-rapists, vivisectors and careerists;

* by car owners who promote catalytic converters to save their cars rather than the Earth;

* by people in the alternative energy business who use green propaganda to promote their products even though wind/hydro-electric/solar energy all contribute to the destruction of the Earth's life support system;

* by 'back to the landers' who want to expropriate land which currently exists as Wildlife habitats; and, finally,

* by those who see environmental issues as another opportunity for advocating outdated political philosophies e.g. social ecologists promoting middle class, car-owning socialism; fourth world decentralists promoting free-market anarchism/libertarian capitalism; and 'the land is ours' groups promoting the universal right to wander which is indistinguishable from the free movement of goods and people promoted by global capitalism (a universal right to wander for oomans but no such right for Animals) etc. Given the huge amount of ecological destruction proposed by green organizations, especially the green party, it is obvious that the green movement is nothing but a cover up for Earth rapists.

Since the publication of 'terra firm' issues 5 & 6 it has been realized that a further implication of the above arguments is that greens have no workable concept of sustainability i.e. one which takes into account Reforestation and the Earth's life support system and which is also quantifiable. But then, what is the point of having a concept of sustainability when greens aren't interested in green i.e. Photosynthetic, issues and when they have no idea how to create a sustainable Planet?

The Responses to terra firm issues 5 & 6.

The response to 'the great Carbon emissions fraud' was near mortifying. Sandy irvine kindly wrote to make a few points and sent a copy of his book because he believed we had not properly outlined his views. Unfortunately the promised review in 'green world' failed to materialize. Even more amazingly, one of the green organizations which has done more than most to promote Reforestation, 'the movement for compassionate living' also refused to review it - as did the magazine 'Reforesting scotland'. [5] There was a negative review in 'bypass' - although bypass's review of 'green anarchist' contained a compliment about the Reforestation article which had been published in 'green anarchist'.

The Reforestation article mentioned above was based on 'the great Carbon emissions fraud'. This was published not only in 'green anarchist' but in 'greenline'. This resulted in a couple of responses one of which turned out to be extremely helpful indeed. The correspondent pointed out that a recent writer in the Earth First! journal had stated that there are 13,000 reafforestation groups in the south - although it was not known how many there were in the north. [6]

The reviews of 'terra firm 6' were even thinner on the ground. 'Bypass' included a review of 'terra firm 6' in which the reviewer whinged about typefaces and dismissed the pamphlet, which he obviously hadn't read, solely on the rumour that it advocated 'deep green' politics. This was rather unfortunate as the mundi club had long since given up describing itself as 'deep green' because it was fed up of being condemned by mindless wallies (such as those in the oxford based 'bypass') for supposedly having views it did not hold. The only other review was in 'greenline'. As it turned out even this positive review was a little unfortunate. The reviewer quoted the main thesis of 'terra firm 6', "that the green movement is opposed to reforestation." but elsewhere in that 'greenline' issue was a review of the united kingdom Forest network's 'Forests memorandum' in which a wide range of green organizations presented their policies ... yes you've guessed it ... in support of Reforestation. [7] During the research for 'terra firm 5' we had not come across the ukFn. Whether the 'Forests memorandum' has made the above criticisms of the green movement irrelevant is discussed in chapter 5 - obviously not otherwise there would be no need to have published this issue.

Terra firm issue 9.

This issue of the 'terra firm' is part two of 'the Carbon emissions fraud'. All of the material in this issue is new - unless a section from 'terra firm 5' needed to be substantially rewritten. The section numbering in this issue is based on the numeration used in the earlier work so if numerical gaps are spotted please refer to 'terra firm 5'. Hopefully, at some point in the future, both pamphlets can be combined and published as a whole. (Ho, ho, ho).

This condemnation of the green movement should not be taken to impugn the magnificent efforts of those trying to save various Woodlands around the country from the Earth-rapists in the department of transport. The self sacrifice, courage and resilience of the people who have occupied Trees and stood in the way of the eco-nazis destroying the Earth's life support system cannot be praised enough. The anti-roads protests of the last few years have been an inspiration which puts added glee into the mundi club's motto 'doom and glee'. There is very little doubt that humans will destroy the Earth's life support system - especially when the green movement encourages this destruction because it hasn't quite cottoned on to the fact that Trees and Forests are an essential pillar of the Earth's life support system. But the destruction of vast parts of this utterly beautiful Planet should not be allowed to happen without a struggle. Just because a struggle doesn't succeed doesn't make it any the less meaningful. It's better to go down fighting for the Earth than to join in the war against the Earth.

TWO: REFORESTING THE EARTH.

This chapter highlights the mundi club's position on Reforestation which should help to clarify the criticisms made of the green movement in the remainder of the pamphlet.

ii) The Importance of Reforestation.

I: Three Ways of Combatting Global Warming.

There are three ways of combating global warming - reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stop deforestation and, Reforestation. Whilst the world's political leaders seem disinterested in pursuing any of these three options, the green movement has focussed almost entirely on the former. There are geophysiological reasons for arguing that Reforestation is the most important priority for combatting global warming. [8]

II: Reforestation as the Main Priority for Combatting Global Warming.

Forests affect the Earth's climate in three ways;

* Forest fires and Tree respiration pump Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere;

* Forests absorb Carbon dioxide through Photosynthesis; and,

* Forests have an albedo effect which in some cases absorbs, and in other cases reflects, sunlight. Forests have a low albedo effect which means they absorb considerable amounts of sunlight. However, because of evapotranspiration Forests also create clouds. Clouds have a high albedo effect and thus reflect a great deal of sunlight back toward space. The proportionate affects between these two albedo effects varies according to the different types of Forest around the world. Some Forests produce dense clouds which reflect a lot of sunlight back into space whilst other Forests produce much less dense clouds.

The Amazon Rainforest's main impact on the global climate is not through the Carbon it extracts from, or releases into, the atmosphere but through the albedo effect of the clouds it creates. Cut down the Amazon Rainforest and a huge amount of Carbon pollution would be dumped into the atmosphere and a huge quantity of Carbon would no longer be extracted from the atmosphere through Photosynthesis but the biggest, and most immediate, boost to global warming would be the loss of the continent-wide clouds cooling the Planet.

It can be suggested that the biggest impact which deforestation has on the Earth's climate is through changing the albedo effect of clouds rather than by increasing Carbon emissions and thus boosting the greenhouse effect. Conversely, Reforestation would have a bigger, and much more immediate, impact on reducing global temperatures through the albedo effect than through extracting Carbon from the atmosphere.

iii) The Importance of Balancing National Carbon Budgets.

I: Balancing Historical Carbon Budgets.

Given that Reforestation is the most important priority for combatting global warming, there are a number of issues which need to be decided:-

* what is the global scale of Reforestation needed to combat global warming;

* which countries should Reforest their land; and

* what is the scale of the Reforestation needed in these countries.

Once the scale of global Reforestation has been determined it should be possible to assess the other two issues by calculating each country's historical Carbon budget i.e. the difference between the amount of Carbon pollution it has dumped into the atmosphere and the quantity of Carbon it has absorbed through its Forests. It is only possible to combat global warming through Reforestation on a just and equal basis and this can be achieved by ensuring that each country balances its historical Carbon budget.

II: Historical Carbon Debtors and Historical Carbon Creditors.

Over the last two centuries, some countries have exported far more Carbon (through atmospheric pollution) than they have imported (through Photosynthesis) and can be defined as historical Carbon debtors. Other countries have imported more Carbon than they have exported and can be deemed historical Carbon creditors.

III: Repaying Carbon Debts and Spending Carbon Credits.

In order to balance their ecological budgets, the Carbon debtor countries (mainly the over-industrialized nations) would have to import an amount of Carbon equivalent to the net amount they have exported since the start of the industrial revolution, whilst the Carbon creditors (mainly third world countries) would be able to continue exporting Carbon, i.e. continue developing, until emissions were equal to the net amount of Carbon they have absorbed over the same period of time. Balancing Carbon budgets would have the effect of forcing the over-industrialized countries to repay their historical Carbon debts to third world countries.

A global scientific body like the inter-governmental panel on climate change would be needed to calculate national Carbon budgets to determine how much Carbon each country would have to import, or would be allowed to export, in order to balance their Carbon budgets. Historical Carbon debtor countries would repay their Carbon debts through a combination of emissions' reduction, Reforestation and, if necessary, deconstruction to create the room to plant the additional Forests needed to soak up atmospheric Carbon. Given the scale of the historical Carbon debts owed by many of the over-industrialized nations', the only way they could repay their ecological debts, and thereby play their part in combatting global warming, would be by digging up some of their industrial infrastructure. It has been estimated that the Earth is one continent short of the quota of Forests needed to reverse global warming. The overindustrialized nations are going to have to find a lot of land for Reforestation. [9]

THREE: THE WORLD'S EFFORTS TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING; THE STORY SO FAR.

The following section updates some of the key sections in 'terra firm 5'.

xii) Post Rio Non Developments.

I: Post Rio Politics.

A: The Creation of the Sustainable Development Commission.

Firstly, a bit of bad news. The Earth-wreckers have taken control of the united nations' organization which is responsible for combatting global warming and given the top post to an out-and-out Earth wrecker. And what an Earth-wrecking shit he is. No mealy mouth Earth-wrecker he, "Brazilian Henrique Brandao Cavalcanti is widely expected to take over the UN Commission on Sustainable Development." He:-

* was a consultant to a trans-national mining conglomerate

* worked for an amazonian forestry and pulp company

* lobbied against the creation of reserves for rubber tappers

* as the Brazilian minister of the environment he approved of two loggers on Brazil's delegation to CITES

* blocked the inclusion of mahogany as a protected species. [10]

B: The Ratification of Gatt.

The veal trade is another gatt victim. Animal rights protestors succeeded in blocking exports of live Animals at a number of ports and airports during april 1995. As a consequence some of these places decided to end the trade. However, a judge ruled that such bans were illegal. Although the judge did not dare to say so for this is the Big Conspiracy of the time, the fact is that the bans constituted a breach of gatt free trade regulations. The veal crating minister of agriculture, william waldegrave, refused to ask parliament to vote on a ban on veal exports arguing it was not possible to do so under european law. This is not true, the veal trade could be banned under european law. Unfortunately it can't be banned under gatt. Just the like the judge he too is also reluctant to confess the role being played by gatt in brutish domestic politics. In waldegrave's case it would expose the hypocrisy of tory objections to a federal european state since it has just passed over vast tracts of brutish sovereignty to the new world government set up by multi-national corporations.

II: The Steady Downward Progress of the Rio Climate Change Proposals.

The role of Forests in the follow up negotiations over the rio climate change proposals remains as non-existent as ever. There is still no treaty on the world's Forests. The role of Forests in the convention on Biobiversity is, rather bizarrely, negligible, "The Convention on Biological Diversity .. entered force on December 29th 1993 and the first meeting of the Conference of the parties took place in the Bahamas from November 28th to December 9th 1994. (The progress made at the conference was reported as "lamentable"). The delegates .. showed a "paranoic unwillingness", in the words of one observer, to discuss forests. Despite the critical importance of the world's forests as a reservoir of biodiversity, it looks like this issue will be dealt with largely through the new forest Convention which the Commission on Sustainable Development is working towards. The concern is that the CSD initiative is coordinated by two major timber-producing nations, Canada and Malaysia, and that the protection of biodiversity will be neglected." [11]

Over the last year, the tactical shifts in the negotiating positions of the world's power blocs concerning Forests have continued to occur at a rapid rate. In the early 1990s the over-industrialized world insisted that third world countries should manage their Forests sustainably but insisted it wasn't necessary to manage their own Forests in this way. Third world countries objected to this and argued that there should be universally acceptable laws so that all Forests would be managed sustainably - knowing of course that the over-industrialized nations would never accept such a proposal. At first the over-industrialized nations objected to universalism but they then decided to call the bluff of third world countries, "The countries of the North have emphasized the need for globally applicable criteria and indicators by which any country's forest policies may be judged. At an international workshop held in Delhi recently - called Towards Sustainable Forestry: Preparing for the Commission on Sustainable Development 1995 - they asserted that such criteria were desirable and feasible. But many developing countries, including India and China countered the above view." [12] .

Members of the world bank, ever eager to be wined and dined at exotic locations around the world by the public relations managers of multi-national corporations, have changed their Forestry policies to accommodate some of the arguments put forward by the so-called green movement, "The World Bank has suggested the following changes for better forest management (in India). Forest land to be made available to industries for plantation, which is not allowed under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Restrictions on clear felling of natural vegetation in degraded forest land to be removed." [13]

The one bit of good news is that the recent climate conference in berlin has decided to adopt the 'comprehensive approach' which includes both the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. However, as with any step forward in environmental politics it also jumped ten paces back since it leaves open the opportunity for the over-industrialized countries to pressure third world countries into implementing Reforestation projects on their behalf.