FOUR: GREENS STANCE ON REFORESTATION.

The following chapter provides a cursory examination of the views of green activists/commentators as regards their priority for combating global warming. This chapter also raises the issue of the dominant energy system of the future. In the work of many commentators there is a close correlation between their priorities for combatting global warming and their view of the next energy system. The greater the emphasis that commentators give to energy conservation as a means of combatting global warming the more likely it is that they will support solar power.

x) Al Gore.

Al gores' priority for combatting global warming is reducing Carbon emissions. He believes this could be done through a green market mechanism, "I favour an international treaty limiting the amounts of CO₂ individual nations are entitled to produce each year, and it should incorporate a mechanism for establishing (a market for CO₂ emission) credits. Once the treaty is complete those nations that have more success in reducing their emissions could then sell their emission rights to others who need more time to make the adjustment. In practice, this would become a way to rationalize investments in the most efficient alternatives for all CO₂-generating activities, whether substituting renewable forms of energy for fossil fuels, developing new techniques for efficiency and conservation, or designing entirely new approaches to large activities that are now taken for granted."[1]

Gore sees a minor role for Reforestation in combating global warming. He advocates .. "a strategic initiative to plant billions of trees throughout the world ..."[2] Unfortunately, this mass Tree planting spree turns out to be something of a green nightmare, "But for a tree planting program to be truly successful .. the seedling must be both geneticaly appropriate for its particular ecological niche and available in adequate numbers at the right times and in the right places. (A Strategic Environmental Initiative - sei) could identify the tree types appropriate for particular areas and then replicate hundreds, thousands or millions of the seedlings needed."[3] What gore is advocating is a system of Reforestation which would produce vast short term profits for the multi-national corporations given the contract for producing, planting and, possibly, harvesting these Trees - assuming disease doesn't spread like wildfire throughout these genetically uniform Forests. Here we have the perfect example of a mass manufactured factory pharm mind imposing itself upon the biosphere. The sei would make the global decisions as to what Trees should be planted in any particular area rather than leaving the decisions either to local people or, more importantly, to the Earth itself. Gore also envisages a role for power utilities to compensate the Earth for their Carbon emissions .. "utlities should be encouraged to plant forests to offset some portion of the CO₂ they generate."[4]

xi) Herbert Giradet.

Herbert giradet is one of the few greens who emphasizes Reforestation, "Against this background of worldwide deforestation, the restoration of tree cover all over the Earth must be seen as perhaps the most important task facing humankind today."[5] Even more importantly, he gives Reforestation a high priority for combatting gobal warming .. "I am trying to show that today large-scale appropriate reforestation is the task of a global civilization trying to learn to inhabit its home planet more peacefully and sustainably."[6] Unfortunately, giradet has no theory for determining the scale of Forest covered needed or where these Forests should appear.

It has been suggested that those who support Reforestation as the main priority for combatting global warming tend to support the creation of Wood economies whilst those who believe the reduction in Carbon emissions is the main priority support solar power. Giradet is the only green who gives priority to Reforestation and yet also supports solar energy (including wind and wave power). He believes the moral imperative of a green Planet is humanism based on inter-generational equality.

Unlike al gore, giradet places his confidence in individuals to carry out global Reforestation, "Rather than waiting for governments and international bodies to decide to initiate sustainable development, we urgently need to develop the skills of living sustainably. There is nothing like people taking action themselves ..."[7]

The belief that the way forward is through voluntarism is based on the assumption that as more and more individuals change then governments will also be forced to change. Unfortunately voluntarism does not work. Firstly, for every individual who attempts to live sustainably millions refuse to do so on the grounds that other people are not doing so. Voluntarism requires an element of sacrifice and the vast majority of people are reluctant to make sacrifices themselves whilst others do not. Even worse is that there is no point in some indivduals sacrificing themselves if this means they are giving other people even more advantages - what is the point of giving up one's car if all this does is make more oil available for other motorists who can then drive at even higher speeds on quieter motorways? Secondly, even if people change this does not necessarily change the government as can be seen clearly over the issue of Animal welfare where for many years society has been demanding changes over hunting, vivisection, the export of live Animals, etc., but the government refuses to respond.

What is required to combat global warming is not individualistic action on a local level, no matter how inspirational this may be, but global action to draw up a comprehensive plan to determine the scale of the Earth's Forest cover to combat global warming and each country's responsibilities towards the stabilization of the climate. People might as well party on until there is a fullscale global agreement about a global Carbon budget.

It is bad enough that giradet supports solar power and voluntarism. Even worse is that he sees a need to give everything a cash value, "Of course, there are limits to such an approach (quantifying the environment) in the very fact that money cannot measure everything. It seems impossible and yet we need to be able to do this because money has become the value measure of things. If we wish to protect whatever is precious to us we have to estimate a cash value."[8] There is no way of saving the Earth where Carboniferous capitalism dominates. Either Carbon becomes the curreincy of the future or huge profits will continue to be made in ransacking the Earth.

xii) Richard Lawson.

Richard lawson believes that, "Reafforestation on a major, continental scale can play its part in mopping up the carbon dioxide that we have released, Pandora like, from the fossil forests in the coal seams. .. the future of the planet and mankind (sic) is bound up with the future of forests. We can survive and live abundantly IF we begin a massive, continental scale, global reafforestation programme."[9] However, he does not indicate how much of the Earth's terrestrial surface should be covered in Forests; he does not say in what countries these Forests ought to be planted; and he does not indicate what reduction in global warming is necesary. Finally, he has no theory which could be used to answer these questions.

Although he is clearly a respecter of Wildlife, "Forests are home to the animals and birds without whom we would die from a great loneliness of spirit." he then opens up the necessity for exploiting Forests, "Furthermore, since a stable forest is CO₂ neutral, as decay releases the carbon as methane, forests can only indefinitely be used as CO₂ sinks IF they are being sustainably harvested, with the wood being taken out, preserved and used as the valuable structural material that it undoubtedly is."

It is not true that Forests can be used as Carbon sinks only if they are harvested. On the contrary, Forests can act as permanent Carbon sinks only if they are NOT harvested. Forests continually extract Carbon from the atmosphere and then either bury it in the Soil or use it to enhance Biodiversity. Even when Trees die and decay they do not release all of their Carbon into the atmosphere. A substantial part of the Carbon is either washed into the Soil or consumed by bacteria some of which are consumed by insects which, in turn, are consumed by larger Animals thereby keeping the Carbon in circulation within Forests. Decaying Trees are another food source which helps to increase the quantity and quality of Wildlife in Forests thereby increasing the concentration of Carbon in the Forests. The continual harvesting of Forests to extract Carbon from the atmosphere is not ecologically viable. It may even be dangerous if no way is found of permanently storing the Wood.

Lawson is also wrong to imply that, in the future when the climate has been stabilized, that all Forests should be sustainably harvested. Climate Forests used to regulate the climate should not be harvested. Wilderness land put aside solely for Wildlife and any Forests which emerge in these areas should not be harvested. The only Forests which should be harvested on a regular, long term, basis would be regional Forests which form the geophysiological foundation for regional Wood economies.

Unfortunately, lawson believes the way to create a sustainable society is through a 'guided market' as opposed to a free market or a command economy, "the guidance coming from rational consideration of the interaction of economics and ecology, and realized through creative taxation and regulation."[10] Quite how creative taxation/regulation is going to control the vast tidal sums of money sloshing around the foreign exchange markets in global capitalism is difficult to comprehend. It is theoretically impossible for a monetary based market system to create a sustainable Planet. A monetary economy is totally at odds with regional Wood economies which are the basis of a sustainable Planet. In a sustainable Planet, Wood is the only currency, because everything must be valued in reference to the Earth's climate, its life support system. As far as lawson is concerned, "Given the right political guidance, money, although a tyrannical master can be a useful servant in the cause of greening the planet." On the contrary, if humans do not abandon money, they will destroy their life support system. It is quite staggering that people can defend the market/global capitalism when it is one of the main causes of global ecological devastation.

xiii) Jeremy Rifkind.

Rifkind has a number of views similar to william ophuls. On the one side he supports frugality and living within the Earth's ecological means, "In a low-entrophy culture the individual is expected to live a much more frugal and spartan style of life."[11] whilst on the other he supports a solar economy, "The Solar Age will require a greater conformity to the ancient rythms of life."[12] in which energy will be available in vast abundance.

xiv) Bill McKibben.

As far as is known bill mcKibben has not highlighted his priorities for combating global warming. He stumbled into the green movement in the early 1990s and is still in the transition from being a conventional economic-growth, materialist to a green who believes in living within the Earth's means. He looks down from a hill overlooking his home, "I can see my whole material life... my car, the bedroom, the chimney above the stove. (He presumably forgets all about the motorways, the shopping centres, and the workplaces that he also relies upon). I like that life, I like it enormously."[13] He confesses, "I have no great desire to limit my way of life."[14] He tends to believe that any problem can be solved technologically - somehow forgetting that technology is responsible for a great deal of ecological destruction around the world and that technology cannot solve ecological problems. As far as he is concerned, there is little point in using Reforestation to combat global warming when nuclear power could do the job, "We must...swallow our safety fears and build more nuclear plants."[15]

xv) Barry Commoner.

Commoner tends to be more radical than most greens .. "there is a consistent explanation for the few instances of environmental success; they occur only when the relevant production technologies are changed to eliminate the pollutant."[16] Nevertheless he still supports solar power, "Photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight directly into electricity, has little or no impact on the environment."[17] He believes there is no problem terrestrializing the sun's energy, "If, let us say, only 10% of the total solar energy falling on the land could be captured, it would still be possible to expand our present rate of using energy a hundredfold before encountering the theoretical limit to growth."[18]

xvi) Michael Allaby.

Allaby is another high tech green. It is better to combat global warming through nuclear power than Reforestation, "The only alternative that really can provide the amount of energy we need is nuclear power."[19] On the positive side, however, allaby has some incisive criticisms of alternative energy, "If you allow that each wind generator is rated at around 1 megawatt output - the generators must be spaced at some distance from one another. In theory they occupy about 3 acres each. So, to match a conventional power station a wind farm is likely to require some 3,000 acres."[20]

xvii) Gerald Leach.

Leach also dismisses alternative energy, "Nearly all soft energy sketches rely heavily on wind and hydro power to supply essential electricity needs. For the quantities of energy we are talking about, these are emphatically not small scale devices, nor can they be controlled locally. Because the winds (and waves) are unreliable, they must either be backed up by fuel burning power stations or combined hydro electric schemes."[21] He criticizes biomass energy for a number of reasons. Firstly, "Among the largest uncertainties are the environmental impacts of energy plantations or other biomass supplies including nutrient leaching, insect attack, disease, and land use competition."[22] Secondly, "In virtually every present method of biomass energy production, all the plant material is removed and converted to fuels or animal feed residues that are too valuable to return to the soil. (The single, notable, exception is again biogas production; in China the nitrogen rich fertiliser residue is considered a more important byproduct than the gas itself). The loss of most or all of the plant material that is normally recycled to maintain soil structure and fertility is potentially far more serious. Several studies have recently established that if husbanding the soil is given high priority, the potential for net production of biomass energy from each acre of land is drastically reduced."[23]

xviii) Bernard Planterose (The Scottish Green Party).

I: The Similarities.

Bernard planterose was responsible for producing the scottish green party's 'a rural manifesto for the highlands'. He's appalled by the unjust land distribution in scotland, "Half the land mass of Scotland is still in the hands of just 579 landowners."[24] He's an ecologist who obviously has a great deal of knowledge about specific local habitats - which makes a change from most greens for whom the environment means the local shopping centre and car park.

At first glance, planterose seems to support many of the ideas promoted in this work e.g. Reforestation. Even more importantly he is one of the few greens who supports a Wood economy, "The core of the Manifesto is a vision of a possible Highland future built on a Forest economy through the recreation of a second great wood of Caledon: a new economy of great diversity and richness to supply the needs of a larger population than currently exists in the region with a wide range of employment possibilities, foods, materials and energy sources."[25]

What makes his work even more promising is that he goes some way to suggesting that Reforestation is needed as a part of a global system of climate control, "The overall biomass of a system would be a measure of productivity .. Inputs, outputs and sinks (e.g. of carbon) would also be quantified and maintained at levels that fulfilled global criteria of sustainability."[26] There are very few greens who see Reforestation as a part of the global criteria for sustainability.

II: The Differences.

This, however, is where the similarities end. Firstly, he does not promote a pure Wood economy since he supports alternative energy, "The use of wave energy to generate electricity would play an important part in the economy of coastal townships and, increasingly, power would be generated by local wind and hydro schemes, frequently on an individually very small scale."[27]

Secondly, he talks about one massive new Forest covering a huge area of scotland rather a number of regional Forests.

Thirdly, he does not believe it is necessary to put any land aside as ooman free Wilderness areas. He demands that all of the highlands should be repopulated by oomans. Furthermore he wants the highlands managed in an intensive way. In another article he proclaims .. "our urgent need and responsibility to design and create whole integrated and functioning ecosystems to our own specifications."[28] And again, "The second Great Wood of Caledon would be no wild and unpopulated place like the first of 1000 years and more ago. Whilst sharing several important biological characteristics of the original it would display many fundamental dissimilarities. The main one being its intensive management by Man ..."[29] This is exactly the sort of anthropogenic attitude which has caused ecological destruction around the world.

Fourthly, he supports the exploitation of Animals. He's in favour of reintroducing many Wildlife species which once used to roam the highlands, "Other large herbivores (besides reindeer) might be introduced and managed as wild resources too. The once native elk would seem to be a good candidate."[30] He wants to reintroduce these long lost species not because he believes in biodiversity and Animal freedom but because he wants to extend the range of food which oomans can harvest, "In contrast to the extreme paucity of wild game taken from the land today, the Great Wood would yield up a much increased range, quantity and quality of animal products managed by local communities to supply food, in the first place, to themselves."[31] This is clearly a conventional humanistic attitude towards Animals and Wildlife. He also wants to see a vast increase in the exploitation and slaughter of livestock Animals, "Domestic stock might include cattle .. there would be sheep .. with breeds producing good wools for local spinning and clothes manufacture. It would include free range pigs, ducks, geese and other fowl suitably combined on some small forest-farm units."[32]

Fifthly, despite his concern for Reforestation to combat global warming he does not see the need to create climate Forests to help regulate the climate. Apparently he believes it is possible to carry out intensive harvesting of Trees whilst at the same time storing Carbon extracted from the atmosphere.

Finally, he believes it would be possible to integrate the highland Wood economy into the current capitalist system.

Despite his radical ideas planterose is utterly conventional both philosophically, in his attitude towards Forests and Animals and, economically, in promoting economic development, jobs and prosperity. He's presenting a green model of economic growth. He wants people and the country as a whole to get richer through the more thorough exploitation of its ecological resources, "And so the forest economy could be created, transforming one of Europe's most severely disadvantaged regions into one of great prosperity and beauty ..."[33]. It has to be asked, however, what people would do with all the money they would obtain from the increased exploitation of Forests and Animals? Perhaps buy cars and consumer indurables and destroy their wonderful new green capitalist economy?

xix) Michael Pilarski.

Pilarski is another of the small number of greens who support Reforestation because of its role in controlling the climate. However, he holds the rather odd view that Reforestation is needed to combat both global warming and global cooling, "Climate experts disagree on how the world's climate is changing although most agree that Carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere is leading to dramatic climate changes. Whether you favour global warming theory or ice age theory, both schools of thought say that the best chance humanity has to draw down CO2 levels in the atmosphere and to stabilize climate favourably for humanity is to plant massive amounts of trees."[1] Whilst it is a credit to him that he took climate control seriously at a time when there was no scientific consensus about climatic trends, the belief that Reforestation could help to counter both global warming and global cooling is bizarre. Whilst Reforestation is needed to counter global warming, deforestation may be needed to counter global cooling.

Pilarski also seems to be aware of the political consequences of Reforestation, "For large scale reforestation to work in the world we will probably need a great change in governing structures. A change from authoritarian (to) participatory democracies."[2]

He suggests permaculture is an important way of protecting the world's Rainforests, "Permaculture offers a way to feed all the people (the slash and burners in tropical Forests) and get back the forest cover in these regions. Instead of swidden based annual crops, multiple storey permaculture systems can enable harvesting crops from upper-story trees, middle story trees and shrubs, as well as low growing plants."[3]

Pilarski rejects the idea of civilizing the Earth with permacultural settlements. He supports permaculture because it enables more food to be grown on less land thus opening the way for the creation of more Wilderness areas, "Not that we want people spread everywhere on the globe. We shall need our wild areas, and indeed, should plan on how to greatly increase our wild areas."[4]

Of all the theorists explored in this work pilarski comes closest to understanding the geocentric theory of Reforestation. It is a tragedy that his work, which was written quite a number of years ago, has not been elaborated by later permaculturalists.

xx) Dr Ulrich Loening.

Loening supports Reforestation to combat global warming but has not elaborated his views on the subject. He emphasizes the hypothesis that, "A mature forest in a climax state has a productivity of zero, by definition. Maximum sustainable yield is typically obtained half-way between the pioneer start of growth and the climax."[5] This leads on to the view criticized above that if Reforestation is to combat global warming then Forests will have to be harvested and the Wood stored in one way or another.

xxi) Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker.

Professor von wezsacker is the founding president of the wuppertal institute for climate, environment and energy. The stated objective of his book is .. "to propose a pragmatic strategy for earth politics."[6] It might have been thought this would have led him to outline radical proposals to solve the great ecological issues of our time, the destruction of Biodiversity and global warming. He does no such thing. He confines himself to various conventional policies the nature of which becomes transparent when he expresses an enormous degree of optimism for what is now a disgraced developmental institution, "Worth mentioning is also the newly established European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London which lends hundreds of millions of pounds to Eastern Europe and places special emphasis on ecologically sound reconstruction."[7] The only thing this bank did was reconstruct its directors' bank balances.

This work is notable only for the fact that he coins a new phrase in green politics, "This is the principal reason why caring for business and opting for 'economy-friendly' policies can under certain conditions be a very sensible attitude for environmentalists."[8] This should win him a lucrative prize in the grovelling to the Earth-rapists' stakes.

Although he pinpoints who is responsible for most of the ecological destruction around the world he comes to the pathetic conclusion that he doesn't know how to remedy this injustice, "Historically the industrial countries have been largely responsible for the build up in the atmosphere of human induced greenhouse gases (some 90% of CO₂) and CFCs (around 98% of emissions), which have been added to the atmosphere over the last 150 years. Even today they produce more than 70% of CO₂ emissions and more than 90% of the CFCs. China, already responsible for as much as 13% of total world emissions of CO₂, is planning to build many more coal-fired power stations. Somehow we shall have to 'buy' the co-operation of the developing countries (sic), but so far have no useful experience as to how that could be brought about."[9] And that is that.

xxii) Victor Anderson (The New Economics Foundation).

"The world should pay countries to conserve rainforests according to a report from the New Economics Foundation. Funds could be made available to rainforest countries for providing ecological goods and services through the Biodiversity Convention which was set up as a result of the Rio Summit. The funds could be used for conserving forests and buying farmland for distribution to landless people."[10] This sort of cosmetic crap has been criticized in the section on richard lawson. It is not possible for humans to buy their way out of global ecological destruction.

xxiii) Sarah Parkin.

Since leaving the putrid waters of green party politics, parkin seems to have started to outline her views on green politics. She begins promisingly, "In any hierarchy of human needs or rights, the Earth's life support systems must be the top-priority."[11] She even supports one of the basic premises of geocentrism, "A country's wealth could be measured in terms of the balance between its population and its biomass, rather than manufactured goods or services."[12]

Having given such a pre-eminent role to biomass, parkin explores the role of biomass in a green society. She points out that biomass could provide fuel but that its potential .. "is a minefield of unknowns. An agricultural biomass life cycle assessment model can help clarify the potential benefits from developing this fuel source."[13] The potential for biomass in brutland seems to be considerable, "Each year an estimated 250 million tonnes of organic matter including domestic and industrial waste, human and animal faeces and agricultural/forestry residue, is generated in the UK. Only a fraction of this is converted at all, never mind efficiently."[14] Although she gives a high priority to biomass she is not so favourably inclined towards Phytomass and sees little role for it as a means of combatting global warming, "Research suggests wood has the best chance of making the environmental, aesthetic, biological and economic sums add up, but only as a direct industrial crop."[15]

xxix) Alan Watson (The Findhorn Foundation and Trees for Life).

Alan watson is a key member of both the findhorn foundation and trees for life. He proposes to Reforest an area 600 square miles in size due west of inverness which was formerly a part of the caldeonian Forest.[16] He hopes it will then be possible to reintroduce some of the Wildlife which once inhabited the area, "Species which are either absent entirely, or are not able to recolonise isolated patches of regenerating forest, would have to be carefully reintroduced at an appropriate time. This could begin with the transplanting of, for example, colonies of wood ants from places where they still exist, to some of the forest remnants where they are now absent. As the area of forest cover increases, I envisage ultimately reintroducing the larger species of mammals which are extinct in Scotland at present, including the wild boar, elk, reindeer and the wolf."[17] 'Trees for life' have recently joined a pro-wolf umbrella organization, "Trees for Life has joined the Highland Wolf Fund (HWF). Established to promote the recovery of wolves in the Highlands, the HWF's other project partners include the Carnivore Wildlife Trust and the Wolf Society of Great Britain. However, Scottish Natural Heritage, the government's conservation agency has stated that it is not considering any reintroduction of wolves."[18]

xxx) Herman E Daly.

Daly supports Reforestation to combat global warming but has not elaborated his position on this issue. He has coined a new phrase about the Earth's life support system - one which has been fashioned after an economic term in the hope of making it comprehensible to economists who are so intellectually retarded they can only understand economic concepts, "We now need investments in biophysical infrastructure (infra infrastructure) to maintain the productivity of all previous economic investments in man-made capital, public or private, by rebuilding the remaining natural capital stocks that have come to be limiting."[19]

Daly picks up on the estimate that humans have expropriated 40% of the Planet's Photosynthesis and points out, "Although 40% may technically be less than half, we had better think of it as indicating relative fullness, because it is only one doubling time away from 80% a figure which represents excessive fullness."[20]

Unlike most economists who are nothing more than intellectual prostitutes beholden to multi-national corporation pimps, daly displays a little more independence and argues, "Present total resource-use levels are already unsustainable, and multiplying them by a factor from five to ten, as envisaged in the Bruntland Report is ecologically impossible."[21]