SIX: THE GREEN MOVEMENT'S OPPOSITION TO REFORESTATION.

This chapter explores the views of some of the country's leading environmental organizations concerning their priorities for combatting global warming. [1]

iii) Friends of the Earth.

I: The Position of Friends of the Earth on Reforestation.

The following quote lays out the views of 'friends of the Earth' on Reforestation and global warming, "Friends of the Earth carried out an investigation into the viability of Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming and published its findings in 'deserts of Trees'. This concluded, "In order to most effectively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, techniques involving fast-growing trees in species poor plantation conditions would be necessary. Such tree cover supports less biological diversity than natural forests, can have negative impacts on soils and may ultimately prove unsustainable (especially if timber is frequently cropped)." [2]

In this quote foE start off by saying that fast growing Tree plantations are the most "effective" means for extracting Carbon from the atmosphere and then conclude that this approach may prove ineffective or, in their own words, "unsustainable". It has already been pointed out that Reforestation to combat global warming does not necessarily entail Tree plantations. Carbon can be removed from the atmosphere by allowing the natural regeneration of Forests. Tree plantations would be only a last ditch resort to extract as much Carbon as quickly as possible out of the atmosphere because politicians have left it too late to do anything else to combat global warming.

"Given the scale of the global climate change problem, questions are raised over the availability of sufficient land for reforestation." This is the psuedo-green bogey for opposing Reforestation. It's a fallacious argument which is often used by Earth rapists posing as greens. For an idea of how much land is available for Reforestation just consider the abolition of pastureland.

"In addition, doubts are raised over biomass accumulation targets being met as a result of the damage caused to plantations by pest infestaton. It is also thought that forestry expertise is insufficiently developed to take full advantage of the natural genetic potential of tree species through matching particular varieties to local conditions." These are all irrelevant objections to Reforestation. FoE simply cannot envisage Forests regenerating themselves. FoE hold the absurd belief that Forests could never emerge without ooman help. The reason that foE holds such an absurd belief is because if Forests regenerated themselves then the over-paid, over-privileged members of the foE trade union would lose their jobs and their company car perks.

"Owing to the greater potential for biomass accumulation and as a result of greater cost-effectiveness, it is thought that the tropics would be favoured by policy makers seeking to combat global warming through reforestation. If planning is not planned on the basis of meeting local needs, widespread planting could lead to severe impacts on local agriculture, fisheries, foster land conflicts, promote migration to urban centres and lead to the compensatory conversion of remaining areas of natural forest to agriculture. The 'top-down' institutional arrangements that will stem from large scale planting implemented by government agencies will lead to the further marginalization of the most vulnerable rural communities. In addition, land grabbing by land-owning elites might be stimulated - especially if plantation cropping is linked to attractive cash incentives." This reveals all too clearly that foE cannot countenance the idea of Reforestation being carried out in the over-industrialized nations. Where would foE members be able to park their cars on jolly field trips around the country if brutland had to increase its Forest cover?

"These findings lead to several important conclusions regarding the formulation of policies aimed at achieving the expansion of tree cover. Most critically, policy makers must recognize the limited role that reforestation can play in slowing climate change. Also, for reforestation to be effective, for whatever purpose, it is vital that policies aimed at the exapansion of tree cover accept that local priorities are pursued in a highly nuanced approach. Climate-related benefits may later accrue but these should not be at the forefront of forestry planning. Specifically, policy formulation should take account of the need to delink reforestation and carbon dioxide emissions and instead focus on the reduction of emissions and the establishment of forests for other reasons. Halting the loss of natural forests should be regarded as an international priority (over the planning of new ones) in seeking to slow global warming. On the basis of the analysis sumarised above, concludes that large scale tree planting should not form a major plank of policy to combat global warming. Instead, action should focus on the control of emissions." [3] These objections to Reforestation are vacuous. They are so pathetic it's a wonder that foE hasn't been laughed off the Planet. They are irrelevant to the real issues entailed by Reforestation.

iv) UK Earth First!

The Earth First! movement in this country began to take off in 1992. It has achieved a considerable degree of publicity over the last few years for its involvement in a number of civil disobedience campaigns. However, it has failed to establish itself as an identifiable political force. It has no policies and is almost solely a focus for activists. One of the practical reasons for this is that Earth first!ers are too dispersed around the country to enable them to meet regularly enough to formulate national policies. They can just about publish, at spasmodic intervals, an 'Earth first update' but they can't manage to publish a regular national newsletter. In addition, whilst the american Earth first movement was as renowned for its philosophy as its radical activism this is not the case in brutland.

At the first national meetings some EF!ers wanted to set up a national office and publish a national journal. The majority opposed these ideas and wanted to focus on action. Their commitment to radical actions would have made a national organization a legal, financial, and even political, liability. Whilst it may be entirely correct to avoid such encumberances, it has stopped the development of Earth first! as a propaganda organization. Nobody knows what Earth first stands for - Wilderness (how much and where)?; Reforestation (how much and where)? Earth first!ers intermingle with other so many other groups such as tribalists/ravers/anti-cjb/travellers/the land is ours that its impossible to know what it stands for.

Given that global warming did not become a public issue until the early 1990s and not even a political issue until the rio Earth summit in 1992, it is hardly surprising the american EF! movement never took global warming seriously. They supported Wilderness/Reforestation for ecological or spiritual reasons not as a means of combating global warming (let alone for the sake of Animal rights). The situation with Earth first! in brutland is entirely different. The group flourished during the period when there was a great deal of publicity about global warming. This makes it even more difficult to understand why it has no position on this issue.

vi) The Green Party.

I: The Green Party's Priorities.

The Green party's priorities for combating global warming are firstly, reducing atmospheric greenhouse emissions; secondly, stopping deforestation; and lastly, Reforestation. After the publication in 1990 of the ipcc's first report on the greenhouse effect the green party made a rather pathetic demand for 40% cuts in brutland's Carbon emissions. This was later increased to 60% . Once the green party realized the inequalities of the ipcc's demand for a global cut in CO₂ emissions it demanded the over-industrialized countries make even more substantial cuts.

II: The Green Party's Policies for Reducing Carbon Emissions.

The green party's policies for reducing Carbon emissions have tended to follow in the footsteps of those presented by greenpeace. Firstly, it relies upon energy conservation; secondly, it supports the introduction of so-called renewable energy; and, thirdly, it intends to phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power.

III: The Green Party's Support for Energy Conservation.

Energy conservation does not lead to an overall decrease in pollution since any financial savings made by using less energy are often spent on other energy consuming activities. In itself, energy conservation is self defeating. Political efforts to promote energy conservation should be made only after there has been a general agreement between all countries to balance their historical Carbon budgets since this would prevent energy savings in one activity from being used up by another activity. The green party's current parliamentary bill to conserve energy is an exercise in futility not merely because of the naive belief that the government would support such a bill but because it is ecologically irrelevant. It might be argued that even if the bill does not succeed, the publicity will be good for the party/green issues. But creating the impression that energy conservation is a valuable means of solving global warming is dangerously misleading. All that the green party's focus on energy conservation is doing is exposing its ecological ignorance.

IV: The Green Party's Support for Renewable Energy.

The green party supports the introduction of what it calls 'renewable energy' or what is defined in this work as alternative energy, "The green party believes that ultimately all our energy will have to come from renewable sources. Electricity would come mainly from wind, wave, tidal and geothermal power, whereas heat would come from solar and biomass." [4] Quite how wind, wave, tidal and geothermal energy, renew themselves is a closely guarded green party secret.

V: The Ecological Damage caused by so-called Renewable Energy.

V.A: Solar Power.

V.A a) Solar Energy.

The green party points out that, "Solar energy can be used in three ways. 'Passive' solar heating uses the structure of a building to collect and store solar heat. 'Active' solar heating uses a special collector to absorb heat at a higher temperature, to produce hot water, process heat or drive an engine to generate electricity. Finally, solar energy can be converted directly to electricity by photovoltaic cells." [5] The green party has not carried out a geophysiological analysis of these forms of energy - it just assumes that these forms of energy are not ecologically damaging. As far as the green party is concerned as long as its policies slow down the current rate of ecological destruction or reduce the current rate of pollution this is all that needs to be done to save the Earth. This is like saying that as long as motorists reduce their speed they won't fall over the edge of the cliff at the end of the road.

Although solar energy seems to be environmentally friendly it is ecologically destructive in a number of ways.

* Firstly, the mining, manufacturing and disposal, of solar powered technologies.

* Secondly, highly centralized forms of solar power tend to cause considerable ecological damage since electricity needs to be transmitted through a national grid or, if used to produce hydrogen, through a network of pipelines.

* Thirdly, the most destructive aspect of solar power is that it stimulates the urbanization of the countryside. Whereas solar power could reduce ecological damage if it is generated and used in urban areas [6] if it is used in rural areas it could permit massive urban developments which would devastate rural ecologies. Paradoxically given the fact that highly centralized forms of solar energy cause a lot of ecological damage, the real danger created by solar power is its decentralized nature. As a decentralized form of energy it provides rural areas currently beyond the reach of the national electricity grid, with electricity. This would enable huge numbers of people to reoccupy the countryside/Wilderness areas which could cause a massive level of ecological damage. The decentralized nature of solar power is a powerful asset to green oomano-imperialists who want to expropriate rural areas.

What is transparent, however, is that although solar power would not boost the greenhouse effect to anything like the same degree as the exploitation of fossil fuels, it could cause just as much ecological damage as fossil fuels and thus continue to inflame global warming. [7] Although solar power would generate Carbon emissions through the mining, manufacturing, and disposal, of solar products, the damage it inflicts on the Earth's life support system is much more serious e.g. when oomano-imperialists colonize rural areas and when hydrogen is used firstly, to fuel off-road vehicles which drive through greenfield sites/the countryside/Wilderness areas and, secondly, to prop up the car, and car related, industries.

It is not yet possible to suggest whether the biggest ecological threat posed by solar energy is:-

* aiding green colonialists, such as perma-imperialists, to urbanize the countryside;

*creating highly centralized power stations, or

* boosting the creation of a hydrogen based economy. [8]

It is impossible to calculate just how much damage solar power is capable of inflicting on the Earth's life support system. It could, however, be considerable. In essence, a solar economy is simply a fossil fuelled economy with fossil fuels.

The green party would cause a considerable amount of ecological damage as a result of its promotion of solar power because it supports the urbanization of the countryside. Many of the leading lights in the green party support the permacultural invasion of the countryside e.g. tony wrench. [9] The green party's permaculture working group have been promoting his proposals, "The green party should address Tony Wrench's idea about re-designating appropriate 'greenbelt' areas as 'permaculture land', thus allowing building to occur there so that sustainable new communities could be created. .. surely the Green party wouldn't want to perpetuate the existing political approach to the countryside, with the government as the curator of a museum? - a museum which incidentally can't be developed into sustainable new communities, but is increasngly becoming home to the cars of our commuting population." [10]

V.A b) Hydro-electic Power.

Both the green party and greenpeace agree that large scale hydro-electric power is ecologically damaging. This admission is usually made to show how wise they are in limiting their support to small scale hydro-electric power. Given that small scale hydro-electric dams damage the environment only on a small scale this makes it far more acceptable to green party realos. Of course, some green party members try to deceive themselves, and the public, into believing that small scale hydro-electric power is actually environmentally benign - as if nature, left to itself, would constantly be throwing huge lumps of cement across small rivers in order to increase Biodiversity, "Gigantic dams often have disasterous environmental consequences. But hydroelectric power is environmentally benign when used on a smaller scale. About one more gigawatt could be developed in the UK, most of this being in scotland." [11] This sort of nonsense tends to arouse the suspicion that the green party has been taken over by Earth-rapists.

V.A c) Wind Power.

The green party is an ardent supporter of wind power, "The green party's 1993 spring conference unanimously supported the proposal by Trigen to build the UK's largest wind farm in Northumberland." [12]

V.B: Lunar Power.

V.B a) Tidal Barrages.

Just as was the case with hydro-electric power, the green party is aware of the ecological damage caused by tidal barrages. As much as greens do to parade their concern for the environment, their hearts still pump with the excitement of creating more construction projects. The possibility of surrounding the country with tidal barrages causes greens an intense hormonal imbalance, "Tidal barrages produce energy by using turbines to catch the ebb and flow of the tide. A barrage across the Severn Estuary could produce 6% of Britain's electricity demand. By developing barrages on other estuaries as well, 20% of demand could be met. The green party would not proceed with large scale projects such as (the mersey barrage) where a unique habitat is at stake, until we can be certain that no lasting damage would result." [13] This would be hilarious if it didn't emanate from a political party contesting for power. It is simply not possible to construct tidal barrages that do not damage tidal flats. The fact that greens try to maintain the fantasy "that no lasting damage would result" is simply because they are so infatuated with such projects they are willing to say anything to cover up the ecological damage. It may well be the case that such greens are not greens at all but Earth-rapists who have infiltrated the organization. These green Earth-rapists dismiss local anti-barrage protest groups as nimbies or 'environmentalists'.

V.C: Biomass.

The green party uses the term 'biomass' to include both Phytomass and Manure.

V.C a) Manure and Waste Products.

The green party supports the factory farming of Animals, "One source of biomass for energy producton is waste organic material such as sewage, animal excreta, agricultural waste and the organic component of domestic and municipal waste. Such waste products are often burned in situ, allowed to rot or dumped in rivers and the sea, thus yielding no usable energy and contributing to pollution. Methane given off from material rotting in landfill dumps is 20-30 times more potent than CO₂. Professor David Hall of Kings College has estimated that we could produce twice as much energy as Sizewell from recovering such waste products." [14] The exploitation of livestock Manure will not merely reinforce, but boost, the Animal exploitation industry. It is quite true that the green party doesn't like factory pharming but this is a matter about which it is utterly embarrassed. It has never campaigned on Animal rights issues and rarely mentions its opposition to Animal exploitation in its electoral publicity material so there is no reason to have any confidence that it would protect Animals, or implement its policy commitments on Animals.

V.C b) Tree Planations.

The green party supports the use of Forests to produce energy. It dismisses the argument that this policy would deprive people of food, "Objections to growing energy crops centre on the need for land for food production. There would be enough land available if the wide area - over 80% of the 46 million acres of farmland (in the united kingdom) - now used for livestock were freed. Most of this area was once covered in trees, and would revert to forest if the animals were removed." [15] The green party does not give any figures for the amount of land that would be taken out of livestock farming and converted into energy plantations and Forests. [16] It says nothing about how much land should be dedicated as Wilderness for the exclusive use of Wildlife.

V.C c) Bio Fuels.

"Biomass for domestic space and water heating should be burned in well designed stoves to minimize waste and pollution. Biomass can be converted to gas or liquid fuels or to electricity." [17]

V.D: The Green Party has not Ecologically costed its Alternative Energy Policies.

The green party has not geophysiologically costed its proposals for alternative energy - despite the fact that for decades it has demanded an ecological assessment of all forms of energy it does not like. The green party seems to be so mesmerized by the fact that alternative energy would not generate vast quantities of Carbon emissions, it simply fails to recognize the damage these forms of energy could inflict on the Planet's life support system. As far as the green party is concerned only the threat posed by the release of Carbon emissions needs to be taken seriously, whilst the damage to the Planet's Phyotosynthetic capacity is irrelevant. Indeed, from the green party's perspective the more successful its policies would be in reducing Carbon emissions the more it would sacrifice the destruction of the Earth's life support system. The green party's failure to carry out a geophysiological analysis of alternative energy is not merely hypocritical but exposes its amateurishness. It has not done any research whatsoever to justify its energy proposals.

VI: Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power; The Green Party's Naivety Concerning Nuclear Power.

The third set of green party policies to combat global warming is the dismantling of nuclear power. The green party is naive, however, if it does not appreciate that its promotion of solar power will boost nuclear power. There is a high degree of compatibility between solar, and nuclear, power. The creation of a solar based society will almost invariably put nuclear power back onto the agenda.

VII: The Green Party has no Geophysiological Analysis.

The green party's threefold policies to combat global warming are inadequate. Energy conservation will not reduce Carbon pollution; alternative energy will reduce atmospheric pollution but increase ecological devastation; whilst the promotion of solar power will help to stimulate a resurgence of nuclear power. There are reasons why the green party could make such mistakes. Firstly, it has not carried out a geophysiological analysis to determine the seriousness of the damage being inflicted on the Earth's life support system. If it had it would realize that its policies are not radical enough to prevent climate destabilization. Secondly, it has not carried out a geophysiological analysis of brutland's historical Carbon status to determine what the country's contribution should be to combatting global warming. As a consequence it does not have the slightest inkling that brutland has such huge ecological debts that not only should there be a ban on any further construction projects in the country, including those entailed by alternative energy, but that large areas of the country's industrial infrastructure need to be dismantled.

VIII: The Green Party's Environmental Unpopularity.

The green party is under the absurd illusion that, "The basic tenets of green party energy policy - rapid phase out of nuclear power and investment in conservation, and a transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy in the long term, enjoy widespread support in the broader green movement and beyond." [18] Whilst the phase out of nuclear power might enjoy "widespread support", this is not the case when it comes to wind pharms, tidal power and the exploitation of Animal Manure. The green party seeks to defend its position on wind pharms by suggesting there is little popular support for those opposed to wind pharms, "Wind farms are often opposed by 'countryside' groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, but are strongly supported by more broadly based environmental groups such as FoE and greenpeace." [19] It is shocking that the green party could support such ecologically damaging projects. And it is quite paradoxical given that the party is dominated by decentralists who seem willing to ignore the interests of local people who oppose such forms of power. The green party's unanimous support for trigen's proposal to build the UK's largest wind farm in northumberland is all too indicative of the fact that it is dominated by Earth rapists. The green party's popularity could plummet even further once it is realized that its energy conservation schemes are irrelevant and that nuclear power is compatible with solar power.

IX: The Green Party's 'Commitment' to Reforestation.

It is not possible to say precisely what the green party's position is on Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming. Some activists believe the party supports the Reforestation of 40% of country whilst others do not - the Green party's energy pamphlet for example doesn't mention this 'commitment' even though it would have a major impact on the party's proposals for Tree plantations.

Even assuming the green party has a Reforestation policy there are many reasons for doubting the party's commitment to such a policy:-

* Firstly, the green party has not outlined where these Forests would be allowed to grow.

* Secondly, none of the party's local manifestos carry proposals for Reforesting 40% of their localities. The fact is that local green parties do not support local Reforestation because, after all, if 40% of their localities were covered with Forests where would they put their proposed recycling plants, green roads, solar energy projects, wind pharms, Animal Manure power stations, not to mention free range pharms?

* Thirdly, the green party never publicizes its Reforestation policies in its election material. If it was really intent on Reforesting large parts of the country it would promote the issue as much as possible. If it believed that global warming was a major issue it would put Reforestation at the top of its agenda. A strong Reforestation policy would also require the party to challenge the Animal exploitation industry, by demanding the abolition of the country's pastureland, but this is never mentioned in the green party's election material. True, the green party has a good section on Animal rights in its manifesto but it also seems to be ashamed of publicizing its support for this cause. There is a rule in politics that if politicians don't talk about, publicize or highlight an issue then they don't have any commitment to it.

* Finally, if Forests are to become far more extensive then more emphasis would be put on climate Forests and Wood economies but no green party publication does this.

Until the Green party states categorically that it is committed to a massive level of Reforestation to combat global warming and to enable brutland to pay off its historical Carbon debts; works out where these Forests should be allowed to regenerate; campaigns on this issue both during, and after, elections; and publicizes its intention to deconstruct the Animal exploitation industry; then such a 'policy' is simply a bit of green glamour designed to win over a few romantic hearts without making any commitment to preventing a global warming disaster. The Green party's support for Reforestation is vacuous and resembles what used to be the Labour party's clause 4, commiting the party to a policy which nobody in the party's higher echelons was willing to support.

X: The Shambles of the Green Party's Policies on Global Warming.

It was pointed out above that in the years after the ipcc's report on the greenhouse effect the green party demanded increasing cuts in Carbon emissions from the over-industrialized nations. These policies have just been dumped into the party's 'manifesto for a sustainable society' without changes to other policies which exacerbate global warming. It is almost as if the green party believes that the policies needed to combat a global warming disaster have no consequences for its other policies. This is far from being the case. If all the green party's policies were subjected to a Carbon spiral (geophysiological) analysis it would be found that they would not reduce the country's Carbon emissions by the 60-80% recommended by the ipcc let alone their own, far less stringent, commitments.

The green party's support for reducing Carbon emissions tends to make it overlook the ecological destruction entailed by its other policies. Quite amazingly, even after it passed its policy for radical cuts in Carbon emissions, it supported 'roads to the future' [20] which envisaged policies whose implementation would cause a considerable level of ecological destruction across the country. The reason the green party could make such fundamental errors is because green party members are not in the slightest bit interested in green issues.

xi) The World Rainforest Movement.

The wrm highlights the plight of tribal peoples living in tropical Rainforests. It focuses primarily upon humans and human rights - not Wildlife, Rainforests, global warming nor the Earth. It wants to protect the Rainforests not for their own sake, or for the sake of Wildlife or the Earth, but as a home for the tribal peoples. [1] It was set up many years before global warming became a scientific and political issue in the 1990s. The wrm uses arguments about the threat posed by global warming where these reinforce its own arguments. [2] It has not carried out, however, a wholesale re-examination of its perspective as a result of the discovery of global warming. As a consequence the wrm has no position on global warming nor has it determined its priorities for combatting global warming - on the contrary, it is highly concerned about the way in which Reforestation policies aimed at combatting global warming could impinge upon the interests of tribal peoples. Nevertheless it is worthwhile outlining the wrm's perspective since it raises issues not covered in the previous sections. Firstly, the wrm criticizes the tropical Forests action plan (tFap) because it believes it is not possible to implement Reforestation schemes in isolation from wider social or political changes. Secondly, whilst the concern of this work is with the priorities for combatting global warming, the wrm's priorities are for tackling land distribution and human rights. This raises a dilemma; should priority be given to global warming or to land redistribution/human rights? Is it possible that combating global warming could help to bring about land redistribution/human rights? Conversely, is it possible that land redistribution/human rights will help to combat global warming - or could it exacerbate the problem?

I: The Priority Given to Halting Deforestation.

I.A: The Causes of Rainforest Destruction.

Whilst some commentators believe the main agents of tropical deforestation are multi-national corporations, the wrm believes it is landless settlers. [3] However, the wrm does not blame settlers for the destruction. It believes land inequalities are responsible for pushing huge numbers of people into the Rainforests in the hope of obtaining their own land, "Deforestation is an expression of social injustice." [4] The wrm blames a variety of institutions for refusing to confront land inequalities. Firstly, the tFap, "Although it is well known that the invasion of forest areas by landless settlers is the single largest cause of forest destruction, the national plans (formulated through the TFAP) have fatally avoided confronting this politically delicate issue." [5] Secondly, Rainforest governments for protecting gross inequalities in land ownership. It also criticizes Rainforest governments for implementing transmigration policies to prevent social unrest arising out of this inequity. The only policies for redistributing land which some Rainforest governments seem to countenance is encouraging landless people to move into the Rainforests.

I.B: The Need for Land Reform.

The wrm believes the best way of preventing deforestation is through land reforms to unused land outside the Rainforests, "The scale of the present forest crisis demands that we confront the root causes of deforestation", says Colchester, "and that means resolving conflicts of interest between rich and poor. If landlessness is the main cause of forest loss in Amazonia, we need to check that by promoting land reform outside the forests." [6] Whilst there are those who argue there is no land available for Reforestation to combat global warming, the wrm is able to point out that in some countries there are huge areas of redundant agricultural land which could be taken over by settlers, "At least 170 million hectares of farmland lie idle. In Brazil 0.8% of the landowners possess 43% of the land, while the 53% of landowners classed as small farmers own between them just 2.7%. While 3.3 million farmers work 19.7 million hectares of land, the 20 largest landlords own 20 million hectares, an area the size of Syria. Multinational companies own 36 million hectares of Brazilian territory." [7]

I.C: The WRM's Support for Human Rights.

Land inequalities in third world countries will be abolished either through political democratization, revolution, or pressures from the international community. Reforms are unlikely when most politicians in Rainforest governments are members of the landowning elite. The wrm supports political rights for tribal peoples and landless settlers so that they can obtain political power and then implement land redistribution. However, political reforms seem even more remote than land reforms. The governments of the over-industrialized world are also unlikely to force third world countries to carry out land redistribution because this would expose the land inequalities in countries like brutland. This leaves revolution.

II: The WRM's Doubts about the Proposals for Reforestation to Combat Global Warming.

The wrm views with considerable suspicion the proposals for Reforestation in tropical Rainforest countries to combat global warming, "In the interests of pragmatic negotiability, such a process looks likely to leave out crucial and controversial issues, such as community participation, land ownership, forest dwellers' rights, and the relations with agrarian structure, debt, and trade and aid policy. Consequently, we risk ending up with a "tree planting, logging and forest parks convention" which will further marginalize the rural poor and powerless that make up the world's population." [8]

III: A Critique of the WRM.

III.A: The WRM's Fears about Reforestation.

The wrm's criticisms of Reforestation projects in third world countries are similar to those presented by friends of the Earth. As was outlined in the section on foE these criticisms are irrelevant since most of the Reforestation needed to combat global warming will have to take place in the over-industrialized world.

III.B: The WRM's Priority for Land Redistribution/Human Rights rather than Global Warming.

The consequence of giving priority to land redistribution rather than combatting global warming is that it could lead to an increase in ecological destruction which could exacerbate global warming and help to trigger a climatic disaster. Although agrarian reforms might prevent the continued destruction of the Rainforests by redistributing redundant agricultural land, if they went beyond this to include dividing up the Rainforests or, even worse, focussed solely on dividing up the Rainforests, then there might be even greater ecological damage than before.

If land reforms were carried out and more and more people settled in Rainforest areas then gradually they would make more and more money tempting them to chop down more and more Trees until eventually large parts of the Forests were replaced with roads, petrol stations, housing estates, shopping malls, etc., "Land reformers also face the dilemma of how much assistance to provide without creating dependency and undermining peasant initiative. Newly resettled farmers may require the provision of considerable agricultural extension facilities and infrastructure investments (roads, housing, schools, dispensaries) before they become familiar with their new surroundings and able to work the land well." [9] This is not, of course, an argument against land redistribution per se. It is an argument against piecemeal and unrestrained land redistribution which has no concern for geophysiological factors. Land redistribution must be carried out only within the framework of a global attack on global warming and the creation of a sustainable Planet. This means there would have to be a redistribution of land not only for the landless but for Wildlife (in the form of ooman free Wilderness areas) and for the Forests needed to combat global warming. [10] Land redistribution for the Earth is more urgent and more important than land redistribution for humans.

Giving priority to combatting global warming is not in conflict with the need for agrarian reforms nor is it detrimental to this fight. On the contrary, it is the best rationale for agrarian reforms. Whilst, historically, conventional economic and humanistic arguments have failed to bring about land redistribution there MUST be land redistribution for the Earth (which includes humans and Wildlife) or else humans are doomed. There is no choice about land redistribution for the Earth - humans either live in harmony with the Earth or they will perish. It would thus be better for the landless to fight for land redistribution on the grounds of global ecological justice rather than conventional, nationally oriented, social and political justice. They would have to fight for the Planet rather than being seen as yet another group of oomans promoting their own interests (no matter how deserving) at the expense of the Earth. Just as it would be more productive for the poor/industrializing nations on the global stage to demand global ecological justice rather than economic or political justice, so the same is true on the national stage for the poor and dispossessed. The days are over when justice could be demanded to redress a vast range of grievances without any reference to the Earth's capacity to sustain these demands because if humans do not show more concern for the Planet's health and vitality they will not survive. There should be no support for agrarian reforms unless they are part of a global agreement about combating global warming i.e. where each country balances its historical Carbon budget and sets aside land for regional Wood economies, climate Forests and Wilderness. The wrm believes that land reforms are possible only when there are domestic political reforms and international reforms concerning debts. The argument here is that if agrarian land reforms are not carried out in the context of a global agreement about tackling global warming then such reforms are at best irrelevant and, at worst, a boost to global warming.

The wrm promotes land redistribution but not policies to combat global warming. And yet as an issue global warming is so comprehensive it also includes subsidiary issues such as landlessness, global inequalities between countries, third world debts and global poverty. In other words, policies to counter global warming necessitates the abolition of landlessness, global inequalities, third world debts and global poverty. It is a waste of valuable time and effort trying to solve each of these issues separately, one by one, when global warming policies necessitates action against all of these issues. The danger of pursuing each of these issues individually is that they may overstep limits which boost global warming where this will not be possible if global warming is the primary policy. Only a global warming campaign is capable of solving both land redistribution and global justice whilst protecting the Earth.

III.C: The WRM's Failure to Support the Creation Wilderness and Forests for Climate Regulation.

The wrm supports land redistribution for humans but not land redistribution for Wildlife or for the climate. Many land reform groups around the world such as the wrm make no attempt to determine the limit of Forest expropriation for land reforms. This is as true of land reform groups in brutland e.g. 'the land is ours' as it is for similar groups in third world countries. Even worse is that some commentators believe that all Forests should be expropriated because humans are deemed to be useful in helping to protect Wildlife - this view is especially common amongst commentators who keep livestock Animals and eat meat. An increasing number of arguments are being put forward to defend the emasculation of the world's Forests for the sake of human expansionism.

III.C a) There's no such thing as Wilderness.

The wrm doesn't support the creation or preservation of Wilderness areas, let alone ooman free Wilderness zones, because it believes there is no such thing as Wilderness, "For, despite the prevalance of myths about .. 'virgin forests', the forests have been inhabited for thousands of years. Few areas of forest are unused or unclaimed by local communities." [11] ; Some "pristine rainforests" assumed to be untouched by human hands, are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities. This concept of the wilderness is an urban myth that exists only in our imagination." [12]

According to these green myths, humans have not merely exploited the Rainforests for millenia they have actually created the Rainforests since the world's entire Rainforests have been, at one time or another, agricultural land. This means that no Rainforest can be regarded as wild. Whilst many Forests around the world may look untouched this is not the case. Wrm commentators look upon the world in terms of human creativity, and from this perspective Rainforests aren't much different from shopping malls. Such is the outlook of people who spend too long seeing the world through their car windowscreen listening to their car stereo. There is also more than an element in this antagonism to Wilderness of some warped form of male sexuality - if something isn't virginal then it isn't Wilderness and it's not worth saving. And yet, even if the world's entire Rainforests were once agricultural land, which of course is complete twaddle, this doesn't entitle humans to treat Forests with disdain and allow any number of people to exploit such areas, kill off the Wildlife, and build as many car parks as they want.

III.C b) The Symbiosis between Humans and Wildlife.

Some commentators believe that tribalists are the best people to protect Wildlife. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Even as far back as the ice age this is unlikely to have been true. During the last ice age the bering straits froze over and groups of people crossed over into america and gradually spread the entire length of the north and south american continent. These people were responsible for driving the largest prehistoric Animals into extinction. It is hardly fair to blame today's indigenous people today for what their forefathers did thousands of years ago but the point is that indigenous people still kill off all those Animals in the Rainforest which pose a threat to their children's survival.

Furthermore, it has been argued that humans should be allowed to settle Forests because this will help to enhance Biodiversity. According to this view, there is a symbiosis between humans and Wildlife which helps to increase Biodiversity. It is as if these commentators believe that evolution has been an utter failure until homo cancerous arrived to boost the number of Wildlife species. Such commentators have failed to notice that whilst human numbers have been increasing hideously the numbers of Wildlife species have been declining hideously. The reason for this gross distortion of reality is that these commentators have a commitment to a humanistic ideology of almost cult like proportions. If ever an example of human intellectual sickness was required these commentators would be it. These oomano-imperialist bigots dismiss the fact that humans are responsible for destroying many Wildlife species everyday.

III.C c) Tribalism used to Support Carnivorism.

Some commentators support indigenous people in order to justify Animal exploitation. Supporting indigenous peoples means condoning the fact that they live off Animals and this justifies the exploitation of Animals by every other human on Earth. A number of governments around the world are beginning to use tribal people as front people to deflect criticisms about Animal exploitation.

III.C d) Not Enough Land for Wildlife.

There are commentators who argue there is plenty of land to redistribute to tribal peoples but not enough land for Reforestation or for Wildlife. It was noted above that one author highlights the fact that in brazil, "At least 170 million hectares of farmland lie idle" and that whilst, "3.3 million farmers work 19.7 million hectares of land, the 20 largest landlords own 20 million hectares. Multinational companies own 36 million hectares." [13] In addition, "In Guatemala .. half of the agricultural land, held by the landowning minority, is almost unused." [14] There would be more than enough land for Wildlife once multinational corporations have been expropriated.

III.C e) Conclusion: The Need to Support Wildlife.

It is imperative to defend Rainforests for their own sake and not for the sake of those living in them because it is undoubtedly true that the Forests will outlive tribal peoples, "In fact, tough, it is probable .. that within a very few generations, there will be no Stone Age people on earth, and this brings with it the corollary that humankind will then have to defend the wilderness for its own sake rather than for its value to a few scattered cultures which got a living in it." [15]

III.D: The WRM's Priority for Economic Development rather than Global Warming.

The wrm gives priority to promoting economic development rather than to combatting global warming, "The need is to replace the present technocratic, project dominated approach with a bottom up approach that takes its lead from local peoples, and which aims to promote development policies which have as their primary goal the securing of their needs and rights." [16] The wrm's objective is not to save the Rainforests but indigenous peoples living in the Rainforests and landless peasants. If necessary it is quite willing to support local people destroying Rainforests if this improves their standard of living. The wrm fails to point out any ecological limits to this improvement in standards of living. The wrm is fundamentally wrong to promote economic development without reference to the Earth's ecological limitations. Without highlighting the limitations to economic development, economic development will ultimately fail because it will destroy the Earth's life support system. The alternative approach is the establishment of a global Carbon budget which would permit Carbon debtor countries, such as Rainforest governments, to continue developing until they balance their historical Carbon budgets whilst setting aside land for humans, Wildlife and the Earth.

III.E: The Priority which the WRM gives to Indigenous People.

There are a number of reasons why the wrm supports indigenous people.

III.E a) Indigenous People Protect the Rainforests.

The wrm suggests that the best way of protecting Rainforests is to leave them to the care of indigenous people because they know how to look after the Rainforests, "It should also be remembered that these forests (in the South) were preserved and protected for centuries by the same local villagers, and were decimated (within decades) only when villagers lost control of the forests to urban and commercial interests." [17] After all, so the argument goes, tribal peoples have survived for tens of thousands of years so they must know how to look after the Forests. [18] The dictum 'indigenous people know best' fits in neatly with the 'Local people know Best' theme promoted by decentralists in the over-industrialized nations - many of whom travel around the world by car and aeroplane extolling the virtues of living in tightly knit communities rooted in the soil.

III.E b) Rainforests are owned by Tribal Peoples.

The wrm suggests that because tribal peoples have occupied, at one time or another, the world's entire Forests and thus deserve sovereignty over these Forests.

III.E c) Indigenous People are Superhumans.

There are greens who talk about indigenous people as if they are a superior race of humans who are not merely clever at surviving in Rainforests, but enjoy the most ecologically sound way of life [19] and live the ideal life. [20] The assumption being that indigenous people never want to change their way of life. [21]

1. There's no escaping Consumerism.

The problem for tribal peoples is that as soon as they discover there is an alternative to their way of life it is too late because the discovery undermines the cultural basis of their existence. The more curious they are about what exists beyond their own world the more lost they become. Even if they only want to know about the modern world for the sake of deciding which is the best way of life, the mere knowledge of consumerism makes it impossible for them to return to their original way of life. They become infected not merely by western diseases but by western ideas and commodities, "There is no primitive society so coercive that it can stop its young people swapping their blow-pipes for ghetto blasters." [22]

2. Tribal Consumerism.

Consumerism is powerful that some tribal peoples want to give up their tribal lifestyle and become a part of the consumerist world. They are not interested in returning to, or restoring, their previous way of life but hope to integrate themselves into global consumerism [23] It is faintly racist to believe that indigenous peoples are superior to livestock humans in being able to resist consumerism. Unfortunately they can't. Virtually all tribal peoples now wear consumer clothes, use consumer products and enjoy consumer culture. Many want to exchange commodities with the consumerist world in order to obtain more consumer commodities. Some have even entered into agreements with multi-national corporations to exploit tribal lands:-

One. North American Indians.

North american indians are raking in billions of dollars from bingo and gambling casinos on indian reservations.

Two. Alaskan Indians.

"Until the early 1970s, the Eskimo people of Alaska were hunting about 1500 walruses a year for their meat, skin and ivory, as they had done for centuries. Suddenly the slaughter escalated and became so severe that the Soviet Union made an official protest at the number of headless walrus corpses being washed up on its shores. The reason for the increase was the demand for trophies in the form of walrus tusks. The result was the killing of ten thousand or more walruses each year simply for the tusks. The wastefulness is considerable: a thirty year old walrus, weighing over a ton, is killed for the sake of its tusks which weigh only about 16 pounds. The scale and the seriousness of the issue can be demonstrated by the evidence of a couple of exposed operations. In February 1981, the US Fish and Wildlife Service seized more than five tons of fresh walrus ivory valued at over half a million dollars. The same year other investigations caught a group of traffickers who had updated the tradition of addicting the natives to whisky and then trading it at inflated prices for their goods. This group were doing a direct swap with the Eskimos of tusks for cocaine." [24]

Three. Canadian Indians.

How times have changed and yet everything is the same; "Canadian Eskimos gave the Queen a joyful welcome as she celebrated the creation of an Arctic homeland that makes them the biggest private landlords in the world. Under an historic deal signed with Canada last year, the Eskimos - or Inuit as they prefer to be called - are forming a vast new self governing territory called Nunavut. They won title to 136,000 aquare miles of the eastern Arctic, an area bigger than Italy but with a mere 22,000 residents. The deal makes them the world's biggest land holders." [25] The Canadian government has recently given the go-ahead for the slaughter of seals and the development of markets in China for seal products.

"Some natives, for example, support the 'sustainable development' projects of the forest industry (e.g. pulpwood logging in La Verendrye Park in Quebec). They have sanctioned logging of temperate old-growth rainforest in Clayoquot Sound in British Colombia, despite international protests. There is considerable support for the fur industry and commercial trapping (even though this industry was imposed by European colonial powers). Other native groups have backed the yukon wolf kill and the commercial exploitation of wildlife in national parks and reserves (e.g. in Ontario). The Meadow Lake Tribal Council in Saskatchewan has proposed the siting of a nuclear waste dump on its land. In Nova Scotia, the Pictou Landing Micmac Band Council supports Scott Maritimes proposal to build a pipeline to discharge pulp mill toxic, chlorine-laced effluent, one kilometre out into Northumberland Strait, but away from the Landing" [26]

Four. Scandinavian Tribes.

Scandinavian tribes are using snowmobiles to round up reindeer.

Five. South American Indians.

* "Several Kayapo groups are felling their forests for cash (and in one case, for the price of 15 km of road and a Toyota to run on it!)." [27]

** Colombian indians given back their rights to half the country's rainforest by a conservation-minded government, are busy issuing logging licenses." [28]

*** "Redencao is a bustling town with a population of over 100,000 on the BR-159 highway that cuts through eastern Amazonia. Two decades ago, Redencao was an isolated outpost of the economic frontier driving into Amazonia (much of this earlier wealth has now gone). These days, paradoxically, much of the town's prosperity is dependent, directly or indirectly, on the Kayapo Indians .. who retain control over two large reserves, covering together 70,000 square miles (the size of Ireland). And it is from these lands that comes most of the gold and timber sustaining Redencao. The gold panners pay the Indians a tribute. The new wealth has enabled the Indian Chiefs to build houses in Redencao, to buy planes, video-cameras, and televisions and to invest in the local money market." [29]

**** the indian chiefs who have opposed both the brazilian courts trying to stop road building and the Timber Trade Federation which wants to ban the illegal export of timber.

***** "Two months after the launch of the Body Shop's wild Brazil nut product and its rainforest associations in April 1992, there were reports that one of the most important figures in the deal was facing a charge of rape. The scandal involved Paiakan, a leading member of the Kayapo tribe and a person the Body Shop had been keen to promote as legitimizing their work. (Paiakan's) .. style of life - involving homes in the city, cars and drink - seemed a world away from the village and forest simplicities presented in the Body Shop material ..." [30]

Six. Australian Aborigines.

"Australia's most famous Aboriginal leader, Big Bill Neidjie, wants a US multi-national to open a uranium mine in the heart of one of Australia's most beautiful national parks." [31]

3. The Ecological Destructiveness of Tribalism.

The danger of this romantic nonsense about the superiority of tribalists in being able to resist consumerism is that if indigenous peoples are given complete sovereignty over their own lands then there could be an increase in the number of high tech development projects which will eventually destroy the Rainforests. David orton is quite correct, "Just as there is government and corporate 'green wash', there is 'native speak' which uses seemingly progressive or spiritual rhetoric as a cover to advance a narrow self-interest which is anti-Earth." [32]

4. Conclusion: There's no such thing as Tribal Peoples.

There are few tribal groups left undiscovered on Earth. Those which have been discovered are rapidly losing their identity. Many welcome consumerism. The huge cultural chasm which once separated tribal peoples from the rest of the world has all but closed. Tribal peoples are no longer some incredible, almost unbelievable, remnants of stone age civilizations but just another ethnic group about as distinct from the mainstream of society as cockneys, geordies or lancastrians, "In fact, tough, it is probable .. that within a very few generations, there will be no Stone Age people on earth ..." [33] There's no such thing as tribal peoples.

III.E d) Indigenous People Know how to Look after the Earth.

The wrm believe that indigenous peoples should be given sovereignty over 'their' land because they know how to look after the Forests. Indigenous peoples may know how to live in harmony with their local environment but this doesn't mean to say that they know how to live in harmony with the Earth. Firstly, and at the most basic level, they know little about what is happening to the global environment - they did not discover the hole in the ozone layer, they did not discover DDT poisoning, they know nothing about the greenhouse effect. [34] They may know a Forest inside out; they may know vast numbers of different plants providing a diversity of foods and medicines; their knowledge of tropical Rainforests may be as comprehensive and as profound as anything found in western science [35] but this does not mean to say that they have any concept of the Earth as a living entity, or any understanding of how this entity functions, let alone how to look after the Earth's life support system. because this knowledge derives from satellites and, as far as is known, tribal peoples haven't yet developed a rocket launching capability. Tribal people may know how to live in harmony with Nature, but they do not know how to live in harmony with the Earth. They may know how to create a sustainable environment but they can't create a sustainable Planet. They may be first rate ecologists but they are not geophysiologists. Ultimately, the Rainforests may need to be protected against indigenous peoples.

III.F: The WRM's Support for Forest-Users.

The wrm is concerned not only with indigenous peoples but with all the groups of people living in, or invading, the Forests,

* indigenous tribes who have lived in Forests for thousands of years;

* rubber tappers;

* shifting cultivators who practice primitive slash/burn farming techniques but allow the Forest time to regenerate;

* 'displaced' or 'shifted cultivators' whose landlessness has driven them into Forests where they use slash/burn techniques but do not leave the Forests enough time to recouperate; and, finally,

* various types of people who can loosely be called 'bounty hunters' who invade the Forests, not necessarily because they are poor but in the hope of getting rich quick e.g. gold miners/exotic Animal collectors/exotic Plant collectors/mineral prospectors, etc.

It is not known what the exact proportions are between these various groups in each Forest around the world. Whilst the fourth and fifth groups are growing in numbers, the first three groups are in decline primarily because of their persecution by the last two groups.

III.F a) The Rubber Tappers.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, large areas of brazilian Rainforest were overrun by people aiming to become rubber tappers. They caused considerable damage to the Rainforests as they promoted rubber Trees over other Tree species; they killed huge numbers of Animals and perhaps exterminated many species; and they waged cruel and bloody wars against indigenous peoples to steal their land. In other words, rubber tappers were the gold diggers of their time. The current view of them as peaceful people living in harmony with the Rainforests is historical bunkum. All that has happened is that over the last few years rubber tappers have realized that it is pointless continuing to murder indigenous peoples when both are being slaughtered by a bigger, more violent enemy, the gold diggers. Rubber tappers have acted out of necessity and joined forces with indigenous peoples to protect themselves from the bounty hunters. Aided and abetted by so called green organizations around the world they have acquired a new green image to go with this new tactic. Rubber tappers only seem like protectors of the Rainforest in comparison to the current batch of violent cutthroats destroying the Forests in a manic search for riches. Whilst indigenous peoples may have bestowed some civilized respectability on rubber tappers, the rubber tappers continue to infect tribal peoples not with diseases as they did in the past but with consumerism.

III.F b) The Bounty Hunters.

The bounty hunters are driven by a get-rich-quick-frenzy in which the Forests are seen as a treasure house waiting to be plundered. They are quite prepared to destroy as much of the Forest as is necessary to become rich.

III.F c) The Pesantry.

In a submission to the comittee organizing the rio Earth summit, the wrm demanded that peasants should be granted formal recognition as participants in the rio Earth summit process and that the summit should recognize their right to sovereignty over their own land, "We are extremely concerned that the nearly 2 billion peasants of the developing world (sic) are not even considered by UNCED as one of the "Major Groups" that will implement Agenda 21. The UNCED notion of sustainable development must recognize as its central goal the sustaining of the livelihoods of the people based on their own control of their lands and resources (sic). We .. demand that the UNCED acknowlege that .. their (peasants) rights to control the land, water and other natural resources (sic) that they depend on must be respected and secured." [36]

III.F d) Conclusion.

The wrm supports tribal peoples in Forests. It wants shifted cultivators to be given land outside the Forests but does it support the exploitation of land inside the Forests? Does the wrm also support the various types of bounty hunters? Many of the criticisms made in the previous section about indigenous people are also applicable to rubber tappers, shifting/shifted cultivators, bounty hunters and the world's peasantry. Rubber tappers, shifting/shifted cultivators, bounty hunters and the world's peasantry are far more of a threat to the Forests than the tribal peoples firstly because there are now far more of them than tribal peoples and, secondly, because whilst indigenous peoples respect the Forest and understand it, the rubber tappers exploit the Forests; shifting/shifted cultivators and the world's peasantry know little about the Forest and care for it even less; whilst bounty hunters regard the Forests as totally expendable. Giving these groups sovereignty over the Forests is a recipe for ecological devastation.