xii) Miscellaneous Green Groups.

Virtually all of the country's peripheral green groups from the decentralists such as 'The way forward' (which after 14 issues still hadn't discussed Reforestation), eco-socialists, 'green anarchist', and 'green revolution' to green reformists in 'green 2000/realignment/eco', etc., say nothing about their priorities for combatting global warming; the geophysiological role of Forests nor the role of Wood economies in a sustainable Planet.

I: 'Organize'.

In the 'aims and principles' of the anarchist communist federation [1] the fear is expressed that, "Capitalism threatens the world through war and the destruction of the environment." However, after what is an amazing burst into the environmental problems of the late 20thC, this peripheral marxist group does not make the slightest mention of the need for Reforestation, Animal Freedom, Wilderness nor outline the nature of a sustainable Planet.

II: 'Green Anarchist'.

The political position of 'green anarchist' [2] does not mention:-

* Reforestation;

* the need for regional Wood economies;

* opposition to solar/wind/wave/hydro power;

* living in harmony not with local ecologies but with the Earth's life support system;

* the creation of ooman free Wilderness zones where Animals can live in peace without barbarian bipeds sneaking up on them and maiming, mutilating, or murdering, them;

* the need for countries to pay off their historical Carbon debts as the most important means for combatting global warming;

* the importance of countries balancing their Carbon budgets as the basis of ecological justice between the over-industrialized world and the third world; nor, finally,

* a global Carbon budget as the basis for regulating the climate and the creation of a sustainable Planet.

'Green anarchist' has been one of the main promoters of the view that the critical green issue of the time is land ownership and it supports the unlimited expropriation of the countryside which will cause a significant level of ecological destruction.

III: The Land is Ours.

It has been pointed out above that oliver rackham has dismissed Reforestation as a means of combatting global warming. Given george monbiot's admiration for rackham then it is possible that 'the land is ours' group is similarly disinterested in Reforestation. 'The land is ours' is not a group dedicated to promoting Reforestation. All of the criticisms of 'green anarchist' outlined above are applicable to 'the land is ours'. In many ways 'the land is ours' is a middle class version of 'green anarchism'.

xiii) Animal Rights Groups.

I: The Carnivore Wildlife Trust.

"Dr Roger Panaman, the Oxford-based biologist is the founder of the Carnivore Wildlife Trust, which is lobbying for the return of the wolf to the highlands. He was supported by Alan Watson, of the scotttish-based Trees for Life organization which for good measure wants to see lynx, boar and brown bear returned to Highland habitat." [3]

xiv) Reforesting Scotland.

'Reforesting scotland' is a charity dedicated to ecological restoration through the creation of a new, sustainable Forest-based economy. It aims to promote an understanding of scottish deforestation along with enlightened, multi-purpose forestry and land-use practice in a global context. It produces a magazine of the same title. Its leading lights are bernard planterose and andy wightman. The ideas of bernard planterose have been outlined above. Andy wightman, on behalf of 'Reforesting scotland', contributed to the policies outlined in the united kingdom Forests network's 'Forests memorandum' - for which see below. The 'Reforesting scotland' magazine refused to review 'the great Carbon emissions fraud'.

xv) Centre for Alternative Technology.

In a memorandum from the centre for alternative technology to the commons select committee on energy (3.10.91) the complaint was made that, "The Forestry Commission owns a great many viable wind and water power sites but is under no obligation to develop them, even when they are compatible with, or more economic than, timber prodiction. Thus attempts to develop such sites under the NFFO have been frustrated." This raises the issue of what the forestry commission's role is. Is it there to protect Forests or to make profits by chopping down Trees and developing wind pharms and so-called alternative energy? (RA).

xvi) The Forest Memorandum.

All the references in this work are to the uk Forest network's 'Forests memorandum'. [4]

I: Outline of the Charter.

The 'Forests memorandum' is divided into four parts. The first highlights the scale of national, international, and global, deforestation; the second examines the causes of deforestation; the third explores the effects of deforestation; and the final part presents the ukFn's recommendations for boosting Reforestation.

The scale of global deforestation is frightening. Unfortunately the 'memorandum' underplays the historical scale of deforestation. It also fails to highlight the fact that Forests are a major part of the Earth's life support system. Even worse is that it makes no attempt to estimate how close humans are getting to ecocidal oblivion because of deforestation. However, it partly makes up for these inadequacies with some juicy doom laden information .. "oil companies have now leased or earmarked virtually all remaining tropical forest areas for exploration and/or production." (p.27) - (which, doubtlessly, will encourage fwends of the Earth and other 'gween' radicals to get into their cars to participate in further campaigns against the Mahogany trade).

The causes of deforestation are divided into two categories. The underlying causes consist of consumption levels in the over-industrialized countries, international debts, pressure for economic development, unequal land tenure, the inadequacy of women's rights, and population expansion. Significantly there is no mention of the deforestation caused by the Animal exploitation industry even though it is pointed out later that the legal/illegal trade in Animal resources is only slightly smaller than the trade in tropical timber .. "it was estimated that in 1988 the value of the wildlife trade, both legal and illegal, mainly from tropical rainforest areas reached US$5 billion, not far below the value of tropical timber on the world markets." (p.24). Hundreds of thousands of people are currently trampling through the Earth's Forests in search of bits of Animals and yet the pamphlet does not indicate how much damage this is inflicting on Forests nor the effect that the extermination of a species has on a Forest's ecology - for example, some corals are considerably damaged by the removal of a particular fish species.

The immediate causes of Forest loss are deemed to be pressure from human settlement, fuelwood collection, tourism, the timber trade, the impact of the industrial sector, and atmospheric pollution. The division of causes between 'underlying' and 'immediate' is bound to be somewhat artificial but it serves to make the point that although the world's poor are causing extensive deforestation many are being forced to do so, sometimes against their wishes, by broader economic/political factors. It is true that .. "forest decline is one manifestion of a series of much more deeply rooted problems related to poverty, equity and the basis of power." (p.37).

II: Criticisms of the 'Forests Memorandum'.

Firstly, the 'memorandum' celebrates the fact that it has been compiled on the basis of a "consensus amongst environmental, development and human rights groups" (p.1). Whilst the worldwide fund for nature was one of the contributors, no other, more radical, Animal rights organization was involved. This may be one of the reasons the work is written from an anthropocentric perspective. Whilst there are a few passages expressing a positive attitude towards Wildlife; a section highlighting the damage which deforestation causes to Biodiversity (p.34-6); and a few ecocentric principles tossed in to flavour the policy recommendations at the end of the pamphlet (p.37); overall, Wildlife are valued primarily as a means of providing humans with resources, (p.35). This perspective is also transparent from the fact that the ukFn's demands for land reforms amongst humans are not matched by similar demands for land reforms between humans and Animals i.e. the need to create human free Wilderness zones where Animals can live in peace without having barbarian bipeds sneaking up on them and maiming, mutilating, or murdering, them. This humanist myopia has lead the ukFn to promote policies which will increase the devastation of Wildlife. There is no discussion of the fact that if humans are going to combat global warming then, geophysiologically, they have no other option but to create large scale Wilderness zones in each country around the world because neither monocultural Forest plantations, nor locally controlled community Forests nor 'back to the countryside' permaculture plots etc., are going to do the job not merely of extracting Carbon from the atmosphere but of storing it out of harms way.

Whilst the 'memorandum' provides a fairly comprehensive analysis of the multiple causes of deforestation it is not so good at evaluating their significance. The impression created is that each factor is of equal importance e.g. "The consumption class relies on, for example, imported cash crops such as coffee, tea, sugar and tobacco; animal feed grown on land that could produce human food ..." (p.14). This impression is misleading. There is one fact which puts these various factors into perspective - that 25% of the Earth's ice-free land has now been converted to pasture. A significant proportion of this pasture has been carved out of Forested land. The Animal exploitation industry is by far the biggest cause of global deforestation. The 'memorandum' does not mention this. On the contrary, it glosses over this fact when it refers solely to what has happened .. "in Central and South America." (p.28) as if, over the last few centuries, it had not had a profound impact in every country around the world.

Finally, the 'memorandum' says little about its priorities for stabilizing the climate i.e. whether priority should be given to Reforestation in comparison to other options such as halting deforestation and reducing Carbon emissions. It says nothing about the role which could be played by Reforestation in curbing global warming. One scientist has suggested that the Earth is one continent short of the Forests needed for climatic stability but the 'memorandum' gives no indication as to whether it concurs with this or not.

III: Absymal Recommendations.

The most absymal part of this work, however, is its recommendations. There is no indication of the scale of global Reforestation required to reduce global average temperatures. There is no indication as to where these Forests ought to be planted. There is no indication of the level of atmospheric Carbon needed to stabilize the climate. There is no attempt to explain the scientific rationale for Reforestation.

The ukFn’s talks of "aims and demands". However, it does not recommend a target for global Reforestation nor a timetable for greening the Earth. Ever since the big green con of the rio Earth summit, green organizations have been demanding that world leaders should set a target and timetable for national reductions in Carbon emissions and yet here we have the same, so-called, green organizations making the same mistake over Reforestation. How is it possible to persuade world leaders (most of whom are not in the slightest bit interested in green issues - and if they are, they get sacked or sidelined) to set targets and timetables for Reforestation when greens won’t do so themselves? This failure lets politicians off the hook because all they have to do is adopt the ukFn’s waffly principles and then promote a few poxy community Forests - like the one proposed for hull which, on closer examination, wasn’t a large area of land to be converted into a Forest but consisted primarily of Trees planted alongside the roads running into the city to cover up all the bloody eyesores. Without targets and timetables the ukFn’s principles are inconsequential.

The ‘memorandum’ says nothing about the politics of global Reforestation i.e. that whatever is done in one country will be used by all other governments around the world as an excuse for doing exactly the same in their own countries - and given that in brutland "Native forests, which once covered 80% of Britain, have dwindled to about 1.5%." (p.4); and that Forest cover is now down to 8% (although, as the leader of hull city council once said, ‘if you stand on top of the [eight storey high] library the city seems to be covered with Trees’ - it really is amazing how many car parks can be covered up by Trees when you’re 150 feet off the ground) this can only be described as horrifying. All other governments around the world would be entirely justified if they said they were going to do exactly the same as brutland. It shouldn’t need a scientist to explain what is likely to happen if the Earth’s Tree cover is reduced to 8% - there would be a dramatic increase in global warming leading very rapidly to a collapse of the life support system which the Earth provides for humans. The politics of global Reforestation have been highlighted years ago and yet the ukFn still haven’t got around to confronting these issues. If great brutland doesn’t Reforest a large area of its land (say a third) then other countries aren’t going to protect a similar proportion of their Forests. (Similarly, if this country doesn’t put say one third of its land aside solely for Wildlife then no other country is likely to do so). This is especially so given that many of these countries are in a far worse economic state than brutland. If brutland can’t Reforest a third of its land because of ‘economic difficulties’ (or because an amazingly successful land reform group had managed to give every single person in the country an acre of land) then there is absolutely no hope that other countries will be able to do so.

But even if the brutish government returned to Earth from the deepest recesses of the universe which they seem to have been inhabiting during their period in office, and accepted that a third of the country should be Reforested this would still not be the end of Reforestation politics. Those countries with extensive Forests and extreme poverty are going to say to brutland ‘this is a lot better but it doesn’t go far enough’. They’ll point out the colossal Carbon debts which brutland has built up over the last couple of hundred years and say that if this country thinks its going to get away with its historical ecological debts then why shouldn’t they. What this means is that the only way to Reforest the Earth is on the basis of global ecological equity i.e. in which all countries around the world balance their Carbon budgets. Global Reforestation will never take place unless it is carried out on an equitable basis. If there is no equity between the nations of the world then the Planet will inevitably become a desert. The fact that the ukFn does not address the politics of Reforestation nor this country’s colossal historical Carbon debts is not merely inadequate, it’s an evasion of the real issues underlying Reforestation.

What the ‘memorandum’ presents is a medium term strategy (sound familiar?) for politely and gently coaxing the brutish government into some (unquantified and untimetabled) degree of Reforestation. This is a cover up for the absence of a long term strategy. Without a long term strategy it is difficult to measure the success or failure of the medium term strategy - especially so given the lack of targets and timetables! The lack of a long term strategy means that the ukFn has no vision of a sustainable Planet and, as a consequence, no concept of sustainability. The ukFn says nothing about the feasibility of regional, wood based, economies nor the fact that the only renewable source of energy/raw materials compatible with the Earth’s life-sustaining processes is Trees.

The main reason that green organizations won’t set targets and timetables for brutish, and global, Reforestation is because they are petrified they will lose public support and lose credibility in the eyes of the economic-growth loonies in government, parliament and the media. But, if greens are not willing to state what they believe is necessary; if they are not prepared to do for Reforestation what they demand of the brutish government over reducing Carbon emissions; if they are not prepared to stand up for their principles; if they are not prepared to take a lead over this vital issue; if they are not prepared to challenge the insane, public and political, indifference to Reforestation in this country and the rest of the world; then they are making an utter mockery of what they are standing for; they are letting down the Earth; and condoning the destruction of the Earth’s life support system.

‘Terra firm’ issue 5, published in march 1994, argued that the green movement refuses to regard Reforestation as the main priority for combatting global warming. Terra firm 6, published in september 1994, extended this argument by suggesting that green organizations are opposed to measuring the destruction of the Earth’s life support system i.e. deforestation, because it would expose the scale of the ecological destruction which would occur as a result of the implementation of their so-called green policies e.g. whilst greenpeace has demanded that the fossil fuel/nuclear power industries carry out an environmental assessment of their policies it has failed to carry out such an assessment of its own fossil free future which would contain over a billion vehicles. See also the vast number of construction projects promoted in the green party’s ludicrous manifesto for a sustainable society.

The reason that green organizations still promote massive construction projects in this country is because they totally refuse to recognize that this country is:-

* up to its neck in ecological debts;

* is so over-developed that it cannot afford to suffocate another square centimentre of the Earth’s surface; and that,

* far from permitting further construction projects it needs to carry out a significant degree of deconstruction.

The ‘memorandum’ also fails to acknowledge this basic geophysiological reality.

The ‘memorandum’ suggests that 26 of the country’s leading green organizations support Reforestation and Biodiversity, "The signatories of this memorandum call for moves to maintain and where necessary restore a well forested planet, amply providing for the full range of human and non-human needs." (p.37). The support for Biodiversity is given on the grounds that Animals can continue to be murdered for resources - there is no demand for an end to Animal slaughter nor the creation of human-free Wilderness zones. The support for Reforestation is unquantified and even contradictory given the scale of their proposed construction projects. A green movement which does not support Reforestation cannot be called a green movement. There is no such thing as a green movement.

The ‘memorandum’ is worse than useless since it suggests that greens are doing something fundamental to promote Reforestation, combat global warming and stabilize the climate when they are doing the exact opposite. What the ‘green’ movement amounts to in this country is a new breed of yuppie, car-owning, meat-eating, Earth-rapists promoting uncosted, ‘green’ sounding projects (e.g. solar power, wind power, tidal barrages, biogas from the Animal exploitation industry, green diesel from rapeseed, permaculturalists tearing up the green belt, the urbanization of the countryside, the universal right to wander/poach/hunt, etc.) which will exacerbate the destruction of the Earth’s life sustaining processes in this country. The ‘memorandum’ is an attempt by Animal exploiters/Earth-rapists to maintain their ‘green’ public image and thus preserve their obscene pay packets.

Back to Who's Who: Green Organizations