PART FIVE: THE CASE FOR GREENING THE CITIES AND DEPOPULATING THE COUNTRYSIDE.

The large number of cities that have been built around the world have caused a considerable amount of damage to the Earth's geophysiological processes and the damage continues to increase. This doesn't mean all cities should be depopulated let alone demolished - although the metropolises are going to have to be reduced in size. The first section of this chapter outlines the possibilities for greening the cities. The second section looks at the need for depopulating the countryside.

"History began with a city (Athens) that was a world; it ends with a world that is becoming a city. Only if we limit the city, restoring balance with nature and wildlife, has it a future."

5.1: The Geophysiological Case for Greening the Cities.

5.1.1: There is Plenty of 'Derelict' Land for Development in Cities.

In brutland, as in many other over-industrialized countries, there are plenty of areas in cities which could be developed without the need for development in the countryside. The amount of so-called 'derelict' land is considerable, "With 280,000 acres of derelict land in British cities, the justification for unnecessary greenfield development is weak." [1]

5.1.2: There is Plenty of 'Unsustainable' Land to Green the Cities.

There are even larger areas in cities being used in a unsustainable ways which could be developed or greened if oomans are to have any hope of creating a sustainable Planet. At present almost one-third of cities is occupied by cars in the form of roads, garages, car parks, petrol filing stations, etc. Much of this land could be used for development or converted for green uses such as to allotments/permaculture plots/Woodlands, "Sustainable cities are compact cities according to richard rogers .. Rogers pinpoints the car as the enemy of the compact city. "The car .. has played the critical role in undermining the cohesive social structure of the city." Cars, he says, "have eroded the quality of public spaces and encouraged urban sprawl.". His theoretical solution is also spot on. In the compact city, building development is concentrated around centres of public tranport such as railway stations. This reduces the need for people to drive. It not only cuts traffic and curbs greenhouse gases, but also increases the number of people travelling on foot, making public spaces more secure and more convival. The distinction is between a city based on driving and one based on people. Compact cities can save energy in many ways. As rogers points out, it is only really practical to develop district heating schemes if the city is a relatively densely developed. Rogers makes a cogent argument for developing more compact cities." [2] Although there would be problems in greening some urban land, it could be done. This would mean not only that urbanites could breathe fresh air, it would also be possible, over the long term, to develop concentrated agricultural systems so that cities could provide more food or raw materials.

5.1.3: Ecologies of Scale.

By far the biggest advantage that cities have over rural areas is the reduction in geophysiological damage brought about through what could be called 'ecologies of scale'. The provision of basic services such as gas, electricity, water supply, sewage disposal, waste disposal, etc to urban areas causes far less ecological damage than providing the same services to ruralites disbursed over a wider areas in the countryside. When people live in close proximity the reduction in ecological damage brought about by 'ecologies of scale' can be significant . For example, one gas pipeline could serve the needs of hundreds of people living in a tower block whereas lots of pipelines would be required to connect the same number of households dotted around the countryside, "From an ecological and social perspective, high concentrations of people in cities are actually very desirable. High density allows for the most effective use of energy; it makes it far easier and more economical to plan for proper public transport; and it encourages mixed use, in that the local shops, pub, post-office, doctor's surgery and school can be kept in the community, instead of people having to go elsewhere for these services." [3] ; "As the WHO says: "Urban growth can bring substantial health and environmental benefits. The concentration of production in urban areas brings many cost advantages in waste management, while the per caput cost of piped water, many kinds of sanitation, education, health care and other service is also less in concentrated populations."" [4] ; "Economies of density (the number of people in a city) may be more important today than economies of scale." [5] ; "The most economically efficient part of human civilization is the city where there is the most contact between people, the best public transport, and generally the most efficient use of resources." [6] ; "High density but good and humane conditions of living with all of the excitement and entertainment that only cities can offer. Such an existence in high tech termitaries may be the only way that we can give back to the rest of the organisms their ancient role of keeping the Earth fit for themselves and for us." [7]

5.1.4: There are More Resources in Cities.

The economics of recycling are much more practical in urban areas where there are far more resources than in the countryside, "In general cities - where used resources, factories and labor are concentrated - would become a more important source of materials than mines or Forests." [8] This is especially the case because recycling schemes in urban areas would involve far less transport than in similar sized schemes in the countryside.

5.1.5: Cities can Limit Economic and Population Growth.

It is true that even if efforts are made to green the cities by using 'derelict' land and digging up unsustainably cemented land, this would not be enough to stop cities from gradually being suffocated by cement as a result of economic and population growth. If economic/population growths are allowed to continue on their present trends then all cities will eventually become 'full up'. There is no chance of greening cities unless action is taken to limit economic and population growth. The big advantage of urban over rural areas is that it is far more feasible to do this in cities than in villages/hamlets spread over the countryside.

In terms of population growth, it is far easier for urbanites to limit their population growth than it is for ruralites to limit theirs. Firstly, even without any conscious effort to curb population, as has already been noted, rural areas have higher birthrates than urban areas. Secondly, cities are able to provide far more medical services than rural areas and this enables women in urban areas greater control over their fertility than women in rural areas. Thirdly, women in cities also have far more access to higher education than their rural counterparts. This means they also tend to have a higher social status than women living in rural areas. This is not merely because they have more access to jobs, and more access to better jobs, but because, at the very least, they are far more likely to get police help to control violent partners. Fourthly, urban communities would also be better at enforcing democratic agreements about their population size than small villages spread across large rural areas. It is much easier for people in cities to participate in democratic decisions than people dispersed over large rural areas.

In terms of economic growth, although it is true that economic growth is greater in urban, than in rural, areas local democracy would be the ultimate means of enforcing limits on economic, as well as population, growth.

5.1.6: The Ecological Perspective of Pharmers and the Planetary Perspective of Urban Folk.

The need for limiting economic and population growth are much more transparent to urbanites than it is to ruralites. It was argued above that pharmers/rural people are believed to be 'closer to nature' and have a good understanding of local ecologies - although as far as modern livestock pharming is concerned this is just romantic twaddle covering up eco-nazis concentration camps. Unfortunately this local ecological perspective prevents them from developing a more comprehensive, Planetary perspective which is more prevalent in urban areas. It is this planetary perspective which makes the need for limitations that much more obvious.

5.1.7: Greening the Cities is Less Destructive than Urbanizing the Countryside.

The geophysiological damage brought about by greening cities would be far smaller than dismantling cities and then constructing small villages over the countryside. It can be argued that most of the damage caused by cities has already been done during their construction so greening the cities would involve undoing much of this damage whereas building small villages would add to the geophysiological damage. The construction of new villages around the countryside involves:-

* the mining of raw materials,

* the processing of raw materials;

* the extraction of oil,

* the transportation of oil & raw/processed materials; and,

* the construction of new amenities.

This would cause a colossal amount of geophysiological damage and release a considerable amount of pollution.

Depopulating the cities and creating small villages across the countryside would enable urban areas to spread over even bigger areas than before. Initially there would be considerable green spaces between each village but gradually they would be linked up until they created one huge, countrywide, urban sprawl. This outcome should be obvious given that the more villages there are, the more roads that would be needed to link them. This would suffocate huge areas of countryside.

5.1.8: Criticisms of the 'Scarcity of Resources will Lead to the Collapse of Cities' Hypothesis.

Some greens believe that people will eventually have to leave urban areas, whether they like it or not, because the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels will make urban life impossible. One part of this diagnosis is true - but the prediction is unlikely to come true. There are huge reserves of fossil fuels around the world - the abundance of oil may be coming to an end but there are vast supplies of coal, tar, and shale deposits. What this means is that, on present trends, the excessive consumption of fossil fuels will trigger off a global burning disaster a long time before fossil fuels are depleted. In other words, cities are more likely to disintegrate because of global burning disasters than because people are forced to leave because of a lack of a fossil fuels. What makes greens' prediction even less likely is that if all people started living in cities, fossil fuels could be used far more efficiently than they are by people disbursed around the countryside. Conversely, if the people currently living in cities are forced to leave and live in rural areas there is likely to be an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels.

5.1.9: A Global Agreement to Green Cities around the World.

It is possible to carry out an extensive greening of urban areas even under current political conditions. However, the conversion of cities into geophysiologically-sound areas would be possible only after a global agreement had been reached between all countries about the creation of a sustainable Planet. To create a sustainable Planet it is necessary to:

* stabilize the climate;

** eradicate global poverty;

*** create global equality between rich and poor nations; and,

**** ensure the survival of biodiversity.

The creation of a sustainable Planet requires all countries to be divided up into three areas - climate Forests to stabilize the climate; regional Forests to act as the basis of regional Wood economies providing oomans with the resources they need for a convivial existence; and ooman free Wilderness areas. Once a global agreement had been reached between all countries around the world, each government would then designate a number of areas in which to establish regional Wood economies. On a sustainable Planet, sustainable cities would rely for their resources on regional Wood economies.

The creation of regional Wood economies would involve large scale Reforestation which would provide oomans with considerable quantities of resources. Oomans can live sustainably on Earth only if they rely almost exclusively on sustainable resources i.e. Forests. Forests can provide all the food, commodities, energy, chemicals, that oomans need for a convivial existence.

Inside all cities there could be allotments; intensive permaculture plots to provide food; parks for recreation, etc. Around the cities would be regional Forests where people could go camping or enjoy 'a quiet day out in the countryside' or go camping. Beyond regional Forests would be the climate Forests to regulate the climate and Wilderness areas for Wildlife. Climate Forests would be off-limits to oomans to ensure the Forests maximized Photosynthetic storage. Wilderness areas, which would also help to stabilize the climate, would be under the sovereign control of Wildlife and thus completely off limits to oomans.

5.1.10: Alternative Sustainable Structures.

It has just been suggested that regional Wood economies would be dotted around each country, surrounded by areas designated as climate Forests and ooman free Wilderness zones. This polka dot arrangement is not the only possible structure for a sustainable society. The following proposal would also be acceptable, even though it might be wise to bear in mind plato's warning about the need to discourage oomans from living in coastal cities, "I like paul shepard's concept. Let people live in towns along the coasts, since that's where they mostly seem to live anyway. Limit the population to that which can be supported by regional organic agriculture. Then leave the interiors of continents as Wilderness." [9]

5.1.11: The Structure of Regional Wood Economies.

Many different arrangements are possible for the structure of regional Wood economies. The most likely structure to emerge as a result of the legacy of cities around the world, would be a highly concentrated urban centre circled by Forests. However, it would be possible for regions to change this structure - depending, of course, on the democratic decisions made by the people living in those regions. Regions could decide to dismantle the concentrated urban core and create a large number of small villages. Even more radically, the people in a region could vote to dispose of fixed settlements altogether and become nomads within their region (bioregionalist travellers?). As long as the people living in a region continued to rely exclusively on their own regional Forest resources then such changes would be permissible. However, given that such changes would entail a large expenditure of regional resources, it is likely they would be able to implement such a plan only if they cut back on other activities e.g. by reducing their consumption of commodities or reducing their birth rate/immigration. They would have to be careful not to damage their Forest resources during such changes otherwise they might find themselves without any means of providing food, energy, commodities, etc.

It might be argued that it seems strange to protest about greens' current proposals to invade the countryside only to allow similar developments after the creation of a sustainable Planet. The crucial difference is that the invasion of the countryside would be unlimited, and would thus increase geophysiological destruction, whereas in the latter the changes would be confined to regional economies (surrounded by climate Forests and ooman-free Wilderness areas). Once a sustainable Planet had been created, the people in a regional Wood economy would know their resource limitations and would be allowed to do anything they wanted within these Planetary limitations. They could even consume all of their Wood resources in a huge consumerist blow-out - but they would all starve to death the following year, unless other regions were stupid enough to bale them out - although quite why such help should be given is difficult to understand since it is likely that such indulgents would have to come back year after year asking for further help.

5.1.12: Non Geophysiological Factors: The Pleasures of the City.

The pleasures of living in the countryside are different from those found in the cities. It is not possible to tot them up to say which are more plentiful, or better. One of the main pleasures of living in cities derives from oomans' pack nature and in what stanton newman calls .. "the dominant sport of homo urbanus .. people-watching." People should live in cities where they can enjoy their pack natures and leave the countryside alone for Wildlife and the stabilization of the Earth's life support system. Just as importantly, it is only in the cities that it is possible to create a vegan lifestyle.

5.2: The Case for Depopulating the Countryside.

The need to green the cities and create regiobal Wood economies is a vital part of the creation of a sustainable Planet. But, it is also necessary to depopulate the countryside in order to create ooman-free Wilderness zones and climate Forests.

5.2.1: The Feasibility of Depopulating the Countryside: the Rise of Surplus Land in the Countryside.

The depopulation of the countryside is feasible given that it accords with some major social trends happening around the world. In third world countries huge numbers of peasants are leaving rural areas for towns. In the over-industrialized nations there are a number of developments creating surplus land in the countryside. The following sections look primarily at developments in brutland but similar events are happening in other over-industrialized countries.

5.2.1.1: Agricultural Land.

In the 1980s and 1990s there has been a considerable increase in agricultural productivity which has created surplus land.

Brutland.

"For the UK some 650,000 ha has now been entered into the various set aside schemes." [10]

Europe.

Huge amounts of surplus land have been created in europe by increases in agricultural productivity but this phenomena is being disguised by intense efforts to provide pharmers with alternative uses for their land .. "the European Union's current strategy is to take land out of production and move from a system of price support to one based on income support via area payments for land in production. To qualify for such payments farmers must set aside 15% of their eligible land area. For the whole of Europe the figure is in excess of 4 million ha." [11]

United States of America.

"Right across the u.s., the rural landscape is disappearing .. because increasing agricultural specialization means that farmers on poorer land cannot compete. An area larger than the entire state of iowa was abandoned as farming land during the 20thc, and most of the eatern u.s. will revert to woodland within 50 years or so." [12]

5.2.1.2: Church Land.

Since the second world war the church of england has been losing popularity and has needed to look for ways to raise funds to pay its employees' wages. One of the main ways it tried to raise revenue, besides acquiring shares in all sorts of appalling companies from tobacco firms, car manufacturers, and Animal exploiters etc, was to sell off some of their extensive land holdings.

5.2.1.3: Privatization of Nationalized Industries.

In the 1980s and1990s, the privatization of national industries such as british leyland (now rover), and the water, gas, electricity, and railway, industries has allowed the newly privatized companies to sell huge areas of surplus land.

5.2.1.4: Forestry Land.

During the 1980s and 1990s successive tory governments tried to privatize the Forestry commission but they never managed to do so. However, they adopted a back door form of privatization by insisting that the commission sell off as much Forest land as they could. It is believed that in the first few years of this policy, the Forestry commission sold 177,00 acres of land. [13]

5.2.1.5: Total Area of 'Surplus' Land

In the 1980s and 1990s, in brutland the continual sale of land in the countryside was such a major trend that it led to a significant drop in the value of development land. At the end of the 1980s, tim radford estimated that nearly 3 million acres of brutish countryside had become 'redundant'. [14]

5.2.1.6: Conclusions.

Given the above trends, there is little doubt that the depopulation of the countryside is feasible - although there would be difficulties in moving the last remnants of people out of rural areas.

5.2.2: The Rationale for Depopulating the Countryside.

Having highlighted the rational for greening the cities, this section explores the rationale for depopulating the countryside. There are two main reasons.

5.2.2.1: The Justification for Regional Wood Economies and Climate Forests - Combatting Global Burning.

By far the biggest cause of global burning is not the pollution released by manufacturing industries but the destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity by pharmers and the Animal exploitation industry. Over the last two millenia pharmers have cut down almost a third of the Earth's Forests. Thus, in order to combat global burning it is necessary to abolish the Animal exploitation industry and then use the redundant pastureland for huge scale Reforestation schemes in those countries which have boosted global burning. The Earth is currently one continent short of the Forests needed to stabilize the climate. There is no other source of land for large scale Reforestation as pastureland. In order to make this land available it will be necessary not merely to prevent people from moving back into the countryside, but to move country folk into the cities. Greens who demand the invasion of the countryside are unable to understand this basic geophysiological fact of life.

5.2.2.2: The Justification for Ooman-free Wilderness Areas - Repaying Debts to Wildlife.

Oomans owe a double debt of gratitude to Wildlife. After all, Wildlife created a habitable Planet and also created oomans. Oomans should repay these debts by creating ooman-free Wilderness areas in each country around the world.

5.2.3: Conclusions.

In the late 1990s when huge numbers of people are leaving the countryside, and when the Earth's life support system is collapsing at an increasing rate around the world, there is a golden opportunity to create regional Wood economies, climate Forests (to combat global burning) and ooman-free Wilderness areas (to protect the Earth's dwindling biodiversity). The desertion of the countryside for the cities makes it far easier to create a sustainable Planet. The green politics of the future is restoration not conservation.

5.3: Policies for Depopulating the Countryside.

For the sake of combatting global burning and creating a sustainable Planet, there are a number of ways to promote the depopulation of the countryside. In the short term the easiest option is to simply allow social and economic trends to continue unfolding since huge numbers of rural people are currently moving into the cities. However, a number of political measures would help to consolidate these trends and prevent any reversals from setting in. These include the abolition of rural subsidies, the raising of domestic energy and fuel prices, reducing car ownership, and a land tax.

5.3.1: Abolishing Rural Subsidies.

In order to create a sustainable Planet it is necessary to encourage rural people to live in urban areas where they will cause less geophysiological damage. The main political factor moderating the current trend toward the depopulation of the countryside is the rural exploitation of urbanites whereby ruralites extract huge subsidies from urban people. Potentially, then, urban greens find themselves in an entirely fortuitous position. The fight to combat global burning and to create a sustainable planet involves the eradication of the rural exploitation of urban people; the abolition of the subsidies which urban people are currently giving to rural people; the use these resources to dramatically improve urban areas by greening the cities; and, finally, the abolition, or at the very least the reduction, of the rural exploitation of livestock Animals and Wildlife. In contrast, 'rural greens' promoting a rural ideology are increasing the rural exploitation of urban people, increasing the subsidies which urban people are forced to give to ruralites, increasing the exploitation of livestock Animals and Wildlife, boosting global burning and destabilizing the climate.

5.3.1.1: The Bleakness of Life for the Rural Poor.

The rural elite are without doubt the main instigators and beneficiaries of the rural exploitation of urbanites but the rural poor also benefit. Whilst life for the rural elite is just one long extravagance, it has to be accepted that even with the benefit of urban subsidies, life for the rural poor can be pretty bleak, "A study of rural life in oxfordshire reveals that its villages have some of the worst levels of service in the country. Rural oxforshire is shown to be languishing behind poorer parts of britain when it comes to even the most basic services such as shops and schools .. post offices and daily bus services, with villagers forced to leave or become totally car-reliant. The survey looked at more than 9,000 rural parishes in britain. In oxfordshire it was found that 75% of rural parishes lacked a general store .. post offices were absent in 46% of parishes. 79% of parishes lacked a daily bus service. The report found that 54% had no school for any age group, while 92% had no public nursery and 89% no day care group for the elderly. 92% had no bank or building society." [15]

5.3.1.2: The Positive Feedback Effect of Rural Subsidies.

The only way of raising the standard of living for the poor in rural areas is by pouring vast amounts of money into these areas - money which, of course, would have to come from urbanites. However, doing this would only make matters worse. Increasing rural subsidies creates a positive feedback. Every time there is an improvement in rural conditions this attracts more people into the countryside who then demand yet more subsidies from urban people. It needs to be appreciated that giving more and more subsidies to rural people will just make matters worse and that it is time not merely to stop increasing the level of subsidies but to abolish them altogether. Tony travers is one of the few commentators who believes it is time to halt this open cheque book policy for rural people, "As the government finds itself promising to make life better in the country, so it further tempts urban dwellers to move out. Perhaps the only way to stop people wanting to live in the countryside is to make it less attractive. That would imply highly controversial policies such as reducing public funding in rural areas in order to move resources to improve the urban environment." [16] It should also be apreciated that abolishing rural subsidies shouldn't be an unpopular political issue in rural areas since during the 1980s and 1990s ruralites were keen thatcherites demanding an end to state subsidies.

5.3.1.2.1: Rural Utilities.

In the past, it was undoubtedly true that large numbers of people were attracted to live in rural areas because the prices of gas, electricity, telephones, water/sewage, and postal, services were virtually the same in rural areas as in urban areas. It is hardly surprising that developers wanted to build so many houses in rural areas when the cost of living in these areas was being subsidizied by urbanites. It is plain, therefore, that to stop this positive feedback efect it is necessary to ensure that prices rise to meet the full cost of these utilities to discourage people from moving into rural areas and to encourage rural people to move in urban areas.

5.3.1.2.2: Rural Transport.

It would be a colossal expense to provide a decent public transport system for everyone in rural areas. But, once again, doing this would simply attract more people to live in rural areas, thereby requiring even more subsidies. It is therefore a waste of time subsidizing public transport in rural areas and all subsidies should be abolished to encourage people to live in urban areas.

It is not surprising, of course, to find greens demanding that yet more money (from urban people) ought to be given to rural public transport. Brenda boardman argues, "Many people, particularly the old, the sick and the unemployed, do not have access to a car, with 22% of rural households not owning a car, and 14% of rural adults having no driving license. The equitable answer, she proposed was better public transport and best of all, improved provision of local facilities." [17]

Charlie pye-smith and chris hall opposed the deregulation of public transport - under which local authorities used the profits made in urban areas to subsidize transport in rural areas. They admit that rural transport is possible only with subsidies .. "a free market can only work where there are enough would-be consumers to create competition - this is manifestly not so in rural public transport." [18]

5.3.1.2.3: Rural Housing.

The same positive feedback factor is also at work in rural public housing. Private housebuilders are not interested in building social housing because there is no profit in it. It is only possible to build cheap homes in the countryside with the help of huge subsidies and these subsidies come from urban people. But if more homes for the poor are built in rural areas this generates another positive feedback effect. The positive feedback effect of housing is one of the most powerful because it leads to even greater demands for other services. If more people move into rural areas because of cheap housing they will then start demanding cheap public transport, cheap water/gas/electricity, etc.

Once again, it is not surprising finding greens supporting the construction of cheap houses in the countryside. Jonathon porritt is a leading figure in an umbrella organization called 'real world'. [19] In 1997 it supported, 'A housing strategy to provide at least 100,000 affordable homes in the social housing sector each year for the next 10 years.'" Although it argued that, "To reduce the impact on the countryside and ensure that new homes are located most accessibly for those in need, provision should focus on the redevelopment and refurbishment of derelict land and property and of existing urban sites." the construction of a million homes will invariably result in more of the countryside being buried in concrete.

5.3.1.2.4: Water Supply.

Even the provision of water/sewage services has a positive feedback effect. Subsidizing water/sewage services to rural homes decreases house prices in rural areas cheaper thereby providing an incentive for people to move into rural areas. The only way to end this incentive is by ensuring that rural people pay the full cost of water supply. Although the introduction of water meters does not necessarily ensure that people pay the full cost of water supply it does go some way towards making people appreciate the value of the resources they use, "Around 5 million households will be forced to have water meters despite a labour pre-election promise against them, it was claimed yesterday. New houses to be built to meet the country's growing population will all have compulsory meters. Only 1.6 million houses have meters compared to 19 million customers who pay bills based on their homes' value. But a department of environment spokesman said water metering was an important weapon in cutting water use. He said, "In trials with meters, consumption has been cut by 10%." [20] It should be possible to ensure that water meters are fixed so that they reflect the actual cost of water supply.

5.3.1.3: Conclusions.

In all of the above examples, the subsidies given to rural people stimulate the demand for further subsidies. There is only one way to get off the conveyor belt transporting more and more money from urban people to rural areas and that is to cut off the subsidies. Ending the subsidies for rural services, rural transport and house building will encourage rural people to move into urban areas. It would be far cheaper, and less geophysiologically damaging, to provide services, homes, and transport in urban areas. If rural people moved to urban areas they could enjoy a much higher standard of living. Ultimately, the only solution to rural problems is for people to abandon the countryside and move back into towns. The only subsidies which urbanites should give to rural people should be to help them move into urban areas. Living in the countryside is an utter extravangance which should not be subsidized.

What is so galling about the rural exploitation of urban people is that ruralities keep insisting on more and more subsidies from urban people whilst refusing to change habits which urban people find abhorrent. Urban people are thus subsidizing rural people without them doing anything in return for urban generosity e.g:

* supporting a ban on drinking and driving which would save thousands of urban lives;

* giving up the right to drive into urban areas poisoning the atmosphere in which urban people live; and,

* abolishing Animal exploitation and blood sports which many urbanites abhor.

5.3.2: Increasing Energy Prices.

Another way of protecting the Earth's life support system by depopulating the countryside is through increasing taxes for domestic energy. It is not surprising to find that, once again, there are greens who oppose such a policy. Brenda boardman, from oxford university's environmental change unit, argues, "The fuel pricing system is a reverse robin hood effect - money being raised disproportionately from the poor and spent disproportionately on the rich. Environmental economists have generally argued that the best policy instrument for protecting the environment from carbon dioxide energy-linked pollutants is a tax on the pollution source. But raising money through energy prices is considerably more regressive than collecting the same revenue through direct taxation. As a proportion of the household budget, the poor spend twice as much as richer households on energy. So any flat rate, fuel based increase has twice the impact on the poor as on better-off households. Domestic fuel price rises are not politically acceptable in the uk with the present level of fuel poverty. The lesson for environmentalists is salutary: green policy will not gain public support if it does not protect the poor as well as the environment." [21] Boardman objects that raising energy taxes hurts the poor. This may be the case but not necessarily so. It would be simple political policy to increase energy taxes and then use the money raised to improve the living conditions of the poor in urban areas.

5.3.3: Increasing Petrol Prices.

The third major policy for combatting global burning through the depopulation of the countryside is increasing petrol taxes. Living in the countryside encourages increased car useage because ruralites have to travel further to work, shop, schools, and leisure facilities than people living in urban areas. Increasing petrol taxes would encourage people to leave rural areas, or at the very least, discourage people from moving into the countryside.

It was pointed out in the previous section that boardman opposes rises in the price of domestic energy because this would disproportionately affect the poor who spend a greater proportion of their income on domestic energy than the rich. However, this argument does not apply to increases in petrol prices because the poor do not own cars, "Many people, particularly the old, the sick and the unemployed, do not have access to a car, with 22% of rural households not owning a car, and 14% of rural adults having no driving license." [22] It would thus be possible to raise petrol prices substantially without affecting the poor. And substantial rises in petrol prices would be needed because this is the only way to discourage the rich from using their cars. This is especially important given that .. "half of rural car pollution comes from the top quintile (20%) of drivers, the bottom quintile produced only 3%." [23]

5.3.4: Reducing Car Ownership and Opposing Urban Congestion Taxes.

John adams is one of the few academics who dismisses the argument that it would be unfair to increase the cost of motoring when there is no public transport. He argues, "Both this diagnosis and prescription, I shall argue, are myopic. The cost of car travel in rural areas should be increased substantially." [24] He believes it is imperative to focus on rural motorists. He opposes urban congestion taxes because this would have the effect of pushing the rich into the countryside further boosting car usage, "The need to reduce dependence on the car is greatest where the growth is fastest - not in the congested inner cities where growth has stopped because they have been full of traffic for some time, but in the suburbs and countryside beyond, to which motorists continue to flee. Electronic road pricing, or congestion pricing as it is sometimes called, would make urban car travel more expensive in terms of money. (If we increase the cost of urban travel) we will increase the incentive to move out of town." [25] He demands action to reduce car ownership, "The root of the problem, the nettle that the government will not grasp, is car ownership. When people acquire cars they use them. They also need a place to park them, and the urban car park is now full. A further increase in the nation's car population could only be accommodated by further dispersal of town dwellers into the countryside." [26]

Interestingly, adams believes that increased communications do not bring about a reduction in car useage i.e. if people can talk to each other over the phone/internet they will have less need to actually travel to meet each other, "However it might be measured, the growth of electronic mobility has far exceeded growth rates for all forms of physical mobility. This growth has not, however, reduced the amount of physical mobility in the world." [27] It is quite true that in the past one of the main obstacles to women using their cars has been the fear of a car breakdown which leaves them vulnerable to attack. Mobile phones enable them to get help very quickly if their cars breakdown and this enables them to use their cars more frequently.

5.3.5: A Rural Land Tax.

Another means for depopulating the countryside is a rural land tax. Alternatively, by designating land not merely as agricultural or urban but as Wilderness this would prevent agricultural land from becoming too cheap thus encouraging people to take up farming at a time when there are crop surpluses.

Once again there are greens who oppose such a tax. As a keen proponent of the invasion of the countryside, monbiot is opposed to a tax on rural land because it would discourage further housing construction in rural areas, "There's no question that prescott wants to protect the countryside and revitalize the towns. But his plans for coping with the growth in household numbers are inadequate and misconceived. Most alarming, however, is the minister's proposed tax on new development in the countryside. Making rural land dearer will further penalize the poor. Much of the housing in the countryside is being driven by the market in second homes - an abomination in a land where so many people are homeless. .. most importantly, we must ensure that our towns and cities no longer fail to provide the development we need, while providing in abundance the kind of development that drives people into the countryside. Protecting the countryside means defending the poor." [28] Certainly the creation of a sustainable Planet means abolishing poverty but this doesn't mean lavishing scarce resources on the poor living in rural areas when these resources could be used to end far more poverty in urban areas.

Far from wanting to impose a land tax, greens want to give more subsidies to farmers (even more bloody subsidies!!!) to encourage them to do what they say they have been doing all along i.e. looking after the environment. Charlie pye-smith and chris hall propose that land management payments should be given to landowners to help in the conservation of the countryside. It .. "would provide a new source of income for landowners who were prepared to sign simple agreement about conservation with the county/regional councils." [29] What this implies is that the Earth is totally helpless about looking after itself. Even more absurdly, it suggests that oomans are capable of doing something more constructive than destroying the Earth's life support system. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

5.4: Conclusions.

It is ironic that rural greens' proposals for urbanizing the countryside will create not a green future, let alone a sustainable planet, but a nightmare of green vandalism, ecological devastation, livestock exploitation, renewed enthusiasm for bloodsports, poaching, and rampant oomano-imperialism. If greens encourage more and more people into the countryside all they will do is spread urbanization over wider and wider areas.

The critical difference between urban greens and rural greens is that whilst the former are geophysiologists who condone the economic trends pushing farmers off their land, the latter are ecologists who deprecate such forces. This is not because geophysiologists support multi-national corporations but because it will be easier to expropriate land for Reforestation and Wilderness areas from one multi-national corporation than from millions of poor people.

If greens want to protect the Earth's life support system they have got to green the cities and encourage rural people to move into urban areas. If Animal protectionists want to protect Animals, and extend Wilderness areas, they have got to play their part in greening the cities and depopulating the countryside. What is needed to save oomans, Wildlife, and the Planet, is not the urbanization of the countryside but the ruralization of urban areas.