Welcome to Issue 15.

This issue provides a critique of the last ten years of green campaigning against the increasing destabilization of the climate. The sad facts are that, over the last decade, the global community has continued to decimate the Earth’s life support system whilst the green movement has been unable to unite in an effective campaign to stop this devastation let alone stabilize the climate and create a sustainable planet. Green campaigning on global burning has been a disaster, exposing the fundamental flaws of current environmental and ecological thinking. The following analysis of greens’ climate campaigns was triggered not so much by the new millennium, nor the approaching ten year anniversary of the mundi club’s ‘Carbon theory of value’, as the recent publication of the ecologists’ ‘climate crisis’ a special issue launching a new climate campaign. It was to be hoped that this publication would have learnt from criticisms of previous green campaigns, and thus provide a more comprehensive, scientific, and politically viable, strategy - one which might also unite the green movement into a more effective force. But it was not to be. ‘Climate crisis’ reverts back to the bad old days when greens pretended the Earth’s life support system didn’t exist and had no impact on the climate. The same also applies to the recent books produced by peter bunyard and jeremy leggett. Greens still seem completely obsessed by the fossil fuel industries and the need to reduce Carbon emissions whilst being unwilling to restore geophysiological destruction. This is because they are unable to accept the fact that the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is the primary means of stabilizing the climate. The Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity is the main life sustaining process on Earth and is, in essence, the Earth’s life support system but it also has a critical role in stabilizing the climate. This means that the Earth’s Forest cover is a vital, perhaps even the primary, means for stabilizing the climate.

What is even more surprising about the retrogressive nature of the ecologists’ ‘climate crisis’ is that in 1997 greenpeace launched a new climate campaign which seemed to have taken on board many of the criticisms of its previous campaigns. Instead of adding their weight to greenpeace’s campaign, and urging other greens to do the same, the ecologist ignores their efforts and goes back in time to adopt a blatantly unscientific, one sided campaign. As if to rub salt into the wound, ‘climate crisis’ features a contributor who discusses greenpeace’s old campaign whilst virtually ignoring its latest one! Is it not amazing that the country’s leading green magazine just ignores the country’s leading green organization over the primary threat of our time? Why is it that they can’t seem to debate with each other in a civilized way? What we are dealing with here is either some very petty minded people or some very stupid ones. The intellectual stature of greens these days can be ascertained from the fact that they prefer to ostracize their critics rather than stimulate public interest by responding to the points they make. They seem to prefer callous indifference rather than a debate - and these are the people who profess they are going to save the Earth!

In this issue the first article is a short outline of the main developments in the history of greens’ climate campaigns. The second highlights greenpeace’s latest climate campaign. The third is a quick exploration of what the ecologist is up to these days given its early disinterest in anti-car campaigns; its protection of the country’s pharmers by deflecting blame for bse onto the chemical industry; and its recent outlandish support for the livestock industry - which, as should be apparent by now, is the prime cause of geophysiological destruction and thus the destabilization of the climate. Is it not ironic, at the very least, that the ‘ecologist’ supports the global livestock industry which is causing the problem it is protesting about? Still, what can you expect from fur-loving, throat-slitting, blood-sucking, meat eating, tribal, supergreens harking back to the good old days of environmental politics in the 1970s? The fourth article is a review of ‘climate crisis’.

The fifth and sixth articles are critiques of books by peter bunyard and jeremy leggett. It is suggested in the leggett critique that there is more support for Reforestation amongst members of the Carbon club than there is amongst their adversaries in the green movement. What sort of miasma is green politics in when anti-greens are more green than greens?

The penultimate article analyzes the ‘mature Forests’ controversy. It is a little appreciated fact but this seemingly innocent sounding phrase is one of the key issues in the global burning debate. This phrase is used by the logging industry to justify wholesale global deforestation on the grounds that new Tree plantations would help to ‘sequester Carbon from the atmosphere and thus stabilize the climate’. Rather surprisingly, the phrase is also used by greens to dismiss those who advocate that Reforestation is the main priority for combating global burning. What this means is that greens are giving credibility and legitimacy to a phrase used by the logging industry to justify the deforestation of the Earth. Greens try to deny their use of the phrase justifies what the logging industry is doing, but in reality their support for this phrase makes them partially responsible for what the logging industry is doing. In the process of opposing Reforestation greens are helping to boost deforestation. This proves yet again that greens are Earth rapists. They are the greenless greens - which is why the mundi club defines itself as being for anti-green greens.

The last article is a short history of the propaganda surrounding the issue of Carbon emissions. Some governments reduce their Carbon emissions simply by fiddling the figures. They spend more time readjusting statistics than they do in reducing Carbon emissions.

Welcome to the Second Edition of Issue 15.

The first edition of this work was published at the beginning of december 1999. By sheer accident, over the following couple of weeks two books on global burning written by prominent greens were obtained - the first by peter bunyard (many thanks to drg) and the second by jeremy leggett. Critiques of these works were produced primarily as aide memoirs but then it was realized they would fit in with the main thrust of tf15 so it was decided to produce a second edition. The first edition contained a couple of essays which were tangential to the title of the work and it was thought replacing them with the new critiques would improve the consistency of the work. Neither of these books requires the slightest revision of the key message of the first edition of this work - on the contrary, and rather sadly, they confirm the arguments that had been made. It was solely for aesthetic reasons that it was decided to add the critiques to the second edition. However, the opportunity has been taken to update this issue to take into account the additional information provided by these books.

A Short History of Greens’ Campaigns on Global Burning.

There are three possible strategies for combating global burning:

reducing Carbon emissions,

stopping deforestation and,

Reforestation.

Most greens give priority to the reduction in Carbon emissions. There are others who give priority to halting deforestation. But there are those who argue that Reforestation should have priority because this strategy also helps not merely to extract Carbon from the atmosphere but to reduce the release of Carbon emissions and halt deforestation.

Greens’ Disinterest in Reforestation.

As the mundi club has pointed out in many previous publications over the last ten years, greens are not merely opposed to giving priority to Reforestation as a means of tackling global burning, they are not even interested in Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. The country’s most prominent greens as well as green organizations believe the main priority for combating global burning is reducing Carbon emissions.

Greenpeace.

When the greenhouse effect first became a political issue at the end of the 1980s, greenpeace did not promote Reforestation as a solution, "Reafforestation cannot solve the greenhouse effect." It is highly likely that jeremy leggett helped to formulate this policy. Leggett had just joined greenpeace after a decade of lecturing about the importance of using high technology to hunt for oil.

Greenpeace’s Book, ‘The Greenhouse Effect’.

Some commentators, whilst sympathetic to Reforestation, believe that, "There is no foreseeable economic justification for planting forests on the scale proposed by Marland." They also suggest that, "An ambitious afforestation programme aimed at making a significant difference to climate change would be useless if the destruction of tropical forests were to continue at its present accelerating rate."

The Worldwide Fund for Nature - 1991.

The wwf stated .. "the question should not be how to control climate change by increasing Carbon storage in plantations but how to prevent emissions in the first place." The mundi club agrees that Tree plantations cannot combat global burning - on the contrary, they will exacerbate it. The point is that the wwf uses this argument to dismiss all types of Reforestation - even that which takes place naturally without the aid of oomans. The wwf also believes it is more important to stop deforestation than it is to promote Reforestation, "At any rate, if the current root causes of deforestation are not dealt with, any Reforestation or afforestation efforts will not be immune from the same destructive processes. The crucial issue, then, is to reduce the rate of deforestation drastically. Only then will Carbon held in the existing Forests be kept out of the atmosphere and reforestation efforts start to have some impact."

Friends of the Earth - 1992.

FoE argued .. "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."

It should be transparent from the above that all three of the country’s biggest organizations adopted a similar stance - regarding Reforestation as an irrelevance.

The Global Commons Institute (gci) - 1992.

The gci worked out each country’s per capita level of Carbon emissions and then suggested the global community should adopt policies to ensure equal per capita Carbon emissions around the world. In other words, in the future every person on Earth would be entitled to release the same quantity of Carbon emissions. This is egalitarian but, unfortunately, it ignores the huge debts which the over-industrialized nations owe to third world countries as a result of the industrial revolution. The repayment of these debts is the primary means by which third world countries could abolish global poverty. Even worse, the gci’s strategy did not include a per capita cap which meant that every new child would be entitled to release the same level of Carbon emissions as everyone else. This would have led to a disastrous global population explosion as countries would seek to boost their allocation of Carbon emissions by increasing their population. Worse still, the cgi ignored the issue of Reforestation, "Although Forests can assist in mitigating the effects of atmospheric Carbon build up, the problem is essentially a fossil-fuel one and must be addressed as such."

Greenpeace’s Fossil Free Energy Scenario - 1994.

In 1994 greenpeace published its fossil free energy scenario. This work also ignored Reforestation. It is not known how much leggett was involved in formulating this scenario.

The Low Priority given to Reforestation by the Ecologist - 1990s.

Throughout most of the 1990s the ecologist’s priority for combating global burning was reducing greenhouse gases, "It is therefore the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in other words the extent of the accumulation of emissions, which must be focused on (to combat the greenhouse effect)." The ecologist was oblivious of the priority that should be given to Reforestation for combating global burning - despite its supposed support for Reforestation.

Greens’ Differing Tactics over Reducing Carbon Emissions.

From the start of international climate negotiations, it was commonly agreed that because the over-industrialized nations were responsible for releasing excessive quantities of greenhouse gases, they should take most responsibility for combating global burning. It was accepted that the industrializing countries should be exempt from making reductions in Carbon emissions to stabilize the climate .. "at the Earth summit in 1992 the industrialized nations of europe, north america and japan agreed to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. However, the convention set no targets for the developing nations." Leggett points out that after the Carbon club (an umbrella name for fossil fuel lobbyists) failed to undermine the climate agreement reached three weeks before the Earth summit they immediately adopted a new tactic to try to sabotage climate negotiations, "Their new strategy was to try and switch attention away from the developed countries as the main emitters .. by pointing to the growth potential for emissions in developing countries." They hoped that by highlighting the Carbon emissions that would be released by the industrializing world over the next few decades that the over-industrialized world would try to force the industrializing countries into making reductions in their greenhouse emissions - knowing that many industrialized countries would abandon climate negotiations if they were subjected to such pressure.

In the run up to the kyoto negotiations in 1997, the Carbon club’s new propaganda won increasing support amongst right wingers in the over-industrialized world and especially the american congress. On july 24th 1997, "Support for the bryd resolution proved to be not just partisan , but unanimous. Every u.s. senator now supported the call for the administration to avoid signing any kyoto agreement that did not entail emissions commitments for developing countries." Even the american government was pushed in this direction, "The usa wanted the developing countries to agree to targets of their own. The eu disagreed." The exemption of the industrializing countries had become a critical political issue. Most green organizations, such as greenpeace, continued to support the exemption of the industrializing world. So too did the climate action network, "The european union, together with some of the developing countries and the climate action network, still consider that the u.s. call for all of the world’s emissions to be capped is absolute heresy, as it would break the berlin mandate."

The cgi was one organization that did not support this exemption. Its ‘contraction and convergence’ proposal required targets to be given to all countries, "Contraction, says meyer, is for survival and means reducing global fossil fuel use by 60% over the next one hundred years. For contraction and convergence to work, targets and schedules will need to be set for all countries, based on their current populations and emissions. A 60% final reduction on 1990 levels would mean an entitlement of approximately 0.5 tonnes of carbon per individual. It is unlikely to be accepted by the united states which would ultimately have to reduce carbon emissions by 90%." This was a clever tactical ploy since the targets would, in the short term, give the industrializing countries credits whilst, over the long term, moving to a convergence of equal per capita Carbon emissions. This would have met the Carbon club’s demands whilst undermining their intentions! However, such a tactic was not well received by other green organizations, "His formula has rich and developing countries reaching standard per capita emissions of CO2 by 2010 and then falling to produce a stable level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 of 450ppm. Meyer has been ostracized by environmental groups such as greenpeace, who insist that developing countries cannot yet be given emissions targets, however equitable. But meyer believes this ‘political correctness’ is leading greens up a cul-de-sac, demanding unilateral cuts in emissions to which the u.s. will never agree."

It is a compliment to clinton’s political skills that he managed to escape the noose placed around his neck by the bryd-hagel resolution and signed the kyoto protocol even though it preserved the exemption of the industrializing countries. Although climate negotiations continue to take place the american congress has still not ratified the protocol. The issue will not go away, "The United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, an instrument designed to give effect to the Convention’s goal to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize their atmospheric concentrations at "safe" levels. But the United States also reiterated its reluctance to ratify the Protocol - its principal precondition to doing so being the "meaningful participation" of key developing countries. Currently, the Protocol emissions targets are limited to just 38 developed countries. The G-77 and China (comprising over 100 developing countries) are resolutely opposed to limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries. While this stand-off persists, the conditions that must be met for the Protocol to enter into force are far from being fulfilled."

Support for Reforestation.

Exasperation with the Green Earth Rapists.

Throughout the 1990s the mundi club exposed the country’s major green organizations for refusing to support Reforestation as a means of combating global burning - as if global burning wasn’t affected by Forests or, if it was, it wasn’t important enough to be incorporated into their global burning strategy. This led sandy irvine to express his exasperation with such stupidity, "Even if the greenhouse effect is taking place, there is a danger that attention focuses one-sidedly on greenhouse gas sources, with inadequate appreciation of the other side of the equation-the loss of ecosystems such as forests which have acted as balancing 'sinks'. This unbalanced approach may be because ecosystem protection is less amenable to technological fixes and would raise unwelcome questions about human overpopulation. Actions to counteract global warming are likely to be solution multipliers since they would solve many other environmental, social and economic ones as well. Second, to have any lasting effect, such action may involve nothing less than a wholesale break with the values, goals and structures of industrial growth society. It should never be forgotten that just as important as greenhouse gas sources is the loss of greenhouse gas 'sinks', as more and more of the Earth is deforested or as carbon 'storage times' contract through fast rotation systems, particularly in forestry."

Greenpeace’s Carbon Logic - 1997.

It is not known who was responsible for the change in greenpeace’s climate campaign in the latter half of the 1990s. Leggett left greenpeace at the end of 1996. Whether it was coincidental or not, in 1997 bill hare launched the new climate campaign - ‘The Carbon Logic’. Perhaps stung by criticisms that greenpeace wasn’t interested in Reforestation and perhaps all too well aware of how embarrassing it might be to have to admit publicly that greens weren’t interested in the Earth’s Forest cover, hare formulated a new strategy giving a significant role to Reforestation - albeit carefully stage managed so that it didn’t appear too conspicuous. Nevertheless, ‘The Carbon Logic’ is a fundamental improvement on the ffes. It is a much more radical, and less environmentally destructive, policy than the ffes. Greenpeace is the first major green organization to change its stance on Reforestation.

Kyoto Moves towards Reforestation.

In the lead up to the 1997 kyoto climate negotiations, most green organizations desperately sought to keep negotiations fixed on reducing greenhouse emissions and, in particular, reducing Carbon dioxide emissions to the exclusion of Reforestation. However, many countries around the world wanted to balance their greenhouse emissions with Reforestation, "Under the kyoto agreement, each industrial country’s net total emissions will be calculated by subtracting the amount of Carbon absorbed by forestry and land use changes from each country’s gross emissions. Put another way, a country that plants trees to absorb Carbon dioxide can emit that much more CO2 from burning fossil fuels." Leggett vehemently criticized the countries supporting such a policy - a view doubtlessly shared by all the green organizations participating in the climate negotiations.

The Increasing Adoption of a ‘Global Carbon Budget’.

Whilst there has been little change in the green movement’s views about Reforestation, a number of green organizations have adopted the idea of a global Carbon budget. The main features of such a budget are:-

* firstly, that it deals with both sides of the Earth’s Carbon spiral - Carbon emissions and the absorption of Carbon from the atmosphere. Greenhouse emissions are seen as an ‘expenditure’ whilst the absorption of Carbon from the atmosphere is regarded as an ‘income’;

* secondly, that it is concerned with the over-industrialized nations’ Carbon debts to the industrializing nations as a result of the industrial revolution;

* thirdly, that it provides a means for an equal share out, or entitlement, of resources between the nations of the world. It is a means of bringing about geophysiological justice between all countries around the world.

The Mundi Club - 1990

The mundi club was the first to transform ‘a global Carbon budget’ from a scientific phrase into a political phrase. It was the first to propose that greens should switch to budgetary policies. This introduced a more quantifiable approach to green politics rather than relying on vague exhortations like ‘living in harmony with nature’; ‘treading lightly on the Earth’; ‘sustainable development’; etc. The mundi club was first to demand that the over-industrialized nations should repay their historical Carbon debts to the industrializing nations. Although the mundi club adopted the phrase ‘the global Carbon budget’ specifically to include Reforestation, many of the green organizations adopting the phrase divested it of such a commitment.

Florentin Krause, Wilfrid Bach & Jon Koomey - 1990

At the same time as the mundi club published 'The Carbon theory of value’ three academics, krause, bach & koomey, published 'Energy Policy in the Greenhouse’. This work was praised in terra firm issue no.9. Five years later, i see no reason to revise this opinion. In fact having read most of the main populist and scientific works on global burning over the last ten years, i would have to conclude that it is by far the most thorough and comprehensive exploration of the policies needed to combat global burning. It is written in the best scholarly traditions (which is saying something these days when bogus scientists are two a penny) and, even now, is well worth reading. It is said that an issue can be seen at its starkest when it first arises and this is precisely the case with this work.

Krause, bach & koomey proposed a global Carbon emissions budget, "The centrepiece of an international agreement to protect the world's climate should be a global budget for cumulative fossil carbon releases between now and 2100. A climate stabilizing fossil carbon budget for the period from 1985 to 2100 would then be 300 btC .. This budget implicitly assumes that .. carbon storage in forests and soils will be returned to mid-1980s level through several decades of afforestation in both temperate and tropical regions, combined with curtailment of tropical deforestation" Unfortunately, this ‘budget’ is only for Carbon emissions. It is one-sided, "Such a fossil carbon budget implies the following emission reduction milestones:

Global releases should have returned to present (ca. 1985) levels by about 2005, or within 15 years.

A 20% reduction below 1985 levels should be achieved by about 2015, or within 25 years.

A 50% reduction should be achieved by about 2030, or within 40 years.

A 75% reduction should be achieved by about 2050, or within 60 years."

The authors discussed the question of the industrialized countries repaying their historical Carbon debts .. "sequester all historic carbon releases since the onset of industrialization .." This is because, "A logical principle for assigning responsibility for climate stabilization would be that those who cause the damage pay for the abatement. Identifying the principal culprits in the destruction of the world's climate is not difficult." However, in the end the authors decided against this option. Another major development was using the global Carbon emissions budget to determine Carbon emission allocations between the industrialized, and the industrializing, world.

There is no point in republishing the mundi club’s analysis of 'Energy Policy in the Greenhouse’. However, in the next few sections, attention will be drawn to its influence on various green organizations and, in the next article, its influence on greenpeace.

Centre for Science and Environment - 1991.

This is one of the few environmental groups which was tempted by the idea of taking into account the effects of Forests on global burning. It wanted to calculate each countries’ Carbon emissions and the amount of Carbon absorbed by their Forests in order to determine net emissions, "Ideally, the approach should have been to prepare each nation's budget of greenhouse gas emissions by taking into account each nation’s sources of emissions and its terrestrial sinks, that is, its forests, other vegetation and soils." Unfortunately, this is about as far as the cse got. The grubby hand of pragmatism led it to adopt a completely different set of policies, "The Centre for Science and Environment believes that a system of global tradable permits should be introduced to control global greenhouse gas emissions."

Kyoto implies a Carbon ‘Budget’ - 1997

The kyoto agreement allowed countries to offset some of their Carbon emissions through some types of Reforestation. Although the agreement did not formally acknowledge the idea of national Carbon budgets, let alone a global Carbon budget, climate negotiators were heading in this direction by allowing Carbon offsets. "According to the kyoto protocol, annex 1 countries can reduce carbon emissions by limiting fossil fuel consumption or by increasing net carbon sequestration in terrestrial sinks. The inclusion of terrestrial carbon sources and sinks in a legally binding emissions reduction framework is significant. However, it creates a number of problems that, if not corrected, will seriously limit the protocol’s effectiveness as follows:

* the protocol limits the allowable terrestrial sources and sinks of carbon to strictly defined cases of ‘afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990 ..

* the 1990 estimates of carbon emissions, which form the baseline for all emission reduction targets of the protocol, exclude sinks to terrestrial ecosystems.

* the protocol is not based on a full carbon budget (all components of all ecosystems) applied continuously in time but instead applies a partial budget to discontinuous ‘commitment’ periods. For example, emissions associated with deforestation between commitment periods will not be counted."

Wolfgang Sachs - 1997.

Wolfgang sachs has speculated about the idea of historical Carbon debts, "From the home perspective, the north is called upon to reduce the environmental burden it places on other countries and to repay the ecological debt accumulated from the excessive use of the biosphere over decades and centuries." He has not pursued such speculations.

Carbon Modelling Consortium

An american organization has sought to exploit the idea of a global Carbon budget in order to defend american economic growth - which just goes to show that if greens won’t use such a valuable concept then the Earth rapists will manipulate it for whatever it’s worth, "The u.s. pumps around 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. But a new report claims that the nation’s trees could be sucking up just about all of this pollution. To try to locate it (the disappearance of 2 billion tonnes of CO2) a team of american researchers called the Carbon Modelling Consortium divided the world into four regions - eurasia, the southern continents and north america above and below 51N. They used models to work out how atmospheric CO2 should be distributed between these regions, based on the known carbon sources and sinks and estimates of how air moves between these sites. To the researchers’ surprise, almost all the carbon was being taken up by north america south of 51N. They suspect that some of it is being absorbed by young trees in areas cleared in the victorian era that have since been reforested. The rest could be due to improved fire prevention. Another concern is that some of the new results conflict with other measurements. The researchers found that continents in the southern hemisphere appeared to be emitting carbon, which conflicts with a paper .. reporting that latin american tropical forests seems to be absorbing large amounts of carbon. David schimel adds that the researchers used data from a time when the global carbon sink was fluctuating wildly. He is also dubious about the size of the reported sink. "It suggests that the forests are storing carbon at rates close to their net photosynthetic rate," he says. "That’s just not credible." Steve pacala of princeton university, a leading member of the carbon modelling consortium, admits that it’s hard to understand why american forests should take up so much carbon. He points out that there are many uncertainties; in particular, data for eurasia are more sparse than for america."

The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme - Terrestrial Carbon Working Group.

The international geosphere-biosphere programme has set up a terrestrial Carbon working group to evaluate the global Carbon spiral but hasn’t yet published its findings.

The Gci’s Carbon Budget - Yet another Carbon Emissions Budget.

Originally the gci had promoted policies to bring about equal per capita Carbon emissions around the world and believed that increases in population should be allocated the same per capita emissions. However, by the time of the kyoto conference it was arguing there should be a cap on total emissions so that entitlements to these emissions would be reduced by an expanding population. This change was brought about by the gci’s adoption of a global Carbon emissions budget .. "the adoption of per capita allocations within a global Carbon budget may prove to be the only practical way of bringing the rapidly industrializing world to agree to set a legal cap on its emissions .."; ".. gci argues that the developing countries should be asking for a global cap (on greenhouse emissions), on the basis of gradual convergence in the distribution of emissions to equal per capita levels. Under this scenario, since the developing countries start with a low per capita emissions, then for many years most would have an emissions entitlement greater than they need for their own use. They could trade their surplus entitlements to industrialized countries who are obliged to reduce emissions, and thus gain a financial income which would help economic development. Joint implementation would also be superfluous under this scheme. And, most important of all, the total emissions are controlled so that we can aim for a specific concentration in the atmosphere or specific temperature rise .."

Although the mundi club adopted the phrase ‘ a global Carbon budget’ specifically to incorporate Reforestation into Carbon accounting, the gci used the phrase to refer solely to the allocation of Carbon emissions - just like krause, bach & koomey, "How would ‘contraction and convergence’ work? Effectively this would create a global ‘budget’ of greenhouse gas emissions. Convergence allocates shares in that budget to the emitting nations on the basis of equity. This has three components. First, the budget is global; every country has a share in the atmosphere and any treaty that allocates its absorptive capacity only to a selection of countries effectively deprives the others. Second, the current situation whereby allocations are generally proportional to wealth would cease. Third, allocations should converge over time to a position where entitlements are proportional to population. No inflation of national budgets in response to rising populations would be permitted after an agreed set date."

Budgets are supposed to have an income and an expenditure - in the case of a global Carbon budget the former is Reforestation and the latter is Carbon emissions. It is absurd having a one-sided budget i.e. one solely concerned with Carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the gci seems happy to support such an abstraction. When the ecologist adopted the ‘contraction and convergence’ strategy it too started using the Carbon budget terminology, "The ability to maintain a relatively stable climate system comes down to the bottom line of how much stored carbon reaches the atmosphere. By adopting ecological limits to temperature and sea level changes, a carbon budget for human activity can be calculated."

Greenpeace’s Carbon Budget - 1997.

Perhaps even more surprising than greenpeace’s inclusion of Reforestation as part of its strategy for combating global burning was its sudden adoption of a global Carbon budget - and not a global Carbon emissions budget! It was even more surprising to find bill hare acknowledging the usefulness of this concept, "The `carbon budget' concept has the capacity to shed significant light on the implications of current fossil fuel policy for long term climate policy objectives." In the cut-throat world of green politics where every green just steals whatever ideas take their fancy without giving the slightest acknowledgement to those who created such ideas, this admission is rare indeed. Greenpeace are now on the verge of developing some very radical policies. Their next big step is developing the criteria for allocating this budget to each country around the world. The mundi club has suggested this budget should be based on geophysiological justice in which each country would have to balance its Carbon budget since the start of the industrial revolution.

The Growing Influence of the GCI

Despite the limitations of the gci’s ‘contraction and convergence’ strategy it seems to be growing in popularity not only within the green movement but amongst governments in climate negotiations.

The Ecologist Adopts ‘Contraction and Convergence’- 1999.

In the mid 1990s the ecologist began showing increasing interest in the ‘contraction and convergence’ strategy. However, even in its november/december 1997 issue it refused to give the strategy outright support, "The global commons institute considers that their global framework scheme, ‘contraction and convergence’, could provide the only practical way of overcoming this obstacle (of how much countries should reduce their Carbon emissions). Under the scheme, a global Carbon budget would be set, such as 350 ppmv, to be reached by a particular date, say 2050. Gci argues that the only way to divide this budget among states in a way that is acceptable to all, and hence durable, is on the basis of convergence towards equal entitlements to emit on a per capita basis globally. The ecologist believes this is by no means ideal. On the other hand, whatever may be the Ecologist’s reservations, the adoption of per capita allocations within a global Carbon budget may prove to be the only practical way of bringing the rapidly industrializing world to agree to set a legal cap on its emissions .."

It wasn’t until early 1999 that the ecologist formally adopted the gci’s policy. The ecologist proposed to, "Set in place a far more effective, inclusive and hence equitable international political mechanism to curb the consumption of fossil fuels in all countries. The only realistic means proposed so far of achieving this is a formal global programme of ‘Contraction and Convergence’ ..."

Brutland’s Scientists for Global Responsibility

In the run-up to kyoto, ben matthews favourably reviewed ‘contraction and convergence’ in a magazine produced by brutland’s ‘scientists for global responsibility’. He criticized the climate campaign of another green organization, "The european union, together with some of the developing countries and the climate action network, still consider that the u.s. call for all of the world’s emissions to be capped is absolute heresy, as it would break the berlin mandate. .. gci argues that the developing countries should be asking for a global cap (on greenhouse emissions), on the basis of gradual convergence in the distribution of emissions to equal per capita levels. Under this scenario, since the developing countries start with a low per capita emissions, then for many years most would have an emissions entitlement greater than they need for their own use. They could trade their surplus entitlements to industrialized countries who are obliged to reduce emissions, and thus gain a financial income which would help economic development. Joint implementation would also be superfluous under this scheme. And, most important of all, the total emissions are controlled so that we can aim for a specific concentration in the atmosphere or specific temperature rise .."

Paul Brown.

Paul brown gave the gci some good publicity in a guardian article on the kyoto agreement, "A more bizarre way of reaching an agreement to tackle global warming early next century cannot be imagined. Half those involved were asleep on the floor, chairs or tables, unaware that history was being made. They did not know that in those last tense hours, when all seemed lost, president clinton ordered from the whitehouse that enough concessions had been made to the u.s. viewpoint for a deal to be struck. (The agreement) agreed on cuts of less than 7% in the developed world’s greenhouse gas emissions in the first 10 years of the next century. The real result of kyoto will not be known for some time. Remarkably, the final text was still in the form of chairman raul estrada’s notes when the politicians flew home. Many key articles were fudged in those final hours, leaving everything to play for in the negotiations in bonn in the spring, and the next conference of the parties (cop4) in argentina in november. The claims for "carbon credits" for planting Trees and saving forests in developing countries have yet to be scientifically verified. Unreported, but central to really taking action, was the inclusion of per capita emissions. India, supported by china and the g77 countries, said their future acceptance of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions would be based on per capita quotas. In other words, the aim would be that a chinese citizen would be permitted the same emissions per head as the average american."

Daniel Kammen and Ann Kinzig.

Daniel kammen and ann kinzig also supported the gci, "We also argue that, in the long term, global equity in per person emission rights is not only ethically the most reasonable target, but is also the least cumbersome basis for an international agreement."

John Vidal

John vidal, an archetypal greenless green who wants to see more dirt bikers tearing around the countryside, revealed his support for planetless, one sided Carbon budgets, "So farewell, Tom Spencer, a maverick MEP who surprised himself by surviving as long as he did in a Tory party so anti-Europe and the environment. As chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee and Globe International, the legislators' environmental group, he worked tirelessly to get green issues on the agenda. His particular contribution was on the most complex issue of global warming, lobbying for each human being to have their own carbon dioxide allocation - in other words, saying an American did not have the right to emit 20 times as much CO2 as an Indian. This `contraction and convergence' issue is now firmly part of the negotiations. Thanks for your efforts, Tom."

Conclusions.

The bulk of the green movement is as far away from supporting Reforestation as it ever was. Greens say, of course, ‘we love trees’ but they just can’t bring themselves around to formulating policies for Reforestation. Many of them continue to believe that Reforestation is completely irrelevant to combating global burning. Whilst the adoption of a global Carbon emissions budget by various green organizations might seem to be an encouraging move in the right direction, in reality, it’s just a fashion accessory for greens who are not interested in Reforestation. However, greenpeace’s new climate campaign, its support for Reforestation and its adoption of a global Carbon budget, is a significant breakthrough.