The Breakdown of Climate Campaigning.

A Critique of Peter Bunyard’s ‘The Breakdown of the Climate’

Introduction.

In the ‘The Breakdown of the Climate’ peter bunyard highlights some of the worst case scenarios of climate change. He explores most of the factors contributing to global burning but doesn’t present a highly detailed account - although the book is scientific, it is more populist than academic in style. Much of the material seems familiar but this is primarily because he has contributed so much to the global burning debate. Unfortunately, the book seems to have been written in a hurry and printed in haste. There are a number of typos and a couple of elementary inconsistencies which should have been removed by better proof reading. It is all very well saying, "Siberia .. is warming faster than almost anywhere else on the planet." but this tends to loses its scientific credibility when, some pages on, it is written, "Antarctica appears to be warming faster than anywhere else on the planet .. At one point bunyard points out that, "Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are currently around 350ppmv." Thirty pages later he states, "Stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at around today’s level of 358 ppmv ..." Thirty pages further he suggests, "Currently the atmosphere contains 750 gtC, equivalent to 365ppmv of carbon dioxide."

A Gaian Perspective.

Bunyard is a gaian. As a consequence this book is interesting for his elaboration of lovelock’s geophysiological and political ideas. Some of bunyard’s ideas diverge from lovelock’s. Firstly, bunyard disagrees with lovelock about what happens to the climate during an ice age. Lovelock argues that as global temperatures fall, ice sheets build up over the northern continents, ocean levels fall, and there is an increase in the area covered by tropical Forests. However, bunyard argues that global cooling leads to drier conditions in the tropics which decreases the scale of Forest cover. (During the last ice age there was) .. "a much drier climate in the lower latitudes. Savannah rather than rainforest covered much of the amazon basin." If this is the case then it undermines one of gaia’s main climate regulation factors because ice ages can’t persist if Photosynthesis does not increase and extract more Carbon from the atmosphere. Bunyard offers an alternative explanation. He believes that, during ice ages, Carbon is taken out of the atmosphere as a result of rock weathering, "Again, it works best overall during an ice age, when more land is exposed through a fall in sea level, and plants, including bacteria, are able to bring about extensive rock weathering." In bunyard’s work it is not clear how much of a role Forests have in rock weathering and thus enhancing ice ages.

Secondly, bunyard mentions lovelock’s claim that the Earth’s climate is at its most stable at around 200 ppmv but does not discuss the hypothesis in any detail. He does not emphasize it as a key turning point in oomans’ impact on the Earth.

Reforestation is so such an irrelevant Issue I’m not even going to Discuss it.

Perhaps the most fundamental divergence is that whilst lovelock emphasizes the need for Reforestation to combat global burning, bunyard does not. Bunyard expresses no support for Reforestation. Indeed, he doesn’t even discuss such a policy. It doesn’t even get a mention in the index! It might have been thought that for greens, the issue would have been critical enough to warrant some discussion but it seems that for bunyard, Reforestation is such an insignificant issue it isn’t worth mentioning. The absence of any discussion of Reforestation is by far the most blatant failure of this work. Bunyard’s silence is surprising. Firstly, he points out the limitations of the ipcc’s climate models in not taking account of the Earth’s life support system, "Models used to justify a business-as-usual approach are fundamentally flawed because they treat the Earth’s land surface as it would be had we not destroyed great tracts of natural vegetation. The models therefore ignore the impact of global agriculture on the climate ..."; "The general circulation models, although vastly improved in recent years and based on excellent science, do not come close to evaluating the true impact of our activities on global climate." Furthermore, bunyard is all too well aware of the importance of Forest’s influence on the climate, "Life is the key and we must incorporate feedbacks if we are to come near to grasping the consequences of our rampage across the planet. The issue is not just greenhouse gases and global warming - although these issues are undoubtedly crucial - it is also our destruction of vital ecosystems."

Despite all this, bunyard just can’t bring himself to discuss Reforestation. His position isn’t all that much different from that adopted by the rest of the incestuous crew at the ecologist nor, indeed, the ipcc which has announced recommendations for reductions in Carbon emissions but has made no similar recommendation about Reforestation.

Reasons for Bunyard’s opposition to Reforestation.

Bunyard provides some hints about his opposition to Reforestation. Firstly, the fear that the Reforestation of the boreal Forests would boost global burning, "Richard betts from the hadley centre (suggests) more vigorous growth in high latitude, boreal regions (as a result of the increasing concentrations of Carbon dioxide) can accentuate warming by brining about earlier snow melts, thus exposing the leaf-darkened surface to the sun. Should global warming cause the northwards spread of conifer forests that will bring about more warming." Unfortunately, this conclusion is reached solely on the basis of an analysis of the flux of Carbon emissions. This fails to take into account the roles played by the albedo, and heat, effects.

Bunyard’s most explicit statement against Reforestation is dressed up as a dismissal of Tree plantations. In a section discussing the way that life on Earth unconsciously regulates the climate he states, "For many it goes against the grain that unconscious life may be effective in generating a workable system of regulation on a global scale. That would diminish our claim that we know better than Nature and that through our knowledge we can manage the system intelligently rather than leaving it to haphazard forces. Are we not now managing the ozone hole by limiting the use of certain chemicals, or on our way to managing greenhouse gases, by planting forests of carbon-mopping trees, like plantations of monteray pine down the length and breadth of new zealand’s north island." This is one of the oldest tricks in greens’ encyclopaedia of ‘Basic Green Deceptions for Avoiding any mention of Reforestation’ - pretend you’re dismissing Reforestation because you don’t like Tree plantations rather than because you’re too cowardly to call for the natural regeneration of Forests around the world.

Bunyard reiterates his opposition to Reforestation in the last paragraph of the book, "Certainly climate change is teaching us some crucial lessons. One is that we cannot predict the future of climate, we can only guess it. That conclusion makes it glaringly obvious that we should disabuse ourselves of any notions that we can manage the climate. Management of climate will emerge quite naturally from a world in which communities, rather than states or corporations, become responsible again for their lands and for seeing that they are maintained in a good state. We need to learn how to manage ourselves and our relationship with our environment." Having pointed out some of the differences between bunyard and lovelock, it is necessary to emphasize here that both agree about this proposition. For lovelock, terra-firming other planets is ok but not on Earth where billions are wrecking the planet’s life support system.

The Inconsistencies of the Anti-managerialist Stance.

Bunyard’s anti-managerialism is inconsistent. In contrast to the absence of any discussion of Reforestation, he devotes a considerable amount of space to the views of his chums in the global commons institute (gci) who demand reductions in Carbon emissions to bring about global justice and a stable climate. What this suggests is that whilst he opposes recommendations for an increase in Forest cover because he believes it involves managerialism, he supports recommendations for reductions in greenhouses gases because he believes this does not involve managerialism. This is illogical. Why is the reduction of Carbon emissions an example of non-managerialism whilst Reforestation is a gross manifestation of managerialism? He supports a global Carbon emissions budget (sic) because it is non-managerialist whilst opposing a global Carbon budget, which promotes Reforestation, because it is managerialist. Even weirder is that bunyard believes that reducing emissions of cfcs is a type of managerialism, "Are we not now managing the ozone hole by limiting the use of certain chemicals ..?" but reducing Carbon emissions is not.

Bunyard does not believe that global burning is a geophysiological problem which can be solved geophysiologically i.e. through Reforestation. He believes it is a technological problem requiring technology to reduce Carbon emissions. Even after a decade or so of listening to the greenless greens denouncing Reforestation it is still shocking to discover more examples.

Greenpeace? Never ‘erd of it.

Another surprising omission in this book is the absence of any discussion of greenpeace’s new climate campaign, the Carbon logic. Surely it isn’t any accident that the ecologist’s recent publication ‘Climate in Crisis’ also failed to discuss greenpeace’s new climate campaign? Over the last few years, greenpeace have woken up, thankfully, to the merits of a global Carbon budget and the need for Reforestation. Perhaps this is why bunyard couldn’t be bothered to discuss their campaign. Now let’s run through his stance once again just to make sure it’s clear - the adoption of a global Carbon emissions budget has nothing to do with managerialism but the adoption of a global Carbon budget does. Uuhhh?

Relying on Local people to solve a Planetary problem.

Bunyard also believes that global burning is a political problem, in the sense that he trusts ‘local communities’ to determine the level of the Earth’s Forest cover to maintain climatic stability. According to bunyard the best way of combating global burning and stabilizing the climate is by deglobalizing and encouraging people to live in local communities - by which he means either tribalism or organic farming settlements.

This approach is open to criticisms. Firstly, it is not feasible to believe that modern, technologically dependent, people would want to go back to grazing off the land or mucking around in the mire. Secondly, even assuming that people wanted to become grazers it is simply not practical for 6 billion people to do this.

Thirdly, localism relies on the good naturedness of oomans to protect their local environments and thus the global environment. Tribalism is a form of prehistoric free marketism in which it is believed that the good naturedness of oomancruels is sufficient to ensure the preservation of the Earth’s life support system. Unfortunately the evidence for the goodness of the ooman heart is barely noticeable under historical torrents of evil. There are currently billions of people ravaging vast stretches of the Earth’s life support system whilst ruthlessly, and systematically, slaughtering hundreds of billions of Animals each year in concentration camps which the nazis could only envy. The idea that if only these oomans were left in their own communities they would be good is laughable. Oomans are committing evil on an unprecedented scale on Earth and yet greens insist on treating them as anarchistic angels. This is a shame. It did seem at one point in his book as if bunyard wasn’t going to indulge in romantic do-lallyism, "If we look back over the history of mankind, humans seem to have wrought destruction wherever they have gone." Presumably he blames the vast expansion of ooman activities on capitalism or western culture rather than on ooman nature.

Finally, it is absurd to believe that the billions of people who are currently disinterested in environmentalism are going to stabilize the climate simply by living in communities. It is also absurd to give oomans responsibility for the climate - as if they weren’t responsible for wrecking the climate in the first place. What is the point of giving responsibility for stabilizing the climate to people who have just destabilized it?

Opposition to Regulation.

Bunyard’s anti-managerialism is the typical reaction of anarcho/tribo/indie farmers/right wing, free market, thatcherites towards regulation. He believes that if only oomans are free from all constraints, responsibilities and regulations, then they will respect the Earth’s ecological habitats and Wildlife. However, one of the most striking characteristics of parliamentary democracies is the way that regulations have had to be brought in precisely because oomans will not behave themselves.

The history of all parliamentary democracies displays the same structural process. Whenever a new economic activity or new technology emerges it is virtually free from all regulations. Oomans are allowed to pursue this new economic activity/technology without legal constraint. Unfortunately many of these activities/technologies, whether they are guns or cars, caused a great many problems which could be avoided only by regulation. Without regulations the free use of guns and cars would cause carnage and social breakdown. By default, oomans had the freedom to use technologies as they saw fit - and almost inevitably they abused this privilege so regulations had to be introduced to curb the worst excesses.

Regulations had to be introduced in this country because the self regulation of gun owners failed when gunmen started slaughtering people. Regulations had to be introduced because brutish pharmers were deliberately selling diseased Animals for public consumption. (And not surprisingly pharmers have been fighting tooth and nail against all regulations curbing their right to sell disease ridden products all over the world. Regulations have had to be introduced against motorists because of the carnage they cause on the roads. (Once again there are retard motorists who believe there are far to many regulations inhibiting their right to roam and do what they want). Doubtlessly regulations will have to be introduced for the medical profession after the system of self regulation allowed a doctor to kill a dozen, perhaps even many dozens, of patients.

The same structural deformity is now affecting the climate. People were once free to do what they want to the climate unencumbered by rules and regulations. They have invariably abused this freedom so that regulations had to be introduced to stop the abuse. The last couple of decades of the 20thc were dominated by rancid right wing bigots like reagan and thatcher who were dedicated to reducing regulations against guns and motorists (and the climate). It is surprising then that bunyard can’t quite accept the need for regulations and that he puts in himself in such illustrious company. For decades greens have been fighting against Earth-wreckers to combat environmental pollution only to discover that some of the most prominent greens have been applauding the freedom enjoyed by these Earth rapists and have been disinterested in regulations limiting their freedom to devastate the Earth.

In the long distant past, when there were just a handful of people on Earth, oomans could afford to dismiss the need for rules and regulations and basically do what they wanted. They were never going to rock the rowing boat of life enough to cause a major disaster. Tens of thousands of years later there are six billion on this boat and the lack of regulations is driving people into a frenzy as they desperately try to grab as much as they can. Six billion might survive in a more orderly and fair world but they don’t stand a chance in a chaotic world.

Another way of looking upon what bunyard denigrates as ‘regulations’ is basically a device for the fair share out of resources. Up until the 1990s, countries were free to pollute the environment as much as they wanted. This meant that some countries i.e. the over-industrialized nations, used up far more of the Earth’s pollution capacity than other countries. The attempt to regulate the climate would necessitate a more equal share out of these rights.

Facing up to the Regulation of the Climate.

When greens talk about reducing greenhouse emissions what this entails is regulating the climate - although, like bunyard, they perform somersaults to avoid having to admit it. Bunyard doubtlessly agrees with lovelock that regulating the climate would be a chore. They would both agree with the proposition that oomans should be able to just forget about the climate in order, as they say in their inimitable anthropogenic way, ‘to get on with their lives’ - as if oomans aren’t first and foremost planetary beings with planetary responsibilities. The fact is however that oomans are destabilizing the climate and regulations are needed for climate stability. Instead of making climate regulations seem like a prison sentence, it is possible to see them as a means for political liberation. The regulation of the climate can be used to bring about a radical transformation of the world. The stabilization of the climate requires fundamental reforms:-

* land reforms in every country around the world so that land is put aside for climate Forests, Wilderness areas and for landless people;

* the abolition of global poverty;

* global equality between all nations;

* the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry.

Climate Forests would stabilize the climate and the establishment of ooman-free Wilderness areas would enable Wildlife to live in peace without being maimed, mutilated and murdered by oomano-imperialists whether posing as hunters, conservationists, green anarchists, organic farmers, or land is ours’ homesteaders.

The fact remains that it is not possible to stabilize the climate and create a sustainable planet without such a global political revolution. There is never going to be any environmental restoration when there are global inequalities between nations and global poverty. In itself regulating the climate may seem insignificant. It is, however, the only way in which oomans might live sustainably in just world, free from structural inequalities and poverty.

Departing Shot.

Bunyard’s book is sound scientifically, including what right wing, beef eating, car loving, loons would call its ‘alarmist’ elements. However, the politics is hopeless. This form of green politics let’s the Earth rapists off the hook. It doesn’t insist that governments, multi-national corporations, or even greens, should measure the impact of their policies and activities on the Earth’s life support system. It doesn’t insist that those making an excessive impact on the Earth should stop their activities and start rejuvenating the Earth’s life support system. Then again, without some global agreement on Carbon emissions and the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover to stabilize the climate, it is not even possible to state that a particular impact on the climate is positive or negative. All over the Earth six billion oomans are destroying what to them is just a tiny bit of the Earth’s life support system. None of these contravelopments may be large in themselves but anything multiplied by six billion is going to be gigantic. This work reveals the emptiness of current green political thinking.