Terra Firm no.25: Spectacularism, Zionism, Greens, Wildlife, and Bse.

In this article it is argued there are three types of green - environmentalists, ecologists, and geophysiologists. The distinctions between the environment, ecology, and geophysiology, are important in their own right but they are also useful in providing the foundations for the political differences between so-called greens. To give an example of these differences: environmentalists tend to love Trees and Forests and rejoice in the beauty of green landscapes (mostly pastureland!). However, they wouldn’t regard themselves as ecologists because they couldn’t identify different types of Trees or Animals and they know little about ecological habitats. Nor would they regard themselves as geophysiologists concerned with Forests’ highly complex relationships with the climate. But then again even ecologists have little idea about, or interest in, the inter-relationships between Forests and the climate nor the way in which the Earth’s biosphere works. This is why the biosphere II experiment, which was organized primarily by ecologists, turned out to be a disaster nearly killing its eight occupants because they were unable to miniaturize the Earth's life support system in the biosphere. The reason they couldn't do this was because they knew virtually nothing about the way the Earth work’s and, in particular, not the slightest understanding of the Earth's Carbon spiral.[11]

To environmentalists, the environment consists of everything beyond themselves and this includes shopping centres as much as Forests. They judge the environment primary on its aesthetics - does it look attractive? In other words, is it neat, tidy, and clean - free from litter, graffiti, and Dog manure? They see shopping centres as being as much a part of life as Forests. They do not regard Forests as being significant other than as an attractive background feature. They judge everything in terms of its appearance. They enjoy the beauty of buildings, Tree lined urban avenues, scenic views, landscapes, areas of outstanding natural beauty, etc, and want to preserve these manifestations of beauty for posterity. Environmentalists have no concept of the Earth’s life support system and thus have no idea which parts of the natural world are essential to ooman survival and which parts of the ooman-made world are destructive to this life support system. It doesn’t matter to environmentalists whether they are looking at an entirely natural habitat or a man-made environment - what counts is not whether a phenomenon is essential to the Earth's life support system but simply whether it is attractive or not. What this means is that given the choice between supporting an ugly phenomenon which is an essential part of the Earth's life support system or, supporting an attractive shopping centre which is ruinous to this life support system, they will almost invariably choose the latter. Environmentalists could stare at the beauty of a Tree or Forest for their entire lives without ever appreciating its role as the basis of the Earth’s life support system. Even worse is that environmentalists’ preoccupation with beauty, and their ignorance of the Earth’s life support system, means that if it’s a choice between the beautiful open vistas of man-made pastureland or the limited views provided by an ancient Forest, they would invariably choose the former. Given the choice, they would preserve the beauty of pastureland bereft of Biodiversity and which destabilizes the climate, rather than support the Reforestation of such pastureland which would ruin their panoramic views. Environmentalists are primarily concerned about aesthetics rather than preserving ecological habitats or ensuring the health of the Earth’s life support system and the stability of the Earth’s climate.

Environmentalists’ fixation on aesthetics is only one example of their wider preoccupation with their own self interests and unquestioned anthropocentric outlook. Environmentalists are motivated by an environmental issue only when it detrimentally affects their personal interests - whether financially or health-wise. For example, they seek to ban cigarette smoking in public places because they fear passive smoking might lead to lung cancer. But, since most environmentalists are middle class, they are totally opposed to restrictions on the use of their cars - even though pollutants from car emissions are virtually the same as those emanating from tobacco and, even worse, cars produce far more pollution than tobacco. Environmentalists' preoccupation with aesthetics means they tend to believe that the biggest environmental problems facing oomanity are Dog manure, closely followed by litter, and then graffiti. Environmentalists want to stop pollution damaging to ooman health but they aren’t worried about pollution which is harmless to oomans but which damages the health of the Earth. Thus they are not bothered about Carbon emissions because even though they boost global burning they are not toxic to oomans.

The environmental movement is plagued by people who have irrational fears about insignificant environmental issues e.g. Dog manure, litter, and graffiti, etc, and a complete disinterest in the biggest threats facing the Earth, “The foremost personal and public fear is that of cancer. Consequently, any environmental chemical or radiation thought to cause cancer is given attention out of all proportion to the real risk it poses. Nuclear power, ozone depletion and chemicals such as dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls are regarded as the most serious environmental hazards because of this fear, but also because nuclear radiation and halocarbons are so easy to measure. I think that the potential hazards of the gaseous greenhouse and land abuse have, until recently, been ignored because they peturb the planet, not necessarily individual people, and because they are much more difficult to measure. To me the vast, urgent and certain danger comes from the clearance of tropical forests.”[12]

Environmentalists are not interested in an understanding of ecological habitats around the world nor do they have any understanding of the Earth’s life sustaining processes - they are concerned about only those parts of the environment which affect their interests i.e. the environment in which they live, work, and shop. They see their local environment - which is primarily just an extension of their home environment. The further the environment is from their home, the less they care about it.

Environmentalists are not interested in creating a sustainable planet because when they talk about ‘looking after their environment’ what they are referring to is their local environment which affects them directly on a day to day level. The notion of the Earth as a living entity is far too grandiose and abstract for them. Some environmentalists believe that all that is necessary to create a sustainable planet is to carry out minor reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, stop Dogs from crapping on playing fields and pavements, etc, and removing litter. They believe that a society with a good environment would be exactly the same as it is now but not so dirty or polluted.

One of the green movement’s basic tenets is the conservation of scarce resources. Greens hold that resources are finite and should therefore be rationed so that everyone on Earth, and future generations, should share these resources in order to live a decent life. They believe that whilst there is nothing wrong with wealth there is a legitimate concern about excessive wealth since if one person possesses a superabundance then this is likely to mean the impoverishment of others.

In the 1990s, however, a new type of environmentalist emerged who believed in the basic tenets of capitalism, the free market, free trade, and economic expansionism. The basic assumption of this new environmentalist was that resources on Earth are infinite - the exact opposite of the assumption held by traditional greens. Green cornucopians believe that oomans’ technological ingenuity can transform finite resources into infinite resources. They believe that when one lot of resources becomes scarce, oomans will find other resources to take their place. They believe in oomans' ability to find an infinite number of alternative resources. This enables them to promote the idea of green consumerism. The main proponent of the new environmentalism is amory lovins. Gregg easterbrook also supports this perspective, despite, paradoxically, his dismissal of capitalism and his revulsion of materialism.

Despite their promotion of capitalist principles, cornucopian environmentalists believe it is not feasible to create a sound environment without abolishing global poverty. Remarkably, however, they believe the abolition of global poverty could be achieved without the need for the rich world to make sacrifices, “The 21st century need not be depressing at all. If our ‘neo-cornucopian’ visions come true, even the gravest worldwide distribution problems can be solved without any part of the world having to accept significant sacrifices in well-being.”[13] They agree with the proposition that it is impossible for everyone in the world to enjoy americans’ lifestyles, “If countries required an oecd level of affluence to afford pollution control, then the whole game would be lost. Imagine what would happen to the world if all 5.8 thousand million people were rich enough to “afford” pollution control. It would be the ecological ruin of the world. And even today’s global consumption rates are clearly unsustainable.”[14] However, they believe that, on a sustainable planet, america would continue to remain rich (and probably get richer) whilst the world’s poor would have to be content with being only four times less wealthy than americans, “If we now learn that american style prosperity, for ecological reasons, is definitely not conceivable for six or more thousand million people, then the hopes for stabilizing population the ‘natural’ way are very dim. If, however, the efficiency revolution allows prosperity to occur at resource consumption levels roughly a factor of four below america’s, we may become hopeful again.”[15]

The poor would undoubtedly be grateful if they were only four times less wealthy, rather than being an infinite number of times poorer, than the average american. But what is interesting here seems to be what could be called the status quo principle of environmentalism - the environment can be saved only by improving the lot of the poor not by stopping the rich from wrecking the Earth. Cornucopians believe that once people become rich nothing should be done to interfere in their privileges as Earth rapists. This is why, despite all they say to the contrary, cornucopian environmentalists can only boost geophysiological destruction. This same principle is evident in the work of tony juniper of Friends of the Earth who dismisses the idea of Reforestation because most of the land around the world is currently being used by Earth rapists, “Even if massive forestation took place globally (assuming there would be enough land available) ...”[16] Heaven forbid that anything should be done to stop Earth wreckers from wrecking the Earth. No wonder green politics has been such a pathetic failure over the last decade.

There are two types of ecologist.

Ecologists are concerned primarily with protecting unique ecological habitats. The more unique the habitat, or the Biodiversity, the greater the value they give to it. Whilst environmentalists enjoy looking at beautiful landscapes, even those bereft of Biodiversity, ecologists prefer an ugly habitat with unique Biodiversity to a beautiful one without unique Biodiversity. Ecologists’ preoccupation with unique habitats/species means they aren’t bothered about the destruction of common, or ordinary, ecological habitats. Ecologists’ aim is the preservation of the best possible examples of all habitats rather than saving all habitats. What this implies is that ecologists aren’t in the slightest bit bothered about combatting global burning. They are quite willing to sacrifice large numbers of ordinary natural habitats for development, despite the contribution this makes to the destabilization of the climate, if they are able to protect the best examples of a particular habitat.

Ecologists' primary concern with unique habitats invariably involves them in trying to protect traditional farming ecologies i.e. various forms of pastureland. In the past, different forms of farming gave rise to different ecologies. Ecologists desire to save these Treeless agricultural habitats even though the country needs large-scale Reforestation in order to combat global burning. So, ecologists are not merely willing to sacrifice large numbers of natural habitats in order to conserve a small number of unique habitats, they also willing to protect unique habitats which, far from combatting global burning, actually boost climate change. They thus find themselves in an embarrassing predicament. They desperately try to preserve unique ecological habitats, which are almost invariably Treeless, and thus help to boost global burning, whilst pretending they are concerned about combatting global burning. But, even more embarrassingly for them, is that by supporting such habitats they are boosting global burning and thus making the survival of these habitats much less likely when global burning transforms habitats around the world. In reality, ecologists have no interest in combatting global burning and it would never cross their mind that the pastureland habitats they seek to preserve are contributing to global burning. Ecologists have no interest in Reforestation to stabilize the climate. Ecologists, just like environmentalists, are almost completely disinterested in the Earth’s life support system.

Most ecologists/conservationists are great lovers of the countryside. They support rural ideologies promoting the fantasy that pharmers are the custodians of the countryside. They believe the main cause of global burning is the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels rather than pharmers’ devastation of the Earth’s life support system - in other words, they blame modern industry, especially the fossil fuel industry and urban consumers, for global burning not pharmers. As far as they are concerned, pharmers play a pivotal role in greening the Earth by chopping down Forests and replacing them with pastureland.

Many conventional ecologists are academics or semi-academics who study ecology as a hobby. There is another group of ecologists who are much more politically oriented than their academicy colleagues. They include:

(uk) Earth firsters! who regard themselves as members of the ‘radical ecological movement’ but who support oomans’ colonization of Wilderness areas, livestock farming, and the culling of Wildlife (which they would do in the name of living harmoniously with Wildlife! But, it might be asked, what if Wildlife were to slit the throats of these Earth First wallies would they be living in harmony with oomans?). EF!ers are a bunch of political activists who can't leave lefty-trade union oriented politics behind them and who have, as a consequence, poisoned the goals of the original american Earth First! movement. Some of them are doubtlessly stupid enough to believe that trade unionists are the best environmentalists and that only the trade union movement is capable of creating a sustainable planet.

Geophysiologists are concerned with protecting the Earth’s life support system in order to maintain the stability of the Earth’s climate. The main component of the Earth’s life support system is the Earth’s climate and the main influence on the Earth’s climate is the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, primarily the Earth’s Forests. Geophysiologists believe it is possible to stabilize the Earth’s climate by ensuring the Earth has sufficient Forest cover. They argue the main cause of global burning is not the fossil fuelled industries but pharmers who have deforested vast areas around the Earth and that unless something is done to reverse this damage then it won’t matter in the slightest how much of a reduction is made in curbing Carbon emissions. The main priority is getting Carbon out of the atmosphere.

The distinctions between environmentalists, ecologists, and geophysiologists, becomes transparent over the issue of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Environmentalists seek to protect such areas because of their beauty. Ecologists/conservationists want to protect such (farming) areas because they provide a habitat for a unique species. As a consequence, there are large areas of land around brutland which are being preserved for environmental or conservationist reasons even though they not merely play no role in combatting global burning, but actually boost it. For example, charlie pye-smith and chris hall suggest that in order to prevent chalk Grasslands from reverting back to Forests .. “from a conservation point of view .. we must either burn it regularly, as happens on many nature reserves, or it must be grazed. We favour the latter course.”[17] It is as if these authors have never heard of global burning or are so ignorant of geophysiological issues they believe Forests have no role in regulating the climate. In brutland there are many beauty spots/conservation areas providing virtually no help in combatting global burning because ecologists/conservationists keep these areas in a deforested state - often in order to aid hunting, shooting, and fishing. In other words, conservationists are greens who, despite all their protests, promote global burning. Geophysiologists' primary aim is stabilizing the climate through Reforestation, Wilderness areas, and the reversion of conservation areas e.g. the north york moors to their natural state.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

5. Three Types of Green.