Global Warming: Pressing the Panic Button

I want to share an insight with you. Pardon me for for my abruptness and oversimplifications if any, because of my effort to keep it very simple and brief.

Statement of Our Grave Situation

For millions of years, nature has been taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere -- taking carbon out of circulation -- and stashing it away, not only as trees, but also as enormous coal and crude-oil reserves under the earth. But since the discovery of the steam engine and the industrial revolution, mankind has been taking these carbon and hydrocarbon reserves and burning them. Every passing year, we thus undo the work of a few thousand years of nature. Humankind is now a rampant force of nature.

Our GDP and per-capita consumption is rapidly rising at close to 10%, and so the carbon footprint of each individual human-being on earth is doubling every 20 years or so. [Very brief explanation: Each extra shirt we buy and stash in our cupboards or each apple that we eat that has been flown in from Australia or China, or even lorried in from Himachal Pradesh, represents an unnecessary load of carbon in the air that we have contributed.]

As our population grows at a galloping pace -- rising as much in 10 years as it did in the entire millennium between 1 AD and 1000 AD -- the collective carbon footprint of humankind doubles every 10 years or so. In other words, the 'weight' or 'impact' of humankind on earth is doubling every decade.

The upshot of having more carbon-dioxide in the air than ever before in the last 650,000 years is: All that carbon dioxide is storing solar heat in the atmosphere. This increased heat energy will transform, and is already transforming into more kinetic energy as (i) more rapid evaporation and precipatation (ii) more frequent, widespread and powerful hurricanes (iii) a higher water-level in the oceans as the polar ice-caps melt, stronger waves and tidal movements, which will over the next decade require every human settlement and activity on the coastline including fishing villages, metros and ports to be relocated further inland.

I don't know if remedies are available. Personally, I think we are already in deep shit and blissfully unaware of it, like a guy who is falling to his death from a skyscraper, but is heard saying as he whooshes past the 10th-floor window, "So far so good! Everything feels great!"

Still, because of our human nature, we like to believe that it is never too late to mend.

Statement of One Possible Remedy

Our economies, which depend primarily on combustion, need to be urgently unhooked from combustibles and hooked onto alternative sources even if they are uneconomical at first. Energy from combustibles seems economical only because it does not take into account the environmental cost; in other words, such energy is environmentally 'subsidized'. However, such subsidies are no longer sustainable, and there is an enormous 'natural deficit' that has built up that needs to be balanced.

So we need to learn to consume solar energy, wind energy, tidal and hydro-electric or human-generated energy, even if it seems terribly uneconomical at first. Simultaneously, we need to learn to live with drastically lowered energy consumption.

Immediate measure 1: We need to impress on decision-makers (and not just general public) at various levels the urgency of our situation. We must make presentations before people in the government and administration at all levels, as often as possible.

Immediate measure 2: We need to show that we ourselves believe in our message. It is not very convincing for us to continue to go around in our big air-conditioned cars and sit in air-conditioned offices, air-conditioned homes and air-conditioned chambers of commerce. We need to show our willingness to step down into less-stylish cars, or maybe even scooters, public transport etc. We need to send out a clear message by (1) scaling down our own usage of electricity by opening our windows and using ceiling-fans etc, (2) walking and bicycling as much as possible instead of taking motorised transport and (3) depending on non-energy consuming forms of recreation such as going for long walks or playing cards together.

Immediate measure 3: To make a dent on the public consciousness, send out a clear message, and set off a mass movement, those of us who are aware of this problem and deeply concerned about it need to do something emblematic. How about something like dressing very simply and riding a bicycle to work (and everywhere else) one day of every week – something that is directly opposed to our increasingly ostentatious lifestyle?

Footnote: I do realize that these ideas are not exactly "civilized", and they make me sound like I urgently need a shrink. But maybe taking such drastic measures will show that we clearly understand the gravity of our situation. Our collective existence depends on this sort of response.

I am a Big Bully on Wheels

If you folks are civilized when you are behind the steering wheel, then maybe you are a great deal more evolved than I. When I am driving down a road, and come across a bunch of pedestrians trying to cross the road, I don't slow down unless the signal is red. I flash my headlights menacingly, honk my horn and speed up. Translated into words, this action means, "Watch out! I'm bigger and clad in a metal armour! So step out of my way... or else!"

When a pedestrian stands in front of my accelerating vehicle, this isn't a friendly warning but a direct threat of physical harm. From where he stands, my car isn't a vehicle of transportation; for him, it is a weapon of death, like a loaded cannon ready to fire.

No, we don't look at this as a social injustice because we are all so USED TO IT, dammit! Just as, in the days of feudalistic zamindari and untouchability, neither the overlords nor the downtrodden felt that they were part of an unjust system! They felt it was the only correct way for a society to function!

Just this morning, I flashed my headlights and prevented a bunch of schoolgirls from crossing the highway in front of my car. My thinking was: Let them cross behind me if they can because I'm in a tearing hurry.

All citizens are not equal

You remember that famous quote from George Orwell's novella, Animal Farm, where the pigs declare, "All animals are equal, but some of us are more equal than others"?

Like the pigs, we motorists -- especially those of us in cars -- are 'more equal' than others. We have special rights. We have a special right-of-way that the bitch-goddess of economic superiority has bestowed upon us.

Our comfort and speed takes precedence over the comfort and safety of pedestrians, because we are capable of buying expensive vehicles, fuel and vehicle insurance, and paying road tax.

It is no secret that wheels are a status symbol, a social pecking-order based on wealth. In ascending order -- bicycle, scooter, motorbike, small car (Maruti 800), larger car (Fiat Palio, Maruti Esteem), larger foreign car (Honda Civic), SUVs. A Toyota Land Cruiser or Mitsubishi Pajero sits near the top of the heap.

I'm ok with status-symbols; it's a natural human tendency. But...
Have you noticed that the word 'pedestrian' is tainted with contempt? Also it's hindi equivalent, Raaste pe chalta aadmi ?
When did the basic human-being become an object of contempt? We aren't born with wheels, you know! We are all basically pedestrians, but why is it so easy to forget this when we are behind a steering wheel?

Visualize the sheer inequity of this situation: I am one guy securely seat-belted in a well-cushioned airconditioned bubble of metal and glass, and capable of travelling at 90 km per hour. As always, I am in a tearing hurry to go somewhere. Therefore, my right-or-way takes precedence over that of six kids carrying a load of books in the noontime sun, balancing precariously near a road divider amidst a confusion of speeding vehicles, noise and smoke, looking for a chance to safely cross the highway and get to school before the starting bell.

Some questions

What gave me the right-or-way over these kids? What gave me the right to assign my time and comfort greater priority than their time, comfort and above all, SAFETY?

Was it the fact that I could do them physical harm --a sense of raw power -- that gave me the right-of-way? Must the weak yield to the strong in our society?

Was it my vehicle's greater size and bulk -- a ton of sleek metal and glass hurtling down the road like a charging rhino? Must humans yield to machines in our society?

Was it my greater speed and momentum -- the fact that I was going much faster, and would have to sacrifice my speed in order to let them pass? Must human 'inefficiency' yield to mechanical 'efficiency' in our society?

Was it the fact that I was obviously a person with more visible money-power, and therefore my time and comfort was more important than theirs? Must mere humans bow before money-power in our society?
Was it the fact that the road was a motorists' territory -- and therefore a pedestrian must somehow cope and sneak past as best as he can, at his own risk? Must we all gradually give up our rights as 'mere humans' and pedestrians in our own neighbourhoods, as roads become increasingly more common, wider and busier?

To my children, an apology

My children cannot safely walk to school. They cannot ride a bicycle to school. I would not even advise them to walk to and from the nearest suburban railway station, although it is at an easy walking distance which I myself often walk.

They cannot do all these things because the rights of people-on-wheels are rampaging the basic rights of people-on-foot.

Unless my children become people-on-wheels, they are underprivileged citizens in my city. They are not equal citizens. Their basic right to walk is not respected by my government or even by motorists like myself.

For robbing my children of their birthright to walk any distance in safety, I hang my head in shame.

And with tears of anger and regret, I swear to restore to my children their birthright. So Help me God!

To Stop Global Warming, Stop Credit Cards & Consumer Loans

Today, we have an affluent economy, with only a small fraction of our economies' output devoted to basic needs. Environmentalists say that we are reaching the limits of growth due to ecological constraints. Here in our cities, we have not only reached the limits of human needs but overshot them many times over. What we currently have in our metros is largely overconsumption or unnecessarily luxurious consumption which has many adverse consequences on us, on our economies and on our planet.

Economic growth is no longer improving our well-being. The extra time and energy that we must spend on healthcare, children's education, commuting and just keeping pace of changes are on the rise. The quality of our surroundings -- our neighbourhood, roads, civic infrastructure etc. are deteriorating even as more and more goods flood the supermarkets.

We have reached a point of counterproductive growth; additional growth now brings diminishing benefits while causing increased social and environmental costs.

As we urban Indians have become more prosperous, we have moved from consuming necessities to consuming conveniences to consuming luxuries. We are now driving to work one-per-car and spending many hours per week in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

This has severe environmental consequences. India's phenomenal economic growth of 9.5% per annum comes at the cost of farmers being deprived of electricity, of countless creatures of all shapes and sizes being deprived of their natural habitats and their food, of countless rivers and groundwater resources being both overexploited and polluted. Due to the continuous expansion of factories for manufacturing everything from cement to SUVs to cream-biscuits expand to meet the burgeoning demand, we overdraw on planetary resources and disrupt the fine web of life by cutting its strands.

But how can we stop? How to stop so many billion people from doing all the things they do in daily life?

In my mind, I keep searching for key points that are causing our present situation. I keep trying to identify places where the cancerous tumour, so to speak, can be clearly isolated from human flesh. Because these are the places where we can start cutting away surgically, methodically, without hurting too many people.

1) Consumer credit -- loans extended by banks for purchase of new vehicles and consumer appliances -- is one of the major arteries of this cancerous tumour. Easy loans affect our purchasing decisions. How?
Two calls from an aggressive marketer of car loans is all I need to make me feel that I NEED to step up from my family car to an SUV. I start believing that it is high time I bought a bigger car. "You can afford it, Sir," says the loan agent, sleazily massaging my ego into a full-blown erection.

I think about my employee who drives the same brand of car that I drive, thanks to the same loan agent's persuasion. Then I think about my neighbour's shining new Scorpio and think about how insignificant my own vehicle (read phallic symbol) looks standing next to it.
Some advice from my friendly chartered accountant reinforces this feeling: New SUV = more tax-deductible depreciation. Also, interest on loan installments is tax-deductible.

I reason: if I trade in my present vehicle, it brings down the price of the new one a lakh or so. Then I only need to afford the reduced EMIs (Equated Monthly Instalments) on the load. Can't I afford an EMI of Rs 12,000? Of course I can; what kind of man am I if I can't afford to pay a small installment like that?!

Besides, business is looking up; that new client who I have been pursuing for six months is almost in the bag. So what if he hasn't actually signed on the dotted line? His word is as good as gold.

That decides it: I just WANT a brand-new fuel-guzzler, and I want it NOW! Never mind the price, I can afford the EMI. Of course I can... Case closed!

2) Credit cards: Visa Power -- you've got it! If you have a credit card or two, you know what it means to be a really wealthy person, because you are able to securely carry large amounts equivalent to many months' earnings in your wallet.

And when you do that, you are potentially able to do all those wonderful, beautiful, generous things that you see in TV commercials -- things that can make your wife's heart go flutter-flutter, and that will make her give you that million-dollar smile. How about buying her that diamond solitaire? Or taking her out to dinner at the Taj Princess? Or booking the Presidential suite for your wedding anniversary? Or, better still, surprising her with a couple of air-tickets to Paris... Wow, that would be such a PRICELESS moment... just like they show in Visa commercials!

Credit-card bills? What's that? Oh, just a minor detail, that's all. Stuff that happens in the background, inconspicuously, as part of routine life. Life goes on, bills get paid... they always do. So let's not waste time talking about bills. Those airline tickets are one phone-call or one mouse-click away.

The point that I'm making here is: Consumer credit and credit-cards are the hot air causing the great big Economic Growth balloon to go up... and up... and up at the current rate of 9.5% per annum. Thanks to this banking 'reform', all of us are learning to increasingly live in perpetual debt, just like the Americans whom we all adore so much that they can do no wrong, not even in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks to easy consumer credit, we are all borrowing from the future. We aren't only borrowing economically, we are borrowing ecologically. As the previous article points out, "Globally, we are demanding 1.3 planets to support our lifestyles this year, and yet we only have one planet earth. Each year, we as a global community place demands on cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries that goes beyond their capacity to generate resources and absorb wastes. We are using more far more than the planet can regenerate in a year."

Conclusion: At an individual level, we should stop buying things with credit, and stop using our credit cards. It is worth cutting up our credit cards. Let us stop borrowing for the future.

And as a community of concerned citizens, let us lobby for a clampdown on consumer credit. Let us write to the government, to Reserve Bank and to individual banks and bankers.

Let each person in the banking industry be targetted with this message: Cap and roll back. Let us ask for a freeze of consumer credit at current levels this year, and a 50% reduction in the amounts of credit given each year. This would give the economy about three years to adjust to the changing scenario. (Three years is 36 months -- far more time than the economy and its stakeholders get for adjustment when the stock-markets crash or a bank collapse which happens within a few weeks time.)
Do you think there is truth in this argument? If so, please help by spreading the word.
_________________________________________________
Satyam Eva Jayate: Let the Truth Prevail.

Some thoughts on the Lacunae of Green politics

[This is a direct copy-paste from
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf06/10tf06c.html#00

However, I hope to refine this post in the next few days and highlight elements that are universally applicable.]

MUNDIMENTALISM
The following article is a contribution to the current debate within the Green party concerning the party's philosophy, policies, methodology, structure, tactics, and future within the green movement.

ONE: GREEN PHILOSOPY
i) Geocentrism.
The green party must make geocentrism - the belief that all value derives from the Earth and that humans are just one species amongst many others - the centre of its philosophy and politics. Philosophically, the most succinct way of doing this is to adopt an anti-speciesist stance. The green party is opposed to racism, sexism, genderism, ageism, etc., but has not yet stated categorically that it is opposed to speciesism. Until it does it will remain just another humanist party pursuing the same types of policies as other political parties and thus destroy, rather than protect, the Planet's life support system.

ii) The Attack on Humanism and Anthropocentrism.
Human activities are destroying an increasing proportion of the Planet's life sustaining processes and, if current trends continue, it is only a matter of decades before this results in a geophysiological collapse. The main cause of this destruction is not capitalism, communism, imperialism, or poverty, etc., but anthropocentrism, the absurd belief that humans are the most important species on Earth.[1] Anthropocentrism entitles humans to treat the Planet in whatever way they wish no matter how destructive this might be. It is imperative, therefore, that the green party does as much as it can to undermine anthropocentrism because of the damage it is causing the Earth.

It is quite staggering that whilst the reputedly most compassionate greens such as eco-socialists, social ecologists, and green anarchists, oppose all forms of human oppression, they totally ignore, if not condone or, even worse, participate in, the human exploitation of Animals. This country murders nearly 800 million Animals every year (and this is just the vertebrates) which represents a tidal wave of exploitation, vile tortures, and brutality the likes of which this country has never seen before.[2] And yet compassionate greens do not seem to regard this gigantic slaughter as being in the least bit politically or ecologically significant. They seem unable to understand that today's level of mass extermination is something quite different from the slaughter which took place in the past. Humans have killed Animals from the earliest of times but the current, industrialized, rate of slaughter is astronomically larger than anything which has happened in the past that it can only be seen as a qualitatively different phenomena.
The oppression of Animals is the biggest and the worst form of exploitation on Earth - far worse than classism, racism, sexism, genderism, etc., and the extermination of Wildlife is a greater moral depravity than nazism or genocide. Greens who have compassion for humans but not Animals are frauds. The crucial issue of our time is not global warming but the dismantling of humanism.

iii) Animals Saving the Planet.
There is another reason why geocentrism should be made the centre of green philosophy. It is a geophysiological fact that Ants and Worms are doing more to protect the Planet's life-sustaining processes than humans. In fact all Animal species are doing more to save the Planet than humans. Humans are the only geophysiologically destructive species on Earth. Why is it, then, that the only Animals on this Planet with votes are those causing ecological destruction?
iv) The Ecological Destruction Caused by the Animal Exploitation Industry.
Finally, another reason for giving top priority to geocentrism is that although it is not yet possible to verify the hypothesis, the evidence points in the direction that Animal exploitation is one of the most ecologically destructive industries on Earth.[3] It is possible that it is even more destructive than the road/car/oil industries, human overpopulation and capitalism. If greens are serious about stopping ecological destruction they must focus their campaigns and propaganda on the most ecologically destructive activities and that means primarily the Animal exploitation industry.

TWO: GREEN POLICIES.
i) Animal Freedom and the Creation of Wilderness Areas.
The green party must give top priority to the creation of Wilderness areas. Globally, greens should demand that a substantial part of the land in each country around the world is put aside as Wilderness for the exclusive use of Wildlife.
It is imperative to go beyond Animal welfare, Animal conservation,[4] Animal rights, and Animal liberation, to promote Animal freedom. The creation of Wilderness zones and the guaranteeing of Animal freedom is not a spiritual matter but partly scientific, since humans cannot survive on Earth without Animals, and partly the need for humans to repay their ecological debts to Wildlife. After all, it was Wildlife which turned the Earth into a habitable Planet. But Wildlife not only created the Earth, they created humans. God did not create humans - Wildlife did. If humans need a god then it ought to be Wildlife.

ii) Immigration.
It is a manifest contradiction for cornucopian decentralists to support the right of local communities/regions to control their own resources and yet also support open borders. Even worse is that the biggest beneficiaries of the creation of a global village would be the rich who could acquire homes in various countries around the world, and travel wherever they wanted, whilst the worst affected are the poor who’d find themselves walking past holiday homes which remain empty for 10 months of the year, and have to suffer transport pollution. The reason that decentralists (and other light greens) fail to understand that all 6 billion, soon to be 8 billion, going on 12 billion, people on Earth cannot own as many homes as they want and travel wherever they want and by whatever means they want without producing an ecological collapse, is because they know very little about ecology. Each region should have the right to choose how many newcomers should be invited to live within its borders. If some regions don't want any additional members then that is their prerogative.

iii) Overpopulation.
Overpopulation is already a considerable ecological danger. Given its (near) exponential rate of growth, it could eventually become the biggest threat to the Planet's ecology. Unfortunately, whilst some greens seem all too willing to talk about, and to promote policies against, overpopulation they seem reluctant to do the same as regards capitalism. Overpopulation is not a single issue but consists of the five Cs:-
* cars (i.e. car overpopulation and the road/car/oil industries);
* kids (i.e. human overpopulation);
* cattle (i.e. livestock overpopulation and the animal exploitation industry),
* capital (i.e. the overconsumption of the Earth's capital resources, the colossal growth in the number of capital construction projects and the huge expansion of wealth) and,
* carnage (i.e. the arms industry and war).

iv) Alternative Energy.

There is a need to make a distinction between alternative forms of energy (solar power, wind, wave, biomass, hydro-electric, etc) and renewable forms of energy (i.e. Photosynthetic resources primarily Trees). Alternative forms of energy are not renewable - new zealand thought it had a 'renewable' source of energy until the winter of 1991-92 when river levels fell so much many of its hydro-electric generators became inoperable. More importantly, the fact has to be faced that alternative energy has the potential to cause vastly more ecological damage than fossil fuels. The colossal hydro-electric power schemes in india (the narmada dam); china (the three gorges project on the yangtse); brazil (the caracas project), and, much closer to home, the construction of tidal barrages around brutish estuaries, will all cause a considerable amount of ecological destruction.
The green party should oppose all forms of alternative energy. At the very least, it should carry out an ecological analysis (see below) of its alternative energy policies and reject those which cause ANY ecological damage.

v) Regulating the Earth's Climate.
If there were no humans around, the Earth would currently be heading back into the next ice age and vast ice sheets would gradually be spreading across the north american and euroasian continents. However, humans have boosted global warming to such an extent they are not merely preventing the return of the next ice age but are threatening to cause a quantum leap in global temperatures which could turn the Planet into a vast desert.
There is little choice about the matter. Humans have got to regulate the Planet's climate to prevent either of these extremes. What is more, humans must regulate the climate not merely to protect the Planet's life-sustaining processes, but to maximize Biodiversity. Green politics must be based on geophysiology, the science of the Earth’s climate. It is transparent that greens need to be far more concerned about globalization than they are with devolution.

vi) The Nature of a Sustainable Planet.
The green party should advocate the need for global institutions to regulate the Planet's climate and to protect the Earth's Biodiversity. Whilst the green party has formulated national policies it still hasn't outlined the nature of a sustainable Planet. It is necessary to specify the structure, functions and purpose of the global institutions needed to maintain a sustainable planet.

THREE: A GREEN METHODOLOGY.
The Green party should adopt, as part of its manifesto for a sustainable society (mfss), a geophysiological analysis; a Carbon methodology; a global Carbon budget; and Carbon costed policies:-

i) A Geophysiological Analysis.
This would:-
* outline the scale of the ecological devastation happening around the Earth and thereby determine the imminence of a global ecological collapse;
* assess the major social/political/economic/cultural forces causing ecological destruction; and
* determine which ecological calamity poses the biggest, and most immediate, threat to the survival of life on Earth, e.g. acid rain, ozone depletion or global warming.
Answers to these questions should provide the Green party with a more accurate understanding of:-
* which policies should be given the highest priority;
* the rapidity with which these policies must be implemented to prevent an ecological breakdown; and,
* which industries would need to be reformed, or abolished, in order to prevent a global ecological collapse.

ii) A Carbon Methodology.
A geophysiological analysis entails measuring and comparing the impact of the diverse phenomena mentioned above on the Planet's global Carbon cycle. For example, it is possible to measure the relative destructiveness of the road/car/oil industries, human overpopulation, the Animal exploitation industry, capitalism and carnage, etc., by exploring their contribution to global warming. It is imperative therefore for the green party to adopt a Carbon methodology.
The global Carbon cycle, however, is only one of the Earth's many natural cycles e.g. hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur, etc.. It is clear that any geophysiological analysis which confines itself solely to Carbon will, eventually, prove to be inadequate. But, given the all pervasive presence of Carbon on the Earth and its central role in the life process, it would give the best approximation of the damage being inflicted on the Planet.

At the very least, a Carbon methodology would be a model of the type of analysis that needs to be carried out for all the Planet's major natural cycles. There is no getting away from the fact that the green party is going to have to carry out this type of scientific work if it is to present itself as a credible, ecologically knowledgeable, organization which understands the Planet's geophysiology and knows how to protect it.

iii) A Global Carbon Budget.
If humans are to regulate the Planet's climate and steer clear from either an ice age or a heat age, they will need to control the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. The amount of Carbon in the atmosphere is determined by Carbon emissions and the Planet's Photosynthetic capacity, i.e. primarily its level of Forest cover. Carbon is the Planet's thermostat and the concentration of atmospheric Carbon determines the Earth's global average temperature. It should be possible for humans to turn up the heat to avoid an ice age, or decrease the heat to avoid global warming, by varying the amount of Carbon dumped into the atmosphere emissions and by increasing/decreasing the scale of the Planet's Forest cover. A global scientific body such as the inter-governmental panel on climate change should be given responsibility for drawing up a global Carbon budget and then setting the concentration of atmospheric Carbon by fixing firstly, a ceiling for global Carbon emissions and, secondly, the scale of the Planet's Forest cover.
Once the green party has adopted a global Carbon budget, preferably with the co-operation of all other green parties around the world, it should then be possible to determine what brutland's national Carbon budget should be - there should also be national Carbon budgets for every other country around the world. In turn, national governments would give each of their regions a Carbon budget within which they would have to live. National and regional governments would have to face the rigours not of cash limitations but of Carbon limitations.

iv) Planetary Policies Determine National Policies Not Vice Versa.
At present, all countries around the world are altering the Earth's climate, to a greater or lesser extent, by dumping Carbon pollution into the atmosphere and by ransacking their Forests. One hundred and fifty countries are, in effect, trying to create 150 different global climates and, if this continues, there will be a geophysiological breakdown. If humans want to create a stable climate which is sustainable and maximizes Biodiversity then all countries must co-operate (on an equal basis) to produce a specific concentration of atmospheric Carbon.
The need to set a global Carbon budget to create a specific climate and to implement global policies to create a sustainable Planet, means that it is not possible to put forward policies to create an ecologically sustainable community (or region or nation) without showing how these policies fit in with this global context. Only when a global Carbon budget and ecologically sound global policies have been created would it be possible to create ecologically sound communual (or regional or national) policies. In other words, Planetary policies determine national (and regional) policies and not, as at present, the other way around because this latter state of affairs, as should be all too obvious, is leading to a global ecological breakdown.
Given that the Planet is a unitary geophysiological entity then, in effect, there are no local environmental problems. All green problems are geophysiological, that is global, in scope and can be solved only within a global context. It is theoretically impossible to work out what an ecologically sound policy is for a community, region or nation without global ecological policies and a global Carbon budget. Without a global Carbon budget to create a climate which maximizes Biodiversity, and Planetary policies to create an ecologically sustainable Planet, then green policies are just so much green sounding wishful thinking. The policies put forward in the green party's manifesto are irrelevant because they are not located within such a global context.[5]
Nationalists who support national sovereignty (and decentralists who support communal sovereignty) believe they have the right, in effect, to create their own climate. But, whilst it may be possible for countries (or communities) to become economically self-sufficient, or achieve resource self-sufficiency, it is not possible to achieve ecological self sufficiency. There is only one climate.

v) Carbon Costed Policies.
The creation of a global Carbon budget (and correspondingly national/regional Carbon budgets) would mean that all governments would have to assess policies in terms of their Carbon implications i.e. their effect on Carbon emissions AND net primary production (i.e. Photosynthesis). Once governments had Carbon costed their policies, they would have to make choices about which ones they could afford within the limitations of their national Carbon budgets.
The green party should evaluate all of its policies in the mfss (and policy proposals) in terms of their Carbon costs and then discard those which would exceed the national Carbon budget. If it does not adopt global, and national, Carbon budgets and Carbon costed policies, the green party could find itself advocating environmentally friendly policies (e.g. alternative energy) which lead not merely to considerable, but perhaps even critical, ecological damage.

vi) The Politicical Advantages of a Carbon Methodology.
The Carbon theory of value provides an invaluable device for measuring the ecological implications of political policies and the seriousness of the Planet's ecological predicament. Donella meadows recently called for the introduction of a simplistic, ecological, measuring device to replace gross domestic product as a guide to a country's well being. Carbon may be the most suitable device. Another major advantage of the Carbon theory of value is that it supplies some excellent weapons for political propaganda.

vii) Conclusions.
Without an geophysiological analysis and a Carbon methodology the Green party will never be able to determine which are the most urgent issues and which policies should be given priority. Without a global Carbon budget it would not be able to prevent a global warming disaster. Without Carbon costed policies, it will end up damaging the Planet's geophysiology. It is doubtful whether the public would support the green party if it didn't have clear answers to the crucial ecological issues of our time.

FOUR: THE STRUCTURE OF THE GREEN PARTY.
Most of this section has already been highlighted in the previous article.
i) The Leadership Issue.
The Green party needs a national leader.
ii) A Green Party Shadow Cabinet.
The regional council is vital for the success of green politics.
iii) The Policy Community.
The policy community has been very useful for encouraging greater participation in the Green party and has a valuable educational role.

FIVE: GREEN TACTICS.
i) The Limitations of Media-ism.
The green party cannot afford to concentrate solely upon publicizing its message through the media. The media forces greens to censor themselves; to concentrate upon short term issues; to conform to prevailing values; and to extol boundless optimism. These pressures are completely antithetical to the green party which needs to tell the truth about the grim state of the Planet's ecology; to promote long term policies; to tell consumers how much they are going to have to change to lead a sustainable life; and to express its fundamental pessimism that if humans, primarily consumers in the over-industrialized nations, continue to act in the way they are doing at present then there is not the slightest doubt they will cause a global ecological collapse.
The value of the media is also overestimated. Although the media industry continues to grow the proliferation of media outlets means that each one is left with a smaller and smaller share of the audience. What is more, it is virtually impossible to convince people of the merits of virtually any green policies when a large proportion don't even understand the role of Trees in the Planet's ecology. Many people believe Trees are nothing more than ornaments - usually unwanted ones because they have a bad habit of blocking out sunlight, undermining building foundations, causing hazards to motorists, etc..
ii) The Limitations of Community Politics.
After doing community work for seven years[6] I have concluded that the current prospects for grassroots' politicization are minimal. External forces are far too powerful for fragile communities - not so much capitalism as coronation street and all powerful one party local states. Such an observation is probably commonplace amongst decentralists who don't spend most of their time in national politics.

iii) Extra Parliamentary Action.
Given the limitations of the previous two tactics there is little alternative but to use extra-parliamentary activities. There are not many decades left before an ecological collapse so greens must go on the offensive. The ratification of the gatt treaty is nothing less than a formal act of war against the Earth.

iv) Preparing for the Worst.
The gap between where humans are now and a sustainable green future is so huge that it might well be beyond the powers of persuasion to shift people's attitudes sufficiently to win their support for the establishment of a green world. If an ecologically sound Planet cannot be created through democratic means then it will have to be done dictatorially. The Earth is more important than democracy.

SIX: A NEW GREEN PARTY.
i) The Need for Factions.
There is an exhilerating profusion of ideas, beliefs and theories within the green party. What helps to stir up this melting pot is the lack of any guidelines from the science of ecology which is still in its formative period. Indeed, it can be argued that green politics, as opposed to environmentalism, began with lovelock's theory of gaia and the establishment of the ipcc. The lack of certainty about the nature of the Planet's life support system makes the process of policy formulation that much more difficult. Despite the increasingly desperate ecological predicament greens need patience. The green party's teething problems are virtually unavoidable given that green politics is still at an embryonic stage.

Given the inadequacy of green science the green party should allow its factions to flourish in the hope of fostering the more rapid spread of scientific ideas and the formulation of new policies based on these new insights. The green party should allow its factions to organize and develop their own policies - as long as each one abides by nationally agreed policies.

ii) The Case for Separation.
However, ever since the 1989 euro-elections the green party has collapsed into a black hole of its own making with green 2000 and decentralists wasting each other's time, money, effort, and patience. There are irreconcilable divisions between green 2000 (whether in its old or its eco-political form) and the decentralists. Some of these divisions are political or philosophical so even if a new piece of scientific evidence was discovered which could overcome some of these divisions it would not bridge the gulf between the two factions. It is pointless for both sides to go on suffocating each other in private when such differences could be aired in public between competing parties so that voters could choose between them. When people are spending more time stopping others from doing things rather than doing anything themselves then this is time for a divorce.