New research suggests that the cataclysmic scale of Genghis Khan's conquest of Asia and Eastern Europe may actually have had a cooling effect on the world's climate.
 |
| Mao: Underachiever |
The theory goes that Genghis and his ancestors killed so many people (40 million by some estimates) during their two centuries of expansion that they returned vast swathes of cultivated land back to forest. Enough, in fact, to absorb an entire year's worth of 21st century car emissions, or 700 million tons of carbon.
Bully for Genghis.
Researchers from the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology compiled a model that looked at land cover from 800AD. They theorised that certain 'megadeath' events like plagues and wars might reveal a change in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
"It's a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era. Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth‘s landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture," says Julia Pongratz, lead author.
This has led to much hilarity in the press, with Genghis being trumpeted as a 'green hero'. I don't know about you, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of anyone who murders huge numbers of people being hailed as a hero, even if he does inadvertently cause lovely, leafy, non-car-driving trees to appear in their place.
How about Hitler? He must have been
a green hero. He slaughtered loads, double-quick too. Or is he disqualified on the grounds that he deliberately burned lots of the people he murdered on an industrial scale, thereby contributing their CO2 directly to the atmosphere? Seems so. Tut tut.
How about Stalin? He did a good job, starving and purging a whopping 70 million to death. Surely he's a green hero? Ah, no. Afraid not. You see he rapidly industrialised the Soviet Union with his series of Five Year Plans, so his carbon footprint is unfortunately very large indeed. Shame.
Pol Pot? Only killed two million. Small beer really. Must try harder.
Ooooh, how about Mao Zedong? He offed at least 45 million during the Great Leap Forward alone. He's
surely got to be a green hero? Nope. Mao led one of the biggest programmes of deforestation ever carried out, so for that reason he's a bit of a bastard. Plus, there are more Chinese than ever these days, so he can't really be hailed as a success story, now can he?
There is a fundamental misanthropy at the heart of the green/environmental movement. It posits that people are the problem, so fewer people must be the solution. Those 'problem' people are usually spoken about in the abstract, rather than the personal. People you see in documentaries, not people you invite round for dinner.
History may teach us that fewer people equals more trees, but it also teaches us that any ideology that sees other human beings as a 'problem' that needs a 'solution' is almost certainly best left well alone.