What we now know of as environmentalism began with the establishment of the first empire forest in 1855 in British India, and during the second half of the nineteenth century, over ten per cent of the land surface of the earth became protected as a public trust. Sprawling forest reservations, many of them larger than modern nations, became revenue-producing forests that protected the whole 'household of nature', and Rudyard Kipling and Theodore Roosevelt were among those who celebrated a new class of government foresters as public heroes. Imperial foresters warned of impending catastrophe, desertification and global climate change if the reverse process of deforestation continued. The empire forestry movement spread through India, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and then the United States to other parts of the globe, and Gregory Barton's study looks at the origins of environmentalism in a global perspective.

No abstract

Background: This article traces the history of scientific ideas connecting forest cover with rainfall to inform ongoing debates about whether forests are net users or producers of water in the hydrological cycle. Scholars of the supply-side school argue that forests are net producers and magnifiers that increase rainfall at regional scales. Supply-side scholars seek to challenge the dominance of demand-side thinking. The demand-side school emphasizes that trees are net users of water within a catchment that decrease overall water available for other users. This scientific debate has significant implications for the development of policies to manage forests and water. Results: Scientists have debated the question of whether forests improve or worsen water balance for over two hundred years. Connections between forests and rainfall gained prominence in scientific circles during the second half of the nineteenth century and again during the past three decades. The popularity of forestrainfall connections has paralleled societal and scientific interest in anthropogenic climate change and deforestation. Theories connecting forests with rainfall peaked in popularity in the 1850s to 1880s, a period when scientists expressed alarm that deforestation caused regional declines in precipitation. Forests were understood to create rain within a locality and region. Scientific consensus shifted by the early twentieth century to the view that forests did not play a significant role in determining rainfall. The forest-rainfall connection reemerged in the 1980s alongside advances in climate modelling and growing fears of anthropogenic global warming and tropical deforestation. Using new data and theories, supply-side advocates have once again placed a strong forest-rainfall connection into scientific prominence.

No abstract