Can someone help me analyze the poems "Let's Eat the Stars" and "Forevergreen" by Nanao Sakaki, taking into consideration his focus on nature and the environment? Let's Eat the StarsBelieve me, children!God madeSky for airplanesCoral reefs for touristsFarms for argrichemicalsRivers for damsForests for golf coursesMountains for ski resortsWild animals for zoosTrucks and cars for traffic tragediesNuclear power plants for ghost danceDon't worry, children!The well never dries up.Look at the evening glow!Sunflowers in the garden.Red dragonflies in the air.A small child starts singing:"Let's eat the stars!""Let's eat the stars!" ForevergreenTen years agoIn a new town outside TokyoHousewives wanted seriouslyTo have green stuff in their yard.But trees shed leaves—much trouble.So they planted evergreen plastic trees.Four hundred years agoOn an autumn morning in KyotoRikyu, the first tea master, asked his sonTo clean the tea garden.After the son swept and reswept all fallen leaves,The master shook a maple tree.One hundred fifty million years agoIn a Jurassic valleyA dinosaur drowned in a bog.Time transformed him into fossil oil.Then, God metamorphosed him into plastic.In Tokyo he now stands, a tree,Never shedding leaves.A hot, dry, windy summer dayI climbed White Mountain, east of Sierra Nevada,To chant for a Bristlecone Pine,Four thousand six hundred years old.A warm rainy spring night in south JapanI slept under shelter of a Yakasugi tree,Seven thousand six hundred years old.From a sunspotA young tree starts growing today.

Both of these poems criticize the human approach to the environment as if it were something to be used and consumed by us, rather than a finite resource to be protected. In "Let's Eat the Stars!" Sakaki adopts a cynical, sardonic tone. His speaker is, seemingly, a parody of those politicians and businessmen whose approach to environmental resources is to encourage others to consume more. The speaker evidently indoctrinates people with his attitudes from a young age, addressing "children" to convince them that the sky was made "for airplanes," animals for "zoos," and "rivers for dams." He tells his audience not to "worry," enumerating the many natural resources which, he says, were actually made to be used and consumed by humans, rather than preserved. Chillingly, the speaker tells an outright lie in his statement that "the well never dries up." The well here is a metaphor for the earth's resources, and the children's response to this statement is a reflection of what people will do when they have swallowed the lie that the earth's resources are endless. Convinced that the world exists for their consumption, the children begin to think of even more ways to consume it, even to the point of eating the stars.
The tone of "Forevergreen" is different, more contemplative. The title of the poem is a play on the word "evergreen," which gives an indication that some of the focus of this poem will be on trees and what they symbolize. The narrator describes how some housewives wanted "green stuff" in their yard; the word "stuff" suggests a commodity, which is supported by the women's judgment that real trees shedding real leaves were "trouble." Wanting only the status and the image of the trees, rather than trees themselves, the women opted for plastic trees as a substitute.
The poet uses a digression to compare this situation to a time when, four hundred years ago, Rikyu's son would clear and sweep the fallen leaves in his garden apparently without complaint; like tea, trees have leaves; this is part of being a tree and is something that was once understood.
By contrast, the plastic trees are the result of dinosaurs having been "metamorphosed" into plastic—these plastic trees do not contribute to the environment, but, rather, they take from it. They are the result of millions and millions of years of fossilization processes, all so that Tokyo housewives can have tidy trees in their gardens.
The final section of the poem forces us to contemplate what a real tree should be. Some trees the poet has encountered have reached enormous ages, thousands of years. We can, he seems to suggest, either turn away from real trees entirely in favor of a plastic world, or we can support the "young tree" which begins "growing today." The future of the environment, the poet is suggesting, is in our hands. It is not too late to plant more trees, rather than disdaining them in favor of environment-destroying plastic.