Over at weatheraction.com we don’t restrict ourselves to just climate and climate policy. Many of the commenters are growers out farmers. Their livelyhoods and crops depend on the weather. Too often we forget how weather affects agriculture, but it is not the only factor.
Unfortunately green policy could learn something from real conservationists, rather than those who kowtow to the
In the United Kingdom, for example, we don’t want any more of the grim sitka spruce or lodgepole pine trees planted as part of some hare-brained scheme by the Forestry Commission.
The woodlands we want are not closed-canopy forests of trees all the same age, but patchy woods with glades where oaks can spread their branches, while scrubby birch, hawthorn and rowan jostle with bracken and heather for sunlight, views can be glimpsed from hill tops and butterflies dance in the sunny clearings.
Also, it’s not a question of planting new trees but preserving some of the old ones we already have.
For example, it is quite ludicrous that American hardwood forests are being chopped down to be chipped and turned into “biofuel” and shipped across the Atlantic so that the Drax power station in Britain can meet its carbon emissions reductions targets.
There’s also the major problem of tree diseases like the Xylella fastidiosa ravaging citrus trees in the U.S. and olive groves in southern Italy. Imagine if some of the millions of dollars currently being squandered on politically-driven research into climate change could instead be directed towards the much more pressing and real problem of tree disease.”
Those leading the so called green movement, really are ill informed, ignorant alarmists. They should not be anywhere near policy making decisions.
They would do well to study the work of Allan Savory and how we should work with nature, not just about hairbrained wilding ideology.