Whoah, whoah, whoah. What's this? UK forests OWNED!

[agamemnus]

Literally! Amg. Goodbye thousand year old trees!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39818623...d_news-europe/

LONDON — Britain's government will soon unveil plans to sell around half of the woodlands it oversees, paving the way for a huge expansion in holiday resorts, golf courses and commercial logging operations, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman will unveil the plans to dispose about 50 percent of the 748,000 hectares (1.85 million acres) of forest within days, according to the newspaper.

Laws overseeing so-called ancient forests, such as the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest, are most likely to be changed to allow companies to cut down trees, according to the Telegraph.

"We are looking to energize our forests by bringing in fresh ideas and investment, and by putting conservation in the hands of local communities," a source close to the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told the newspaper.

A third of the land will be sold before 2015, and the rest by 2020, a government source told the newspaper.

Legislation dealing with forests dates back to the Magna Carta, which was forced onto King John in 1215 and formed the basis for English law, the newspaper reported.

The sale of the woodlands comes as the British government tries to make enormous budget cuts called for under the Conservative-led coalition's cost-cutting drive.

Britain will cut half a million jobs, sharply reduce welfare payments and raise the retirement age as part of an unprecedented plan that will test the strength of both the economy and the government.

[earthJoker]

Don't they take it a little bit to literal with the 'cuts'?

The idea seems bad to me. How big is the chance they really do this?

[']['ear]

"energize our forests by bringing in fresh ideas and investment"

Well, there's a fresh euphemism for cutting a forest down!

Glad to see that the UK has some political will to make changes. The US, in contrast, is debating whether our president has a US birth certificate.

[Loki]

When you're making across-the-board 10-20% cuts, I fail to see why forests should be immune. At least the Brits are trying to fix their deficit. No such luck here.

[Dreadnaught]

That is a pretty nasty euphemism though. I'm all for budget cuts, but selling off things that simply can't be remade seems a bit extreme.

[Loki]

I'm sure a poor person who lost access to numerous government services will feel nice and warm inside knowing that no one cut down those trees, especially knowing that he had to lose more of those services because savings weren't achieved in the latter area.

[GGT]

Britain's government will soon unveil plans to sell around half of the woodlands it oversees, paving the way for a huge expansion in holiday resorts, golf courses and commercial logging operations, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

Sounds like Vegas, or Ireland. And look how well they're doing.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm sure a poor person who lost access to numerous government services will feel nice and warm inside knowing that no one cut down those trees, especially knowing that he had to lose more of those services because savings weren't achieved in the latter area.

While I appreciate the efficiency argument, government doesn't exist simply to pursue the straightest line to raw GDP growth.

It's all about not hurting yourself in the long-term. Just like cutting defense spending can have do long term harm, some would argue that cutting down the few remaining forests does long term harm.

But candidly, I doubt they can make that much money from locating these kinds of things in those particular places. There is other property in the UK that could be sold in the private market for malls.

[Loki]

Who's stopping environmentalists from buying those woodlands?

[Wraith]

Who's stopping environmentalists from buying those woodlands?

I lol'ed!

[Dreadnaught]

Who's stopping environmentalists from buying those woodlands?

If we really get down to it, because there's no short term money in environmental welfare. And degraded environments are also an externality that governments just have to deal with.

Capitalism makes good long-term decisions most of the time, but sometimes it's probably for the best to embrace a little stasis.

[Loki]

And if people used that logic 200 years ago, what percentage of the US would still be uninhabitable?

[Dreadnaught]

This isn't 200 years ago, priorities change. 200 years ago the biggest land concern in England was primarily distribution of farmland. The economy is different now, so the concerns have shifted.

Not to mention that the UK has significantly less land per capita than the US.

[Loki]

This isn't 200 years ago, priorities change. 200 years ago the biggest land concern in England was primarily distribution of farmland. The economy is different now, so the concerns have shifted.

Not to mention that the UK has significantly less land per capita than the US.

You're right: priorities do change. And the priority right now is to decrease the budget deficit in order to maintain a certain standard of living for the British population. Every decision has costs and benefits. It's silly to pretend that environmental ones are somehow immune. The environment does have value (not just economic), but it's not invaluable.

Exactly. And that land is currently not being used productively.

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah, but they could better use land by building taller buildings. I would argue there's probably an optimal amount of trees in the UK for local carbon-dioxide processing and the UK could probably do for some more trees. Biodiversity is an asset we can't just pave over. There is a pretty compelling public interest here, and this kind of decision can't be easily reversed. I don't think this should be thought of as a zero-sum thing.

[agamemnus]

It's not just forests or carbon emissions. In my opinion, it's an irreplaceable heritage that would undoubtedly be cut down just to make a few bucks.

Perhaps (I really hope not) this tree, but many other trees like it, could be gone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Oak

Another thought I had is that private companies would be much more careless than researchers if those companies happen to find very delicate and barely noticeable buried ancient ruins or habitation. (the researchers wouldn't have such an easy access anymore to this new semi-private land.)

[GGT]

And if people used that logic 200 years ago, what percentage of the US would still be uninhabitable?

They didn't have the same science knowledge 200 years ago. No one did.

Times like this require long term thinkers. That used to mean some government over sight, for the greater good. Trying not to kill future generations just to make a few million bucks in a few years.

Who knows now though, when first world island nations are willing to harvest ancient forests for a fricking golf course.

[earthJoker]

Who's stopping environmentalists from buying those woodlands?

If this goes through, they will probably try. Pro Natura (major Swiss nature organization) owns entire lakes. They are probably one of the largest private land holders in Switzerland.

I remember Rand talking about the values of the Central Park NY, and how it's value can't be compared to its economical value. If I remember correctly he said, even an economist should see that the solution that produces the highest economical output is not always the best for the people.

Nature is a value, not an economical one, but it is a value that adds to the quality of life. And in overcrowded Europe (especially in the blue banana) we have to take care of much more than in countries that have a lot of spare space.

[Nessus]

Capitalism makes good long-term decisions most of the time,

Wait. Good for whom, exactly?

[RandBlade]

If this goes through, they will probably try. Pro Natura (major Swiss nature organization) owns entire lakes. They are probably one of the largest private land holders in Switzerland.

I remember Rand talking about the values of the Central Park NY, and how it's value can't be compared to its economical value. If I remember correctly he said, even an economist should see that the solution that produces the highest economical output is not always the best for the people.

Nature is a value, not an economical one, but it is a value that adds to the quality of life. And in overcrowded Europe (especially in the blue banana) we have to take care of much more than in countries that have a lot of spare space.

Indeed, however Central Park NY is not simply untapped land left as it originally was. Its a well-managed park that has been developed as a park and is maintained as such. It is a perfect example that proves the point.

Some of the UK's most popular tourist attractions outside of London, ie especially for Britons, are in forests. CenterParcs, Alton Towers etc, etc have taken parts of forest and developed massive tourist attractions there ... and the well-maintained wildlife and trees etc are part of the attraction. CenterParcs wouldn't work if it wasn't for the trees. You could go to Alton Towers and spend a day just walking around the forest without even going on a single ride if you wanted to, its gorgeous; when you take the monorail there you realise what a small proportion of it is used for the rides with the vast majority maintained as forest.

There aren't that many trees in the UK compared to a fraction of eg the Amazon rainforest that we're talking mammoth ground-breaking logging here - although there'd be no problems with sustainable logging going on in some places. But to sell off the land for holiday resorts, golf courses etc are win-win all around.

The government wins because it gets extra income that means less cuts elsewhere.
The public wins because we gains extra entertainment, tourist etc spots.
The economy gains from an influx of new jobs based on these.

So long as its done properly - and it will be, I don't see any down-side.

[earthJoker]

How are the laws for cutting down forests in the UK? Here you have to replace any tree you cut down by another new one. This way the number of trees/forests never decreases in Switzerland. The law wasn't invented by treehuggers but as a protection act against avalanches.

[RandBlade]

Seems like a good simple solution that will allow the sales to go ahead simply and not be the end of the world. I've heard of many sustainable forests were for each 1 cut down they plant either 2 or 3 (because saplings aren't equivalent to a fully grown tree). Although over-time 1:1 should be fine.

[earthJoker]

Well one has to take care that the forest will survive. Simply plant a new tree and let it die won't do the trick.

[']['ear]

This seems like a short-sighted policy. Forests have to last for centuries, and they're a practically irreplaceable resource.

[Hazir]

I really don't see the problem. Why should the state own forests for conservation reasons? That can be achieved also by regulating what is owned privately. Also, I doubt there is any real wild nature left in England. Probably every single one of those forests is the result of an economical decision at some time in the past. The only thing that's a bit iffy to me is the willingness to change legislation in order to raise the value of the land these forests are on for developement.

[earthJoker]

Yeah, but are there regulations? They have to be in place first, before you sell.

And I think you underestimate the natural value of forests, even in the UK.

[Being]

This place used to have trees. Easter Island

So did this place. Haiti

[Hazir]

Yeah, but are there regulations? They have to be in place first, before you sell.

And I think you underestimate the natural value of forests, even in the UK.

Hardly, I just think that it's a bit silly to attribute to nature what is really a product of culture. Those forests are there because people wanted them to be there regardless of other possible uses for the land. I don't see that change overnight because the government returns the ownership to private entities.

[Hazir]

This place used to have trees. Easter Island

So did this place. Haiti

And the pictures on this location were taken at a place that was 6 meters under water 75 years ago.

[earthJoker]

Hardly, I just think that it's a bit silly to attribute to nature what is really a product of culture.

Of course men had influence on it. But it's not like men could build a forest. It's still nature that grows the trees, and a forest unlike agricultural land, hold a ecosystem with high variation of species.