 |
|
|
Home  Books GBEzine News HelpDesk Register GreenBuilding.co.uk
|
|
| Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition |
|
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment. PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book. |
Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: fostertomI see what the beef is - animals not included. Just letting extg fenced areas go 'wild' is def not Rewilding in any well-informed sense. You say that's what public bodies are doing, in ignorance, or cheapskate 'greenwashing' (hijacking the word) it seems. Large grazers are essential, and are integral even to conventional stewardship agreements. Free access for extg excessive deer populations or even sheep is not gd Rewilding. To do that, wd have to include predators but the 'civilised' world still isn't ready for that.
Posted By: mike7
News pictures of the recent house fires near Romford showed smoke streaming from the tiled areas on houses next to those already blazing as the first indication they too would shortly be visibly aflame. Metal gutters might have helped. Any other suggestions?
Posted By: renewablejohnexperts from Sweden to show how the forest floor needed to be managed to keep it clear of scrub
Posted By: SimonDPosted By: renewablejohnexperts from Sweden to show how the forest floor needed to be managed to keep it clear of scrub
Are the Swedish 'experts' the ones specialist in the monoculture forest agribusiness, which actually don't promote the natural growth of forests, but are interested in maintaining the economic output of the highly lucrative timber industry? These forests are not much better than dead for diversity and certainly not suitable for indigenous herbivores because they're planted too densely - see for example the Sami battles re forest areas for Reindeer roaming.
Ancient forests, for example, don't need to be managed and are indeed found to be more resistant and resilient of wild fires. Better at recovering.
IMHO it's not the forests that are the problem, nor is it re-wilding, it's the human activities around those.
Posted By: renewablejohnYour obviously not a frequent visitor to Sweden. Maybe if you did you would not make such claims in respect of there native woodlands which they harvest efficiently on a rotational basis. Its a shame the UK do not manage there woodlands with such respect.
Posted By: SimonDPosted By: renewablejohnYour obviously not a frequent visitor to Sweden. Maybe if you did you would not make such claims in respect of there native woodlands which they harvest efficiently on a rotational basis. Its a shame the UK do not manage there woodlands with such respect.
Actually, I'm half-Swedish and half my family live up there, including my mother. On my great grandmother's side I'm of Sami blood too. I have a fairly good idea of what is going on with forestry in Sweden and can tell the difference between the propaganda and what is not. For example, here is a link to letter to the EU re Swedish forestry practise and its environmental consequences (https://forestdefenders.eu/standing-up-for-forests-and-against-the-swedish-forestry-model-a-letter-to-ec-policymakers/). A key point made within this letter is that planting trees is simply creating a field of trees, not a forest because it doesn't create or support the necessary complex ecosystem. I think what you are talking about falls into this category; seeing trees as nothing more than crops.
But obviously, if you have some facts based upon good balanced research that you can share in order to have a constructive discussion, I'm all ears.
Posted By: renewablejohnWith your Swedish knowledge you really should not be making the mistake of using the term monoculture as the facts do not stack up with that definition.
Posted By: renewablejohnI accept ecosystems take time to evolve but the actual volume of tree cover in Sweden has grown far more due to forestry operations then it would have been if left to natural generation.
Posted By: renewablejohnMy wife is also Swedish with Swedish relatives and very proud of their forests and the wildlife found in them. They do not express your concerns.
Posted By: renewablejohnI apologise for not initially reading the link you provided. Just to point out to you as a farmer and forester some of the statements made in the link are pure garbage. If you plant a field of wheat do not expect to get a field of wheat as you will be bitterly disappointed. In reality you will get a field of wheat full of weeds very much not the monoculture articles like this predict. The farmer has to remove these weeds to create a monoculture crop of wheat. The same is true for woodland. If you have clear felled a stand of pine the natural regeneration would be pine so planting spruce would automatically generate a mixed woodland.
Posted By: renewablejohnPosted By: SimonDPosted By: renewablejohnYour obviously not a frequent visitor to Sweden. Maybe if you did you would not make such claims in respect of there native woodlands which they harvest efficiently on a rotational basis. Its a shame the UK do not manage there woodlands with such respect.
Actually, I'm half-Swedish and half my family live up there, including my mother. On my great grandmother's side I'm of Sami blood too. I have a fairly good idea of what is going on with forestry in Sweden and can tell the difference between the propaganda and what is not. For example, here is a link to letter to the EU re Swedish forestry practise and its environmental consequences (https://forestdefenders.eu/standing-up-for-forests-and-against-the-swedish-forestry-model-a-letter-to-ec-policymakers/). A key point made within this letter is that planting trees is simply creating a field of trees, not a forest because it doesn't create or support the necessary complex ecosystem. I think what you are talking about falls into this category; seeing trees as nothing more than crops.
But obviously, if you have some facts based upon good balanced research that you can share in order to have a constructive discussion, I'm all ears.
I apologise for not initially reading the link you provided. Just to point out to you as a farmer and forester some of the statements made in the link are pure garbage. If you plant a field of wheat do not expect to get a field of wheat as you will be bitterly disappointed. In reality you will get a field of wheat full of weeds very much not the monoculture articles like this predict. The farmer has to remove these weeds to create a monoculture crop of wheat. The same is true for woodland. If you have clear felled a stand of pine the natural regeneration would be pine so planting spruce would automatically generate a mixed woodland.
Posted By: renewablejohnObviously this is due to the grazing animals keeping the fauna of the forest floor tightly grazed.
Posted By: SimonDPosted By: renewablejohnI apologise for not initially reading the link you provided. Just to point out to you as a farmer and forester some of the statements made in the link are pure garbage. If you plant a field of wheat do not expect to get a field of wheat as you will be bitterly disappointed. In reality you will get a field of wheat full of weeds very much not the monoculture articles like this predict. The farmer has to remove these weeds to create a monoculture crop of wheat. The same is true for woodland. If you have clear felled a stand of pine the natural regeneration would be pine so planting spruce would automatically generate a mixed woodland.
I didn't see this before my earlier reply.
You have now resoundly confirmed my earlier point regarding the 'management' of the plantations and how that process of management reduces biodiversity. The point is not that you magically end up with a monoculture, but the process of that kind of industry and how it affects the environment, particularly when it is conducted at such a grand scale as it is in Sweden, for example.
From vague memory, I actually believe that Birch is often the first tree type to seed and grow naturally in many clear felled areas as it is known as a 'weed' tree - but obviously I'll need to caveat that with a statement to the effect that this may not necessarily apply to all circumstances depending on geography and soil etc.
Again, I'd like to ask for some references to support your asertion that aspects of the letter are pure garbage - it doesn't seem to be the case for 29 Sami districts of the north of Sweden whose way of life is being hugely and negatively impacted by the forestry industry....
Posted By: renewablejohnI am not getting into the hijacking of the Sami people by the green movement for the green movements political ends but I do support the Sami in keeping their traditional way of life. If you cannot see the garbage in the letter thats really not my problem and I am certainly not going to be your research assistant.
) and question its sustainability. But more to the point of this thread, also mentions resilience to climate change. It's also a little less politically charged:
