One of the perks enjoyed by those working for Natural England is they get to play God. They decide what kind of landscape we have in England. In my wildest imaginings I never thought of God as a being sitting at a desk creating masses of self justifying paperwork and going to meetings but maybe that’s what we’ve come to in this secular world. So if you ever wondered who decided we’ve got to have mile upon mile of bleak treeless moorland while other countries have woods and forests the answer is the unaccountable NE.
But now there’s to be a planned campaign to plant trees all over the country to help deal with excess carbon emissions. So where does that leave the programme of tree felling and poisonings that SWT and their Natural England allies continue to defend on Blacka Moor? This is to return to a theme I’ve raised before. My point has little to do with carbon and climate change which I am not qualified to talk about. I prefer to trust the judgement of the majority of scientists partly because it chimes with my lifetime suspicion of the value of burning energy to create more and more disposable consumer goods, leading to more and more waste. Even in the nineteenth century John Ruskin was warning that the planet could not survive the impact of industrialisation the ugliness and violence of which denied all that a lover of beauty valued.
Our country, compared to others, has such a small area covered with woodland. So why do the conservation mafia insist we must retain vast tracts of artificial treeless waste in our uplands for supposedly ‘cultural’ reasons? This is the theme of Mark Fisher’s latest article. It is to Mark’s site that we must look for an intelligent discussion of these issues and once again he does not disappoint. And there is confirmation in his article of what I have always suspected: that it’s the vested interests of the Moorland Owners and Tenants with their grouse shooting businesses that determines policy which is then visited upon even areas in public hands by NE enforcers who consider that local councils are an easy touch.
But now there’s to be a planned campaign to plant trees all over the country to help deal with excess carbon emissions. So where does that leave the programme of tree felling and poisonings that SWT and their Natural England allies continue to defend on Blacka Moor? This is to return to a theme I’ve raised before. My point has little to do with carbon and climate change which I am not qualified to talk about. I prefer to trust the judgement of the majority of scientists partly because it chimes with my lifetime suspicion of the value of burning energy to create more and more disposable consumer goods, leading to more and more waste. Even in the nineteenth century John Ruskin was warning that the planet could not survive the impact of industrialisation the ugliness and violence of which denied all that a lover of beauty valued.
Our country, compared to others, has such a small area covered with woodland. So why do the conservation mafia insist we must retain vast tracts of artificial treeless waste in our uplands for supposedly ‘cultural’ reasons? This is the theme of Mark Fisher’s latest article. It is to Mark’s site that we must look for an intelligent discussion of these issues and once again he does not disappoint. And there is confirmation in his article of what I have always suspected: that it’s the vested interests of the Moorland Owners and Tenants with their grouse shooting businesses that determines policy which is then visited upon even areas in public hands by NE enforcers who consider that local councils are an easy touch.
No comments:
Post a Comment