2800 Acres To Be Rewilded

[glasshouse]

Thing is Glasshouse Knepp now employs many folk but they are ecologists etc. So while I appreciate your ire tis a tad more complex. Not that I condone all the cash paid to Isabella and Charlie these past 20 years. And I am.now watching version 2 take place near where I live.

All wasters

 

[egbert]

All wasters

It's a much peddled myth.
The 'extra;' jobs aren't being supported by the land's output at all.
........they're funded from outside.

If everywhere was rewilded, these jobs wouldn't grow proportionately.
It's another little white lie, to support a conscience salving fantasy.

 

[glasshouse]

 

[teslacoils]

Its not about land use, its about public money

If only the public would, directly or indirectly, pay more for food over travel or leisure....

 

[Hindsight]

If only the public would, directly or indirectly, pay more for food over travel or leisure....

If the public paid more for food are you sure that any of that extra would end up with farmers? And why?

 

[kiwi pom]

who decides what the land best suited for ?

I don’t know it should be fairly obvious for a lot of ground, marginal land not so much.
I do think that land use is going to be a major issue in the coming years. As I’ve said before (a lot) using land for the thing it’s most suited for and adequately compensating the person who owns that land is a difficult problem to solve.

For the record a flower growing benefit scheme on prime food growing land right next to a large population is NOT a good use of land.
I hope that is obvious.

 

[kiwi pom]

Its not about land use, its about public money

At the moment it's about using the land for whatever gets the most public money for a lot of landowners.
That's not really solving the planets problems, it's just giving more money to those who own millions in land already.

 

[kiwi pom]

If the public paid more for food are you sure that any of that extra would end up with farmers? And why?

Assuming it did trickle down to farmers (big assumption) how does the industry then police itself to ensure there wasn't over production in a certain crop/animal/product, that would see supply exceed demand?

 

[Bald Rick]

MCS (microgeneration certification scheme) says that Wales has the highest percentage of properties with rooftop solar out of the 4 countries. In Wales, Anglesey has the highest of all the Welsh counties. On Saturday I journeyed from the straits to the top right corner of the isle and I certainly got the impression that there were many more than my journey last Spring.

Lot of flyers for free solar were dropped in the post last year paid for by government (or rather, you & you)
Plus the fact that we apparently have very good generating percentage from sunlight due to the sea and the number of old men sans hair
Plus the ludicrous "energy island" moniker that encourages micro and macro generation - nuclear, tidal, solar and wind
There is so much potential power coming off the island my tits will start to glow

 

[JimAndy]

I don’t know it should be fairly obvious for a lot of ground, marginal land not so much.
I do think that land use is going to be a major issue in the coming years. As I’ve said before (a lot) using land for the thing it’s most suited for and adequately compensating the person who owns that land is a difficult problem to solve.

For the record a flower growing benefit scheme on prime food growing land right next to a large population is NOT a good use of land.
I hope that is obvious.

i have sunflowers (as well as other covers) in my rotation, they great for the soil. and i alway see a boost in the next year yield, the sunflowers earn a nice profit as well (not all for me tho as i do i pick the sunflower for charity) and the ones not picked for charity i tie up in bundles and sell for bird feed. so how is that not a good use of land.

i know were your coming from, and if we just judging what a good use of land is, by the tons of food it grows we on a hiding to nowhere, what if a person is growing 5 tons of wheat, but the guy next door is only doing 3 ton , we may well say that the guy doing 5 tone is making better use. but what if the guy doing 3 ton is making more profit overall, is he making better use ?

 

[Flatland guy]

I thought the job of a good accountant was to make a business look like it wasn't making money to avoid tax while the owners still do very nicely out of it and enjoy an excellent lifestyle?

Whilst true to a degree, but if the directors/ entity was doing all okay they probably would not want to change strategy which possibly indicates the profit and loss account was not being 'tinkered' with at all.
The bit I was most shocked about was the 135k for fertiliser the entity mentions organic in the name and naturally presume it was or have it always been a clever duping policy.

Anyway they can do what they want with their land, the only concern I have as a taxpayer is the frivolous waste of taxpayers money on schemes/projects that are open ended where the taxpayer is massively open to fraud and effectively there is no come back on the receiving party/person /entity of taxpayers money. The UK Government will not be able to claim any carbon credits off the project therefore I cannot see how the UK Government is benefitting. When we come to net zero the lower pert wood Organic Farm Ltd will be selling carbon credits elsewhere, so at no stage does it help the UK schools/ hospitals/ highways/railways etc become net zero unless the UK government can claim them back later(hidden away somewhere in the small print).

If some of the original uses of land are not profitable either the owner can let the land be rewilded for free in the most natural, way possible or carry on loosing money but when have UK Government ever really cared about the owner of any property, if you cannot pay bills etc sell up always been the logical mantra in a free and democratic country.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

It’s the in house back slapping that gets me . This place , and many others , love a website to massage their egos in public . Each generation , evolution or desperate change heralded with proclamations of how everything that went before was wrong and the new dawn will solve not just their woes but the self inflicted troubles of mankind .
Self praise is no recommendation.

 

[kiwi pom]

i have sunflowers (as well as other covers) in my rotation, they great for the soil. and i alway see a boost in the next year yield, the sunflowers earn a nice profit as well (not all for me tho as i do i pick the sunflower for charity) and the ones not picked for charity i tie up in bundles and sell for bird feed. so how is that not a good use of land.

i know were your coming from, and if we just judging what a good use of land is, by the tons of food it grows we on a hiding to nowhere, what if a person is growing 5 tons of wheat, but the guy next door is only doing 3 ton , we may well say that the guy doing 5 tone is making better use. but what if the guy doing 3 ton is making more profit overall, is he making better use ?

I think if land is suited for and used for food production it makes sense to produce as much as you can from each acre used. In your example it would depend on the reason for the lower yield, it may be that it is just the quality of soil, in which case it might be a little more marginal for wheat than the 5-ton land, maybe another use would be better.

It's why I am dead against organic; it doesn't produce enough food per acre, so we need more farmland to feed the same amount of people.

As I said above the really tricky bit is compensating the owner fairly. To go back to your example the 3-ton ground may be capable of 5 but the owner may make more profit from 3 ton with the current system.

How do we change that?
I'm looking at it from a planet level not an individual owners.

 

[Daddy Pig]

I believe solar panels today are ten time more efficient today than they were ten years ago. With that rate of increase in future they will do a lot of heating even if some escapes.

Really? Where did you get that information from

 

[DaveGrohl]

I believe solar panels today are ten time more efficient today than they were ten years ago. With that rate of increase in future they will do a lot of heating even if some escapes.

Who told you that? AI?

 

[Hilly]

Can you blame them rewilding , over heads, staff work ,,,, none of pays particularly well …..

 

[DaveGrohl]

I don’t know it should be fairly obvious for a lot of ground, marginal land not so much.
I do think that land use is going to be a major issue in the coming years. As I’ve said before (a lot) using land for the thing it’s most suited for and adequately compensating the person who owns that land is a difficult problem to solve.

For the record a flower growing benefit scheme on prime food growing land right next to a large population is NOT a good use of land.
I hope that is obvious.

Thing is, as far as politicians are concerned, "land use" is joined at the hip with "emissions" and therefore Net Zero. So using land properly and intelligently is many decades away. Net Zero will cease to be a thing and be abandoned by all and sundry soon enough (because it is utterly impossible to achieve) but we’re in for a mental decade or so in the meantime.

 

[DaveGrohl]

At the moment it's about using the land for whatever gets the most public money for a lot of landowners.
That's not really solving the planets problems, it's just giving more money to those who own millions in land already.

So it is about public money then.

 

[milkloss]

f**k me we may as well jus give up now then….

That’s the red pill……. Good choice, it allows us to see where we’re going and defend our position.

 

[Hilly]

4 out 5 members of the public want rewilding apparently.