🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 00:02:32 +0100, wayne.foley@freeuk.net wrote:

>From the Gauardian (UK) Web page.  
>
>Aerial Bombardment to Rhubarb the Earth

Rhubarb.

-- 

----------------------------------------
Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb, rhubarb
rhubarb rhubarb... Rhubarb rhubarb!
Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.
          "Rhubarb"-Rhubarb.
----------------------------------------

In <1Nn3N5hYV5YxN4hyi2k8vL7wnfHc@4ax.com>, wayne.foley@freeuk.net wrote:

> He also hopes to replant large areas of the Black Forest cut down
> during the cold war to provide "line of sight" across the iron curtain
> between east and west Germany,

The Black Forest is nowhere near the [former] Iron Curtain; rather, it is
tucked away in the southwesternmost part of the country.

> In five years he believes that his company could be planting a billion
> trees a year - enough to reforest 3,000 square miles.

At that rate it would take 1,000 years to cover an area half the size of
the forty-eight states, which is but a fraction of the world's deforested
area; in fact it would take ten years just to cover little Scotland or
several centuries to recover the recently uncovered parts of the Amazon
basin.

It also works out to 520.83 trees per acre; a tad high even for a first
planting in extremely well-watered areas.

	-- AK

-- 
adam.kippes@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers

In article <9yb4N8HH+yywLRJo3Zu2oVY1oheC@4ax.com>,
Adam Kippes  <adam.kippes@pobox.com> wrote:
>In <1Nn3N5hYV5YxN4hyi2k8vL7wnfHc@4ax.com>, wayne.foley@freeuk.net wrote:
>
>> He also hopes to replant large areas of the Black Forest cut down
>> during the cold war to provide "line of sight" across the iron curtain
>> between east and west Germany,
>
>The Black Forest is nowhere near the [former] Iron Curtain; rather, it is
>tucked away in the southwesternmost part of the country.
>
>> In five years he believes that his company could be planting a billion
>> trees a year - enough to reforest 3,000 square miles.
>
>At that rate it would take 1,000 years to cover an area half the size of
>the forty-eight states, which is but a fraction of the world's deforested
>area; in fact it would take ten years just to cover little Scotland or
>several centuries to recover the recently uncovered parts of the Amazon
>basin.
>
>It also works out to 520.83 trees per acre; a tad high even for a first
>planting in extremely well-watered areas.


I don't know, that puts them about 9 feet apart on a square grid.

Doesn't seem too close to me for a forest, especially a young 
growth forest.


Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.

--
  Eat Healthy    |   _ _   | Nothing would be done at all,
  Stay Fit       |   @ @   | If a man waited to do it so well,
  Die Anyway     |    v    | That no one could find fault with it.
  demas@tiac.net |  \___/  | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas

In <7t99sj$hke@news-central.tiac.net>, Charles Demas wrote:

> >At that rate it would take 1,000 years to cover an area half the size of
> >the forty-eight states

That should read "about the size...".

> I don't know, that puts them about 9 feet apart on a square grid.
 
> Doesn't seem too close to me for a forest, especially a young 
> growth forest.

Possibly not in western Washington but it seems a bit close for an average
if they're going into all types of climates and terrain. A lot of those
little things would have to go into terrain, e.g., Scotland mountain sides,
where they would have to grow quickly if they are to survive very long;
the less competition, the better.

But for a Southern (US) tree farm in the lowlands, you're probably right.

	-- AK

-- 
adam.kippes@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers

Planting trees on the Canadian "tundra"?   :)


Adam Kippes wrote in message <=DD4NxCvR3JnaFInwP4bNIwrP71L@4ax.com>...
>In <7t99sj$hke@news-central.tiac.net>, Charles Demas wrote:
>
>> >At that rate it would take 1,000 years to cover an area half the size of
>> >the forty-eight states
>
>That should read "about the size...".
>
>> I don't know, that puts them about 9 feet apart on a square grid.
>
>> Doesn't seem too close to me for a forest, especially a young
>> growth forest.
>
>Possibly not in western Washington but it seems a bit close for an average
>if they're going into all types of climates and terrain. A lot of those
>little things would have to go into terrain, e.g., Scotland mountain sides,
>where they would have to grow quickly if they are to survive very long;
>the less competition, the better.
>
>But for a Southern (US) tree farm in the lowlands, you're probably right.
>
> -- AK
>
>--
>adam.kippes@pobox.com
>PGP keys available from servers

wayne.foley@freeuk.net writes:

> From the Gauardian (UK) Web page.  
> 
> Aerial Bombardment to Reforest the Earth
> 
> ( by Wayne Foley, Environment Correspondent )
> 
> Forests are to be created by dropping millions of trees out of
> aircraft. Equipment installed in the huge C-130 transport aircraft used
> by the military for laying carpets of landmines across combat zones has
> been adapted to deposit the trees in remote areas including parts of
> Scotland.

Spreading birch seed by helicopter has already been experimented with
here in Galloway. I don't know how successful it was but I could ask
the guys who did it.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon

	There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
	bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

In <zxWJ3.15714$9f.241273@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>, Lily wrote:

> Planting trees on the Canadian "tundra"?   :)

Huh? Neither Chuck nor I said anything about Canada's tundra.

	-- AK

-- 
adam.kippes@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers

On 04 Oct 1999 08:56:50 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk>
wrote:

>wayne.foley@freeuk.net writes:
>
>> From the Gauardian (UK) Web page.  
>> 
>> Aerial Bombardment to Reforest the Earth
>> 
>> ( by Wayne Foley, Environment Correspondent )
>> 
>> Forests are to be created by dropping millions of trees out of
>> aircraft. Equipment installed in the huge C-130 transport aircraft used
>> by the military for laying carpets of landmines across combat zones has
>> been adapted to deposit the trees in remote areas including parts of
>> Scotland.
>
>Spreading birch seed by helicopter has already been experimented with
>here in Galloway. I don't know how successful it was but I could ask
>the guys who did it.

Yes please do so.

Mind you, dispersal by helicopter has been been /too/ sucessful for
the native sycamore trees. 
-- 
Eugene Mann 

 # Broadcasting to the world from the island of Dogs # 

warning: may be unintentionally xposted

There is now a bulletin board up  similar to newsgroups by thread / topic
format  where  such things can also be discussed . Just fresh today c. entry
is via link on my page  hope this helps

--
http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html


<Eugene.Mann@NOSPAMukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:ryH5N0x0fqLGmItebmNCTi7jOnlj@4ax.com...
On 04 Oct 1999 08:56:50 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk>
wrote:

>wayne.foley@freeuk.net writes:
>
>> From the Gauardian (UK) Web page.
>>
>> Aerial Bombardment to Reforest the Earth
>>
>> ( by Wayne Foley, Environment Correspondent )
>>
>> Forests are to be created by dropping millions of trees out of
>> aircraft. Equipment installed in the huge C-130 transport aircraft used
>> by the military for laying carpets of landmines across combat zones has
>> been adapted to deposit the trees in remote areas including parts of
>> Scotland.
>
>Spreading birch seed by helicopter has already been experimented with
>here in Galloway. I don't know how successful it was but I could ask
>the guys who did it.

Yes please do so.

Mind you, dispersal by helicopter has been been /too/ sucessful for
the native sycamore trees.
--
Eugene Mann

 # Broadcasting to the world from the island of Dogs #

warning: may be unintentionally xposted

From the Reforesting Scotland Journal issue 22

Many of you will have been amused to read recently of a plan to use C-130
bombers to carpet Scotland with young trees (Guardian 2/9/99 , Scotsman and
Herald 3/9/99). It sounds, as a SWT spokesperson said in response to the
news, like a fairy story. So why is this crazy-sounding scheme being
proposed by Lockheed Martin, one of America�s biggest Aerospace companies?
The answer lies in the complicated world of international climate change
negotiations.

The scientific evidence that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are
causing changes in the Earth�s climate has grown over the last few years.
Government and industry are coming to recognise that they will have to take
action to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This could be done
by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but Lockheed Martin Aerospace believes
that major polluting industries will choose to offset their emissions with
huge programmes to plant trees. These �carbon sequestration forests� would
supposedly absorb the carbon dioxide that the companies produce. According
to Business Week magazine, over four million hectares of trees have already
been planted for this purpose world-wide.

Peter Simmons from Lockheed is quoted as saying �Equipment we developed for
precision planting of fields of landmines can be adapted easily for planting
trees. The possibilities are amazing. We can fly at 1,000ft at 130 knots
planting more than 3,000 cones in a pattern across the landscape - just as
we did with landmines, but in this case each cone contains a sapling. That�s
125,000 trees for each sortie and 900,000 trees in a day.� He argues that
planting from the air would cost half as much as manual methods, and is the
only way that the vast areas of forest needed to soak up enough carbon
dioxide to make a difference could be planted.

Moshe Alamaro of Ariel Forestation Inc, a company set up to market the
scheme, believes that it will work in any area that used to contain trees.
He told the Guardian that �one of the areas we are interested in is the
Scottish mountains, which used to be forested and could be again. We have
already talked to landowners, and they are a bit worried about local
resistance because people have got used to seeing the hills bare. We could
replant the native forest very quickly.� Suddenly it sounds less like a
fairy story and more like a possibility. After all, the idea that you could
put fish genes in a tomato was science fiction only a few years ago.

So what are we to make of plans to reforest Scotland from the air? Are the
opponents of such a scheme just Luddites, unwilling to experiment with new
technology. After all, a chainsaw operator is much faster than lumberjacks
with axes! Should we not welcome the fact that rich companies appear to be
willing to pay to reforest Scotland, whatever the motivation?
Sadly, the problems with the scheme are far-reaching. These forests will be
planted first and foremost to remove carbon from the atmosphere, not to aid
in the ecological and social restoration of Scotland. Indeed, it is perhaps
more accurate to say that they are planted to allow companies to continue
pumping out carbon dioxide at the present rate. In 1994, an official from
the US Department of Energy official was quoted as welcoming carbon forestry
on the grounds that �tree planting will allow US energy policy to go on with
business as usual out to 2015.�

What are the implications of the difference between the reforestation
proposed by organisations like Reforesting Scotland and that of Ariel
Forestation? To achieve a measurable uptake of carbon the reforestation
would have to be fairly extensive, which is why they need to plant 900,000
trees a day. One can assume that a small local community forest would be
beneath their notice! Clearly, Lockheed believe it will be much cheaper to
plant trees over vast areas by scattering them from a plane, but the forests
created would not be easy to harvest, nor would they reflect local
ecological conditions. Even if a mix of species is included in the 3,000
trees dropped per minute, you will still end up with an environment which
has been socially simplified from above to serve a single purpose - carbon
uptake.

Since these forests are meant to replace existing underground carbon sinks,
such as oil fields or coal seams, they must be guaranteed to lock up the
carbon far into the future (i.e. they should not be harvested). Such forests
would lead to further exclusion of people from the land. Environmental
organisations have had a very bad press in Scotland for failing to take
account of local people�s needs as well as the environment. These forests -
planted to allow the continuation of the carbon-intensive economy - would be
even worse. They would be fenced, private plantations generating little
employment and having minimal need for management, which would be likely to
threaten existing jobs.

However, the objections to this kind of forestry go beyond the impact on
Scotland. The CornerHouse, an environmental think-tank based in Dorset,
recently published a discussion paper on Carbon �offset� forestry and the
privatisation of the atmosphere. It critically examines whether this kind of
tree planting can offer a solution, even temporarily, to climate change.

They argue that the move in the climate negotiations towards �carbon
trading� is part of a process of reducing the environment to a set of
tradable commodities, and the creation of a �right to pollute� for those who
can pay. The climate has to be priced so it can be bought and sold. However,
the ability to pay for pollution doesn�t reflect human need. American
drivers may be able to pay for the climate change their cars cause - a
Bangladeshi farmer may not be able to pay enough to avoid it. The
commodification of carbon sinks would dispossess poorer communities both of
the equal use of the atmosphere (since they cannot afford to buy carbon
credits) and of access to land, which would be taken up for carbon forestry.
Carbon sinks will become a new cash crop, with the value of the resources
transferred to the rich.

Carbon trading allows those who emit carbon dioxide to transfer risks and
responsibility to those who live in areas where land is cheap (such as the
Highlands). But it will not benefit many of those who have managed forests
sustainably for generations. Most calculations are based on carbon uptake
from afforestation and few benefits are likely to accrue to people who
maintain existing forests. The exception is that loggers will be able to
generate carbon credits if they promise to reduce their activity - based on
the dubious logic that saving forests from future logging counts as a
reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. However, the social changes
involved in planting carbon forests, such as displaced peoples logging new
areas of forest, are seldom counted.

Underlying all this is the difficulty in quantifying the actual carbon
uptake of the newly planted forest actually is, especially given the fact
that it remains unclear where the world�s carbon sinks are and how they
operate. For example, peat appears to act as a carbon sink. Therefore in
marshy areas of Scotland new planting might dry out the soil, releasing more
carbon dioxide than would be taken up by the trees. Any calculation for
carbon uptake will have to be based on construction of a theoretical average
for the area, with inevitable problems of certification.

So, what is to be done? It is clear that Scottish landowners and
environmental organisations may soon be invited to get involved in carbon
sequestration forestry, whether planted by plane or by hand. This will be
presented as a chance to get involved in a bonanza for tree planting, in the
context of an unstoppable global market in trading trees for emissions. It
may be argued by some environmental organisations that, given the
inevitability of carbon forestry, the only way to avoid the worst excesses
of wholesale carbon forestry is by joining in the carbon-trading game. After
all, the reforestation movement in Scotland is not overflowing with money!
However, this would be to commit the classic error of confusing endorsement
with engagement. Just because you play the game does not mean you can set
the rules. Participation in carbon forestry, of whatever kind, gives
credence to the idea that there is an alternative to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. It is crucial that the power relations inherent in carbon trading
are exposed. Who gains what from carbon �offset� forestry?

Carbon offset forestry is no solution to climate change. It is unlikely to
result in forests which are useful for people or the environment. It would
probably worsen the unequal access to resources. If the only people who gain
from it are large polluters, we should beware of the gifts they bear�

Mark Ballard was formerly the Information Officer of the International Youth
Climate Campaign and is currently Editor of the Reforesting Scotland Journal
.

Copies of �Carbon �offset� forestry and the privatisation of the atmosphere�
can be obtained for �2 from The CornerHouse, PO Box 3137, Station Road,
Sturminster Newton, Dorset DT10 1YJ or free via email:
cornerhouse@gn.apc.org

On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:15:54 +0100, "Mark Ballard" <markballard@bigfoot.com>
wrote: in <37fce372@news.madhousenet.co.uk>

>From the Reforesting Scotland Journal issue 22
>
>Many of you will have been amused to read recently of a plan to use C-130
>bombers to carpet Scotland with young trees (Guardian 2/9/99 , Scotsman and
>Herald 3/9/99). It sounds, as a SWT spokesperson said in response to the
<snip> 

See !  And you lot all thought I was making it up as some kind of usenet
hoax . 


>
>Copies of ?Carbon �offset� forestry and the privatisation of the atmosphere�
>can be obtained for �2 from The CornerHouse, PO Box 3137, Station Road,
>Sturminster Newton, Dorset DT10 1YJ or free via email:
>cornerhouse@gn.apc.org
>

Andy R
-- 
Happening now in uk.net.news.config: CFV soon for uk.philosophy.* hierarchy
         Nominations now closed for committee candidates, voting starts in October
Subscribe to uk.net.news.announce for voting forms.

Mark Ballard <markballard@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:37fce372@news.madhousenet.co.uk...
> From the Reforesting Scotland Journal issue 22
> 
> Many of you will have been amused to read recently of a plan to use C-130
> bombers to carpet Scotland with young trees (Guardian 2/9/99 , Scotsman and
> Herald 3/9/99). It sounds, as a SWT spokesperson said in response to the
> news, like a fairy story. So why is this crazy-sounding scheme being
> proposed by Lockheed Martin, one of America¹s biggest Aerospace companies?
> The answer lies in the complicated world of international climate change
> negotiations.
> 
> The scientific evidence that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are
> causing changes in the Earth¹s climate has grown over the last few years.
> Government and industry are coming to recognise that they will have to take
> action to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This could be done
> by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but Lockheed Martin Aerospace believes
> that major polluting industries will choose to offset their emissions with
> huge programmes to plant trees. These Ocarbon sequestration forests¹ would
> supposedly absorb the carbon dioxide that the companies produce. According
> to Business Week magazine, over four million hectares of trees have already
> been planted for this purpose world-wide.
> 
> Peter Simmons from Lockheed is quoted as saying ³Equipment we developed for
> precision planting of fields of landmines can be adapted easily for planting
> trees. The possibilities are amazing. We can fly at 1,000ft at 130 knots
> planting more than 3,000 cones in a pattern across the landscape - just as
> we did with landmines, but in this case each cone contains a sapling. That¹s
> 125,000 trees for each sortie and 900,000 trees in a day.² He argues that
> planting from the air would cost half as much as manual methods, and is the
> only way that the vast areas of forest needed to soak up enough carbon
> dioxide to make a difference could be planted.
> 
> Moshe Alamaro of Ariel Forestation Inc, a company set up to market the
> scheme, believes that it will work in any area that used to contain trees.
> He told the Guardian that Oone of the areas we are interested in is the
> Scottish mountains, which used to be forested and could be again. We have
> already talked to landowners, and they are a bit worried about local
> resistance because people have got used to seeing the hills bare. We could
> replant the native forest very quickly.² Suddenly it sounds less like a
> fairy story and more like a possibility. After all, the idea that you could
> put fish genes in a tomato was science fiction only a few years ago.
> 
> So what are we to make of plans to reforest Scotland from the air? 

It may be OK for Scotland? But for Australia the idea plotted here if it could be made to work would be of outmost benefit. The problem I have on my property where I am currently planting variety of 2000 native trees is keeping rabbits, wombats and wallabies off the trees. The trees have to be guarded with plastic guards and sprayed with wombat/wallaby deterrent. Even so a great percentage of young trees get eaten before reaching a foot height. And you can not guard them from rabbits. It is interesting problem.
Any idea how to overcome it?

S.Benedikt 

"S.Benedikt" <benediktwatson@hotkey.net.au> writes:

> It may be OK for Scotland? But for Australia the idea plotted here if it =
> could be made to work would be of outmost benefit. The problem I have on =
> my property where I am currently planting variety of 2000 native trees =
> is keeping rabbits, wombats and wallabies off the trees. The trees have =
> to be guarded with plastic guards and sprayed with wombat/wallaby =
> deterrent. Even so a great percentage of young trees get eaten before =
> reaching a foot height. And you can not guard them from rabbits. It is =
> interesting problem.
> Any idea how to overcome it?

Well, frankly, unless you control the numbers of fluffy cuddly
browsing animals, you cannot get forest re-established. You can't do
it in Scotland, you can't do it in Australia, and I don't suppose you
can do it in timbuctu. And if you don't get forest re-established,
those same fluffy cuddly browsing animals will eventually overgraze
the pasture, leaving it vulnerable to erosion, which will (at least
under Scotish upland conditions) take the topsoil off, and then there
won't be anything for the fluffy cuddly browsing animals to eat and
they'll all starve.

The problem is, as a culture, Western people have a practice of trying 
to exterminate the local climax predator wherever we go. Once there
isn't a climax predator there's nothing to naturally control the
fluffy cuddlies, and their population explodes to the point where
their environment can't sustain them and degrades rapidly. While
overstocking of browsing animals is not the main cause of forest loss
in the world, it is a major factor in preventing forest recovery.

So you have two solutions, basically. The best is to reintroduce your
climax predator (and prevent neighbouring landowners from
exterminating them again). This has not proved practical, yet, in
Scotland - the same people who have a sickly sentimental thing about
shooting the fluffy cuddlies have an irrational, almost superstitious
fear of wolves. Or else, control the fluffy cuddlies yourself -
ideally by shooting, because trapping is too bloody indiscriminate and
poisons will migrate up the food chain and take out any remaining
major predators you have.

City people believe conservation can be carried out without making
hard choices. It just is not so.

-- 
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon

	'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> <m3u2njhitt.fsf@gododdin.jasmine.org.uk>
:
 
>Well, frankly, unless you control the numbers of fluffy cuddly
>browsing animals, you cannot get forest re-established. 

That's what I was thinking, the only answer to the rabbit/ possum/ wallaby
browsing saplings problem is going to be th re-introduction of the predators
- stop killing the raptor birds, eagles and hawks , maybe have a few wolf
packs or big cats prowling the moors until they turn into scrub and then
forest. 

Andy R       voting for Six
--
Support the free.uk.* hierarchy of newsgroups 
Ask your ISP to email usenet-uk@bigfoot.com for a list
of all the existing free.uk.* newsgroups.
http://www.bigwig.net/free.uk.usenet

The idea is certainly not new. I think it was the Duke of Atholl who, over
100 years ago, planted inaccessible areas by putting tree seeds into clay
balls and firing them at the mountain with a cannon.

--
Andy MacNicol

amacnicol@usa.net

ICQ No. 29463215


Freedom Bird (CFH) <freedombird@freeuk.net> wrote in message
news:380870E8.643B9F0@freeuk.net...
> Andy R wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:15:54 +0100, "Mark Ballard"
<markballard@bigfoot.com>
> > wrote: in <37fce372@news.madhousenet.co.uk>
> >
> > >From the Reforesting Scotland Journal issue 22
> > >
> > >Many of you will have been amused to read recently of a plan to use
C-130
> > >bombers to carpet Scotland with young trees (Guardian 2/9/99 , Scotsman
and
> > >Herald 3/9/99). It sounds, as a SWT spokesperson said in response to
the
> > <snip>
> >
> > See !  And you lot all thought I was making it up as some kind of usenet
> > hoax .
>
> I've crewed on C-130s and, although the Hercules has many variants, this
> is the first time that I've ever heard of them described as "bombers",
> even though the Argentines did try to use them as such during the
> Falklands unfriendliness.
>
> --
> Charles