At first, I took it to be that nature actually hates government. Then again, almost everything and everyone hates government. It is so anti-human, anti-nature and anti-life. What's to like anymore?
I've just read this. I'm thinking it's more about taking away food security than virtue signalling, though the latter is a convenient side effect. It's difficult to imagine how anyone can think of Starmer's government being genuinely interested in nature restoration when they're frantically building everywhere...
Ah, the nostalgia as I recall the heady days of protests against the Newbury bypass, and then Winchester Down, both of which a mate of mine from university heroically tried to defend against the developers, and even the national press had to take note of "Swampy" ... unfortunately both of these actions turned out to be futile, and caused my present pessimism that unless things change radically on a wider social, economic and cultural level these will forever be losing battles against "development".
Basically contradictory goals of building more housing, including on green field sites, and increasing tree-cover dramatically...
Just empty virtue-signalling to keep eco-activists quiet? An attempt to take away land from food security? Utter confusion with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is up to?
My initial, off the top of my head take is that the proposed 'National Forest' is leaning more towards virtue signalling than actually doing anything significant for the environment. It's a sop to those who think they're 'green' and voted for Starmer as the 'lesser of two evils' without doing anything really radical. Apart from taking more land out of food production. Something which planting field edge trees wouldn't do but planting over fields does. As for the grey belt / green belt issue, I see this as a step towards lessening protection for the green belt as a whole by a government that doesn't understand that ecologically sensitive habitats can't exist in isolation and need to be linked up to each other. Again, this has the potential to lose us even more productive farmland. Which may not matter so much once us oldies (Liz and me) get shuffled off this mortal coil one way or another as part of the depopulation agenda. Although how an agenda of depopulation fits in with creating a free for all for housebuilders is at the moment, a bit of a puzzle. The answer to that could be the 'great replacement' theory but, as AI is set to eliminate swathes of jobs, overall, less workers are going to be needed. So, I'm not certain if there is a grand plan, or if there are competing factions in the ruling elite, each with their own agenda or, whether they really are absolutely clueless... I think I need a lie down after all that!
At first, I took it to be that nature actually hates government. Then again, almost everything and everyone hates government. It is so anti-human, anti-nature and anti-life. What's to like anymore?
https://open.substack.com/pub/carriestarbuck/p/rewildings-human-cost-who-gets-left?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=e6w6h
I've just read this. I'm thinking it's more about taking away food security than virtue signalling, though the latter is a convenient side effect. It's difficult to imagine how anyone can think of Starmer's government being genuinely interested in nature restoration when they're frantically building everywhere...
Ah, the nostalgia as I recall the heady days of protests against the Newbury bypass, and then Winchester Down, both of which a mate of mine from university heroically tried to defend against the developers, and even the national press had to take note of "Swampy" ... unfortunately both of these actions turned out to be futile, and caused my present pessimism that unless things change radically on a wider social, economic and cultural level these will forever be losing battles against "development".
So Dave, related to this, what's this about, do you think: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93nxj5n5g9o
Together with this: https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/sections/news/labour-reveals-greenbelt-housing-plan-as-government-ditches-key-pledge-19-04-2024/
Basically contradictory goals of building more housing, including on green field sites, and increasing tree-cover dramatically...
Just empty virtue-signalling to keep eco-activists quiet? An attempt to take away land from food security? Utter confusion with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is up to?
My initial, off the top of my head take is that the proposed 'National Forest' is leaning more towards virtue signalling than actually doing anything significant for the environment. It's a sop to those who think they're 'green' and voted for Starmer as the 'lesser of two evils' without doing anything really radical. Apart from taking more land out of food production. Something which planting field edge trees wouldn't do but planting over fields does. As for the grey belt / green belt issue, I see this as a step towards lessening protection for the green belt as a whole by a government that doesn't understand that ecologically sensitive habitats can't exist in isolation and need to be linked up to each other. Again, this has the potential to lose us even more productive farmland. Which may not matter so much once us oldies (Liz and me) get shuffled off this mortal coil one way or another as part of the depopulation agenda. Although how an agenda of depopulation fits in with creating a free for all for housebuilders is at the moment, a bit of a puzzle. The answer to that could be the 'great replacement' theory but, as AI is set to eliminate swathes of jobs, overall, less workers are going to be needed. So, I'm not certain if there is a grand plan, or if there are competing factions in the ruling elite, each with their own agenda or, whether they really are absolutely clueless... I think I need a lie down after all that!