My blogs about Owen Paterson’s remarks on off-setting (here, here and here) and Ralph Underhill’s cartoon on the subject (here) seemed to have struck a chord. All the blogs have received excellent comments (I like David Hodd’s comment on the last blog – wish I’d thought of that!).
If you would like to send a message to Owen Paterson that he has this all wrong (even though he doesn’t appear to be the type who would take any notice at all) then sign this petition to tell him so. I have, even though I really don’t think he will take any notice, or even notice. However, wiser heads in the Conservative Party might just wonder at the level of anger that Paterson is fuelling in wildlife lovers – many of whom will be floating or not-wholly-committed voters.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing – Edmund Burke (a Tory-like Old Whig)(although he didn’t actually say it as best we know, but we don’t know who did and Burke came quite close!).
I really do believe in that (although these days we require good women to do something too please).
[registration_form]
As much as I agree with you about Paterson, Mark and his insane, obscene and arguably criminal (in the literal sense) ideas and actions on wildlife and the environment, I have less faith that anybody in the Tory party will give two hoots (especially if they’re tawny owl hoots) about the anger generated amongst wildlife lovers. I say that because I have so little faith in the majority of the electorate to care about anything but the supposed cost of welfare and immigration, so sucked in are they by right wing myths and their own prejudices. In short, the electorate get the government and ministers they deserve and at the risk of sounding extremely arrogant and elitist, we have a very dumb electorate and therefore an extremely dumb, arrogant and destructive government. In the words of Joni Mitchell, I fear that we won’t “know what we have til it’s gone.”
Human way to think of one self before others, even those who love nature. But maybe immigration is linked to nature more then we would like after all if we’re struggling to house those already in this country without building on greenspaces what are we to do when more people wish to move to this country, weirdly in most parts of Europe the recent trend is for people to move from rural areas to the larger cities in search of better paid work etc where as in this country we seem to think we should move from urban areas into rural areas as evident is such dross as “Escape to the Country” so perhaps it’s the other way around, the government is just trying to deal with a changing UK, after all how many of those who work in big cities the have to commute from the countryside…including the author of this blog.
You could always sign this – https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/owen-paterson-should-resign-as-environment-secretary?source=facebook-share-button&time=1389034031
I have signed the petition but it is worth pointing out that it focuses only on ancient woodland. Potentially this could be taken as indicating that if ancient woodland is excluded from any biodiversity off-setting scheme then everything is ok. It is important that MPs understand that the problems with biodiversity off-setting go beyond the ancient woodland issue.
Just a quick comment Mark. Have another look at the Burke picture and the title. He is actually looking to the left, perhaps you have converted him.
Bob – he’s looking to his left and our right!
What is really interesting politically is David Cameron’s suggestion that increasingly extreme and erratic weather may have something to do with climate change – upsetting many in his own party, no doubt including a tongue-biting Owen Paterson. Whatever the cause, the costs are rocketing and no one has so far remembered that the Foresight study on future flooding suggested the cost could rise to £40 billion pa ! (no doubt the cost of protecting London where managed retreat may not be seen as a viable option !) In a slightly different league to the odd £100m currently under discussion.
Already, the 2007 summer storm has cost the economy more than the total agricultural subsidy for the whole year and the Pitt report’s (perhaps slightly overblown) claim that it was the worst civil emergency since WW2 seems to have drifted into the long grass too, as Defra becomes all about cuts (except for farm subsidies, of course). Its increasingly clear that hard defences are neither affordable nor will work on their own – and there is a growing body of very positive work on things like (at present very small scale) using trees to reduce peak flows and hard-fought but common sense managed retreat. All, however, are restricted by the agricultural dominance of land use and the huge costs involved in change. It really is time we started spending our money directly on the needs of society and not on buying out public subsidies with yet more public money.
In the Telegraph, Mr P said “he can’t be accused of ‘trashing’ ancient woodlands because he planted an arboretum last year”. Same sort of logic that gave him the idea that badgers moved goalposts perhaps?
Stella – he is hopeless.
Stella – he is hopeless.
If owen paterson denies climate change (i.e. science) are his policies quoted from another source (the bible). His prophecies of biblical floods may prove a point.
It’s one thing to confuse woodland with plantations, confusing them with arboreta is even more absurd. Who does he think he is, Capability Brown? Should I try to get my back garden designated as a SSSI just ‘cos I’ve planted a few daffodils?
Not far off, Diapensia, as the core support for CC denial seems to rest on the assumption that they’ll all be in the Ark thanks to their tremendous wealth – and who cares if the rest of us have to swim ?