Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
An open letter to the CEO of the Woodland Trust
www.con-servation.org.uk
The website that exposes the con in conservation ________________________________________ 19 January 2006 Ms Sue Holden Chief Executive The Woodland Trust Autumn Park Dysart Road Grantham Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL An Open Letter Dear Ms Holden Toxic Trees? I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings to protect your own interests. Details of Dr Keppler's research were published in a number of newspapers and for the benefit of readers of this letter the links are shown below. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...html?gusrc=rss http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E30417,00.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,...9a7693,00.html http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...on_dioxide.htm But this is not the only research that has questioned the value of trees to combat climate change. This was highlighted in a BBC News item and the link is shown below. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3246938.stm I can understand your panic, as the Woodland Trust has built its empire around planting trees but if this is shown to be damaging to the environment as well as the other activities you engage in and encourage, then perhaps there is little point in anyone supporting your organisation. Panic stricken waffle aside; let's look at what you say in your press release. There is no doubt you are correct in saying the trees have been around for millennia - although I prefer to use English and say, thousands of years. However, I suspect you do not have any firm evidence to support your claim that their "contribution to regulating the planet's climate and biodiversity vastly outweighs any theoretical harm". You say trees are "hugely beneficial, not detrimental to the world in the face of climate change" and then go on to list these "benefits", but what evidence do you have there is not a detrimental side that could undermine the benefits in terms of climate change? The emission of methane, if it accelerates climate change, could undermine all the benefits you list. So your assertion is hugely biased and might I suggest based on self-interest. However, the statement I find most interesting is: "This clearly is an interesting study, but by far the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions are people and their activities. What should be worrying all of us is vast increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are having a drastic effect on our climate". It is my understanding that the emission of greenhouse gases in the main is a natural phenomena and that it is the effects of man's activities that is increasing the level of these gases to a point where the natural balance is upset. I think you are completely wrong to say, "by far the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions are people and their activities". What evidence do you have for this wild statement? And if you believe that why are you as a conservation organisation indulging in and encouraging environmentally damaging activities? In Scotland where there are more trees than there have been for 700 years, more planting could be harmful and hastening climate change. This brings me on to your other activities. · It is probably true to say that many of your woodlands were woodland before you acquire them and I fail to see that your mere ownership or management carries environmental benefit. However, part of your agenda is to open these woodlands up for public recreation and from my observations this mostly involves dog walkers. In one four-hour survey of one of your woodlands in Scotland, all the visitors except one arrived in vehicles to exercise and "empty" their dogs and not one dog was kept on a lead. So I would suggest that your overall ownership and management is detrimental to the woodland habitat and wildlife by the intrusion you invite. · On one of your woodland sites in Scotland large excavators and other powered plant have been belching out CO2 for months, ripping up and cutting down trees, and making footpaths estimated by a System Three survey to attract more than 54,000 visitors annually to a viewpoint - many of whom will come by car. This is woodland that could well benefit from not having your management and intrusion. And this is only on one site - there are others I could mention that have been "attacked" by your emission belching monsters. · In addition to this, your organisation churns out junk mail and newspaper inserts, publishes the quarterly "Broadleaf" magazine that it mails to thousands of its members and publishes "Exploring Woodland Guides" that encourages travel. All of these are contributing to climate change by their production, distribution and disposal. So how do you square all this when you say; "What should be worrying all of us is vast increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are having a drastic effect on our climate." While emissions "should be worrying all of us", they clearly don't worry you! That's why I label your organisation and others with similar agendas as "fake conservationists". Join the Woodland Trust and hasten climate change? No thanks! Yours sincerely Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
An open letter to the CEO of the Woodland Trust
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote: www.con-servation.org.uk The website that exposes the con in conservation ________________________________________ 19 January 2006 Ms Sue Holden Chief Executive The Woodland Trust Autumn Park Dysart Road Grantham Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL An Open Letter Dear Ms Holden Toxic Trees? I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings to protect your own interests. SNIP Rant Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of course tempted to sell. They should be protected but not by those who exploit them for recreation. Personally I would prefer we keep the limited amount of woodland we have and that the houses are built up in your neck of the woods, so to speak, where the 4 million of you can pick and choose where to roam. I agree that the limited amount of woodland should be protected and houses built on brownfield sites. The main problem is too many people but that's for another group. Exactly! Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
An open letter to the CEO of the Woodland Trust
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:02:56 +0000, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000, Andy Cap wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote: www.con-servation.org.uk The website that exposes the con in conservation ________________________________________ 19 January 2006 Ms Sue Holden Chief Executive The Woodland Trust Autumn Park Dysart Road Grantham Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL An Open Letter Dear Ms Holden Toxic Trees? I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings to protect your own interests. SNIP Rant Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of course tempted to sell. They should be protected but not by those who exploit them for recreation. I really can't see any reason why they should not be used for recreation. What's the point of having land enclosed unnecessarily. I thought the plan was to make more land available. If you are specifically criticising irresponsible dog owners, then I am in full agreement with you, that they should exercise proper control. The main problem is too many people but that's for another group. Exactly! I didn't mean in the woods by the way. Just generally ! ;-) Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk Andy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
An open letter to the CEO of the Woodland Trust
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:11:37 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:02:56 +0000, wrote: On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000, Andy Cap wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote: www.con-servation.org.uk The website that exposes the con in conservation ________________________________________ 19 January 2006 Ms Sue Holden Chief Executive The Woodland Trust Autumn Park Dysart Road Grantham Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL An Open Letter Dear Ms Holden Toxic Trees? I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings to protect your own interests. SNIP Rant Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of course tempted to sell. They should be protected but not by those who exploit them for recreation. I really can't see any reason why they should not be used for recreation. What's the point of having land enclosed unnecessarily. I thought the plan was to make more land available. The reason they should not be used (abused?) for recreation is that man's imprint needs to be reduced - not expanded by fake conservation organisations. If you are specifically criticising irresponsible dog owners, then I am in full agreement with you, that they should exercise proper control. Dog owners will use facilities that are available to them. The Woodland Trust is providing these facilities and without any supervision. The main problem is too many people but that's for another group. Exactly! I didn't mean in the woods by the way. Just generally ! ;-) So did I. A 75m increase in population every year on the planet and we talk about saving the starving? Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crazy world. RSPB, Woodland Trust etc banned, or justwishfulthinking by BAA dickheads. | United Kingdom | |||
Crazy world. RSPB, Woodland Trust etc banned, or just wishful thinking by BAA dickheads. | United Kingdom | |||
Woodland Trust's misleading advert | United Kingdom | |||
The Woodland Trust National Questionnaire 2004 | United Kingdom | |||
Is the existence of the Woodland Trust justified? | United Kingdom |