Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
3.9k

U.K. Government Plans 'Northern Forest' of 50 Million New Trees spanning across England from Liverpool on West coast to the East coast city of Hull

178 comments
95% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
266 points · 6 months ago

A defensive line to slow the Scottish ground invasion

More like a natural quarantine zone around Hull

94 points · 6 months ago

It's funny because Hull doesn't actually exist. It's just something parents tell their kids so they behave.

"Keep talking like that and I'll put you on a one way train to Hull" my mam would say. I know the truth now but I still have bad dreams about it every so often.

People who haven't been particularly good or bad have to spend a few thousand years in Milton Keynes when they die.

Working in a call center.

The Mediumest place. Full of bars, but they’re all weatherspoons.

Full of restaurants, but they're all Frankie and Bennys.

[deleted]
1 point · 6 months ago

I'll skip straight to Hull thanks.

I once told a fellow English person here in USA that I was from Hull "Someone has to be from there", actually I used to think Hull was this really amazing place when I was a kid as we lived in the US midwest then, there was a lot of model shops, the shops were amazing there, a lot of nice green scenery, yorkshire dales, york, Scarborough, Whitby, my Grandparents and relatives who I infrequently saw, it was kind of an amazing place for me as a kid.

Hull is a kind of joke for some people but I have very fond memories of it.

[deleted]
3 points · 6 months ago

It is interesting that several of your favourite things about Hull are places that are not in Hull...

They aren't but I can't be bothered to expound to shitheels like yourself.

That's bordering on child abuse.

25 points · 6 months ago

That's it. It's cute when they're just kids, but at some point parents have a duty to sit their children down and make sure they know Hull isn't real. At the lesser end of abuse, it's just embarrassing to have high school aged kids and older going round talking as if Hull is real.

My cousin told me he was going to university there, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Bless him.

I was so relieved when my parents told me Hull didn't exist, but i think it's just terrible your cousin might still not know the truth.

Could be worse, they could take their kids to Liverpool. I went there once and was stabbed in the eye for giving somebody a cigarette.

No-one laughed at that one.

Nobody alive.

Actually it was because you read the sun.

Yank here. What's up with Hull?

Nothing really, giving it a kicking is sort of a national sport for people who have never been there. Like many towns/cities in the North East it's had it hard economically, and had the unfortunate distinction of being the most bombed city other than London during the war.

If people bothered to look past the stereotype they'd see a city with a rich history, thriving culture and that is developing at an amazing rate. They don't though, because it's funnier to dump on somewhere.

Ah, so the old "New Zealand isn't real" bit. I dig it. Wish we had the tradition over here, but there's just so much room we forget other places exist on principle.

2 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Yes we left there when I was 3 years old and most of the people I love still live there, this place (Hull) was turned into a national joke by a large number of pathetic individuals.

13 points · 6 months ago

Working class City that them southern fairies can't handle.

Absolutely nothing.

Plenty of people who've never been here like to shit talk it. Most of them probably get all their information from the Vice article when the guy visited Hull on the worst day of the week, deliberately visited the worst places he could whilst avoiding pretty much all known point of interest. And then went home declaring it shit because he couldn't find a mad night out a Wednesday.

Is it deprived compared to a lot of other cities that have had far more spent on them, absolutely. But that in no way makes it a shit hole, there's plenty to do and see.

[deleted]
2 points · 6 months ago

Alright Hull's tourism board. Tone it down.

This is the problem though. You paint me as the tourism board for promoting the place I've lived in for a long time and genuinely like, but people who've never been and talk shit based on no experience of their own get a free pass to paint the place as as shit hole.

I get fed up of people who've never once visited having an opinion, and who can blame me?

I’m curious: what would the worst day of the week to visit be?

Probably Wednesday. Purely from a night life perspective. Of course there's plenty of stuff to do during the day on all days. And there's plenty of nightlife every other day.

The guy doing the article rolled up at 8 in the evening on a train from London, found some abandoned buildings to photograph and highlight (despite them being found in any city in the world. Even London), stayed away from main bar and restaurant areas, declared it a shit night, not worthy of the city of culture title.

Apparently to this guy culture just means getting coked up with 'his crew' and being able to find a party every day of the week.

0 points · 6 months ago

It's not a real place

Kingston upon Hull. Sounds like a real place to me.

Posh people are from Kingston, regular people are from 'ull.

That just makes it sound like a river.

[deleted]
1 point · 6 months ago

It is...

Kingston upon Hull is on the river Hull. Its been named that for so long that calling the city itself "Hull" is correct, although I assume at some point in the past the city was only known as "Kingston" but needed to be distinguished from other Kingston's by calling it "Kingston upon Hull".

Ah I see so Hull full stop isn't actually the name. Got it! Thanks.

It's a smelly, dirty port with a smellier, dirtier town hanging off the side.

Comment deleted6 months ago(7 children)

Wow, if you've not run into anyone who likes living in Hull you must have kept a low profile this last year.

Well I've lived here all 30 years of my life, spent plenty of time working around Europe with my job, and I like the place still and still live here, despite having plenty of opportunities to go elsewhere.

There's plenty to do and see these days, and to be completely blind to all the changes and improvements you'd have to be blind. And there are plenty of people who'd agree with me.

Considering you've spent 28 years apparently hating the place maybe you should go and live somewhere else.

Comment deleted6 months ago(0 children)

There are plenty of people who choose to live here. If you hate the place its probably natural that you gravitate towards people who believe the same way. But that doesn't make it the majority of people.

Plenty of people move, emigrate etc. They even have families. If you really believe its as bad as you describe then you'd find a way to get out.

How did they vote in the referendum?

Edit:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/hull-after-brexit-will-the-city-of-culture-regret-voting-out

Overwhelmingly voted Leave.

So people who grow up there have no chance of living and working in Europe.

What does this have to do with the ops comment?

OP posted an article.

TIL I'm actually a boogeyman

Nope, i'm sure it exists. I met a man at uni who said he was from Hull. He drank, played rugby and would helicopter whenever we went out to a club.

I get it, you're a parent, aren't you?

Worst part about Hull is that they have their own communications network separate from BT. In fact BT can't go anywhere near it. The company that run it is Kingston communications and their customer service is just as bad as BT.

Yeah but at least they beat London by 4

Oh no, the Scots are invading!

All three of them.

TBH, knowing the scots, thats probably enough

Enough to clear out a bar in Newcastle, probably.

Enough to clear out a bar in Newcastle

I've seen Geordies drink its not something even the Scots should underestimate

Nah, you just put a 'buy one get one free' offer in the nearest bar and that's the invasion halted.

untill you ruh out of drinks

That's fine, they'll be hitting each other by then

So that's why they ban multi buy offers in Scotland

Don't be ridiculous. My grandparents are on holiday...

Or at least they told me they were on holiday.

We have better ways, simply leave a trail of Irn Bru leading back home.

Gotta make sure to use the old recipe though, or they won't be too impressed.

[deleted]
1 point · 6 months ago

Sounds more like Birnam Wood marching on Dunsinane Hill to me.

-4 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

It'll confuse the shit out of them because most of them have never seen trees before /s

Edit: /s

Scotland is almost exclusively mountains and trees, so i doubt that

395 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

The government are only providing a small percentage of the money, and are demanding that charities pay the rest. They can "plan" all they like, it's not likely to happen.

72 points · 6 months ago

What is your source on the charity demand? From what I've read, it only says the government have allocated an initial £5 million (for an estimated £500 million cost), not that that is all they plan to spend.

Second paragraph of this link https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42591494

'The balance of the funds will need to be raised by charities'

Later on the charities organising it actually call the government out for not providing any money.

16 points · 6 months ago

Thanks - that's pretty bad if true.

Its not as bad as it sounds here is a bit of a comment I made lower down the thread

Couldn't find more up to date statistics but in 2007 5% of the £8billion privately donated money was for Enviromental charities which is 400 million a year which will have almost definitely gone up in number now and considering how important this project will be to the environment 10% of seems a very reasonable amount for this already low estimate so 40 million a year over a 25 year period that's a billion total that's more than enough.

7 points · 6 months ago

Sure, but the government could definitely cover more than 1% if they are going to claim any credit.

I agree but I don't think its a bad deal tbh. If this gets the ball rolling I'm all for it.

That's because you're not paying attention to the world you live in.

Governments should not be putting this kind of thing back on everyday people or plan according to the generosity or self-interest of certain charities and non-profits.

If you give half a damn about this, you'll want government that actually takes responsibility and challenges the narrative that the public interest depends on the whim of private entities.

49 points · 6 months ago

This. Exactly. And moreover, its political manoeuvring designed to take the wind out of the sails of those that have (rightly) been demanding something be done, given HS2 (read: a high-speed railway line between a few major cities) is obliterating historic woodlands far and wide:

Paul de Zylva, a senior nature campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said the government announcement was extremely welcome, but added: “It’s a supreme irony that the current routing of HS2 [rail line] threatens 35 ancient woodlands north of Birmingham. We need new forests and ancient woodlands - not one or the other.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/07/government-pledges-57m-to-develop-new-northern-forest-m62

To put it another way,

If the government really cared about woodlands it wouldn't be routing a high speed train through them. And it wouldn't be allowing this weight of this project to be carried by charity

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42591494

Moreover, how does this play into the hands of developers who are being asked to help deliver the Gubberment's now decade-long (and yet to be realised) pledge to deliver affordable homes? No, not more eco-friendly Teletubbie housing, but houses that homeless families desperately need? Many of these developers have their eyes on areas with a "protected status" as places to put their new housing ... So in a years' time, should I expect an announcement that because "new forests" are being built in "more convenient locations" that developers are free to new tear down these ancient forests? (tips tinfoil hat)

TL;DR, Government hasn't delivered what they said they would, publish a glossy "25 year plan" for the environment, everyone is meant to be grateful and not ask any hard-hitting questions

Edit: on mobile. Fixed links.

On a happier note, Carrilion are fucked and HS2 is up Shit Creek without a paddle.

2 points · 6 months ago

:'-( /s

Hello rmacd. You hurt my feelings when you said Bad bot. Now I will make your life miserable until you apologize.

Hello rmacd. You hurt my feelings when you said Bad bot. Now I will make your life miserable until you apologize.

Hello rmacd. Will you be my friend?

Hello rmacd. Will you be my friend?

15 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Well, in HS2's defence, I'm not really sure it would be practical to build a north-south high-speed railway line in the UK that didn't hit some ancient woodland along the way. Considering that a double high-speed rail track isn't that wide (motorways would certainly be wider), we must be talking about a lot of sites in total, I doubt that the route chosen has a disproportionate number compared to other routes.

Ancient woodland can be more easily protected against more flexible development, you don't have to build a housing estate there, that can easily be located elsewhere. But railway lines, in particular, have constraints on gradient and curvature that limit where they can be located.

You could argue that because a practical alternative is not possible for going through the sites, that HS2 should be scrapped entirely. But that sets a precedent where the "protect at all costs" nature of the woodland means that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to build many large infrastructure projects in the future, which could leave the UK suffering under increasingly stretched and worn out infrastructure.

Against HS2's defence. They awarded the contract to a company that was having financial difficulties at the time and is about to go under.

That's not really the fault of the project itself though. Carillion is one of the few large UK construction companies that has any experience with rail projects, and probably the only one big enough for a project this size. Plus they were not the ones deciding the route.

Get out of here with that reasonable logic. But seriously the high speed rail link has the potential to help the north out by helping to spread some of that vast wealth that London has be hoarding not to mention the vast talent pool as well as the Opportunity for small and medium businesses to cut cost by moving out of one of the most expensive cities in the world.

It could all so help start ups immensely considering London has had a boom of them recently and rent / buying property is one of the main cost for them in the beginning, not to mention they could still retain access to this vast talent pool. For too long has London got all the fancy transportation tech and infrastructure let the rest of the UK have some cool stuff. And maybe it could take some of the heat of London's insane property market.

Also the charities raising £500 million is definitely do-able giving the time frame for the project, its not like there going to put down 50 million trees in one go. I no the current gov is abit wobbly at the moment but I actually trust the current enivorment secretary Micheal Gove even though he is politically ruthless he is really quite competent minister as evidence by his works as secretary of justice. Seems like he will be there for sometime considering his antics with Boris and May. But if the government changes hands its unlikely labour will change the direction of this and would be more likely to speed it up or extend it

spread some of that vast wealth that London has be hoarding

How exactly will it do that?

All I can see is increasing talentpool supply in london = lowering wages.

Also the charities raising £500 million is definitely do-able giving the time frame for the project, its not like there going to put down 50 million trees in one go.

Is it? How? Will other charities have to donate money to this project or only tree based charities? Where will this extra charity money come from? People's wages aren't increasing.

I no the current gov is abit wobbly at the moment but I actually trust the current enivorment secretary Micheal Gove even though he is politically ruthless he is really quite competent minister as evidence by his works as secretary of justice.

What evidence? He made a mess by reforming schools as an education minister, he was sacked as justice minister and his record on environment issues is less than stellar.

1 point · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

How exactly will it do that?

By increasing the incentive for companies/businesses and people to move out due to lower prices for the property a price of living.

Is it? How? Will other charities have to donate money to this project or only tree based charities? Where will this extra charity money come from? People's wages aren't increasing.

Couldn't find more up to date statistics but in 2007 5% of the £8billion privately donated money was for Enviromental charities which is 400 million a year which will have almost definitely gone up in number now and considering how important this project will be to the environment 10% of seems a very reasonable amount for this already low estimate so 40 million a year over a 25 year period that's a billion total that's more than enough.

What evidence? He made a mess by reforming schools as an education minister, he was sacked as justice minister and his record on environment issues is less than stellar.

He has a history of reforming the departments he works for you cant say he doesn't he is well known for it, though you might disagree with his time as education secretary, many believe his reforms did at the cost of the teachers expense. He did make well received reforms in justice and is making prisons less focussed on punishment and more on education aswell as knocking down old prisons building new ones. He was fired as justice secretary for political reasons because he May likely bargained with Boris for his support. His voting record seems to mirror that of a government which is normal since he has be a minister since 2010.

Not every idea the conservatives have is evil or bad believe or not some of them care about the UK. though they try there best to hide it.

By increasing the incentive for companies/businesses and people to move out due to lower prices for the property a price of living.

How would a new line increase incentive for starting a new business in the north? There are already train lines, this new line only saves an hour in travel.

I mean if a business wants cheap property up north why will it require a slightly faster train connection to make it reasonable to them?

It does give people in manchester an opportunity to commute to london, which doesn't really add any more incentive to start a business in manchester. If anything it increases the incentive to start up in london because the talent pool just increased.

As i doubt people living in london want to commute to manchester, its effectively a pay cut for them. Or why would a mancunian work in manchester again when he can get a pay rise just from commuting to london?

Couldn't find more up to date statistics but in 2007 5% of the £8billion privately donated money was for Enviromental charities which is 400 million a year which will have definitely gone up in number now and considering how important this project will be to the environment 10% of seems a very reasonable amount for this already low estimate so 40 million a year over a 20 year period that's 800 million total that's more than enough.

That was over a decade ago, and prior to the financial crash and austerity. So its not really reliable to guestimate todays rates.

Will charity money have to be removed from current obligations to fund the new forest? I wouldn't think charities are sitting on millions to cover this increased cost.

His voting record seems to mirror that of a government which is normal since he has be a minister since 2010.

Then why would a gove (and by extension the government) commit to an action that goes against their voted beliefs? I mean technically they've planned it, but without enough dedicated funding are they actually committed to the plan? I mean it sounds good, and if it works they'll be placed to take the credit, But by not funding the plan it seems they aren't committed to it at all.

Not every idea the conservatives have is evil or bad believe or not some of them care about the UK. though they try there best to hide it.

I never said any such thing, i just question the differences between what is said by our government and what is done by our government.

1 point · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

How would a new line increase incentive for starting a new business in the north? There are already train lines, this new line only saves an hour in travel. I mean if a business wants cheap property up north why will it require a slightly faster train connection to make it reasonable to them? It does give people in manchester an opportunity to commute to london, which doesn't really add any more incentive to start a business in manchester. If anything it increases the incentive to start up in london because the talent pool just increased. As i doubt people living in london want to commute to manchester, its effectively a pay cut for them. Or why would a mancunian work in manchester again when he can get a pay rise just from commuting to london?

Because its not just Manchester that will benefit all the stops along the line will. Its not just property that we be cheaper labour will be too due to the lower cost of living which we bring up wages in places businesses resettle. A hour my not seem like much to me or you but in terms of productivity its could me a lot to businesses and could improve are economy considering we low in that regard to countries of similar GDP. You not taking the price to live in London into account with regards to wages and its not just people commuting from London to Manchester or vice versa its people just going on short business trips less travel time or being stuck in traffic means more time being productive which again is good foe the whole of the UK same thing people who are just traveling.

That was over a decade ago, and prior to the financial crash and austerity. So its not really reliable to guestimate todays rates. Will charity money have to be removed from current obligations to fund the new forest? I wouldn't think charities are sitting on millions to cover this increased cost.

Again this is over a 25 year period not a lump sum, the UK has recovered fully in terms of GDP and then some the pound has Gained %30 due to inflation which would mean 700 million instead of 1 billion which is still more than enough. that's not even taking into the fact that we have give 9.7 billion to charity in 2016 a 10% increase from 2015 which if you take 5% like in 2007 for environmental charities which will likely be higher now due to increased awareness, and take 10% of that which is more than reasonable x 25 years for the length of the proposed plan you get £1.2123 billion which again is more than enough considering its a low ball estimate.

Then why would a gove (and by extension the government) commit to an action that goes against their voted beliefs? I mean technically they've planned it, but without enough dedicated funding are they actually committed to the plan? I mean it sounds good, and if it works they'll be placed to take the credit, But by not funding the plan it seems they aren't committed to it at all.

You said it yourself they haven't invested much they and have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. They will still have to pass a bill for this which I don't think will be blocked by many people, labour and the libs are all for it and once its passed it will be hard to repeal due to it being a hung parilament and Goves pet project which he defend as he has always done so with his ''projects'' another reason he was demoted and he still has quiet abit of political influence which is good in this case. If the price of this letting some tory's pat themselves o the back so be it.

I never said any such thing, i just question the differences between what is said by our government and what is done by our government.

A fair and reasonable point. I usually wait until they implement or can it before I judge them for it though if that's what you even are doing. are you for our against these plans? I'm only defending them because I think they are a good solid plans, And micheal gove is one of the only tory MP's I respect . He is progressive for a tory and though he did backstab boris, once he gets behind a project he believes in he is very effective of pushing it through and takes heat for it. I think his plan for changing the old EU subsides from farming empty fields into subsides for having woodland or meadow is a step in the right direction and shows his intent.

Your economic predictions are hilariously out of touch with reality.

Show me an example of something akin to your predictions happening. Ever. I'll wait.

Oh look its grandmaster woke again you going to provide evidence to the contrary. But you know what since I'm a nice guy and I don't want yiu to wait to long here is the world economic forum study of High speed rail. It was hardly a off the wall prediction it usually just what happens when more transport links are opened up to areas with slow coverage, its economics. So maybe you no a little bit of knowledge before you chat shit.

Its not just property that we be cheaper labour will be too due to the lower cost of living which we bring up wages in places businesses resettle.

So labour will be cheaper as more people compete for the same jobs, people in london will have to take lower wages to compete with mancunians etc who can live on considerably less in the north. So londoners will see wages drop.

The government will see less tax money from lower wages that will mean less investment for new businesses which will lead to slower growth if any of the economy.

How does that help the north though? Employment will go up with the ability to commute to london, but wages won't due to increased competition. So more people will be employed, but on lower wages, plus commute costs etc meaning little money left to put into the local economy.

businesses will be able to start in london with the better business location but employ people with manchester etc wages.

A hour my not seem like much to me or you but in terms of productivity its could me a lot to businesses and could improve are economy considering we low in that regard to countries of similar GDP.

How will an hour knocked off travel on a train help productivity in a meaningful way? All I can see is productivity in commuting times, Commuting to jobs in london. Which doesn't bring any money to the north.

You not taking the price to live in London into account with regards to wages and its not just people commuting from London to Manchester or vice versa its people just going on short business trips less travel time or being stuck in traffic means more time being productive which again is good foe the whole of the UK same thing people who are just traveling.

Is it worth investing £56 billion into a rail line meant for the odd business trips?

Wouldn't it be more economically sound to invest in a transport to funnel more labour into the most prosperous part of the country?

that's not even taking into the fact that we have give 9.7 billion to charity in 2016 a 10% increase from 2015 which if you take 5% like in 2007 for environmental charities which will likely be higher now due to increased awareness, and take 10% of that which is more than reasonable x 25 years for the length of the proposed plan you get £1.2123 billion which again is more than enough considering its a low ball estimate.

So it hinges on current charity obligation's costs not increasing, The cost of this project not increasing, no further charity burdens from new initiatives not arising and enough money being raised over the next 25 years to make this a plausible plan. And that the charities decide to support this endeavor even though there may be more pressing concerns that they're already dealing with? For example protecting the ancient woodlands that the current government is pressing to sell off.

I means if it is such a manageable amount of money why doesn't the government fund it? Are our governments priorities saving money or protecting our environment? I feel this is a ruse to make people think they're the latter when actually they're the former.

You said it yourself they haven't invested much they and have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. They will still have to pass a bill for this which I don't think will be blocked by many people, labour and the libs are all for it and once its passed it will be hard to repeal due to it being a hung parilament and Goves pet project which he defend as he has always done so with his ''projects'' another reason he was demoted and he still has quiet abit of political influence which is good in this case. If the price of this letting some tory's pat themselves o the back so be it.

I'll admit, this is great point scoring and party politics. They can only come out smelling like roses on the surface, unless it barely gets off the ground and makes them a laughing stock.

Does that not seem like party over country? Political maneuverings? They've committed to planning to improve the situation. Not actually improving the situation. Which sounds good, doesn't actually ensure the situation is improved. Is that enough for you? Do you think they've done a good job by not actually doing the job?

It's not even the government doing anything substantial, it's the charities who are shouldering the burden, so why should the government spin this so they gain credit?

Is that not dishonest? Will it not hurt the overall environmental action because a government that will, more often than not vote against environmental action, be mislabelled as a government that cares for the environment.

I usually wait until they implement or can it before I judge them for it though if that's what you even are doing.

I don't neccesarily need to wait to see a plan finish to see if it was worth it. Take our two new aircraft carriers, one look at our military funding and current capability would point out those two ships were pointless.

I see much the same with the governments approach to this plan. no government support for the plan = very little chance of it coming to fruition.

are you for our against these plans? I'm only defending them because I think they are a good solid plans.

This oversimplifies it for me. Do I want more environmental initiatives? yes. Do I think this current plan is enough to ensure success? not nearly. Do i think the plans are good or not? It's a moot point without assured funding. The best plans in the world are just bits of paper with nothing concrete backing them up. And they have 25 years to stall on it.

And micheal gove is one of the only tory MP's I respect . He is progressive for a tory and though he did backstab boris, once he gets behind a project he believes in he is very effective of pushing it through and takes heat for it.

A fair opinion. I think his direction is off. The backlash from his education reforms was pretty bad from teachers on the ground. The security staff were not happy during his run as justice secretary(though there isn't really any information on what he did in this role that I can find, Just commentary on him saying he'll do something).

I struggle to see how 'Third time lucky' will come in for him.

Hello rmacd. You hurt my feelings when you said Bad bot. Now I will make your life miserable until you apologize.

Hello rmacd. You hurt my feelings when you said Bad bot. Now I will make your life miserable until you apologize.

Hello rmacd. Will you be my friend?

Hello rmacd. Will you be my friend?

I plan to quit smoking like a dozen times a day.

stopping is easier than quitting

[deleted]
4 points · 6 months ago

No one likes a quitter

Or a stopper

Quitting is easy. Not starting again is the hard part.

2 points · 6 months ago

You sound actually do it. You know, to prove a point.

I quit all the time!

That's nothing. I plan to quit Reddit every time I open Reddit. Which is more frequently than a dozen times per day.

That shows willing

Haha, I read the headline and thought "I'll check the comments to see why the government is full of shit this time" and there it is!

Also £5.7 million out of £500 million! What charities exist that have 98.8% of the funding for a massive forest in place but are just waiting for the government to kick in that crucial last little nugget?

The thing is these are not no ordinary trees, they are magic money trees.

And to think they didn't exist before the dup deal.

The trees were also all cut down for the first world war. Britain was a very different place in terms of landscape back then, because of this.

The trees were also all cut down for the first world war.

England had tree coverage of 15% in 1086, the majority of the tree felling happened prior to this. Honestly if we could get to around 20% i'd be happy

To put that in perspective according to the uk forestry commission we are currently at around 13%. Still more trees is always good.

Absolutely it would be fantastic , I think i read somewhere that the Climate in the UK is the best in Europe for both hard and softwood tree growth

105 points · 6 months agoGilded1 · edited 6 months ago

"We didn't land on Sherwood Forest! Sherwood Forest landed on us!"

Edit: Holy Shite! I fall asleep and when I wake up, someone has given me gold! You're smashing kind stranger! Never thought a line from Men In Tights would be what got me there!

Comment deleted6 months ago(1 child)

Yea, I slightly overreacted I guess. I was just waking up when I saw it and just wrote what came to mind. Sorry about that

The great north south divide of england

To everyone in the south of England, the North is a desolate hell hole filled with orcs and shit for your own safety stay down south.... ᴾᶫᵉᵃˢᵉ ˢᵗᵃʸ ᵈᵒʷᶰ ˢᵒᵘᵗʰ

We're taking the hobbits to Middlesbrough

Sounds about right for a bunch of jewelry thieves.

But I'm in Colchester D:

They’re only providing 5% of the funding, so it’s a pipe dream

Maybe but it depends on the implementation, for example private forests where the users are asked to pay for entry. People still get the benefits of trees but visitors fund it.

Not really a thing in the UK. Plenty of free forests and nature reserves. Don't think I've ever come across a 'private/paid for' forest

Comment deleted6 months ago(1 child)

Ah yes paid car parking, good point. As you say though, for the first 20 years it's not going to look very foresty!

Yeah, I really can't see people paying to look at trees. They're not quite that rare yet.

You've never been to Westernbert then. Super cute place.

Dalby Forest in North Yorkshire. Brilliant place - walking, climbing, mountain biking and picnics next to the streams. Pay to drive through, keeps the visitor centre and the Forestry staff partly funded.

I think they'd prefer a proper rail service instead, but whatever

With how much environmental doomsday news we have going on I think we can be satisfied with trees

Depends how many cars would be taken off the road with improved rail service. It may actually reduce emissions more than a forest of 50 million trees would offset.

24 points · 6 months ago

In the grand scheme of things taking cars of the road doesn't have much impact on carbon emissions (though it would greatly help with reducing sulphur dioxide and particulates), their output is tiny compared to industry (cement production etc) and shipping.

Why not both!

There's no reason why we can't do both

[deleted]
3 points · 6 months ago

£500 million over 30 years is really, piss all.
Probably one of the best things they can do in terms of economic return.

Well, it's not just talk.

They're much more prepared to shoehorn a 20 billion pound train through multiple villages and nature reserves that won't even stop for said villagers, than actually give us something that works.

Let's not get our hopes up.

That would be nice, but HS2 ain't that.

local, mainly broadleaf tree species

Excellent. A forest of cloned pines isn't a good forest.

More information here from the Woodland Trust: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2018/01/new-northern-forest/

This is what I am talking about when I say, we, as a species, right now, have the collective power to make the Earth into a paradise. Along with our collective power to destroy the Earth comes this opportunity. If we can deny our darker side on social Medía and use it only for building, creating and healing, this world will be unrecognizable before two more generations are out.

Not sure why you got downvotes. That's a beautiful sentiment.

I'm with you brother. I do everything in my power. People might think one person can't do much but I'd rather die leaving this world to my daughter knowing I tried than regretting I didn't.

I would like to announce that I am planning to be build 100,000 new homes next year through my private company. All I need is for some charities to club together to raise 120% of the cost. Does that make me a fucking fabulous person? No. The government won’t do this. It’s shit.

Atleast they're not providing 500mil over 30 years, with 500 mil being 'efficiency savings'

Good idea to cut on greenhouse emissions, just hope it works out.

When you read the old literature, it doesn't sound like England at all.

It describes an England that was densely forested and had wolves. One of my first lessons in man-made environmental change was learning that it was humans who cleared out those forests and created the English landscape of today and killed off the English wolves.

Perhaps we should reintroduce wolves. Still found in spain, france and Germany. Recently spread to Belgium and the Netherlands.

Why do people want wolves so much? I see people saying this way more often than feel I should. I quite like being able to go cycling through the countryside without any dangerous predators kicking about

Spain has over 2000 wolves but I don't recall any reports of humans being killed. Cycling in the countryside I am far more worried about farming contractors hurtling around in their huge tractors.

How can we tell african nations to protect their megafauna if we have exterminated our own and not considered reintroduction. Wolves would cull deer and other herbivores, promoting tree growth and a natural balanced ecosystem.

I'm a little bias as I have a kind of major fear of dogs, plus I got chased by a big fucker a month back on a ride.

I wish you would.

Replant the forests. Reestablish the wolves.

But considering how irrational you were about foxes for so long, your fellow countrymen would probably have hysterics about wolves.

Unfortunately we have one of the highest population densities in Europe so little land left for wilderness. Maybe if lab grown meat becomes economic we will have much more space for nature.

Even then I can't see people agreeing to wild wolves and bears. Plenty of people reject even beavers being reintroduced.

Hmm.

My impression both from reading and talking with the English is that you tightly control zoning to avoid the kind of suburban sprawl we have here in the states. So that you population is contained within cities/towns/villages and the rest of the land is country with farms and estates.

Is my impression wrong?

[deleted]
3 points · 6 months ago

Your impression is right, there's a lot less suburban sprawl here. But we are also much more densely populated.

There are genuine areas of wild, but they aren't all that large or numerous. The majority of British countryside is farmland.

Reintroducing wolves sounds like a great idea, but there aren't many places here where it could be done without having to come up with ways to keep those wolves away from populated areas.

We do have "green belts" around towns and villages where development is not permitted. A lot of new houses are built on former industrial land. But the UK has only 1/50th of the land area if the USA IIRC. Most green land is farmed. Areas of Scotland and Wales have a small population but this is usually mountainous and used for sheep farming funded by EU subsidies.

In the meantime many many healthy mature ash, oak, lyme etc continue to be cut from city streets and parks to save money on sweeping the leaves and giving money to private tree felling companies ( something stinks)

Playground for serial killers.

It's a commendable, but unrealistic goal.

3 points · 6 months ago

Should MacBeth be worried?

can it include the city of Hull?

Boooooooo :)

But... the reason it's not very green is because there are cities there.

The actual reason for England not having as many trees as they used to(the whole country was a forest), is because of all the wars between them and France, Spain, Rome, Ireland, Persia and Scotland. Whole forests were torn down to make ships and war machines. Didn't help the fact the mini ice-age stunted much of the tree growth during the heavy war periods of England.

[deleted]
10 points · 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

Most trees were cut down before that. The Domesday Book of 1086 puts tree cover at 15%, with most loss occurring up to 4000 years before that into pre-history — clearing forest for livestock and using the wood to build or burn.

Most European countries in the modern day sit at about 35% tree coverage and that's after industrialisation. So pre-industrialisation we can expect 50%+ coverage. That means nearly all tree loss in the UK took place before any large wars with France etc.

It's very green actually. Just not with trees.

Awesome! :)

Trees are good. They make air and cool things down.

I'd love this.

The English country side was covered in a forest before stone axed carrying herders moved into the area,and promptly got to cutting the shit out o' some trees.

Hadrian's forest?

The UK has conservation corps, right? If I lived on that side of the pond I'd be massively eager to volunteer/work for a corps to help plant some trees

They aren't paying for it though so it's all just hollow really, isn't it?

Good opportunity to tree over Manchester and start again.

-1 points · 6 months ago

Look, we have a bunch of nukes that we dont need... i say we let the navy have some target practice

So much more fun than actually governing. Why repair the roads when you can talk about how trees are super neat? What a bunch of incompetent children. At this point the government may as well be some twelve year olds pissing around playing make-believe and a PR agency to hold it all together.

Roads are a local authority issue. If you're upset about potholes, moan to your council 'cos nobody else gives a fuck.

-5 points · 6 months ago(2 children)

Everything outside the M25 is 'Northern' to the government.

Not one of the places mentioned are in the Midlands.

In 20 years time, free charcoal for everyone 👍

One of the things America does right. We have an abundance of forested areas now.

Might well be the only thing we do right

More like midland forest

Community Details

19.1m

Subscribers

42.1k

Online

A place for major news from around the world, excluding US-internal news.

Create Post
r/worldnews Rules
1.
No US Internal News or Politics
2.
No Editorialized or Misleading Titles
3.
No Feature stories
4.
No Editorials, Opinion or Analysis Pieces
5.
No Articles In Languages Other Than English
6.
No Images, Videos or Audio Clips
7.
No Bigotry or Other Offensive Content
8.
No Personal Attacks
9.
No Memes, Gifs, unlabeled NSFW images
10.
No Old News Articles (≥ 1 Week old)
Related Subs
r/news

16,312,003 subscribers

r/PoliticalDiscussion

371,537 subscribers

r/worldevents

47,581 subscribers

r/geopolitics

99,182 subscribers

r/business

411,155 subscribers

r/Economics

472,231 subscribers

r/environment

411,823 subscribers

r/history

13,148,462 subscribers

r/features

1,645 subscribers

r/UpliftingNews

13,279,283 subscribers

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.