Offshore wind turbines are much better than onshore... they still suffer the costs of the onshore (if not more so) but given the exclusion zone around them, they've become a bit of a safe haven for sea life.
Total agreement. Down this way I we have seen a lot of turbine installation, the Thames array has a 630MW capacity (was supposed to be over 1GW, but they refused planning permission of expansion). Sitting on the beech at Reculver with the turbines turning in the wind is very pleasant.
I'd argue the reintroduction of any animal has its issues... especially predatory animals. Not to go around the merry-go-round again, but unlike Packham and his acceptable losses, I don't think the general public would accept maulings or death of people for the sake of controlling the deer population. Easiest way to control the deer numbers is to farm them... promote them in the same way lamb or beef is and get them on the menu in as many places as possible. Easier still, farm them and sell them for less an beef per pound and the deer population will be reduced, environment improved and no wolves need to be relocated.
I am rather quixotic, I like the idea of wolves, lynx, beavers etc... returning. Tho I appreciate that this is more of a dream than a plausible idea.
Taking Monbiot's point literally is always a laugh... but the serious point is that we wouldn't reintroduce some forms of life due to the clear danger to the population... and comparing the wolves of North America/Canada with the wolves in northern parts of Russia (and currently on the borders of Germany), not all wolves are the same. Lynx are another matter... I've no doubt they'd avoid human contact, but as was pointed out earlier... chase after a deer for half an hour, or jump on a sheep.
Lynx would be awesome, and with a low chance of them attacking humans.
Soil quality/erosion is an important issue, but it needs forward thinking and less of Monbiot's obvious bias. He confuses the issues, one minute claiming that the grants given to farmers could be redirected to essential services, but the next admitting that farmers wouldn't survive without the grants and subsidies... and more so he continues to say he doesn't want the farmers to go out of business. So what does he want? He wants less sheep, that is the most obvious... but what does he want the farmers to do? His main issue appears to be with the laws governing upland farming, which has little or nothing to do with the farmer... and considering 75% of land in the UK is managed by farmers, if those farmers disappear who is he suggesting takes over the land management.... and more importantly who foots the bill?
The farmers are the ones who foot the bill. The supermarkets are not going to want to increase prices or reduce profits, so they are going to pass it down the line to the farmers.
Monbiot makes the point that the Welsh import 7 times more meat than they produce... but ignores the fact that as a nation we import thousands of products that are not grown here. He argues the damage to the hillside outweighs the value... but says nothing of the half a million people employed in the farming industry, the net gain to the economy overall... he prefers the strawman argument of 55 billion in EU subsidies, when the UK receives less than 4 billion and pays 20 billion into the EU in the first place. I could go on about it, but I suspect from some of the previous posts people are getting bored with it now.
If I was going to take one action to improve the environmental impact of the food industry, I would stop the flying in of out of season food like green beans and asparagus. Reducing the number of flights would be a good way of reducing green house emissions.
The £20bn we pay into the EU for £4bn in subsidies covers a lot more than just farming.
Being a feminist doesn't automatically dictate your views on anything when it comes to the sex industry, but you wouldn't argue that a strip club tackles sexism, just like I wouldn't argue that fracking will promote environmentalism.
Agreed
Who ultimately benefits from farm subsidies? I'd pretty much say the supermarkets. Folk would complain pretty bitterly if they had to pay full costs of non subsidised food at the till. The strongarm act that they put on food suppliers is pretty horrific.
When I was still with the Forestry Commission folk used to criticise the likes of setaside and native planting schemes. The folk had to jump through hoops and put out a fair bit their own cash. And they were doing a fair bit of good. Unfortunately people find it easy to tear down good ideas but rarely manage to come up with sound and viable alternatives.
Who benefits from farm subsidies? we all do. Consumers have come to expect lower and lower prices, which has facilitated a race to the bottom, cutting corners where possible to lower the price. You only need to look at the supermarket price wars to see this. Many years ago we spent a larger proportion of our income on food than we do now. But the supermarkets are going to want to keep their margins, and keep their profits, so they are going to pass this down the line to the farmers. If a farmer can't produce food at a low enough price, then the supermarkets are going to source things elsewhere, meaning we start to import stuff from further afield. Why buy a british beef burger when it's half the price to import one raised on deforested South America...
There was a joke 10 years ago in the comms industry "How many mobile phone customers are there in the UK?" "5", as we all bought our phones through the big 5 mobile companies and they controlled what phones the manufacturers made (this is partly a case still, tho apple have messed it up abit.). How many food buyers are there in the UK? Realisticaly 6 - Asda, Sainsbury's, Tesco, Morrisons, Waitrose, and the rest. "The Rest" being such a small proportion that it doesn't really have much influence. The other 5 control who grows what, who raises what livestock and at what cost point. You can see this in things like cosmetic standards and the wastage this leads to.
If I'm understanding the EU milk subsidy program correctly, we're about to find out how the lack of subsidy effects the dairy farmers. They're already being paid a pittance from the supermarket chains and struggling, so it'll be interesting to see people's opinions if the milk starts running dry, or the inevitable, the price increases at the checkout.
This is a good illustration of the handful of food buyers mentioned above. The supermarkets are paying a pittance to the farmer because they want to use milk to lure customers in, they are passing these cuts onto the farmer. How many people would happily pay £1.10 a Litre, rather than £1 if it meant the farmers didn't make a loss?
Funnily enough the upland farmers has to jump through hoops for their £200-£300 a year. Granted, if you own a large amount of land, that yearly sum translates into a larger subsidy, so the average Scottish farmer might own 100 hectares which translates into £20k to £30k a year... but I wouldn't call that coining it in. Makes you wonder how much a journalist for say
the Guardian earns a year for chastising said upland farmers
For small farmers the CAP system is major admin over head taking up a lot of time and related stress. The recent CAP reform has lead to all sorts of issues with application, from broken computer systems, to falling back on paper systems to trouble with mapping. Sure it's a pittance, but it's all that's keeping some small farmers head above water.
J
