/ Labour pledges to plant 200 trees a minute

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
PaulScramble 29 Nov 2019

Labour launched a pledge on Wednesday to plant two billion trees by 2040.  That is 100 million a year, 8.3 million a month, 2 million a week, 300,000 a day, 2,400 an hour, every hourr, 24 hours a day, 200 a minute. They also pledged to create an 'NHS forest' of a million trees at hospitals.

Free broadband anyone?

21
Siward 29 Nov 2019
PaulScramble 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Siward:

My thread is patently different to that one Siward, it's about Labour pre-election promises.

Post edited at 20:14
12
JLS 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

Yeah but 1.7bn of these trees are trees which are already currently in Amazon rain forests that would otherwise have been cut down by 2040.

Post edited at 20:30
1
wintertree 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

Achievable. You don’t have to plant many trees, with a bit of help they just happen.

 If you outlawed heather burning and pulled the few sheep off the North Pennines, and controlled deer numbers, you’d have about 0.2 Bn trees in 4 years or so without doing any planting.  They regularly grow up all by themselves only to be burnt...  You might transplant some decent sized 3 m or so tall trees to a sparse grid to help kickstart the process.

The same number again from the Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors, Peak District and Lake District.  Some more from Bowland, Dartmoor and Exmoor.  That’ll probably hit 1 Bn.  We haven’t even touched Wales or Scotland yet.

1
The New NickB 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

1.7 trees per person, per year. Frame it that way and it doesn’t sound quite so incredible!

1
toad 29 Nov 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Yeah, its interesting. The way numbers are presented is being reallly weaponised in this election, which is unfortunate given innumeracy is almost a badge of honour in the UK.

" I never really got maths at school" etc etc

Eric9Points 29 Nov 2019
In reply to toad:

> Yeah, its interesting. The way numbers are presented is being reallly weaponised in this election, which is unfortunate given innumeracy is almost a badge of honour in the UK.

> " I never really got maths at school" etc etc

..and we've had enough of experts anyway.

Philip 29 Nov 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> 1.7 trees per person, per year. Frame it that way and it doesn’t sound quite so incredible!

Done mine. Took an afternoon Put about 200 in, in total, over past 4 years.

skog 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

Yeah, I don't get why so many people seem incredulous about this.

50 million-ish adults in the UK, 20-ish years to go. So if each adult in the UK is responsible for planting 40 trees in the next two decades, we're there.

It's OK - you don't necessarily have to plant them yourself.

Although you might want to do some of them. We planted 3 trees in our garden this year, that's a start...

There are problems to solve around land ownership and use, and sapling preparation and the like; it'd clearly take some effort. But the numbers don't seem particularly crazy to me, just a little bit ambitious (and not in a bad way).

wintertree 29 Nov 2019
In reply to skog:

> There are problems to solve around land ownership and use, and sapling preparation and the like; 

A few years ago I had a look around Trees Please in Hexham.  My memory of details might be slightly off...  They grow many different sorts of saplings.  They have a cold warehouse that holds the 2 million Sitka saplings they grow a year ready for dispatch and planting.  Each sapping passes through human hands twice - once loading the rotary planting machine when tiny and once when harvested into the cold store.  Staffing is seasonal but I think never exceeds ~50 people.  Over 20 years that works out a 2 x 20 m trees / 50 people = 0.8 million saplings per staff member.  That would require 2,500 staff to grow 2 billion over 20 years.  The civil service employs something like 150x that many people.

Bigger problems around land ownership indeed - but you only have to match the income the land currently generates to be in with a shot.  Grouse or trees people?  Change rules to allow sparse, renewable powered eco Holliday cottages in what will one day be forest and you’ve got some income other than grouse.

Siward 29 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

Sorry, just trying to be helpful....

The discussion in each thread is remarkably similar though- promises vs reality

pasbury 29 Nov 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> Achievable. You don’t have to plant many trees, with a bit of help they just happen.

>  If you outlawed heather burning and pulled the few sheep off the North Pennines, and controlled deer numbers, you’d have about 0.2 Bn trees in 4 years or so without doing any planting.  They regularly grow up all by themselves only to be burnt...  You might transplant some decent sized 3 m or so tall trees to a sparse grid to help kickstart the process.

> The same number again from the Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors, Peak District and Lake District.  Some more from Bowland, Dartmoor and Exmoor.  That’ll probably hit 1 Bn.  We haven’t even touched Wales or Scotland yet.

This x a million. You are spot on.

Gordon Stainforth 30 Nov 2019
In reply to wintertree:

In Ethiopia in July they managed to plant over 350 million trees in 12 hours - a world record:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/africa/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-intl-hnk/index.html

Post edited at 01:14
ian caton 30 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

Planting young trees commercially is a pretty quick business. They go in at 2500/ha. So I would guess at 1 been planted every couple of minutes per person planting. 

The Wild Scallion 30 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

> Labour launched a pledge on Wednesday to plant two billion trees by 2040.  That is 100 million a year, 8.3 million a month, 2 million a week, 300,000 a day, 2,400 an hour, every hourr, 24 hours a day, 200 a minute. They also pledged to create an 'NHS forest' of a million trees at hospitals.

> Free broadband anyone?

Well let's not aspire then and vote for Bozo with no plan and his oven ready trade deals.  

Let's aim for the bottom , that way we can't be disappointed. 

In reply to pasbury:

We’ve had too much to do on the house since we moved in to bother with the garden. The last owner kept it (about an acre) pretty tidy. There was already a beech and hawthorn hedge all the way round, but not a lot in the middle. Now, due to our neglect, there are loads of ash, beech and oak saplings which are growing fast and look really healthy, plus loads of hawthorn trees sprouting up. Best of all is a bunch of Rowan Trees which got their first berries this year.

we haven’t planted anything, just kept the brambles back. From previous experience in Snowdonia, it doesn’t take long from the sheep moving out to the trees moving in,

pasbury 30 Nov 2019
In reply to paul__in_sheffield:

Yes it’s quite inspiring, frightening even. Trees are lying in wait to take maximum advantage at the slightest opportunity. Bung a load of nibbling grazers at them and their take over is delayed but not cancelled. Introduce a few predators and bang you’ve got a Forest.

wintertree 30 Nov 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> ... frightening ...

When you stop and think about it, trees have even evolved flight to help them spread - the auto rotating helicopter seeds of the acre family (including sycamore) for example.

pasbury 30 Nov 2019
In reply to wintertree:

I enjoy thinking about the seed bank whenever I see disturbed ground in the woods near me,  when a tree falls in a Wye valley forest you might not necessarily hear it but you can be sure that two years later the foxgloves will be stunning.

Timmd 30 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:

I'll always remember the Conservatives/David Cameron promising 'no top down reorganisation of the NHS', before doing exactly the opposite, and Michael Portillo looking amused and saying they wouldn't have been elected if they'd been honest about that.

This is the most dishonourable a party can be, to purposely lie. Compare and contrast to what you may think of Labour...

Post edited at 20:31
wbo2 30 Nov 2019
In reply to PaulScramble:how much would free broadband actually cost? What would that require as an increase in GDP productivity to pay for itself? 

summo 30 Nov 2019
In reply to wbo2:

> how much would free broadband actually cost? What would that require as an increase in GDP productivity to pay for itself? 

In sweden they subsidise the installation rurally in one big push area by area, everyone pays the equiv of £2k regardless of cable run required. This doesn't touch the actual overall cost, but that's for fibre right into your house. You still pay a monthly fee to be connected as well. 

The case was never that the economy will boom etc.. it's simply maintaining the status quo, keeping pace with the rest of the world, without which your economy will shrink if businesses can't communicate, trade etc online. There are no new magical customers, only more modern links with existing customers. 

So I personally think the whole growth will pay for it is nonsense. 

1
wbo2 30 Nov 2019
In reply to summo: you said yourself the fear was the economy would shrink.? I also doubt growth would pay for it but the consequences of not doing it might be .ore costly.  Plus without this sort of technology improvements in productivity will be tricky

summo 01 Dec 2019
In reply to wbo2:

> you said yourself the fear was the economy would shrink.? I also doubt growth would pay for it but the consequences of not doing it might be .ore costly.  Plus without this sort of technology improvements in productivity will be tricky

I agree, it's necessary, but it's better to say it will cost X billion, but we have to spend it to catch up with other countries, never mind even keep up. The idea that the investment will pay for itself and that access to it will be free is just vote buying madness. 

Post edited at 17:13
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.