To raise revenue and stop global warming, the cash-starved UK government plans to privatize England’s crown forests. Environmental groups, unable to explain why climate change shouldn’t trump the preservation of forests, have to date been largely muted.
The UK policy, revealed in November by Jim Paice, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, would see a “very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it.” In part, he explained, the decision is ideological, a belief that the private sector is more efficient than the government in managing forests. But the ministry’s decision to privatize assets – which will provide it with £100-million — is largely driven by the need to fund itself and its climate change priorities in these times of government austerity.
Under the government scheme, a more efficient private sector will increase the rate of cutting of forests, which will lead to more carbon being stored in people’s home.
“Forgive me, but I feel so strongly that we have to get people to realize that timber, in whatever form–including the desks we are all sitting at now–is carbon,” Paice explained. “Planting more trees and harvesting them sustainably, using that timber in furniture, construction and things like that, is fixing carbon and taking it out of the atmosphere.”
This “market relationship” to reducing the UK’s carbon footprint, however, requires cash, because forest companies in the UK need subsidies to operate. This cash, Paice explained, would come both from direct subsidies from UK taxpayers and indirect subsidies via “carbon offsets in one way or another–whether for social corporate responsibility reasons or any others.” In addition, electricity consumers would be forced to buy electricity generated by wood chips at above-market prices.
“We must understand that commercial forestry is what pays for all the other benefits,” he elaborated. “We have to get the whole lot into perspective. We have to persuade the general public that a tree is just a very aged plant that, like any other plant, comes to the end of its life. That is the point at which you harvest it, hopefully use it sustainably, and replace it.” /more
How much will the requisite committees, lawyers, advisors and supporting propaganda cost?
Where is the economic sense in paying someone to buy something? (Is this the Huhne syndrome at work - or another Rothschild scam?)
Who are the forests to be sold to, the same anonymous that bought the gold?
CO2 is not harmful to the climate, the sell-off is unjustified.
Paying people (subsidies) to buy forests to get short term money (to bribe S. African dictators to not build coal fired energy plants or to buy carbon credits?) is criminal, sad and sick at the same time.
Deforestation will accelerate in the UK, there will be more bare soil that adds to CO2 emissions, as if CO2 emissions mattered.
Less trees will increase the severity of severe weather events such as flooding as trees hold back large volumes of water and regulate the climate by their water vapour production.
Less trees will increase real pollution as trees are remarkable air filters.
This government as for the previous has its lips super-glued to bankers' posteriors. The rape of the UK using deceit and lies continues apace. The agenda gives every appearance of guaranteeing all future generations will be debt slaves.