Dig for Victory - Mark II

ceridwen

Re my comments earlier in this thread re protecting land from developers - by a group of people buying a piece of land communally - and each owning just a tiny share of it. I saw the article in todays Daily Mail about this tactic being used to prevent a 3rd runway being built at Heathrow - and now wondering where one can find smilies leaping up in the air/punching the air/grinning from ear to ear/etc........yay!:j :j :j :beer: :beer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1113689/Alistair-McGowan-Emma-Thompson-join-protesters-buy-slice-Heathrow-runway.html

It makes life a LOT more difficult (positive administrative nightmare!) - hopefully impossible - now for this to happen:D The new owners want to divide this land up and sell it at cost to as many people as possible - 4,000 new owners for the acre of land concerned hopefully. Goes off wondering how much a piece of land 1' x 1' would cost......

I've walked round the area concerned (ie Sipson Village) before now (on a protest about this) and its not some grotty inner city area as I had supposed. Its a nice little area with cared-for housing and a distinct villagey community type feel - all thats wrong with it is the noise of the existing aircraft flying overhead (a very big negative in the area). But - apart from that - its the type of area I could envisage myself living in.

rhiwfield

RAS wrote: »

I certainly think climate change is happening and a lot faster than the IPCC suggest.

Just when I started to realise all the stuff re brittle landscapes and saw the massive improvements in land that was managed properly, I realised that European grazing systems have wrecked vast areas of land across the globe over the last two/three centuries. Traditional nomadic herders probably were OK but maybe in smaller numbers than today. Settling them devastates a large area around. If we replaced dry scrub with almost zero grazing potential with seasonal grasslands fed by watercourses that ran most of the year, over large parts of the earth, I think that might be useful.

I know I am dreaming but...........

RAS, with the increasing pressure on land and other natural resources, and ineffectual governments, I think it is a pipe dream. What is worse is that governments are put in place to take the decisions that individuals cannot, but so often they end up seeking personal wealth and power at the expense of their peoples. On this topic I'm a real pessimist, believing that we will see increasing resource led conflicts over water, food and land security.

rhiwfield

ceridwen wrote: »

Re my comments earlier in this thread re protecting land from developers - by a group of people buying a piece of land communally - and each owning just a tiny share of it. I saw the article in todays Daily Mail about this tactic being used to prevent a 3rd runway being built at Heathrow - and now wondering where one can find smilies leaping up in the air/punching the air/grinning from ear to ear/etc........yay!:j :j :j :beer: :beer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1113689/Alistair-McGowan-Emma-Thompson-join-protesters-buy-slice-Heathrow-runway.html

It makes life a LOT more difficult (positive administrative nightmare!) - hopefully impossible - now for this to happen:D The new owners want to divide this land up and sell it at cost to as many people as possible - 4,000 new owners for the acre of land concerned hopefully. Goes off wondering how much a piece of land 1' x 1' would cost......

I've walked round the area concerned (ie Sipson Village) before now (on a protest about this) and its not some grotty inner city area as I had supposed. Its a nice little area with cared-for housing and a distinct villagey community type feel - all thats wrong with it is the noise of the existing aircraft flying overhead (a very big negative in the area). But - apart from that - its the type of area I could envisage myself living in.

I was delighted to see that local action will delay the 3rd runway and who knows, it might just make the govt step back.

Trouble is it seems to be a macho thing to tackle air travel growth from the supply side. LINK. Argument seems to be demand will grow so build more runways.

That is a bit like saying energy demand is increasing so lets build more power stations when the cheaper and environmentally cleaner option is energy efficiency.

But where are the votes in limiting people's ability to go on long haul holidays?

RAS

Keith Anderson suggests that the next Government do it immediately after the nextr ellection.

At Christmas I picked up and part read a teenager's book called the Carbon Diaries. In that the population virtually lynches the Governements for not stopping climate change?

ALIBOBSY

What annoys me is the government ignore the "green" argument in this case, but then use it as an excuse to tax the hell out of motorists. Does anyone believe any so called "green" based decision is actually based on evironmental issues rather than cold hard cash lol.
Even rubbish going to fornightly collection is nothing to do with recycling and all about saving cash.
If the government was serious about recycling they would legislate the type and amount of packaging on food et al, but they will never do that.


ali x

SEE

A great source of fact and information developing on this thread:beer:

ceridwen

RAS wrote: »

At Christmas I picked up and part read a teenager's book called the Carbon Diaries. In that the population virtually lynches the Governements for not stopping climate change?

Oh well.....a nice bit of wishful thinking....:cool: . Unfortunately there are rather a lot of people who dont give a damn - as long as they can have whatever they personally want and its cheap.....

ceridwen

SEE wrote: »

A great source of fact and information developing on this thread:beer:

I do like a bit of fact/debate on my threads me.....it sorta tends to be a common theme on them....cant think why...:cool:

ceridwen

Further - on my post re people having bought a bit of land right where that Heathrow 3rd runway is planned - I've been onto the Greenpeace website - where people are signing up at a rate of knots to be part of a rather larger group of people buying this land at cost price off the original group.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/join-plot-stop-airport-expansion-20090112

seems we can have our choice as to whether we personally pay anything towards this or no - we can all be "beneficial owners" anyway from what I can gather. Believe they are after 4,000 people actually purchasing a bit of that field off the original group of buyers?? Well - it wont break the bank if I actually purchase a bit - £20,000 divided by 4,000 only means £5 for my "share" anyway.

This does sound like a possible legal tactic for would-be communal gardeners to buy a plot of land together for allotments - and prevent future generations from selling it on subsequently to developers.:D

rhiwfield

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm

"Business Secretary Lord Mandelson defended the government's commitment to environmental concerns over Heathrow.
He said: "It's a classic dilemma - we want to forge ahead in implementing our climate change ambitions when others are not but we don't want to lose our economic competitiveness in the process. We want to do both these things." "

Hmmm, methinks that the Business Secretary doesnt view climate change very highly in the overall scheme of things