Time To Ban xmas trees.

[Guest]

Saving the planet plus it's population and wildlife is far more important than  the commercial interests of the Christmas tree growers.

[Robin-H]

6 minutes ago, Padders said:

Can't argue with that Robin.   but the government could compensate the growers, and keep the land for trees.

Did'nt a similar thing happen with our National parks. mass trespassing and stuff.

Whilst I laud the desire for more trees, this really wouldn't be a sensible way of going about it. 

 

If I'm right, you're suggesting that the government compulsory purchase all the land on which Christmas Trees are grown as a way to compensate the growers that they can no longer use their land for anything nor make any money from it. There don't seem to be any statistics on how much land in the the UK is used for Christmas Tree growing, however in 2015 the live Christmas Tree market was worth £384m per year in the UK. That's £384m in lost revenue the government would have to compensate in perpetuity. We are talking tens of billions. 

 

And what would be the benefit exactly? If the government wanted to spend money on trees, it would be much much much cheaper to just subsidise the planting on trees in areas where the landowner wants to plant them because the land isn't economically viable to be used for something else, or they want wind barriers, or help stabilising the soil, etc etc.. You'd end up with a hell of a lot more trees, and for a hell of a lot less money, and you know what, you'd still have all the Christmas Trees that are grown each year on top of that! 

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

Saving the planet plus it's population and wildlife is far more important than  the commercial interests of the Christmas tree growers.

Stopping people planting Christmas Trees isn't going to save the planet!!!!

 

The growing of Christmas Trees absorbs Co2. Some of this is released when the trees are either burnt, or mulched, or composted when Christmas is over, but you know what, that would happen anyway when the tree dies naturally. 

 

 

 

 

[Padders]

16 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Whilst I laud the desire for more trees, this really wouldn't be a sensible way of going about it. 

 

If I'm right, you're suggesting that the government compulsory purchase all the land on which Christmas Trees are grown as a way to compensate the growers that they can no longer use their land for anything nor make any money from it. There don't seem to be any statistics on how much land in the the UK is used for Christmas Tree growing, however in 2015 the live Christmas Tree market was worth £384m per year in the UK. That's £384m in lost revenue the government would have to compensate in perpetuity. We are talking tens of billions. 

 

And what would be the benefit exactly? If the government wanted to spend money on trees, it would be much much much cheaper to just subsidise the planting on trees in areas where the landowner wants to plant them because the land isn't economically viable to be used for something else, or they want wind barriers, or help stabilising the soil, etc etc.. You'd end up with a hell of a lot more trees, and for a hell of a lot less money, and you know what, you'd still have all the Christmas Trees that are grown each year on top of that! 

Stopping people planting Christmas Trees isn't going to save the planet!!!!

 

The growing of Christmas Trees absorbs Co2. Some of this is released when the trees are either burnt, or mulched, or composted when Christmas is over, but you know what, that would happen anyway when the tree dies naturally. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but we would get about 100yrs plus benefit out of them..

You have made some very valid points Robin, thanks for enlightening me.

[Guest]

Stopping planting Christmas trees alone will not save the planet but it's still one of the things that should be done in conjunction with other measures.

It's not the planting of trees which is the problem - it's cutting them down and wasting them which contributes to global warming.

The favourite excuse for taking no action in every case, is that this alone will not help .

We need to start doing something quickly and this attitude is the reason we are not doing anything.

By the time we wake up to this, it will be too late .

Like the politicians, you should stop saying what we shouldn't do and start saying what we should do or maybe you want to do nothing at all and condemn future generations to the planets destruction under their feet.

[Robin-H]

3 minutes ago, Padders said:

Yes, but we would get about 100yrs plus benefit out of them..

You have made some very valid points Robin, thanks for enlightening me.

Not necessarily the case. Christmas Trees live on average to around 60 years. 

 

I won't do the sums, but I think the difference in Co2 sequestration between planting a field of firs and then just leaving them alone until they die naturally (let's say 60 years) and staggering the planting of a field of firs, letting them grow for 10 - 12 years (average age for 6-7ft tree), felling then when they reach that age, and replanting with new ones, would be negligible. 

[ANGELFIRE1]

Don't have the will power to read about trees this morning so skipped to the end. My contribution, ban real xmas trees if you must, we have had a fake, not real tree for years, looks as good as any real tree when done up, and will hopefully last for a few more years yet.

 

Angel1.

[Robin-H]

6 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Stopping planting Christmas trees alone will not save the planet but it's still one of the things that should be done in conjunction with other measures.

It's not the planting of trees which is the problem - it's cutting them down and wasting them which contributes to global warming.

The favourite excuse for taking no action in every case, is that this alone will not help .

We need to start doing something quickly and this attitude is the reason we are not doing anything.

By the time we wake up to this, it will be too late .

Like the politicians, you should stop saying what we shouldn't do and start saying what we should do or maybe you want to do nothing at all and condemn future generations to the planets destruction under their feet.

So do know the difference in Co2 sequestration and release between planting a field of firs and leaving them to grow and die naturally, and commercially growing, felling and growing again a fields of firs on a 10-12 year cycle?  

 

How much extra Co2 is released from the latter method over the former, and why is that the case? 

2 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Don't have the will power to read about trees this morning so skipped to the end. My contribution, ban real xmas trees if you must, we have had a fake, not real tree for years, looks as good as any real tree when done up, and will hopefully last for a few more years yet.

 

Angel1.

You need to use a fake Christmas tree for at least 7 -10 years before the environmental cost outweighs that of having 7-10 years of natural trees (and then it needs to be disposed of/recycled correctly), but yeah, I have nothing against fake trees. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Not necessarily the case. Christmas Trees live on average to around 60 years. 

 

I won't do the sums, but I think the difference in Co2 sequestration between planting a field of firs and then just leaving them alone until they die naturally (let's say 60 years) and staggering the planting of a field of firs, letting them grow for 10 - 12 years (average age for 6-7ft tree), felling then when they reach that age, and replanting with new ones, would be negligible. 

Ignoring, of course, all the resources used whilst felling and delivering these trees, bringing them home and then disposing of them.

Nature does the job far better than man ever could and should be left alone to get on with it.

A bit of maths won't save the planet but some action or ANY action would help.

 

[Robin-H]

2 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Ignoring, of course, all the resources used whilst felling and delivering these trees, bringing them home and then disposing of them.

Nature does the job far better than man ever could and should be left alone to get on with it.

A bit of maths won't save the planet but some action or ANY action would help.

 

Then we should ban Christmas entirely. Think of all the resources that would be saved if people didn't buy any presents, or drive to see family or friends. Indeed we should ban birthdays too, or anything that requires travel that isn't absolutely necessary to live.... Not exactly credible is it.. 

 

Which takes us back to the first problem. You think it's an efficient way of the government to spend tens of billions of pounds, when that money could be used in much much more effective ways to combat climate change? 

 

Or perhaps you don't think the tree growers should be compensated at all, in which case I can guarantee you that those trees would all be cut down pretty sharpish and the land used for something else. You'd be stopping the planting of millions of trees every year - not exactly a victory! 

[Guest]

Your first paragraph is just talking silly instead of a reasoned argument so I won't attempt to answer that.

I wouldn't compensate them at all so no government money spent.

People have lost their livelihoods for centuries due to many different reasons and this would be no different.

Planning laws should be used to ensure that the land is not put to other use unless it benefits the planet.