Yes climate change is real, but being carbon neutral is difficult in all areas of life, especially if you through LCA into it.

Given where the work is happening they are not near to power lines yet and i bet when it gets to the point where they need to contact the energy company they will.

You say removal of branches near to powerlines but they could be out of date and explain different cuttings.

Cutting of trees was done to expand agricultural practice and the grazing of animals kept the tree cover down, this is why many habitats have been created and its why grazing is being reintroduced to the common to help maintain the heathland, the trees were cut back then and they are being cut now logic would dictate the creation of better ecological conditioned heathland. Change is necessary in environmental areas and this is exactly that. Let them try and bring the habitat to its former glory and see how it goes, other schemes have been successful and I reckon this one will be as well

#728: -

I believe that that the creation of unsustainable enviroments is just flying in the face of enlightenment in our fragile world. A holistic approach based on permaculture and sustainability would be kinder to the enviroment in every way. Hartlebury common has had more resources expended on it in the past few years than it has had in the past two hundred, and for what.

The carbon issue is easy here, leave it alone, what real benefit will come from this meddeling. The cost of everything in material terms to carry out these schemes will always  outweigh the supposed gains.

Two complete trees have been taken down.

Sorry, what you say is wrong, Traditionally  common land was never used for intensive farming, it usually was the bit niether the lord or the lady of the manor wanted because it was useless for virtually anything profitable.

Cutting down of trees for agricultural exspansion is a different generic. Which is why when you drive along most  rural roads , there are steep banks  along the road and strips of woodland which are untouched. The deforestation high water mark if you like, with clear fields behind. The two are very different practices. Intensive agriculturall development stopped at the shores of Hartlebury common because it was useless for general agriculture. This concept of eradication is as ridiculous as it based on the flimsiest evedence.

The common has always been about subsistance agriculture. If you look at the records for the common this is validated by the lists of commoners and their entitlements.

The common has not been the subject of deliberate deforestation on this scale at any time, if it had there would be little of it left now, change is not necessary, the species issue is not right. The rarity of the types is overblown. Can you tell me where else in the world vast amounts of money are spent to artificially sustain an unatural man made enviroment in favour of a few niche species that congregate there because it is an aberation? Can somebody tell what wildlife will benefit that  do not habitat there at the moment or live in the surrounding countryside.

Can you tell me why grazing is being introduced when this is in direct contradiction to WCC's policy?

Can you tell me how 33 cattle will have any impact on rampant fern and bramble since deforestation?

Can you tell me how the cattle can be disuaded from grazing on habitat previously "protected" by SSSI

Can we visit some of these "Succesful schemes together?"

 

 

 

Steve McCarron