is tree planting eco friendly ?????

[daveindales]

Last year I got a contract to plant 2000 trees to create a new woodland. First I had to remove off site all the old stock fence (600m of it) This went in a skip which a lorry had to come out drop off go away come and collect and dump the old fence. Then I had to spend 3 days cutting back the overgrown old hedge and chipping the branches.

Then I had to erect 600m of stock fence. The posts were obviously treated with chemicals to stop rot. Someone must have processed the timber, taken it to the sawmill, then I took it on to the site. The wire obviousley had to be manufactured and transported to the agricultural merchants, where I picked it up and transported it on site. I had to buy the 1.2m stakes (again they must have been processed somewhere, treated etc). The 1.2m tubex guards are manufactured (I think in S Wales), transported to greentech in Yorkshire, then transported to me as well. I sprayed (twice) the trees over the year.

 

Now I'm no eco-warrier, but there's a hell of a lot of transportation, chemical and industrial processes to go through, just to get those trees planted. It was in a National Park and grant aided. I benefited financially, and the client got their trees, but after thinking about it for a while I still can't see them trees offsetting all the emissions produced in their planting. What do others think?

[AlexB]

2000 trees isn't alot. if you expand this to 30,000 (Still not huge Keilder forest replants somthing in the millions I think) then it's looking better. Why did you fence and tube? that's a very expensive way around things. If you're spraying then voles etc are unlikely to break cover for the trees. If you fenced I'm guessing it was for stock? maybe rabbit fencing with rabbit control once the fence was up would have been more effective (No need for tubes)

 

As for the transport you could have carried plants and fencing materials for a much larger site for a not much more fuel. perhaps on this scale it's not great but it doesn't take much to become an impressive carbon store. plus all of the carbon in the canes/stakes/fence posts which is locked in for at least 10 years.

 

Good question, I'm sure there is a carbon geek who has all of the figures down somewhere...

[Andy Collins]

I've had many planting jobs where fencing and guarding is required in the job spec, it makes little sense but it happens all to regularly.

[AlexB]

I've had many planting jobs where fencing and guarding is required in the job spec, it makes little sense but it happens all to regularly.

 

Hi Andy, did you have a conversation with the land owner/agent etc? What was their reasoning behind the decision? In some cases I can see it as a bonus. Repeat work for removal of tree shelters micro climate etc. I can also understand if you were not clearing the vegitation and needed vole guards/stock fencing but when spraying for vegetation removal (Assumption) fencing and guarding....... really? That's a lot of extra cost.

 

Dave, sorry for the hijack.

 

Alex

[daveindales]

Hi onfoot,

 

Fencing was part of the contract spec. Yes was stock fence to keep sheep and cattle out. To be honest, the old fence did need replacing. Rabbit netting would have been no good as the whole planting area was full of burrows

[corylus]

The questions raised here re. eco friendly etc, are to be brutal, far too complicated to answer.

 

I will break it down to illustrate this.

 

The removal of the old stock fence.... If left and perhaps tidied it would rust away. Zero extra carbon emissions. BUT an un-naturally high concentration of zinc (the galvy coating) would be left. Which is best 'eco' wise?

 

3 days cutting back then chipping.....you need feeding for 3 days + travel then carbon/pollution cost of chipper and travelling. Offset this against leaving alone and re-planting with the possibility of less new growth, but does that decreased new growth with less carbon input......etc..........................etc.............................etc..................

 

Do you see what I mean?

 

The current way of measuring 'carbon footprint' only takes into consideration CERTAIN parts of the manufacturing process. Another GREENWASH.

 

Tree planting is only trying to rectify past mistakes.

 

Mebs the mass extinction of Homo sapien is the most 'eco' friendly way of progressing?

 

Or to put it another way, CONGRATULATIONS Daveindales for thinking. Sadly its not comfortable sometimes.

 

BTW I too have been involved in Yorkshire Dales National Park schemes such as the one mentioned. I think it was, on the 'eco' friendly scale, better to plant than not to. Which area have you done the planting in?

[daveindales]

Corylus, I knew I would not get a simple yes or no answer. It was meant to make people think. On a similar thread, Do you know the arkhimedes screw that has been installed in Bainbridge? (not far from you) Next time you pass there take a look. It supplies electric for 40 homes, and without thinking too much about it seems a great idea. However, the more I think about it, the more I have my doubts. (you can probable tell I do a lot of thinking and have a lot of doubts, Maybe I'm a pessimest) Anyway, the screw took months to be installed. An excavator with pecker was onsite for weeks. The amount of concrete used must have gone into the hunereds, perhaps thousands of tons. The contractors were travelling down from North Cumbria every day. The steel screw was made in Germany and imported over here. And more often than not the screw does not appear to be going round. All this for 40 homes. Now, I know that local people invested in shares in the scheme, and I realy hope it works, but like my post about tree planting, I still have my doubts about it's sucess and it's environmental impact (or if I'm wrong, it's lack of environmental impact)

[easy-lift guy]

The trees you planted will take in CO2 and produce O. That pretty much sums up the whole matter and IMHO weather is cyclical. Has been and always will be.

easy-lift guy

[corylus]

Corylus, I knew I would not get a simple yes or no answer. It was meant to make people think. On a similar thread, Do you know the arkhimedes screw that has been installed in Bainbridge? (not far from you) Next time you pass there take a look. It supplies electric for 40 homes, and without thinking too much about it seems a great idea. However, the more I think about it, the more I have my doubts. (you can probable tell I do a lot of thinking and have a lot of doubts, Maybe I'm a pessimest) Anyway, the screw took months to be installed. An excavator with pecker was onsite for weeks. The amount of concrete used must have gone into the hunereds, perhaps thousands of tons. The contractors were travelling down from North Cumbria every day. The steel screw was made in Germany and imported over here. And more often than not the screw does not appear to be going round. All this for 40 homes. Now, I know that local people invested in shares in the scheme, and I realy hope it works, but like my post about tree planting, I still have my doubts about it's sucess and it's environmental impact (or if I'm wrong, it's lack of environmental impact)

 

You have a bit of a problem Daveindales. Your not gonna fit in you know. How on earth dare you question things? Of course a lump of metal manufactured in Germany, all that concrete, all that plant is going to save our planet. Obviously us thick Dalesman cant do technical stuff like drive an excavator and pecker so the labour HAS to be shipped in from another county.

 

Come on Daveindales get with it man and help save our planet. Cos if you are not with us then I will just have to ring Sting or Joanna Lumley or................someone to sort you out.

 

Anyway on a less sarcastic note (hope you didnt mine ) I havent been over to see The Bainbridge Screw cos I knew nowt about it. I think I should go and have a gander tho.

 

I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks like you.................trouble is when you try to explain these things to the other chaps (chapesses) in the pub you get a few odd comments/looks:blushing:

[Pete Tattam]

I think all attempts at "greening" have their down side. I have had solar panels installed and spent ages weighing up the pro's (cash income,free electricity,and saving the planet) with the con's (initial outlay of £10,000+, how much energy to create,supply and install). In the end I looked after number 1 and took 25 years of cash income. I'm sure the ecological benefits will win eventually. And trees will last a darn site longer than my panels. Plant, plant and plant some more.