- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:> (UK is dense, NZ is not,> Re UK land use. It is unlikely that> what farming land there is in the UK would> entirely be turned over to houses and> forests upon abolishment of the CAP.The above two points are myth. The UK is NOT small. Contrary to popular belief the UK has a land surplus. There is so much land we could not build houses on it all. If all cities, towns and villages were twice the size only 15% of the land would be settled. The UK population is spoon fed that the UK is small, short of land and the countryside should be kept green for no apparent reason. Near hatred of anything urban is common, even by those living in urban settings. Think why this propaganda is fed to the population and by who.The UK has approximately only 7.5% of its land settled upon. Not much at all. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the South East of England, only 7.1% is settled with the Home Counties, the counties around London, being underpopulated. The North West of England is densest with 9.9% settled (Kate Barker report).DATA ON LAND USAGE
The land cover of Great Britain is 23.5m hectares. Taken from the Office of National Statistics, in 2002, usage was as follows:
- Settled land - 1.8m hectares. 7.65% of the land mass.
- Agricultural land - 10.8m hectares. 45.96% of the land mass.
- Semi-natural land, with much uses as agricultural land - 7.0m hectares. 29.78% of the land mass.
- Woodland - 2.8m hectares. 11.91% of the land mass
- Water bodies - 0.3m hectares. 1.28% of the land mass.
- Sundry, largely transport infrastructure - 0.8m hectares. 3.42% of the land mass.
Many question the accuracy of the above figures as government departments present differing figures. Nevertheless the figures are a good guide.
The settled land figure includes gardens and other green spaces, which are estimated at around 5%. When adjusted a figure of only 2.5% of paved land emerges.
- The point is, Scott, that the little fields of Britain cannot compete with the mass production of the US.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
Quoting Harry Pollard on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:06:15 -0800:
if we import our bulk foods, farm land is given over to animals,
which provide instant food while crops are being started (not
to mention they improve fertility rather than use it up).
Importing meat and animal feed needn't be a huge strategic
concern, if you're willing, when besieged, to slaughter
most of the animals (preserving the meat, of course) and
switch to a primarily vegetarian diet.
As you know, the combine harvesters in the US probably
work all day in a field, then stop until next morning
when they continue harvesting in the same field.
Many of them have lights. Combines are a separate business
from farming. They migrate, following the harvest.