Re: [LandCafe] Re: CAP
- John,On visits to England, I often would walk acoss the very large common (51 hectares) at Coulsdon (near Croydon). There's a nice pub available for walkers.What has interested me over the years is the lack of people on the common. One can walk for miles barely meeting a soul.At weekends there are picnickers who settle not far from the parking lot, but people plumbing the delights of fields and woods are a rarity.Yet, it's next to one of the largest cities in the world.
Come to think of it, I did a 12 mile cross country tramp from Wareham to Swanage, Dorset, and met up with no-one on the paths - even though at one point I came out of a wood to see a large RV camp about half-mile away.I know that genuine walkers might protest, but the vast majority of people seem unconcerned with contrived "greenness".Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243********************
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:43 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@...> wrote:
> Well exactly. I didn't say there isn't land for urban expansion. But
> neither is there any reason to believe farming won't be present any more
> either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of built
> land wouldn't impact as much farmland as in the UK. And turning land
> close to urban areas into forests, is a political decision, as forestry
> is less productive than farming on the same area basis.
Even doubling the urban footprint in the UK to accommodate 120 million people, still will not impact farming land to a large degree. As I previously wrote, currently if real economics was applied to the UK, 27% of the land mass would be released. If the population was doubled then farming land would be more in demand. But that is all hypothetical.Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. The last time I looked the largest in Europe. In the meantime we all live in tiny hyper-expensive boxes.Forests near urban areas is a good thing for social purposes. Maybe the ridiculous Green Belts can be mainly forest.
- 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.