Re: CAP and ramblers
Doubling built area to accomodate double the population wouldn't necessarily give more elbow-room, but I get your point. "Far too much" is a qualitative judgement on a quantitative figure. Whether there's too much land used for ag in a situation with no planning, may be true, but then we'd have to correct for changes (increases) in commodity prices if this was applied across several countries which trade foodstuffs between each other, whether there are good reasons to leave land nonfarmed for ecological reasons etc. (one acre less farmed in the UK will mean one acre or more farmed elsewhere, and it may have external costs more or less what it was in the UK). I think the equation would cancel out the benefits with higher food-prices which again goes to higher rents on ag-land. But lowering UK farming on it's own wouldn't necessarily make such a big difference, no.
On UK recreational habits, it's probably true that the unequal distribution of land has helped shaped the fact that people are excluded from land. In the same way that the recreational habits in the Nordic countries has been shaped by the common-law institution of "every man's right", which means that private landowners can't deny access to lands except built-up areas, private gardens, growing crops etc. It does mean that landowner's aren't too keen to accomodate or take on costs towards accomodating recreational activities on their land, since it's value to them is close to zero (with the exception of hunting rights), but volunteer efforts and public expenditures/regulation does this reasonably well. All around it works, but largely because the culture is shaped around it.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@>
> > 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
> > either. The difference with NZ is that a hypothetical doubling of
> > 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
> > 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
> 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.