Forests: The first government u-turn?

I previously blogged here about the UK government's plan to sell off Forestry Commission woodland. Well, the government has now decided to put plans on-hold, a sign that a u-turn on the issue could be looming.

I want to know what has successfully pressured the government in making this decision, and what lessons can be learnt for other campaigns:

1) The policy wasn’t staunchly ideological
Remember the Conservative vote is traditionally held in rural areas, and there’s a danger this policy could outrage their own country bumpkins. The green spaces of England are heritage for everyone, and a public consensus could be heard in the Question Time studio a few weeks back. I’ve never heard such cheering and agreement amongst the audience.

2) Reputable celebrity backers
When an issue is less ideologically sensitive, more celebrities will rally round. Fact. Judi Dench, Bill Bryson, Annie Lenox, Ranulph Fiennes, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury – Dr. Rowan Williams put their name to a letter in the Sunday Telegraph calling the proposals ill-conceived. And you know when the Telegraph is publishing sentiments against the government, there’s something brewing...

3) Successful, organised campaign and petition
We should not forget the role of 38degrees in this campaign to save the forests. They’ve clocked up over 50,000 signatories, including mine. This is a demonstration of people power, people organising over the internet. There’s been some favourable coverage of this group too, on TV shows such as ‘10 o’clock live’. The interesting thing is, this group is not just campaigning against the government’s plans for the Forestry Commission. It’s also collecting signatories against human trafficking, against political interference in BSKYB investigation, and against NHS reforms. And this leads me nicely to my last thought...

Why are people bothered about our green spaces being sold off, but less bothered about saving the NHS? Less bothered about ensuring everyone has the same right to free healthcare? Perhaps the NHS is fair-game for ideological struggles, but we could do with some celebrity backers right now for this one.

The UN, ‘big society’ and UK forests

2011 has been proclaimed international year of forests by the UN, with its tagline ‘celebrating forests for people’. Did you know forests are home to 300 million people around the world, and the livelihoods of 1.6 billion people depend on forests?

Whilst there’s a distinct global feel to the UN’s message, we must keep an eye on our own woodland and public spaces to ensure they are kept public, and out of the hands of the private sector, which will inevitably lead to their destruction.

In October last year, it was widely reported that the Government confirmed plans to sell off Forestry Commission woodland. The move showed that even inanimate trees cannot be saved from the Government’s idea for a ‘big society’, where there will be a reduced role for the state and a growing role for the private sector.

Despite Government insistence that privatisation would not mean a compromise on conservation, many people are sceptical, in the way they were 20 years ago when the previous Tory government proposed something similar. Last week, words turned into action when more than 3,000 people protested at the Forest of Dean against the proposed sale of the Forestry Commission.

The bill to decide the future of Forestry Commission land (all 650,000 hectares of it) will be debated in Parliament within the next few weeks. If turned into law, land including the New Forest and Sherwood Forest may be sold to the highest bidder, who protesters fear will be energy companies and developers, looking to limit public access and make a quick buck.

Watch this (green) space...

A Climate of Frustration

I was happy to see Phil Jones vindicated and re-instated within the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, in a new role of Director of Research last week.

‘Climategate’, as it became ridiculously known, the scandal over the content of emails that were quite possibly hacked into and leaked over the internet from the above mentioned university department, provided further fuel to the arguments of the climate change sceptic community and provoked a blood-thirsty demand for inquiry into the allegations they had orchestrated.


My frustration with these people is difficult to express. It took three independent publicly funded reviews to conclude the obvious: that the content of these emails had no bearing on the fact human activity on this planet is inducing global warming.

I can appreciate the reasons for counter research in order that both sides can collaborate to try and better predict the trends in environmental change and measure the changes that have already taken place. However, I can see no benefit to this attempt to discredit the research and working practices of the CRU. In my opinion, not only did these three independent reviews end up dismissing the integrity of their argument, but also questioning the integrity of the members of these sceptic organisations as human beings.

The UK Met Office spokesperson from Leo Hickman’s article on the scandal for the Guardian in November 2009 summed it up well, I thought. They expressed no doubt that an inquiry would essentially be a waste of time, as the work by some of the world’s most respected scientists would stand as strong as ever at the end:

“It's a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it.”

In summary of the conclusions from the reviews that subsequently took place and were released this month, I thought the New York Times editorial from last week was pretty spot on:

“Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.”

I wasn’t surprised by any of the findings from the reviews because I, like many ordinary people who live with very little involvement in the actual science community, have enough common sense to have formed the reasonable expectation that the earth will become damaged beyond recognition and repair if we carry on using and destroying its natural resources at the current rate. For me, this goes beyond Science and is a deeply moral issue. Why does the sceptic community insist on using cheap tricks to whip up controversy like this and then call for the use of public money on pointless enquiries that will have predictable outcomes? They failed to discredit the science behind Climate Change that indicates it is the biggest threat to human livelihood and this planet. What they did succeed in discrediting was themselves in terms of human compassion and consideration for the fragile ecosystem and its inhabitants. Isn’t it about time the sceptics piped down, behaved more responsibly and started co-operating more with those scientists who work for preservation, conservation and survival, instead of leaving our future to chance?

Picture from: www.chrismadden.co.uk