Cats Scramble at Horner, West Somerset - trees in winter.
It seems that all crops are not equal in the eyes of UK National Park Authorities, at least judging from the National Park Authority local to me.
It was with sadness that I noticed in my local newspaper that my local National Park Authority had refused permission for a farmer to grow elephant grass as a bio fuel crop.
Reasons given included the need for caution, more time to create a detailed control policy and, apparently, elephant grass was not very nice to look at anyway and not in keeping with the traditional local countryside.
Indeed, I was quite surprised that anybody could tell a farmer what he could or could not grow. I haven’t gone into much detail about the issue but it seems that there was a substantial grant involved that the UK government was willing to pay to encourage farmers to grow bio fuels.
Perhaps it was that the local Parks Authority were able to prevent the growing of the elephant grass by refusing permission for the grant or perhaps they were able to directly influence the crop the farmer was allowed to grow, I know not. It seems to me to be horribly restrictive either way.
Furthermore, it seems to me to be an example of the worst form of nimby-ism (Not In My Back Yard). Growing crops which can be used to fuel our cars, vans and other automotive vehicles is a fast and effective way of combating global warming.
This is the reason the UK government has provided substantial grants to farmers who are willing to change their ways and grow these crops. The way it works is, as the plants grow they absorb carbon dioxide and then, as the derived fuel is used, carbon dioxide is returned into the atmosphere.
The idea is that there is no addition to the amount of carbon dioxide (a global warming gas) in the atmosphere as a result (i.e. a carbon neutral transaction). Whereas, if a fuel is used in our motor vehicles from fossilized crops (oil), there is a current net addition to the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and a net increase in the temperature of our climate.
The consequences of global warming are all bad. Scientists may argue about the detail but, from my personal point of view, every time I see a picture of Mars, I see how our green and pleasant planet could become and it may already be too late to take action.
Although we are making very great efforts to to visit and colonized Mars (as we should), it is a very arid planet with a carbon dioxide atmosphere which we cannot breathe.
I hate to imagine the planet Earth that we all love could become like Mars.
Every journey begins with one step and it is always easy to find a million reasons why that first step should not be made. One of the arguments against allowing the farmer to grow his bio-fuel crops was that there was no processing plant locally and the carbon cost of transport would make the project non viable.
But, when one person starts a journey, others often follow.
Perhaps there isn’t a biofuel processing plant locally at this time but perhaps one would be built if there was a sufficient demand.
Unfortunately, there will never be a local demand if the local agricultural industry is prevented from taking the first step by the National Park Authority. If the UK National Park Authorities would like to defend their apparent anti biofuel policy, or to clarify the issue, I would be happy to host their opinions and detailed policies here or to provide a link to where they have explained their opposition to bio-fuels and their alternative solution to the problem of global warming on their own site.
Bye for now Rob
