Bicycle servicing

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

I don't want to put anyone out of business but I cannot understand this thing about bicycle servicing. Some people seem to believe that their bicycle needs an annual service – from a specialist – just like their car does and often it is also being touted in such a way.

Anyone with a bit of common sense – I know that that sense is rare nowadays but nevertheless – can service his or her own bicycle. The exception where, frequently, a mechanic is required, is changing bearings and such. Everything else, including a full service should be in the capabilities of a user or, in case of a child, his or her parent(s). That is what makes owning and using a bicycle such a great thing, namely not having to have a specialist to hand for things like service and repair. Then again I am well aware that many people today do not even know what to do in case of a puncture to a tire. I know of people who have thrown the bike and got a new one because they did not know it could be repaired or how. Sad world we live in nowadays.

Servicing a bicycle is not really something, bar, as said, anything to do with bearings, that one really has to consult a physical expert for in a shop or such. If you really are stuck with something there is nowadays always the Internet and YouTube and there are also some good and cheap little manuals to be had on bicycle maintenance and servicing.

The main part of maintenance and servicing of a standard bicycle is keeping it more or less clean (says he whose bike is currently encrusted in mud which, I know, is not a good thing) and chain, and other moving parts, well lubricated by means of oil. While WD40 or 3-in-1 is fine as a very quick and temporary fix and for easing things if should never be used as a long term measure as it is not a proper lubricant.

If you want to look after your bicycle(s) yourself well a good toolkit should be obtained. The few little spanners (wrenches for our American cousins) that sometimes come with a bike or that you can cheaply obtain to be put on a bike are not what I am talking about but a kit that has all the right tools for every possible type of Bicycle and job in hand, including a chain tool. The latter you will want and need in order to repair, or shorten a chain.

While it is true that you should give your bicycle, whether you use it daily or just occasionally, a once over at least once a year. You could call it a service if you like.

The most important thing to check for – and probably replace too – is your brake pads. In fact you should check those frequently because depending on the quality of them and on how and how often you apply the brakes they do wear and some quite quickly.

The next thing is your chain and its tension – if you do not have a bike with a chain tensioner as with the derailleur system such as Shimano, that is. It should not be too tight but also not too lose. Theoretically a tensioner keeps the chain at the correct tension anyway so you don't have to worry about that in that case.

Two items, or three actually, you have to have on your bicycle to make it road safe (and that by law) and that is lights (front and back) and a bell. Check that those are in good order during your “service” too.

If you have never considered servicing your own bicycle there are some small and larger good books available and today you can find a lot of how to videos on YouTube, often even on the channels from bicycle manufacturers and stores.

In the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic and people trying to avoid public transport the bicycle is seeing a renaissance and many people have begun to dust off their bikes and headed for the bike shops – the few that are open – to get their bicycles serviced. However, with the time on had for some if not indeed many in all honesty money can be saved and the bicycle still being safe with doing the “restoration” and servicing oneself.

© 2020

First Brazilian supermarket where customers can exchange recyclable waste for food open

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In the Brazilian state of Acre the first supermarket opened its doors where it is possible for customers to exchange recyclables for food.

This establishment, called TrocTroc, offers customers the possibility to exchange recyclables such as PET bottles, aluminum cans and plastic bottle seals for any product sold in the market.

Each kilo of recyclable material is worth R $ 0.50 in purchases. If the customer brings the waste already cleaned and crushed, facilitating its recycling, the bonus amount has an increase of 20%.

On the shelves are articles such as fruits, grains, legumes and vegetables – all produced locally, in order to enhance the region's rural producers.

In fact, it is not just them who are being empowered by the initiative. The TrocTroc was created by Marcelo Valado, president of the House of Indians Foundation – an international entity that fights for the respect and preservation of the indigenous culture and that, not by chance, left the supermarket in the care of members of the Ashaninka tribe, in order to foster local economy and enhance their customs of exchange.

Brazil, like many other countries around the world, has many vulnerable people, such as the homeless, and they could be helped if this kind of supermarket would catch on.

Many of the homeless, and other poor people, in Brazil and other countries get a little money from collection recyclables but are often dependent on the honesty, or lack of it, of middleman buyers. This kind of project could help on many levels.

© 2020

Beyond COVID-19, human rights can help save the planet

Council of Europe statement ahead of World Environment Day (June 5)

Strasbourg, 04.06.2020 – The Secretary General of the 47-nation Council of Europe, Marija Pejčinović Burić, the Chair of the Committee of Ministers and Alternate Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, and the President of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, Rik Daems, have issued the following statement ahead of World Environment Day on June 5:

“Alongside the huge challenges brought by the coronavirus pandemic, it is clear that climate change and damage to our natural environment pose an immense threat to our well-being.

“The European Convention on Human Rights, which turns 70 this year, helps to protect our lives, our families and our homes against environmental threats – and in all other circumstances.

“The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled in some 300 cases linked to the environment, covering issues ranging from dangerous industrial activities to waste management and pollution.

“Among other things, the Court’s case-law has helped to guarantee people’s right to pass on and receive information about environmental issues, to join forces with others, to take part in decisions which affect them and to challenge official decisions in court.

“We have also seen how the Convention can be used at national level to press governments to take faster and more drastic steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

“Moreover, the European Social Charter has been interpreted as covering the right to a healthy environment, leading to several important decisions and conclusions from the European Committee of Social Rights prompting state action on environmental issues.

“As countries across Europe emerge from lockdown and look to the future, we must make full use of the tools we have – including human rights – to help build and maintain a healthy environment for generations to come.

“We should also consider how to further sharpen those tools to make them as effective as possible.

“We therefore fully support the declaration adopted last month by the previous, present and future Chairs of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers calling on the organisation to start working towards a new legal text on human rights and the environment.

“Furthermore, we eagerly look forward to the High Level International Conference on ‘Human Rights for the Planet’, to be held at the European Court of Human Rights on 5 October, and the discussions on democracy’s contribution to saving the environment which are scheduled to take place at this year’s World Forum for Democracy in Strasbourg from 16 to 18 November.

“We are convinced that respecting human rights and protecting the environment go hand-in-hand. We should make full use of, and further strengthen, the powerful tools that we have to help build a better future for us all.”

Source: Council of Europe Press Office

ARS long-reach pruner – Product review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The ARS-160-0.6 long-reach pruner is a cut and hold snipper, ideally suited for pruning of roses, for instance, but also for other tasks, including harvesting certain crops. It has a length, that is to say a reach of 60cm, to which you can add the reach of your extended arm, and a weight of 360grams.

Price, incl. tax: £57.89

Unlike other pruners where the cut twig or branch will drop to the ground, or lodge in the tree or shrub, here the cut piece is firmly held in the grips and thus can, and needs to, be lowered.
While this makes pruning somewhat slower it is more precise and does not leave debris handing in the plant or laying about on the ground.

An acquaintance of mine, a very avid gardener and manager for a volunteer team in a local park, who has purchased one of these upon my recommendation, is absolutely thrilled with this tool. What can one say more except that I, too, love this tool.

© 2020

Is global travel history after COVID-19?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic might spell the end of global travel as we have known it for quite some time now, jetting from one side of the world to the other.

Not only aids such fast travel to other countries far across the globe, and even countries closer, to the spread of any virus, it also can leave, as we have seen, travelers stranded in countries, affected or not from such an event, with almost no way to get back home.

In the more distant past when people traveled abroad, and could afford it, it was done by ships which took many months from one place to another and if a virus or communicable disease became evident then, alas, the yellow flag was hoisted and the entire ship was under quarantine and yes that often meant that people on that ship were going to die in some cases.

The fast world-wide trade, by aircraft and faster ships than in the past also has led to many pests and diseases in plants, animals, and humans to travel from one far flung place to the other at speed. The tree diseases that were inadvertently “imported” to Britain are an example of this.

A reduction of this rushing around the globe for all manner of reasons, many of them non-essential, would do the Planet a great deal of good and also humans in general, as well as people's finances.

It may be nice to see different countries and different cultures close up but this does come at a cost, a cost to the Planet, a cost to the people that are being invaded by tourists (Costa del England is one example) who want the sun but in the same way as if they would be at home without engaging with the local culture and even the local people, in remote areas it also adversely affects the people in other ways, and the cost to our home countries if travelers, inadvertently, bring diseases home.

Most people who annually, or some people more often even, jet off to Spain, Turkey or wherever, to the tourist hot spots, have never even remotely seen all that is to be seen and experienced in the home country.

Time and again one encounters irate tourists coming back from places in Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc., complaining that they didn't like the food, and especially that the people there didn't speak English and were “too thick to understand what they said or asked for”. This is especially true for British tourists though Americans are not better in that department.

There are those that will make the excuse that it brings money to those people in those foreign countries, e.g. the tourism industry, and gives them jobs. That may indeed be so, but at what costs to the environment and to the people there themselves if they entire economy, or a great part of it, is only geared to tourism? The same excuse that is being made for “organic” green beans being grown in Kenya and flown to Europe and cold cheaper during the season than local produce; a crop that is not part of the local diet and only grown as a “cash crop”. It gives the farmers an income, we are told. So, instead of growing food that they will eat the farmers are growing crops, and even flowers such as roses, for the European market, crops that require a great deal of irrigation in a country (or countries) often lacking enough water in general, are forced to sell this crop at a pittance and then are dependent on buying in food from traders who, again, cut the farmers' throats with high prices.

This pandemic should – but will it? – make us reconsider how we go about doing things and maybe, just maybe, take a different approach.

© 2020

Growing your own food wherever possible

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

What the COVID-19 pandemic should have shown us that we cannot rely on the capitalist market system to guarantee us a steady supply of the groceries that we need and thus it is important that we, once again, grow for victory, so to speak. And, alas, the situation is not and has not been thus with just food though food (and water) is more important than clothes and even toilet paper.

The system of “just in time” employed by most stores and especially supermarkets just does not cut it when it comes to crises such as this one. The chain breaks far too easily and aided and abetted by people who are able to because they have the money, and the way of transporting it, panic buying and hoarding supplies makes for empty shelves, and some of those, nay, in fact most of those, have looked worse than shelves in the stores in so-called communist countries during the worst of crises there.

But it was and is not just basic supplies that could have been “home-grown” but were and are not but almost everything else is being affected by such a crisis. When aircraft are grounded and ships cannot enter port from places where food and other goods are imported from then we exasperate the problems in the supply chain.

In recent times we have had in the UK one minister for food and farming who one can only describe as a total idiot for he stated that Britain did not really need any farmers for the country was able to import everything it needed from elsewhere. Yes, and we can see that result now in that flour, for instance, has become in very short supply. We are exporting our grain, more than we keep it, and then have to import grain when the demand exceeds the supply. Either those people are born stupid or they have worked very hard at getting that way.

Also each and every time for instance Brexit was being mentioned the first word out of the mouths of the farmers and the farmer's union – and government officials – was that they were worried about what it would do to the exports of farm produce to countries of the EU and elsewhere. The first and foremost task of a farmer is not to produce produce for export but to feed the nation. In the capitalist system, however, the opposite seems to be the case; first exports and then the nation.

We need more farms, small family farms, and smallholdings where food is grown (and sold) locally, rather than the large industrial farms who are mainly concerned with taking the subsidies and predominately think about exporting rather than about feeding the people of the country.

Other countries take a different approach, such as Russia, which enacted a law that enables Russians to obtain between one and six hectares (depending on the region) of land free in perpetuity, though it cannot be sold, only passed on, grant to build a house and for equipment, with the only obligation to grow food for themselves and their family and to sell the surplus on the market, and it works in feeding the nation. Can't be done, obviously, in Britain, the US, or other neoliberal capitalist countries.

So, it is left to us to see that we can grow as much as possible of our own food at home, in whatever place and way.

© 2020

The bee has been declared the most important living being on the Planet

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Following a meeting at the Royal Geographical Society in London, United Kingdom the Earthwatch Institute declared bees the most important living beings on this Planet, however, according to wildlife experts & scientists many bees have joined the long list of Endangered species.

With so much about the interdependence in nature unresearched, it is possible there are other organisms that are equally as key, but this recent study shows a dramatic decline in the bees' numbers as almost 90 percent of the bee population has disappeared in the last few years. The uncontrolled use of pesticides, deforestation or lack of flowers are the main reasons for their extinction.

However, why would such a little being be named the most important creature on Earth?

Well, the answer is actually more simple than you ever thought. Seventy percent of the world's agriculture depends exclusively on bees. Needless to mention the pollination is the bees' job, although the plants would not be able to reproduce, therefore the fauna would have been gone in a very short time. More than that, a study conducted by the Apiculture Entrepreneurship Center of the Universidad Mayor (CeapiMayor) and the Apiculture Corporation of Chile (Cach) with the support of the Foundation for Agrarian Innovation (FIA) concluded that the bees are the only living being that do not carry any type of pathogen.

© 2020

#pollinators #bees #biodiversity

Jetting around the world to save the climate

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Or how else should one interpret the annual COP gatherings?

While the great and the good in politics and environmental activism are telling everyone else to stop flying and driving cars they, almost all, jet around the world at least once a year to all those climate conferences regardless of the amount of pollutants (I will no call it CO2 as that is all very misleading) they pump into the air in doing so. But hey, the motorcar must be banned, wood burning for heating and cooking stopped, and people must stop eating meat; that will save the climate and the Planet.

Jet fuel, together with the pollutant from shipping, especially the container ships, cruise liners and navy vessels, all three of which do not burn diesel, as we are led to believe, but the most polluting fuel imaginable, namely heavy bunker oil. And while when they are in port, or anchored in the roadsteads, they are meant to switch to normal diesel fuel the majority of them do not but continue to burn the other version.

In their behavior those who are jetting from one climate conference to the other they are nothing but hypocrites of the worst kinds, of the “do as we tell you but not as we do” kind namely. Much like many of our politicians everywhere as well. While there may be some who let the train take the strain the great majority of all those attendees are not using any kind of environmentally friendly transportation. The use the plane. “Oh, but they are offsetting the carbon they use in their flights”, I now hear some say. You mean they are buying modern day indulgences. Pieces of paper that allow them to continue sinning because they have paid a few coins for it.

With all the technology we have at our disposal today those conferences could be heal in the virtual realm but that makes backslapping and all that kind of activities and expensive meals together and being entertained by heads of government, etc., somewhat difficult.

The attitude of those politicians and the other “great and good” is “do as we say and not as we do.” Well, that simply is not good enough.

Firstly do we really have to gather at such events annually and secondly do such events have to be physical? If it is all about tackling climate change then it is time they started with themselves and had those meetings in the virtual realm. Yes, that also will use “carbon” but I would think a great deal less than their planes to and from the events, their being shuttled around in limos, etc.

time they showed leadership in action rather than just telling others what to do and doing the exact opposite and that includes all those climate activists attending those conferences, whether direct or on the fringes.

© 2020

Gardening myths most people believe but that are not true

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

If you are interested in growing a garden, there are lots of people offering advice from the internet, to books to even those you know very well. However, not all advice is good advice and some is just downright silly. Sorting out the good from the bad is sometimes difficult, especially if you are a novice gardener.

So, no matter where you get your gardening advice from, it is a good idea to be sure that your source is reputable and that there is truth behind the claim. Some gardening tips of old have now been proven wrong in light of new discoveries.

So let us now look into some of these myths that should be discarded in the light of new findings.

Paint pruning cuts

Pruning cuts painted over with tar or pruning paint may give the impression that the tree is well looked after. Latex, shellac, petroleum and asphalt compounds are some of the materials used for wound dressing. The idea is to seal off the cut surfaces to prevent rot and other diseases. However, new research finds that wound dressings of this sort do not benefit trees and that, in most cases, they may be quite harmful.

When any part of the stem is damaged or cut, trees use their self-healing mechanisms to form a scar tissue or callus at the site of the injury. This helps keep out pathogens that may otherwise infect the trees. Wound paints prevent the formation of calluses, thus interfering with this natural healing mechanism. They can actually seal in water along with spores and microorganisms that cause decay. Bleeding cuts, in particular, should never be dressed in any way.

It is better to make the cut as clean as possible using a sharp instrument. With a clean saw/pruning shears and make a slanting cut close to the collar of the branch, but not too close. Then, leave it to the tree to do the rest. Do heavy pruning towards the latter part of winter when the trees are at minimum risk of infections. Exception here being those of the prunus variety where science says to do any pruning and reduction just after the trees have flowered. It is reckoned that as the tree is then in heavy sap flow the flow of said sap will flush away any risk of pathogens entering the cuts.

Organic pesticides are safe

The truth is that they are not necessarily so.

We hear a lot about the detrimental effects of chemical pesticides; so by contrast, organic pesticides may appear to be safe. Organic compounds derived from plants and animals may be more biodegradable than man-made chemicals, but it is just so wrong to think that they are all harmless to people or the environment. Some of the most poisonous substances on earth are derived from plants and animals, typical examples being snake venom, ricin derived from castor plant and botulinum toxins produced by bacteria.

Several organic pesticides are used in agriculture; they have varying amounts of toxicity. For example, Rotenone extracted from the roots of certain tropical bean plants is a very potent pesticide, insecticide, and piscicide, all rolled into one. Despite being organic in origin, it has been found to be six times more toxic to humans and other animals than Sevin, a chemical pesticide of similar action. Rotenone is banned in some countries but continues to be used liberally in others.

Nicotine, pyrethrum, and neem are some of the other plant-derived pesticides used by gardeners. Nicotine has high toxicity for mammals, including humans, and is thought to be responsible to bee deaths; pyrethrum has immediate action on pests while being less toxic to mammals. Neem, which has a slow action and disrupts the metabolic pathways of insects, may be safe for other animals.

Bacterial toxins such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin and Alpha Beta Protein are used to trigger defense mechanisms in crops. They induce the crops to produce biochemicals that make them more resistant to potential pathogens. The safety of these toxins, as well as that of the additional substances that plants produce against them, is under the scanner.

So, organic pesticides should be chosen carefully for their merits rather than their “organic” label. And, they should be used with the same caution that you reserve for man-made chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Amend clayey soil with sand

Clay holds on to water; sand quickly drains. So, when you’re told to add sand to clayey soil, it seems quite logical. But what actually happens is that you get more compacted soil that defies tilling, let alone better drainage.

Imagine what would happen if you poured sand into a tin of marbles. The sand will pack into the spaces between the marbles, making it difficult for both the sand and the marbles to move about. The same way, the fine clay particles fill the spaces between the larger sand particles, giving a thick, mortar-like consistency when mixed with water.

The best way to amend clayey soil is adding plenty of compost and leaf mold. These light materials get clay particles to stick all over them, but resist compaction. It gives the soil an airy structure that facilitates better drainage. Once amended with compost, adding sand may have some additional benefit.

Don't water the garden in the heat of the day

No gardener will have escaped this myth. Well-meaning fellow gardeners everywhere would warn you that you will end up killing your plants if you water them at noon. The explanation given is that the water droplets act as lenses concentrating rays of the sun onto the leaves.

The myth may have been handed down from the time the legendary Archimedes burned Roman ships with his parabolic mirror or came from school children who used to burn paper and ants with magnifying glasses.

However, if you have ever attempted it, you would know how long it takes to achieve the expected results, and that the magnifying glass has to be kept at a particular distance from the target throughout and not applied directly to the object. In the same was as the story that (broken) glass bottles in the wild will cause forest and bush fires. Again, the distance is wrong.

Having said this, however, it is possible that soluble salts in your water, as well as possible chlorine (which is added to tap water) can cause burning but not so much as that the droplets themselves act as a magnifying glass but that when the water droplets evaporate, the caustic salts deposited on the leaves may cause burn spots.

Plant trees in deep holes to give them stability

When tree saplings are transplanted, gardeners are often anxious that they should get a good foothold in the new location. After all, they are to face fierce windstorms and other vagaries of nature as they grow. Thus the advice to dig a deep hole, at least twice the height of the root ball, is often followed with religious fervor.

Now it turns out that deep holes are not what give stability to the trees, but wider ones. The planting hole should be ideally twice the diameter of the root ball, if not more. This provides a large area of loose soil for the roots to spread out. A wider base would obviously anchor a top heavy tree better than a narrow one.

Fill the planting hole with compost and fertilizers

This myth probably comes from the desire of every gardener to provide every help possible to help a new plant. Compost-rich soil is a great growing medium, and fertilizers can make plants flourish. But planting time is definitely not the best time to provide these.

When you fill a planting hole with compost, you are giving the plant a relatively loose medium rich in nutrients. It also absorbs moisture well. The plant will restrict its roots to this area since it has no need to spread them out to the harder and drier soil beyond the planting hole. For one thing, it affects the stability of the plant. Another problem crops up when the watering is eventually reduced. The fast-draining compost dries up quicker, leaving a dry zone around the plant. With not enough roots beyond this area, the plant suffers. That's why you often find, in such situations, that, if the plant was raised in a pot, it has not grown any further as far as roots are concerned than the size it was in the pot.

When it comes to fertilizers, high concentrations can burn the roots, especially the new roots the plants need to put out to establish itself. Root burn is a common reason for new plants not thriving despite all your attention.

After keeping the new plant in position, backfill the planting hole with the same soil you dug up. Water well. Allow the plants to spread out its roots in search of nutrients first, and then apply compost and fertilizers around the plant, but never too close to the stem. Some gardeners dig a shallow ditch around the plants for adding compost, but that is not necessary. Just cover the compost with a thick layer of mulch.

You must wash and sterilize your pots

That, alas, is a myth and one that was invented in the time of the big houses by head gardeners loath to lose their well performing staff at the end of the active season having to hire new at the next and then having to train most of them up again. So they claimed to their masters that all pots needed to be washed and sterilized and all that jazz during winter and thus he had to keep the staff on.

And, to all intents and purposes, the list of myths could go on for a great deal longer still. Charles Dowding has written and published a small little book on this subject entitled “Gardening Myths and Misconceptions” and I can very much recommend it.

© 2020

Contiguous cover forestry

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Many people will immediately think, and that is what the promoters want everyone to think, of nice woodlands with great biodiversity but, alas, the story often is very much a different one.

More often than not those organization(s) behind this are promoting nothing uniform plantations of conifers, and other trees, in other words, monocultures, which generally lack biodiversity greatly, as opposed to mixed woodlands and forests, but is contiguous forest cover. Only that it has no benefits for wildlife and the Planet. This kind of forestry only benefits the corporations.

All plantations are of a uniform age, generally, and will felled almost at the same time, which is very different to, what I call, proper forestry and woodland management, and I will come to coppicing later, where the ages of the trees and their growth rates are different and thus also the time and age at which they are being felled.

What we really need are not monoculture forests of conifers or even broadleaf trees but a mixture of different kind of trees in our woods and forests and where appropriate they should be broadleaf rather than conifer. Not just do those kind of woods and forests provide greater biodiversity and are better for wildlife in general, they also are better in carbon sequestration.

Broadleaf trees can and will regrow when “pruned” on a regular interval, of between seven years to several decades, in a process called coppicing or pollarding, and ideally should be worked as coppice with standards allowing the finest specimens to grow into large trunks.

But present day commercial forestry, even in the country that is the birthplace of sustainable forestry, is only interested in fast growing trees that can be harvested within about a generation to make a quick buck. It is not, despite what they say, about the environment and all that, but all about a quick return on investment.

Under the term “contiguous forest cover” we are being sold a lie in the same way as we are being sold a lie with the Green Pledges and the Green Deal as to forestry. It is all about forestry monocultures, generally, and not about mixed woods and forests. Such monoculture forests do not benefit wildlife and biodiversity and do nothing with regards to “combating climate change”. In fact it is almost the opposite rather.

In a changing climate where there is the possibility of hotter temperatures, droughts and thus forest fires monocultures, especially of conifers, are also a disaster waiting to happen.

The British Forestry Commission, now, to an extent re-branded as Forestry England, Forestry Scotland and Forestry Wales, etc., and the Royal Forestry Society, are advocating bringing in foreign trees to Britain, for instance, including the likes of eucalyptus. This is bordering on insanity.

The only reason, though they are, unfortunately, not open with this, for eucalyptus is the fact that it is fast growing and, apparently, very suitable for the making of biomass pellets.

As a replacement for the ash, affected by Ash Dieback, they are proposing foreign maples and when challenged why not concentrate on the Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), known as Mountain Maple (Bergahorn) in Germany, the reply was that Sycamore was not a native British tree. Apparently American maples are.

Most, if not all, of those foreign trees are unknown to the British wildlife, for instance, and eucalyptus, for instance, has no known benefit to wildlife and Britain is just a little short of wild Koalas. We also have zero idea as to how many of foreign pests, in whichever form, we might be importing with those trees. The driver definitely is not environmental concern but neoliberal capitalism at its worst.

We need to return to an understanding of the ways of the past in dealing with woods and forests and work with the trees once again for the mutual benefit of all concerned, trees, wildlife, environment and humans. But then there are not the huge profits to be made from it as with the current – and future – kinds of forests envisioned by the capitalists, especially not in the biomass market and that is why governments and agencies follow the lobbyist trails and the brown envelopes.

© 2020