Won’t work

Half of the nation’s farmland needs to be transformed into woodlands and natural habitat to fight the climate crisis and restore wildlife, according to a former chief scientific adviser to the UK government.

Prof Sir Ian Boyd said such a change could mean the amount of cattle and sheep would fall by 90%, with farmers instead being paid for storing carbon dioxide,

Sorry, can’t do that. Spudda insists that each and every business become carbon neutral. Therefore there’s no one to make carbon sequestration payments, is there?

27 thoughts on “Won’t work”

  1. The same people: “Britain must become self-sufficient in food to prevent Climate Change, food miles, etc”.

    Doesn’t this idiot realise the food lost by this action will still be grown/raised somewhere else?

    The modern Elite: dedicated to working against the national interest, while pretending to support it.

  2. “Doesn’t this idiot realise the food lost by this action will still be grown/raised somewhere else?”

    You are wrong – all that’s happened is that he has suppressed his opinion that the population should be shrunk too.

  3. with farmers instead being paid for storing carbon dioxide

    I’m trying to think of a less ableist, more inclusive name for the Great Leap Forward…

  4. It is important to destroy the agricultural economies and livelihoods of poor nations so that climate alarmist twats like Prof Sir Ian Boyd can virtual signal and feel so so utterly good about their sanctimonious selves

  5. “Doesn’t this idiot realise the food lost by this action will still be grown/raised somewhere else?”

    That’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

  6. But, but….
    Will no one think of the children? There have already been numberless cases of under age people coming to danger or harm in woodlands. Covering Britain with even more forest will only increase the risk of wild creatures posing as free TV licence subscribers, danger of obesity through the excessive consumption of gingerbread, and all sorts of other risks.
    Have we forgotten the Precautionary Principle already? No, comrades, we must march as one in protest against this mortal threat to our yoof.

  7. a former chief scientific adviser to the UK government […] Prof Sir Ian Boyd

    I mean we all enjoy a good prof around here but this is worrying and the government should publish a list of past recommendations of his which were acted on as well as the repercussions.

    Has Prof Sir Ian Boyd ever been spotted wandering around Salisbury with an FSB-issue box of novichok?

  8. “I’m trying to think of a less ableist, more inclusive name for the Great Leap Forward…”

    The Little Jerk Backward?

  9. “Prof Sir Ian Boyd said such a change could mean the amount of cattle and sheep would fall by 90%, with farmers instead being paid for storing carbon dioxide,”

    Sorry, but farmers won’t fall for that one. We’ve seen the template. Sign a contract with the government for X years of ‘carbon sequestration’, your farm turns to woodland and scrub, when the X years are up they turn round and say ‘ Sorry, we don’t need your carbon sequestration any more, so no more money from us. But now your farm is covered in trees you’re forbidden to grub them all out and start growing crops, and if you do we’ll throw you in jail.’

    One thing farmers have learned from sucking on the CAP subsidy teat is that you can’t trust the State any further than you can throw it. We’ve all experienced the arbitrary changing of rules, of delays in payment, despite having signed legal contracts. The idea that you could trust the State not to screw you over when the wind changes is a poor joke for farmers.

  10. You are wrong – all that’s happened is that he has suppressed his opinion that the population should be shrunk too.

    This is one of the points that Greenies dont even hide: they believe a population collapse is necessary for their schemes and are quite ok and open about it. I believe even David Attenborough mentioned something about needing a decline in the human population. We need to hammer them on this over and over: “ok so you want 2.5bn people to die in order to solve climate change. Who would you kill first?”

  11. “This is one of the points that Greenies dont even hide: they believe a population collapse is necessary for their schemes and are quite ok and open about it. I believe even David Attenborough mentioned something about needing a decline in the human population. We need to hammer them on this over and over: “ok so you want 2.5bn people to die in order to solve climate change. Who would you kill first?””

    The irony is that in the event of a scaling back to medieval times, it’s these people who go first. The B Ark of Guardian reader jobs depend on everyone else having fat enough bellies that they don’t care *that much* about parasites taking 20% of what they produce. You even go back to Edwardian times and you’d see a lot less government than today, and most of it concerned with the basic stuff like street lighting and policing.

  12. Still, all that wilding should lead to exciting times for arseholes who like killing foxes with baseball bats, eh?

  13. @ dearieme
    Much more exciting if the animal is free, rather than trapped in chicken wire, and can have a go at his throat when he attacks it with his baseball bat.

  14. Bloke in North Dorset

    OT but on the subject of greenies hating people:

    They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

    But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

    The Sheahans’ 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

    Do Victoria’s native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

    After suffering court action that cost the family $100,000, Liam Sheahan believes clearing trees saved his home and his family.

    Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

  15. First thought was: “Hold on, but that guy is, or at least used to be, a solid scientist with a serious track record, especially considering he’s an ecologist..”

    *reads the article* ah…figures… Got infected with Vegetarianism, followed by Early Onset Scientific Senility… Explains a lot…

    Once again proof that religion has no place in science.

  16. @Jim

    Remember that story about Lake District must become more diverse and less white?

    They were following DEFRA’s orders; Dartmoor, Snowdonia etc must do same

    Will they be handing out free stabbie knives in car parks?

    @Mal Reynolds

    +1

    Greens are also pro eugenics

    @BiND

    +1

  17. @John77.

    I’m afraid you’re wrong… Even the earliest recorded ramblings of (natural) philosophers had a thing or two to say about priests. Easy to check, it’s on record, at least the bits that survived the ravages of time…
    Some of ’em are still mandatory study material for us modern natural philosophers to this day.

    So yeah, maybe science can’t develop without religion. But it’s definitely not a …positive.. feedback… You need, after all, a village idiot to show the kids what happens when you go batty..

  18. ” all that’s happened is that he has suppressed his opinion that the population should be shrunk too.”

    I’d approve of reducing the population of England, on the basis of ‘last in, first out’.

  19. @ Grikath if you believe in magic and/or superstitions, you cannot develop the scientific method which assumes the existence of “divine”/”natural” laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *