|
supersingle
Original Poster
2,064 posts
88 months
|
....or not. Beeb link. Can we have some more houses and roads and stuff now please.
|
|
|
Carfiend
3,186 posts
78 months
|
Don't be silly. Don't you care about destroying the habitat of the Lesser Spotted Scrotal Swarmer? It is a fascinating insect that waits for a large mammal to come by then crawls its way up the urethra where it uses a number of barbs to lodge itself in place takes in water and minerals from the hosts urine. The final step of its life it will release millions of eggs when the host urinates and it releases its grip to be flushed out. However the barbs do not fully retract and so some bleeding and pain can occur.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
So 2.3% total.
There was a discussion on BBC Radio 2 a while back about this very question and one estimate in the studio was an earnest 60% for the 'concreted over' bits. One caller was close when they suggested 1% or less but this was dismissed.
It's fairly straightforward to estimate the area covered by roads at 1.4% so the rest i.e. buildings and other structures is just under 1% on top.
|
|
|
Rugbyman
1,553 posts
72 months
|
So why the huge difference between what we expect the % to be and what it actually is ?
Would it have something to do with all the campaigns to plant more trees - keep the green belt green - paving paradise and puting up a carpark...?
Or more to do with the fact that the majority live in the urban areas and see concrete everyday and so have naturally unbalanced view on this ?
ETA quote from article.. 'Woodland now 12.7% of the UK, the highest proportion since 1924 when records began'
|
|
|
otolith
19,403 posts
73 months
|
Rugbyman said: So why the huge difference between what we expect the % to be and what it actually is ? Because people are not evenly distributed over the country. Because people who live in the South East of England have a very parochial understanding of geography (see annual winter tyre debate).
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
ewenm
24,467 posts
114 months
|
Rugbyman said: So why the huge difference between what we expect the % to be and what it actually is ?
Would it have something to do with all the campaigns to plant more trees - keep the green belt green - paving paradise and puting up a carpark...?
Or more to do with the fact that the majority live in the urban areas and see concrete everyday and so have naturally unbalanced view on this ?
ETA quote from article.. 'Woodland now 12.7% of the UK, the highest proportion since 1924 when records began' Most people don't explore our countryside, or think that leaving London for a trip to the South Downs is indicative of the rest of the UK's countryside. It's a real shame as it's relatively easy in the UK to go somewhere where you can walk/run/cycle all day offroad and often alone.
|
|
|
Riley Blue
5,216 posts
95 months
|
Judging by the map, the figure for enclosed farmland would be considerably higher so how come we have to import so much food?
|
|
|
otolith
19,403 posts
73 months
|
Riley Blue said: Judging by the map, the figure for enclosed farmland would be considerably higher so how come we have to import so much food? Largely because people want to eat (for example) asparagus in November.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,017 posts
105 months
|
Carfiend said: Don't be silly. Don't you care about destroying the habitat of the Lesser Spotted Scrotal Swarmer? It is a fascinating insect that waits for a large mammal to come by then crawls its way up the urethra where it uses a number of barbs to lodge itself in place takes in water and minerals from the hosts urine. The final step of its life it will release millions of eggs when the host urinates and it releases its grip to be flushed out. However the barbs do not fully retract and so some bleeding and pain can occur. You're taking the piss aren't you?
|
|
|
Carfiend
3,186 posts
78 months
|
No the Lesser Spotted Scrotal Swarmer is the one doing that.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,017 posts
105 months
|
It's easy to sit in a traffic jam in London or Birmingham and lament the overcrowding, but it's so localised around a few cities.
The statistic that I always find surprising is that there's roughly 60 million acres of the UK, which means, give or take, an acre per person. Not per family, but per person.
This is why Malthusian gloom mongers are always wrong. Internationally we're still a fairly crowded country. And the rest of the world isn't all war zones, deserts and frozen tundra. If you look at Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia, New Zealand, and a bunch of other countries behind, there is to all intents and purposes infinite habitable land with fresh water available.
What's more, food is cheap. Ok your granny might disagree when comparing it with her day, but the amount of people you could feed on an average salary is just stupidly big, and compared with 100 years ago it would be many multiples larger now. Food has got relatively cheaper for as long as it's been traded, because technology, transport and storage have all improved tremendously, and it's quite likely they will continue to do so.
|
|
|
hornet
5,469 posts
119 months
|
Rugbyman said: So why the huge difference between what we expect the % to be and what it actually is ?
Would it have something to do with all the campaigns to plant more trees - keep the green belt green - paving paradise and puting up a carpark...?
Or more to do with the fact that the majority live in the urban areas and see concrete everyday and so have naturally unbalanced view on this ?
ETA quote from article.. 'Woodland now 12.7% of the UK, the highest proportion since 1924 when records began'
Said it elsewhere, but people don't appreciate just how green London actually is. Get anywhere with a decent view and there's a staggering amount of greenery, even in the busiest areas. Sure I read somewhere that there has been a survey of exactly how many trees exist in Greater London, and it's something ludicrous like a billion. Very big number indeed.
|
|
|
CommanderJameson
20,708 posts
95 months
|
AJS- said: The statistic that I always find surprising is that there's roughly 60 million acres of the UK, which means, give or take, an acre per person. Not per family, but per person. Just remember that some of those acres are in places like Beckton, Middlesbrough and Lincolnshire, so someone's going to be disappointed. "Here, an entire acre, just for you. Doesn't it sound nice? "Tower Green"." "Er, excuse me. You appear to have given me the single s  ttiest bit of Middlesbrough by mistake."
|
|
|
stichill99
73 posts
50 months
|
You ask why do we have to import food? The true reason is because farming has been in recession for far longer than the rest of the economy(circa 1996/7) When the economy boomed agriculture was put under pressure by big business who squeezed prices to the farmer and hence the supermarkets rapid increase in margins.Ofcourse Tony and his chums didnt care because a few million donations to the Labour coffers and a knighthood or two and we were all in the jolly boys club together! It didnt matter about a few whinging yocals(not many votes there and mostly Tories anyway).Food was cheap for the masses but we are now just about to maybe sea a swing the other way.Years of no profitability and small farm dissapearance,stock numbers continually falling and now we are getting to the stage of not enough livestock to keep the abbotoirs working to capacity(The few that are left). So where do we go from here? Increased world demand would seem encouraging but its not really enough yet to make farming profitable to compare with civvy street yet.Smaller family farms were the lifeblood of the industry but with family members not interested as they see better wages and no getting up to feed stock on weekends a more attractive proposition who can blame them.
|
|
|
Kermit power
14,883 posts
82 months
|
ewenm said: Rugbyman said: So why the huge difference between what we expect the % to be and what it actually is ?
Would it have something to do with all the campaigns to plant more trees - keep the green belt green - paving paradise and puting up a carpark...?
Or more to do with the fact that the majority live in the urban areas and see concrete everyday and so have naturally unbalanced view on this ?
ETA quote from article.. 'Woodland now 12.7% of the UK, the highest proportion since 1924 when records began' Most people don't explore our countryside, or think that leaving London for a trip to the South Downs is indicative of the rest of the UK's countryside. It's a real shame as it's relatively easy in the UK to go somewhere where you can walk/run/cycle all day offroad and often alone. You can do that within 25 miles of Central London! I've spent 2-3 hours mountain-biking around the Surrey Hills without seeing another human being before now, albeit not at 2pm on a Saturday. The problem with this survey is that it's frankly meaningless. Yes, there are vast areas of undeveloped countryside in the UK, but how does one set about developing it? The Catch 22 is that nobody lives there because there are no jobs there, and there are no jobs there because nobody lives there. I'd like to live somewhere rural, but it's totally impractical for work, so I don't, and where I do live, regardless of the percentage the report claims is built on, just doesn't have the capacity for more people! In the ideal world, we'd simply move the long-term unemployed to remote areas where it's cheaper, and free up space in the cities for people who want to work for a living (as opposed to just working to pay the rent/mortgage), but unfortunately the lefties will bleat intolerably about that.
|
|
|
Regiment
1,569 posts
28 months
|
Carfiend said: No the Lesser Spotted Scrotal Swarmer is the one doing that. That is such a funny comeback that i have to say "Laugh Out Loud" rather than the more common, lazy acronym of LOL.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
CommanderJameson said: AJS- said: The statistic that I always find surprising is that there's roughly 60 million acres of the UK, which means, give or take, an acre per person. Not per family, but per person. Just remember that some of those acres are in places like Beckton, Middlesbrough and Lincolnshire, so someone's going to be disappointed. "Here, an entire acre, just for you. Doesn't it sound nice? "Tower Green"." "Er, excuse me. You appear to have given me the single s ttiest bit of Middlesbrough by mistake." Curiously I was in Middlesbrough on business this week and was pleasantly surprised by the facilities and general ambiance of the Riverside Stadium, then again it was empty at the time. Apart from a Trade Union meeting in the public car park outside - nothing to do with the club apparently. I can well imagine there are some 'tasty areas' to explore  As somebody from Grimsby NE Lincs I'm not going to cast too many stones.
|
|
|
Riley Blue
5,216 posts
95 months
|
otolith said: Riley Blue said: Judging by the map, the figure for enclosed farmland would be considerably higher so how come we have to import so much food? Largely because people want to eat (for example) asparagus in November. Not me, I only eat what's in season ...Christmas pudding anyone?
|
|
|
vonuber
3,903 posts
34 months
|
Incidentally, new development/greeness is not incompatable, in fact it's the standard.
Also, ecology is important, people who say it isn't need to actually stop and think beyond Daily Wail headlines.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,494 posts
129 months
|
|
