Guest essay by Eric Worrall
What could be better than owning a large woodland estate, and making a steady income from harvesting timber? Harvesting an additional tithe of taxpayer’s money, of course.
According to the Huffington Post;
America’s Family Forests: Our Climate Change Solution
Last weekend, 195 nations reached a landmark agreement that will commit the world to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout the two weeks of negotiations, we saw significant discussion about how investing in forests can be a low cost climate solution. Unfortunately, these discussions often focused on international forests, and assumed that U.S. forests’ ability to sequester carbon will remain the same without any special action.
That’s why today, the American Forest Foundation and The Trust for Public Land, co-chairs of the Forest Climate Working Group, a coalition of landowners, conservation organizations, forestry advocates, forest products companies and scientists delivered a letter to President Obama calling for increased recognition of the critical role American that forests must play in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to in Paris.
…
If we can continue to create incentives that encourage planting trees, managing existing forests, and increasing the demand for wood products, we can ensure we continue to have the necessary carbon sink needed to combat climate change.
We must keep our forests healthy if we are going to meet our emission reduction goals, and America’s forest owners are ready to be part of the climate solution.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-martin/americas-family-forests-o_b_8842240.html
Those selfless forest plantation owners are prepared to do their bit – to increase production, to help solve the climate “crisis”, if taxpayers provide “incentives” to help them maintain their plantations, and help them market and sell their products.
Just what America needs – more welfare payments for the already wealthy.
Update – my apology to land owners who are decent, hard working people who have never demanded a government handout, if you felt this post targeted you. That was not the intention.
The reference to “landed gentry” was intended as a critique of those members of the named organisations, who seem to expect the state and taxpayers to provide them with special consideration, because they own a bit of forest. I compared this demand, to the arrogant entitlements of the landed gentry of medieval times, receiving state enforced tithes from the peasants.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eric,
1. Tithes were paid to the Church, not landowners who had chivalrous duties.
2. Rules concerning forests date back to late Saxon times and helped frame laws which led to the Magna Carta which gave peoples rights and responsibilities. The Charter of Liberties of 1100 re-introduced The Laws of Edward the Confessor which contained laws on forests.
3. People could take branches less than 4 inches in diameter, anything wider was considered timber and for use of the land owner. Pigs are good for clearing bracken and other undergrowth.
4. People could let their pigs forage in forests. Pigs love acorns and it gives the meat a rich flavour and are poisonous to horses.
5. People could trap rabbits but not hunt game and collect mushrooms.
6. Charcoal burning was common in forests, often produced from coppiced ash( hence the name).
The USA may not have an official aristocracy but there are families who have lived off the dividends from family trusts since the end of the 19C. In fact, a British land owner who manages the estate and has to deal with gypsies, civil servants, contractors, clients and employees plus has served in the Armed Forces, has probably worked with a wider range of contacts than most people. As a friend who owns a farm which has been in the family for 250 years ” I do not want to do anything which ruins my family’s reputation.” When one goes into a Church reads the inscriptions of landowner and labourer in the war memorials one can see the bond between people from various classes l
The major problem is from people who have made money in business, have no connection to the area and buy land without accepting the obligations and responsibilities which go with it , such as allowing local access. Large land owners such as the Forestry Commission and increasingly the charities such as the National Trust tend to have a cavalier attitude to their obligations and others rights.
I expect many modern day forest owners would not like a return to medieval laws as it would enable people rights of access and rights to undertake money making activities on the land.