I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!

Lawrence

On Nov 29, 6:42*pm, "Lawrence" wrote:
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). *I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. *Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. *Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. *I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!

Lawrence

Include a mixture of assorted food producing trees too, you'll be glad
you did.


NT

On 29/11/2009 18:42, in article ,
"Lawrence" wrote:

I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!


How small are you talking?

Trees aren't very expensive. For e.g. 2-3ft ash trees you're talking about
30p per tree if you're buying 100 at a time. Add to that the cost of a
spiral to protect from rabbits, etc, some matting to suppress weeds and some
pegs you're still talking less than £1 a tree.

A far greater expense is the time to plant them if you factor it in. It can
be quite soothing once you get into a rhythm and forget you have 500 to go
....

By the way if the use of the field is currently agricultural strictly
speaking you need change of use planning permission to forestry. You should
also get an environmental impact assessment done if you have permanent
pasture, and generally pay to keep about 100 public sector workers in jobs.
Or just go ahead and do it anyway.

Finally, you should also have some idea what you want to get out of the wood
and how you expect to manage it in the future. There's lots of good
literature out there. I'd recommend these for starters.
- The Woodland Way, Ben Law
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Woodland-Way...Management/dp/
1856230090
- BTCV Tree planting and aftercare
http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handbooks/index/book/129

In message , Lawrence
writes
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting
and that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. Does anyone
have any thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that angle grinders
and WD40 won't be particularly useful here but you never know!

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is


--
geoff

In message
, NT
writes
On Nov 29, 6:42*pm, "Lawrence" wrote:
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). *I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. *Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. *Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. *I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!

Lawrence

Include a mixture of assorted food producing trees too, you'll be glad
you did.

Have a look at the Woodland Trust site. There's a freebie if you allow
public access or it is crossed by a footpath. 1ha minimum size but can
be cumulative.

Arable land may comply with the requirements of DEFRA for the *arable
reversion* scheme. Basically they fund the first five years, planting,
Rabbit protection and initial management. I'm not up to date on this but
look through the DEFRA site.

regards




NT

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Piers Finlayson
writes



On 29/11/2009 18:42, in article ,
"Lawrence" wrote:

I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!


How small are you talking?

Trees aren't very expensive. For e.g. 2-3ft ash trees you're talking about
30p per tree if you're buying 100 at a time. Add to that the cost of a
spiral to protect from rabbits, etc, some matting to suppress weeds and some
pegs you're still talking less than £1 a tree.

Above an acre or so, permanent Rabbit fence is probably cheaper than
individual spirals. Tilhill forestry did some planting here on an
abandoned waste site and discovered that the Rabbits lifted the spirals
to get at the bark:-) They came back and stapled the guards to canes.
Ground mulch was pre-cut 1m square roofing felt.

A far greater expense is the time to plant them if you factor it in. It can
be quite soothing once you get into a rhythm and forget you have 500 to go
...

By the way if the use of the field is currently agricultural strictly
speaking you need change of use planning permission to forestry. You should
also get an environmental impact assessment done if you have permanent
pasture, and generally pay to keep about 100 public sector workers in jobs.
Or just go ahead and do it anyway.
:-)
If you can show that the pasture (in grass for more than 5 years) has
been *cultivated* which might amount to spraying or fertilising then you
can escape the EIA requirement.

Ask the previous owner for a copy of his records.



--
Tim Lamb

geoff wrote:
In message , Lawrence
writes
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and that they would be only too glad to supply the trees.
Does anyone have any thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that
angle grinders and WD40 won't be particularly useful here but you
never know!
Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Perhaps the OP is just wanting to cash in on the scam? I would if I could.

Ideas welcome :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Lawrence
writes
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and that they would be only too glad to supply the trees.
Does anyone have any thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that
angle grinders and WD40 won't be particularly useful here but you
never know!
Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Perhaps the OP is just wanting to cash in on the scam? I would if I could.

Ideas welcome :-)


"Nah mate, decking's so last year - what you want is a nice little rain
forest out the back, plenty of shade ..."


--
geoff

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
, NT
writes
On Nov 29, 6:42 pm, "Lawrence" wrote:
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. Does anyone
have any
thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that angle grinders and
WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!

Lawrence

Include a mixture of assorted food producing trees too, you'll be glad
you did.

Have a look at the Woodland Trust site. There's a freebie if you allow
public access or it is crossed by a footpath. 1ha minimum size but can
be cumulative.

Arable land may comply with the requirements of DEFRA for the *arable
reversion* scheme. Basically they fund the first five years, planting,
Rabbit protection and initial management. I'm not up to date on this but
look through the DEFRA site.


Good people to ask are the CLA

They will know what grants are available.



regards




NT

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Piers Finlayson
writes



On 29/11/2009 18:42, in article ,
"Lawrence" wrote:

I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. Does anyone
have any
thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that angle grinders and
WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!


How small are you talking?

Trees aren't very expensive. For e.g. 2-3ft ash trees you're talking
about
30p per tree if you're buying 100 at a time. Add to that the cost of a
spiral to protect from rabbits, etc, some matting to suppress weeds
and some
pegs you're still talking less than £1 a tree.

Above an acre or so, permanent Rabbit fence is probably cheaper than
individual spirals. Tilhill forestry did some planting here on an
abandoned waste site and discovered that the Rabbits lifted the spirals
to get at the bark:-) They came back and stapled the guards to canes.
Ground mulch was pre-cut 1m square roofing felt.

Deer are more a problem. Rabbits don't eat bark really.

You can always plant a sacrificial crop of something rabbits DO like.



A far greater expense is the time to plant them if you factor it in.
It can
be quite soothing once you get into a rhythm and forget you have 500
to go
...

By the way if the use of the field is currently agricultural strictly
speaking you need change of use planning permission to forestry. You
should
also get an environmental impact assessment done if you have permanent
pasture, and generally pay to keep about 100 public sector workers in
jobs.
Or just go ahead and do it anyway.
:-)
If you can show that the pasture (in grass for more than 5 years) has
been *cultivated* which might amount to spraying or fertilising then you
can escape the EIA requirement.

Ask the previous owner for a copy of his records.


Planting is easy enough if you get a digger in, and sacks of peat or
similar. Just gouge out a pattern of ditches, and backfill.

If bare root planting, I have even just shoved a spade in, made a slit
and dropped trees into to that, then stamped hard..


BTW don't get big trees, They will sit there for a couole of years
sulking till the roots get down properly.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Lawrence
writes
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and that they would be only too glad to supply the trees.
Does anyone have any thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that
angle grinders and WD40 won't be particularly useful here but you
never know!
Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Perhaps the OP is just wanting to cash in on the scam? I would if I
could.

Ideas welcome :-)


"Nah mate, decking's so last year - what you want is a nice little rain
forest out the back, plenty of shade ..."


Actually, its true.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

"Hawi:" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Carbon offsetting is there to allow you to *not* reduce your CO2 usage.
You pay someone else to save it for you.
Of course if that person wasn't going to use the carbon in the first place
then there have been no savings at all.
It really is a scam.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:15:37 +0000, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?


There are many different views on carbon offsetting. The view that
should prevail is the one that says you should always look at what
option gives the greatest *actual* overall carbon reduction per £
invested.

Offsetting rarely gives the best bang for the buck. That's because
how the carbon reduction is defined is so open to abuse. The result
is that the claimed reductions are rarely achieved.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:15:51 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

On Nov 29, 6:42*pm, "Lawrence" wrote:
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). *I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. *Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. *Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. *I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!

Lawrence

Include a mixture of assorted food producing trees too, you'll be glad
you did.


NT


I reckon this is what we should have been doing for years.
All those waysides with stupid ornamental trees on...
--
http://www.Christmasfreebies.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On 30/11/2009 09:04, in article , "The Natural
Philosopher" wrote:


If bare root planting, I have even just shoved a spade in, made a slit
and dropped trees into to that, then stamped hard..


Indeed, that's the recommended way and means bare rooted trees are far
easier to plant than potted trees. I planted about 450 trees this way last
winter, never having done it before and my loses have been at around 2%.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:59:09 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Hawi:" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Carbon offsetting is there to allow you to *not* reduce your CO2 usage.
You pay someone else to save it for you.
Of course if that person wasn't going to use the carbon in the first place
then there have been no savings at all.
It really is a scam.

Well, I come at this from the POV that if someone is concerned enough
to pay for carbon offsetting, at the very least, it helps the
individual to acknowledge and accept that their CO2 usage is harmful.
Eventually, that acceptance is more likely to lead to a net personal
reduction. It's a hell of a lot better than the 'clarkson type' denial
of the problem itself. And, a personal financial costing and charging
for carbon usage is always more likely to force people to really
concentrate on their part of the problem. That's all I'm saying.

Back to the subject though: Paying for someone to plant trees is one
way you can choose to carbon-offset. That is not at all the same thing
as paying someone not to use CO2. It's a way of removing CO2 from the
atmosphere. Don't get too bogged-down with media-led rubbishing of
offsetting.

In message
,
Owain writes
On 30 Nov, 09:15, "Hawi:" wrote:
Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is
Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing.

Never mind the carbon, planting trees (esp native species) has got to
be a nice thing to do.

There were tales of a gentleman who cycled round South East England
planting slips of Black Poplars. These things grow like weeds, don't
have much commercial value and tend to blow over in strong winds.
Suddenly finding extra ones growing in my roadside hedges would be
*annoying* to be polite!

The Squirrels insist on burying Walnuts in our garden. When they
germinate, I move them to any spare bits of ground. The don't like being
moved (funny taproot) don't take to protective tubes because of the
large leaves and are a pain in general. When I am gone I expect this
farm will be known as the nuttery:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

"Piers Finlayson" wrote in message
...



On 30/11/2009 09:04, in article , "The
Natural
Philosopher" wrote:


If bare root planting, I have even just shoved a spade in, made a slit
and dropped trees into to that, then stamped hard..


Indeed, that's the recommended way and means bare rooted trees are far
easier to plant than potted trees. I planted about 450 trees this way
last
winter, never having done it before and my loses have been at around 2%.


Homebase had lots of what appeared to be free bare rooted trees.
Something to do with "plant a tree day" when there is going to be a record
attempt at planting trees.

I have no idea what they were as I didn't look, I can't squeeze anymore
trees in. 8-(

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
geoff wrote:
In message , Lawrence
writes
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and that they would be only too glad to supply the trees.
Does anyone have any thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that
angle grinders and WD40 won't be particularly useful here but you
never know!
Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Perhaps the OP is just wanting to cash in on the scam? I would if I
could.

Ideas welcome :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk



I'm not trying to cash in on anything. I just want to plant a wood and
leave it for my grandchildren. If the government/ Defra/Forestry Commission
/ whoever wants to help me do it then fine.
It's actually only 1.5 acres so Woodland Trust are not interested. The
English Woodlands Creation Scheme is a possibility but I have to register
myself (and the missus) and then the land before I can even start filling in
the application form. They recommend that you have professional help to
fill it in! I just thought that if there was a more straightforward way of
getting 1000 trees, it was worth exploring.

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Lawrence

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:04:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Deer are more a problem. Rabbits don't eat bark really.

Agreed - and deer will happily bounce over a 3' high fence to get at
something interesting.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:09:11 -0000, Lawrence wrote:

I just thought that if there was a more straightforward way of getting
1000 trees, it was worth exploring.

Have a dig about for local nature or conservation groups. We got our
800 odd trees from one of them with a small grant that basically paid
the VAT. They even planted them.

Survival rate wasn't very good though 10% or more loss the first
year. Can't decide if that was because the slivers were out of the
ground to long or the shock of being moved up to 1400'.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 30/11/2009 14:19, in article
, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:09:11 -0000, Lawrence wrote:

I just thought that if there was a more straightforward way of getting
1000 trees, it was worth exploring.

Have a dig about for local nature or conservation groups. We got our
800 odd trees from one of them with a small grant that basically paid
the VAT. They even planted them.

Survival rate wasn't very good though 10% or more loss the first
year. Can't decide if that was because the slivers were out of the
ground to long or the shock of being moved up to 1400'.

I kept many of the trees I planted last winter up to a week before planting.
I did keep them in the special bare rooted tree bags (black inside, white
out) in a dark, cool place for this time.

I was pretty careful to only get a tree out of the bag once I had the slit
in the ground so the root didn't dry out. However, I was pretty cavalier
about jammed them into the ground and stamping the slits closed.

In my case, the trees came from a nearby nursery at about the same altitude
(1,000'). As I mentioned earlier, I've had about 2% losses.

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Absolutely - it makes people think they can carry on as normal , but
clear their consciences by contributing to some "project" which was
probably going to happen anyway

Putting CO2 into the atmosphere today feeling OK that your tree(s) will
compensate in 20 years time is nothing more than a marketing gimmick and
a load of grreenwash ********

I presume that you are also making a massive contribution by unplugging
your phone charger when you're not using it


--
geoff

In message , "Hawi:"
writes
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:59:09 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Hawi:" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Carbon offsetting is there to allow you to *not* reduce your CO2 usage.
You pay someone else to save it for you.
Of course if that person wasn't going to use the carbon in the first place
then there have been no savings at all.
It really is a scam.

Well, I come at this from the POV that if someone is concerned enough
to pay for carbon offsetting, at the very least, it helps the
individual to acknowledge and accept that their CO2 usage is harmful.
Eventually, that acceptance is more likely to lead to a net personal
reduction.

No it gives you feel that you can get away with not changing by
transferring the problem to someone else YTC

It's a hell of a lot better than the 'clarkson type' denial
of the problem itself. And, a personal financial costing and charging
for carbon usage is always more likely to force people to really
concentrate on their part of the problem. That's all I'm saying.

Back to the subject though: Paying for someone to plant trees is one
way you can choose to carbon-offset. That is not at all the same thing
as paying someone not to use CO2. It's a way of removing CO2 from the
atmosphere. Don't get too bogged-down with media-led rubbishing of
offsetting.

Sorry, I think most people are ahead of you on that one
believing in carbon offsetting is as close to believing media led hype
as thinking that removing your charger from its socket during use will
save the planet

It is counter productive, it makes you think that you are doing
something useful when you really are not


--
geoff

In message , Bruce
writes
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:15:37 +0000, "Hawi:"
d wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?


There are many different views on carbon offsetting. The view that
should prevail is the one that says you should always look at what
option gives the greatest *actual* overall carbon reduction per £
invested.

No - it's what will give the greatest reduction NOW, not in 20 years
time. That's part of the greenwash


Offsetting rarely gives the best bang for the buck. That's because
how the carbon reduction is defined is so open to abuse. The result
is that the claimed reductions are rarely achieved.


--
geoff

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:38:57 +0000, Piers Finlayson wrote:

I did keep them in the special bare rooted tree bags (black inside,
white out) in a dark, cool place for this time.

Posh supply then with bags. B-) Our trees where just bundles of
"twigs" and probably had a 1000' height difference from nursery to
here...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Nov 29, 6:42*pm, "Lawrence" wrote:
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). *I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. *Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon offsetting and
that they would be only too glad to supply the trees. *Does anyone have any
thoughts or helpful advice. *I appreciate that angle grinders and WD40 won't
be particularly useful here but you never know!

Lawrence


I just rememberered I once did a planting by taking tree prunings,
cutting them to 12-18" long sections and simply sticking the sticks
into the ground (the right way up). No digging, watering, ground
firming, protection or anything. The result was a 25% strike rate, so
you just put them in 4x closer than you want. The cost of this is
almost nothing for the kinds of tree you can get prunings off. There's
no need to plant the lot in one go of course, one could take a year to
pick up whatever's available and wanted.

I've considered doing similar, if I ever do this I'd include as wide a
range of food producers as possible.
- All the well known fruits, including lots of different apples
- wide range of less well known fruits
- again a good range of nut trees, including bladdernut, and walnut
too if you have the land, as they kill many other species.
- good range of timber producers, from fast growing to slow hardwoods.
Including durables and a little high value holly timber.

Where you want grafted apples and pears, one can grow prunings from
these on their own roots initially, plus quince, then later on graft
apple twigs onto the quince rootstocks. This way you can get a
quantity and range of good apples at almost no purchase cost.

You might even find a very small patch for clumping bamboo.

A source for some of the less well known food trees is AFRT
http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/
Not the cheapest source, but
a) a good food producer is well worth a few pounds
b) Once can grow 1-2 of each tree at first, and plant cuttings from it
in 2 or 3 years.


I've not kept up with land costs for this, do you have any info to
share? Might be worth looking at again.


NT

If bare root planting, I have even just shoved a spade in, made a slit
and dropped trees into to that, then stamped hard..

That is the proper way to do it.

Make sure that the trees have been properly root pruned.

R

geoff wrote:
In message , Lawrence
writes
I've bought a small field with the idea of planting a wood (native
broadleaf). I have considered applying for a grant from the Forestry
Commission but the procedures look horrendously complicated. Someone
suggested that I get in touch with a firm that offers carbon
offsetting and that they would be only too glad to supply the trees.
Does anyone have any thoughts or helpful advice. I appreciate that
angle grinders and WD40 won't be particularly useful here but you
never know!

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is


This is not about carbon. It is about milking the system!

R

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:09:11 -0000, Lawrence wrote:

I just thought that if there was a more straightforward way of getting
1000 trees, it was worth exploring.

Have a dig about for local nature or conservation groups. We got our
800 odd trees from one of them with a small grant that basically paid
the VAT. They even planted them.

Survival rate wasn't very good though 10% or more loss the first
year. Can't decide if that was because the slivers were out of the
ground to long or the shock of being moved up to 1400'.

Did you plant in winter? You should have. Always plant deciduous trees
leafless.

R

geoff wrote:
In message , Bruce
writes
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:15:37 +0000, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?


There are many different views on carbon offsetting. The view that
should prevail is the one that says you should always look at what
option gives the greatest *actual* overall carbon reduction per £
invested.

No - it's what will give the greatest reduction NOW, not in 20 years
time. That's part of the greenwash


Offsetting rarely gives the best bang for the buck. That's because
how the carbon reduction is defined is so open to abuse. The result
is that the claimed reductions are rarely achieved.

In another five years it will be recognised as the bull**** that it has
always been.

R

Owain wrote:
On 30 Nov, 09:15, "Hawi:" wrote:
Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is
Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing.

Never mind the carbon, planting trees (esp native species) has got to
be a nice thing to do.

Owain



I would go for a mixture of chestnuts, walnuts (include a few black
walnuts for timber), gean (wild cherry), hazels and crab apple. You
might try a loquat if it is warm enough.

R

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:05:13 +1300, Roger Dewhurst wrote:

Survival rate wasn't very good though 10% or more loss the first
year. Can't decide if that was because the slivers were out of the
ground to long or the shock of being moved up to 1400'.

Did you plant in winter?

Yes, can't remember which month though but it was definitely during
the dormant period.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:53:22 +0000, geoff wrote:

snip


Well, I come at this from the POV that if someone is concerned enough
to pay for carbon offsetting, at the very least, it helps the
individual to acknowledge and accept that their CO2 usage is harmful.
Eventually, that acceptance is more likely to lead to a net personal
reduction.

No it gives you feel that you can get away with not changing by
transferring the problem to someone else YTC

No. Your opinion.


It's a hell of a lot better than the 'clarkson type' denial
of the problem itself. And, a personal financial costing and charging
for carbon usage is always more likely to force people to really
concentrate on their part of the problem. That's all I'm saying.

Back to the subject though: Paying for someone to plant trees is one
way you can choose to carbon-offset. That is not at all the same thing
as paying someone not to use CO2. It's a way of removing CO2 from the
atmosphere. Don't get too bogged-down with media-led rubbishing of
offsetting.

Sorry, I think most people are ahead of you on that one
believing in carbon offsetting is as close to believing media led hype
as thinking that removing your charger from its socket during use will
save the planet

It is counter productive, it makes you think that you are doing
something useful when you really are not

Interesting. Do you throw away all your small change too, by any
chance? Obviously those coins aren't worth enough to make a
significant contribution to your overall wealth, are they?
(Actually, re-reading your last statement, perhaps they dont make ANY
difference!)

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:36:21 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Hawi:"
d writes
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Absolutely - it makes people think they can carry on as normal , but
clear their consciences by contributing to some "project" which was
probably going to happen anyway

Putting CO2 into the atmosphere today feeling OK that your tree(s) will
compensate in 20 years time is nothing more than a marketing gimmick and
a load of grreenwash ********

I presume that you are also making a massive contribution by unplugging
your phone charger when you're not using it

Your presumption is incorrect. However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.

Look, what I'm saying here is that an acknowledgement of environmental
change, caused by humans, is a good thing. Carbon offsetting is an
extremely poor way of dealing with the problem. But it does NOT
produce a zero improvement and it is therefore marginally better than
ignorting the problem altogether. People who employ carbon offsetting
as their solution are more environmentally aware than those who do
nothing.

Perhaps it's my fault for not understanding your apparent belief that
there are no numbers between 0% and 100%?
In your opinion, are the following equations true? ...

0.00000001 = zero
tiny = zero
one penny = zero
1 milligram = zero

On Nov 30, 11:36*am, "Hawi:"
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:59:09 -0000, "dennis@home"



wrote:

"Hawi:" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:10 +0000, geoff wrote:

Haven't you heard the rubbishing that carbon offsetting has had in the
past few days, showing it up for the scam that it is

Have you heard that the media sometimes don't tell the truth?

Personally, I would say that carbon offsetting is better than doing
nothing. It is a small improvement, - to be added to lots of other
small improvements designed to reduce our CO2 usage. It also helps
high CO2 users to become aware of their own individual impact on the
problem.

Perhaps you have a different view?

Carbon offsetting is there to allow you to *not* reduce your CO2 usage.
You pay someone else to save it for you.
Of course if that person wasn't going to use the carbon in the first place
then there have been no savings at all.
It really is a scam.

Well, I come at this from the POV that if someone is concerned enough
to pay for carbon offsetting, at the very least, it helps the
individual to acknowledge and accept that their CO2 usage is harmful.

That's the first mistake.

MBQ

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:43:01 +0000, Hawi: wrote:
However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.

I wonder how the impact of walking back and forth to plug in / unplug the
charger stacks up against the impact of just leaving it plugged in all
the time?

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:08:18 +1300, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
Offsetting rarely gives the best bang for the buck. That's because
how the carbon reduction is defined is so open to abuse. The result
is that the claimed reductions are rarely achieved.

In another five years it will be recognised as the bull**** that it has
always been.

.... and by then there'll be a new bandwagon to jump on and everyone can
once again feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they're Doing
Something. Ho hum.

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:13:23 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:43:01 +0000, Hawi: wrote:
However, I do unplug my phone charger
when I'm not using it. The difference it makes is infinitesimal, - but
not zero.

I wonder how the impact of walking back and forth to plug in / unplug the
charger stacks up against the impact of just leaving it plugged in all
the time?


erm..

impact on what, exactly?