Sunday, March 13, 2016

Down-low forestry: "Plant some trees to save a town from flooding? Not a bad idea."

I'll just leave this here.

On occasion, when one of us criticizes another round of downtown chop-down forestry, we're assured that the trees are diseased, and that more will be replanted. I don't doubt they are. Is it enough, with a canopy so damaged by weather and negligence?

Yes, there's a tree board. Periodically a power-that-be mentions it. Is it too much to ask for this body to share with the public the precise nature of the master tree-plant-plan?

And, while we're on the topic, perhaps the stormwater utility can explain how it ties these together, trees and flooding prevention. Invariably, stormwater management is presented to us as engineering alone, much as the health care industry talks about drugs to cure conditions that might have been avoided through better personal health practices.

Surely Team Gahan can determine a way to monetize future campaigns via trees.

Plant some trees to save a town from flooding? Not a bad idea, by Nick Cohen (The Guardian)

... People in Keswick are more forthcoming and will tell you that, six years and one major flood later, nothing has been planted apart from a few trees on the lower slopes of Skiddaw. Last week, the Environment Agency showed that the state-sponsored neglect that afflicts the Lake District afflicts the rest of Britain too. The agency’s geographers argued that new woodlands could slow the rush of rainwater across much of the country. Forestry was not a cure-all, but an essential part of a wider response to climate change. Nothing will be done, of course. As the agency said: “There were insufficient funds to attempt the scale of works proposed in this report.”

No comments: