Topic: Portable Lottie?!

[fat larry]

just to keep this in the news -  i also approached the diocese with my other hat on, as a member of the press .. and all they did was refer me back to carter jonas, the land agents, which I thought was pretty useless, but just showed me how we (the press) get fobbed off a lot these days.

back in the good old days you could just speak to the person you needed to, but now cos they are all scared that we are rottweilers it's all done via blasted press officers, just another layer of bureaucracy and red tape! Woof woof

wonder if carter jonas will be more or less friendly when I approach them formally ...

[fat larry]

am slowly attracting a few fellow squatters. my neighbour's dad is a retired churchman from these parts, so he will be getting his ears bashed soon no doubt. as I've said on another posting, I've stuck up a poster now and hope to get a few more digging in with us soon

[fat larry]

latest news: got this response from diocese environment officer today .. basically pushing buck back to glebe committtee, who then say go to the land agent.
Dr Ian James wrote:
 I am a non-stipendiary priest in my spare time
in the Winkfield benefice and I have the task of Environment Advisor to the
Diocese. Environment as usually understood is a huge topic and not one which
can be handled adequately by such a highly part time person as me.
Consequently, my brief as environment officer is simply to help the Diocese
and its people work towards conforming with the Kyoto protocol on carbon
dioxide emissions. In that context, my preference for Diocesan land use
would be that which sequesters a maximum amount of carbon. That would mean
putting it to woodland, where the biomass per unit area is two or three
orders of magnitude greater than cultivating annual crops (where indeed, the
ground is simply bare for much of the year). But I do not have a place on
the Glebe Committee and this is not formal Diocesan policy.
I am sorry not to be more helpful at this stage. I will give the matter more
thought when I return from holiday. Meanwhile, if you can produce a case
based on lowering carbon dioxide emissions and sequestering atmospheric
carbon, I would be more inclined to support it.
- Ian James.

I've resisted the urge to write "'DUH!' since when is a static allotment ever gonna be pumping higher carbon dioxide emissions and sequestering less carbon than building loadsa business units that will then attract vehicles and people etc who will bring loadsa carbon with em" .... and I'm not sure about his use of the word sequestering - seems to mean confiscating or putting away in a room, according to my dictionary. There is some technical term about ions that is similar, but I'm not sure. I know you guys are fonts of all wisdom - so what does he mean, and how can I tell him in long words, other than DUHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[westsussexlottie]

perhaps you could offer to grow green manure crops instead of having bare soil during the Winter - Winter fava beans?

[Columbus]

Hi Larry and all,

Correct me if I`m wrong but I think Sequestering has to do with "locking away" hence the carbon that would be in the atmosphere causing global warming is instead locked away into carbon compounds in trees ie. wood.

I did a net search and found the oddest thing .... http://www.seercentre.org.uk/faq.htm

This is an extract,
"How does using rock dust help us manage climate change?

Under normal conditions - that is, without the negative impact of humankind in the last 200 years, it is largely the annual rate of weathering of rocks which controls atmospheric carbon dioxide. Using rock dust accelerates the weathering process by hundreds or maybe thousands of years, depending on how much is applied. The calcium and magnesium content in the rocks combines with atmospheric carbon to form carbonates. The faster silicate rocks "weather", the faster carbon is removed from the atmosphere.

Weathering is accelerated by the action of organic acids released from leaf-fall and other organic mulches. Rock dust, applied with organic mulches, simulates the natural weathering process, sequestering atmospheric carbon and replace eroded soils. It is a vital weapon, along with reducing carbon emissions and maintaining surface vegetation, in stabilising atmospheric carbon.

The use of rock dust will reduce or even eliminate our dependence on artificially produced chemical fertilisers, often based on fossil fuels, which themselves contribute to climate change and degrade soils."

So minerals in the rock dust dissolve in the acid mulches and combine with carbon from the atmosphere and get trapped in the soil.

Therefore our lotties help to manage climate change especially if we use rock dust and I`m sure we all do...don`t we ?  ;D

Col

[Clayhithe]

Jenni,

What does your tenancy agreement say?

If you're in the right take 'em to court: the small claims court costs very little and causes great embarrassment.

[Clayhithe]

Larry,

Dr Ian James is a jobsworth beaurocrat,
but,  sadly,  he's right.

Woodland would trap carbon (dioxide) and keep it locked up for decades,  even centuries.
Your veg would trap it until you ate it and breathed out the carbon dioxide.
Even green manure would keep it only for another year.

Thinking about the airfield,  our microlight field is 3 wide runways between the farmers crops.   He even runs his tractor mower over the runways for us!
Could you have lotties between the runways?

I've done a bit of guerilla gardening.   Mostly I won in the long run.   The best was a huge garden behind a leased shop in the village which we kept tidy and productive for three years.

[fat larry]

dr james is right, but while wooodland is better than lottie for carbon, lottie is better than building, and running light industrial unit.

latest development - carter jonas land agent have replaced my poster saying 'if you want to save this allotment call me' with their own letter saying this allotment is managed by cj - any inqs. GREAT! They admit it is a lottie, no mention of developing it. me and bob (and MM I hope) are going to send them chqs and say 'fantastic, we've been wanting to know who owned the land'...see where that gets us.

[Merlins Mum]

great news, count me in fl. 

MM

[fat larry]

Got this from the Carbon Sequestration Research Officer of the
World Land Trust:

I would love to help with your campaign to save your allotments, my
sister has been enthusing about her allotment since she began using it a
few years back, and I am frequently the beneficiary of its produce.

Unfortunately you have caught me at a very bad time, I have a website
deadline for 3 weeks, with the launch of the consumer carbon balanced
programme. Following that I am leaving for Ecuador on the 16th of June
for an expedition I am leading and have had very little time to organise
so far. As such I really do not have time to research this for you.

If this can wait until September I would be glad to examine the carbon
emissions and environmental issues susrrounding it for you. However for
now I can only offer some pointers:

1. Carbon Sequestration levels for an allotment I would imagine will be
quite low. Unfortunately the above ground biomass will be low because of
a lack of dense woody matter. Below ground biomass will also most likely
be low due to cultivation.
2. Burning biomatter on a bonfire really has very little bad effect on
the environment, in that by growing that biomass in the first place, the
same amount of carbon dioxide has been removed from the atmosphere as is
subsequently released.
3. The key to proving a case I imagine will be the energy and emissions
associated with building a development its self. This will be
considerable as concrete alone is responsible for very high emissions
from chemical reactions, and the energy required in building is very high.

Please feel free to call me at any time for more generaly advice, I am
sorry I cannot be of more assistance at this time.

Kindest regards

Oliver Blakeman

--

which all sounds good to me! I've forwarded it to the church blokey in the hope it makes complete sense to him! Do you reckon we need to make our case more scientifically?

[Columbus]

Hi Larry,

I`m not a scientist but......

If it comes to, "My scientist is bigger than your scientist" you will lose. I`d say try to cover all angles as different supporters will have different strengths and areas of focus. Let people help in any way they can.

I think science could be a distraction, one step removed from the emotional angle which might get you more support and impact with the media. Social, community and health benefits are less quantifiable but easier for us all to be "experts" on. Within these ideas we are all affected according to our own situations, relationships and jobs.

Have you got a human interest story like "Digging made me fit enough to survive a heart attack" for the press, or "I used to weigh 3 tons but now I`m a stick who eats only what I grow" they love all that.  How about ,"Jamie Oliver would be proud - my kids eat organic compost they turn themselves"

Col

[fat larry]

we're doing the human interest thing too! NSALG are hopefully going to come and have a look with view to support, merllin's mum is hopefully getting the Primary Care Trust on board - re exercise, etc and the town council are going to look at it at their next meeting. NSALG tell me that if six people in a town ask the council for allotments there is some statutory thing to look into it, too

[slugcatcher]

well done it sounds as though you have got things moving in the right direction
Good luck

Ron

[fat larry]

see my other postings on the board re email campaign..

[slugcatcher]

I sent mine last week

Ron

[fat larry]

hey jenni
what's ahppened re your lottie? Been so wrapped up in my probs forgot about yours - any further forward?