RSPB thread split from Liz and KK thread

[Lanark]

RSPB: This Government has today launched an attack on nature. We don’t use the words that follow lightly. We are entering uncharted territory. Please read this thread.
https://twitter.com/RSPBEngland/status/ ... 5568580613

[Mike4]

RSPB: This Government has today launched an attack on nature. We don’t use the words that follow lightly. We are entering uncharted territory. Please read this thread.
https://twitter.com/RSPBEngland/status/ ... 5568580613

Hmmm what does it say?

Twitter won't let me read it without logging in as a user.

Presumably this is something to do with wind turbines and birds? If so, frankly I think I'd rather have the energy security than an ever so slightly larger bird population.

[Lanark]

As of today, from Cornwall to Cumbria, Norfolk to Nottingham wildlife is facing one of the greatest threats it’s faced in decades. 2/13

What the Government has proposed in today’s mini-budget on top of yesterday’s announcements potentially tears up the most fundamental legal protections our remaining wildlife has. 3/13

If they carry out their plans nowhere will be safe. This map shows legally protected areas in purple and orange (the SACs and SPAs) mapped on to districts, in green, that want investment zones. Places where anything could be built anywhere. And these are just the start. 4/13

“Releasing more land” they call it 5/13

The government has agreement in principle with 38 areas to establish tax-cutting Investment Zones which will drive growth & unlock housing development.

Work will also begin with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to agree zones in these locations.

And it doesn’t stop there – the new Retained EU Laws Bill could see the end of basic protections known as the Habitat Regulations. Laws that protect our birds and animals, everywhere from forests to our coasts. 6/13

Where you live, the wildlife and places you love, from the shires to the cities – all under threat from bulldozers, from concrete. 7/13

For now, this is focussed on England, but the intent is clear for this to extend across the UK. 8/13

[Dod101]

This is no doubt way OTT for the sake of effect. If it is referring to the siting of wind turbines, that is fine because we have far too many of the them in Scotland and at least one poster was very keen on them on land when I argued against them yesterday. I am sure there are many more who would prefer energy security to birds, not that wind turbines provide that anyway but they do help.

Dod

[swill453]

This is no doubt way OTT for the sake of effect. If it is referring to the siting of wind turbines, that is fine because we have far too many of the them in Scotland and at least one poster was very keen on them on land when I argued against them yesterday. I am sure there are many more who would prefer energy security to birds, not that wind turbines provide that anyway but they do help.

I agree they could have made it clearer, but they seem to be talking about housing, not wind turbines.

Scott.

[bluedonkey]

We should be very concerned about Truss's philosophy, of which this is part. She is a libertarian capitalist: the less rules that capitalism has to abide by, the better in her view.

[mc2fool]

Twitter won't let me read it without logging in as a user.

Not sure why that particular page does that to you but not to me (I'm not a registered twitter user), but I find that when it does popup the large login or sign up panel, if I click to log in the login box that then appears has an "X" at the top left, which I can click to close it and then all the obtrusions go away and I can read the tweets.

This is no doubt way OTT for the sake of effect. If it is referring to the siting of wind turbines, that is fine because we have far too many of the them in Scotland and at least one poster was very keen on them on land when I argued against them yesterday. I am sure there are many more who would prefer energy security to birds, not that wind turbines provide that anyway but they do help.

I agree they could have made it clearer, but they seem to be talking about housing, not wind turbines.

Not just housing but also commercial and industrial development.

E.g. the government's just published Growth Plan (PDF, 44 pages) lists, amongst others, airports, docks, industrial areas, manufacturing parks and "a proposed battery Gigafactory".

The plan has an almost 2 page panel describing Investment Zones (pp 17-18, as numbered) but other than "disapplying legacy EU red tape" being part of the "planning liberalisation" it's not specific on the matters the RSPB seem to be concerned about.

From the map in the tweets they seem to be concerned that many of the potential investment zone areas contain Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), that are protected sites under the EC Habitats and Birds Directives, and that the new Retained EU Laws (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022 will simply scrap the SACs and SPAs as part of the "planning liberalisation".

That's what I make of it, anyway....

[6Tricia]

Twitter won't let me read it without logging in as a user.

Not sure why that particular page does that to you but not to me (I'm not a registered twitter user), but I find that when it does popup the large login or sign up panel, if I click to log in the login box that then appears has an "X" at the top left, which I can click to close it and then all the obtrusions go away and I can read the tweets

Thanks for that mc2fool! I'm not registered either so it was always annoying to be blocked halfway through reading a tweet .

Tricia

[Gerry557]

I'm surprised they don't want to ban cats. With each one likely to kill more than x4 birds a year plus other wildlife. That over 40m birds savaged a year. Maybe they feel they can't say that cos we cat people will stop our donations and there are too many of us if it comes to a vote.

[swill453]

I'm surprised they don't want to ban cats. With each one likely to kill more than x4 birds a year plus other wildlife. That over 40m birds savaged a year. Maybe they feel they can't say that cos we cat people will stop our donations and there are too many of us if it comes to a vote.

They do have something to say on cats https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildl ... -declines/

Includes "Despite the large numbers of birds killed by cats in gardens, there is no clear scientific evidence that such mortality is causing bird populations to decline."

Scott.

[UncleEbenezer]

I'm surprised they don't want to ban cats. With each one likely to kill more than x4 birds a year plus other wildlife. That over 40m birds savaged a year. Maybe they feel they can't say that cos we cat people will stop our donations and there are too many of us if it comes to a vote.

Total distraction. Cats kill individual birds. That's nature: predators predate; prey species aim to defend/evade but also breed to make up numbers.

Concreting destroys everything. You can't breed new habitats.

[Lanark]

I'm surprised they don't want to ban cats. With each one likely to kill more than x4 birds a year plus other wildlife. That over 40m birds savaged a year. Maybe they feel they can't say that cos we cat people will stop our donations and there are too many of us if it comes to a vote.

Not if you keep them indoors.

Outdoor cats tend to live an average of two to five years, sometimes longer.

Indoor cats can live to be 17 years or older. The average life expectancy for indoor cats, however, is closer to 14 years.

In human terms that is like dying at 21 instead of 85.

[mc2fool]

I'm surprised they don't want to ban cats. With each one likely to kill more than x4 birds a year plus other wildlife. That over 40m birds savaged a year. Maybe they feel they can't say that cos we cat people will stop our donations and there are too many of us if it comes to a vote.

Not if you keep them indoors.

Outdoor cats tend to live an average of two to five years, sometimes longer.

Indoor cats can live to be 17 years or older. The average life expectancy for indoor cats, however, is closer to 14 years.

In human terms that is like dying at 21 instead of 85.

Yeah, well, chase down the references in that article. Reference (1), which is where the two to five years comes from says "Cats who spend their lives exclusively outdoors live an average of just 2 to 5 years" (on average? an average with that range?).

Reference (2) however, says "Cats who spend significant unsupervised time outdoors tend to survive to be about 7 years old".

What's "significant" isn't specified, but IME cats that have a choice (i.e. have a cat flap) spend significant amounts of time indoors demanding fuss from their humans, and further significant amounts of time indoors sleeping, and only actually go out for a few hours each day.