Any idea if Lisa's 100,000,000 trees
have already been included in the
official figures being bandied about?
Surely the area they [will] cover would be existing forested land as defined by the powers-that b.* Which therefore means said trees don't/won't actually exist ... or is that logic too fuzzy? Virtual forests? Definition, anyone?
*Maybe I'm being too pessimistic here, but while we all know of cases in which protected land has been/is being de-protected in order to build ** - among other things, future feeding grounds for the voles forced into exile from C&L - aka gold courses - but I, for one, and please correct me if I'm wrong, have yet to hear of urban land being converted into a natural area and/or hotel complexes being knocked down.
Of course, there are a couple of cases in which houses have been knocked down for various reasons, but these were built in existing developments, and there are a couple of recent cases of prevarication in the courts of first instance ...
Maybe this is not the right thread, but re. the above issue of courts, courts seem to be very willing, and agile, when it comes to evicting people who get behind in their mortgage payments, or squatters in abandoned buildings, etc., but are somehow slower and more thoughtful when it comes to knocking down someone's "chalet", however illegal, as they want to uphold the constitutional right to people having a home.
**Today, at last, the courts (of first instance
) have admitted the case against Madrid's former regional minister for urban planning regarding a protected monte
he had deprotected in order for it to be developed - by a company run by his wife. What's the betting on the statute of limitations coming into play in this case? Or former ministers - however regional - only being able to be judged by the Supreme Court. Or ...
Sorry for the rants: got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.