Selective tree hugging

I was interested to see this graphic on Facebook the other day. I was impressed by the statistic - and it makes a lot of sense. Tear out a load of trees, replace them with housing and tarmac and you are going to get an awful lot less water taken out of the system, inevitably increasing the flood risk.

As always when I see such numbers, though, I feel the urge to check the source, as I am afraid as many as 91% of statistics found on the internet are either wrong or simply made up.*

I have struggled to find anything other than people repeating the 50 gallon figure without sources (though I'll come back to how realistic it is), but I was fascinated to discover this piece of research by the Forestry Commission. Although it doesn't directly confirm the 50 gallon figure, it does (not surprisingly) confirm that trees are about the best thing you can have to reduce water run-off. But the reason I found it fascinating was the detail, looking at different kinds of trees, because it underlines the problem I often have with the green movement.

There is often a tendency to confuse what is 'natural' or sounds more green in a 'hey, let's hug the trees' hippy way with what is better for the environment (this comes through, for instance, in all the myths surrounding organic food). In the UK there is no more natural symbol of a tree than the oak tree, but it's actually not the best tree to reduce flooding. In fact, conifers are significantly better than broad leaf trees like oaks at putting water back into the atmosphere. They also have the advantage of being much quicker to grow. It's all very well for 60-year-old oaks to 'drink' up to 50 gallons, but we haven't got 60 years to wait for new trees to grow. Yes we should preserve existing oaks (which, to be fair, was the point of the graphic), but we should not be planting new ones if this is our aim.

I find this particularly interesting because on the whole the dedicated green types are likely to frown on conifers as being unnatural and not as good as the 'native' species. But if you truly care about the environment, we need a lot more conifers.

I said I couldn't directly confirm the water consumption figure, but I can do a Fermi calculation. Broadleaves achieve between 400 and 640 mm of evaporation from 1 hectare of forest receiving 1000 mm annual rainfall. Let's use the median of 520. The current moving average annual rainfall is about 1175 mm, so that pushes up the consumption to 611 mm/hectare. A typical oak tree is about 13 metres across, so realistically you could get about 40 per hectare (which is 100m x 100m) in a well-covered forest. So the annual volume of water one broadleaf disposes of is 8109942 cc or 81099 litres. That's 222 litres a day, which is 48 gallons. Of course that is all back of the envelope stuff, but it's good enough to see that 50 gallons per day isn't a bad figure.

* If I am honest, this is one of those made up statistics. I picked the number 91 at random. However, because I used the statistical weasel words 'as much as' I am pretty safe, as this basically means anything between 0 and 91. (The same goes for 'up to' which you will see elsewhere above.)

This has been a green heretic production

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog