Animated satellite photos of changing landscapes globally....

http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-picture-of-earth-through-time.html  has images of our changing planet - free to share. Below are the animated satellite photographs which make you think... Is this the world we want to create? - Are we storing up greater problems for our children? We certainly are transforming landscapes globally











See http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/  for more

Sprawl could kill off 34million acres of American Forest by 2060 - what of the green Belt in UK, and London!

From
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/01/sprawl-will-kill-34-million-acres-american-forest-2060/4339/

Sprawl Could Kill Off 34 Million Acres of American Forest by 2060

• KAID BENFIELD

Scientists at the U.S. Forest Service and partners at universities, non-profits and other agencies predict that urban and developed land areas in the US will increase 41 percent by 2060. Forested areas will be most impacted by this expansion, with losses ranging from 16 to 34 million acres in the lower 48 states. The agency highlighted the results of a new study in a press releaseissued last month.

The researchers also concluded that, over the long-term, climate change could have significant effects on water availability, making America potentially more vulnerable to water shortages, especially in the Southwest and Great Plains. Population growth in more arid regions will require more drinking water. Recent trends in agricultural irrigation and land­scaping techniques also will boost water demands.

The assessment’s projections respond to a set of scenarios with varying assumptions about domestic population and economic growth, global population and economic growth, global wood energy consumption and U..S land use change from 2010 to 2060.  

Frederick County, Maryland. Photo courtesy of Kay Hagan

The study is part of an assessment mandated under the federal Resources Planning Act. It summarizes findings about the status, trends, and projected future of forests, rangelands, wildlife and fish, biodiversity, water, outdoor recreation, wilderness, and urban forests, as well as the effects of climate change upon these resources. Key themes from the findings include these:

1. Land development will continue to threaten the integrity of natural ecosystems;
2. Climate change will alter natural ecosystems and affect their ability to provide goods and services;
3. Competition for goods and services from natural ecosystems will increase;
4. Geographic variation will require regional and local strategies to address resource management issues.

In 2010, a study by the American Farmland Trust found that 41 million acres of rural land had been permanently lost in the preceding 25 years to highways, shopping malls, and other development. The rate of recent farmland loss at the time of AFT’s report was an astounding acre per minute.

Sprawl in New Jersey. Photo by Rebecca Wilson/Flickr

As troubling as the trends and forecasts are for forests and farms lost to development, it does not have to be this way. We need to stop the madness. Market preferences are now trending in favor of closer-in, more walkable living. Let’s build future development that responds, conserving the landscape in the process.

In particular, we need to get more serious about revitalizing the disinvested areas of our cities so that they can absorb growth that would otherwise take the form of sprawl. We need to use land more efficiently in our suburbs. As Lee Epstein and I have written, smart growth advocates need to return to our conservation roots and work more diligently to conserve land outside of current development footprints. And, for their part, high-minded urbanist planners must eschew leapfrog development; giving sprawl a more orderly design or calling it a “new town” does not make it environmentally benign. Sprawl is sprawl.

Thanks to my colleague Larry Levine for pointing me to this study.

Top image: Lacinda/Flickr

This post originally appeared on the NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Keywords: sprawl, Politics, conservation, Deforestation, Water

Kaid Benfield is the director of the Sustainable Communities and Smart Growth program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, co-founder of the LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system, and co-founder of Smart Growth America. He writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment.  For more posts, see his blog's home page. All posts »

Planning policy has a profound influence on our landscape. Planning restrictions were relaxed in the 1930s - a response to the Depression. The result was an explosion of suburbs and bungalows across green fields -- so much so that the loss of large areas of Arden mourned by Tolkein, its swansong was the description of The Shire in the Hobbit. As seen in this area around Sarehole Mill where Tolkein stayed


View Larger Map 
...and Selly Oak to the West

The Green Belt was an idea to counteract this growth -  first proposed by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935. It was adopted by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 - which allowed local authorities to impose this restriction in their Development Plans. Powerful House builders have their eyes fixed on removing some of these restrictions, hence a "simplified" National Planning Policy Framework  which supersedes all previous planning policy advice. However, the lawyers suggest it may be stymied by introducing clouds of uncertainty, leading to greater delay than the previous rule-led process.

The battle to defend forest against urban sprawl and the peripheral effects of urban growth is not strange to Londoners. A central place in the public demand that created the green belt was the battle for Epping Forest.
From http://www.hillsamenitysociety.co.uk/detail/efbattle.htm

The history of the massive legal battle preventing the destruction of Epping Forest.by Matthew Geyman
The Destruction of the forest to the East of the River RodingDuring 1851 the 'Office of Woods and Forests', endorsed by the House of Commons, recommended the complete destruction of the woodlands of Hainault to the east of the River Roding for use mainly as arable land. This was during a drive to increase the value of the Crown's land by making 'waste land' cultivatable.  Often, this land was no longer required due to the decline in venison hunting by royalty.  Within six weeks, a period of time short enough to prevent effective public protest, steam ploughs anchored in the rich earth had ripped out the roots of the entire forest, including the famous ancient 'Fairlop Oak'. Today, Hainault & Chigwell Forest is only about 800 acres and was opened to the public in 1905. The area is comprised of previously private woods and some replanted forest at 'Fox-burrows Farm' by the London County Council in the earlier part of the 1900's.
Epping Forest Under ThreatOnce a Royal Forest, used by since the Normans as hunting ground ("the Kings right of vert and venison"), the 'Forest of Essex', latterly 'Waltham Forest' and now 'Epping Forest' narrowly missed the fate befallen by so many beautiful woodlands in the squeeze of population, indstry and nature. Epping Forest's manorial, sporting and soil rights were not owned by the Crown as Hainault had been, although it did posses forestal rights. However, Commissioners for the Crown offered the forestal rights for sale at £5 an acre which effectively gave 18 local lords of manors the right to 'enclose' areas of the forest for their private usage. By 1870, half of the forest's 6000 acres were surrounded by fences and development had begun in many parts.
Eventually, public opinion was aroused and the feeling that open spaces should be protected began to prevail. Beginning in 1863, a legal contest was brought by bodies such as 'The Commons Preservation Society', founded to protect open spaces, successfully managed to pursuade the The House of Commons that Epping Forest was being rapidly destroyed. The Commons recommended that the Crown's forestal rights should be enforced, if not sold already.  In 1865, another committee argued that, despite the extensive enclosures, commoners' rights still existed on those forest lands and that the enclosures prejudiced them.
Local Resistance
The enclosures were widely despised and the first of many recorded acts of resistance in this time was in 1866 by a labourer named Thomas Willingale.  Willingale asserted his right to continue lopping trees, as had his ancestors, in Loughton Manor; despite a ring fence erected by the local lord preventing it. Willingale was convicted of theft, but The Commons Preservation Society supported his case and the publicity generated from legal actions in support of the practice further generated public interest.  Willingale died before the case was concluded.
It was not an easy battle, however, as the lords of the manor were confident of their right to enclosure. A Bill introduced in parliament would have given the public access to only 600 acres with an option to 400 more, leaving the remaining 5000 acres in absolute control of the manorial owners. It was only through the strong resolve of the Society that this compromise was not accepted and the Bill was dropped. A Royal Commission was appointed to establish the rights of the forest and terms for it's future keeping.
The 'Forest Fund Committee' gained support of the Corporation of London, which owned 200 acres of land which included Wanstead cemetary.  This ownership gave them commoner status and rights, meaning that they were able to take up the public's cause in the courts. Arguments on both sides raged and in 1871 a law suit that had taken three years to prepare was brought against the lords of the manors. The Corporation argued that the forest was without boundaries ('intercommonage' allowing grazing rights in all parts of the forest) and the lords argued that each manor was separate and therefore if commoners local to each manor could be 'satisfied', the right to enclose was inherent and this had no bearing on rights in other manors.
The Forest Saved
In November 1874, the Master of the Rolls upheld the Corporation of London's action in a judgement which was thorough enough to be beyond dispute. The rights were judged to be of such antiquity that even if the majority of commoners agreed to relinquish their rights, a single opposing view would veto the decision. The enclosures were proved illegal, no appeal was brought and the forest was secured for the public. In 1878 the 'Epping Forest Act' was passed and the Corporation were appointed as Conservators of the 5542 acre forest. Ownership of the deer was granted to them and the commoners rights were preserved. Compensation was given to the lords of the manors and where property had been built, an agreed curtailage was allowed to be retained at a price.
Queen Victoria visited in May 1882 and, at a massive event at High Beech, formally declared the 'People's Forest' open. Massive crowds visited in the summer, mainly from the East End of London.  In the following years, as many as 100,000 people used Chingford Station in a single day in an attempt to reach London's oasis of tranquility (by now with funfairs, large refreshment 'Retreats' and
Today
Commoner's rights still prevail, however the death knoll was effectively sounded for cattle grazing in the forest when new restrictions regarding the age that they could be taken to market was enforced after the recent BSE scares.