What should the Govt do first?? (when TSHTF)

[JohnB]

Have a read of this:
http://www.ecologicalland.coop/sites/ec ... essful.pdf

I've seen this, but haven't read it yet.

[UndercoverElephant]

Can you explain this to me, because I don't really understand. What does "residents must make the majority of their income from working their land" mean? How on Earth is anyone supposed to MAKE A LIVING out of 2 acres of land with no other income? I am unemployable - been out of the loop too long and am too thoroughly unbrainwashed - I make a small amount of money teaching people to forage for fungi but that is it. I have money in the bank, but I have no idea what I'm going to do when it runs out, which will be considerably sooner if I do this.

We need to get more clarification of some of it, but as I understand it:

If it's in open countryside, you need to produce 100% of your basic needs from your land, either by consuming it directly, or generating an income. It's up to you to define and prove your basic needs, but it could be just what you need to survive. I think it would be ok to earn extra income off the land for non essentials and luxuries, but you must demonstrate you are living within the ecological footprint targets (2.4 global hectares per person now, reducing to 1.88 Ha in future). So you're likely to need 5 acres or more.

If it's just outside the boundary of an existing settlement, you don't need to make a living from your land, but must meet the ecological footprint targets. So you can have a job and buy your food locally, and live a scaled down version of a more conventional life. The ecological footprint of your job is set against your employers footprint, and as a tiny part of your share of the footprint of the country, so it doesn't affect you directly. So you could work for Tesco, BP, Monsanto or RBS (if your conscience allowed, or it's the only job you can get), but would probably have to walk, cycle or use public transport to get there.

Well, that kills it stone dead. I drive a Citroen C1, and I need it if I'm going to get about to teach about fungi. I can't do that from the middle of Wales by public transport. Oh well....nice idea while it lasted.

You only need enough land for your house, but it obviously makes sense to have a big enough garden to grow a fair bit of food. I gave the example of 2 acres because you could buy that much and build a house for £15k.

Simon Dale's house at Lammas cost about £2,500 to self build

Nice, but I'm no builder.

With no rent or mortgage, very low utility bills and a simple life, a very low income should be all that's needed, maybe a few thousand a year.

As I said before, this is what the policy says, but it hasn't been tested yet. The interesting thing is that the main planning policy for Wales sets a target of everyone in Wales having an ecological footprint of 1.88 global hectares within a generation, so this isn't something for a few hippies, dropouts and other weirdos. This is pioneering how everyone will live within many of our lifetimes. From a recent discussion I've had, I'm not sure the Welsh Assembly Government quite realise how challenging it will be!

From my perspective, it is pretty intimidating. And if they can't attract somebody like me to do this, I'm not sure who they can attract. I need more flexibility than they are offering. I don't know what it going to happen in the future, and this sounds like it will seriously limit my options.

[postie]

Maybe with the eco-homes mentioned above, and in light of this thread originally being about "what the govt should do first"... maybe there is a need for the Govt to instigate a crash project where this is promoted.

BUT - i think the eco-home people have it right. In some degree anyhows. IF things go totally tits up, then housing as we know it now, wont be an option. Our houses right now are way too big to be economical in a post-crash world. We'll maybe use them initially as we know no better, but in times to come we'll migrate to smaller, more communal housing, that doesn't take as much fuel to scavenge to keep warm. Or we'll stop using parts of our house and move into a couple of the downstairs rooms.
(and I live in a smallish house now - a regular 3 bedroom council semi!)
If we end up, post crash, scrapping for survival, then most of our time will be spent outside, doing things that provide for the family, or community. A space for separate sleeping or TV watching, will be null and void...

I don't know enough about, or have enough interest right now to get into the eco-housing LAMMAS stuff, but it seems self evident that post crash we'll revert to such housing.

Can, however, it be possible to move the population, even with a big die-off, into such communities... or will it be a natural progression?

[JohnB]

From my perspective, it is pretty intimidating. And if they can't attract somebody like me to do this, I'm not sure who they can attract. I need more flexibility than they are offering. I don't know what it going to happen in the future, and this sounds like it will seriously limit my options.

Try working out your ecological footprint using this. It's the cut down version of the software the policy is based on. It's very mainstream, and you'll need to tweak the results a bit, but it may give you an idea. You may find you can keep a car. It covers the whole of Wales, so you don't need to be in a remote area, and could live close to the border so you have easy access to England.

As far as your other points go, I think we need to be looking at how this benefits disabled and older people and those who don't have building skills. Lammas have loads of volunteers, and there are lots of people out there who will help build low-impact houses in return for food and somewhere to sleep.

We talk endlessly about stock up on food and stuff in preparation for the crash, and the problems with existing homes. This is more post crash stuff we can do now. Don't give up on the idea yet, as we don't really know what's possible.

[emordnilap]

Simon Dale's house at Lammas cost about £2,500 to self build

Hell fire, how did he do that and have that conservatory thingy? That alone would have been two and a half grand.

[JohnB]

Hell fire, how did he do that and have that conservatory thingy? That alone would have been two and a half grand.

I think the house itself was £2,500, and half of that was the pond liner for the green roof. The conservatory thingy is an old greenhouse bought on eBay, and built as a leanto.

The house is straw bale and cob (clom really as it's in Wales), with timber I think from the on site woodland. Glazing and stuff was second hand or rejects. For you house lovers it's not big, but to me it's huge .

[emordnilap]

Hell fire, how did he do that and have that conservatory thingy? That alone would have been two and a half grand.

I think the house itself was £2,500, and half of that was the pond liner for the green roof. The conservatory thingy is an old greenhouse bought on eBay, and built as a leanto.

Ah, so that conservatory thingy cost in addition to the house? No?

Still, cheap house whatever. Your house doesn't have to cost that little but if it's possible, why not?

[Lord Beria3]

This debate shows the problems in the idea of running away to wales and living of the land - the reality is that this is very hard to do.

Very few people make a success of it long-term.

UndercoverElephant - you are in a hard situation, a lot of the cheap eco housing assumes that you can build it yourself (assuming you ever get planning permission) and if you buy land in some isolated rural area, how are you going to make a income?

The further away you are from town and cities, the more isolating it is. I honestly think that anybody who suggests this is a viable option should firstly recommend trying it for a temporay basis, e.g. rent for a while before selling everything and going for a 'back to the land' dream.

[stumuzz]

This debate shows the problems in the idea of running away to wales and living of the land - the reality is that this is very hard to do.

Very few people make a success of it long-term.

Yet again, could you elucidate your sweeping generalisation?

[JohnB]

This debate shows the problems in the idea of running away to wales and living of the land - the reality is that this is very hard to do.

There shouldn't be a need to run away to Wales. It's just that Wales has an enlightened planning policy, and England seems to be going the other way, despite efforts to persuade them otherwise.

Very few people make a success of it long-term.

We're heading into a very different world, People who ran away to Wales in the 70s have had 40 years of BAU. Anyone doing it now may well be the successful ones. The people who have done low-impact development so far have had a least one hand tied behind their back by the planning system. Given the freedom to get on with it, things could already be a lot different.

UndercoverElephant - you are in a hard situation, a lot of the cheap eco housing assumes that you can build it yourself (assuming you ever get planning permission) and if you buy land in some isolated rural area, how are you going to make a income?

I know people who are older, disabled, and without building skills who want to do LID. We need to find ways to make it happen for them. I have ideas, and need to get other people involved to provide brainpower and finance.

The further away you are from town and cities, the more isolating it is. I honestly think that anybody who suggests this is a viable option should firstly recommend trying it for a temporay basis, e.g. rent for a while before selling everything and going for a 'back to the land' dream.

There's no reason why LID couldn't be done in towns and cities, apart from land prices. It's about simplicity and sustainability rather than complexity, not about location. For a long time I've had in mind having low-impact homes that are available on a try it for a few months and see how you get on basis. One home in an Eco-Hamlet could be made available on this basis, if the planning problems can be overcome, with permanent residents on hand to help and advise.

None of these issues are insurmountable. It just needs people to get together to do it. Who wants to help make it happen?

[Kentucky Fried Panda]

Haggis
I'm actualy preparing to FoI the police forces on how many and what type of firearms licences they have issued, is the info available elsewhere?

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0511.pdf

Average of 3.1 firearms per certificate, 141,775 certificates. That excludes section 2 shotguns, 3 shot restriction.

[vtsnowedin]

Haggis
I'm actualy preparing to FoI the police forces on how many and what type of firearms licences they have issued, is the info available elsewhere?

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0511.pdf

Average of 3.1 firearms per certificate, 141,775 certificates. That excludes section 2 shotguns, 3 shot restriction.

Simply amazing that you have less then a million firearms in a country with fifty four million people. Curious that you consider shotguns in a lesser class when you consider the amateurs chances at committing a successful murder with one. Much better then any other weapon you could name.
Vermont has about 650,000 people and 90,000 licensed hunters which you can assume have at least one gun each. Any person not a convicted felon or committed lunatic has the right to own a firearm and weather you hunt or not has nothing to do with it. I would estimate that there are between 500,000 and 900,000 guns in Vermont in the hands of the 200,000 Vermonters that chose to own them. There are few real figures of course as there is no central registry as people fear that registration will be the step before confiscation.

[kenneal - lagger]

Don't forget VT that owning a pistol in the UK is illegal. The figures above don't include shotguns. They are owned on a separate shotgun certificate. A pump action shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than 3 shots is classed as a firearm. Sawn off shotguns are illegal as well.

[Kentucky Fried Panda]

If you read the report, there are approx 1.3 million shotguns in the UK.

[vtsnowedin]

If you read the report, there are approx 1.3 million shotguns in the UK.

Yes but how many of those are in the hands of the bobbies and the titled upper class? Compare that with the USA's one each ratio of 300 million firearms to 300 million people.
If I had to invade western countries and subdue the native population I think I would start in the UK and leave the US for last.