[ Home ] [ Bush talks sense on environment ] [ Campaigns ] [ Commentary ] [ Doomsday predictions ] [ Earthquake News ] [ Electromagnetic radiation ] [ Environmental news ] [ GM stuff ] [ Fishing ] [ Forests ] [ Global warming ] [ Green watch ] [ Hunting stuff ] [ Lomborg ] [ Mining Industry news ] [ Miscellaneous ] [ Mountains ] [ Planning ] [ I remember it well ] [ Nuclear power ] [ Oil ] [ People who should know better ] [ precautionary principle ] [ Privatisation ] [ Railways ] [ Roads ] [ "Things are getting better" stuff ] [ Tourism ] [ Water ] [ Wind power ]

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

14 June 2001

Norwich city council is threatening to fell seven horse chestnut trees because of the risk posed by their conkers. Apparently they are a danger to pedestrians, who could slip on the mulch they leave behind. The golf-ball sized horse chestnuts could also come crashing down onto passing cars, while sticks thrown by children to dislodge them could cause serious head injuries, the council has warned. There are also fears that children gathering conkers are at risk from vehicles.

"We had an incident not so long ago where a car knocked down a child while conkering" said council spokeswoman Rachel Bobbitt.

"In preparation for the removal, in recent years, Norwich City Council has been planting replacement lime trees alongside so semi-mature trees will still be on Bluebell Road when the horse chestnuts are removed," she said.

Fortunately not all the councillors agree. Liberal Democrat Jane Roozer said: "Everyone has gone through a period of collecting conkers and I find it quite unbelievable that we are thinking of chopping down very healthy, beautiful trees.

"It's just ludicrous - beyond belief.

"At the end of the day, children will get up to mischief and we can't go cutting down all our conker trees because of the potential for accidents."

iGreen comment

It is easy to laugh at this sort of nonsense but this is a florid example of a serious problem, public safety measures taken without regard for the environmental or economic consequences.

There’s nothing wrong with controlling the environment for human safety. I fence my garden to stop my children running in the road. Other people build flood barriers and sea defences. As we do so we weigh the risks of not doing so against the costs of the barriers. The risk is often low, so we don’t wall every garden in the land, or concrete every riverbank or stretch of coastline.

Public officials are different. They don’t have to pay for the safety measures they impose, but they risk getting pilloried for those that they don’t. It is therefore in their interests to play safe and waste money replacing hundreds of miles of railway track after the freak accident at Hatfield, replace kerb stones as soon as the tiniest crack appears or in extreme cases even cut down conker trees.

Sometimes people die as a result. In the rail safety panic, many more people will have been killed as a result of the diversion of traffic to the roads than could ever be saved by the track replacement. Sometimes just money is wasted, and sometimes some beautiful trees are cut down. However, the costs are always borne by the environment eventually. Even council workmen replacing paving stones unnecessarily are increase demand for stone and cement, use up fuel and contribute to global warming.

[ Home ] [ Up ]

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk  with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: February 05, 2006