If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Express)   European Union blows $720 million of taxpayers' cash trying to make trees better   (express.co.uk) divider line 37
    More: Dumbass, Herman van Rompuy, Forestry Commission, spendthrifts  
•       •       •

3472 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2013 at 10:04 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-25 10:01:04 AM
Well, it could have been worse. The money could have been spent to artificially prop up a failing economy to delay its inevitable collapse so that when the collapse does come re-election isn't an issue for some current politicians.
 
2013-09-25 10:07:50 AM
I prefer my tax dollars be spent on making trees feel worse.  I've even volunteered to go around insulting trees in my own spare time.
 
2013-09-25 10:10:38 AM
TFA: The money has gone to private individuals and local communities.

That sounds so American, Bush league even. Take money from the government and give it to people. They better have been rich people, because those people create jerbs.
 
2013-09-25 10:12:39 AM
Didn't find any data on Europe in 30 seconds of Googling, but here's a nice quote:

"...the forestry sector added nearly $10 billion to Kentucky's economy in 2012, according to the 2012-2013 Kentucky Forestry Economic Impact Report."
http://news.ca.uky.edu/article/forestry-industry-has-considerable-ec on omic-impact

I wonder why Europe might want to spend some money improving an area with that kind of economic impact?
 
2013-09-25 10:14:22 AM
Better at what?
 
2013-09-25 10:19:15 AM
...And in rushes the Prog Brigade to defend government waste. Apparently, there is no such thing as bad government spending (unless it's on the military).

/the EU is broke
//good job, hippies
 
2013-09-25 10:19:21 AM
Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?
 
2013-09-25 10:20:02 AM

Hydra: ...

/the EU is broke


Austerity has failed!  Print more money.
 
2013-09-25 10:20:02 AM
A truism: If the source is the Daily Express and the topic is the EU, the article is pure bullshiat is designed to get the xenophobes frothing at the mouth.

/Not the catchiest saying, I know, but you'll find it's highly reliable and accurate
//No, I didnt read the article
 
2013-09-25 10:25:56 AM

ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?


"The European Court of Auditors said the scheme was riddled with "deficiencies in the programme across the board".
And it was not possible to tell whether the grants had helped because member states were not even required to value the forests before getting the money.
The ECA found that grants were made over the past five years to projects that were not eligible for the cash."

So, this is, in your opinion, good?
 
2013-09-25 10:30:55 AM
At BASF, we don't make a lot of the trees you see. We make a lot of the trees you see better.
 
2013-09-25 10:35:46 AM
You shouldn't go into debt to spend money on things that don't have an ROI greater than one.  Unless you are getting something legitimately useful out of the program, it should be paid for via tax revenue and not debt.

For example:

It makes sense to borrow money to pay for a bridge connecting two economic hubs.  The bridge's beneficial economic impact will cover the cost of borrowing, and will prevent a recession after the bridge's construction is complete.

It does not make sense to borrow money to pay for a bridge connecting two uninhabited islands.  The bridge will have no economic impact, and when you are forced to raise taxes to pay for it, the economy will go into a recession.
 
2013-09-25 10:36:11 AM
Daily Mail paradox: Euroskeptic Pedophile.
 
2013-09-25 10:38:24 AM

untaken_name: ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?

"The European Court of Auditors said the scheme was riddled with "deficiencies in the programme across the board".
And it was not possible to tell whether the grants had helped because member states were not even required to value the forests before getting the money.


Why didn't they cause them to value the forests? Was it because no-one could agree how they should be valued?


The ECA found that grants were made over the past five years to projects that were not eligible for the cash."

So, this is, in your opinion, good?


How much money went to projects not eligible for the cash? If it's $30, then yes, I'd say that's pretty good. If $30,000,000, then not good. How about a few facts?

I'd also want to know what these projects were. An investigation to understand the ways tree fungus spreads through a forest might not be eligible, but I don't know how outraged I'd be.
 
2013-09-25 10:43:32 AM
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-09-25 10:50:40 AM
Why, they could have had 700 cruise missiles for that money.


/so sorry, Hydra
 
2013-09-25 10:54:20 AM

MattStafford: You shouldn't go into debt to spend money on things that don't have an ROI greater than one.  Unless you are getting something legitimately useful out of the program, it should be paid for via tax revenue and not debt.

For example:

It makes sense to borrow money to pay for a bridge connecting two economic hubs.  The bridge's beneficial economic impact will cover the cost of borrowing, and will prevent a recession after the bridge's construction is complete.

It does not make sense to borrow money to pay for a bridge connecting two uninhabited islands.  The bridge will have no economic impact, and when you are forced to raise taxes to pay for it, the economy will go into a recession.


What you've said is mostly true. Sometimes you spend the money because if you don't, the huge expense coming down the pike comes as a surprise. A possible example of research spending that might not increase the value of the forests:

This estimated that under the moderate climate change scenario (A1B) there would be a loss of more than €190 billion by 2100, caused by the changes in distribution and amount of tree species. For more extreme scenarios, economic losses were greater.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/.../31 8 na6.pdf
(It's titled "European Commission: Science for Environment Policy". I haven't figured out how to get the google link to a PDF to give me the entire URL if it's too long.)

I don't know what the specific studies were. I don't know the expected economic impact. And I don't feel more informed after reading that article.

Do you happen to know what the specific studies were? Or even the overall economic size of the European logging industry?
 
2013-09-25 11:01:02 AM

draypresct: untaken_name: ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?

"The European Court of Auditors said the scheme was riddled with "deficiencies in the programme across the board".
And it was not possible to tell whether the grants had helped because member states were not even required to value the forests before getting the money.

Why didn't they cause them to value the forests? Was it because no-one could agree how they should be valued?


The ECA found that grants were made over the past five years to projects that were not eligible for the cash."

So, this is, in your opinion, good?

How much money went to projects not eligible for the cash? If it's $30, then yes, I'd say that's pretty good. If $30,000,000, then not good. How about a few facts?

I'd also want to know what these projects were. An investigation to understand the ways tree fungus spreads through a forest might not be eligible, but I don't know how outraged I'd be.


You could look up the ECA report. Or speculate, whichever's easier for you.
 
2013-09-25 11:01:07 AM

draypresct: untaken_name: ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?

"The European Court of Auditors said the scheme was riddled with "deficiencies in the programme across the board".
And it was not possible to tell whether the grants had helped because member states were not even required to value the forests before getting the money.

Why didn't they cause them to value the forests? Was it because no-one could agree how they should be valued?


The ECA found that grants were made over the past five years to projects that were not eligible for the cash."

So, this is, in your opinion, good?

How much money went to projects not eligible for the cash? If it's $30, then yes, I'd say that's pretty good. If $30,000,000, then not good. How about a few facts?

I'd also want to know what these projects were. An investigation to understand the ways tree fungus spreads through a forest might not be eligible, but I don't know how outraged I'd be.


That's the point. The EU commission can't provide that information.


Because People in power are Stupid: .  TFA: The money has gone to private individuals and local communities.

That sounds so American, Bush league even. Take money from the government and give it to people. They better have been rich people, because those people create jerbs.


ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?


Farking accountability and oversight, how do they work? Who farking cares, as long as it's for a good cause, right? If anyone questions you, just bring up how someone else wasted money on something else, because apparently one failure justifies another.
 
2013-09-25 11:06:00 AM

draypresct: How much money went to projects not eligible for the cash? If it's $30, then yes, I'd say that's pretty good. If $30,000,000, then not good. How about a few facts?

I'd also want to know what these projects were. An investigation to understand the ways tree fungus spreads through a forest might not be eligible, but I don't know how outraged I'd be.


Yup, crap article is crap. I make it a policy not to get outraged by someone who can't even tell me why I might want to be outraged.

It's too much damn work.
 
2013-09-25 11:11:41 AM

Rapmaster2000: Austerity has failed!


this is true.
 
2013-09-25 11:18:34 AM

ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?


I've been involved in research projects to make trees better.  Genetically modifying pine trees so that the first branches occur much higher up the trunk, leading to less knots and greater structural integrity, as well as less wastage leading to better conservation.  No idea if such a scheme would be included here in this article by the EU, but "making trees better" isn't a dumb idea.
 
2013-09-25 11:48:20 AM

ikanreed: Increasing the economic utility of forests = making trees better.

How dense are "all goverment bad" types?  Really?


It's UKIP, which is kind of like the British version of the Tea Party.
 
2013-09-25 11:51:28 AM
Paid no attention. Just did the work.

www.peterowen.com

Died happy.
 
2013-09-25 12:05:39 PM
They should have been wasting that money on bankers, like we do.
 
2013-09-25 12:14:15 PM
KOMTRAYA!!!!
 
2013-09-25 12:21:03 PM

Cybernetic: Better at what?


It is Europe, so my first guess would be soccer.
Second guess is philosophy, you know, like that Soccertrees fellow.
 
2013-09-25 12:35:36 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Farking accountability and oversight, how do they work? Who farking cares, as long as it's for a good cause, right? If anyone questions you, just bring up how someone else wasted money on something else, because apparently one failure justifies another.


I made no justification of any failure. I merely pointed out the similarity to another well known failure.

How's that pretension working out for you?
 
2013-09-25 02:48:52 PM
Call me when they star blowing trillions.

USA! USA! USA!


/oh
//wait
 
2013-09-25 03:02:36 PM

untaken_name: The ECA found that grants were made over the past five years to projects that were not eligible for the cash."

So, this is, in your opinion, good?

How much money went to projects not eligible for the cash? If it's $30, then yes, I'd say that's pretty good. If $30,000,000, then not good. How about a few facts?

I'd also want to know what these projects were. An investigation to understand the ways tree fungus spreads through a forest might not be eligible, but I don't know how outraged I'd be.

You could look up the ECA report. Or speculate, whichever's easier for you.


I could look up the specifics (maybe - not all information is freely available on-line), true. Why should I? The burden of proof isn't on me. The article is trying to make a point, and I'm pointing out how vague their justification is.

Every program ever has had money spent on something ineligible. Someone working on multiple projects mis-calculated the number of hours worked on program X instead of program Y during their day at some point. It happens no matter how meticulous or honest everyone involved is.

The article was clearly trying to make us outraged, but the only information it actually presented didn't necessarily call for outrage. It presented some numbers without context ($400M on trees!) w/o any real context (how big is the logging industry in Europe? Is it bigger than the $10B/year logging industry in Kentucky alone? Where was the money spent?).
 
2013-09-25 03:14:24 PM
Dumbass tag is for linking to Daily Express?
 
2013-09-25 03:49:06 PM
Coulda concreted the whole of england with that cash. Wish I'd never had my feet removed and replaced with wheels.

plus climbing trees is difficult now and they're farking everwhere
 
2013-09-25 04:02:45 PM
Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again.
Maybe in another forest, maybe on this very ground swept clean.
A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that
they can make trees... better.  And I do not hold to that.
So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

www.butnotyet.com
 
2013-09-25 05:08:09 PM

heliotrope: Coulda concreted the whole of england with that cash. Wish I'd never had my feet removed and replaced with wheels.

plus climbing trees is difficult now and they're farking everwhere


Instead of paving England, how about flooding it instead? Kayaks are fun too.
/silliness.

/Side note: Have you heard about wheelchair/kayak biathlons?
http://www.teamriverrunner.org/?q=node/11883
 
2013-09-25 06:06:03 PM
Nah flooding it would be too easy. It floods enough without any eu pennies to contribute.

I had never heard of the wheelchair/kayak triathlons. They sound awesome.

/on a serious note. They sound awesome.
 
2013-09-25 06:07:42 PM

heliotrope: Nah flooding it would be too easy. It floods enough without any eu pennies to contribute.

I had never heard of the wheelchair/kayak triathlons. They sound awesome.

/on a serious note. They sound awesome.


Biathlons even. I'm tired and beer is telling me to stop with the qwertyhsvsbsb
 
2013-09-25 06:14:38 PM

Hydra: ...And in rushes the Prog Brigade to defend government waste. Apparently, there is no such thing as bad government spending (unless it's on the military).

/the EU is broke
//good job, hippies


Is tge EU itself actually broke or just certain members like Greece and Spain?
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report