Deaths from climate change

[ruffrecords]

Oh this is fun. The average tree density in Germany is 24,000 per square km. 120,000 trees would be about 4% of the forest. Still not great, if it were true. The developer stated they'd clear about 0.07%, again all dead trees. They could be lying but again, that 120 000 figure seems to come from absolutely nowhere...

You miss the pint the GREEN minister in charge said "Wind energy makes a decisive contribution to the energy transition and the preservation of nature. It is the only way to preserve forests and important ecosystems."

Note the part in bold.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Do a search. 200+ year old and many trees much older. Impressive place (looking at pics on the web).

and I said harvested centurie"s" ago...

It was published exactly 300 years ago, in the year 1713, in Leipzig. Carlowitz combines descriptions of useful tree varieties with practical suggestions for a long-term solution to the timber shortage. He calls for a cautious use of wood, which is "as important as our daily bread"....
====
The efforts to shape the composition of forest tree species in a more semi-natural way have been crowned with success. Approx. 73 % of German forests nowadays consist of mixed stands. Spruce accounts for the largest share among the tree species (28 %), followed by pine (23 %), beech trees (
=====
the timber harvest volume 1.1 Forest Area Forests cover 32 percent (11.4 million hectares) of Germany's territory, making it one of Europe's most forested countries. Since World War II, the forest area has been expanded by more than 1.5 million hectares, and home to some 90 billion trees, which translates

You miss the pint the GREEN minister in charge said "Wind energy makes a decisive contribution to the energy transition and the preservation of nature. It is the only way to preserve forests and important ecosystems."

Note the part in bold.

Cheers

Ian

No I am drinking a pint (of Johnny Beer).
==
The climate crowd has a loose to non-existent connection with reality.

I suspect we all mostly agree... Europe has been densely populated for many(?) centuries... forests are a historic luxury that if anything they are working to restore. Alternately Europe has many offshore wind farms.

America by comparison has lots of open space and lots of trees, not as many wind farms. The same ideology has infected the low information crowd here too. Just different strokes....

JR

 

[jabe]

You can't pretend the average density of an actual forest yada yada

Typo on my part. The average  forest tree density in Germany is 24,000 per square km, not the country as whole.

You miss the pint the GREEN minister in charge said "Wind energy makes a decisive contribution to the energy transition and the preservation of nature. It is the only way to preserve forests and important ecosystems."

My point is that your source is just making things up.

 

[jabe]

Seriously, if a source says a project is going to rip out 120,000 trees and you decide to be mad anout it, then it turns out the source is lyng, the healthy response is to find better sources rather than look for new reasons to be mad.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Typo on my part. The average  forest tree density in Germany is 24,000 per square km, not the country as whole.

Young forests are more dense than old ones. The forest in question is old. Killing centuries old trees is hardly the same thing as cutting 30-50 year old trees.

My point is that your source is just making things up.

Then there's the ecological damage you failed to note.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Seriously, if a source says a project is going to rip out 120,000 trees and you decide to be mad anout it, then it turns out the source is lyng, the healthy response is to find better sources rather than look for new reasons to be mad.

Having been through wind farms in several states, I'm familiar with how they're laid out for construction, connectivity, and maintenance. They aren't just a bunch of isolated small base towers. Grow up and use your brain.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

and I said harvested centurie"s" ago...


No I am drinking a pint (of Johnny Beer).
==
The climate crowd has a loose to non-existent connection with reality.

That is apparent.

I suspect we all mostly agree... Europe has been densely populated for many(?) centuries... forests are a historic luxury that if anything they are working to restore. Alternately Europe has many offshore wind farms.

Mostly agree.

America by comparison has lots of open space and lots of trees, not as many wind farms. The same ideology has infected the low information crowd here too. Just different strokes....

JR

We have quite a lot of wind generation here. Scroll down to the table.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

 

[JohnRoberts]

We have quite a lot of wind generation here. Scroll down to the table.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country

I was thinking offshore wind farms... but that is not what I wrote.... So your correction is appropriate.

JR

 

[jabe]

Killing centuries old trees is hardly the same thing as cutting 30-50 year old trees.

Killing centuries old trees is also hardly the same thing as removing a small number of dead and young non-native trees, which as noted is the thing that is actually happening.

What's funny to me is that I'm not actually arguing  for putting windmills in Reinhardswald. I'm just noting that the cited reasons for getting hopping mad about it are, predictably, completely false. It's as if the anger is the point, not the truth.

The climate crowd has a loose to non-existent connection with reality.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Killing centuries old trees is also hardly the same thing as removing a small number of dead and young non-native trees, which as noted is the thing that is actually happening.

Dead trees are habitat for animals, food for fungus, and decay into soul nutrients for other plants. Building massive road networks and trenching for large electrical cabling further damages the area. And the natural beauty that is not common in crowded Europe is ruined. It's justfiable that this project is opposed and it's too bad that you nit-pick simply because you can't see the forest for the trees.

What's funny to me is that I'm not actually arguing  for putting windmills in Reinhardswald. I'm just noting that the cited reasons for getting hopping mad about it are, predictably, completely false. It's as if the anger is the point, not the truth.

Blah blah.

 

[crazydoc]

Dead trees are habitat for animals, food for fungus, and decay into soul nutrients for other plants.

So is shit. Guess we should all go in the woods.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So is shit. Guess we should all go in the woods.

View attachment 124306

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[ruffrecords]

Killing centuries old trees is also hardly the same thing as removing a small number of dead and young non-native trees, which as noted is the thing that is actually happening.

Which would be correct if it was the whole story, but it is not. This is just the first phase of 18 turbines.

Cheers

Ian

 

[crazydoc]

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[jabe]

Which would be correct if it was the whole story, but it is not. This is just the first phase of 18 turbines.

Based on what information?

 

[cyrano]

It's not easy to explain to the average citizen why sometimes trees need to be cut down...

The impact on the forest could be minimal. Only time will show.

We're trying to keep some local fauna alive despite heavy deforestation. For amphibians you need swamp land. Hard to explain if you're cutting down century old oak. It's non-native oak, planted century's ago by monks. Biologically, a uniform oak forest like that is low value. Financially, it's high value. Especially if you need a swamp.

There are many ways to spin this story. It has driven biologists bonkers.

That's what I've seen happen to dozens of stories about the EU lately. No more chrome plating! No cars over 15 years allowed! And other stuff that bore a deep kernel of truth, spun into click-bait. Even if you ban the channels from your suggestion list on youtube, they re-emerge because some other dude has fell for it and is commenting.

Please do not get your info from the popular mass social media. You'll get fooled over half the time. Even random is better...

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It's not easy to explain to the average citizen why sometimes trees need to be cut down...

It's hard to explain to the average urbanite/suburbanite what it means to lose natural resources so they can continue to live meaningless lives of luxury at minimal expense.

The impact on the forest could be minimal. Only time will show.

200+m ugly towers in a forest is not minimal impact. How many annual bird strikes are allowed for this "green" project?

We're trying to keep some local fauna alive despite heavy deforestation.

Do better.

For amphibians you need swamp land. Hard to explain if you're cutting down century old oak. It's non-native oak, planted century's ago by monks.

What?

Biologically, a uniform oak forest like that is low value.

The forest in question is not monoculture nor trees all of the same age.

Financially, it's high value. Especially if you need a swamp.

Word salad.

There are many ways to spin this story. It has driven biologists bonkers.

Spin is the problem.

That's what I've seen happen to dozens of stories about the EU lately. No more chrome plating! No cars over 15 years allowed! And other stuff that bore a deep kernel of truth, spun into click-bait. Even if you ban the channels from your suggestion list on youtube, they re-emerge because some other dude has fell for it and is commenting.

Please do not get your info from the popular mass social media. You'll get fooled over half the time. Even random is better...

As a person who has spent three decades of my life in rural and forested areas, your "instructions" and analysis are beyond annoying. Having experienced these things with my own senses, I am immune to BS gaslighting by city folk about things they know nothing about.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I actually prefer to see the serial arguers focus on trees instead of other more divisive issues in the current news cycle.

Carry on.

JR

 

[soliloqueen]

Young forests are more dense than old ones. The forest in question is old. Killing centuries old trees is hardly the same thing as cutting 30-50 year old trees.


Then there's the ecological damage you failed to note.

i think this may partially be a difference in what constitutes "old" to each person arguing. Centuries old is pretty young for a forest. When I think of an "old" forest, I'm thinking like 20, 30, 40 thousand years being the bare minimum for even being defined as a "native" forest. Natural forests can be several million years old or older. A 300 year old forest is not only not old, it's at least 100 times too young to be considered native. That being said, I still think it's an unfortunate place to put a wind farm.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Every day I see logging trucks drive by loaded with soft woods like pine. These pine stands (forests?) being harvested are probably tens of years old.

JR