Typo on my part. The average forest tree density in Germany is 24,000 per square km, not the country as whole.
My point is that your source is just making things up.
Deaths from climate change
- Thread starter JohnRoberts
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
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
Well-known member
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.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
That is apparent.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.
Mostly agree.
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
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.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
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.
Blah blah.
crazydoc
Well-known member
So is shit. Guess we should all go in the woods.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Ignorance is bliss.
ruffrecords
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Based on what information?
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...
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
Well-known member
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.
200+m ugly towers in a forest is not minimal impact. How many annual bird strikes are allowed for this "green" project?
Do better.
What?
The forest in question is not monoculture nor trees all of the same age.
Word salad.
Spin is the problem.
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.
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
Carry on.
JR
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.
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
JR
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Those are monoculture plantations, not forests. They are managed to produce pulp (for paper, cardboard), plywood, chips, and/or dimensional lumber.
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
I believe the forest in question has been a forest (i.e. not cleared for agriculture) for millenia. I'm sure humans cut some trees during that time, but the majority of that area is old forest.. Most temperate climate hardwood species start to decline after 100-400 years. Some specimens may grow for 1000. European softwoods are not as long-lived as species like Coast Redwood, Giant Sequoia, etc. I'm sure there are/were specimens there 500-800 years old.
I guess I don't agree with your definition of native. The trees growing there are primarily species endemic to northern Europe.