312
About 500,000 trees cut down at site of Tesla gigafactory near Berlin | The Guardian
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
312 points (89.6% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
11 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trees planted there to farm wood. It's a wood farm, not a natural forest. Get over it already.
With that logic we could cut down pretty much every single forest in Sweden and tell people to stop crying about it.
Edit: Why the down votes? We pretty much have no natural forests left in Sweden. It's basically all mono cultures planted with the intent to be cut down and sold. But if that's the only forests you have they're still very valuable (as forests I mean).
I for my part downvoted because it's just false equivalence. Cutting down a part of a commercial forest is pretty far from completely cutting "every single forest" in Sweden.
Is it great that trees were cut down without replanting? No.
Is there a perfectly cleared and infrastructurally connected plot of land in Brandenburg that Tesla could have used instead? Also no.
Your comparison was basically the same as "We sell a plot of land to Elon? Why not just sell every plot of land to him then!".
The point is not that sweden is selling every inch of land to elon.
The point is that every forest in sweden is "commercial forest" so that's a meaningless justification.
Ok, but take a step back. You’re now using the lack of original forest in Sweden to somehow argue against commercial forest in Germany being chopped down to make way for construction.
Ah I see the problem then. I wasn't trying to equate anything. I was simply addressing the reasoning behind the statement (that non-natural forests don't matter), taking it to the extreme to make point. I don't know anything about the forest in question, and I wasn't talking about it.