Scotland chopped down 16 million trees for wind farms

submitted by zyxzevn from disclose.tv

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It is so comforting knowing how smart governments are.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If a story sounds like a fossil fuel industry funded PR piece, check its facts.

According to the government agency Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS), 14 million trees were cut down to make way for wind farms in Scotland, but this had occurred over 20 years.

Meanwhile, over the same period (from 2000), 272 million trees were planted across the country.

-https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-19/fact-check-checkmate-scotland-trees-windfarms-14-million/101345798

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Found the shill

[–]Node 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's like a character out of a reddit cartoon.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No mate. I'm speaking against the fossil fuel industry misinformation.

The shill is the Simon Johnson.

Follow the money.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Nope. Global warming is a hoax.

Pushed by the energy cartel to consolidate power, so they can meter every watt and control the usage.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Global warming is a hoax.

Good hoax. The most convincing part of the hoax in the increase in temperatures of the globe.

Pushed by the energy cartel to consolidate power, so they can meter every watt and control the usage.

Nah, mate. Fossil fuel interests wouldn't push global warming. It moves people towards nuclear and renewables.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

20 year old trees which may or may not have lived are a very different thing to mature trees.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That article is pretty terrible imo. It doesn't really say anything new, while the primary mentions the replanting. Instead it focuses on insults, ridicule, shooting the messenger, and the somewhat misdirection of compensation replanting.

The worst part was that they were shooting the WRONG messenger! Where do they even get the source of the Herald from?

The Independent article this is based on (Direct Link as my security doesn't like Disclose.TV's wrapping of it), draws from it's handful of it's own articles, like one from quite awhile back in 2014...

Independent's own older article it cites, gives some numbers making a less straightforward and more nuanced picture.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10546071/Millions-of-trees-chopped-down-to-make-way-for-Scottish-wind-farms.html

Between the several articles, to me, they paint a picture of going overboard putting all their focus one one solution carelessly. They seem to imply that the compensatory planting by developers is not confirmed and questionable. Instead, it seems the Forestry Commission did the replanting, and are the numbers of replanting that keep getting mentioned.

I started out concerned that they were re-shaping landscapes, disrupting habitats/ecosystems, and carelessly dumping saplings elsewhere...

It is pretty well known that protecting mature forests is much more important than replanting, and have a actual meaningful CO2 impact (planting many trees poorly, it seems, may increase net CO2 output). Also, biodiversity is huge for all of the above. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees

...but the big picture seems to be that the whole area had already been gutted and reshaped, likely a century ago, if not multiple, and what they cut down was just a rotation of what seem come off as nearly fully managed tree farm anyways...

So, it could probably we worse. Much worse than cutting down the trees, will likely be the roads the build to get to the windmills. Even if simply gravel, they will trap heat and increase concrete and other surface coverage's global warming efforts. They likely require much more traveling, maintenance and access, than logging every so many years...not to mention the actual infrastructure they will build to carry this quickly depleting power far away.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't really say anything new, while the primary mentions the replanting.

It doesn't mention the numbers. And it is material that the 14 million felled tress is about 5% of the replanted trees over the same time period.

The worst part was that they were shooting the WRONG messenger! Where do they even get the source of the Herald from?

The herald article is 29th February 2020.

The OP article is a recycle. I guess that they needed a story to counter the heatwave. So hope that no one notices the three and a half year time gap.

It is pretty well known that protecting mature forests is much more important than replanting, and have a actual meaningful CO2 impact (planting many trees poorly, it seems, may increase net CO2 output).

No so much more that 272 million replanted trees doesn't sequester more than 14 million cut ones releases.

Even if simply gravel, they will trap heat and increase concrete and other surface coverage's global warming efforts.

Those cause local, not global warming. Clean power is much more significant for curtailing global warming in the decades timescale.

And wind turbines are the cheapest power on the planet at the moment.

[–]Although 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"Clean power" Wind turbines? LMAO!!!

"And wind turbines are the cheapest power on the planet at the moment."

What planet are you on? Ever heard of Germany? Wherever wind turbines proliferate, there goes the economy, goodbye, and goodbye to cheap electricity.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know, that all up for questions, I think (for already stated reasons). When you cover the entire land of the Earth with concrete, steal, or gravel, you have to wonder if that is causing a temperature impact. It seems more likely than focusing on our tiny impact to normal CO2 cycles, mostly based on one study in the '70's and a steady flood of deceptive use of data with misleadingly framed charts all coming generally from one source.