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!”.
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.
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.
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!”.
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.
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.