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.
Comment on About 500,000 trees cut down at site of Tesla gigafactory near Berlin | The Guardian
holgersson@lemm.ee 3 weeks agoWhy the downvotes
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!”.
Plopp@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
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 it’s a meaningless distinction.
sunbeam60@lemmy.one 3 weeks ago
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.