• holgersson@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why 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!”.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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 that’s a meaningless justification.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months 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.

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.