Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet CO2 Targets

[cancel2 2022]

.
Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever”. Now, finally, after years of being warned, Germany’s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.

Germany’s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “CO2 neutral” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy.

Deforestation up 49%

The ARD’s “Das Erste” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. The reason: “Because of the CO2 targets. That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia,” says the Das Erste moderator.

Having spent some time working for the EU, Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her native Estonia and was shocked to see how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years (2:25). “I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.”

For “CO2-neutral” wood pellets

Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees. The harvested trees, the report says, were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy. The trees, the pellet industry says, will grow back.

Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. According to Ms. Steinberg, bird life has fallen some 25%. “It’s wasted. Now we have to start all over again.”

Idiots “follow the science”

Climate activists, including the media like ARD, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “follow the science” they insisted again and again. But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.

https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/06...tion-up-49-due-to-effort-to-meet-co2-targets/

 

[moon]

How many trees did you plant last week, Comrade maggot.

 

[Celticguy]

Wow.....

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is due to the massive increase in wind and solar along with increasingly tight bans on coal and natural gas in countries like Germany and Denmark. You can't heat your home on $.35 a KWH electricity. It would run you over $1000 a month in the winter. So, people turned to wood pellet stoves. Because the demand for wood pellets is so great German companies opened plants in the US to make them as wood pulp got too expensive in Europe to purchase.

Thus, Germany and other Northern European nations in the name of going Green have devolved to using 17th century technology updated to heat their homes.

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/n...,to the United Kingdom for their power plants.

https://environmentalintegrity.org/...-texas-wood-pellet-plant-for-toxic-emissions/

This is the Woodville Plant in Texas that makes wood pellets to ship to Germany

We get fucked by the New Green Deal, you too will be buying this crap to keep your house warm. This is what you get when you let scientific illiterates like AOC and her ilk make energy policy.

 

[anatta]

We get fucked by the New Green Deal, you too will be buying this crap to keep your house warm. This is what you get when you let scientific illiterates like AOC and her ilk make energy policy.

thanks so very much for the info. I hope to Great Buddha we never go down this path of "17th century tech"

 

[moon]

Good house-building practices will minimize any heating requirement. The technology is commonplace- just like the capitalist morons who prevent it being implemented.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That plant is also not very "Green." It emits hundreds of tons of VOC's and CO2 to supply Germany with wood pellets. Maybe we should tack that pollution onto Germany's total for things like the Paris accords...

 

[Irish]

.
Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever”. Now, finally, after years of being warned, Germany’s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.

Germany’s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “CO2 neutral” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy.

Deforestation up 49%

The ARD’s “Das Erste” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. The reason: “Because of the CO2 targets. That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia,” says the Das Erste moderator.

Having spent some time working for the EU, Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her native Estonia and was shocked to see how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years (2:25). “I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.”

For “CO2-neutral” wood pellets

Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees. The harvested trees, the report says, were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy. The trees, the pellet industry says, will grow back.

Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. According to Ms. Steinberg, bird life has fallen some 25%. “It’s wasted. Now we have to start all over again.”

Idiots “follow the science”

Climate activists, including the media like ARD, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “follow the science” they insisted again and again. But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.

https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/06...tion-up-49-due-to-effort-to-meet-co2-targets/

Wow.
So cutting down trees that help get rid of CO2 is going to help climate change... GENIUS!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Good house-building practices will minimize any heating requirement. The technology is commonplace- just like the capitalist morons who prevent it being implemented.

No they won't. You can't get around physics. If it's 2 C outside and you want your house warm at 20 C then you are going to need a heat source. No amount of insulation will fix that issue. All insulation does is slow the thermal transfer between the two temperature differences. So, that might reduce the amount of heat generation you require but it will never eliminate it. Wood pellets are a dumbassed way to heat your house if you have an alternative like natural gas. Natural gas is more efficient, and much Greener than chopping down forests, grinding the trees into sawdust, adding various chemicals, then compressing that into wood pellets.

Natural gas can be piped into homes eliminating all that vehicular transportation. It has no--ZERO--ash or residue unlike wood pellets. It gives more BTUs per unit mass than wood pellets. Wood pellets are neither Green nor efficient. They are a stupid alternative.

 

[Bigdog]

Good house-building practices will minimize any heating requirement. The technology is commonplace- just like the capitalist morons who prevent it being implemented.

Let me know when the Muslim countries stop pumping oil .... for the good of the planet ... you know.

 

[archives]

.
Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever”. Now, finally, after years of being warned, Germany’s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.

Germany’s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “CO2 neutral” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy.

Deforestation up 49%

The ARD’s “Das Erste” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. The reason: “Because of the CO2 targets. That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia,” says the Das Erste moderator.

Having spent some time working for the EU, Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her native Estonia and was shocked to see how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years (2:25). “I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.”

For “CO2-neutral” wood pellets

Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees. The harvested trees, the report says, were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy. The trees, the pellet industry says, will grow back.

Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. According to Ms. Steinberg, bird life has fallen some 25%. “It’s wasted. Now we have to start all over again.”

Idiots “follow the science”

Climate activists, including the media like ARD, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “follow the science” they insisted again and again. But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.

https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/06...tion-up-49-due-to-effort-to-meet-co2-targets/

"P Gosselin," and I thought he was just a pitcher for the Phillies?

The guy is a blogger, with a reputation of being a quack, "we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/). And before you start, how do you, or anybody, know the narrative he is offering is even happening, when you have a reputation of dishonesty, little you say is accepted on face value

Just another attempt to create a false paradigm, their endless, one article from some obscure nobody in never never land and flat earthers present as if it is ground breaking proof man made climate change is a hoax

 

[moon]

No they won't. You can't get around physics. If it's 2 C outside and you want your house warm at 20 C then you are going to need a heat source. No amount of insulation will fix that issue. All insulation does is slow the thermal transfer between the two temperature differences. So, that might reduce the amount of heat generation you require but it will never eliminate it. Wood pellets are a dumbassed way to heat your house if you have an alternative like natural gas. Natural gas is more efficient, and much Greener than chopping down forests, grinding the trees into sawdust, adding various chemicals, then compressing that into wood pellets.

Natural gas can be piped into homes eliminating all that vehicular transportation. It has no--ZERO--ash or residue unlike wood pellets. It gives more BTUs per unit mass than wood pellets. Wood pellets are neither Green nor efficient. They are a stupid alternative.

I said ' minimize ' , dumbass- not eliminate.

 

[moon]

Let me know when the Muslim countries stop pumping oil .... for the good of the planet ... you know.

Do I sound like an oil-pumper to you ?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I said ' minimize ' , dumbass- not eliminate.

Minimizing cost and pollution is using natural gas not wood pellets. Wood pellets are more expensive, less efficient, produce more pollution both solid and gaseous, and are all around a worse choice than natural gas. But the crazies on the radical Left in environmentalism have--as usual--delusionally latched on to them as the supposed "Green" alternative to natural gas.

https://coalpail.com/fuel-comparison-calculator-home-heating

 

[Sailor]

Minimizing cost and pollution is using natural gas not wood pellets. Wood pellets are more expensive, less efficient, produce more pollution both solid and gaseous, and are all around a worse choice than natural gas. But the crazies on the radical Left in environmentalism have--as usual--delusionally latched on to them as the supposed "Green" alternative to natural gas.

https://coalpail.com/fuel-comparison-calculator-home-heating

What do you expect from Moon? He burns goat dung. Right to the last bit he takes off of dick.

 

[Charoite]

"P Gosselin," and I thought he was just a pitcher for the Phillies?

The guy is a blogger, with a reputation of being a quack, "we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/). And before you start, how do you, or anybody, know the narrative he is offering is even happening, when you have a reputation of dishonesty, little you say is accepted on face value

Just another attempt to create a false paradigm, their endless, one article from some obscure nobody in never never land and flat earthers present as if it is ground breaking proof man made climate change is a hoax

Blogs and quack sources are all he does, just ignore it. When you know it's bs just from the title you walk away.

 

[Bigdog]

Do I sound like an oil-pumper to you ?

Yes. And an America hater.

 

[cancel2 2022]

"P Gosselin," and I thought he was just a pitcher for the Phillies?

The guy is a blogger, with a reputation of being a quack, "we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/). And before you start, how do you, or anybody, know the narrative he is offering is even happening, when you have a reputation of dishonesty, little you say is accepted on face value

Just another attempt to create a false paradigm, their endless, one article from some obscure nobody in never never land and flat earthers present as if it is ground breaking proof man made climate change is a hoax

Periodically some arsehole like Arsecheese or Croc o' Shit uses mediabiasfactcheck to rubbish a website or news outlet they don't like. It is only used by fools who are incapable of any cogent arguments, hence they always play the man not the ball. Anyway two can play at that game matey!!

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest/

 

[cancel2 2022]

Blogs and quack sources are all he does, just ignore it. When you know it's bs just from the title you walk away.

I have asked you many times to tell us all your educational level, pretty obvious why you refuse. It is also plainly obvious that you didn't read the article and yet you wonder why I ban your arse from most threads.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Blogs and quack sources are all he does, just ignore it. When you know it's bs just from the title you walk away.

Pierre Gosselin uses many peer reviewed sources for his articles, sadly you're way too stupid to know that! How many scientists are used by mediabias/fact checker, do you know? Well the correct answer is none!!

How trustworthy is the site called Media Bias / Fact Check?

“Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages.”


There is nothing to suggest that this website has any value beyond the opinion of one Dave Zandt…and some ‘writers’ and ‘researchers’ which include a retired accountant and insurance saleswoman, someone with a degree in politics from Ireland, a pleasant seeming chap named Ken, married, who hates nazis…and another man who is studying psychology.

I have nothing against some lad fresh out of uni with a politics degree, or those who hate nazis, and aspiring psychologist but what I register from this team is that they have zero experience to suggest their opinions are any more accurate than my own when it comes to judging the veracity of news sites. In fact given I could produce 10–15 years of writing editorials in various places about the news, I find myself more qualified. They are not experts, of anything to do with the main task in hand - judging credibility of news platforms online.

Dave Van Z, whose methodology is basically he decides what is fact and what is fake. These decisions are not presented as in ‘found X’ and this is false as proven here at ‘Y’. The judgements are delivered, a colourful chart and some generic texts found on all the entries, slightly adjusted to meet the rating. I believe Mr Zandt used to work in a Health Retail sector, but may be wrong!

My suspicion, with any of the plethora or ‘fact checking’ websites which have abounded in the last decade, many promoted by the corporate sector, is that they have been created, generally, to look as independent as possible yet all have been given lists of the sites to condemn as fake and dodgy, and the sites to promote as trustworthy.

A quick litmus test helps with this:

Wikileaks - never proven to have reported false, fake, misleading news. Not once. Why do you think Assange remains rotting in a UK dungeon wheeled out now and then for one of the most appalling show trials in recent UK history? for telling some crazed conspiracy theories? for manufacturing emails implicating Hilary Clinton as a war mongering supporter of jihadists and mass deceit merchants? for fabricating footage of US soldiers gunning down journalists and civilians?

Overall, we rate WikiLeaks a borderline Conspiracy website with a Left-Center Bias based on a combination of progressive views, coupled with limited Government Libertarian positions. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of the Seth Rich-DNC Conspiracy Theory, as well as connections to the Russian Government and frequent use of anonymous sources.

From the MBFC site.

Conspiracy website which has never has anything reported proven false. Which is fine, but the wording in curious, as conspiracy to many people means some tin hat crackpot routine. Not the actual definition -

make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.

Still, they go on to condemn wikileaks as mixed for credibility, based apparently on Dave or perhaps the aspiring psychologist or insurance saleswoman deciding they disagreed with wikileaks reporting on Seth Rich.

Not sure what they mean about ‘connections to the russian government’ given wikileaks are not great chums with that state power after their expose of the russian state surveillance operation>


So that claim of MBFC seems nonsensical, and with no facts given to validate/confirm. Just a thinking that wikileaks are wrong on something never proven wrong…and guilty of something, never proven and with reality demonstrating against.

Let us take one of the more obvious mass deceit platforms of the West, and I will offer why I suggest this…the NYT. Their most recent ‘work’ has been to create and disseminate the idea that Russia paid the Taliban to kill US soldiers. They have since produced zero evidence to confirm this, but happily spread the story.

There remains no evidence.

The NYT is owned by one of the founding members of the Bildeberg group. The Sulzberger family.

A crowd of the Western elite who come together from the military, mass media, financial, intelligence agencies and petroleum corporations to work on where they can :

Consolidate and improve their profits/power
Resolve difference in conflicting issues
Work together against any threat to their profit/power
Or…they just meet to clink glasses and pat each on the back for what a fine job they are doing?

The NYT owners interest are aligned with the US military industrial complex,top levels of western financial empire, the major petroleum companies, US and their partner intelligence agencies, NATO.

It should then come as no surprise to find that the NYT routinely leans towards these crowds, following an agenda to suit their interests, and often mass producing outright lies to achieve this.

Not a word of this is mentioned by MBFC. Could well be that they have no interest in research? Or that none of the above is of any value when deducing the credibility and bias of a news platform? The latter of which would make no sense whatsoever for a bias checking routine…

Another great one by the NYT -

“A cease-fire in Ukraine was declared last year, but Russian forces still maintain a presence in eastern Ukraine, raising questions about whether Russia might try to extend its reach to the Baltic States.”

Zero proof, but what the hell eh! If millions read us, millions will believe us, who needs any truth? People will just say ‘the NYT confirmed it!’. True enough.

The rating scale used on the website that fails to base its ratings on quantifiable data is worthless. Van Zandt's ratings are worthless except to tell you his opinion and the opinion of a retired insurance saleswoman, a married man who hates nazis and a lad who completed a politics degree in Ireland.

Media Bias / Fact Check's rankings are based on a scale that Van Zandt developed on his own; the research and reporting are done by volunteers, with none of them having any demonstrable expertise to persuade you they should be more trusted than someone you meet at a bus stop and know nothing about.

https://www.quora.com/How-trustworthy-is-the-site-called-Media-Bias-Fact-Check?share=1