|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2017 07:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Nothing, just avoid discussing solutions and "solutions" in the next few days. You won't achieve anything besides making some people angry.
So we should just wait some days and we can discuss solutions. Do you really believe this? Can you give a precise number of days so that I don't look like someone without a soul? 5? 6?
Edit: I'll make an example. Let us suppose that a politician in the UK asks for stricter controls at concert venues, checking bags with attention etc. If I were the relative of someone who died there, would I get offended or would I like the idea because at least other innocent people in the future might survive thanks to the new controls? However, I'm sure that everyone would say that that politician is 'instrumentalizing'. I just don't understand how refusing to discuss the problems is better for the victims.
|
On May 24 2017 07:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Saying "I'm sorry for kid died, maybe now you will listen to me" is a terrible thing to say regardless of timing. Trying to use a tragedy to score political points and certainly in your first official response as head of state is considered bad form. If you want to send that message at least have the decency to wait a little while people grief.
Yeah pretty much.
Mélenchon has his own ideas about problems in the Middle East. Using a terror attack where children die as a way to draw attention to his message (whatever that may be, seems to be open to discussion because no one knows what he's talking about) is pretty much using this event to further his cause.
Despicable. Yet why am I surprised? He's an extremist lol. Le Pen also reacted like a fucking twat.
related: https://i.redd.it/w3twbqukjazy.png
|
On May 24 2017 07:59 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:51 Sent. wrote:On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Nothing, just avoid discussing solutions and "solutions" in the next few days. You won't achieve anything besides making some people angry. So we should just wait some days and we can discuss solutions. Do you really believe this? Can you give a precise number of days so that I don't look like someone without a soul? 5? 6? Edit: I'll make an example. Let us suppose that a politician in the UK asks for stricter controls at concert venues, checking bags with attention etc. If I were the relative of someone who died there, would I get offended or would I like the idea because at least other innocent people in the future might survive thanks to the new controls? However, I'm sure that everyone would say that that politician is 'instrumentalizing'. I just don't understand how refusing to discuss the problems is better for the victims.
Your example is generally seen as ok because there is a difference between "sometime bad happened, lets be extra careful going forward" and "something bad happened, guess you should have listened to me".
Its a matter of feelings, of emotions and as such they are hardly precise facts and will often vary widely between different people.
As a head of state making statements its probably better to be more careful to avoid offending people.
|
On May 24 2017 08:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:59 SoSexy wrote:On May 24 2017 07:51 Sent. wrote:On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Nothing, just avoid discussing solutions and "solutions" in the next few days. You won't achieve anything besides making some people angry. So we should just wait some days and we can discuss solutions. Do you really believe this? Can you give a precise number of days so that I don't look like someone without a soul? 5? 6? Edit: I'll make an example. Let us suppose that a politician in the UK asks for stricter controls at concert venues, checking bags with attention etc. If I were the relative of someone who died there, would I get offended or would I like the idea because at least other innocent people in the future might survive thanks to the new controls? However, I'm sure that everyone would say that that politician is 'instrumentalizing'. I just don't understand how refusing to discuss the problems is better for the victims. Your example is generally seen as ok because there is a difference between "sometime bad happened, lets be extra careful going forward" and "something bad happened, guess you should have listened to me". Its a matter of feelings, of emotions and as such they are hardly precise facts and will often vary widely between different people. As a head of state making statements its probably better to be more careful to avoid offending people.
Oh I see your point now. You were referring to people explicitly saying 'you should have listened'... in that case I agree. But I'm sure you can also see that basically any post saying stuff like the example I posted can be attacked as another form of 'you should have listened', thus the problem
|
On May 24 2017 08:16 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:11 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 07:59 SoSexy wrote:On May 24 2017 07:51 Sent. wrote:On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Nothing, just avoid discussing solutions and "solutions" in the next few days. You won't achieve anything besides making some people angry. So we should just wait some days and we can discuss solutions. Do you really believe this? Can you give a precise number of days so that I don't look like someone without a soul? 5? 6? Edit: I'll make an example. Let us suppose that a politician in the UK asks for stricter controls at concert venues, checking bags with attention etc. If I were the relative of someone who died there, would I get offended or would I like the idea because at least other innocent people in the future might survive thanks to the new controls? However, I'm sure that everyone would say that that politician is 'instrumentalizing'. I just don't understand how refusing to discuss the problems is better for the victims. Your example is generally seen as ok because there is a difference between "sometime bad happened, lets be extra careful going forward" and "something bad happened, guess you should have listened to me". Its a matter of feelings, of emotions and as such they are hardly precise facts and will often vary widely between different people. As a head of state making statements its probably better to be more careful to avoid offending people. Oh I see your point now. You were referring to people explicitly saying 'you should have listened'... in that case I agree. But I'm sure you can also see that basically any post saying stuff like the example I posted can be attacked as another form of 'you should have listened', thus the problem
Yeah the line between what is acceptable and not is blurry and changes per person. hence why normally leaders only express sympathy for those effected. Its nice and safe.
|
Discussion solutions to a problem during emotionally charged times rarely leads to productive or effective solutions. And in this case, we lack a lot of the relevant information to have an informed discussion at this point.
|
On May 24 2017 08:04 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Saying "I'm sorry for kid died, maybe now you will listen to me" is a terrible thing to say regardless of timing. Trying to use a tragedy to score political points and certainly in your first official response as head of state is considered bad form. If you want to send that message at least have the decency to wait a little while people grief. Yeah pretty much. Mélenchon has his own ideas about problems in the Middle East. Using a terror attack where children die as a way to draw attention to his message (whatever that may be, seems to be open to discussion because no one knows what he's talking about) is pretty much using this event to further his cause. Despicable. Yet why am I surprised? He's an extremist lol. Le Pen also reacted like a fucking twat. related: https://i.redd.it/w3twbqukjazy.png
Related: falsified tweet proving how bad melenchon really was, how people would readily believe Trump tweeted this, or actually fooled?
|
Canada11607 Posts
On May 23 2017 01:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2017 01:12 Velr wrote:On May 23 2017 01:06 bardtown wrote:On May 23 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better. If you translate that into policy it would be a request for an inconceivable amount of money. Skills that are more in demand have higher market value. The time taken to learn those skills is not really the relevant factor. I'm even understating the effect, actually. Let's say you peg pay to a median value; the result will be a massive increase in public sector expenditure and a simultaneous exodus of frontier field expertise and tax revenue. In a word, crippling. It's right to look for the unexplained discrepancy of course (which I understood to be around 5% IIRC), but it might be a lot of interacting factors that can't be identified for all the noise in the system. But thats the joke, Teachers (non university/tradeschool), Nurses and tons of Women driven jobs are very high in demand yet often also hace clear rules of how much someone earns. Now compare this to Jobs that need similar dedication to be done good in the "male dominated sphere". Its often not even close.... but to be fair, truely shitty, dangerous and hard jobs are near 100% male dominated and no one crys. They do. There are stories of women trying to enter those fields and being harassed. They are mostly smaller stories that don’t reach the global narrative on the subject. And fields like teaching elementary school are dominated by women. Not because of coworker based sexism, but because of sexist parents. The totally unfounded panic about male teachers sexually assaulting students is very real. It is hard to be the outsider breaking into the field. It is hard to be the minority group in a field too. Both of those statements and findings shouldn’t surprise anyone. But those are problems that can be address. Women in tech will face sexism in male dominated companies. The problem arises when the companies either ignore or deny the sexism is happening. Or claim that women don’t want the jobs to justify why their field is dominated by men. I really don't think elementary schools being dominated by women has much if anything to do with sexist parents. The statistics are, to my knowledge, fairly similar in Norway, but I've never heard of anyone citing 'fear of being accused of sexual assault' as a reason for not wanting to teach elementary school. Fact is, I've talked to so many teacher students that it almost constitutes a representative group for a study, and that guys are more enthusiastic about teaching older kids is absolutely true. I think you have a much better case for a 'guys from a young age are influenced to think that care-taking is a feminine activity' and elementary school is more about taking care of the kids than about academic or scholarly pursuits type of argument. Care-taking / parenting is one of the areas where the nature vs nurture argument is most relevant, anyway.
I would agree with this observation, having gone through teacher training myself. I heard nothing at all about the dangers of working specifically as a male in the primary classes. But on average, if a fellow student teacher expressed interest in the younger grades, very easily that student teacher was female. I know even for myself, I was pretty indifferent (at the beginning) as to what age group I wanted to teach, only that I wanted to teach. I specifically chose a program that gave me experience in elementary and high school. My grade 2 practicum was my least interesting one to me, though the students themselves were lovely.
After I graduated, I had a can do attitude, that "I can teach anything", but after subbing for a bit, I began actively avoiding subbing in a kindergarten class. Now I wouldn't consider a teaching position below grade 3 and would certainly prefer high school. There was nothing culturally stopping me from teaching those lower grades; I simply did not enjoy it that much. And I think this remains true for a great many of my male colleagues. There was no fear of wrong perceptions, just a total lack of interest in that age group.
|
On May 24 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 08:04 Incognoto wrote:On May 24 2017 07:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 07:48 SoSexy wrote:
It was a genuine question. What I mean is that, since political parties have different ideas, everything different from 'condolences' is instrumentalizing. 'close the borders now' - instrumentalizing. 'the real victims are moderate muslims' - instrumentalizing. What I mean is what is left to discuss if every attempt is instrumentalizing? Saying "I'm sorry for kid died, maybe now you will listen to me" is a terrible thing to say regardless of timing. Trying to use a tragedy to score political points and certainly in your first official response as head of state is considered bad form. If you want to send that message at least have the decency to wait a little while people grief. Yeah pretty much. Mélenchon has his own ideas about problems in the Middle East. Using a terror attack where children die as a way to draw attention to his message (whatever that may be, seems to be open to discussion because no one knows what he's talking about) is pretty much using this event to further his cause. Despicable. Yet why am I surprised? He's an extremist lol. Le Pen also reacted like a fucking twat. related: https://i.redd.it/w3twbqukjazy.png Related: falsified tweet proving how bad melenchon really was, how people would readily believe Trump tweeted this, or actually fooled?
The first two, imho. They're not mutually exclusive.
|
On May 24 2017 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What the hell Europe, you're supposed to be the sensible ones on the planet. Show nested quote +
Scientists and environmental campaigners have accused the Polish government of bringing the ecosystem of the Białowieża forest in north-eastern Poland to the “brink of collapse”, one year after a revised forest management plan permitted the trebling of state logging activity and removed a ban on logging in old growth areas.
Large parts of the forest, which spans Poland’s eastern border with Belarus and contains some of Europe’s last remaining primeval woodland, are subject to natural processes not disturbed by direct human intervention.
A Unesco natural world heritage site – the only one in Poland – the forest is home to about 1,070 species of vascular plants, 4,000 species of fungi, more than 10,000 species of insect, 180 breeding bird species and 58 species of mammal, including many species dependent on natural processes and threatened with extinction.
“At some point there will be a collapse, and if and when it happens, it’s gone forever – no amount of money in the universe can bring it back,” said Prof Tomasz Wesołowski, a forest biologist at the University of Wrocław who has been conducting fieldwork in Białowieża for each of the last 43 years. “With every tree cut, we are closer to this point of no return.”
Logging is prohibited in the Białowieża national park nature reserve, which contains woodland untouched by humans for thousands of years, but the reserve only accounts for 17% of the forest on the Polish side, leaving approximately 40,000 hectares vulnerable to state-sanctioned logging.
On recent visits to the forest, the Guardian encountered evidence of widespread logging of trees in apparent contravention of Polish and European law, including many trees that appeared to be more than 100 years old in Unesco-protected areas, with logs marked for commercial distribution.
“They are logging natural, diverse forest stands which were not planted by humans and replacing them with plantations of trees of a single age and species,” said Adam Bohdan of the Wild Poland Foundation, which monitors logging activity and provides data for scientists working at the Białowieża botanical research station.
“They are logging in Unesco zones where timber harvesting is forbidden, they are logging 100-year-old tree stands in contravention of European law, they are logging during breeding season and destroying habitats occupied by rare species. It is disrupting natural processes which have been continuing there for thousands of years. We are losing large parts of the last natural forest – my worst nightmares are coming true,” said Bohdan.
The government argues that the logging is needed to protect the forest from a bark beetle outbreak and for reasons of public safety, both hotly disputed by conservationists.
“Logging of infested spruces does not stop a bark beetle outbreak, it just leaves thousands of hectares of clear-felled sites instead,” said Dr Bogdan Jaroszewicz of the University of Warsaw, the director of the Białowieża research station.
“Of course, dead trees can’t be left standing along public roads or tourist trails, but logging is taking place in places quite remote from these routes.”
Opponents accuse the environment minister, Jan Szyszko, who is a forester and lecturer in forest management, of sacrificing the forest for the sake of the vested interests of the Polish forestry industry.
Source
Europe yes, but not in particular the eastern part yet, sadly. In "my two countries" (Czech Rep. and Poland), the problems are very similar - strong pressures from businesses to exploit every piece of nature available for their profits. In Czech Rep. I know more about it and it is really present everywhere - currently a big issue is the largest National Park (Šumava) which protects one of the greatest highland habitats in Europe, but there are also interests of villagers for tourist industry and logging. And then the president comes with a speech that people are more important than some birds and that the protection should be lowered ... I was also recently in Bialowieza and the extent of destruction there is huge, they are mass logging large areas, which is the absolutely worse method of forest management they could have used in an old mixed swampy forest.
|
On May 24 2017 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What the hell Europe, you're supposed to be the sensible ones on the planet. Show nested quote +
Scientists and environmental campaigners have accused the Polish government of bringing the ecosystem of the Białowieża forest in north-eastern Poland to the “brink of collapse”, one year after a revised forest management plan permitted the trebling of state logging activity and removed a ban on logging in old growth areas.
Large parts of the forest, which spans Poland’s eastern border with Belarus and contains some of Europe’s last remaining primeval woodland, are subject to natural processes not disturbed by direct human intervention.
A Unesco natural world heritage site – the only one in Poland – the forest is home to about 1,070 species of vascular plants, 4,000 species of fungi, more than 10,000 species of insect, 180 breeding bird species and 58 species of mammal, including many species dependent on natural processes and threatened with extinction.
“At some point there will be a collapse, and if and when it happens, it’s gone forever – no amount of money in the universe can bring it back,” said Prof Tomasz Wesołowski, a forest biologist at the University of Wrocław who has been conducting fieldwork in Białowieża for each of the last 43 years. “With every tree cut, we are closer to this point of no return.”
Logging is prohibited in the Białowieża national park nature reserve, which contains woodland untouched by humans for thousands of years, but the reserve only accounts for 17% of the forest on the Polish side, leaving approximately 40,000 hectares vulnerable to state-sanctioned logging.
On recent visits to the forest, the Guardian encountered evidence of widespread logging of trees in apparent contravention of Polish and European law, including many trees that appeared to be more than 100 years old in Unesco-protected areas, with logs marked for commercial distribution.
“They are logging natural, diverse forest stands which were not planted by humans and replacing them with plantations of trees of a single age and species,” said Adam Bohdan of the Wild Poland Foundation, which monitors logging activity and provides data for scientists working at the Białowieża botanical research station.
“They are logging in Unesco zones where timber harvesting is forbidden, they are logging 100-year-old tree stands in contravention of European law, they are logging during breeding season and destroying habitats occupied by rare species. It is disrupting natural processes which have been continuing there for thousands of years. We are losing large parts of the last natural forest – my worst nightmares are coming true,” said Bohdan.
The government argues that the logging is needed to protect the forest from a bark beetle outbreak and for reasons of public safety, both hotly disputed by conservationists.
“Logging of infested spruces does not stop a bark beetle outbreak, it just leaves thousands of hectares of clear-felled sites instead,” said Dr Bogdan Jaroszewicz of the University of Warsaw, the director of the Białowieża research station.
“Of course, dead trees can’t be left standing along public roads or tourist trails, but logging is taking place in places quite remote from these routes.”
Opponents accuse the environment minister, Jan Szyszko, who is a forester and lecturer in forest management, of sacrificing the forest for the sake of the vested interests of the Polish forestry industry.
Source
The Guardian writing a one-sided article. What's new? They conveniently omit the opinions of other experts, who disagree with those cited in the article (such as Dr Rafał Paluch or Dr Krzysztof Stereńczak, who study the bark beetle infestation of the forest). According to State Forests (which oversees the part of the forest that is not considered nature reserve) claims that they are forbidden from using any chemical pesticides which leaves removing dead and infested trees as the only option.
This isn't some PiS conspiracy meant to monetize nature reserve. For the past two decades or so State Forests had kept up with the infestation by means of sanitary tree removal. Up until 2010, when the PO-PSL government caved in after being pressured by Greenpeace. In 2012, State Forests warned that the bark beetle outbreak is starting to get out of hand. You can see it on the diagram below (green bars with red outline - infested trees, blue bars - trees removed for sanitary reasons; thousands of cubic meters of wood, seems like a weird unit if you ask me).
![[image loading]](http://ocdn.eu/pulscms-transforms/1/apyk9kpTURBXy8yNmM5Yjc2NWJkYmE1OTNmNWUxMTZhNDMzNjdlMTMxYi5wbmeRlQLNAyAAw8OBoTEC)
http://businessinsider.com.pl/technologie/nauka/fakty-i-mity-o-puszczy-bialowieskiej-lasy-panstwowe-vs-greenpeace/bmt0w7e
I don't know who's right in this case, but you will certainly not learn that from The Guardian, which has a history of misrepresenting facts and lying by omission, at least when it comes to covering Poland.
Experts disagree on this topic. Some say that the forest will naturally regulate itself and the population of the bark beetle will level off, and that reducing the number of spruce will bring the forest closer to its pre-20th century state. Others disagree and claim that decreasing biological diversity can already be noticed.
|
Incredible, Macron wants to extend the state of emergency (which was supposed to end on 15/07) until November. Now they use attacks which happen in other countries to justify this useless thing! (90 people died to attacks under this state of emergency.)
|
On May 24 2017 17:42 TheDwf wrote:
Incredible, Macron wants to extend the state of emergency (which was supposed to end on 15/07) until November. Now they use attacks which happen in other countries to justify this useless thing! (90 people died to attacks under this state of emergency.)
Perhaps the European Commission should take a closer look at the state of democracy in France? ;-)
|
For those intersted, the guardian also wrote a longer article in 2016
Source
I cannot really bring much to the table on the matter due to lack of knowledge about it. Can't read polish unfortunately because it's an interesting matter nonetheless.
Also couldn't find anything of interest on the German Greenpeace page.
|
On May 24 2017 17:40 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What the hell Europe, you're supposed to be the sensible ones on the planet.
Scientists and environmental campaigners have accused the Polish government of bringing the ecosystem of the Białowieża forest in north-eastern Poland to the “brink of collapse”, one year after a revised forest management plan permitted the trebling of state logging activity and removed a ban on logging in old growth areas.
Large parts of the forest, which spans Poland’s eastern border with Belarus and contains some of Europe’s last remaining primeval woodland, are subject to natural processes not disturbed by direct human intervention.
A Unesco natural world heritage site – the only one in Poland – the forest is home to about 1,070 species of vascular plants, 4,000 species of fungi, more than 10,000 species of insect, 180 breeding bird species and 58 species of mammal, including many species dependent on natural processes and threatened with extinction.
“At some point there will be a collapse, and if and when it happens, it’s gone forever – no amount of money in the universe can bring it back,” said Prof Tomasz Wesołowski, a forest biologist at the University of Wrocław who has been conducting fieldwork in Białowieża for each of the last 43 years. “With every tree cut, we are closer to this point of no return.”
Logging is prohibited in the Białowieża national park nature reserve, which contains woodland untouched by humans for thousands of years, but the reserve only accounts for 17% of the forest on the Polish side, leaving approximately 40,000 hectares vulnerable to state-sanctioned logging.
On recent visits to the forest, the Guardian encountered evidence of widespread logging of trees in apparent contravention of Polish and European law, including many trees that appeared to be more than 100 years old in Unesco-protected areas, with logs marked for commercial distribution.
“They are logging natural, diverse forest stands which were not planted by humans and replacing them with plantations of trees of a single age and species,” said Adam Bohdan of the Wild Poland Foundation, which monitors logging activity and provides data for scientists working at the Białowieża botanical research station.
“They are logging in Unesco zones where timber harvesting is forbidden, they are logging 100-year-old tree stands in contravention of European law, they are logging during breeding season and destroying habitats occupied by rare species. It is disrupting natural processes which have been continuing there for thousands of years. We are losing large parts of the last natural forest – my worst nightmares are coming true,” said Bohdan.
The government argues that the logging is needed to protect the forest from a bark beetle outbreak and for reasons of public safety, both hotly disputed by conservationists.
“Logging of infested spruces does not stop a bark beetle outbreak, it just leaves thousands of hectares of clear-felled sites instead,” said Dr Bogdan Jaroszewicz of the University of Warsaw, the director of the Białowieża research station.
“Of course, dead trees can’t be left standing along public roads or tourist trails, but logging is taking place in places quite remote from these routes.”
Opponents accuse the environment minister, Jan Szyszko, who is a forester and lecturer in forest management, of sacrificing the forest for the sake of the vested interests of the Polish forestry industry.
Source The Guardian writing a one-sided article. What's new? They conveniently omit the opinions of other experts, who disagree with those cited in the article (such as Dr Rafał Paluch or Dr Krzysztof Stereńczak, who study the bark beetle infestation of the forest). According to State Forests (which oversees the part of the forest that is not considered nature reserve) claims that they are forbidden from using any chemical pesticides which leaves removing dead and infested trees as the only option. This isn't some PiS conspiracy meant to monetize nature reserve. For the past two decades or so State Forests had kept up with the infestation by means of sanitary tree removal. Up until 2010, when the PO-PSL government caved in after being pressured by Greenpeace. In 2012, State Forests warned that the bark beetle outbreak is starting to get out of hand. You can see it on the diagram below (green bars with red outline - infested trees, blue bars - trees removed for sanitary reasons; thousands of cubic meters of wood, seems like a weird unit if you ask me). http://businessinsider.com.pl/technologie/nauka/fakty-i-mity-o-puszczy-bialowieskiej-lasy-panstwowe-vs-greenpeace/bmt0w7eI don't know who's right in this case, but you will certainly not learn that from The Guardian, which has a history of misrepresenting facts and lying by omission, at least when it comes to covering Poland. Experts disagree on this topic. Some say that the forest will naturally regulate itself and the population of the bark beetle will level off, and that reducing the number of spruce will bring the forest closer to its pre-20th century state. Others disagree and claim that decreasing biological diversity can already be noticed.
The bark beetle is a natural part of the development of the forest - and also a natural excuse for the wood lobby to cut down as many trees as they want. It's exactly the same story as in Šumava in Czech - the news show the huge swaths of "destroyed" forests and the "tragedy" of the bark beetle "disaster", getting the support for heavy machinery to go in and harvest all the precious wood, totally destroying the soil layer in the process. Meanwhile, right across the border in Germany, they leave the forest to live for itself and it works. The problem is that the bark beetle will decimate the artificial monocultural forest with ease and it takes time for something more sensible to regrow in its place, but people can't stand looking at the "dead" forest for a couple of decades and demand immediate "solutions".
This is not really a debate about "removing the dead trees". There is extensive felling of huge continuous areas happening right now. That goal is clearly not the protection of the forest, but making money. Just go there and have a fucking look.
|
A few days have passed, so I think it bears mentioning that Britain does now have a large terrorist attack to its name. That's different from how the reaction should have been to that earlier, smaller attack.
|
I assume the correct reaction would have been to not have a large Terrorist attack? Or wtf are you talking about?
And there is a topic about the attack, you might want to do your trolling there?
|
On May 24 2017 17:42 TheDwf wrote:
Incredible, Macron wants to extend the state of emergency (which was supposed to end on 15/07) until November. Now they use attacks which happen in other countries to justify this useless thing! (90 people died to attacks under this state of emergency.)
I am really surprised that the French put up with this bullshit. The whole point of the state of emergency is shown exactly in the name - it is supposed to serve in times of emergency, when a democratic solution would take too long. Having it extended for years is totally absurd. If the government thinks that an increase in the power of law enforcement is needed to handle some issue, they are free to try to press the changes through the normal democratic process. The ability to declare the state of emergency should come with a clear time limit on the timescale that is needed for proper arrangements. This is really not something that should be tolerated.
|
Italian news are reporting that the family of the terrorist reported him to the police because they considered him dangerous.
|
Those who gain power during a state of emergency tend to have the incentives to want to prolong it. No difference here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
