Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Robin-H

Members
  • Content Count

    4,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Robin-H

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Why are you still seemingly trying to justify the unnecessary removal of healthy trees? That argument has thankfully already been lost, and the council forced to admit they were wrong and apologise. Felling was never a ‘last resort’, but a mechanism through which Amey could increase their profits. To answer your question directly - it depends what you mean by ‘noticeable environmental impact’. If you mean the total of amount of Co2 sequestration, then even felling 100% of street trees would have a negligible impact. If you measure it by the reduction in airborne particulate matter on certain roads, or the cooling effect on hot days, then the loss of street trees would cause a much greater impact. If you’re talking about the loss of the habitat of the rare white lesser hairstreak, then the loss of a single tree would have a noticeable impact.
  2. Felling any tree has an environmental impact... Saying that felling non streets trees has the same environmental impact as felling street trees is clearly not the same as saying it doesn’t have any environment impact.
  3. And? Who has said street trees have a different environmental impact to trees a few yards from streets? The important difference is that healthy street trees were being unnecessary and systematically felled to increase the profit margins of Amey, whereas the other trees weren’t..
  4. I agree that trees need to be properly maintained.
  5. They’re in a grave yard. They’re not street trees. Edit: not technically street trees, in that they would be outside of the contract with Amey.
  6. If somebody purchased a house with a sapling outside not realising that if they were still in the house in 20 - 30 years time that the tree would be larger by then, then I don’t have much sympathy... Fortunately, as dave has pointed out, not liking having a tree on street by your house was never grounds for having it removed (for reasons that should be obvious..)
  7. Funny how trees can suddenly appear that weren't there when people purchased their homes...
  8. I don't think it's a strange question at all. If you haven't noticed, lots of places are closed at the moment when they would ordinarily be open..
  9. That's just demonstrably not true. SCC have improved lots of things, as has been pointed out in this thread. Also, Park Hill wasn't done by the council, it was Urban Splash.
  10. Isn't the Three Tuns an asset of community value? This should prevent it being converted into flats or something..
  11. What drivel. Sheffield has more Academy of Urbanism awards than any other city in the UK.
  12. Good news. That is the plan now. https://sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/news/block-h-cultural-heart/ "In contrast, the development for H3 (to be known as Cambridge Street Collective) will be aiming to retain as much of the quality, existing fabric and façades along Cambridge Street and Wellington Street as feasible – helping to attractively balance the old and new across the site." "The emerging proposals for this block now showcase the retention of far more original architecture than envisaged in the 2018 masterplan. Plans now include the preservation and sympathetic restoration of the quality fabric and façades along Cambridge Street and Wellington Street, including the listed Bethel Sunday School and Leah’s Yard, as well as the Bethel Chapel and the buildings that formerly housed Brewhouse and Henry’s. The historic buildings fronting these streets will be kept with internal adaptations and reconstruction carried out where necessary to bring them back into use." I don't say this often, but congratulations to SCC for this enlightened and sensible decision!
  13. I'm sure that the exact figures will vary slightly from site to site yes, but I think it's generally accepted that chicken has slightly more protein per kg than beef, tho it may be different for the raw meet (tho people don't tend to eat raw beef, and never eat raw chicken!). Like I said, it's why a body builder's go to for protein is chicken rather than beef (a quarter pound of ground beef has 20 grams of protein. A skinless chicken breast boasts 52 grams of protein). But no, that doesn't directly address the land use issue, but it makes it clear that if you were choosing an animal to rear in order to get the most protein out of a certain area of land (say per acre) you'd be massively better off to go for chicken rather than beef. Just think how many chickens you could fit on an acre of land compared to how many cows.... And, as the link I provided earlier showed, you'd be even better off in terms of protein per acre if instead of meat, you planted something like soybeans instead. https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths "This might seem counter-intuitive, but were we to eat soya rather than meat, the clearance of natural vegetation required to supply us with the same amount of protein would decline by 94%. Producing protein from chickens requires three times as much land as protein from soybeans. Pork needs nine times, beef 32 times."
  14. Nope. Chicken has the highest. It's why body builders are always eating chicken. https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html Chicken breast (grilled without skin) 32g/100g Beef steak (lean grilled) 31.0g/100g Lamb chop (lean grilled) 29.2g/100g Pork chop (lean grilled)31.6/100g
  15. I think you will struggle to find any reputable scientific source that agrees with the claim that there is not an environmental benefit in reducing meat consumption. If you can find one I would be interested to read it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.