Tree devastation in Sheffield

[AlexAtkin 10]

Everything alive has an undeniable will to live too, so I don't think that is a good argument. Otherwise should we stop killing viruses/diseases?

 

The big difference is, its actually in our own interest to have trees as they are essential for our continued existence on this planet. So its downright foolish to chop them down without a damn good reason.

Edited July 17, 2015 by AlexAtkin

[Mindfulness 10]

More evidence that the ecosystem goods and services that large crowned trees afford, amounts to millions of pounds each year: https://dub125.mail.live.com/mail/ViewOfficePreview.aspx?messageid=mgGjiQgo4s5RGV4xzB3nDKKw2&folderid=flinbox&attindex=2&cp=-1&attdepth=2&n=23005063

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 21:40 ----------

 

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/savesheffieldtrees?fref=ts

Twitter: @SaveSheffTrees

[Solomon1 10]

its actually in our own interest to have trees as they are essential for our continued existence on this planet. So its downright foolish to chop them down without a damn good reason

 

Agreed

[Mindfulness 10]

Following on from this recent phenomenon, of love letters to your favourite trees: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/when-you-give-a-tree-an-email-address/398210/

 

Delilah has an email address: [email protected]

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Following on from this recent phenomenon, of love letters to your favourite trees: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/when-you-give-a-tree-an-email-address/398210/

 

Delilah has an email address: [email protected]

Surely that should be not www but yyy.delilah?

(So, before they come to break down the door...)

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

Surely that should be not www but yyy.delilah?

(So, before they come to break down the door...)

Forgive me Mr Jeffrey, I just cannot take anymore...

[Mindfulness 10]

SCC should be applying the precautionary principle. "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management, states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action"

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 00:25 ----------

The harm in this case is harm to people’s health and well-being, through failure to accord with national policies and current arboricultural best practice guidance and recommendations (see references in petition).

 

---------- Post added 20-07-2015 at 00:26 ----------

 

The damage in this case is to the urban forest (public property) by failure to adopt appropriate and adequate policies and specifications and to provide adequate supervision and enforcement for the responsible and sustainable management of the street tree resource - a vital component of green infrastructure, as required by national policies (UKFS & "Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services"), and current arboricultural best practice guidance and recommendations, not least of all Trees in Towns II (TT2).

Edited July 19, 2015 by Mindfulness

[cgksheff 44]

There is no risk of harm, other than to a few egos and many emotional attachments.

 

The proportional damage to the urban forest of Sheffield would be insignificant.

 

Not that any of that means that SCC shouldn't be adopting best principles in their management of their works.

[AlexAtkin 10]

It might seem insignificant for one tree, but they aren't just removing one tree they are doing multiples in a single area.

 

This will result in a notable reduction in air quality.

Reduction on habitat for wildlife.

Potentially increased noise from the road where the trees would be blocking sound into the upper floors of properties.

The new trees will not soak up as much rain water so could result in disruption to the houses in the area due to more boggy land.

 

Hardly insignificant things.

Edited July 20, 2015 by AlexAtkin

[cgksheff 44]

The only one of those issues that could have any real significance would be localised habitats.

 

You will notice no measurable change in air quality on Rusling Road.

[AlexAtkin 10]

The only one of those issues that could have any real significance would be localised habitats.

 

You will notice no measurable change in air quality on Rusling Road.

 

Perhaps not measurable, but that doesn't mean its necessarily insignificant.

 

As someone with Asthma I certainly find I get more symptomatic in different areas of the city.

 

Also a few tree here and there will definitely have an effect on the air quality over the whole city. Again perhaps not measurable, but should we really be reducing our carbon sinks when we already have a pollution problem? (less than other cities perhaps, but why choose to make the problem worse if we don't need to?)

Edited July 20, 2015 by AlexAtkin

[cgksheff 44]

Perhaps not measurable, but that doesn't mean its necessarily insignificant.

 

It may not "mean" that, but it will be when you take into account the scale of the urban forest in Sheffield, and around that area in particular.