Council tree felling...

[Cyclone 10]

This argument is nonsense, reducing the choice of habitats for all kinds of wildlife clearly has an impact, and every reduction in CO2 absorption and O2 production has an impact.  If you just keep excusing it with "only a small fraction" then you're on a slippery slope aren't you.

[Guest makapaka]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Well the loss of trees permanently is definitely worse, but the loss of mature trees for 25 years (which happens to be as long as Amey have a contract) should also be a cause for concern.  Wildlife can't be patient, pollution won't be patient.  We've lost the utility of those trees for now, saplings will grow obviously, but for the next 10 years at least they simply won't perform the same jobs as the trees they've replaced.

What about the additional 25 years of life the sapling will have after the existing tree would have died off?

You need to factor that in to your cost/benefit analysis too.

[Cyclone 10]

25 minutes ago, makapaka said:

What about the additional 25 years of life the sapling will have after the existing tree would have died off?

You need to factor that in to your cost/benefit analysis too.

That's a terrible argument for removing mature trees.

[Guest makapaka]

18 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

That's a terrible argument for removing mature trees.

In isolation the argument would be yes.

 

But in terms of the overall impact of replacing ornamental trees on inner city streets it should be considered.

[Cyclone 10]

You're still trying to defend the behaviour of the council aren't you...

[Guest makapaka]

21 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You're still trying to defend the behaviour of the council aren't you...

You’re still trying to shut down every comment I make on the subject by accusing me of defending the behaviour of the council aren’t you...

[Cyclone 10]

Are you saying that you aren't defending them?

[dave_the_m 61]

Since the replacement trees are smaller species than ones being replaced, the long-term net effect is greater CO2 emissions.

[Guest makapaka]

5 hours ago, dave_the_m said:

Since the replacement trees are smaller species than ones being replaced, the long-term net effect is greater CO2 emissions.

Greater CO2 emissions from what? 

[dave_the_m 61]

8 hours ago, makapaka said:

Greater CO2 emissions from what? 

Suppose the mature tree being cut down weighs 100 tons, and its replacement, when fully grown. weighs 50 tons. Then in the long term replacing the tree with a smaller species will have released the carbon content of 50 tons of wood more than if the original tree  had been left.

[Cyclone 10]

9 hours ago, makapaka said:

Greater CO2 emissions from what? 

Lower CO2 absorption and lower O2 emission would be more accurate.

57 minutes ago, dave_the_m said:

Suppose the mature tree being cut down weighs 100 tons, and its replacement, when fully grown. weighs 50 tons. Then in the long term replacing the tree with a smaller species will have released the carbon content of 50 tons of wood more than if the original tree  had been left.

Also that.  But trees absorb CO2 and produce O2 even when not actively getting larger.

[Guest makapaka]

 

4 hours ago, dave_the_m said:

Suppose the mature tree being cut down weighs 100 tons, and its replacement, when fully grown. weighs 50 tons. Then in the long term replacing the tree with a smaller species will have released the carbon content of 50 tons of wood more than if the original tree  had been left.

What happens when the 100T tree dies and the replacement tree never existed?