|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2022 15:40:34 GMT
If you’ve ever wondered how many trees are cut down every year, the shockingly short answer is that more than 15 billion trees are lost annually to deforestation. While that number is staggering, it can be hard to visualize. The image above makes it a little easier to grasp. For the 15 billion trees that are chopped down each year, every person on the planet could have 3,000 rolls of toilet paper. If you imagine 3,000 rolls of toilet paper sitting in your bathroom, they likely wouldn’t all fit. Now imagine how many trees just those 3,000 rolls equate to, and the amount of deforestation it represents.
COP27 DO NOT MENTION THIS ATROCITY
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2022 15:56:45 GMT
Knocking down millions of trees that absorb water and filter the atmosphere is one of the main reasons for global warming. yet again they wont highlight this because trees are big business, furniture, tree houses, work tops, you name it trees provide it. not to mention greedy housing developers raping greenbelt land to build houses for maximum profit. If they are really serious about climate change they need to put protective orders on forests and greenbelt land, if they don't it's hot air, and a means to raise revenue in green taxes ..... in other words a money making racket. By filter do you mean absorb CO2? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2022 15:58:08 GMT
If you’ve ever wondered how many trees are cut down every year, the shockingly short answer is that more than 15 billion trees are lost annually to deforestation. While that number is staggering, it can be hard to visualize. The image above makes it a little easier to grasp. For the 15 billion trees that are chopped down each year, every person on the planet could have 3,000 rolls of toilet paper. If you imagine 3,000 rolls of toilet paper sitting in your bathroom, they likely wouldn’t all fit. Now imagine how many trees just those 3,000 rolls equate to, and the amount of deforestation it represents.
COP27 DO NOT MENTION THIS ATROCITY
They do. Deforestation. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Oct 29, 2022 16:01:16 GMT
Fairsociety unfortunately building on Greenbelt land is a Evil necessary
Especially with the homelessness increased by 115% in rural areas of England. Over the last 2 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2022 16:01:57 GMT
Knocking down millions of trees that absorb water and filter the atmosphere is one of the main reasons for global warming. yet again they wont highlight this because trees are big business, furniture, tree houses, work tops, you name it trees provide it. not to mention greedy housing developers raping greenbelt land to build houses for maximum profit. If they are really serious about climate change they need to put protective orders on forests and greenbelt land, if they don't it's hot air, and a means to raise revenue in green taxes ..... in other words a money making racket. By filter do you mean absorb CO2? Trees are natural filters, they absorb all sorts of pollution in the atmosphere, including car/plane CO2, cut them down and there goes our natural FREE air filters. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2022 16:04:34 GMT
Fairsociety unfortunately building on Greenbelt land is a Evil necessary Especially with the homelessness increased by 115% in rural areas of England. Over the last 2 years. No, it's a well know fact property developers want maximum profit, they get far better returns building on greenbelt that brownfield land, it's all about profit, why would they want to build houses on brownfield land when they can build the exact same houses on greenbelt but with twice the profits, don't be fooled. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Oct 29, 2022 16:18:27 GMT
Im not fooled how much Brown land is there in rural areas that's what point im making
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 29, 2022 16:47:46 GMT
Green or Brown it doesn't matter - the local people do not want it building on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2022 16:59:32 GMT
Green or Brown it doesn't matter - the local people do not want it building on. I agree, Wales appear to be stamping down on it, and rightly so, they are blocking most new build on both green and brown land, and restricting who can buy existing property in Wales, ruling out second home owners, and demanding properties are sold to local people and their families, not outsiders to rent out.
I AGREE.
|
|
|
|
Post by vlk on Oct 29, 2022 20:15:32 GMT
Just give your money and other property to the activists and the planet will be saved.
|
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Oct 29, 2022 20:20:53 GMT
Green or Brohousingesn't matter - the local people do not want it building on. Yea and there the first to complan there a shortage of housing they cant have it both ways |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Oct 30, 2022 0:45:57 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63418876My immediate thought (and I suspect that of a lot of other people), was nice one Rishi. But you never know. There must be some folk who take this global warming/cooling/weather bollocks seriously How about you guys? You couldn't make it up, Starmer bleating about him not attending and Labour PMs skipped 12 out of 13 previous summits hahaha. ...and dopey twat Ed Miliband goes on TV to display his fake outrage, and it turns out he stood in for Gordon Brown hahaha. PMQs should be interesting... order-order.com/2022/10/28/miliband-comes-a-cop-er-over-climate-summit-hypocrisy/ |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Oct 30, 2022 4:25:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 30, 2022 5:03:47 GMT
Usual MO from the lefties. Attack the source and not the content. have you any more little nuggets in your very limited repertoire? The lefties are just an echo of each other once you have heard one you have heard them all. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 30, 2022 7:26:20 GMT
Also you might reflect on the fact that water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - and present in the Earth's atmosphere in vastly greater concentrations - yet is never involved in global warming discussions. The reason is relatively straightforward. The amount of water vapour in the air is a consequence of warming rather than a driver of it No, it's far more complicated than that. If it were that simple there would be a feedback loop where the Earth went into catastrophic warming. The reason why it doesn't is because the Earth is buffered in that many of the warming factors can also cause cooling, which is why the Earth has been relatively stable for millennia. In the case of water vapour it can also cool the planet when it condenses and forms clouds. And the reason why it's not included in the models is because the changes of phase (from vapour to liquid and also to ice) are too complex to model. However, you also need to reflect on the fact that CO2 can also cause cooling. Plants use the Sun's energy to photosynthesise CO2 and create sugars which are essential for their growth. No CO2 no plants. No plants no animals. The process of photosynthesis causes cooling. So CO2 causes warming by the greenhouse effect and cooling by photosynthesis. Which is greater? Who knows. Nobody has yet done the calculations on how much cooling photosynthesis causes because no one's collected the data and it's too complex. But you can get an indication in that no one has actually managed to demonstrate CO2 warming in the Earth's system except in areas devoid of vegetation (deserts, ice caps). The Earth is a finely balanced system and the models that are being used don't reflect the actual complexity of this balance. In fact they have a crude coefficient that states a value for how much the Earth will warm for each ppm increase in CO2. That's why their predictions are wrong all the time. |
|
