Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets”!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Wood pellets.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann calls it “the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever”. Now, finally, after years of being warned, Germany’s mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.

Idiots and energy policy: Burning of “CO2-friendly” wood pellets driving mass European deforestation. Illustrative photo by P. Gosselin

Germany’s flagship ARD public broadcasting recently presented a report earlier today about how “CO2 neutral” wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe – a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who  recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy.

Deforestation up 49%

The ARD’s “Das Erste” reports how satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. The reason: “Because of the CO2 targets. That sounds totally crazy but precisely because of the trend to renewable energies is in part responsible for deforestation in Estonia,” says the Das Erste moderator.

Having spent some time working for the EU, Liiana Steinberg explains in the report how she recently returned to her native Estonia and was shocked to see how much deforestation had taken place over the recent years (2:25). “I discovered how the forests no longer exists here left and right.”

For “CO2-neutral” wood pellets

Where once massive hardwoods once stood now grows tiny fir trees. The harvested trees, the report says, were used for wood pellets – a form of renewable green energy. The trees, the pellet industry says, will grow back.

Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. According to Ms. Steinberg, bird life has fallen some 25%. “It’s wasted. Now we have to start all over again.”

Idiots “follow the science”

Climate activists, including the media like ARD, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature – “follow the science” they insisted again and again.  But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.

It’s sad that they are just waking up to this (maybe).




Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

25 responses to “Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 4925 Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets”!”

  1. Milieuramp: ontbossing in Noord-Europa met 49% gestegen om de “CO2-doelstellingen” te halen! | JDreport.com

    […] Lees verder bij de bron: Notrickszone […]

  2. Sean

    Of course they say “follow the science” because “follow the accountants” just doesn’t trend well. But the legal reality of how the emissions accounting is done is all that matters. The people making a killing in green tech know this. In the US, there have been companies accused of fraud in the bioenergy field. The irony is that the fraud does less damage to the environment than following the letter of the law.

  3. John F Hultquist

    Some important folks are making a lot of money from this.

  4. jimfrey

    I cannot see the problem burning coal and oil; after it is Nature’s rubbish that we are recycling. The same for landfill; everything that we use comes out of the ground; and once we finish with it, we should put it back into the ground.

  5. drumphish

    1 Tons Of Coal Equivalent to Joules = 29307600000

    Cord : a stack of wood comprising 128 cubic feet (3.62 m3); standard dimensions are 4 x 4 x 8 feet, including air space and bark. One cord contains approx. 1.2 U.S. tons (oven-dry) = 2,400 pounds = 1,089 kg

    •1.0 metric tonne wood = 1.4 cubic meters (solid wood, not stacked)

    •Energy content of wood fuel (HHV, bone dry) = 18-22 GJ/t (7,600-9,600 Btu/lb)

    Go find some coal in the hinterlands and you’ll be far ahead of the game, it is nothing new, was done a long time ago. Without coal, England would have been denuded 150 years ago or maybe even sooner.

    The Cedars of Lebanon would have been gone 500 years ago without some sort of forest management.

    The summertime high temps did not reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit this year at my location. It is now early September, I doubt that the high temp will be anywhere near a 100 degree temp, too late now.

    Whales were saved because crude oil became available for commercial purposes, copious amounts of crude oil trumped whale oil.

    It is not rocket science as to why crude oil became the desired fungible commodity, it cost much less than whale oil and the demand was there. Simple economics 101.

    You do have to keep beating the same drum, harvesting 100,000 whales each year for years on end will have a direct effect on the number of whales available to be harvested.

    Very productive year for crops of wheat, soybeans, corn, oats and barley, it doesn’t get much better.

    The high temp got to 98 for a couple of days, but that’s it.

    I will attribute the lower high temps to the Grand Solar Minimum that is probably here in 2020 CE.

    Again, very few vapor trails in the skies due to drastically reduced airline traffic.

    Must be an aspect of the new normal, whatever that is.

  6. Yonason

    “NEW NORMAL” = same as the “old normal,” except heavily embellished with psychotic hysteria.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2019/01/19/climate-hysterics-skyrocket-n2539295

  7. JAMES A KNOX

    THE STUPID USE TO FREEZE IN THE DARK IN THE WINTER ,THUS NO NEED TO DEAL WITH THEIR STUPID YEAR AROUND . THE MINUTE YOU HEAR GREEN SCIENCE SAYS, IS THE MINUTE YOU KNOW YOU ARE TALKING TO A GREENTARD . AND NO AMOUNT OF REAL PROVEN FOR A 100 YEARS SCIENCE ,WILL REGISTER IN THEIR PEA SIZED BRAIN PANS .

  8. tom0mason

    There is no evidence that ripping out thousands of hectares of trees will do any good for the environment. It just makes profits for forest owners and wood chip processors, while giving the consumers of wood chips a really brilliant virtue signaling sheen.

    The real problem with many of those with the ‘Green’ persuasion is they can not accurately see the BIG picture. They point at minuscule changes in the short term then screech, bluster, and bloviate about global this and global that but mostly about CO2.

    In essence these armchair ‘Greens’ see part of a modeled tree but not the real forest of observed evidence about them.

  9. Nieuws 8.7.2020 - Leefbewust.com

    […] Continue to Destroy Our Forests Nigerian scientists have identified seven lineages of SARS-CoV-2 Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets” Ocean absorbing more CO2 than previous studies had suggested Ozone Pollutants Still Increasing in […]

  10. Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets”! |

    […] Reposted from the No Trick Zone […]

  11. Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet "CO2 Targets"!Climate- Science.press | Climate- Science.press

    […] Reposted from the No Trick Zone […]

  12. Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets”! | Watts Up With That?

    […] Reposted from the No Trick Zone […]

  13. Scientists Just Discovered Their Past Carbon Budget Guesses Have All Along Been Twice As Wrong As They Thought – Vote in person!!

    […] Related: Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Targets”… […]

  14. Environmentalists Cause Environmental Disaster In Europe

    […] By: P. Gosselin via NoTrickZone September 11, […]

  15. DawnieR

    ACTUAL SCIENCE: Tress, shrubs, plants & grass ALL NEED CO2; it’s ‘plant food’. Which leaves us with ‘clean air’. CO2 (Carbon DIOXIDE) is NOT a bad thing!!! It’s CO (Carbon MONOXIDE) that is BAD!!!! The only time CO2 is bad is when you’re breathing in large quantities of it; like, when WEARING A MASK! We, here on Planet Earth, NEED CO2 or EVERYTHING, including HUMANS, will DIE!!!!

  16. Roger Payne

    Strange: millions of years ago, Earth processes and evolution created out of dead animals of all kinds, and plants and trees, transformed matter which became coal, oil and gases.Humanity evolved out of Earth and other processes, carbon and CO2 essential to all life. This humanity, product of Earth and factors we know little about, discovered the riches under the soil and found they could be used to transform everything, inventions, living standards, food production, raising us all up from mere hard existence to culture and civilisation. Now, these same factors have become a “poison”, nasty “carbon” we must reduce to “zero” ( impossible of course). That these very factors can go on to lead us to a properly new development which would be “green” is ignored. So the Green revolution turns into its opposite.

  17. Umweltkatas­trophe: Entwaldung in Nordeuropa hat um 49% zuge­nommen, um „CO2-Ziele zu erreichen“ – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  18. Brian

    Using any carbon based fuel will ad to the atmospheric co2. Using indigenous forests decreases the amount of co2 used by said forests also reduces the atmospheric oxygen which the conversion from co2 to carbon and oxygen. This makes a double whammy. More co2=less oxygen. The oxygen levels are dropping with big, polluted cities down to 50%. With internal combustion essential for travel, trade, and transport just remember that a 2 litre engine traveling at 60kmh uses 2000litres of air. We cannot keep this up. Some other form of energy must be found. Hydrogen cells may be the answer. with water being the main emission. However this will still use oxygen. Unless the hydrogen is derived from water, it won’t fix the low atmospheric 02%

    1. Cees

      There are at least 2 holes in every sentence. How will you fix that?

  19. Umweltkatas­trophe: Entwaldung in Nordeuropa hat um 49% zuge­nommen, um "CO2-Ziele zu erreichen"Climate- Science.press | Climate- Science.press
  20. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #424 | Watts Up With That?
  21. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #424 - Flowing News

    […] Environmental Disaster: Northern Europe Deforestation Up 49% Due To Effort To Meet “CO2 Target… […]

  22. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #424 |
  23. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #424Climate- Science.press | Climate- Science.press
  24. Van Snyder

    Greenies never do full-system analysis. New BEIR study says solar in Britain costs GBP 44/MWh and gas costs 85. Wonderful. What do you do at night? How much storage is needed with wind and solar to provide firm power? How much does that cost? Greenies’ answer to those questions is “Huh?”

    Many people have gotten the data and done the math. The minimum is 400-800 watt-hours’ storage per average watt of wind+solar capacity, depending upon location and wind/solar mix. May 2020 price for Tesla PowerWall 2 was $0.543/Wh (not kWh). All-electric US energy economy would need about 1,700 GWe average. Batteries last ten years. Work it out. Total cost is 2-4 times total US GDP EVERY YEAR!

    Wind and solar need 100% backup, available 100% of the time, because you never know when bad weather will happen.

    The next time Tambora erupts and gives us another 1816 “year without a summer,” 800 watt-hours/watt storage will not be nearly enough. The need will be closer to 10,000 watt-hours/watt.

    And don’t get me going on solar (or nefarious actor) electromagnetic pulse vulnerability, or destroying nuclear waste — which only fast-neutron reactors can do.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close