In the Herald today:
‘NEARLY 14 million trees have been chopped down across Scotland to make way for wind turbines. The Scottish Government expects to be generate 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources this year – but concerns have been raised about finding a balance between green energy and sustaining forests. Now statistics, released by Forestry and Land Scotland, show that 13.9 million trees have been axed to make way for 21 wind farm projects since 2000.’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms/
OMG, 13.9 MILLION! What a disaster! Should an SNP minster resign? Someone must be responsible.
Wait, could they be replacing any of those trees? Far, far, down the page, we see:
‘That figure for felled trees should also be contrasted with that for the number of trees planted in Scotland over the years 2000 – 2019, a total of 272,000,000, and renewable energy developments fit well with this.’
So, 272 million planted since 2 000 and only 13.9 million felled. Am I missing something here? I’m no expert but isn’t that quite a replacement rate? Is the Herald headline a bit pointless? Is it even misleading?
I wonder, how does the Scottish rate of planting compare? See this:
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
One report I read on this topic did point out that newly planted trees do not provide the same environment for wildlife etc as old woodland, which does seem reasonable (I’m trying to be fair here) but, on the other hand, the shere scale of new plnting is impressive..
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think one needs to know what kind of woodland is being felled and replaced by the windfarms. Were they old (or ‘ancient’) woodlands which would otherwise have been left alone – and conserved – in perpetuity? Or were the woodlands replaced by windfarms ones that had been planted only for the commercial production of timber and therefore always had known, limited life span?
I don’t often venture BTL on The Herald but glad I did so for this article as a host of contributors with evident forestry, land management and environmental expertise are taking this article apart!
One notable BTL contributor states:
“This is a truly awful piece of journalism. The statement in the headline seems intended simply to paint the most negative picture possible, despite a FLS (Forestry and Land Scotland) explanation that, ‘it should be noted that these trees – being a commercial crop – will have eventually have been felled [sic] and passed into the timber supply chain in any case.’ (with acknowledgement to a Mr James Robertson)
The same contributor ends with this: “Is this just another attempt to portray Scotland as a really rubbish country? Could he be on to something with this last observation?
LikeLiked by 3 people
You really have become top TuS investigative reporter Stewart – I’d ask John for a pay rise if I were you.
That comment you found sounds like a critical bit of context to the ‘news’ item!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Contrary is now shop steward. I’ve arranged to increase Stewart’s salary infinitely making it still zero.
LikeLike
Yep, that’s the trouble with multiplying anything by zero,,, equally you could divide by infinity of course. I’m sure Stewart will be pleased with the outcome, so, as shop steward, I’ll approve this new pay rise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Any trouble from you and you get promoted!
LikeLike
Ohhhhhh, that’s sounding like tribunal talk that is, you canny threaten me, I’m the shop steward and know my employment law! (Theoretically)
LikeLike
Also worth pointing out that some windfarms were built where there were no trees eg Braes of Doune which was built during Labour’s time in office at Holyrood. In fact by the time the Labour/LibDem coalition left office in 2007 around 42 windfarms were up and running and around another 45-50 were at various stages of construction or making there way through the planning process.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And some turbines are even built with a financial benefit to the local population! But don’t tell the Herald… 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person