Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

148

'National disgrace’: protest after tree estimated to be hundreds of years old cut down in Tasmania (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by aquarisces to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“Pictures of a massive, centuries-old tree on the back of a logging truck in Tasmania have sparked calls from environmentalists for Anthony Albanese to visit the area to see damage being inflicted on native forests.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats not in their context of thought.

Points that would align with 'Greeny lefties' points of view, don't enter the thought process. I think, there is no connection in their minds whatsoever with their 'legitimate business dealings' and environmental degradation. And its probably true for a lot of people at work. Your minds on the job and you're not thinking about the wider context of your role as much.

I think thats one reason why its so hard for the two opinions, (held by two different interest groupings), to understand each other. Because when they come into contact the groups are having two very different, and adversarial conversations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm. Perhaps.

I'm not some amazing best in class operator, but I'm thinking about the broader context all day every day while doing my job. It's hard to imagine that anyone wouldn't think that way.

Personally I think it has more to do with an illogical thought process by those on site, or perhaps inappropriate remuneration schemes. I guess this particular site has a manager hired by "Sustainable Timber" who may even be rewarded for profitability. Another aspect is that sometimes the last few trees are considered to have no opportunity cost. Like they think the first 95% of trees pay for costs, the last 5% is profit, and anything they can push the envelope on is a bonus, so 5% on top of what you were expecting doubles your profit.

Anyhow, in a controversial industry like that I'd expect that keeping the vocal detractors quiet is a key part of the job.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thinking about the wider context can be equated as any other important consideration. For us it might be important to consider the impacts of cutting down a tree, for the 'tree lopper' it might not be.

For instance, I am supremely uninterested by my cars engine, although i rely on it every day to get to work, and there would be large impacts on my life if it were to fail, I still don't maintain it very well. I will always push it that 5% extra because in all likelihood, nothing bad will happen, another road, another drive. And, the opportuntiy cost is I'd rather spend my scarce time on other more important subjects, like trawling Lemmy. It is only when the fan belt breaks and slaps me in the face that i start paying attention.

In a way the 'vocal detractors' are the fan belt snapping for the timber industry, until then they haven't worried about the costs of their logging practices. And like i would be with an unexpected cost with my car, they will be angry at the 'fan belt'. Its not the contextual issue that requires attention, but nonetheless vocal detractors are a convenient totem of anger. To them it isn't a discussion about climate or biodiversity, its about their perceptions of social standing, and mild dissatisfaction is quickly perceived as an attack upon themselves.

The most perfect example of this, is to see how many people seem to be, as you say, illogically angry when they hear from Greta Thunberg. I don't think it's illogical, or irrational, they are reacting to a very different perception of what Greta Thunberg is saying, than, i suspect how we react.