In my climate, tree establishment is getting more difficult and expensive because of stronger summer droughts. The local city plans for five years of establishment watering now, at an overall establishment cost of ~$4,000 per tree.
A lot of urban trees are badly planted as well. There was a very old tree round here which died, because most of the area around it was tarred over and it couldn't get access to rainwater when it did fall.
Roots can extend like 1.5 times or so the high of the tree. In each direction. Paving everything to 1 m of the trunk and expecting the tree roots to breath or be able to survive is extremely dumb.
We need to develop some sort of permeable pavement around this trees or, much better, none at all. Granting a bigger amount of this space by law could be done tomorrow. Taking selfies of yourself planting a tree where is not space for the roots, is just virtue signaling.
Instead to dump trees in some coins of our cities, we need a way to include entire forests to act as a big air conditioner for the city, central park style. And the will to make this places thrive instead to see it as a nuisance that must be cleaned where the unemployed people prune everything at sight. Nobody would put unemployed people at charge of the Mona Lisa. Trees are much more important for our survival than the Mona Lisa.
Totally. The tree I was referring to was at least three hundred years old, and had survived a road being built by it. Then the local government decided to pave the path so it got hardly any rain.
There is also a tree near me which has barely grown in thirty years due to close planting and most of the area near it being paved.
By whom has the obligation to enforce laws in a country; Normally called the executive branch of the government. Environmental crimes are still crimes, as is damaging public property. Trees have an economic value attached. Destroying, lets say, $50,000 of public property should raise some eyebrows at least.
Unless some exceptions apply, the neighbors suffered a damage in the value of their real state. Specially if is proven than the wood was stolen and its money was pocketed by some private actor.
Shouldn't that money come from increased taxes on one of the primary causes of the climate change making it more expensive? E.g. gasoline automobile fuel?
One private jet flight produces more pollution than a car does in its entire lifetime. They spray their exhaust fumes thousands of feet up in the sky Yet private jets do not get anything like the same exemptions. I wonder why.
Yes, I do happen to know about jet fuel. There was a scandal at one of the COP summits when it was announced that private jets and private yachts would not have the same tax rates.
Private jet flights are extremely frequent, and are used by wealthy or powerful people. They even use them to go climate conferences. They are used to go to the WEF at Davos in Switzerland, and there are supposed to be so many going there that they have to build extra hangar space.
Even someone like Taylor Swift reportedly uses a private jet all the time to go to her fiancé's games. All of those exhaust fumes go straight into the upper atmosphere.
