For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
Federated Farmers of New Zealand is a lobby and advocacy group for farmers and rural communities. ^[Wikipedia]
https://xcancel.com/FedFarmers/status/1926787639874637905
Pine trees are eating up sheep and beef land βnot because forestry is a better use of that land, but because of New Zealandβs flawed [Emissions Trading Scheme] settings π² π
I don't want to be a contrarian, but pine tree monocultures -either for lumber or for carbon credit schemes- have so little ecosystemic benefit that they might as well be a field left to fallow. Especially if pines are not native species.
I'm sure these farmers don't care about that one bit, but let's remember to be critical of cosmetic "rewilding" projects, too.
Net neutral is still better than net negative tbf
Permanent native grasslands, often maintained by traditional herding and transhumance practices, have been found to be more effective at carbon storage than planted forests. Not to mention the added benefit of increased biodiversity in local flora and fauna.
Again, it's like 99% clear that the Farmers Federation of New Zealand doesn't mean this kind of grassland of course, but my point is still that planting pines for the sake of planting them is not better than not using the land at all, or to go over it with sheep and cattle.
Why are pine trees a net negative? What's the right tree?
I am hungry for knowledge from the @TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net.
Almost nothing can eat them, they smother growth on the forest floor, and they tend to burn in dry periods.
Disclaimer: this is independent knowledge not endorsed by @TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net
New Zealand still has tree ferns and shit, crazy unique flora there. They are objectively the correct choice, because they look cool as fuck. They aren't technically trees though.
Here's a super fun stitch, depending on location the answer is "pine trees" but from a totally disperate clade of gymnosperm that is almost 100% not what they're talking about in the tweet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathis_australis
Araucariales is such a sickass clade.
I had a hard time finding ecosystem maps in a form Iβm familiar with but this site was a good level for my familiarity with NZ, and I think in time Iβd find a plant list on here https://environment.govt.nz/publications/environment-aotearoa-2019/theme-1-our-ecosystems-and-biodiversity/
Follow up: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/environment-aotearoa-2019/theme-2-how-we-use-our-land/#issue-2-changes-to-the-vegetation-on-our-land-are-degrading-the-soil-and-water
https://lris.scinfo.org.nz/layer/104400-lcdb-v50-land-cover-database-version-50-mainland-new-zealand/
https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/indigenous-land-cover/
https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/exotic-land-cover/
https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/urban-land-cover