Tesla pause German gigafactory construction after environmentalists protest cutting trees

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

.

 

Again i couldnt care less about wildlife. If an endangered snail or whatever loses its home im fine with that. Living in a world without red pandas or bald eagles is fine with me. 

 

 

And that comment makes it obvious I should

not waste any more time on you.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

Again, you are obsessed with the city mindset. I'm sure that system would work great in Paris. How about in the Wisconsin suburbs, or in in Texas. Not everyone has the same population density as Europe, nor do we want it. I find it funny that you say the perspective of spending my own money for person convenience is selfish but then act like everywhere should act like the downtown of a big city. 

 

As for having a self driving car that can go off and do other tasks, it would depend both on my personal compensation for the service as well as my ability to filter by what it's doing. Going out and doing automated deliveries would probably be fine, but I don't want it going out and picking up a bunch of drunks who are going to vomit on my floor. As a value add, it would be nice, but I'm not going to accept a company just taking my property and using it for another service without my input. 

Actually Texas is one part of the world that are working heavily on the concept. It will probably be one of the first parts of the world to embrace self driving community cars. Throughout Texas technologies are being installed to help enable just that, from sensors and 5g at traffic junctions to whole suburbs setup with this future in mind. New housing is being built with all the roofs positioned for the best solar cell alignment, roads being laid with provision for chargers and fibre etc. While you may not see it, Texas are in fact one of those areas leading this 

[RonnieOP]

11 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

And that comment makes it obvious I should

not waste any more time on you.

Why? 

 

Why should it be ok to tell people what they can or cant do with their land over an endangered snail that nobody knew was there, or would notice if gone?

 

If you made a list of what a tesla plant would give germany (jobs, tax income, more EVs, etc) and compare it to a endangered insect or recoon. Which one is more beneficial.

 

So why care about it?

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Why? 

 

Why should it be ok to tell people what they can or cant do with their land over an endangered snail that nobody knew was there, or would notice if gone?

 

If you made a list of what a tesla plant would give germany (jobs, tax income, more EVs, etc) and compare it to a endangered insect or recoon. Which one is more beneficial.

 

So why care about it?

So it’s ok to steal money from someone they didn’t know they had?

[maartendc]

11 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/17/21140666/tesla-gigafactory-4-berlin-gruenheide-environmental-protest-pause

 

Pretty ironic that tesla is being stopped for environmental concerns when one of the selling points for their cars is that they are better for the environment. But if Musk is right that it's not a natural forest then I don't see a big problem with clearing part of it. 

92 hectares is a HUGE area of forest. Why on earth would they need so much space for a single factory?

 

Also, surely they could find some postindustrial sites for this, rather than cutting down a forest. There is no shortage of postindustrial abandoned sites in Europe / Germany, that could be cleaned up in the process.

 

Seems to me like an American company coming in and doing things the American way. The US has way more space and natural resources. (anyone who has driven through the US knows what im talking about, the country is huge). In Europe those are scarce and valuable.

[LAwLz]

I feel like a lot of people, including this forum, have love- or hate-boner for Elon and will either absolute love everything he does, or is against everything he does, for no logical reason.

 

He could cure cancer tomorrow and people would still say he is a bad person for X and Y reasons, and that people shouldn't use the cure.

 

But he could also run over a bunch of school children and some people would go "well only 18 of the 20 children died while 19 of them would have died if he had been driving a Ford".

 

 

It's like a cult, on both sides. In general, I think the whole environment debate has become more and more cult-like on both sides.

[Bombastinator]

14 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

just plant twice as many trees as you removed?

I mean tesla has the money to do it...

But finding the space might be hard.  Populated place.  If he had another place to build the factory he probably wouldn’t have cut them down.

[RonnieOP]

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

So it’s ok to steal money from someone they didn’t know they had?

No. 

 

And that literally has nothing in common with what i said.

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

But finding the space might be hard.  Populated place.  If he had another place to build the factory he probably wouldn’t have cut them down.

Its a man made forest where every tree was planted with the sole intention of being cut down to make cardboard.

 

So if they were worried about the number of trees they had they should of planted some long long ago and not just relied on trees they didnt plant and they knew were going to be cut down anyway.

[TechyBen]

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No. 

 

And that literally has nothing in common with what i said.

It does.

 

You seem to think rules and laws are not required on private land.

 

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Its a man made forest where every tree was planted with the sole intention of being cut down to make cardboard.

 

So if they were worried about the number of trees they had they should of planted some long long ago and not just relied on trees they didnt plant and they knew were going to be cut down anyway.

Person A sells land. Person B says "wait, that was land not appropriate for sale". Hence the disagreement in Germany.

[suicidalfranco]

what's the issue?

just let them built the plant whilst planting the same amount of trees elsewhere

[spartaman64]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I feel like a lot of people, including this forum, have love- or hate-boner for Elon and will either absolute love everything he does, or is against everything he does, for no logical reason.

 

He could cure cancer tomorrow and people would still say he is a bad person for X and Y reasons, and that people shouldn't use the cure.

 

But he could also run over a bunch of school children and some people would go "well only 18 of the 20 children died while 19 of them would have died if he had been driving a Ford".

 

 

It's like a cult, on both sides. In general, I think the whole environment debate has become more and more cult-like on both sides.

i hate musk i love his companies

[Bombastinator]

7 hours ago, maartendc said:

92 hectares is a HUGE area of forest. Why on earth would they need so much space for a single factory?

 

Also, surely they could find some postindustrial sites for this, rather than cutting down a forest. There is no shortage of postindustrial abandoned sites in Europe / Germany, that could be cleaned up in the process.

 

Seems to me like an American company coming in and doing things the American way. The US has way more space and natural resources. (anyone who has driven through the US knows what im talking about, the country is huge). In Europe those are scarce and valuable.

Conversion of hectare to acres for the american oldies such as myself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare

 

Its not small by any means, but not incredibly huge as factories go.  They do call it a gigafactory.  
 

Does sound like he’s going to have to find something well over 250 acres of unforrested land in Germany and turn it into forested land though.  Medium/large farm for Germany. Maybe even 2 farms.  1 Small one for the US.  Not gonna be cheap.  I don’t know what farms in Germany go for these days.

 

Im starting to see why this is “temporary”. Man’s going to have to build a pretty large public park.  Totally doable though.

 

Thinking he could get away without doing it that is a bit surprising.  Should have been part of planning.  Unless he already has and people are still complaining.   

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, divito said:

The trees were already going to be eliminated with their original purpose, so that has no bearing on whatever is currently happening.

Incorrect. That was their purpose 50 years ago, now it's just a forest. A forest with endangered species in it.

10 hours ago, divito said:

There are so many things we collectively take for granted as a society that aren't "good," but were better than the alternatives at the time. If everyone worked along the logic that you are, we'd have never progressed anywhere.

We'd have progressed in a less harmful manner. The reality of it is that action should have been taken decades ago to drastically reduce car traffic. Electric cars are just a band aid on a gunshot wound.

 

I also take issue with the idea that "progress" is inherently worth any consequence. Isn't improving our lives the whole point of technological advancement?

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

And conversely,  just because a solution doesn't tick all the boxes doesn't mean its no good  and should be ignored. 

I mean... the fact we're having this discussion in the first place seems like a pretty clear indication that it's not being ignored. Though again, it's not a solution - it's just stalling.

11 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

How about in the Wisconsin suburbs, or in in Texas. Not everyone has the same population density as Europe, nor do we want it.

Low density zones aren't the problem. Do you know how many people live in Paris? A whole sixth of the entire French population, that's how many - and across the western world (and most of Asia) most people live in densely populated cities. Cutting down on those people's car usage would have a huge impact on the environment. Now, I don't think car pooling is very effective - though it's better than nothing. I'd much rather get better public transports like buses and trams, they're more reliable and more efficient (if organized correctly).

11 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

I'm someone who strongly believes in the free-market's ability and collective interest to do that on its own accord rather than being forced to by governments.

Too bad that has literally never worked and the sole reason we're in a climate crisis right now is because the "free market" decided that it was more profitable to keep burning coal and oil until we all die. You know what's actually dangerous? People who live in a fantasy world where problems would solve themselves if we just let corporations do whatever they want - and advocate accordingly. There are no instances where deregulating something has lead to the "free market" finding a better solution rather than exploiting the fuck out of it. Privatization of infrastructure has universally lead to worst service. Tax breaks to "incentivize business" have universally lead to increased gentrification and poorer working conditions. There is no scenario where corporations doing whatever they want has resulted in them acting for the "collective interest".

12 hours ago, Phill104 said:

So would you be happy for the owner of the land right in front of your house to slap in a 100 story tower block? That is why planning permission exists, to protect people as well as wildlife, water, drainage, potential pollution issues etc. Just because you own some land it does  not, and should not, mean you can do exactly what you want on it.

BuT tHe FrEe MaRkEt will magically regulate itself and not put that building there!1! /s

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Incorrect. That was their purpose 50 years ago, now it's just a forest. A forest with endangered species in it.

We'd have progressed in a less harmful manner. The reality of it is that action should have been taken decades ago to drastically reduce car traffic. Electric cars are just a band aid on a gunshot wound.

 

I also take issue with the idea that "progress" is inherently worth any consequence. Isn't improving our lives the whole point of technological advancement?

I mean... the fact we're having this discussion in the first place seems like a pretty clear indication that it's not being ignored. Though again, it's not a solution - it's just stalling.

Low density zones aren't the problem. Do you know how many people live in Paris? A whole sixth of the entire French population, that's how many - and across the western world (and most of Asia) most people live in densely populated cities. Cutting down on those people's car usage would have a huge impact on the environment. Now, I don't think car pooling is very effective - though it's better than nothing. I'd much rather get better public transports like buses and trams, they're more reliable and more efficient (if organized correctly).

Too bad that has literally never worked and the sole reason we're in a climate crisis right now is because the "free market" decided that it was more profitable to keep burning coal and oil until we all die. You know what's actually dangerous? People who live in a fantasy world where problems would solve themselves if we just let corporations do whatever they want - and advocate accordingly. There are no instances where deregulating something has lead to the "free market" finding a better solution rather than exploiting the fuck out of it. Privatization of infrastructure has universally lead to worst service. Tax breaks to "incentivize business" have universally lead to increased gentrification and poorer working conditions. There is no scenario where corporations doing whatever they want has resulted in them acting for the "collective interest".

BuT tHe FrEe MaRkEt will magically regulate itself and not put that building there!1! /s

Which endangered species?, how endangered?, what are their needs? Can they be moved? Is this area part of a larger forested area? Are the creatures in question also part of THAT larger forested area? Can that larger forested area if it exist be expanded in a different direction?  Was this even already done?

 

Lots of questions I’m not seeing answers to.  
 

This whole “I don’t think he should have to do ANYTHING” argument is ridiculous.  It doesn’t even work in the USA, and it’s a country more permissive about that kind of stuff than literally ANYWHERE else in the world except maybe Brazil (which is terrifying) and even the USA didn’t used to be.  

[RonnieOP]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

It does.

 

You seem to think rules and laws are not required on private land.

 

Person A sells land. Person B says "wait, that was land not appropriate for sale". Hence the disagreement in Germany.

No i dont think that at all. Nor did i say that. 

 

And even this article doesnt say what they are doing is illegal. Its just activists bitching.  The land wasnt the governments. It was a man made forest with the sole intention from day one to cut the trees down to make cardboard. So why now are they bitching about cutting the trees down?  

 

If they were dumb enough to rely on these trees and didnt think to plant more somewhere else thats on them. But for decades they have known the trees were coming down.

 

Musk is going to plant millions of trees as well. So hes doing more then any of the protesters.

 

Its not like germany is going to die off without these trees.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Which endangered species?

Some kind of bats, apparently. Took me 2 seconds on duckduckgo to find out.

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Can they be moved?

Unlikely. Also they seem to prefer somewhat older trees so planting a new forest would be no solution.

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Lots of questions I’m not seeing answers to.  

That's because you're asking the wrong person - I don't live there, I'm not part of the protests. What I'm saying is that the concerns could very well be legitimate and brushing them off like this is irresponsible. Maybe it's not a big deal, but it definitely needs to be investigated and people there seem pretty convinced that it is a big deal. A big enough deal that a court decided that construction should be delayed or stopped entirely.

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This whole “I don’t think he should have to do ANYTHING” argument is ridiculous.  It doesn’t even work in the USA, and it’s a country more permissive about that kind of stuff than literally ANYWHERE else in the world except maybe Brazil (which is terrifying) and even the USA didn’t used to be.  

I don't know what you're talking about here. I'm not arguing for deregulation, quite the opposite in case you missed the heavy sarcasm in that last line.

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

No i dont think that at all. Nor did i say that. 

 

And even this article doesnt say what they are doing is illegal. Its just activists bitching.  The land wasnt the governments. It was a man made forest with the sole intention from day one to cut the trees down to make cardboard. So why now are they bitching about cutting the trees down?  

 

If they were dumb enough to rely on these trees and didnt think to plant more somewhere else thats on them. But for decades they have known the trees were coming down.

 

Musk is going to plant millions of trees as well. So hes doing more then any of the protesters.

 

Its not like germany is going to die off without these trees.

You kind of did say exactly that.  That it wasn’t what you meant is possible.

 

”millions of trees” where?  In Germany?  Germans like trees and Germany is not America, which your argument doesn’t even work in BTW.  It would be against the law.  In the US if a company wants to develop a protected area they have to create a different one twice the size.  That’s the law.  In the US.  One of the most “we don’t give a shit about plants and animals” places on earth.  This is so much the case that I’m wondering if such a step hasn’t already been taken.

 

Theres a lot of complaint without a lot of situational knowledge going on.

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You kind of did say exactly that.  That it wasn’t what you meant is possible.

No.

 

Me saying that i personally dont care if cutting down the trees messes with some endangered snail is not the same as me saying laws shouldnt apply to private land.

[LAwLz]

36 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Incorrect. That was their purpose 50 years ago, now it's just a forest. A forest with endangered species in it.

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Unlikely. Also they seem to prefer somewhat older trees so planting a new forest would be no solution.

Some points to add:

 

 

This forest does not have much life in it. Since it was planted and grown for the sole purpose of becoming cardboard, it is basically just a single type of tree (pine tree to be more precise). This means that few animals are actually suited for living in it. To be more precise, one type of bird (Eurasian hobby bird) and a particular type of bat would need to be reallocated.

The good news is that relocating these animals is expected to be a fairly smooth process according to conservationist Schmitz-Jersch.

 

Would you be okay with the factory being built if:

1) The animal life could be relocated, which seems to be doable with a little bit of effort according to one of the conservationists in touch with Tesla.

2) Tesla plants 3 times as many trees as they cut down, which they have already vowed to doing.

 

 

To me, this seems like a non issue.

[RonnieOP]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Some points to add:

 

 

This forest does not have much life in it. Since it was planted and grown for the sole purpose of becoming cardboard, it is basically just a single type of tree (pine tree to be more precise). This means that few animals are actually suited for living in it. To be more precise, one type of bird (Eurasian hobby bird) and a particular type of bat would need to be reallocated.

The good news is that relocating these animals is expected to be a fairly smooth process according to conservationist Schmitz-Jersch.

 

Would you be okay with the factory being built if:

1) The animal life could be relocated, which seems to be doable with a little bit of effort.

2) Tesla plants 3 times as many trees as they cut down, which they have already vowed to doing.

 

 

To me, this seems like a non issue.

Tbh i dont see why they should have to plant 3 times as many. But since they are willing good on them.

 

The bats and birds i personally dont care about at all. If someone does and they want to relocate them thats fine. But shouldnt be an issue here imo.

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Some kind of bats, apparently. Took me 2 seconds on duckduckgo to find out.

Unlikely. Also they seem to prefer somewhat older trees so planting a new forest would be no solution.

That's because you're asking the wrong person - I don't live there, I'm not part of the protests. What I'm saying is that the concerns could very well be legitimate and brushing them off like this is irresponsible. Maybe it's not a big deal, but it definitely needs to be investigated and people there seem pretty convinced that it is a big deal. A big enough deal that a court decided that construction should be delayed or stopped entirely.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I'm not arguing for deregulation, quite the opposite in case you missed the heavy sarcasm in that last line.

You were not.  Your argument was deregulation, but that’s not what you were arguing for. Regulations are ALWAYS put into place for specific reasons.  Removing the regulation is the same as removing the reason unless a different solution to prevent the problem is chosen.

”regulation” is for when something is so incredibly freaking dangerous that violations cannot be allowed to even happen.  Look at what is happening now I. The US.  There’s all the companies poisoning land and killing people, and yes they broke the law, but it’s on the government to prove it except the government steps in and prevents that from even happening so destroyed lives.  Screw that.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Some points to add:

 

 

This forest does not have much life in it. Since it was planted and grown for the sole purpose of becoming cardboard, it is basically just a single type of tree (pine tree to be more precise). This means that few animals are actually suited for living in it. To be more precise, one type of bird (Eurasian hobby bird) and a particular type of bat would need to be reallocated.

The good news is that relocating these animals is expected to be a fairly smooth process according to conservationist Schmitz-Jersch.

 

Would you be okay with the factory being built if:

1) The animal life could be relocated, which seems to be doable with a little bit of effort.

2) Tesla plants 3 times as many trees as they cut down, which they have already vowed to doing.

 

 

To me, this seems like a non issue.

What is wrong with the other alternative, that they develop on the vast areas of brown field land that exist not too far away from this site? The only reason I can see is cost, land where planning permission already exists is a lot more expensive.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Some points to add:

 

 

This forest does not have much life in it. Since it was planted and grown for the sole purpose of becoming cardboard, it is basically just a single type of tree (pine tree to be more precise). This means that few animals are actually suited for living in it. To be more precise, one type of bird (Eurasian hobby bird) and a particular type of bat would need to be reallocated.

The good news is that relocating these animals is expected to be a fairly smooth process according to conservationist Schmitz-Jersch.

 

Would you be okay with the factory being built if:

1) The animal life could be relocated, which seems to be doable with a little bit of effort according to one of the conservationists in touch with Tesla.

2) Tesla plants 3 times as many trees as they cut down, which they have already vowed to doing.

 

 

To me, this seems like a non issue.

I'm not the one who needs convincing. Not to mention that deforestation and animal endangerment is only one of the concerns raised.

 

Also we shouldn't just blindly trust companies to keep their spoken word on something like this. Saying they'll plant 3 times as many trees, pinky promise!!! isn't good enough. Have them sign something. Though again, planting trees somewhere else doesn't do much for people living there, does it?

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

You were not.  Your argument was deregulation, but that’s not what you were arguing for. Regulations are ALWAYS put into place for specific reasons.  Removing the regulation is the same as removing the reason unless a different solution to prevent the problem is chosen.

Dude, I'm literally arguing for regulation. And no, removing a regulation does not always mean the reason for that regulation is gone. Case and point, the repeal of net neutrality was deregulation despite the reason that regulation was put into place still being extremely relevant.

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

”regulation” is for when something is so incredibly freaking dangerous that violations cannot be allowed to even happen.  Look at what is happening now I. The US.  There’s all the companies poisoning land and killing people, and yes they broke the law, but it’s on the government to prove it except the government steps in and prevents that from even happening so destroyed lives.  Screw that.

I agree. The government should prevent that from ever happening. And in this case, if the factory really has a big impact on the lives of people there then the government should stop it from being built.

[RonnieOP]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not the one who needs convincing. Not to mention that deforestation and animal endangerment is only one of the concerns raised.

 

Also we shouldn't just blindly trust companies to keep their spoken word on something like this. Saying they'll plant 3 times as many trees, pinky promise!!! isn't good enough. Have them sign something. Though again, planting trees somewhere else doesn't do much for people living there, does it?

Whats the inpact on them losing the trees? 

 

According to an article from 2018 33% of Germany’s land area is forest – that is 11.4 million hectares with over 90 billion trees.