Europe Is Sacrificing Its Ancient Forests for Energy
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I have seen remains of an Ancient Forest however. I remember some 3 meter wide tree stumps in 1950s. They were things of wonder, because you could see such giant trees only in american movies.
This is an exaggeration. Just walk around and check the age of buildings in city centers. We did have Dresden but we also have Paris and London. Their big towers survived the war. The royal palaces more than that.
About trees and forests, there are plenty of wilderness where almost nobody lives and nobody chopped wood for staying warm in winter. Example, those areas in Romania or most of the Alps. It was different inside cities. Even if not every city was bombed to dust, people was really chopping trees. My father told me that it was forbidden (Milan, Italy) but winter is cold.
Hope you enjoyed your forests while they lasted, that as few people as possible have to die this winter, and that you can maintain a good supply of coal and wood to burn in the mean time
People using vague terms like 'biomass' doesn't help. Food waste vs old growth forest are two very different thingns.
I kind of thought the proposed changes (don't cut down trees just for pellets, but it's okay to make pellets from the bits left over after making some planks of wood) had already passed. Have they just been talking about this since 2018? I couldn't find what they'd changed at that point (which apparently was the last vote).
There's also a parallel problem of old growth forests being cut down to be turned into planks or IKEA furniture. Which I think is already supposed to not be happening, but some companies might be cheating the rules. So better enforcement by government/corporate buyers seems worthwile even if this vote passes the amendments.
This is like "fighting for peace is like ..." They are not sacrificing anything. It is just good old business and corruption.
Wet and living wood is next to useless in the moment