“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.”
“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.”
These fucking idiots.
Even a climate change denying coal mining greenie hating capitalist can see that cutting down big trees like that is detrimental to their industry.
If you were absolutely hell bent on cutting it down you’d get an auditor or third party to give you the nod so you have something to say in the inevitable shitstorm.
Yep, it’s pretty devastating 😞
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.
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.
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.