Thread by @philsturgeon

People are concerned about cutting down 30 hectares (ha) of ancient woodland for HS2. We have 308,000 ha of ancient woodland, so that’s 0.01%.

We need to reforest 30,000 ha/year. In 2019 the target was 5,000 ha and we only did 1,420 ha.

This is a bigger problem than 30 ha.

Some of these ancient woodlands are little scraps of trees. Here’s the total phase 1 & 2a list of what’s being cut down. 0.2ha is less than 1/5th of a football pitch

It’s not nothing, we shouldn’t remove woodland for no reason, but trains are a legit way to decarbonise transport

https://twitter.com/dpeilow/status/1356543736109490181

Are trains really all that? Yes. Carbon Brief wrote about how aggressive train expansion can improve transportation emissions and in the U.K. transportation is our biggest sector. Planes, cars, trucks, diesel trains, all need decarbonising / replacing. carbonbrief.org/eight-charts-s…

Will HS2 Ltd replace the 30 ha they’re cutting down? Yes. 650 hectares of woodland are being planted along the route. It’s not gonna look the same immediately but we need so much, and +620 ha is welcome. gov.uk/government/new…

“But what about electric cars!”

Roads are being built through ancient woodland all the time under the premise that cars will eventually be clean. We’re below 5% EV’s and any gains there are countered by the rise of SUVs. Then there’s pollution from tyres. airqualitynews.com/2020/03/09/air…

It’s important to add that saving 30 hectares won’t do anything to the countries emissions, nor will planting a few hundred hectares. Even if we get from 13% to 20% forest cover it means nothing without huge decarbonisation of industry and transportation. carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ho…

The world loses 26,000,000 ha of forests yearly (the UK is responsible for quite a bit of that nrdc.org/experts/elly-p…), but we're getting upset about about 30 hectares on home turf and ignoring the bigger picture. Rewilding and decarbonisation on a MASSIVE scale.

The U.K. is ~13% woodland compared to ~37% in Europe and saving 0.01% isn't going to fix that. First graph shows annual reforestation rates, and second shows total areas of woodland. 30 hectares would be a about one pixel on this scale.

If you got this far you care about reforestation. My charity @GrowingTheTrees and @Ecologi_hq are working hard to rewild as much as we can. Please sign this petition to urge the UK government to make 30,000 ha the new yearly target!

https://twitter.com/Ecologi_hq/status/1372175740268118016

And of course, there's more to decarbonising the transport sector than improving train network capacity. Some trips don't need trains. Or cars. Or buses. Some trips would be a bike ride if people weren't scared of being flattened. Support LTNs and protected bike lanes too.🤘

Lots of people coming in here with general arguments for or against HS2 which have no place in this thread about woodland cover. All the usual “108 billion” “20 minutes to Birmingham” “120 years to be neutral” sound bytes are well debunked in various places already. 🧵#2

https://twitter.com/philsturgeon/status/1356646361832312842

The protectionist argument relies on idea that leaving our ancient forest alone is saving them. Wildfires, disease, infestation, storms, drought, will all see HUGE losses to woodland (more than 0.01%) without drastic cuts in emissions. #ClimateCrisis

https://twitter.com/andyheald/status/1371361013455536128

You might see a video of a tree felled by a chainsaw and feel instant rage and sadness, but you don't see a video of a giant majestic woodland suffering over years from Elm disease, Ash dieback, brutal storms, lack of regeneration, drought, and beetle infestation. That's a bias.