Translated material
The "compensatory landing" trick
It is important to understand how officials deceive citizens when cutting down forests and parks.
Often, for such cutting down, promises are made about “compensatory planting”, they say, here we will cut down everything, but somewhere far away we will plant a thousand trees.
I’ll even omit the point that the biosphere is not only trees. Ultimately, sometimes forests need to be cut down for some truly justified purposes. It is interesting here that usually promises never include COMPENSATION FOR FOREST OR PARK AREA.
Let me explain what the fraud is here.
For example, there is a forest of two hectares. They want to cut down one hectare. It would be logical to compensate for the forest with another hectare, say on the other side of the forest, or in another place. However, officials do not talk about a hectare, they talk about trees planted. What does this lead to? And to the fact that, for example, a conventional thousand seedlings... are planted in an already existing hectare (of course, if they are planted at all). But a forest, a park, is a territory built in a certain way; you cannot plant a million trees per square meter. Such seedlings will either die or pollute the existing eco-environment of the existing forest. Those. officials, having cut down one hectare of forest, also pollute the second hectare.
Total.
It is necessary to achieve a change in the very principle of compensatory planting.
Firstly, ensure that we are talking about the area, and not about the number of seedlings.
Secondly, it is important to strive not just for planting seedlings, but for recreating, or rather carrying out work to recreate the eco-environment.
Thirdly, compensatory plantings cannot be cut into micro-slices - if a public garden is destroyed, there must be a public garden in its place, and not a hundred separate trees. If the forest is a forest.
Fourthly, compensation should really be compensation, if residents of a certain microdistrict are deprived of a park - they are not happy that a park will be built miles away from them - the park should appear right next to them. By the way, it follows that no one should be deprived of the right to green territory near their home. If this is the last public garden, then forget about its development.
And a special note about the green belts of megacities.
It is clear that without them, without greenery, there is nowhere. And it is also clear that cities are growing. How can this be?
The only way out is to leave the green belts of megacities untouched, moving the development zones away to such a distance as not to damage these green belts. And connect such new development zones with high-speed railway or auto routes to megacities.
In this case, even if the city grows, it will not be in continuous concrete deserts, killing everything green, but in rings - a green ring - a city, etc.
At the same time, just as the city and regions should be connected by transport corridors, it’s time to learn how to create full-fledged green corridors between forested areas. And if necessary, even build them specially. grow. This is necessary so that at least some fauna can survive in forests, even near megacities.
It’s quite stupid to get used to living in a situation where we are ready to do anything, even cut down forests, in order to get an apartment. And then we run through concrete bags in search of a playground for children, a park, a stadium, or a dog walking area.
It is necessary to strive to establish new standards of urban life. Investing in green thinking pays off in greater health, fewer medications, less wasted time (after all, we spend hours trying to get green) and a better mood.