Came across this old Toyota advert. It makes me smile and wince at the same time, because it really hits uncomfortably close to the mark. People working with trees in (sub)urban environments are having to battle tree owners or municipalities prioritizing other issues over trees all the time. This is a worrying development, especially in view of the fact that towns are changing so rapidly that there is not really the time for a mature population of trees to establish itself before requirements change and everything is started from scratch again.
Yes, indeed, you could love:
☐ your car
☐ green house
☐ … (delete as applicable)
more than your trees. After all, they only produce the oxygen we breathe.
It also reminded me of this case of an Elm tree in Brighton which New Scientist ran an article on a while ago (see article below).
I find this very encouraging: People need to start to understand that trees are more than just a mere commodity, they are essential not just to quality of life in towns but also to life on Earth as we know it. This doesn’t mean protecting every tree at any cost. Certainly there are situations in which a tree becomes dangerous or a change in its surrounding is so significant that it is not compatible with the preservation of the tree. Still, as the case in Brighton shows, alternatives often are possible.
The aim, in my opinion is to approach such decisions with the necessary respect and diligence, to try to see all sides and based on that to come to a balanced, well founded decision, which allows the tree to keep its dignity and is sustainable.