Activists have set up camp for almost two days now in Aalistunturi to stop a forest from being logged by Metsähallitus. Their story has received a lot of attention from around the world! The police visited them and ordered the activists to leave, but they did not.

The Minister of the environment, Maria Ohisalo has also criticized Metsähallitus for logging the area. The activists demand that Metsähallitus stop logging in the area and ask that the Ministry of the Environment accepts the protection proposals.

#Finland #Forests #Climate #Biodiversity #ClimateChange #Protest #Luonto

Finnish activists are currently stopping a forest in Aalistunturi from being logged by Finland's state-owned logging enterprise, Metsähallitus. 400 hectares of cuttings have been planned for this area!

The activists demand that Metsähallitus stop all logging in the area of the proposed national park until the conservation proposals for the area have been discussed by the Ministry of the Environment. They also call on the Ministry of the Environment to expand the Aalistunturi protected area and to establish the national park as soon as possible.

Finland is committed to protecting 30% of its land area and halting the loss of nature by 2030. Despite this, the state itself is cutting down forests in an area of high conservation value, degrading the natural values and undermining the basis for the national park project. Although not all of the areas now being logged are old-growth or natural forests, they are part of a larger wider natural environment, in which fragmentation will affect the whole area. 

Northern Finnish nature plays a key role in both the protection of biodiversity and adaptation to climate change. As the climate warms, species will be forced to migrate north. The boreal Fennoscandian forests are globally significant carbon sinks.

The Aalistunturi National Park has strong support from local people. Both the national park initiative and the proposal to extend the protected areas have been made by local people. In addition to nature, the national park would also have a significant impact on the local economy and would ease the pressure on visitors to the congested Pallas-Yllästunturi National Park.

Simply protecting the remaining fragments of natural forests is not enough to halt the loss of nature or to compensate for the damage caused by short-sighted intensive forestry. Reduced felling rates and large areas of continuous protected areas are needed. The fairest and the most cost-efficient way would be to start by protecting state-owned forests.

These loggings promote short-sighted intensive forestry based on the exploitation of nature. Alternatively, investing in a national park would multiply the income in the long term through the jobs, business activities and ecosystem services brought by its values.

Finland is committed to the goal of stopping the loss of nature by 2030 and it is outrageous that despite this, logging that weakens our nature is still planned and carried out by the authorities.

With the collapse of Finland's land-use carbon sinks, it is of utmost importance that Finland now starts to protect more forests rather than continuously going over sustainable logging levels. If Finland is serious about reversing the collapse of the land-use carbon sinks, restoring biodiversity, lowering emissions and supporting rural workers – then they must show that with actions that reflect these promises.

#Finland #Forests #Climate #Biodiversity #ClimateChange #Protest #Luonto

Many predominantly well-known, wealthy cis (and other privileged) male figures are trying to spread the message that we live in an unfair system.

This ideology is troubling for numerous reasons. Firstly, I want to acknowledge that we are living in an unfair system, one where socially and systematically people are discriminated against because of their gender, race, sexuality, religion, abilities/disabilities, wealth, education, age and/or class.

Historically, cis, white, heterosexual men have acted in a way to make anyone else believe that this group of people are the most powerful. However, this power imbalance is now more commonly spoken against, which has led some privileged men to retaliate by further reinforcing this belief.

A recent example of this is Andrew Tate and Elon Musk tweeting about how 'the matrix' is controlling us all. Men like Tate hold a belief system that those who speak out against his misogynistic ways are in the wrong, making him a victim in a situation where he really is not one.

Look at Elon Musk, he is spreading the message that being 'woke' is wrong to millions of people. Being woke is simply calling out the injustices of the world, the injustices made by men like Musk and Tate.

Men like Musk and Tate have gotten to their positions of fame, wealth and power by oppressing others, and now the power is being taken away from them because this oppression is being seen for what it is. Instead of changing their ways, they cannot handle taking responsibility, therefore they blame everyone but themselves because it is not possible for them to believe that the most privileged people can do any wrong.

This ideology is quite frankly sickening. Sadly, because men like this hold power, their ideologies will influence new generations of younger, typically more privileged men. While Musk and Tate can sit behind a screen, their words have real effects on people's sons, husbands, brothers, friends, boyfriends, etc... which will directly impact the safety of those who are not as privileged in this world.

There are many people (mostly privileged ones) out there who fear equality because it means that they can no longer have more than others, and there are people in this world who are willing to oppress others simply to have more than them.

I do believe that at the end of the day all humans want is to feel loved and safe. Sadly, that is mixed up by many with having power and or money, etc...

There is no one simple solution to this problem, while banning Tate from social media is a great thing, a new privileged man will come up soon after and spread the same beliefs. That is why we need larger systematic and societal changes.

#Equality #HumanRights #SocialJustice #Privilege

Right now the Environment Council are meeting in Brussels to discuss the EU’s Nature Restoration Law and I have traveled from Finland to Brussels by train and boat to remind them that the longer we wait to restore nature, the more it will cost.

The EU Nature Restoration Law is an important part of the EU Biodiversity strategy, which calls for binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems. More than 80% of the EU’s habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is rapidly declining. It is vital to hold the EU responsible for this loss and immediately start taking action to increase biodiversity by restoring wetlands, rivers, forests, grasslands, marine ecosystems. It will not be possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees unless nature is restored - the first target is that restoration measures should cover 20% of the EU’s land and seas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.

Now EU Ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss their member state positions on the EU Nature Restoration Law, but these positions do not reflect the wants of EU citizens and are not compatible with the science that proves we need greater ambition.

It is no secret that EU environmental policies are not only inconsistent but that they often become distorted and unfulfilled, the EU’s new Nature Restoration Law is no exception. I have seen first hand how the debate around the Nature Restoration Law has been distorted where I live in Finland.

Politicians have taken ahold of the new law and have used it as an excuse for political dramas that have nothing to do with nature, but instead their own motives. On Top of this, the law has previously been delayed on EU level and agriculture and forestry lobbyists have have been trying to derail the law for quite some time now.

I will write more in detail now about what has been happening in Finland to paint you a picture of the kinds of attempts to destroy the law nationally. Politicians and lobbyists have tried to convince citizens that this new law is a punishment from the EU.

The EU isn’t forcing Finland or any Member state alone to restore nature, they’re making it mandatory for all member states because every country has destroyed and exploited their nature. This isn’t a punishment, this is an opportunity.

I will tell you the facts about nature loss in Finland: 1/9 species are threatened. 76% of forest habitats in Finland are now threatened. About 1% of the most diverse forests disappear each year and only 6% of Finnish forests are protected.

Instead of taking this law seriously, Finland's parties spent a lot of time questioning the law. Instead of debating how Finland must restore nature, they took the opportunity to distract from it for short-sighted party politics.

It’s not just the opposition parties that objected to this law but parties in the government themselves. Finland’s Prime Minister, Sanna Marin said at COP27 “the longer we wait, the more it costs”, yet her own party opposed the law.

This law is very much needed in Finland. The current and the previous governments committed to stopping biodiversity loss first in 2010 and then in 2020, but failed; therefore, it is important that Finland takes a new 2030 target seriously.

The opposition to this law came mostly from an economic standpoint, which is confusing as not only does restoration have a significant role in stopping biodiversity loss, but the economic benefits of restoration to Finland are estimated to be up to 10x higher than the costs.

The opposition to this law is making claims that this law would threaten the Finnish forest industry; however, the biggest threat to the forestry industry is the forest industry itself. Finland's land-use carbon sinks have collapsed due to overlogging.

Finland says they are committed to combating nature loss. So, If Finnish forestry is as sustainable as Finland and the forestry industry constantly advertises, why did they try to stop the EU Nature Restoration law?

The position that Finland ended up agreeing upon does not reflect the wants of people. Finnish people are worried about the loss of nature, more than 80% percent of Finns are worried about climate change or the loss of nature.

Finland’s official position is still that it costs too much money to restore nature, but to that I have to say: if you have destroyed nature, then you must pay for it, because the longer we wait the more it will cost. That applies to every EU member state.

We do not have the time to lose, emissions are rising, biodiversity is being lost and people are suffering and even losing their lives, mostly those who contribute the least emissions.

Every Member State needs a strong plan to restore nature and not one that will fail. This law is essential for people’s health, forests, climate adaption, rebuilding species populations, restoring waters, food security and so much more.

#climate #ClimateChange #NatureRestorationLaw #Nature #Biodiversity

I'm honestly quite upset right now and want to talk about why. I have spent a lot of time and money travelling to Brussels in order to protest tomorrow for an issue that not enough people are talking about, but unfortunately, I'm really sick so I won't be able to do it.

It feels very frustrating to have travelled the 3/4 day trip from Finland to Brussels (by boat and train), only not to be able to make the 30 min journey from where I'm staying to the point of the protest. I will still protest from the place I'm staying in Brussels, but because it won't be at the location, it means it will receive considerably less attention than If I were physically outside this specific location. This means that my goal of having my message spread will fail.

Right now, my whole life is activism. So much time, money, resources and... life is dedicated to it. I know I am only one person, but I want to spend my life making any difference that I can.I will still protest tomorrow, I would appreciate it if you will read it and share it because I know it just will not gain attention as it would normally. I am probably way too hard on myself, but yeah, I'm sick and upset right now and that's okay. I'm doing the best I can.

#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #Nature #NatureRestorationLaw #Biodiversity #environment

"Earth could lose more than a tenth of its plant and animal #species by the end of the century on current trends, according to new research which comes as nearly 3,000 scientists call for action from governments to stop the destruction of nature in the final days of negotiations at #Cop15."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/16/more-than-1-in-10-species-could-be-lost-by-end-of-century-study-warns-aoe

Week 120. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy is exacerbating the #climate and #biodiversity crises and destroying farmers' livelihoods. Member states' plans do not live up to their 'green' and 'fair' titles. This should be our last reform.

#FridaysForFuture

Today, I protested outside the European Summit in Brussels to let people know that forests are not renewable and that we must go beyond burning. We cannot replace the burning of fossil fuels with the burning of another carbon energy source, we need true renewables.

One guy stopped on the street to ask me about the situation, I told him that burning wood is worse than coal for our climate, to which he replied that we will then have to burn coal. It isn't one or the other, it's not fossil fuels or forests.

Wind, solar and geothermal are the #energy sources that our world leaders need to be investing in, not false solutions such as biomass. Right now, the EU has energy directives in place that are not in line with their #climate and #biodiversity commitments, this needs to change.

In the EU, strictly protected forests are being logged daily and half of what is logged in EU forests is being burned as fuel. We are seeing mass forest loss and our forests are being systematically converted to plantations which is terrible for our climate and biodiversity.

The EU is failing our climate and biodiversity commitments as long are they subsidising the burning of forest biomass and counting this burning towards renewable energy targets. It is not fair that European leaders meet behind closed doors and choose to fail us.

We need to lower emissions in half by 2030, this means we do not have time for carbon debts, we do not have time for forest loss, we do not have time for ineffective carbon capture technologies, we do not have time for the loss of our carbon sinks due to intensive forestry.

The burning of our forests is linked to countless human rights abuses, from threatening the way of life of indigenous Sámi communities to Europe's wood pellet imports fueling environmental racism. This industry cannot be falsely painted as sustainable any longer.

How many policies must #Europe create or reform until the right thing is done? We are not running out of time, we have run out of time already and now the consequences are being seen mostly by the people and places that have caused the least emissions. Let's go beyond burning.