Why not say "66 hectares"? What is this nonsense of measuring things in "football fields"? Particularly in the same week as the World Cup final? Football has so many meanings especially in NSW. Football as in soccer? NRL? AFL? The article provides the actual amount of woody land cleared:

In 2024, 24,103 hectares of woody vegetation was cleared, a decline on the previous year – when clearing skyrocketed to 32,837 hectares – and 19% below the 2018-2024 average of 29,800 hectares.

But even that was eight paragraphs into the article after initially giving the fact "Clearing of vegetation across the state increased by 16% in 2024, reaching 81,293 hectares". Is that bigger number actually relevant? Are we talking about clearing bushland? Or suburban areas for housing? They don't say. They also skimmed over the fact that land clearing was below the average annual amount. So is land clearing declining after all? Or were there other reasons in play for the lower number?

The article also doesn't say how many trees were re-planted - that'd be a super relevant statistic to provide in context.

I'm upset by this article for all the wrong reasons. They're trying to rustle my jimmies about land clearing, but they're rustling them for cherry-picking some facts to highlight while skimming over relevant information to provide a full picture of the issue. I think it's important to call out shitty journalism like this, because of we don't, we'll end up with 'Fox News for the left' side of politics. I don't want that.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Most people can't envisage the size of one hectare, let alone more. If we want to get through to more people about the amount of habitat loss we have to make it easier for them to understand the gravity.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Everyone knows how far 100m is. It's an insult to your fellow Aussies to suggest they don't know that a hectare is 100m x 100m. We all learned about hectares in primary school.

I live on the other side of the country, so don't know the gravity of the topic as you put it, and after reading this article, I still have no idea of the gravity.

We aren't told how much woody land NSW has. We aren't told whether this reducing figure is even a problem. All we are given is a number and that the chief executive of Nature Conservation Council of NSW finds that number disappointing. That's the whole core of the article.

No suggestion of what that number should be. No proposed policy that would be preferred. They don't even tell us whether that land is being cleared for construction and development or for pulping woodchips to make toilet paper.

It's a lazy article that is lacking in all the relevant info and hangs everything off 'clearing land bad. Rage bait engagement good'. And look, here we are discussing it. So, from their perspective, it's a great article.

I'm not hostile to land conservation by any means. And if the land is being cleared in an unsustainable way, I will be critical of that. But that's the issue as well - this article doesn't actually address that topic. For all I know, 0.03% of NSW per year in cleared land is perfectly sustainable.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nath, not everyone can visualise well. I know some personally and I am not wanting to insult anyone. The article is based on a NSW media release. Here's an update if interested: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/news/20-years-nsw-land-clearing-data-reveals-next-steps-reform

This ref will give you an idea of the land clearing in NSW. https://www.seed.nsw.gov.au/slats-dashboard

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think "hectare" is the measure that people struggle with. It's how many hectares a given area takes up. For example, if you put 24,103 hectares into one big square, that square would be smaller than 16km x 16km. People would assume this should a much bigger square. 241 square km (24,103 hectares) is 241 km x 1 km.

These links are 1. The State government press release that the article is referencing and 2. Some more useful that should bloody well be interpreted, summarised, referenced and included in the damn article. The fact that this information is out there further highlights how lazy the article is.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

And what is the point of your number crunching? 🤔 😆

The point I'd like to end with, if possible, is that if people get an important message in a simpler way, it is better than not getting the message or avoiding it because it is too complicated. Not everyone has your level of education. Were you able to find out what percentage of NSW is actually cleared, and what is sustainable? All the stats and info given by the NSW govt doesn't make it any easier for most people to work out and I imagine journalists are run off their backsides. This article imo, was only meant to translate a govt press release into a simple article, not a feature or deeper investigation.

[–] FireWire400@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

What is this nonsense of measuring things in “football fields”?

For real, the media likes to measure in soccer fields over here. At least the term "Fußball" isn't very ambiguous but how many people really know how large a soccer field is?

It's essentially a different way of saying that something is "somewhat large".

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago

Effing thugs.

[The NSW Nature Conservation Council] called on the government to fix the state’s vegetation rules, which were relaxed under the previous Coalition government in 2016 [and] for the government to scrap a specific clearing designation known as “invasive native species”. This classification allows landholders to clear native vegetation that has regrown in ways that are different to its original state.

It accounted for 61% of authorised clearing – meaning clearing that had a permit – on rural regulated land in 2024, according to the data.

Mumford said the invasive native species classification was not a scientific classification and “allows landholders to clear native vegetation under the guise of invasive native species”.

“It’s one of the key drivers of land-clearing and habitat loss in NSW and that classification needs to be removed,” she said.

On Tuesday the NSW Greens said they would introduce a private members’ bill to repeal the former Coalition government’s changes to native vegetation laws and address the state’s “runaway” land-clearing when parliament resumes.

[–] username_1@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago

It will continue while you keep measuring area in football fields like Americans.