You're viewing a single thread.
All of these views are valid. A tree has to be seen for what it can provide. If it’s more valuable to society and nature as a tree, leave it be. If other trees can gain from it being removed earlier than its natural decay demands, I’d argue to remove it.
A live tree has no value in on our financial system.
Shade from street trees provides fairly straightforward financial benefit in reducing cooling costs.
Can also make an area more attractive, increase happiness and also improve road safety if strategically placed.
Trees prevent soil erosion, keep water clean, provide the basis for many beneficial insects and so forth and so on. They have a giant value in our financial system.
Ok, now put a monetary value to that
I‘d have to get my tables from work. It highly depends on the species, soil, size, location, age, natural area of the species and so forth. A decently sized oak at around 100-150 years old usually gets weighed in at around 2000€. Variation however is a given.
And who pays the 2000€? Is it an annual payment?
It’s an investment? Just like an office building or a company car?
A live tree has no immediate quarterly value in our financial system.
This tree is by a path, so it's better to leave it be.
Other trees can be sustainably harvested and made into whatever our society needs.
Depends. Is it stable? Does it pose a threat to passer bys ?