Yesterday at "B5 Aktuell" radiostation I heard an interesting report about forest fire danger in Germany, that it is higher in pure coniferous forests than in mixed forests and so on.
It was very interesting to hear that, but then the presenter woke me up by saying that after a long drought you should not throw any burning cigarettes into the forest because it could trigger a forest fire.
Is it just me, or do others share my opinion?
In my opinion you should generally throw no cigarette butts in the woods not important if it was dry for 10 weeks or has rained yesterday and also a cigarette butt that no longer burns belong in my opinion not in the forest, but should be disposed of properly.
Why do we always have to agree on such minimum goals and can not demand that the one who smokes in the woods also ensures that his cigarette is decently disposed of?
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Because anything higher costs way too much. We need subsidies.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Subsidies not to throw his cigarette butts in the forest?
How should this work?
Or do you mean a deposit system on cigarette butts?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit