On Friday at 1:00pm GMT we are hosting a live Q&A about the issues surrounding climate change. What do you want to ask our experts? Comment below. They won’t just be discussing trees, so ask anything to do with the issues and approaches to tackling one of the biggest threats to humanity.
Sarah, have the scientists looked into the option to use synthetic biology or chemical processes to bind the carbon of CO2 in material that could be use for buildings (e. g. artificial wood-like material), dams or artificial hills or landfill? This would keep the carbon in the ground in fixed form and could also replace real wood, cutting down the need to cut down more trees as well as plant industrial forests of monotonous conifers. Best. Bernd
I disagree with 'let nature settle the forest by itself' approach. There has been a lot of research on how badly deforested area cannot recover itself, without any help. For example, Easter island used to have huge trees that supports local kingdom in building ships and buildings. Ever since the big trees disappear in 18th century, the island forest has not even recover till this day.
Are tropical storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.; are they in any way in the slightest impacted by climate change? Could Hurricane Dorian have been less severe?
Title is total clickbait. It’s not the trouble with trees. It’s the trouble with tree monoculture. Anyone who has ever done extensive tree planting with a forest management program (such as myself) knows you are better off selecting a minimum of 12 species, and ideally double that... to avoid monoculture infestations that decimate your plantation. Additionally, the variety must include mostly local species so they thrive naturally, and fruit species for the local animals to thrive also. As for “harvesting every ten years lowering carbon sequestration”, that is also a crock if done correctly. You first cull weaker trees at 7 and 14 years, allowing stronger trees to expand and cover the areas previously occupied by weaker trees: thereby fortifying your forest. And as for a self- sustaining business concern, you pick trees to cut after 20 or 30 yrs and you don’t cut more than 1 or 2 percent of the trees you planted and replant new trees in their place right away... so your average tree will reach 50 to 100 yrs, you’ll never have land clearings, and your carbon sequestration will be minimally affected by the ongoing commercial concern. Simple as that. TREES ARE THE SOLUTION! Monocultures are not.
Forests have a climatic role not only regarding carbon sequestration. They provide shade, and thus reduce temperatures and increase moisture at local level. Natural regrowth is really powerful, and it can be accelerated and improved through sustainable forest management techniques, such as forest enrichment, among others. The economic factor can never be despised in the efforts to increase the forest area globally, to tackle climate change.
Further, farming compacts the soil and starve it of nutrients not relevant for farming. So besides the trees themselves, when leaving the ground alone, the soil gets porous so fungus and bacteria can sequester additional carbon + there is also a sponge effect humidifying the air above ground, which has a direct cooling effect and keep the whole area cooler. This is why a forrest is noticeable colder in summer than the surrounding fields as you say. Tropical forests have 5-6 time higher metabolism, so every acre is worth more there than in Europe, but still we all need to do our part too.
@@Tore_Lund Your claims are unfortunately a lie for 80% of global lands. Desertification is a natural process in most of the world if land is left alone, and the only way to sequest carbon in the soil is through intense holistically managed grazing. The lady featured here has achieved 20% of this guy - ua-cam.com/video/QfTZ0rnowcc/v-deo.html (specifics at around 14 minutes). Or this ua-cam.com/video/xMjKcCfBtfI/v-deo.html
@@jenspetersen5865 Thanks Jens, I suspected you knew your stuff, so I should have phrased this as a question instead! I was thinking of the tempered climate forests in Europe, but true, where they have a hard time growing, this won't happen by itself as a desertification method. Yes Grazing was an improtant part also in the book summary I tried to remember in my first reply.
@@Tore_Lund The thing that often gets missed is that the world and climate is complicated. Setting wolves out in Yellowstone did wonders, as did Chernobyl for the wild life there as damaged as it was, as do planned management like what Savory promotes. In temperate climate like ex. in Denmark (from your name you could be Danish) we have huge areas where planed grazing would massively increase biodiversity and soil function, but I am not convinced that you couldn't switch between some years of holistic management and some with industrial mono culture use. In the end it is about how much good we can do with little effort. In Denmark we subsidised Tesla S with roughly 100000€ per car for which we at the time could have bought 15000 times as much CO2 reduction on the CO2 exchange and just destroyed the rights.
Where did you get the idea that this video encourages deforestation? It doesn't even provide an overall anti tree planting perspective as it gives examples of it done right and providing real benefits to the local community. It's simply about how we shouldn't take countries planting millions of acres of monoculture as an actual perfect solution to Climate Change, because it objectively isn't that.
@@robotplant5260 Can you not appreciate insights on a particular matter without spinning it into some different narrative? Deforestation is a problem (and implicitly one accepted by almost certainly everybody watching this and certainly the video by its framing of forest loss) - but it's just not the only thing in the world. Realizing the limits of reafforestation, particularly of harvested mono-cultures, is interesting and useful, irrespective of the harms of deforestation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I planted somewhere jn the neighborhood of 3 million trees during the 70s through the 90s, in the Pacific northwest. The problem is that they are now logging timber at about 30 years, so a lot of those trees have already been logged and replaced, without ever reaching a fraction of the size of the old growth which originally covered the hills.
@@nicko8605 Yep. It was how I made a living for 23 years, replanting clear-cuts, burned over woods, and even, in the case of the Mt. St. Helens blast zone, volcano blasted forest land. I'm too old for that brutal labor now, of course, but I still miss it, for some reason!
it's already been happening due to the extra CO2 www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
pablo rages now I’m all for doing nothing and letting nature take its cource but FRN “"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.” And what about invasive species eh? Just let that harm monoculture? True a contrarian could say their are cases of beneficial ones but what about the dominating ones like invasive see grasses. Humans obviously did something to mess the planet up as it and still humans need resources so demand just keeps growing; it would be foolish to adopt the philosophy of nothing to stop our past self’s efforts.
“The research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% - an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined - and still feed the world.” josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf UN IPCC report 2019, Chapter 5, Page 76. 33% of global GHG can be mitigated by a global Vegan diet scenario. “Where no animal products are consumed at all, adequate food production in 2050 could be achieved on less land than is currently used, allowing considerable forest regeneration, and reducing land-based greenhouse gas emissions to one third of the reference “business-as-usual” case for 2050, a reduction of 7.8 Gt CO2-eq yr-1. Springmann et al. (2016b) recently estimated similar emissions reduction potential of 8 Gt CO2-eq yr-1.” www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf
jhunt5578 These are great points and well referenced. If we cut our meat and dairy consumption by half and ate more plant based food instead, the pressure to deforest would be gone, and we would free up 10s if millions of sq km of land to reforest and return to natural wetlands and peat. I sometimes think the issue of land use is seen as a nice to have. On the contrary - it we got this right, we could secure much better food supplies, completely change the outlook for warming and restore massive amounts of lost life and biodiversity all at the same time. It's potentially transformative AND unlike the energy system, we can actually have a big impact with consumer choices. But government action will still be required to change things fast enough. Meat and dairy must pay for the damage they do, and only regulation can internalise those costs.
@@michaelrch I agree that regulation is needed, the cost of animal products is artificially low due to subsidies. Animal ag's damage goes further, it's the leading cause of rainforest deforestation, ocean dead zones, species extinction, top soil erosion, it causes up to half of all ocean acidification and up to 46% of ocean plastics from miles and miles of fishing line and nets lost by vessels. At our current rate of fishing we'll see fish stock collapse by 2050. Animal ag also uses half of the worlds grain and 1/3rd of our fresh water and we're headed towards a water crisis by 2040. On top of that there are health benefits to ditching meat and dairy. Harvard Law review: “Climate change. Ocean dead zones. Fisheries depletion. Species extinction. Deforestation. World hunger. Food safety. Heart disease. Obesity. Diabetes. The list goes on. There is one issue at the heart of all these global problems that is too often overlooked by private individuals and policy makers alike-our demand for and reliance on animal products.” harvardelr.com/2015/10/26/elrs-a-leading-cause-of-everything-one-industry-that-is-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-to-thrive-on-it/ Don't forget that market consumerism has a great effect too. We don't have to wait for the government to tell us to eat sustainably, we can change our diets now. In this talk from Oxford researcher Joseph Poore he notes that the annual GHG mitigated between a meat eater and a Vegan is a co2 equivalent to 11 return flights from London to Rome. ua-cam.com/video/8miQs3mPGu8/v-deo.html Eating animal products is like fly tipping or emptying plastics into the ocean or dumping oil into soil - it's incredibly harmful to the environment but most do not understand how severe a plate of food can be.
In Ireland Bord na Mona is still burning turf, and draining the bogs, which are massive carbon sinks. When the bogs are drained they plant Sitka Spruce non-native tree on land where we know there has been no forest for 5000 years.
@FreeDOMofspeechNZ makes no sense, carbon is related to the population rising globally. You can't blame migrants for this one. Be more efficient with land, plant diverse forests . discourage people having more than 2 kids are much more realistic ways to deal with global issues
What Ireland does with its bogs and environment is appalling. We are one of the least forested countries in Europe and most of the forestry we have is monocultured Spruce planted for rapid profit. Trees that acidify the land and offer little for wildlife. The once common Nightjar is now extinct, we are the only country in Europe to lose the Nightjar. We don't seem to be bothered too much by losing our species. We are of course superb at talking the talk, but actually doing something, that is meaningful is not so popular.
@xia yxz dont think that is going to happen ........talk is now ofrewettin the bogs , flooding them .....willalso be using them to site windturbines...... 4 very big ones went up 2 years ago very near me .....lovely to see working .........
@@Eoin_D CO2 comprises 400 parts per million of our atmospheres composition or 0.004% (I may have dropped a O), if it was much lower plants would struggle to survive. Global temperatures are not rising.
Visit natural woodlands near you, and plant those native species you see flourishing.... For me, it included ponderosa pine, a long lived, wild fire resistant tree...
Personally I have planted more than 100 trees of all kinds in what used to be a fields used for crops in southern Brazil. I have another 50 native fruit trees which I grew from seeds almost ready to be planted. Will be planting a lot more if am able to. The plan is for the fruit trees to attract more wildlife which will create a more pleasant and cooler environment during the summer months. It would be amazing to offer elderly couples in southern Brazil enticing financial benefits to reforest their plots as opposed to continue farming the land, which for many is hard due to their advanced age.
At 0:20 That clock ticking sound with deforestation gave me shivers. A strong way by filmmakers to send message that we're clearing forests much faster than before.
China and India have planted so many trees that NASA is tracking the changes from satellites. www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ "The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries."
It's a shame it's all BS www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2 www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
maybe it is a mix of multiple reasons, and maybe it is different by area (e.g. Brazil subsidizing meat export and therewith clearing of forest to produce soy for animal feed; versus Somalia being in civil war for 60 years or so and traditional social structures, i.e. cultivation and conservation of land, having almost vanished).
Hi Making Film. Check out the extended excerpt from our interview with Simon Lewis here: econ.trib.al/gVw2Vv2. He talks about reducing meat consumption as a way to fight climate change.
There is no such thing as animal agriculture, the term agriculture is only when refering to plants. Agriculture is the one taking most of the land, livestock take a lot but still much less than agriculture.
I object to this re-wilding concept and cringe at the deer shown at that point 1:44 which usually eat shoots and saplings, preventing forests from growing. When wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, trees started growing again in places deer were scared to be like ravines. Caledonia (Scotland) has severe deforestation and it can't come back without fences to keep out the sheep and deer, and I doubt they're keen on re-introducing wolves near all that livestock.
I love how the pictures used for deforestation are of lumber plantations. Lumber plantations help combat deforestation by growing trees for lumber sustainably and producing more wood per hectare than natural forests do.
@@flamingtarantula yes i am talking about momocultures that provide no direct biodiversity to the land they are on. That also produce lumber at a cheap enough rate to reduce the incentive to clear cut or illeagally log other areas. Don't get me wrong though the land could be used better. Sylvo patures would be great. Also there are several ecosystem out there that only have one tree that stretch for many hectares or even miles.
And thousands of people are sorrowful so much about that... - by the way, I know wonderful video - I'll find a link - it calls somehow.. 'how trees awaken the city'... - I gess it has Engl. subtitles... - it is not about Siberia🌲🌲😥.. , - it is about other district on the west - about people in Kaliningrad... and their movement to protect their trees✌🏻- I'll find the link...
ua-cam.com/video/mMPJqnU5hSc/v-deo.html no English subtitles unfortunstely((.. - actually I didn't expect it, because I know most videos of that project are with eng. subtitles((.. - I don't know, why this one particular doesn't have some((... Briefly in a couple of worlds: it is about volonteers in Kaliningrad (Noth-west district) who's trying to save ancient trees aside the roads in their district, which are (the trees) keeping specific nature 'arcitecture' in the district from the times it belonged to Germany... but already for more then half of the century it is their (soviet, then Russian) specific also... And it is very beautiful.. And it is very... good trees.. - they need care and protection... - not destruction.. 🌳🌳🤦♀️.. - I wanted to say only.. That the fact that we didn't struggle for trees in Siberia.. 😢😢 - doesn't meen that... noone cares about the trees... - we are not all as one yet((.. - but there're people that really care...
Carbon is not the cause of climate change, carbon levels historically rise after the temperatures have risen. All this land used for tree planting, where do we grow the food to feed the world.
@@axios7603 poor maintenance, poor safety standards and human error. Nuclear power plants are considered clean because they produce very little pollution when they work right. The issue is that it's not easy to keep them going right
The best approach to reforestation is not the conifer monocultures monoculture meaning only one culture or one species of tree. The best approach is also not letting forests re-wild themselves but rather making commercial edible forests which take a hybrid approach of both ecological agriculture and permaculture on top of both rewilding and monocultures in other words a poly culture forest poly meaning many cultures of trees. Most of which are either edible meaning the bear fruit or nuts otherwise have a medicinal use or a potential commercial application. The best way to plant forests that insure both profit without the need of carbon credits or whatever or mono culture is to make the forests themselves profitable as an edible forests
It's obvious we have to live far more moderately whilst doing the right thing with the land. But people like their comforts. Here's to serious moderation in our lifestyle. Mark
Rea Kariz 6+ billion of humans in the developing countries are aspiring to rise to your quality-of-life level in the coming decades, which will inevitably double (triple/quadruple) their carbon footprints.
If it makes you feel better,we're moving towards much cleaner energy, banning diesel/petrol fuelled cars by 2030 (along with many other countries) and other appliances, and the northern hemisphere has more trees than it had in a decade or two (from when I last checked). We need rapid change, but most of us are doing it.
Tree planting is not a silver bullet but it’s a worthy endeavor. The benefits are immense. Shade on a hot summers day. There’s more to trees than carbon sequestration.
Upkeep cost, labor. Pine is planted, left for 10-15 years, thinned then left for another 10-15. Profits. I know several fruit farmers around, like any other farmer their success is largely case to case. In a perfect world, absolutely food sources would be the optimum choice but I understand why people opt not to on their land.
Again that is a little simplified, we also need carbon capture from other methods, planting trees are not enough even though I think it is terrific to do!!
@Antoine NeVe The video talks about the problems with MONOCULTURE planting but the title sensationalizes it, to make it appear as if trees are a problem in Climate Change. That's why it's click bait.
Tree planting doesnt just clean CO2 from the air it also generate moisture...imagine if we hand a few more giant rainforests...there's be more rain..and with less desert there's less super hot surface temps. It's all encompassing and yes making Forrests and rainforests would be not that hard and would go along way to cool earth
If we can get farmers worldwide to farm organically it will make a biiiiig difference! We were organic farmers and we cover cropped with vetch and bell beans and worked them back into the soil....in a short time humus and earthworms became abundant and crops were amazing! We used no pesticides nor herbicides. However, we had to be on our toes to follow what and exactly was always happening. My hope is that we can send all our food wastes to be composted and then taken to farmers.
Mind control. "You must resist climate change, you must resist climate change, give us all your freedom and will will protect you from climate change", you must fight climate change, climate change is your enemy"
@@thedogrunner carbon is not a gas the element C is a solid of which diamonds and graphite are pure forms co2 is 1 part in 2500 in the atmosphere is a free floatng molecule moving in the air currents it does not form blankets or smother the earth and is captured by plant leaves to make more complex compounds of life it takes 6 co2 to make one sugar molecule in a plant you guesswork managers would do better if you knew anything
@@chetlopez8942 The point is, carbon is not going to end the world in 12 years like the left wants us to believe. It's not ever going to cause a collapse to civilization as we know it. And, if it is going to be a problem then the solution is not less people. The solution is clearly more people. New ideas, new innovations. We are not a species that curls up and dies. We innovate. Invent. I don't buy the climate crisis nonsense. I hope you don't either.
Carbon capture technologies have an efficiency of 10%. Innovation cannot solve climate change. Only legistlation and a mobilisation of labour can stop climate change.
Not far from where I live, there was a written account of the early settlers felling the trees and burning much of the wood (some would be used for buildings etc). The thing that I found startling is that these above ground fires ignited the organic biomass beneath the surface and the newly created fields would smoke through the winter melting the snow. The amount of organic material in the soils was remarkable when you compare the thin organic layers (top soil) we see today. I am reforesting a gravel pit... no easy task with course mineral soils.
@@Green.Country.Agroforestry I would have to dig up some before pictures, but the after result is 16 foot trees after 20 years of growth. Of course growing in gravel is not easy for many trees, the pines have done better than the spruce, I have some Burr Oaks that have adapted well in some course soil areas, and Sugar Maple as well, as my soil is about 7.3 in PH. I do have to water the trees a bit for the first few years, and I also would have higher mortality than ideal sights. I have had less success with trees that like acidic soils. It is a fight, and a love all at the same time. But I would rather see trees than Buckthorn. Cheers from Ontario!
@@pseudopetrusoh shoot was goin f to suggest honey locust but so far north is different world. Hope you protect your forest from 'careless firestarters' this year
I have used Honey Locust with success. I germinated the wild thorny type, and they do quite well in poor sights. I was lucky to find a "local" stand. I am not sure if they are indigenous, but they do thrive.@@DrSmooth2000
Is there not a place for intensively managed forests that are used to create biochar, to be buried back in the soil? That is then locked up as pure carbon for the long-term, not to mention all the benefits to farming.
With smart forest succession you can regenerate a land in 10 Years versus 100 years, with great biodiversity both in flora and fauna and without fertilisers . This video can be damaging to the effort of people who achieve this kind of challenge. The conclusion that letting the forest succession on its own as the best technique is simplistic.
@Joseph Seeley 👍in tropical areas the food forest is the only sustainable agriculture, in temperate climate a food forest is an important part of agro-silvo-pasture . Hi Joseph, are you doing Permaculture?
@Joseph Seeley there is a free Permaculture course online (I think it's called regenerative institute , there are certainly others) you have to pay only for passing the Pdc. Having done a food forest I believe you have already a solid understanding on how nature works . Success with your food forest! If you want to visit our website for some ideas you can find the website aflorestanova on the WordPress platform. Best.
Love this video. I don't entirely believe though that there isn't enough land to plant the needed amount of trees needed. Suburban Gardens help too, especially when it comes to diversity and city and town councils can do a great deal more of planting on residential estates as well as making their planning requirements more inclusive of trees when dealing with developers. There is so much potential.
The argument that harvesting trees reduces carbon sequestration because the products return the carbon to the atmosphere is just wrong. Using the paper example, the paper is recycled and eventually put into a landfill which means the paper is sequestered. We should plant trees, we should harvest trees, we should recycle, and we should sequester in landfills.
marciacsr I agree. We should cut mature trees which don’t absorb as much carbon and sequester the carbon in products and landfills and then plant news trees which will absorb carbon. It is time to responsibly cut and replant the forests.
In the past I learned that old growth forests were a net carbon producer because they were decomposing and bacteria was the dominant factor. Lately the ecologists are saying that all forests are carbon sinks, even the Amazon. That doesn't make sense to me because the term "carbon cycle" implies a complete circle and a net equal balance.
9:44 Incorrect. Current carbon emissions are at 55 billion tons of Co2e per year. So 200 billion negative emissions by replanting all forest land as to pre-agriculture levels is about FOUR YEARS, not TWENTY YEARS worth of emissions, unfortunately.
I'm not sure what you are hinting at but I find it a very sober information - it says "trees" have to be done in an intelligent way plus trees are definitely not enough and we have to do more. I think it's important to not stay naive and look at things in just a bit wider context so future doesn't surprise us badly
The man is right and the sad truth is there has to be a cut in emissions. In short cut Human population growth to sustain the world. I wonder how the governments would do these.
Right but what you fail to mention is that the UK was once essentially fully forested aside from wetland areas... Meadows, moorland, heathland, the open uplands. They're all man made habitats. Every single species that grows in these habitats will also grow under the cover of trees. Yet due to pressure from rich industries such as farming and shooting (in the uplands) the public are told misinformation. In that keeping these habitats free of trees we are increasing biodiversity. It's the biggest scandal in the country and one no one knows about it. Look at our uplands. They house only a handful of species. They can be described only as green deserts! If they were forested that wouldn't be the case. But we keep these barren treeless landscapes such as moorland and heathland. This is not for the benefit of wildlife but of people. If you look at tree planting from an ecological standpoint instead of a climate change one. Then it becomes quite clear that we owe it to our native species to reforest our land and bring it back to how it was when we first arrived. So no there is no problem with tree planting at all. The country naturally should be carpeted with trees. Pretty much all of our wildlife is adapted to a life in the forest. After all how can we lecture counties like Brazil and Indonesia to stop deforesting their land. When we here in the UK have already done it and out right refuse to reverse what we have done! All the while lecturing them on deforestation. It's laughable.
Conifers are a fire hazard during dry and/or hot times. The one main question I would ask your experts is to fully disclose their past work, study and related accreditation’s.
Agreed. seemed like they spent their time pointing out the 10% bad about tree planting than focusing on the 90% good. I feel like they should focus on topics that are 90% bad and 10% good, that would probably open more eyes.
Thank you soo much for producing this!! We are a permaculture design firm, think tank, and production company in the U.S. This was a revelation we realized when we looked at the "buy a tree to save the planet" craze that fadded through here a decade ago with a permaculture perspective. In 2014 at a permaculture convergence we shared our findings and thoughts on the matter while encouraging people who really cared to stop driving and burning gas. As you can already guess, it was not well received. It is refreshing to see the same conclusions drawn and shared about the tree planting pandemic that doesn't do a whole lot. Again thank you. P.S. Here is a link to our cheap, easy, really effective way to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. The system works soo well that we siphoned forest fire smoked air from outside (as is shown in atmoscrubbers in action) for multiple years. Feel free to share if you find it interesting.
but I recently visited a Himalayan state of India called Himachal Pradesh on way to its famous hill station capital Shimla I saw whole hills covered with pine and deodar tree growing naturally .In lower altitude around Dehradun ,capital city of Uttarakhand Saal trees were growing in large numbers also naturally with some mango , Semal ,neem trees dotted around them and I have visited many villages there and saw nature itself practicing monoculture (all trees were native except eucalyptus there) also there are many cities in India which are named on common tree found in that region Baroda now called Vadodara(Baroda derives its native name Vadodara from the Sanskrit word Vatodara, meaning 'in the heart of the Banyan " )
"How would that impact live" -human vise less deaths and illness from dust, toxicparticals and else from coal, oil, etc burning. Climate vise still increase in temperature.
There is no one single solution. We need to do both. planting tree and cut emission in parallel. There are too many areas that had been damaged and need intervention if not it won't come back by itself. Plant monolithic fist so that the soil can be self-sustained and then leave it alone. Nature returned in Chernobyl in vengeance is a sign of hope.
First do no harm This was based off the Amazon fire switch were not even the most fires going on at the time and were primarily fires from rural farmers green burning farm waste. Changes based on bad data are almost always harmful
Tree planting has never been suggested by anyone who knows anything of the subject as a complete solution in itself. It has a part to play and is one of the more obvious things we should be doing, not planting mono cultures but allowing rewilding. Ultimately we have to change how money is created, take that power away from profit motivated banks and stop them new money through lending at interest and give everyone equal access to the creation of capital; Sustainability is unachievable if economic activity has to grow. Economics has become more akin to a religion than a science and that needs to change else we will never see the wood for the trees.
New shoots and saplings have to be protected from deer and grazers or re-wilding is a joke. Normally that's done with predators, like the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone. Places like Scotland need fences to restrict sheep and deer.
'leaving the land' to its own devices is ok if you have ample rainfall(which explains the ease Ms. Tree achieved success), and if there was enough humus and organic detritus(microbial-fungal stuff admixed with organic matter that holds soil together and retains moisture). In foggy overcast areas of the UK, which is most of the UK, letting moss grow will do the trick for starters.. Desertified land in low-rainfall areas is difficult to re-forest because not many species can tolerate arid, baked earth. Some sort of monoculture, or oligoculture using drought-tolerant/heat-tolerant/pest-free and long-lived species is the way to go to build up humus and leaf litter, then introduce other trees as the soil gets enriched.
we have to decrease consumerism by 90 %, forget about GDP, money , just live on bare minimum happily , no rat race, live on frutis and millets, 100 days of fasting in a year.. no more jobs, just live with a family a village life...no more coroporate rat race...
I am disagree. Tree planting is very important to build up CO2 bio CCS into soil multilayers, not in the tree. The best method between monoculture or polyculture are depends on the location, budget, voluntary, etc. Yes, if possible it must be polyculture growth naturally. But be realistic, it takes years to succeed with the uncertainties, while the Earth already in danger. Your video is ideal condition of wild natural reforestation, it cannot be applied everywhere.
Hey... you didn't count us... there are 2,719 Hotspots of Forest and Land Fires Spread in Indonesia Until This Morning... THIS IS THE END... NICE TO MEET YOU ALL GUYS... 😔
How does paper decompose and “go into the atmosphere“ ? When trees/forests are harvested and timber produced for construction.... the carbon is stored.
stored? not quite. for a time, and that time can be quite short. the longest lasting use of a piece of timber would be to make high quality furniture or a violin/ cello out of it. The products then might last 100 years or more. But that's not what we do. We chip wood to make chipboard, and shave to make veneers and plywoods, and OSB. They are not reusable. They get burned in a few years on average, and turnover is really high because of changing fashions, so rarely last past the next home refit in 10 to 15 years. In my country, UK, re-use of wood, even planed timber like flooring, is much lower than it was 50 years ago.
"Trees may be looked at like the savior, but it's not. It's not an excuse not to cut our use of fossil fuels." As they show you a picture of a nuclear power plant, one of the cleanest and efficient ways we make energy. That's just steam.
Captain Chokdee you don’t need to plant any trees at all. The earth is doing just fine : www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
PLEASE... in next videos... don't invite just one expert... ok?... I am sure that other expert has other point of view with other critics and solutions... At the end, the experts that I can get in the Magazine, by now, are all the same opinion, the official opinion... "Cut the CO2" "Change your life Style"... so... Be positive and try to find solutions or at least the truth about the real statement and solutions... LIKE IN THE OTHER MATTERS OF THE MAGAZINE, And if the question is the mono-cultive solution... and also the economic exploitation repercussion... I am sure with a new re-approach with other expert we can find a better solution... TRY with other expert or even with the public financial representatives and experts... PLEASE!!!.
peon j as real as it can be and there are dedicated satellites that monitor the greening of the earth: www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows (Of course NASA says “That’s a problem too!” They are trolling us big time and tax us to death in the meanwhile. When one day the scale of this hoax will be revealed I’d be quite in favor of lynching certain liars).
What if every city in the world had an obligation to have let's be optimistic and say 10% of their space filled with trees, would that help? if we can't plant massive forests because of space?
Your headline is not coherent with the need for more trees to combat change as this video implies! The trouble is humans have no respect for this vital commodity!
All good except the music that is too loud - meaning you can hardly hear the people speaking. Totally unnecessary music which obfuscates the dialogue and message.
Very interesting. When you think about what we're doing (on a grand scale) : we're taking carbon from underground and turning it into a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. If a tree can take that greenhouse carbon gas and turn it back into solid carbon, we could take that solid carbon and push it back into the ground. To do this as efficiently as possible, you could plant a tree and wait for it to mature to a point where its rate of growth has slowed (turned a large amount of CO2 into solid carbon) and at that point, the tree could be turned into a *product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process. In this way, you wouldn't simply be using the land to carbon sink once, but to continuously sink carbon back where it was before we interfered with it. I'm aware that such a process of burying a solid tree deep into the ground isn't something that is done (we do with CO2 gas however) but what I'm saying is we should try to mimic what nature has done over millions of years and we'll need to do it more efficiently, using renewable resources of course. And this would need to be done along with a serious and meaningful reduction of our carbon greenhouse gas production to have the quickest effect. So yes, I do think that planting trees is a necessity and a vital key to our future existence. It's what we do with a mature tree that would need to be rethought. Just a thought.
You might be interested to hear that some people had the same thought, and did some calculations about its global potential. See for example: Zeng, N.: "Carbon sequestration via wood burial" (2008). And later work by the same author. All available online in open access manner.
Hi Jorge, interesting point. We made a film about how blockchain technology can do more than underpin crypto-currencies-it could help save the Amazon rainforest by stopping so called “biopirates” from plundering its biological riches. Watch it here: econ.trib.al/pUvTEP8
They are already trying to lower Natality as Birth control , abortions , LGBT agenda , Veganism , wars , feminism, etc . But they had noticed if isn’t enough. They need to lower at least half off the entire population to match resources. The problem is how ? How to achieve the goal of Thanos wish ? As it do require to kill at least half the population? Hope the elites won’t decide to proceed.
@@MariaRodriguez-hb4ix Nobody will kill anybody. What is happening now is stranger than any SyFy movie you could imagine. It was predicted in the Mayan calendar. 2012 was like Zero Point and the beginning of a new time line. In 2012 the world had reached 7 billion, then started dropping. The population is lessening all by itself. It's the end of a cycle and the beginning of a new one at a higher level. I think there is a world census to be taken in 2020 and it will show there are less people, not more. Right now by my pendulum answers the population is in the very low 5 billion. Some time in 2020 it will go to 4 billion. The planet has been lessening 1 billion every four years. But I doubt that the powers that be will share the statistics. It would cause world panic. However, in 2024 there will be no way to conceal it. You should find a person who knows how to use a pendulum correctly and ask them to get some answers for you.
Ex Brit, ex tree planter based in British Columbia. The horror story of old growth forests being cut down continues here. 1000+ yr old trees are seen as profit only. To help prop up the government coffers during Covid the “harvesting” is in overdrive. An old growth tree absorbs far more CO2 then 10 hectares of a tree plantation.
Forest gardening in layers can help. UA-cam has a video with Robert Hart, from Shropshire, England, who did it and also wrote a book about it. On a large, small or even micro scale you can plant in layers with larger fruit trees, dwarf fruit trees, berry bushes/shrubs, then the ground cover layer with perennial vegetables and so on. It's inspired by forest gardens in India. Reduction and lifestyle changes and technology can assist this but the real shift must be the approach. Wilding is nice but it doesn't give you the food production and better density of forest gardening.
Literally no analysis of supply/demand, population growth, or the consequences of below average GDP growth per capita. The Economist, minus any economic analysis....
So much hype and half truths. All be it trees/forests are all important to maintain the local Eco-system and are invaluable for that however what their contribution to CO2 absorption is minimal They digest C02 to convert the carbon to make up for cellular building then expire some CO2 at night then again will expire CO2 when burned or from natural decay when they die. Tree are invaluable for other things but this notion as a cure all is just more GW nonsense. The biggest contributors producing oxygen and as CO2 sinks is ocean plankton which by the way are having a feeding frenzy with the increased CO2 in the oceans. CO2 is food for all plants and plankton which by itself it the holy grail for maintaining life as we know it on earth.
It is stunningly bad. And the narrative that’s being spun (and how) stinks to high heaven. But chemical fertilizers are awful... Bad polluters as an industry, then there’s all the ecological damage from N And K running all over the place, then there’s the really scary long term disaster scenario of poisoned aquifers.
Hello Sara, the director, It would be interesting to make a similar video on holistic range management, and the carbon sequestration that big herbivores can provide through, unlike the forests, highly and intelligently managed grasslands. And compare the sequestration capacity of a well managed grassland vs a nature forest.
Dark time! time when humans lost perception of the preciousness of life on this planet earth. Ignorant, do not understand that there is fundamental interdependence between all life types and how is necessary respect and care for environment and the conservation of biomes to our own survival and the next generations.
No...the dark times always happen when people turn their backs on God who created the world and controls every molecule he created including you and me. In the Bible , when ever someone encountered the presence of God they fell flat on their faces, terrified and unable to move...because the molecules of their body recognized their maker. When people walk away from God they start to think they are wise in their own eyes and their foolish minds become darkened...that's why people have become Climate worshippers...instead of worshipping God who made the climate...last century it was Hitler worshippers and Karl Marx worshippers...how did that turn out ? Jesus Christ said "I am the way , the truth and the life..." When this life is over, and we all have to stand before our maker, the Bible says "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" . Again...it's because the molecules in your body will recognize their creator whether you want to or not.
On Friday at 1:00pm GMT we are hosting a live Q&A about the issues surrounding climate change. What do you want to ask our experts? Comment below. They won’t just be discussing trees, so ask anything to do with the issues and approaches to tackling one of the biggest threats to humanity.
Sarah, have the scientists looked into the option to use synthetic biology or chemical processes to bind the carbon of CO2 in material that could be use for buildings (e. g. artificial wood-like material), dams or artificial hills or landfill? This would keep the carbon in the ground in fixed form and could also replace real wood, cutting down the need to cut down more trees as well as plant industrial forests of monotonous conifers. Best. Bernd
Hey, please correct India map.
What is their opinion on use of biomass for energy, especially wood?
I disagree with 'let nature settle the forest by itself' approach. There has been a lot of research on how badly deforested area cannot recover itself, without any help. For example, Easter island used to have huge trees that supports local kingdom in building ships and buildings. Ever since the big trees disappear in 18th century, the island forest has not even recover till this day.
Are tropical storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.; are they in any way in the slightest impacted by climate change? Could Hurricane Dorian have been less severe?
Title is total clickbait. It’s not the trouble with trees. It’s the trouble with tree monoculture. Anyone who has ever done extensive tree planting with a forest management program (such as myself) knows you are better off selecting a minimum of 12 species, and ideally double that... to avoid monoculture infestations that decimate your plantation. Additionally, the variety must include mostly local species so they thrive naturally, and fruit species for the local animals to thrive also. As for “harvesting every ten years lowering carbon sequestration”, that is also a crock if done correctly. You first cull weaker trees at 7 and 14 years, allowing stronger trees to expand and cover the areas previously occupied by weaker trees: thereby fortifying your forest. And as for a self- sustaining business concern, you pick trees to cut after 20 or 30 yrs and you don’t cut more than 1 or 2 percent of the trees you planted and replant new trees in their place right away... so your average tree will reach 50 to 100 yrs, you’ll never have land clearings, and your carbon sequestration will be minimally affected by the ongoing commercial concern.
Simple as that. TREES ARE THE SOLUTION! Monocultures are not.
thankyou .. very agree !
Great point! We need to pin this reply. The video was pretty garbage.
Anushri Thanedar Thank you. Glad you agree.
And neglecting grasslands, which can be far more effective at helping control erosion and conserve water. Trees aren't a cure-all.
You mean monocultures ARE the problem - yes?
Forests have a climatic role not only regarding carbon sequestration. They provide shade, and thus reduce temperatures and increase moisture at local level. Natural regrowth is really powerful, and it can be accelerated and improved through sustainable forest management techniques, such as forest enrichment, among others. The economic factor can never be despised in the efforts to increase the forest area globally, to tackle climate change.
Further, farming compacts the soil and starve it of nutrients not relevant for farming. So besides the trees themselves, when leaving the ground alone, the soil gets porous so fungus and bacteria can sequester additional carbon + there is also a sponge effect humidifying the air above ground, which has a direct cooling effect and keep the whole area cooler. This is why a forrest is noticeable colder in summer than the surrounding fields as you say. Tropical forests have 5-6 time higher metabolism, so every acre is worth more there than in Europe, but still we all need to do our part too.
@@Tore_Lund Your claims are unfortunately a lie for 80% of global lands. Desertification is a natural process in most of the world if land is left alone, and the only way to sequest carbon in the soil is through intense holistically managed grazing. The lady featured here has achieved 20% of this guy - ua-cam.com/video/QfTZ0rnowcc/v-deo.html (specifics at around 14 minutes).
Or this ua-cam.com/video/xMjKcCfBtfI/v-deo.html
Jens Petersen there is no only way to sequester carbon. Lol
@@jenspetersen5865 Thanks Jens, I suspected you knew your stuff, so I should have phrased this as a question instead! I was thinking of the tempered climate forests in Europe, but true, where they have a hard time growing, this won't happen by itself as a desertification method. Yes Grazing was an improtant part also in the book summary I tried to remember in my first reply.
@@Tore_Lund The thing that often gets missed is that the world and climate is complicated. Setting wolves out in Yellowstone did wonders, as did Chernobyl for the wild life there as damaged as it was, as do planned management like what Savory promotes.
In temperate climate like ex. in Denmark (from your name you could be Danish) we have huge areas where planed grazing would massively increase biodiversity and soil function, but I am not convinced that you couldn't switch between some years of holistic management and some with industrial mono culture use.
In the end it is about how much good we can do with little effort. In Denmark we subsidised Tesla S with roughly 100000€ per car for which we at the time could have bought 15000 times as much CO2 reduction on the CO2 exchange and just destroyed the rights.
Ok fine tree planting is no excuse to stop cutting emissions but this video should be no excuse to continue deforestation!
So true! And the video doesn’t even mention a single reason why so many trees r being cut.
That's not what the video is about.
Where did you get the idea that this video encourages deforestation? It doesn't even provide an overall anti tree planting perspective as it gives examples of it done right and providing real benefits to the local community. It's simply about how we shouldn't take countries planting millions of acres of monoculture as an actual perfect solution to Climate Change, because it objectively isn't that.
@@robotplant5260 Can you not appreciate insights on a particular matter without spinning it into some different narrative? Deforestation is a problem (and implicitly one accepted by almost certainly everybody watching this and certainly the video by its framing of forest loss) - but it's just not the only thing in the world. Realizing the limits of reafforestation, particularly of harvested mono-cultures, is interesting and useful, irrespective of the harms of deforestation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
@Peter Hicks Volcanos are not the cause of current global warming. Or to put it another way: .
I planted somewhere jn the neighborhood of 3 million trees during the 70s through the 90s, in the Pacific northwest. The problem is that they are now logging timber at about 30 years, so a lot of those trees have already been logged and replaced, without ever reaching a fraction of the size of the old growth which originally covered the hills.
You planted three million trees?
@@nicko8605 Yep. It was how I made a living for 23 years, replanting clear-cuts, burned over woods, and even, in the case of the Mt. St. Helens blast zone, volcano blasted forest land. I'm too old for that brutal labor now, of course, but I still miss it, for some reason!
Yes they had programs for tree planting or tree planters mostly hippies did it , it was rough brutal labor.
I'm all for logging and replanting. Seems like the best thing to do
Additionally you likely planted monoculturally. This creates a lot of problems. China is a great example.
In cuba the land is so lush because it’s so diverse. It was so special to see their land. They also grow diverse plants that help each other.
Yeah, natural reforestation and biodiverse landscapes. That’s what everybody said from the beginning
it's already been happening due to the extra CO2
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
pablo rages now I’m all for doing nothing and letting nature take its cource but
FRN “"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.”
And what about invasive species eh? Just let that harm monoculture? True a contrarian could say their are cases of beneficial ones but what about the dominating ones like invasive see grasses. Humans obviously did something to mess the planet up as it and still humans need resources so demand just keeps growing; it would be foolish to adopt the philosophy of nothing to stop our past self’s efforts.
“The research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% - an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined - and still feed the world.” josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf
UN IPCC report 2019, Chapter 5, Page 76. 33% of global GHG can be mitigated by a global Vegan diet scenario.
“Where no animal products are consumed at all, adequate food production in 2050 could be achieved on less land than is currently used, allowing considerable forest regeneration, and reducing land-based greenhouse gas emissions to one third of the reference “business-as-usual” case for 2050, a reduction of 7.8 Gt CO2-eq yr-1. Springmann et al. (2016b) recently estimated similar emissions reduction potential of 8 Gt CO2-eq yr-1.”
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf
jhunt5578
These are great points and well referenced. If we cut our meat and dairy consumption by half and ate more plant based food instead, the pressure to deforest would be gone, and we would free up 10s if millions of sq km of land to reforest and return to natural wetlands and peat.
I sometimes think the issue of land use is seen as a nice to have. On the contrary - it we got this right, we could secure much better food supplies, completely change the outlook for warming and restore massive amounts of lost life and biodiversity all at the same time.
It's potentially transformative AND unlike the energy system, we can actually have a big impact with consumer choices.
But government action will still be required to change things fast enough. Meat and dairy must pay for the damage they do, and only regulation can internalise those costs.
@@michaelrch I agree that regulation is needed, the cost of animal products is artificially low due to subsidies. Animal ag's damage goes further, it's the leading cause of rainforest deforestation, ocean dead zones, species extinction, top soil erosion, it causes up to half of all ocean acidification and up to 46% of ocean plastics from miles and miles of fishing line and nets lost by vessels. At our current rate of fishing we'll see fish stock collapse by 2050. Animal ag also uses half of the worlds grain and 1/3rd of our fresh water and we're headed towards a water crisis by 2040.
On top of that there are health benefits to ditching meat and dairy.
Harvard Law review: “Climate change. Ocean dead zones. Fisheries depletion. Species extinction. Deforestation. World hunger. Food safety. Heart disease. Obesity. Diabetes. The list goes on. There is one issue at the heart of all these global problems that is too often overlooked by private individuals and policy makers alike-our demand for and reliance on animal products.” harvardelr.com/2015/10/26/elrs-a-leading-cause-of-everything-one-industry-that-is-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-to-thrive-on-it/
Don't forget that market consumerism has a great effect too. We don't have to wait for the government to tell us to eat sustainably, we can change our diets now. In this talk from Oxford researcher Joseph Poore he notes that the annual GHG mitigated between a meat eater and a Vegan is a co2 equivalent to 11 return flights from London to Rome. ua-cam.com/video/8miQs3mPGu8/v-deo.html
Eating animal products is like fly tipping or emptying plastics into the ocean or dumping oil into soil - it's incredibly harmful to the environment but most do not understand how severe a plate of food can be.
In Ireland Bord na Mona is still burning turf, and draining the bogs, which are massive carbon sinks. When the bogs are drained they plant Sitka Spruce non-native tree on land where we know there has been no forest for 5000 years.
It all makes sense....🙄
@FreeDOMofspeechNZ makes no sense, carbon is related to the population rising globally. You can't blame migrants for this one. Be more efficient with land, plant diverse forests . discourage people having more than 2 kids are much more realistic ways to deal with global issues
What Ireland does with its bogs and environment is appalling.
We are one of the least forested countries in Europe and most of the forestry we have is monocultured Spruce planted for rapid profit. Trees that acidify the land and offer little for wildlife.
The once common Nightjar is now extinct, we are the only country in Europe to lose the Nightjar. We don't seem to be bothered too much by losing our species. We are of course superb at talking the talk, but actually doing something, that is meaningful is not so popular.
@xia yxz dont think that is going to happen ........talk is now ofrewettin the bogs , flooding them .....willalso be using them to site windturbines...... 4 very big ones went up 2 years ago very near me .....lovely to see working .........
@@Eoin_D CO2 comprises 400 parts per million of our atmospheres composition or 0.004% (I may have dropped a O), if it was much lower plants would struggle to survive. Global temperatures are not rising.
Of course it is not the silver bullet.
Nothing is.
But taking care of Forrests is one of the many things we need to do.
Plant native species--restore watersheds and natural rivers!!!
Visit natural woodlands near you, and plant those native species you see flourishing....
For me, it included ponderosa pine, a long lived, wild fire resistant tree...
@@davidhollenshead4892 that's actually illegal though.
Yes Plant native people as well
@@alexcontreras6103 I urge you watch to watch It Can Be Done--An Earth Day Message 2020
@@robertcurtin7368 Ok I watched it, what was so special
Personally I have planted more than 100 trees of all kinds in what used to be a fields used for crops in southern Brazil. I have another 50 native fruit trees which I grew from seeds almost ready to be planted. Will be planting a lot more if am able to. The plan is for the fruit trees to attract more wildlife which will create a more pleasant and cooler environment during the summer months. It would be amazing to offer elderly couples in southern Brazil enticing financial benefits to reforest their plots as opposed to continue farming the land, which for many is hard due to their advanced age.
Many countries in the world: "hey, let's plant trees!"
Brazil: "nice, more to cut down!"
At 0:20 That clock ticking sound with deforestation gave me shivers. A strong way by filmmakers to send message that we're clearing forests much faster than before.
Mayank Singh 😂😂😂
China and India have planted so many trees that NASA is tracking the changes from satellites.
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/
"The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries."
It's a shame it's all BS
www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
I missed the part where you talked about why the trees are being cut in the first place. Or was it not mentioned? Here's why :Animal agriculture.
Yess!!
maybe it is a mix of multiple reasons, and maybe it is different by area (e.g. Brazil subsidizing meat export and therewith clearing of forest to produce soy for animal feed; versus Somalia being in civil war for 60 years or so and traditional social structures, i.e. cultivation and conservation of land, having almost vanished).
Yes
Hi Making Film. Check out the extended excerpt from our interview with Simon Lewis here: econ.trib.al/gVw2Vv2. He talks about reducing meat consumption as a way to fight climate change.
There is no such thing as animal agriculture, the term agriculture is only when refering to plants. Agriculture is the one taking most of the land, livestock take a lot but still much less than agriculture.
I object to this re-wilding concept and cringe at the deer shown at that point 1:44 which usually eat shoots and saplings, preventing forests from growing. When wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, trees started growing again in places deer were scared to be like ravines. Caledonia (Scotland) has severe deforestation and it can't come back without fences to keep out the sheep and deer, and I doubt they're keen on re-introducing wolves near all that livestock.
For one time I feel good that India has been much more prudent regarding avoiding mono culture and going all in for indigenous species
And 100's of coal fired power plants. Which is awesome.
The total amount is not the measure.. It is far behind a number of countries in the total amount.. Wayyyy less per capita pollution
I hope india fix their water pollution problem. Also india should have solar power.
I love how the pictures used for deforestation are of lumber plantations. Lumber plantations help combat deforestation by growing trees for lumber sustainably and producing more wood per hectare than natural forests do.
Are you talking about monocultures that offer no benefit whatsoever for biodiversity or the natural ecosystems?
@@flamingtarantula yes i am talking about momocultures that provide no direct biodiversity to the land they are on. That also produce lumber at a cheap enough rate to reduce the incentive to clear cut or illeagally log other areas. Don't get me wrong though the land could be used better. Sylvo patures would be great.
Also there are several ecosystem out there that only have one tree that stretch for many hectares or even miles.
This summer in Russia about 7 millions km2 of trees have been burned
And thousands of people are sorrowful so much about that... - by the way, I know wonderful video - I'll find a link - it calls somehow.. 'how trees awaken the city'... - I gess it has Engl. subtitles... - it is not about Siberia🌲🌲😥.. , - it is about other district on the west - about people in Kaliningrad... and their movement to protect their trees✌🏻- I'll find the link...
ua-cam.com/video/mMPJqnU5hSc/v-deo.html
no English subtitles unfortunstely((.. - actually I didn't expect it, because I know most videos of that project are with eng. subtitles((.. - I don't know, why this one particular doesn't have some((... Briefly in a couple of worlds: it is about volonteers in Kaliningrad (Noth-west district) who's trying to save ancient trees aside the roads in their district, which are (the trees) keeping specific nature 'arcitecture' in the district from the times it belonged to Germany... but already for more then half of the century it is their (soviet, then Russian) specific also... And it is very beautiful.. And it is very... good trees.. - they need care and protection... - not destruction.. 🌳🌳🤦♀️.. - I wanted to say only.. That the fact that we didn't struggle for trees in Siberia.. 😢😢 - doesn't meen that... noone cares about the trees... - we are not all as one yet((.. - but there're people that really care...
It also occurs in Indonesia
Fortunately in the US we have burned 1,735,616 less acres than average for this year to date thru September 18, 2019.
The trees are the only thing that 5G can not penetrate, so 'they' are felling them at an alarming rate, and burning them down along the Amazon River.
Carbon is not the cause of climate change, carbon levels historically rise after the temperatures have risen. All this land used for tree planting, where do we grow the food to feed the world.
Correct.
Vertical building style farms
There is more then enough land and water for everyone, just not enough people with open minds and no corruption by money that are running coutries
I like how they end the video showing a nuclear plant. One of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet.
hm then what happened in chernobyl?
@@axios7603 poor maintenance, poor safety standards and human error. Nuclear power plants are considered clean because they produce very little pollution when they work right. The issue is that it's not easy to keep them going right
Coal power and nuclear plants both use similiar cooling towers. How can you tell whether this is a nuclear plant or not?
There are people living near the power plant, so this is most certainly not a nuclear plant.
The best approach to reforestation is not the conifer monocultures monoculture meaning only one culture or one species of tree. The best approach is also not letting forests re-wild themselves but rather making commercial edible forests which take a hybrid approach of both ecological agriculture and permaculture on top of both rewilding and monocultures in other words a poly culture forest poly meaning many cultures of trees. Most of which are either edible meaning the bear fruit or nuts otherwise have a medicinal use or a potential commercial application. The best way to plant forests that insure both profit without the need of carbon credits or whatever or mono culture is to make the forests themselves profitable as an edible forests
It's obvious we have to live far more moderately whilst doing the right thing with the land. But people like their comforts. Here's to serious moderation in our lifestyle. Mark
👍🙌🙏
Easy to say then do..
@@randomguy7175 Oh yeah I know that...
Harvested did not mean burned a significant amount is used for building or construction work.
pax und peace but it isn’t stored in the ground and put at rest where it should be. That’s the point they’re making
@Yen Tao That is true, but their point is that it needs to be in the ground, where it came from in its most safe form.
Well, that's not helping my eco anxiety
Exactlyyy
Rea Kariz
6+ billion of humans in the developing countries are aspiring to rise to your quality-of-life level in the coming decades, which will inevitably double (triple/quadruple) their carbon footprints.
If it makes you feel better,we're moving towards much cleaner energy, banning diesel/petrol fuelled cars by 2030 (along with many other countries) and other appliances, and the northern hemisphere has more trees than it had in a decade or two (from when I last checked).
We need rapid change, but most of us are doing it.
It's real too, it definitely felt warmer today,
You never gonna live forever anyway
4:14 is a pretty pathetic attempt to build a sentence from snippets. How could you think anyone would take that seriously?
Tree planting is not a silver bullet but it’s a worthy endeavor. The benefits are immense. Shade on a hot summers day. There’s more to trees than carbon sequestration.
To me, it's logical to plant more fruit trees (of various types) rather than conifers
100%!
Right. Big shortage on fruit.
@@donhuffer4637 big shortage on local, organic, pesticide free, microbiome enhancing fruit yes.
Upkeep cost, labor. Pine is planted, left for 10-15 years, thinned then left for another 10-15. Profits. I know several fruit farmers around, like any other farmer their success is largely case to case. In a perfect world, absolutely food sources would be the optimum choice but I understand why people opt not to on their land.
I promise you. There is no shortage of fruit trees or fruit. Also trees are planted per their region. Soil type, rain fall and temperature.
Monoculture is bad, but the title suggests ALL trees are bad.
I think you have to watch the vid in order to get it, otherwise why would they make one ?
@@kiliandervaux6675 Pound Sterling in this case.
clickbait
Clickbait. There is a problem with monoculture planting
Again that is a little simplified, we also need carbon capture from other methods, planting trees are not enough even though I think it is terrific to do!!
But monoculture helps in reducing the demand of timber hence original forest are saved
@Antoine NeVe The video talks about the problems with MONOCULTURE planting but the title sensationalizes it, to make it appear as if trees are a problem in Climate Change. That's why it's click bait.
Tree planting doesnt just clean CO2 from the air it also generate moisture...imagine if we hand a few more giant rainforests...there's be more rain..and with less desert there's less super hot surface temps. It's all encompassing and yes making Forrests and rainforests would be not that hard and would go along way to cool earth
If we can get farmers worldwide to farm organically it will make a biiiiig difference! We were organic farmers and we cover cropped with vetch and bell beans and worked them back into the soil....in a short time humus and earthworms became abundant and crops were amazing! We used no pesticides nor herbicides. However, we had to be on our toes to follow what and exactly was always happening. My hope is that we can send all our food wastes to be composted and then taken to farmers.
Whats up with the flickering green line in the middle of the video?
Ok I knew I saw something lol
I thought my TV was done for
I thought i broke my phone screen again
Mind control. "You must resist climate change, you must resist climate change, give us all your freedom and will will protect you from climate change", you must fight climate change, climate change is your enemy"
That's the Carbon emission from your screen.
come to Indonesia where all forest is burn like xmas tree. There have highest carbon generation than Amazon now.
Carbon is cyclical. It will settle back down to the surface on its own.
@@thedogrunner carbon is not a gas the element C is a solid of which diamonds and graphite are pure forms co2 is 1 part in 2500 in the atmosphere is a free floatng molecule moving in the air currents it does not form blankets or smother the earth and is captured by plant leaves to make more complex compounds of life it takes 6 co2 to make one sugar molecule in a plant you guesswork managers would do better if you knew anything
@@chetlopez8942 The point is, carbon is not going to end the world in 12 years like the left wants us to believe. It's not ever going to cause a collapse to civilization as we know it. And, if it is going to be a problem then the solution is not less people. The solution is clearly more people. New ideas, new innovations. We are not a species that curls up and dies. We innovate. Invent. I don't buy the climate crisis nonsense. I hope you don't either.
Carbon capture technologies have an efficiency of 10%. Innovation cannot solve climate change. Only legistlation and a mobilisation of labour can stop climate change.
@@rorybyrne86 You articulate too well to have missed the point.
Not far from where I live, there was a written account of the early settlers felling the trees and burning much of the wood (some would be used for buildings etc). The thing that I found startling is that these above ground fires ignited the organic biomass beneath the surface and the newly created fields would smoke through the winter melting the snow. The amount of organic material in the soils was remarkable when you compare the thin organic layers (top soil) we see today. I am reforesting a gravel pit... no easy task with course mineral soils.
We would love to see some videos updating the progress that you've made, and challenges that you've faced with this project!
@@Green.Country.Agroforestry I would have to dig up some before pictures, but the after result is 16 foot trees after 20 years of growth. Of course growing in gravel is not easy for many trees, the pines have done better than the spruce, I have some Burr Oaks that have adapted well in some course soil areas, and Sugar Maple as well, as my soil is about 7.3 in PH. I do have to water the trees a bit for the first few years, and I also would have higher mortality than ideal sights. I have had less success with trees that like acidic soils. It is a fight, and a love all at the same time. But I would rather see trees than Buckthorn. Cheers from Ontario!
@@pseudopetrusoh shoot was goin f to suggest honey locust but so far north is different world. Hope you protect your forest from 'careless firestarters' this year
Buckthorn as in sea Buckthorn?
I have used Honey Locust with success. I germinated the wild thorny type, and they do quite well in poor sights. I was lucky to find a "local" stand. I am not sure if they are indigenous, but they do thrive.@@DrSmooth2000
Is there not a place for intensively managed forests that are used to create biochar, to be buried back in the soil? That is then locked up as pure carbon for the long-term, not to mention all the benefits to farming.
It would be so much easier to stop cutting trees down and deforesting.
It makes no sense that deforestation is still happening in this day and age
With smart forest succession you can regenerate a land in 10 Years versus 100 years, with great biodiversity both in flora and fauna and without fertilisers . This video can be damaging to the effort of people who achieve this kind of challenge. The conclusion that letting the forest succession on its own as the best technique is simplistic.
@Joseph Seeley 👍in tropical areas the food forest is the only sustainable agriculture, in temperate climate a food forest is an important part of agro-silvo-pasture . Hi Joseph, are you doing Permaculture?
@Joseph Seeley there is a free Permaculture course online (I think it's called regenerative institute , there are certainly others) you have to pay only for passing the Pdc. Having done a food forest I believe you have already a solid understanding on how nature works . Success with your food forest! If you want to visit our website for some ideas you can find the website aflorestanova on the WordPress platform. Best.
If you are going to plant trees, you need to do so with native species and fruits n berries. Feed the animals, people at the same time.
Love this video. I don't entirely believe though that there isn't enough land to plant the needed amount of trees needed. Suburban Gardens help too, especially when it comes to diversity and city and town councils can do a great deal more of planting on residential estates as well as making their planning requirements more inclusive of trees when dealing with developers. There is so much potential.
The argument that harvesting trees reduces carbon sequestration because the products return the carbon to the atmosphere is just wrong. Using the paper example, the paper is recycled and eventually put into a landfill which means the paper is sequestered. We should plant trees, we should harvest trees, we should recycle, and we should sequester in landfills.
Furniture, buildings, etc, are also sequestration.
marciacsr I agree. We should cut mature trees which don’t absorb as much carbon and sequester the carbon in products and landfills and then plant news trees which will absorb carbon.
It is time to responsibly cut and replant the forests.
In the past I learned that old growth forests were a net carbon producer because they were decomposing and bacteria was the dominant factor. Lately the ecologists are saying that all forests are carbon sinks, even the Amazon. That doesn't make sense to me because the term "carbon cycle" implies a complete circle and a net equal balance.
9:44 Incorrect. Current carbon emissions are at 55 billion tons of Co2e per year. So 200 billion negative emissions by replanting all forest land as to pre-agriculture levels is about FOUR YEARS, not TWENTY YEARS worth of emissions, unfortunately.
Should be called 'The Trouble With Money Trees'. Good vid.
When the Economist puts out an environmental film, you know what their objective is...
I'm not sure what you are hinting at but I find it a very sober information - it says "trees" have to be done in an intelligent way plus trees are definitely not enough and we have to do more. I think it's important to not stay naive and look at things in just a bit wider context so future doesn't surprise us badly
Humans ...
Take everything give nothing back till it’s Easter island all over again .
Well said
The man is right and the sad truth is there has to be a cut in emissions. In short cut Human population growth to sustain the world. I wonder how the governments would do these.
Sir, India and China may benefit from your observations. Though China is doing it's best, you could try Muslim families next.
Right but what you fail to mention is that the UK was once essentially fully forested aside from wetland areas...
Meadows, moorland, heathland, the open uplands. They're all man made habitats. Every single species that grows in these habitats will also grow under the cover of trees. Yet due to pressure from rich industries such as farming and shooting (in the uplands) the public are told misinformation. In that keeping these habitats free of trees we are increasing biodiversity. It's the biggest scandal in the country and one no one knows about it. Look at our uplands. They house only a handful of species. They can be described only as green deserts! If they were forested that wouldn't be the case.
But we keep these barren treeless landscapes such as moorland and heathland. This is not for the benefit of wildlife but of people.
If you look at tree planting from an ecological standpoint instead of a climate change one. Then it becomes quite clear that we owe it to our native species to reforest our land and bring it back to how it was when we first arrived. So no there is no problem with tree planting at all. The country naturally should be carpeted with trees. Pretty much all of our wildlife is adapted to a life in the forest.
After all how can we lecture counties like Brazil and Indonesia to stop deforesting their land. When we here in the UK have already done it and out right refuse to reverse what we have done! All the while lecturing them on deforestation. It's laughable.
Adaptation is not the solution to the problem because the problem is still there
Conifers are a fire hazard during dry and/or hot times. The one main question I would ask your experts is to fully disclose their past work, study and related accreditation’s.
Agreed. seemed like they spent their time pointing out the 10% bad about tree planting than focusing on the 90% good. I feel like they should focus on topics that are 90% bad and 10% good, that would probably open more eyes.
Thank you soo much for producing this!! We are a permaculture design firm, think tank, and production company in the U.S. This was a revelation we realized when we looked at the "buy a tree to save the planet" craze that fadded through here a decade ago with a permaculture perspective. In 2014 at a permaculture convergence we shared our findings and thoughts on the matter while encouraging people who really cared to stop driving and burning gas. As you can already guess, it was not well received. It is refreshing to see the same conclusions drawn and shared about the tree planting pandemic that doesn't do a whole lot. Again thank you.
P.S. Here is a link to our cheap, easy, really effective way to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. The system works soo well that we siphoned forest fire smoked air from outside (as is shown in atmoscrubbers in action) for multiple years. Feel free to share if you find it interesting.
Could you please share the link?
Respect nature. Protect nature.
Reforestation is a complex process, complex but not impossible.
but I recently visited a Himalayan state of India called Himachal Pradesh on way to its famous hill station capital Shimla I saw whole hills covered with pine and deodar tree growing naturally .In lower altitude around Dehradun ,capital city of Uttarakhand Saal trees were growing in large numbers also naturally with some mango , Semal ,neem trees dotted around them and I have visited many villages there and saw nature itself practicing monoculture (all trees were native except eucalyptus there)
also there are many cities in India which are named on common tree found in that region Baroda now called Vadodara(Baroda derives its native name Vadodara from the Sanskrit word Vatodara, meaning 'in the heart of the Banyan " )
I like how people say it’s just trees
You ever set a tree on fire and try breathing in the smoke??
Yeah, it’s just trees
The other question I want ask your experts is “If we could capture all particulate matters from emissions but not CO2, how will that impact life?”
China & India build coal-fired power plants, and ignore Western propaganda
"How would that impact live"
-human vise less deaths and illness from dust, toxicparticals and else from coal, oil, etc burning. Climate vise still increase in temperature.
@@ireneuszpyc6684 and increasing their Power production with renewables.
Already having a bigger one than the USA.
We need tree planting ambitions(obviously non monoculture), that is clear but much more important we need ambitions to not cut them down.
There is no one single solution. We need to do both. planting tree and cut emission in parallel. There are too many areas that had been damaged and need intervention if not it won't come back by itself. Plant monolithic fist so that the soil can be self-sustained and then leave it alone. Nature returned in Chernobyl in vengeance is a sign of hope.
First do no harm This was based off the Amazon fire switch were not even the most fires going on at the time and were primarily fires from rural farmers green burning farm waste. Changes based on bad data are almost always harmful
Fewer iPhones & cars. More forests & animals please.
"Not all that counts can be counted and not all that can be counted, counts." (Albert Einstein).
Carbon neutral by 2025. 2050 is not soon enough
Better get your tinfoil hat snugged up because by then, when nothing terrible happens you will be to old to have fun.
not physically possible
You will all live to see this come to light if we fail to meet our 2025 target. So live in ignorance for now if you want
Tree planting has never been suggested by anyone who knows anything of the subject as a complete solution in itself. It has a part to play and is one of the more obvious things we should be doing, not planting mono cultures but allowing rewilding. Ultimately we have to change how money is created, take that power away from profit motivated banks and stop them new money through lending at interest and give everyone equal access to the creation of capital; Sustainability is unachievable if economic activity has to grow. Economics has become more akin to a religion than a science and that needs to change else we will never see the wood for the trees.
New shoots and saplings have to be protected from deer and grazers or re-wilding is a joke. Normally that's done with predators, like the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone. Places like Scotland need fences to restrict sheep and deer.
'leaving the land' to its own devices is ok if you have ample rainfall(which explains the ease Ms. Tree achieved success), and if there was enough humus and organic detritus(microbial-fungal stuff admixed with organic matter that holds soil together and retains moisture). In foggy overcast areas of the UK, which is most of the UK, letting moss grow will do the trick for starters..
Desertified land in low-rainfall areas is difficult to re-forest because not many species can tolerate arid, baked earth. Some sort of monoculture, or oligoculture using drought-tolerant/heat-tolerant/pest-free and long-lived species is the way to go to build up humus and leaf litter, then introduce other trees as the soil gets enriched.
What about foodforests? We need to eat as well!
Henk Eshuis
No, that would be using your brain.
I don’t think their ready for that.
Henk Eshuis #permaculture
Restoration Agriculture. I highly recommend looking it up.
They don't worry about that
That may be truth in rainy places. There everything grows alone.
Natural reforestation around here would just be invasive species
we have to decrease consumerism by 90 %, forget about GDP, money , just live on bare minimum happily , no rat race, live on frutis and millets, 100 days of fasting in a year.. no more jobs, just live with a family a village life...no more coroporate rat race...
Will never happen. Not without a complete societal collapse first. And that might just take humanity with it.
I am disagree. Tree planting is very important to build up CO2 bio CCS into soil multilayers, not in the tree. The best method between monoculture or polyculture are depends on the location, budget, voluntary, etc. Yes, if possible it must be polyculture growth naturally. But be realistic, it takes years to succeed with the uncertainties, while the Earth already in danger. Your video is ideal condition of wild natural reforestation, it cannot be applied everywhere.
Hey... you didn't count us... there are 2,719 Hotspots of Forest and Land Fires Spread in Indonesia Until This Morning...
THIS IS THE END... NICE TO MEET YOU ALL GUYS... 😔
*HA*RP* + *G*oengin*ered droughts.*
*👉Dane Wigington👌*
@@JazzLoverKhurram grow up. This is serious.
How does paper decompose and “go into the atmosphere“ ? When trees/forests are harvested and timber produced for construction.... the carbon is stored.
stored? not quite. for a time, and that time can be quite short. the longest lasting use of a piece of timber would be to make high quality furniture or a violin/ cello out of it. The products then might last 100 years or more. But that's not what we do. We chip wood to make chipboard, and shave to make veneers and plywoods, and OSB. They are not reusable. They get burned in a few years on average, and turnover is really high because of changing fashions, so rarely last past the next home refit in 10 to 15 years. In my country, UK, re-use of wood, even planed timber like flooring, is much lower than it was 50 years ago.
Aside from the benefits of trees storing carbon before eventually releasing it back into the air, it also provides homes to wildlife too as well.
Planting trees is not only about combating climate change it is also about providing new habitats for bio diversity and the oxygen we need to breath.
"Trees may be looked at like the savior, but it's not. It's not an excuse not to cut our use of fossil fuels." As they show you a picture of a nuclear power plant, one of the cleanest and efficient ways we make energy. That's just steam.
iT's No exCuSe
0:30 Wait, there is a forest in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?
yes. kelp forests...also endangered by global warming ya nit picking eejit
Yes 80% of all oxygen comes from algea in the sea not from trees.
Nothing there, Its a dessert I think?
Larsino2000 70%, 30% from tree's, 👍. But the source's differ sometimes I guess.
I think they're zooming out from Saint Helena, it's an island nation. Either that or it was Liberia or nearby in western Africa.
All for planting as many trees as possible. But everything about this CO2 deception is just a complete waste of time, money & effort.
Captain Chokdee you don’t need to plant any trees at all. The earth is doing just fine : www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
PLEASE... in next videos... don't invite just one expert... ok?... I am sure that other expert has other point of view with other critics and solutions... At the end, the experts that I can get in the Magazine, by now, are all the same opinion, the official opinion... "Cut the CO2" "Change your life Style"... so... Be positive and try to find solutions or at least the truth about the real statement and solutions... LIKE IN THE OTHER MATTERS OF THE MAGAZINE,
And if the question is the mono-cultive solution... and also the economic exploitation repercussion... I am sure with a new re-approach with other expert we can find a better solution... TRY with other expert or even with the public financial representatives and experts... PLEASE!!!.
... yes have someone from the Australian CSIRO ... that say that since the CO2 levels have been increasing the world has been getting GREENER
Wow! Really? That is possible? So that means that it does not a problem the co2. Really?!
peon j as real as it can be and there are dedicated satellites that monitor the greening of the earth:
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
(Of course NASA says “That’s a problem too!” They are trolling us big time and tax us to death in the meanwhile. When one day the scale of this hoax will be revealed I’d be quite in favor of lynching certain liars).
@Josef K we all knowclimate deniers ain't shit tho
What if every city in the world had an obligation to have let's be optimistic and say 10% of their space filled with trees, would that help? if we can't plant massive forests because of space?
Your headline is not coherent with the need for more trees to combat change as this video implies! The trouble is humans have no respect for this vital commodity!
I think we're all going to have at accept that we will have to pay a "tree tax" to fund forests.
Stupid.
@Thomas Headley Those fund the repairing the damages caused by not having forests; they don't fund actual forests.
What we need is a baby tax on people with more than one kid.
Trees bad, children bad, breathing & farting bad, carbon bad, orange man bad!
Thank you for the personification of the wicked left.
You are tragically misinformed. Here are actual facts: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
All good except the music that is too loud - meaning you can hardly hear the people speaking. Totally unnecessary music which obfuscates the dialogue and message.
Very interesting.
When you think about what we're doing (on a grand scale) : we're taking carbon from underground and turning it into a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. If a tree can take that greenhouse carbon gas and turn it back into solid carbon, we could take that solid carbon and push it back into the ground. To do this as efficiently as possible, you could plant a tree and wait for it to mature to a point where its rate of growth has slowed (turned a large amount of CO2 into solid carbon) and at that point, the tree could be turned into a *product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process.
In this way, you wouldn't simply be using the land to carbon sink once, but to continuously sink carbon back where it was before we interfered with it. I'm aware that such a process of burying a solid tree deep into the ground isn't something that is done (we do with CO2 gas however) but what I'm saying is we should try to mimic what nature has done over millions of years and we'll need to do it more efficiently, using renewable resources of course. And this would need to be done along with a serious and meaningful reduction of our carbon greenhouse gas production to have the quickest effect.
So yes, I do think that planting trees is a necessity and a vital key to our future existence. It's what we do with a mature tree that would need to be rethought.
Just a thought.
You might be interested to hear that some people had the same thought, and did some calculations about its global potential. See for example: Zeng, N.: "Carbon sequestration via wood burial" (2008). And later work by the same author. All available online in open access manner.
Also, massive farms of chicks/cows for human consumption are an issue for the planet.
Less corporate, more holistic is what is needed.
why dont you create a crypto-amazon? this way the farmers would have an incentive to create forrest not destroy it.
Hi Jorge, interesting point. We made a film about how blockchain technology can do more than underpin crypto-currencies-it could help save the Amazon rainforest by stopping so called “biopirates” from plundering its biological riches. Watch it here: econ.trib.al/pUvTEP8
That's actually a really good and interesting idea
yes
Plz🙏 for any one read my comment💚 plz🙏 try to planting your local trees🌴🌲 in your area🌵 even if just one tree🌳 it's will makes difference 🌱
@Kaleb Swager
💚 u so sweet
Solution: Bring down the population.
Christine Veazey solution: stop writing nonsense. There’s no problem at all.
@@C_R_O_M________ You can't tell people what to do and expect them to mind you. I'll do what I please.
They are already trying to lower Natality as Birth control , abortions , LGBT agenda , Veganism , wars , feminism, etc .
But they had noticed if isn’t enough.
They need to lower at least half off the entire population to match resources.
The problem is how ? How to achieve the goal of Thanos wish ? As it do require to kill at least half the population?
Hope the elites won’t decide to proceed.
@@MariaRodriguez-hb4ix Nobody will kill anybody. What is happening now is stranger than any SyFy movie you could imagine. It was predicted in the Mayan calendar. 2012 was like Zero Point and the beginning of a new time line. In 2012 the world had reached 7 billion, then started dropping. The population is lessening all by itself. It's the end of a cycle and the beginning of a new one at a higher level. I think there is a world census to be taken in 2020 and it will show there are less people, not more. Right now by my pendulum answers the population is in the very low 5 billion. Some time in 2020 it will go to 4 billion. The planet has been lessening 1 billion every four years. But I doubt that the powers that be will share the statistics. It would cause world panic. However, in 2024 there will be no way to conceal it. You should find a person who knows how to use a pendulum correctly and ask them to get some answers for you.
You go first
We need to plant more trees to fight climate change.
Fortunately carbon is not really such an issue. The earth has seen much more carbon historically.
But the rate of change is!
Planting Trees aint enough.Period
good work
It's alright. We will be our own demise. Planet Earth will continue evolving without us.
Some of us would rather like to see us be around for as long as possible.
Ex Brit, ex tree planter based in British Columbia. The horror story of old growth forests being cut down continues here. 1000+ yr old trees are seen as profit only. To help prop up the government coffers during Covid the “harvesting” is in overdrive. An old growth tree absorbs far more CO2 then 10 hectares of a tree plantation.
Forest gardening in layers can help. UA-cam has a video with Robert Hart, from Shropshire, England, who did it and also wrote a book about it. On a large, small or even micro scale you can plant in layers with larger fruit trees, dwarf fruit trees, berry bushes/shrubs, then the ground cover layer with perennial vegetables and so on. It's inspired by forest gardens in India. Reduction and lifestyle changes and technology can assist this but the real shift must be the approach. Wilding is nice but it doesn't give you the food production and better density of forest gardening.
Literally no analysis of supply/demand, population growth, or the consequences of below average GDP growth per capita. The Economist, minus any economic analysis....
So much hype and half truths. All be it trees/forests are all important to maintain the local Eco-system and are invaluable for that however what their contribution to CO2 absorption is minimal They digest C02 to convert the carbon to make up for cellular building then expire some CO2 at night then again will expire CO2 when burned or from natural decay when they die. Tree are invaluable for other things but this notion as a cure all is just more GW nonsense. The biggest contributors producing oxygen and as CO2 sinks is ocean plankton which by the way are having a feeding frenzy with the increased CO2 in the oceans. CO2 is food for all plants and plankton which by itself it the holy grail for maintaining life as we know it on earth.
Larry Sullivan rationality alert. Next time try not to make so much sense, they’ll single you out!
Nitrous Oxide? 5:45 That's a laugh! Actually the whole video is.
It is stunningly bad. And the narrative that’s being spun (and how) stinks to high heaven. But chemical fertilizers are awful... Bad polluters as an industry, then there’s all the ecological damage from N And K running all over the place, then there’s the really scary long term disaster scenario of poisoned aquifers.
I'd be willing to sequester a few tanks of that nitrous oxide, you know, for the earth.
Appreciate your efforts Lot of environmental benefits with trees
Tree support hole ecosystem food chain depends on trees
Leave the EU. They pay farmers to have open empty land. After leaving you can pay farmers for biodiversity.
Hello Sara, the director,
It would be interesting to make a similar video on holistic range management, and the carbon sequestration that big herbivores can provide through, unlike the forests, highly and intelligently managed grasslands. And compare the sequestration capacity of a well managed grassland vs a nature forest.
Native plants only
And native people only
Dark time! time when humans lost perception of the preciousness of life on this planet earth. Ignorant, do not understand that there is fundamental interdependence between all life types and how is necessary respect and care for
environment and the conservation of biomes to our own survival and the next generations.
No...the dark times always happen when people turn their backs on God who created the world and controls every molecule he created including you and me. In the Bible , when ever someone encountered the presence of God they fell flat on their faces, terrified and unable to move...because the molecules of their body recognized their maker. When people walk away from God they start to think they are wise in their own eyes and their foolish minds become darkened...that's why people have become Climate worshippers...instead of worshipping God who made the climate...last century it was Hitler worshippers and Karl Marx worshippers...how did that turn out ? Jesus Christ said "I am the way , the truth and the life..." When this life is over, and we all have to stand before our maker, the Bible says "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" . Again...it's because the molecules in your body will recognize their creator whether you want to or not.
Just curious...are you vegan?
I have some land and want to plant trees. Where can I get free trees to plant ?
You won't get funding for free stuff. You need to sign a contract and agree to a 50-years target if you want trees.
@@nachannachle2706 with who? Who contact ? I'm not wanting them for lumber. And in 50 years I'll be dead