5 Reasons why we should STOP Reckless Tree Planting
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/belindacarr to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code BELINDACARR
There is no denying the importance of trees in our environment, and the need to curb rampant deforestation. But, planting trees has become an easy way out of our problem. Instead, we should be making difficult but important lifestyle changes and looking at the “root” cause of the problem. In this video, we’re going to look at 5 ways in which reckless tree planting can actually be hurting our environment
Link to my Patreon page: / belinda_carr
Chapters
0:00 Introduction
1:45 Monoculture
3:12 Residential
5:09 Sponsorship
5:43 Green Skyscrapers
7:04 Urban Trees
8:18 Grasslands
9:33 Conclusion
MONOCULTURE
Tree planting initiatives are driven by numbers. They prioritize quantity over quality and diversity. Monoculture plantations can deplete soil, and cause erosion and degradation. They are more susceptible to pests and diseases. These biological deserts have lower levels of biodiversity than surrounding native forests.
So, if diversity is the answer, how do we achieve it? Mixed tree plantations of local species for one. Another method is leaving natural areas alone and allowing them to recover. This hands off approach is called wilding. 20 years ago, Isabella Tree took over 3500 acres or 1400 hectares of farmland in England and gave it back to nature. It has since doubled the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil, and has a healthy mix of shrubs, natural grass and trees.
RESIDENTIAL GREENERY
As our population continues to grow, huge swaths of land are being cleared for sprawling suburbs. However, our obsession with non-native grass and trees is wasteful and destructive. There are an estimated 50 million acres of lawn in the US. Trees planted next to houses cause serious issues to a home’s foundation, and shorten its lifespan.
Green spaces are vital for our mental health. They can protect us from mood disorders, depression, and stress. However, we need to end this obsession with perfectly manicured lawns and non-native trees.
GREEN SKYSCRAPERS
Renderings of green skyscrapers are widely shared on social media. They give off the impression of being eco friendly and combating climate change. Bosco Verticale in Milan is one of the most popular vertical forests. This 110 meter tower holds 800 trees, 4,500 bushes and 15,000 shrubs. They are estimated to absorb 10,000 kg of CO2 per year. We need to change our perception of “green” buildings. They don’t need to literally be green, but they should be well insulated, use less glass, and be built with low carbon products.
URBAN TREES
The average lifespan of roadside trees is shorter than those in rural areas because of the intense stresses they are exposed to such as
Dense Building which leads to soil compaction, limited space for root and branch growth, and limited access to direct sunlight.
Artificial building materials which lead to high soil ph, surface runoff, and concentrated reflected beams of sunlight from glass buildings.
Heavy traffic which leads to air and soil pollution and soil compaction.
Instead of looking at the cause of poor air quality in urban areas and dealing with excessive nitrogen and sulfur oxides, trees are being planted to clean up the air.
GRASSLANDS
Afforestation is the act of planting of trees in an area where there was no previous tree cover. Careful afforestation can help protect against soil erosion and flooding. Done incorrectly, it can modify a biome, reduce biodiversity, introduce non-native and invasive species, increase the risk of wildfires and deplete the water table.
Grassland biomes are often misunderstood. They can hold more carbon than tree-covered landscapes. Climate change is real and humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it is dangerous and misleading to propose that tree planting can be a silver bullet to stop climate change.
--------------------
SOURCES:
• Pakistan Sets Out to P...
• Climate change: the tr...
e360.yale.edu/features/are-hu...
www.euronews.com/green/2021/1...
--------------------
Fluffy by Smith The Mister smiththemister.bandcamp.com
Smith The Mister bit.ly/Smith-The-Mister-YT
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/stm-fluffy
Music promoted by Audio Library • Fluffy - Smith The Mis...
---------------------
Disclaimer: This video was created for educational/informational purposes and qualifies as Fair Use. If you are the creator or own the footage featured in this video and have reservations please notify me via UA-cam comments or email and I will accommodate you
#teamtrees #climatechange #sustainability #environment #greenbuilding - Наука та технологія
To clarify my comment on lumber releasing trapped CO2: researchers say that fast-growing eucalyptus is being planted in these drives. They are cut down after 5 years and turned into paper, which has a short lifespan. When they head to landfills and decompose, they release CO2. I am NOT referring to pine or hardwoods whose products usually last much longer.
isnt pine the number one tree used for paper, especially at 5 years of age?
@@troyb3659 nope in the 5 year time frame. You can get a first thinning in 15 years for Southern pine in the U.S.
@@RStout59 what tree are they farming for paper at 5 year?
@@troyb3659 eucalyptus as she stated above. There are many eucalyptus species in Australia, some of which grow fast. They were tried in the Southern U.S by timber companies with little success, primarily due to cold weather.
@@RStout59 amazing that we import paper with all the acreage of US forest here in the states, but 5 years vs 15 years it starts to make sense.
Belinda, you missed another large problem with these reforestation efforts. In a majority of these efforts the saplings being planted come from cuttings, not seeds; In other words they are clones. This lack of genetic diversity is as bad as a lack of environmental diversity. No genetic diversity means these forests could be wiped out by a single disease or pest.
I agree but I thought I covered it under "monoculture plantations"
@@BelindaCarr I may have missed it. I took the monoculture to refer to single species. On a brighter note, at least in my neighborhood, more and more people are ditching lawns and planting native prairie plants. There is even a nursery that specializes in native plants here in Wisconsin.
Believe it or not, Cornell recommended doing this, and they called it their "Smart Trees Program", where they would clear cut, to plant all one tree. However, after 20+ years, Cornell would never recomend doing this again, it was a disaster on multiple levels. It even freaks out wildlife, whom will not enter a grove lacking all diversity.
@Dystopian Farmer I would recommend doing that. Even if you need to travel out of state to cross-breed for better plant genetics, if there’s ever a disease there’s a chance your strain will be more disease-resistant.
I’ve been getting into permaculture, and I’m shocked about how much environmental advocates are silenced when money is involved.
It's still better than not planting any....
A funny story about my lawn. I am very hands off when it comes to my lawn, i let almost anything grow, and mow it down every 2 weeks with corded electrical mower, my lawn is a wild mix of various grass, clover, ground cover, and dandelion(just no crab grass). after a few years, some wild purple turtle head started to take over a corner of the lawn, wild fern in the shady north side, and mixed Canadian golden rod and Ironweed by the driveway, I trim them back and shape their area to keep it neat, one day i came home and i found a metal plaque staked into my lawn from the city that read "Wildlife Habitat". Then the city started harassing me when i tired to maintain my yard, saying i am "disturbing the wildlife habitat". So i humored them and stopped maintaining the front yard, 2 months later i got a letter from the city telling me to maintain my yard or be fined.
Government just dont know what they are doing in general, and they harrass and make villains out of regular people
You have to speak in a language they will understand. Lawsuits
They just listen to people who complain. Someone complained that you mowed wildlife they put a sign up. Someone complained that you didn't mow wildlife they give a ticket. You go ask them what's going on they say someone complained. No accountability or thinking going on.
so true. One side they send you letter if you use too much water to sprinkler your lawn and then the HoA send me letter because my lawn isn't green enough!
@@1NicholasWeir
Yep. No seeds or fertilizers so I can cut every 2 weeks and have an extra 30 min to myself.
I think the keyword here is restoration. As in restoring what was once lost, which means aiming for native species and diversity. Planting trees initiatives are not inherently wrong or good, like all things it comes down to the details.
Pointing out HOAs don’t track water usage or fertilizer usage is very insightful.
HOAs are usually filled with morons, that impose arbitrary rules with no foresight.
They can make rules about the color of curtains inside your house, just because someone might not like that color, or just make up bullshit rules to bring in more revenue.
It's best to just avoid those moron traps entirely.
What’s amazing are not the HOA’s that have stupid rules, it’s that people buy homes without reading contracts. You’d think that while spending multiple years salaries, people would pay attention. Still, people will buy a home in an HOA that limits their choices and then they get angry at the HOA. That’s world class stupidity. Also amazing, Democracy. All the idiots get a vote, but it still seems to work out okay.
despite what a lot of people are saying, HOAs are not filled with stupid people, but people who's end goal is not the same, they exist to try and keep property value high, sadly the ecological impact is seldom a factor for land value
@@nunyabidness3075 people don't spend their salaries on a house, this isn't India.
They go to a bank and buy it with easy to attain borrowed money.
They don't read the contract for the loan, so why would it be any surprise that they wouldn't read the contract for HOA.
In a large parts of the country, new housing automatically diseased with a HOA. So you have no other choice, the population is constantly growing and all new housing comes pre infected. as a consumer the HOA is forced on you like a rapist forcing is way into your butthole.
Secondly a lot of housing developers put in place HOAs, and then those same housing developers put in place the members of the HOA, as a perfect avenue to corruption. They put in place only members to serve their own needs. They couldn't care one little fuck about the people who actually live there.
Also Once a HOA is in place it is nearly impossible to exterminate it. The people running them are scumbags robbing the people in them.
And the people in them are either incredibly stupid or dumb clueless victims.
Either way everyone in an HOA is a moron, and I stick by what I said.
@@quantuman100 incorrect, they exist to serve their own interests. Or the interests of the housing developer.
They aren't elected and they don't give a fuck about the people in the HOA, they generate money for themselves and live off of other people's work.
Ask yourself this, if they were actually doing what's in the best interests of the people/homeowners why wouldn't they let them leave?
Why do they keep them as prisoners?
Thank you for covering "plantation monocrop" issue. It was annoying to see "environmental activists" outside Tesla Brandenburg trying to "protect a forest" that was actually a defunct cardboard plantation. Look at Ecosia for proper tree stewardship. Everything made with palm & soy can be made from hemp, which could be grown on cropland currently supporting ethanol & feed corn in the American midwest. Since the waste product from that hemp oil is animal feed, each acre of hemp displaces multiple acres of soy, corn, cotton, & palm. Then stalks can be turned into building materials. Time to end the DEA global hemp ban! Other cover crops can sequester a ton of CO2 into each acre of farmland per year. Repurpose our cropland for climate change victory. How about a vid?
I agree about ending the hemp ban! I covered it in my video on HempWood, but I'll make follow up soon.
I live in the area, and I can only tell you that your Tesla example is really a bad one. People trying to "protect the forest" there aren't brainwashed environmentalists. They aren't environmentalists at all. They are simply people who hate electric cars. But hating electric cars doesn't fly in a court. That's why they turned to something which could actually fly in court.
Before they found out about the amount of water Tesla wants to use, Tesla having to cut some trees from a plantation was literally the only thing they could find as leverage. It's simply conservatives having found out that they can use laws created to protect the environment as leverage against projects they don't like.
Of course, once they started with the law suits, they did also find locals what don't know how an actual real forest looks like. They are virtually almost none left in the region. Almost all forests in the surroundings of Berlin were cut during and after WWII due to shortages of coal for heating.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I live in nature, literally at the back end of the world and I am sick of half baked green initiatives that do more damage than good in the environment around me, and the pushback when you criticize them is insane !
CO2 is not pollution
Sure, diversity is important, but it doesn’t mean STOP tree planting, but diversify of course. But also, the end of the useful life doesn’t mean return of the carbon to the atmosphere.
@@wtice4632 - Neither is water, genius. But you can still drown in it.
Too much CO2 changes the biosphere in ways that are damaging to the delicate balance that maintains many life forms and helps sustain human civilization.
I hope that is not too subtle and complex for you to understand.
Sorry if it is.
So to summarize: we should still plant trees. We only need to be more thoughtful in how we go about doing so.
Everything you said actually supports the planting of trees. Your points only address how we plant, but not necessarily the act of planting. A+ on the clickbait title though.
Imagine there's a fire in the woods and many people pour gasoline on it while a few people are looking for ways to firefight. The problem of how to firefight is tertiary. The issues we're not attending are way of life, consumption, priorities and deforestation. But, yeah, let's plant some trees and feel good about it
@@Dude408f So what is your proposal? We wait for hundreds of millions of individuals to drastically (and suddenly) change their consumption habits? Wait for Congress and other national governments to make stronger commitments? Spoiler: both will leave you very disappointed.
Remember: stop planting trees, everyone.
@@RFinkle2 I'm not interested in giving you "my proposal", I was just wanted to point out that you come an criticize a chick that took the time and effort to make a video with the noble intention of helping. You, instead, just posted a comment and accused her of click bait.
Of course it's a click bait, it helps to draw attention, now that everyone seems to only care about some couple fighting in the Court
@@Dude408f She posted a video chastising people who are attempting to do good work around the planet - she opened herself up to that criticism.
@@RFinkle2 She was not chastising but also trying to do good work and help those people to do even better.
There's another thing, I don't know in other countries, but in one that I know, reforestation efforts are often unsuccessful because one species is planted and there's no continuity of efforts, therefore survival is low and the resources are inefficiently spent. Worse, the reforestation is used as feel good and PR so, yes, often it's counterproductive...
Dear Belinda,
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
While here in Ontario we've only got 25 acres we have found during the last 3 decades that by far the best thing to do is to leave well alone and let nature take it's course. We're now getting a good mix of mainly native trees, shrubs and grasses and it is by far the cheapest way as well. The fauna also seem to like it and we have no shortage of birds, bees, butterflies etc. as well as 2 otter families in the river.
Please keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Niall Leslie.
Sounds like you have a real piece of paradise. Thanks for being a good steward
Here we go!
I am not trying to sound negative. But when does the crap end!
Let’s complain about this now too!
First, they all complained that we are cutting down trees and flooded the media with it. The idiots caught on and began planting invasive species and mono-planted huge areas as do-gooders. The HOAs find everything to be ugly except pretty crap. The solutions do nothing but create more problems or increase costs all based on emotional BS.
Let’s go! Let’s cancel it all! Everything she listed that is wrong!
I have an idea! How about we all just shut our mouths and live our lives. Climate issues are just just like weight loss diets. Drinking Wine is bad, wine is good, wine prevents cancer, wine causes cancer, etc.
We all knew the mono-planting was bad. Yet everyone kept talking about the loss of trees so they began mono planting. I knew it then. It was called answering BS problems with a BS solution.
How about we just leave it all alone? Stop annoying everyone with everything and doing so much dramatic crap.
True. The prairies of the great plains are automatically burned by lightning, restoring soil nutrients and eradicating dead growth
As someone who works in environmental remediation it's always fascinated and frustrated me how trees are viewed as unmitigated good things. In any other context the introduction of non-native species would at least raise questions, but if that species is a tree it's considered fundamentally good and not subject to question. Fundamentally we do not view trees as living things; we view them as landscape. And that creates a lot of problems.
Xeroscaping seems to me one of those golden opportunities in environmentalism. We can benefit the environment and reduce waste while cutting costs to consumers and creating areas that are, to my mind at least (and I'm not alone in this), far more beautiful than the typical grass lawn. The typical grass lawn is quite frankly boring--flat, featureless green with no personality. Xeroscaping gives the home owner the opportunity to create unique spaces and variety, making the lawns more enjoyable. And the lower maintenance frees up time, money, and energy to beautify the area even more. How often do you get to say "Do this thing that helps the environment--it''ll make your home more beautiful, protect it in the long-term, and save you money"?
I will say that I somewhat disagree with you on the issue of monocultures in tree plantations. You're right that tree plantations plant monocultures; however, most of the ones that I've seen do not maintain their plantations sufficiently to prevent underbrush from forming. I've had to hack my way through a fair number of areas planted with trees, and the amount of vines, briars, and other native shrub species is remarkable. This encourages animals to come in as well--the trees protect the brush, which provides food and protection to the prey animals, which brings in predators. Ideally yes, we'd have a variety of trees planted in these environments. But monocultures for trees aren't quite as bad as monocultures in farms.
Thanks for sharing your experience, James!
Where I live the there is an initial flush of vegetation, particularly berries, that grow up in the slash sites, but these are quickly (first 20 years?) overshadowed and die off.. we are left with almost no understory, outside of mosses and lichen, and (thankfully) mushrooms, for the next 180 years or so. At which point we are depending on a very hardy seed stock to be remnant in the earth or the generosity of bird-kind to do there part in replanting.
@@haidafella8651 Yeah, that's really common too. Old-growth forests tend to be fairly dark, since the trees are competing for sunlight. You get pockets of undergrowth when a tree dies and falls over. It's something that surprises people about rain forests, for example. Sunlight is a limiting resource, so trees absorb as much as they can, leaving the forest floor very dark.
In fact, one of the criticisms that can be made against my comments on forestry is that tree farms never reach that old-growth stage--the woodlands made in tree farms are all edge habitat, where underbrush dominates. In some areas that's fine--some woodlands seem to operate that way, with fast turn-over of large trees or periodic fires that destroy everything anyway. A lot of the South has environments like that, especially in the more swampy areas. But a lot of forests are the way you describe (I think it's more prominent in deciduous dominated forests). To avoid damaging the ecosystem you really need to be careful which biome you're dealing with.
Xeriscaping should be more widely adopted in many areas. I feel compelled to point out, though, that saying that's what should be done in Texas, as indicated in the video, is applying the idea too broadly. Xeriscaping is both unnecessary and likely unmaintainable in much of eastern Texas. The bigger picture is to determine what's appropriate for the climate and plant accordingly.
Tree planting cannot recreate the structural complexity and biodiversity of a natural forest or one that regenerated through natural succession. Plantations might have some success with bringing back some biodiversity in temperate forests because those are less complex, but this is an absolute impossibility in the tropics where the most destructive deforestation is taking place. There's also the problem of "shifting baselines" i.e. people tend to over-estimate the biodiversity and ecosystem function they currently have because of an incomplete understanding of what has been lost before they were around.
When I purchased the 20ish acres for my current home, I cleared only what was required for the house, the barn and the storage building. The "lawn" consists of whatever native species grew back after the construction was over with most consisting of native wildflowers and grasses. However, I do remove bushes in those areas to prevent overgrowth.
A couple of cows, some goats and a donkey tend to the rest. The chickens forage as well.
End result is I have very little to mow, the animals don't require outside food sources and my cost is less, plus most of my food comes from that same area.
My area is close to rainforest level rainfall, so there's no real benefit to introducing plants that don't require water.
Problem with this video is that you make sense and apply logic. We don't do that here, we just want to feel good and offset our H&M tshirt purchase with 0.50$ carbon footprint donation for which we have no actual clue where it goes.
I've never understood people's obsession with planting an invasive weed, that they call grass, then complaining about how much work it takes to keep it under control. Native gardens with mulch, like you showed in your video, look much nicer and they hardly require any work to look after them.
Lawns are one of the dumbest ideas to persist to modern times. They were originally for rich land owners to flex the fact that they had land, but weren't growing food. Now lawns are very common and a big problem. They use tons of water, drying up rivers and aquifers. Toxic fertilizers and pesticides are used, polluting the water. Gas lawn mowers are very inefficient and pollute the air. And lawns also waste time. Native plants, xeriscaping, and food gardens are way better!
@@blackbearelectronicswithco9541
Well put! I totally agree.
Ms. Carr is the voice of reason in a world increasingly managed by emotion. I wish more people would not only pay attention to what she says, but also act on it.
Forest fires are a huge problem in my area partially due to monoculture pine forests . Partiallly due to do clear cutting forest and 10-15 years later when the tress grow back they are all super tightly packed unhealthy trees ready to light on fire .
Belinda, I am a new subscriber, and so glad I found you. You are a breath of fresh air in a world where memes rule the day - some without making much sense or having merit. Your discourse on monoculture planting is spot on. It can often have even more adverse effects on the land than the land being stripped. Let nature heal itself in it's own way. And thank you for calling out grass!!... 😃 ...Unless one is raising livestock with rumens, it makes absolutely no sense. "It feels good under my feet", "it cools down my yard", and other tripe make me think that people have no reasoning skills at all. I grew up in Denver, which used to have a pleasant summer climate - hot but dry air - until people moving in from other more vegetated places began moving in and planting grass all over the place. The humidity introduced by the vastly increased irrigation (for an incredibly water hungry item that has little economic value other than aesthetics) has changed the climate to something more similiar to a midwestern city like Chicago, with high humidity and sweltering heat waves - not to mention the totally artificial "water shortages" it has brought about...I always admired the ethos in Tucson - you moved to a desert, live in a desert! You plant grass, we will rip it out, at your expense! That's not being autocratic. It's being environmentally responsible...
Sensible environmentalism is unfortunately rare, thanks for being the odd one out.
Humans have a natural tendency towards doing everything wrong, even with the right intentions.
Total Depravity
It's because of the "money mind". We're geared in the wrong way, profiting. Big industries especially the media industry, only tout what is profitable. But it's up to the people now to change direction because the corporations and governments will totally destroy our habitat if we don't.
Ahahahahahahabahahahahahahahahahahah ZZZZZZZZOMBIESZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
I never thought I would hear „reckless tree planting“ in a sentence.
After the death of my grandparents about 6 years ago, my parents tasked me with maintaining my grandparents house and property. While I enjoy gardening, this was a whole new level. One of the first things I did was purchase a good plant identification app, so I could figure out exactly what was planted in their extremely large yard.
Turns out, 30ish years ago my grandmother went on an east-asian landscaping kick, and the majority of plants in and around their western Oregon home were from east-asia.
I am now in the process of converting everything over to local native plants. . . and you would be surprised (or not, perhaps) how hard it is to find some of the legacy species I grew up with. For example, the Pacific Madrone. They were fairly common when I was growing up in the 80s. These days you hardly see them. I spent over a year scouring the local native nurseries trying to find saplings or starters for them, to no avail. Fortunately I was able to find some this year. . . but haven't been able to plant them yet due to the record levels of rain we're getting.
Madrones are also finicky to start. I bought four, and if two survive I will be happy. I'm hoping to see them top 30 feet in my lifetime. And with any luck they'll produce some berries to put into my cider press.
Madrones can't be grown they are wild like deer. If you try and water they they will die, if you dont water them they will die, at least in my experience. Never heard of juicing the berries though. The band-tailed pigeons usually get them here.
Madrones are beautiful. One of the hardest wood to cut or split.
This is EXCELLENT. I'm trained in conservation and land management with a focus on regenerative planting. So many people think that one-dimensional revegetation is the same as regeneration. There's so much more to it than just throwing whatever monoculture of large trees you've picked in the ground if you want truly beneficial results, and even more if you're doing it in an area where it must co-exist with structures and utilities. I am constantly frustrated by the illogical choices made for things like footpath plantings - that in less than 10 years will have roots tearing through the roads and be putting branches through the power lines.
thanks for always making us think, discuss, disagree, agree, and share. Brilliant!!!
We can also go back to building neighborhoods the same way we did 100 years ago. It was depressing to live somewhere where there was no stores to walk to. Where I live now is an older suburb where I have a store and restaurant within a half mile. If the bus system was better, I could consider living in a 1 car household.
Yeah, my hometown is like that. Everything you need is within walking distance. I can't imagine living any other way.
@@oliviastratton2169 I wouldn’t say everything is within walking distance. The bigger stores have a hill in the way, but if the bus system wasn’t so worthless it wouldn’t be a problem. I have several routes running near my corner store but they all run on a 120 minute headway and none of them are coordinated to make the wait times close to even. It’s like waiting for a bunch of commuter trains.
I love your insight into building and environment. I’m a bee keeper and I also advocate for raising indigenous bees. Could you ever look at doing a video explaining how honey bees keep their hives at temp ect and make a comparison to what we could learn from them?
I 2nd this
Wow!
That sounds like a great idea, actually.
vibrate a lot = warm hive
I'm always so happy when I see cheerful little bumblybees as they move around our neighborhood. We leave the paper wasps alone too. They are important for the local ecosystem. Plus, the creek which runs behind our house is part of a wildlife corridor through the city and without the wasps eating smaller insects... Ugh!
A big shout out for the work of willie smits!
Muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone- Alan Watts. Well said thanks for the new perspective!
Thanks, Wesley!
We should not plant trees incorrectly, but we should NEVER STOP planting trees.
Such a great point about the ‘green buildings’ not needing to be festooned with actual greenery
This is the most wholistic educational video about tree planting that I have watched.
Short and to the point!
4:43 - The lawn issue is unrelated to the topic at hand. You make excellent points about the damage that large tree roots can cause to the infrastructure of a residential site. However it's not right to conflate "non-native" trees with large destructive trees. Black walnuts and sycamore trees are _native_ to North America, but that doesn't mean their roots won't crack pavement and choke out drainage pipes. I have an AMAZING "non-native" Asian Persimmon tree which gave me 80 persimmons last year. And that's from a small tree which is appropriately placed in relation to my structures.
Xeriscaping is appropriate for certain climates but does NOT need to be applied in all situations. In the North East, I don't need to water all of the time. I use dwarf or semi-dwarf trees which are pruned to even smaller sizes for practicality. The benefits of a consumable crop, along with shade, privacy, wind break and aesthetics are all excellent reasons to use trees that are properly placed and sized for the site. And yes, that includes "non-natives."
I think you misunderstand the target for her critique. It wasn't aimed at people like yourself who actually plan and consider the needs of the site and suitable planting to use. It is aimed at symbolic, purely aesthetic, and ill-thought out planting schemes. The real problems lies with the conception of less knowledgeable people about how trees and man should co-exist together in order to achieve Sustainability. Right now, the obsession with Looking Green rather than Being Green, means that much of our environmental polices amount to Greenwashing and are potentially creating more problems than solving existing ones. More informed planting schemes, effective and sustainable industrial production, and less Silver Bullet thinking are what's required. Until that happens, we're just rearranging deck chairs on The Titanic.
i think you should also consider her background. as I understand, Belinda lives in Texas currently. Texas isn't a place suited for lush green lawns. in order to maintain that "perfect yard" look that HOAs desire a homeowner needs to use a lot of water and chemical fertilizers, which effectively negates any environmental positives the manicured lawn creates. the video is effectively saying that if your lawn can't survive the climate you live in without constant substantial maintenance, then maybe get a differnt-style lawn.
@@BigHenFor Those are some interesting insights! Rather than reading into what she might have been implying, I simply listened to what she says at face value. The video is set up with a sensational title, talking about "reckless" tree planting. I agree that there are various examples of this. The whole monoculture thing is a beautiful case in point. But sandwiching "lawns" into a discussion about trees doesn't do anything to prove the argument or to exemplify "reckless" tree planting. And hitting buzz words like "non-native" does not really prove a point either. The section about Urban Trees sets up some valid concerns. But I didn't see much in the way of solutions to the challenges she brought forth. Was she trying to say that Urban Tree Planting shouldn't be done? Are we to believe the whole concept in general is reckless and that our urban landscapes should be devoid of trees???
@@zilesis1 _"if your lawn can't survive the climate you live in without constant substantial maintenance, then maybe get a differnt-style lawn"_ I agree 100%! I've never used any inputs on my small patch of grass & I think that makes perfect sense. It just has nothing to do with trees...
I'm not sure how you listened to her video and thought that any of it applied to your case, taking her words at "face value" or otherwise. She is clearly talking about the grass itself and destructive trees. Nowhere does she say all trees planted in lawns are bad.
I'm happy to hear someone else saying what my dad's been saying for as long as I can remember.
My old man's been working with nature preservation for the past 42 years, works for the IUCN, a political advisor on conservation, and a board member to several environmental organisations, and his answer to "what do we do to save nature" is always the same. "Just leave it the fuck alone". Don't plant a new forest, don't set out locally extinct species, if a forest wants to live there you can be sure it'll appear, if animals want to be there they'll go there, but forcing it is going to mess with the ecosystems, kill local wildlife, strangle the nutrients out of the ground, and likely just fail to accomplish what anyone wants. Just leave nature the fuck alone and it'll do what it needs to do.
Thanks for sharing that, Nicholas!
"Strangle the nutrients out of the ground"? ^this is not a perspective I've heard in any of my graduate studies in ecosystem science
@@vinsanity488 I'm not a biologist myself so forgive a layman's interpretation, but the way my dad's been putting it has been as follows:
"Rewindlding" or replanting forests by throwing down one or two species of trees in straight lines along the ground places strain on whichever specific nutrients those plants need. This, in turn, means that their growth will be stunted in the long term, causing a loss of investment and a less than ideal outcome. This might be especially relevant since I live in Denmark where a lot of the space that the government is trying to re-forest is nutrient poor clay-filled soil. In my dad's telling it's better to leave an area be, in order for ground cover to slowly decay, NS eventually build up to being able to naturally sustain a forest (if a forest is what suits the area).
One more thing to add. Forest =/= nature. Northern Europe used to be one big cold swampy land and before that it was a big grassy plain closer to a prairie. Some places are not suited for sustaining large trees and the like.
@@nicholaswoollhead6830 very good point here, i completely agree that it is important to understand what the abiotic (and biotic) components of an ecosystem can sustain when considering active management plans. In the midwest of North America we primarily deal with too many nutrients running off our soil into our waterways and actively engineering plant communities that stabilize soil and take up nutrients is very helpful. Understanding the problems in each ecosystem is certainly important! It's nice to learn a little about issues in Danish soils, thanks!
I learn so much from your channel. You stay well read and well versed on almost everything you cover.
I was worried by the title but you are 100% right! And so informative. Thank you. We are in deep trouble when your reasonable points sound almost extreme!
Thanks for the nuanced take. On your question about lifestyle changes, eating plant-based is one of the things we can do that have the biggest effect on climate change and environmental degradation. 83% of all agricultural land is devoted to animal agriculture, for only 18% of our calories. Animal agriculture is responsible for 18-28% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Phasing out animal agriculture would prevent that huge chunk of our emissions, as well as make 75% of all agricultural land unnecessary, allowing for a truly enormous amount of carbon to be sequestered through rewilding.
If you are reading this comment and want the sources, ask and I'm happy to provide. The most important one is the Oxford Study, the biggest analysis of the environmental impact of food ever done: "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers"
We're doing everything wrong because we have "industry" and that causes concentration of ecological stressors. What is needed is everything to return to small farming. Animals need to be migrated not just stay in the same place. Animals actually prevent desertification due to their foot prints allowing the water to pool and their manure to make conditions right for micro-organisms (See Allan Savory method)
@@deniseward002 Allan Savory's methods have been thoroughly debunked. Here's a primer with cited scientific sources ua-cam.com/video/OSAz-A7S8ow/v-deo.html
Eating less, or eliminating meat is definitely one of the things that we could actually exercise some effect upon personally, it would still be lost in the wash of industrial activities. I would like your sources.. I read the oxford abstract, but from what I could find animal agriculture was between 5 and 14% of ghg emissions , the vast majority of which are methane which while particularly powerful is relatively short lived in the atmosphere, so if we did strike (cows in particular) from the menu there would be a relatively rapid reduction atmospheric methane..
best I could do was animal agriculture is about 30% of agriculture in general and agriculture was between 11 and 20% of overall ghg emissions.
In addition to cutting out or reducing meat would be to increase the energy efficiency of our homes... residential buildings contribution is around double (of course depending on source) what we get from meat production.
Not that i don’t hype for a massive and sudden shift in human behaviours, the real hope that I have is for policy changes, which could, overnight, dwarf any of hard sought personal changes .
Ps.. I’m ignoring here, but dont negate the significance of the other environmental stressors related to just land use
@@haidafella8651 The real problem is that we use fossil fuels for energy and farm animals in a very deleterious way and that is why the huge methane problem. The reason we are in this warp is because money is created through debt so we are always in deficiency. If we had small farms, and used clean and renewable energies, we wouldn't have these problems. There is absolutely, thoroughly no point whatsoever in trying to get the politicians to change anything because they are the ones who made the policies the way they are, that have caused all this strife. And they are not going to change the money system. So it's up to individuals to change their expectations and to do things differently and to get people they know to do the same. That's the way it's supposed to be actually, this centralized dictatorship that we have all gotten used to has to go. That is the major problem!
@@deniseward002 strange.. my comment was meant to be on a different post. Don’t really disagree with anything you are saying... except that i believe it IS possible to effect policy... not necessarily through the good will of politicians, but through good strategy and the legal system...
Another well researched and presented video. Thank you!
In lower income neighborhoods fewer trees are planted leading to lower air quality and higher surface temperatures compared to more affluent neighborhoods. More green is also generally associated with better (mental) health. It seems like planting more trees in these neighborhoods would improve equity. How do you think this problem should be addressed without planting more trees
Please watch the video, and mot just the title.
The video doesn’t actually say you shouldn’t plant more trees. The title is just a clickbait. You should ABSOLUTELY plant more trees. Just be mindful about what kind of tree and where exactly.
Good. Well said ☘️☘️☘️☘️
Hank Green talked about a tool with no blood on it. This was his point. We need to examine our solutions and be aware that they, too, carry problems. There is no perfect solution, but applying bandaids or simple solutions to complex problems will rarely result in a net, long-term gain.
I don't really understand the argument against urban trees. The tradeoff for more maintenance is that they absorb pollution. That seems like a win to me.
'leaving natural areas alone'; this, again, is oversimplification.
I live on an island covered by peat bog.
It used to be covered by forest, however, people cut the trees down faster than they could regrow. The local climate and conditions were favourable for moss growth, so this took over the landscape as the dominant plant growth.
Thankfully, peat moss bogs are also very good at capturing carbon.
Unfortunately, peat moss bogs are not good for mammal diversity.
This is a good example of how 'just leaving to rewild' can have unexpected consequences, and might not result in an ecosystem anything like the previous ecosystem.
Good point - in many cases "wilding" on a ex-agricultural soil will lead to monoculture of one or two most adapted species of weeds. So instead of having monoculture of vegetables, we end up with monoculture of weeds. I know a piece of land in a village nearby left alone for 40-years, and there are still no trees there, it looks like great steppe with domination of a two types of weeds - even if the district around is rich in forest. So a little help for biodiversity to get started is not a bad thing.
Sometimes trees are not native to areas. In the Midwest, grasslands are very prevalent. That is because the amount of yearly rainfall does not sustain many kinds of trees but grasses and shrubs with more of a seasonal need for water.
So much common sense being spoken in this video. Well done Belinda
I can't tell you how much I respect this person. She gets to the point and does an excellent job explaining things. I would love for you to do more topics like this.
And whilst I know you were born in the UAE, I also realize you are Indian. I would also like to hear you do this topic from the viewpoints of those two places.
Another ground breaking topic from Belinda!
Incredibly well done, thank you 💚🙏🏼
Thanks Belinda; I watched this while downing a well-known energy drink and accompanying junk food, so again feel partially guilty. It really is up to us all to collectively bring meaningful change.
The problem with humans is that we always want a "quick fix". That results in us doing things the easy way, not the most thoughtful and _effective_ way. This tendency is the reason why our "quick fix" solutions don't last; having to remediate those very "quick fix" solutions when they break down and cause their own problems adds to the work we must do. And if we keep on applying knee-jerk, lazy and poorly thought out "solutions", the hole we are digging only gets deeper as failed solutions pile up and become additional problems in their own right.
The "Quick Fix" mentality is also the reason we got into these messes (that then required remediation) in the first place.
3. Urban greening is undertaken for a whole host of important reasons, but the plants / trees used should be appropriate to the area and the purpose for which they are being used and don't pose a risk to important infrastructure etc. It's no accident that the most expensive / up-market sections of a city often are the most beautiful! Curitiba (Brazil) gives tax incentives to developers who incorporate green spaces into their projects, and gives residents discounts on property etc taxes (up to 50%) if they conserve the city's indigenous tree on their properties. In Tirana (Albania) citizens are encouraged to plant a tree on their child/children's birthdays in designated areas around the city (companies plant 2 trees for every car in their fleet) - I hope they are planting indigenous trees! I like projects like these that encourages communities to get involved in creating the neighbourhoods & cities they want. In my country we have very little urban greening projects and we also have a poverty challenge - if our cities could encourage both community urban greening as well as community food gardens - especially in low-income communities - that would be so nice. We cannot expect city planners & managers to do everything, but I do think they should take the lead as part of an overall city development strategy that's integrated, inclusive, effective & sustainable. In Bogota (I think it's here) local govs will build local amenities, but if the community doesn't use it then they won't maintain it.
Really informative, enlightening and spot-on video - if we don't change our behaviors, then all the supposed "green" activities in the world won't save us. Thanks for making this!
Thank you for this and other thought provoking discussions!
I always enjoy your videos which are very original and don't parrot the mainstream media.
I love how frank your assessment is
You do an awesome job Belinda! Thank you for these videos.
Yes please discuss that in the next video!
I love your stuff, Belinda! You bring up many good points. I wrote my thesis on the benefits of restoring urban riparian habitats for carbon sequestration (upper limit: 176,000 kg carbon per hectare in biomass, 99,000 kg carbon per hectare in soil), migratory bird corridor restoration, stream bank stabilization, and denitification (mitigating agricultural or urban nutrient pollution). Of course, with every restoration project, historical context for the proposed habitat must be defined, but the value of these spaces is immense. And not just trees, but successful communities of understory plants, trees, shrubs, rock features, etc. It is conservatively estimated that Earth's forests sequester 12% of the world's anthropogenic co2, which is nothing to scoff at. Done correctly, in conjunction with your final points, reforestation is effective and serves multiple purposes. The green washing side of corporate restoration and even some mitigation banking projects gives the field a bad name. In arid climates, riparian habitats are far and away the more productive, and I believe that paying for real, effective riparian restoration and management to build carbon credits is more effective than the broken carbon credit system you've defined in the past (great video). Last point: these habitats aren't permanent carbon sinks. They reach their carbon storage capacity asymptoticaly: as the community matures, woody plants begin to die and decay, releasing carbon, and the carbon storage curve begins to flatten out. All the more reason to restore, maintain, and move on! Cheers Belinda!
I put off watching this because I didn't want to have to disagree with someone I'm a fan of. Turns out my worries were unfounded. I totally agree with you about native trees (and other vegetation). When I look around my city, I see all kinds of dangers caused by trees that have no place in the environment and are poised to topple. Lots of them have been hollowed out by pests and are pushing up fences, sidewalks, foundations and power lines. I know we want our cities to be beautiful but we need to be smarter about it.
I like how you are not afraid to go against the grain and drop some truth bombs
Belinda.... you're the best!
Growing up in the Pacific NW, we had a huge yard. But the only maintenance we did was occasional mowing and pruning. No pesticides, no unnecessary watering.
Obviously, we were lucky our temperate climate kept thing pretty green on it's own. But I do think lawns/yards get a bad rep. Just keep it natural and low maintenance and they can be really great!
Yeap even raking the leaves is bad. In summer leaves keep the soil water from scaping and protect the ground from wind and the roots from the sun. We need to be smarter about LEED. Power lines need to be underground. Exposed infraestructure is a danger to all involved.
Suburbs are a plague. We need to concentrate people in cities. The developers ate going to run put of land eventually. Its a terrible way to earn money.
@@trowawayacc You do know it's not one or the other, right? People can live in small towns. They can live on farms. Not everyone has to live in an urban environment.
In fact, urban living can be very psychologically damaging. Look up "nature deficit disorder".
You just don’t get it: we all need to virtue signal by embracing a one-size-fits-all dogma that rejects all nuance. How else shall we be saved?
@@trowawayacc The problem with that is that many people don't want to live in cities. You won't encourage anyone to live a "sustainable" lifestyle by telling them they must be miserable.
As someone who has attended many forestry classes and seminars, one of the things that stuck with me was the idea that when you're changing something, the best way to do it is to mimic nature. Nice to see that this concept was emphasized in your video!
This is very insightful, informative, and eye opening.
This is very good, thanks and the best of luck
Every video you have launched has helped me in better understanding our housing challenges and helped to pick the right materials in restoring our home. All this presented in ways a person without the educational background required to understand the concepts.
This video is very timely for me. We have an acre of land in southern DE and I’ve been struggling with what to do about it. Now I am excited to learn what the natural environment actually was and plan a way to incorporate only native species and cut down the amount of mowing.
Thank you! And how do you do that?!? It’s like you are in my head😂😂😂
Regarding urban trees: it bums me out to no end when a tree that took many decades to grow gets cut down, usually because the roots are messing up the sidewalk or it's a code violation because it's too close to a building.
It's also sad to see trees drying up and dying because they end up stranded amongst concrete/ urban pollution.
I realize I am witnessing the end result of nearsighted design/ lack of long term planning. I wish that instead of removing trees we reimagine those sidewalks and use something other than concrete. Though that may cause accessibility issues...
Anyways, you make some good points. I still think that planting, caring for, and maintaining more trees, especially in urban environments, is necessary. Not just for aesthetics, mental and physical wellbeing, but also as a bulwark for the effects of climate change
Great summary and overview. The only thing missing is the benefits that trees in urban and suburban environments provide to humans. When properly sited trees can directly reduce heating and cooling costs by providing shade and reducing the effects of wind. But as you say, we should plant the right trees in the right place. Plant trees that are native to your area (or noninvasive that produce food for humans) and that will grow to the right size. Don't plant a maple tree in your yard under a power line that's only 20 feet up when the mature size of the tree is 70 feet ... but you could plant a peach tree that will reach only 15 feet and keep it pruned to produce fruit.
Thank you for sharing this information
Like most things, something helpful in many ways can be over generalized as a solution to all problems. This was interesting look into why a measured and nuanced approach may be needed to make things more “green”. I’d love to hear more about the injecting of oil into the ground. Never heard of that before.
I never heard of a more harebrained idea, how much oil are we digging out from the earth everyday?
Are we digging out more oil to convert into energy and use it to convert a little of the carbon emissions back to oil and to inject it back into the ground?
One point not mentioned is that one town in the US stopped mowing lawns and the bee population exploded in the area. Also trees in cities and areas reduce the amount of heat in cities, etc. My new house had no greenery but now it is nice and cool from all the various trees. They also prevent water runoff down the hill. I had a low lying area with a rock garden to collect excess water until the trees and clay soil absorbed it. Some areas here have landslides and flooding due to poor design.
People need to plant fruit trees and shrubs on their properties. With correct pruning they can grow in many places e.g. along walls.
About 15 years my family purchased some farmland connecting our cabins together we left it mostly alone after making sure the crops were gone, planting a few spots with clusters of mostly native plants and helping them get established (based on some permaculture book a a design course my aunt took I think) planted some native ground covers to prevent erosion, and pretty much left it alone aside from trail maintenance and some controlling of the initial clusters expansion. Every year it is a little more filled in, many spots you can hardly walk through without getting smacked in the face. I'm sure they'll crowd each other out in another 15 or 20 years and it'll be pretty nice to see for whoever goes there. But I understand most capitalists would consider this a waste I think of it as a investment in my family's future enjoyment of our land.
You’ve made excellent points. As a Pakistani citizen I would point out that the government’s action of planting trees was not for timber use. In fact, it was an attempt to restore forests in parts of country which have suffered due to decades of illegal extensive deforestation by organized crime rings. For once, species native to the areas were used, and where soil was damaged, special native species were used to try and restore its integrity. Other than restoring forests, the government also has also developed urban forest spaces based on a Japanese technique specifically developed for this purpose. Most importantly, it has tried to educate our huge population on climate change. It’s a very young and probably inadequate effort, but it’s already bearing results, local communities are involved to a great extent, have ownership of their efforts and are quite proud of it.
People forget that trees produce CO2 at night through respiratory energy production at night .
So?
@@davidwarren4569 it means that more effective planting is needed , or more water ways with Marsh plants . They are the most effective oxygenators . They produce less CO2 per KG bio mass than trees .
Well said Belinda!
I think the most important thing you can take away from this is that it is fine to have your fruit and decorative trees but the best thing you can do for the environment is to *mostly* plant native trees, grasses and plants over non-native varieties chosen simply for convenience or looks. If you want trees where none normally grow, that's fine - but you should consult your local extension office to find out what trees are appropriate and that will grow without putting a strain on local water and soil resources.
If a lawn needs frequent watering, it is the wrong plant for your area.
My parents never watered the lawn (except for the purposes of reseeding once or twice after excavations).
Our lawns were a mix of whatever survived on natural light and water. If there were dead spots, our usual remedy was to loosen the soil to about 3-4 inches and see what spread.
-
On the bad side, we did mow with a gas mower. But we always mowed tall and infrequently.
We would never have been welcome in an HOA and I'm happy about that.
lawns get attacked a lot in this conversation, but where I live, no one is maintaining a monoculture with watering and weeding and chemicals.
we do cut whatever grows out there though, because long grasses/weeds attract mice, which attract snakes. I don't see xeriscaping working anywhere that gets regular heavy rain and/or isn't flat; erosion is real, and that's one thing classic lawns do ok at.
Belinda, I am the author of "building a Better World in Your Backyard - instead of being angry at bad guys" - I will gladly provide you with a copy of my book. Take your pick between a physical book, an ebook or audiobook.
Thanks, Paul! I'd love to read your book and speak with you about it. How can I contact you?
I have read Paul Wheaton's book and think it is one of the best resources out there for practical steps everyone can take. He calls it "luxuriant environmentalism." It's extremely positive and encouraging.
@@leightate7491 Thanks for the kind words!
@@BelindaCarr Growing connections between people of positive purpose. This for me is peak internet.
wow what an offer. i loved listening to BWB while i was cleaning the house and doing dishes by hand. It really made me think about energy use, especially in regards to heating ones home.
Thanks for the enlightement
Another excellent presentation.
Woooow! I just did a Belinda Carr MARATHON! Subscribed!
Belinda, your presentation is perfectly expressed and organized. I am a subber for life!
Thank you, Mike!
Very good content. Thanks.
Much required video in UA-cam, well researched work. Kudos to your efforts. Hope this video goes viral….
Excellent video!
I like the way you think. We rarely look at the elephant in the room - our consumption. We make an electric clean car and put 90k batteries so we can run fast and hard. Thanks for a bit of common sense - right or wrong, it raises awareness and encourages thought. Thank you.
I appreciate your video for taking the next step that trees aren't the main answer. I want to mention the book nature's best hope by Douglas w. Tallamy. His solution basically is cultivate local plant life especially trees and the trickle down effect goes to butterflies to birds and so on.
Your videos are consistently excellent
Home improvement (with deep dives into specific choices?) AND climate change? Ok, I gotta watch more of your videos, this is amazing stuff!
Well balanced look at trees.
I once planted a local Berry plant in our local park.
It was a sapling and now it has grown sizeably
It hosts lot of birds
Very informative - thanks for sharing. I'd always thought that just simply planting tree's is counter intuitive, since often the longevity for the tree's planted is limited as they are cut down for other purposes. I like the idea of just letting nature taking over.
NEVER stop planting trees, but do it skillfully! And by all means this should NOT be the ONLY thing we do. There is never such a thing as a silver bullet. We must take action in every way possible, and we should to it FAST, and SOON!
thanks so much for the video !!! really informative and insightful 🤩😘
Great video! Although in the section urban trees you didn't mention photosynthesis which is the process of converting carbon dioxide into oxygen.
Research is also emerging that shows forests don't make a positive impact on CO2 reduction until they are at least 20 years old.
Ok, lission, the difficult disision we need ot make is, and i say it twice, Send the north. south. AND the iceburg poles to space!
I can't believe it's about a year ago and I just find out about this educational channel
Very thoughful and informative video. Our family also strongly believes in lifestyle change can have a bigger impact on globe. You also brought up cattle ranching, which is close to my heart, luckily their are animals raised in a regenerative manner using humane animal management practices, and producing quality meats!
Very informative 👏
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
I hope people can understand.
So, I would have a disagreement on #4 seeing as Urban Vegetation still have many benefits you failed to mention such as lowering the albedo, absorbing heat and aiding in mental health.
I'm not a city planner but I'm certain they have methods of minimizing the cons and maximizing the pros.
We are not arguing about the ends but the means. Many of the means - like the Tree Tower Block while laudable, are unsustainable in the long run, because of the CO2 released in just creating them. The idea that a tower block filled with shrubs and plants could replace a park is just crazy.
@@BigHenFor Yeah... I agree.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
I would argue Urban Trees (#4) is not necessarily a poor means of planting vegetation. Green skyscrapers are Elon Musk-tier ridiculous.
Almost all the materials are needed for the structures anyway, they are part of the outer walls.
@@madsam0320 ?
Bighen said those trees and scrubs on tower blocks grow on materials causing CO2 in creating them, but they are part of the structure on the outer walls. Unless we don’t live in tower blocks, which is greenest urban accommodations, those greeneries don’t adds much to the CO2 but have lots of advantages like cleaning up the fumes, absorbing the CO2 and aesthetically pleasing to the environment.
Your videos always teach or challenge me in something, at first I'm like "No way! you are crazy!" and then "She was right all along..."
Fun fact: We all love this video... But we can't do jack.
One of the main reason why we're planting trees is because we're ALLOWED to...
Corporations with their hands up the governments bums, control what effective methods we can use so they won't lose all their money.
Thanks!