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? Oliver Morton, a senior editor at The Economist who specialises in climate science and policy, and Sarah Collinson, the director of this film, will be live to answer your questions.
I'm sure they are experts- but you should include a professional forester who does this for a living- who understands the complexities of planting trees or allowing them to grow wild- and who can also explain harvesting wood while maintaining the integrity of the forest. By the way, growing forests for all values including wood production is called "silviculture"- yet this subject is virtually ignored by all discussions of trees and climate.
Id like links on how to find info on compatible species. My local eco groups r focusing on trees. To contribute, i resorting to collecting some of the local fallen acorn beech sycamore acorn n hazel nuts this autumn, currently holding them in fridge in an attempt to trick them into sprouting 1 season early inside my flat. Can seeding a forest with local compatible species n then letting nature take over be an effective shortcut to the natural rewilding? Concerned folk NEED to feel n see a tangible contribution Also, can u address why some folk have hopped onto the agenda 21, sun dimming, depopulation, carbon tax being a ponzi, heading for iceage (best argument being desalination killing gulf stream that warms NW europe) etc etc etc Cos its causing many to feel their efforts not needed Also gov subsidies in fossil fuels n why those companies not getting into renewables (they cld b our greatest assest if they wanted n still make profit, only gov subsidies keepin them competitive n thus keepin them from desire to change)
"Climate Change" due to fossil fuel CO2 The biggest fraud in the history of science. Address real pollution and poor peoples’ - in Africa and elsewhere - inability to get abundant, reliable energy.
The more important carbon sink is in the soil of grasslands. The problem is that it involves cows or megaherbivores. This is a problem because cows have been labelled the problem. The problem though has been the way they are currently managed. Mob/holistic grazing is needed. Follow gabe brown, Greg Judy, Alan savoury
Great report. In Ireland, our government is planting spruce trees everywhere. Making money with monoculture thus turning my country into an ecological dead zone. This is the danger in politically driven climate action that needs to be addressed
Indeed. But let's be clear that this is NOT climate action, no matter how the politicians may frame it. It's about business as usual, lack of imagination, forestry subsidies "for the lads" and a national forestry board appallingly lacking in any sort of ecological training much less an ecological policy and remit. It's telling that Ireland is a country where "forest" is a negative concept, unlike practically every other place on the planet.
@Jeff Gibson Who cares if they are appearing non-conformist? This guy is conducting world changing research and we are preoccupied about his facial hair. We are basically proving the non-conformists' point
Ahh, yeah. A revolution is exactly the thin we need in the face of a massive crisis.... When society collapses into chaos, who care what is in 20 years? 😂
Seaweed is better, can be eaten and feed fish that can be harvested - offset should be structured as a transformational subsidy - so an offset when you purchase it helps agriculture transform to carbon neutral even negative - a lot of agricultural can be moved to climate controlled sheds just outside cities so a lot of land can be returned to nature
We have no control over climate change or nature. We should recylce and reuse what we can and set up proper waste management policies. Climate Greta should go plant a tree or get a recycling plant going to actually help the environment.
Governments < should invest (our money) in donating trees to people along with planting more and more per year until it is over... They dont cost much and they would make everything look better and more appealing to be around. I know my country, Canada would actually send people in other countries to plant trees. My own family has planted over 3000 trees in 5 years. Some of them didn't grow and died so that is also to be accounted for.
Imagine you turn a desert green by planting trees. If you can keep it green, even you cut the trees down to make papers and replant trees, it always has lot of carbondioxide stored there. So it helps anyway. Of course other things need to be do to fight climate change, but it doesn't mean that tree planting is not important.
I'm old enough notice how the weather have changed just in my lifetime, and dramatically changed for the last 30 year. My city, Bangkok, use to be quite cold for months in winter, now not even a sign of cool air. There are severe deforestation around my country and around the world, one of the biggest, thickest and most dangerous jungle in the middle of my country disappear just in my lifetime and only tiny part of it was left as a national park, not to mention all of jungles north to south that are in the same situation. It is true that we can't solve this crisis with only planting trees but it is still important to plant them as much as we can , be it by nature or monoculture (at least for a short period until nature heals itself), as they are the only tool we have to take carbon from the air and store it in the ground, no man made machine could do that more efficiently and they also produce oxygen, lower ground temperature etc. It IS part of solutions and I don't think its enough to just let nature take care of itself alone at this time. At least, why not planting some first , local species, let it be mother tree then have nature do the rest? With all that tree planting, we also need to cut down carbon emission, use "less" plastic, use less fossil fuels, recycle our waste, and the list goes on. I don't quite understand why many people think it have to be "A SINGLE" solution. They wait, wait and wait for that magical solution and do nothing (even hinder other in many case), for me that's lazy and selfish. At my age, I don't think I will live long enough to see any improvement on this crisis but at least we must "DO" something now not just debating, thinking and researching.
Smit Na Nakornpanom says: "They wait, wait and wait for that magical solution and do nothing (even hinder other in many case),.." == The way most people are thinking is, "Yes, it's warming but nothing will happen to us." It's like in a battle, facing ten times bigger army and defeat is unavoidable, then someone suggests, "Let's surrender. They may save us." The reality is that the enemy is thinking of mass execution of the POW. If we know it beforehand, we would fight to the last bullet and die in the battle no matter what(the results are the same). The consequence of climate change is just like that, mass execution, worldwide perpetual famine for next thousand of years. How many people out their really understand this? They have no idea our food supply is completely dependent on the climate. And that the nature will be kind to us no matter what.
@Jeff Gibson I know quite well about heat island and what happen to my city but it is just one example. Deforestation is real in my country and throughout my country north to south there is a noticable change in weather even in the country side faraway from the city, it is not what it use to be (40+ years ago). It may be local change (I don't deny it) but what happens locally will effect the whole system in one way or another and in turn the whole system will effect local system. World weather and nature don't have border it is always one complex system from combination of smaller subsystems. I like to think of it like a very complicate watches, one tiny rust gear will effect the whole movement, compare that to the situation where there are many rust gears, deforestations around the world, decates of burning of fossil fuel, constance undergeound coal mine burning, and many more, I believe that it is already a failed system and it will get worse. I may be wrong and I hope l was wrong, but so far I haven't seen any improvement on the situation at all.
@Jeff Gibson Believe what you want. I think I know what you trying to do here and Its not worth my time discuss any thing further with you. Goodluck man.
"We are under the gross misconception that we are a good species going somewhere important and that at the last minute we will correct our errors and God will smile on us. It is delusion". Farley Mowat
@@jean-marclamothe8859 Rosling didn't say anything about climate change. He said the world got better for most humans and that we will not grow beyond 10 billion. He also said we have to plan for a world of 10 billion people. Most of the improvements for humans is dependend on very high energy consumption. That demand is still mostly met with fossil fuels. Catastrophic climate change is just begining. It will accelerate in the next decades and not slow down for sixty to 100 years. So all the benefits of burning fossil fuels will most likely be erased by the consequences of CO2 emissions. I think your optimisem based on Rosling is missplaced.
We are a pointless evolutionary experiment that will kne day become extinct. The questions is, what do we with the time we have and why do make life for many more miserable than necessary, so a few can have MUCH more then they need?
@@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello Yes, other things such as trees, plants, and other animals. Recall that even though the dinosaurs died of millions of years ago, the dinosaurs have existed for hundreds of millions of years. Compare that to the human existence of around 100,000 to 200,000 years, so far.
@@tyronekim3506 Other things....like creatures that are sentient or nearly so. Giant Squid Whales Porpoise Dolphins Octopus We humans think this is about just us....friggen typical. WILLFULL IGNORANCE.
@@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello Thank you for agreeing that other animals will continue on living. Biological life cycle and geological cycle are dynamic. The Earth's geological history has shown that plant and animal species die off and gets replaced by new species of plants and animals. To think that humans are the guardians or stewards of this Earth is preposterous when millions of years ago for hundreds of millions of years the dinosaurs, big and small, roamed this planet as compared to only 100,000 to 200,000 years of human existence. During the Jurassic period, millions of years ago, large dinosaurs were abundant. Carbon dioxide level was over 4 times higher during the Jurassic period than it its today. This is a well known established fact but this is not mentioned by the climate scientists. I welcome you to fact check this as this fact is undisputed.
More trees are good- whether planted or allowed to grow "wild"- but such discussions usually ignore that there is a huge market for wood products from 7 billion people- so the discussions should also talk about long term "forest management"- which I know a bit about as I've been a professional forester for 47 years. Yet, hardly anyone asks foresters about trees- which is rather stupid. Of course, much forest management is very poorly done- and that needs to be acknowledged- then we need to move towards high quality forest management to both produce wood products while maintaining carbon in the forest. Here where I live, in Massachusetts, there are many fanatics who say we should never cut trees- but when I ask what will replace wood for homes, furniture, paper products- they have no response.
Using wood as a long term building material effectively captures the carbon for however long the building stands. This also allows the same area to be used again for more tree growth
@@kimwarburton8490 Depends on your location, markets and people who can manage those crops. Trees can be left alone for decades with little "management".
We need to get our heads around the ecology of the situation. Trees are great but so are tight herds of herbivores munching through grasslands, hammering carbon into the soil. We need to love this world and act in that way.
If we really want to help the environment we will stop buying the things we don't need. Do we really need that closet full of clothes, 10 pairs of shoes, throw pillows, gift cards, toys, all those kitchen gadgets?! Think about what it takes to create those products. And when you're done with them and want something new, where do those things go? We can make real change if we change individually. Vote with your dollar.
In New Zealand, the government is funding the planting of 1 billion trees by 2028 of which 60% will be native and 40% be introduced mainly Pinus Radiata (Monterey pine). Whilst native trees take longer to grow but they live longer in some cases up to 1000 years so they can store more CO2 compared to the quicker growing introduced Monterey pine which can grow quicker than natives.
I thank Economist for clarifying my thought on the use of fossil fuels. It is actually bothersome and what could be the large part of carbon emission. It's even funny to think the Oil and Gas industry are sort of a rich, money earning job...
What did you say? “Restoring the local habitat is good. Not a silver bullet like no one thinks that. Mono culture bad.” Great video but who’s is it for? People who believe in climate change but also believe no other solution is valid besides tree planting; not forest planting; tree planting also. Also those squares are cute and all but you need some sustainable tree farms for resources for humanity not just all natural forests so more realistically both are needed or a hybrid is needed and tree farms are part of the solution. Either tree farms and habitat restoration/ habitat that is built with a dedicated tree farming section. Agriculture and habitat restoration/ habit that simultaneously provide human food.
Not just trees, bamboo is 3x better in sequestering than trees especially in tropical areas, and way more sustainable too as trees get cut for many reasons at a rate faster than being planted. Bamboo grows back even more after being cut.
We call the nature, mother nature for a reason. She knows how to get stuff done. We should leave her alone rather than forcibly planting stuff. What we humans can do is reduce non vegetarian intake and all sorts of greenhouse emissions. Rest will fall in place by itself.
I agree - not clear yet hugely significant point. I think this means a plantation monoculture as would typically be established for timber, versus ' natural' growth with no intervention. Te latter is much more variable as the surrounding landscape would be the major influence on its development. I think they should have stated the source material at very least.
Jeff Berardelli says at 02:15 "Nature SOMETIMES has the best remedies." I couldn't believe what I just heard so I relistened it a couple of times. Yes, he did say SOMETIMES. The sentence is only meaningful without that extra word. If you put 'sometimes' into the sentence you are either ignorant of facts, or you are made believe (even paid to believe) that often or mostly HUMAN know better. Either way, you are simply a propagandist spreading an intentionally distorted piece of information, better said a substantial lie. Don't know how Nature operates? OK, just don't interfere with it.
This is a very cheery video about a very dark subject. Yes, please, plant as many trees as you can though you may have forgotten that when left alone, trees plant themselves. We know for a fact that nature can repair its own biosphere, but only where humans can no longer interfere. Chernobyl and Fukushima are two recent examples. Frankly, the activity shown in this video is far too little and far too late. To save the humans, you’re going to have to give up everything-that’s the price, and don’t bother counting it in dollars.
With more trees, there will be a need for a lot more Co2 as it is the trees are short of their favorite food Co2, and trees are trying to adjust by developing less "pores" in their leaves, this category are referred to as C4. Carbon, unlike oxygen, is not at a constant level or percentage of the atmosphere everywhere and if levels of Co2 had continued to fall there is a point where trees die then us. Plants flourish with Co2
Ross Smithers Some plants grow bigger, but not necessarily better. The extra growth is some crops is at the expense of protein, mineral content, and other nutrition. So increased Co2 isn’t really that beneficial for humans.
I don't know if you are aware but as a Canadian I can say that both here and in Russia we want it to be warmer. We are closer to the poles and much colder then you are. If the boreal forest is warming this part of the world then lets have a lot more boreal forest. We have no shortage of snow cover. We have no forest shortage either. We are very very happy about warmer temperatures though. You are going about this all wrong if you think that localized warming is negative in any way.
Well , at last , we simply cannot relate global carbon content with the forest area . How to reduce global carbon ? Why should we plant trees ? Both these questions have multiple explanations and we need to explore it and expand our knowledge of how the nature works .
I live in both Japan & Philippines. What I mean by this is I have two houses, both are separate in the countries. I have to go to both every year because I am half Japanese half Filipino. I could've stayed in Philippines forever, but I was born in Japan & I have citizenship there. I'm still pretty happy though :p Ever since, I've noticed how both countries have a difference.. Japan is more clean, but still has a lot more green. Philippines isn't as clean, but has more green the Japan. No matter how clean your country is, you can make it really green & natural. Although, it just may be because Japan is temperate while Philippines is tropical, I believe maybe in the difference of culture Philippines has more experience with the green in our land. No offense to Japan, I love Japan! But this is just a message: Make your ways clean, but green.
I think one of the major aspects the expert failed to bring up was the amount of "Legacy" co2 in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were magically cut to zero tomorrow we'd still have the current or "legacy" co2 in the atmosphere today which would continue to contribute to the climate issues we're seeing around the world.
It is frustrating to watch this, as it does not point out the amount of deforestation that has taken place. 'Planting trees' comes later only after reforestation has taken place. So there is a lot of trees to be planted to recover ecosystems that will then again become carbon sinks. So yes, there is need to plant trees and then plant some more and expand those natural forest areas. If you recover the rainforest for instance and all the other forests harmed by human activities, just that recovery planting process can make a massive difference to climate change. "How many trees would have to be planted for this recovery to be achieved?" is a better question to ask.
All this talk about planting trees while around the world uncontrolled wildfires rage bigger every year. We need to take care of our existing forests by clearing old trees, irrigation where needed and farm billions more for next hundred years to cut back co2 that we produced since the industrial age. Peace
To The Economist: The first "link" you refer to at the end is not a link at all. Please watch the video through to the end and then either change the dialogue of this video to the correct information or CORRECT the "link" so that there is an actual link there. Thanks.
People want to believe that this is all within our power to change. We can clean things up. Dump less plastic into the ocean. Stop using cars? Not so easy.
@@JRobbySh Dumping less plastic in the ocean is still dumping plastic in the ocean. How about not using any plastics in general and not dump garbage in the ocean
One can get a lot better financial results with five or six main species than a mono culture. With the right design and you can accomplish what Elizabeth Tree did in about seven years.
Wondef if it would be possible to bioengineer a plant to serve as a functional structure. It would be possible to grow roads, bridges, houses, lightning pillars, safety rails, signs, warehouses, barns... Wold it be possible to bioengineer a living paint from moss.
serious question. What's better, land used to plant trees or land used for solar panels? coz solar panels make energy that will reduce the co2 put out by fossil fuels, but trees reduce it.
Depends on where. Solar panels near places energy is *needed* are great, trees in general are great almost anywhere (though how and which could use consideration).
Solar panels start off as a negative, as they need lots of energy, resources to make and transport and are hard to get rid of. More important than using "green" energy is using less energy.
kyle watt A lot of solar farms are built where there were no tree's in the first place like deserts. Trees won't give us power, (unless you burn them of course).
The real problem is that in localized areas like all cities on earth, there are too many Oxygen consumers and too few oxygen producers. Cities need more trees. Many many many more trees. Plant fruit trees and feed your hungry mouths, why don't you? I live in the forest and I have both plantations and natural forests as my neighbours. I do not like the plantations but it is the fastest way to turn farmland into a natural old growth forest as long as the plantation is managed properly
@@Mrbadu72 I feel the same way about batteries, I know we'll never eliminate them completely, but for big ones, the worst, tension and supension can hold energy more effectively. A windmills power is better stored with bags of dirt than a bunch of batteries. I'm planning a system of my own on that principal.
There are simple ways to cool our climate such as reflecting sun light back in to space. If you paint your roof white it will reflect heat and your house will be cooler. Now if all houses had white roofs the temperature of the air will be lowered. The world uses fossil fuel and it is unrealistic to expect it to be abolished any time soon. The Politicians do not have the ability to replace fossil fuel so do not expect any real change . ( Forget about carbon exchange etc this if all false)
I dont know is that the understanding ppl have that only tree planting will save us...thats not what im seeing from ppl, its more like everything is needed all at once like renewables and minimizing carbon emmission and tree planting all done appropriately depending on the location and situation of said place
it is the growth of humanity that is the real issue, combined by the stock market mentality which based on continued endless growth backed by endless consumerism of junk enhanced by the modern way of life... the continued exploitation of poorer countries, their resources & people maintain the better way of life in the developed world. The world will most likely suffocate in its pollution issue (plastic for one) before anything else...
The simple answer is yes (nature can self heal) tho complicated by how we’re gonna get out of Her way. Then further we can steward, which is like mimicking nature or facilitating nature’s recovery. Like mycorrhized planting of natural diversity of trees outward from existing stands, or planting what will take these days. This will expand the hydrological cycle. Then moving agriculture to the periphery of extant stands of forests, planting orchardlike woodlands (like a grove with a canopy letting dappled light thru). Then in desert regions of full sun e.g. California can grow microalgae in photobioreactors. Fastest growing plant known makes oxygen and sequesters carbon quickly as needed to beat tipping points. Ending oil use would be an interesting transition
A engineer was hired to plan a platform on which to raise pumping equipment above the level of a recent river flood. He asked my father what is the all-time high? Dad laughed. The highest record level is 45 ft. he replied. The engineer wrote down the fact, but did not understand by Dad laughed.
What we need is a combination of less consumption on fossil fuels and more sustainable energy. Industrial biochar facilities for manufacturing energy and putting carbon back into the earth with massive biodiversity tree planting not mono tree planting.
Grasses do a better job they fix carbon in the soil and in the northern arctic could actually cause more warming by preventing ice from being reflected also many trees are limiting their transpiration in the north that can cause warming in turn
From since the industrial revolution we have destroyed more than half the soil. Healthy soil is the best absorber of CO2 on the planet today, and it also grows food. At the same time agrichemicals are poisoning the environment, the insects, our coastal waters and us.. Mega monoculture fields wiping out any wildlife. In the last thirty years we have discovered how to restore degraded soil . Using grazing techniques, strategic planting and above all a new understanding of the local bioregions conditions.Sustainable development can only happen with that understanding in partnership with Nature At a grass roots level it could also address poverty at community level, restoring land and sustainably farming it. The monoculture tree planting on an industrial scale is simply more of the same that is destroying us. We have to look after the planet and ourselves at the same time !
Potential problems with planting trees Trees do not appear from nothing. They take up important resources like land and water Trees have low albedo which means they absorb more sunlight and reflect less of it back into space which keeps it in the atmoshpere and warms the earth
Also I wonder if we can genetically modify a certain type of tree with low albedo high carbon retention that uses limited amounts of water and grows up in a quick period of time. I can dream
Simon Levis is quite right about the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel burning. But he is NOT talking about powerful climate effects of trees besides Carbon sinking. And that is a fatal omission. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and the whole bunch of the so called Greenhouse trace gases respond in totum for only 20% of heat trapping in the atmosphere. But water vapor (yes, gaseous H2O) traps from 66% up to 82% of heat globally. Every climatologist will acknowledge this as a fact, but will stop there, often arguing that water vapor is a unavoidable added greenhouse gas, which concentration trails behind other warming or cooling factors. The BIG omission is that trees interfere DIRECTLY in water vapor concentration in the air, producing a range of cooling effects not properly accounted for by carbon-centric approaches. In fact, trees, if their cooling effect through vapor were computed, could surpass by far their indirect effect on reducing other GHGs like CO2. This omission is a GRAVE mistake.
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? Oliver Morton, a senior editor at The Economist who specialises in climate science and policy, and Sarah Collinson, the director of this film, will be live to answer your questions.
I'm sure they are experts- but you should include a professional forester who does this for a living- who understands the complexities of planting trees or allowing them to grow wild- and who can also explain harvesting wood while maintaining the integrity of the forest. By the way, growing forests for all values including wood production is called "silviculture"- yet this subject is virtually ignored by all discussions of trees and climate.
Id like links on how to find info on compatible species. My local eco groups r focusing on trees. To contribute, i resorting to collecting some of the local fallen acorn beech sycamore acorn n hazel nuts this autumn, currently holding them in fridge in an attempt to trick them into sprouting 1 season early inside my flat.
Can seeding a forest with local compatible species n then letting nature take over be an effective shortcut to the natural rewilding?
Concerned folk NEED to feel n see a tangible contribution
Also, can u address why some folk have hopped onto the agenda 21, sun dimming, depopulation, carbon tax being a ponzi, heading for iceage (best argument being desalination killing gulf stream that warms NW europe) etc etc etc
Cos its causing many to feel their efforts not needed
Also gov subsidies in fossil fuels n why those companies not getting into renewables (they cld b our greatest assest if they wanted n still make profit, only gov subsidies keepin them competitive n thus keepin them from desire to change)
No, leftish ideologues can not do anything good for the planet.
"Climate Change" due to fossil fuel CO2
The biggest fraud in the history of science.
Address real pollution and poor peoples’ - in Africa and elsewhere - inability to get abundant, reliable energy.
The more important carbon sink is in the soil of grasslands. The problem is that it involves cows or megaherbivores. This is a problem because cows have been labelled the problem. The problem though has been the way they are currently managed. Mob/holistic grazing is needed. Follow gabe brown, Greg Judy, Alan savoury
Great report. In Ireland, our government is planting spruce trees everywhere. Making money with monoculture thus turning my country into an ecological dead zone. This is the danger in politically driven climate action that needs to be addressed
Indeed. But let's be clear that this is NOT climate action, no matter how the politicians may frame it. It's about business as usual, lack of imagination, forestry subsidies "for the lads" and a national forestry board appallingly lacking in any sort of ecological training much less an ecological policy and remit. It's telling that Ireland is a country where "forest" is a negative concept, unlike practically every other place on the planet.
@@SuperVlerik you are joking right ? Most climate activist have NO IDEA about ecology, its really just about the political agenda ! 🤣🤣🤣
5:15 Why in the world would anyone wear their side-burns like that?? 😱
Mid-life crisis
@Jeff Gibson Who cares if they are appearing non-conformist? This guy is conducting world changing research and we are preoccupied about his facial hair. We are basically proving the non-conformists' point
😂😂😂😂😂
Optimal beardal carbon storage, obviously
He's in a punk rock band on the weekends.
PLANTING POLITICIANS HEAD FIRST IN CONCRETE WOULD BENEFIT THE WORLD FAR MORE
I Concur With This Statement. 💯👍👍😁😎
Wtf?
Ahh, yeah. A revolution is exactly the thin we need in the face of a massive crisis.... When society collapses into chaos, who care what is in 20 years? 😂
Ruby Honey how do you know?
@@alexeykulikov2739 Oliver Cromwell said so
1:04
This guy just realized he's planted over 100 trees in a week. Every guy now has an excuse when they get caught😂
1:05 The way she swallowed 😂😂😂😂
Plant indigenous and randomly, not as if its a monoculture.
Seaweed is better, can be eaten and feed fish that can be harvested - offset should be structured as a transformational subsidy - so an offset when you purchase it helps agriculture transform to carbon neutral even negative - a lot of agricultural can be moved to climate controlled sheds just outside cities so a lot of land can be returned to nature
You my friend, is informed! #YangGang
@@lorddabian5030 agree
These video stories on UA-cam from the Economist are awesome. Thank you!
We have no control over climate change or nature. We should recylce and reuse what we can and set up proper waste management policies. Climate Greta should go plant a tree or get a recycling plant going to actually help the environment.
Arjun Chatterjee cloud seeding, nuclear fallout....
No its politicised bullshit brainwashing the population with incorrect science.
Eytan Lerba - 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩🥓🥩🍔🥪💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩🍾
Governments < should invest (our money) in donating trees to people along with planting more and more per year until it is over... They dont cost much and they would make everything look better and more appealing to be around. I know my country, Canada would actually send people in other countries to plant trees. My own family has planted over 3000 trees in 5 years. Some of them didn't grow and died so that is also to be accounted for.
Imagine you turn a desert green by planting trees. If you can keep it green, even you cut the trees down to make papers and replant trees, it always has lot of carbondioxide stored there. So it helps anyway. Of course other things need to be do to fight climate change, but it doesn't mean that tree planting is not important.
I'm old enough notice how the weather have changed just in my lifetime, and dramatically changed for the last 30 year. My city, Bangkok, use to be quite cold for months in winter, now not even a sign of cool air. There are severe deforestation around my country and around the world, one of the biggest, thickest and most dangerous jungle in the middle of my country disappear just in my lifetime and only tiny part of it was left as a national park, not to mention all of jungles north to south that are in the same situation.
It is true that we can't solve this crisis with only planting trees but it is still important to plant them as much as we can , be it by nature or monoculture (at least for a short period until nature heals itself), as they are the only tool we have to take carbon from the air and store it in the ground, no man made machine could do that more efficiently and they also produce oxygen, lower ground temperature etc. It IS part of solutions and I don't think its enough to just let nature take care of itself alone at this time. At least, why not planting some first , local species, let it be mother tree then have nature do the rest? With all that tree planting, we also need to cut down carbon emission, use "less" plastic, use less fossil fuels, recycle our waste, and the list goes on.
I don't quite understand why many people think it have to be "A SINGLE" solution. They wait, wait and wait for that magical solution and do nothing (even hinder other in many case), for me that's lazy and selfish. At my age, I don't think I will live long enough to see any improvement on this crisis but at least we must "DO" something now not just debating, thinking and researching.
Smit Na Nakornpanom says:
"They wait, wait and wait for that magical solution and do nothing (even hinder other in many case),.."
==
The way most people are thinking is, "Yes, it's warming but nothing will happen to us."
It's like in a battle, facing ten times bigger army and defeat is unavoidable, then someone suggests, "Let's surrender. They may save us."
The reality is that the enemy is thinking of mass execution of the POW.
If we know it beforehand, we would fight to the last bullet and die in the battle no matter what(the results are the same).
The consequence of climate change is just like that, mass execution, worldwide perpetual famine for next thousand of years.
How many people out their really understand this?
They have no idea our food supply is completely dependent on the climate.
And that the nature will be kind to us no matter what.
@Jeff Gibson I know quite well about heat island and what happen to my city but it is just one example. Deforestation is real in my country and throughout my country north to south there is a noticable change in weather even in the country side faraway from the city, it is not what it use to be (40+ years ago). It may be local change (I don't deny it) but what happens locally will effect the whole system in one way or another and in turn the whole system will effect local system. World weather and nature don't have border it is always one complex system from combination of smaller subsystems. I like to think of it like a very complicate watches, one tiny rust gear will effect the whole movement, compare that to the situation where there are many rust gears, deforestations around the world, decates of burning of fossil fuel, constance undergeound coal mine burning, and many more, I believe that it is already a failed system and it will get worse. I may be wrong and I hope l was wrong, but so far I haven't seen any improvement on the situation at all.
@Jeff Gibson Believe what you want. I think I know what you trying to do here and Its not worth my time discuss any thing further with you. Goodluck man.
Very sad. This is why we need to make sure everyone knows what is happening and the consequences of not doing anything.
Yikes
"We are under the gross misconception that we are a good species going somewhere important and that at the last minute we will correct our errors and God will smile on us. It is delusion". Farley Mowat
paxwallacejazz go see the TED conference with Hans Rosling and learn
@@jean-marclamothe8859 Rosling didn't say anything about climate change. He said the world got better for most humans and that we will not grow beyond 10 billion. He also said we have to plan for a world of 10 billion people.
Most of the improvements for humans is dependend on very high energy consumption. That demand is still mostly met with fossil fuels.
Catastrophic climate change is just begining. It will accelerate in the next decades and not slow down for sixty to 100 years.
So all the benefits of burning fossil fuels will most likely be erased by the consequences of CO2 emissions.
I think your optimisem based on Rosling is missplaced.
We are a pointless evolutionary experiment that will kne day become extinct. The questions is, what do we with the time we have and why do make life for many more miserable than necessary, so a few can have MUCH more then they need?
This planet does not care whether humans exist on it. This planet is a minor speck in the Cosmos. We either live or die by our own behaviours.
@Thomas Headley
Other things ??? Clueless.
@Thomas Headley Your words are spot on.
@@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello Yes, other things such as trees, plants, and other animals. Recall that even though the dinosaurs died of millions of years ago, the dinosaurs have existed for hundreds of millions of years. Compare that to the human existence of around 100,000 to 200,000 years, so far.
@@tyronekim3506
Other things....like creatures that are sentient or nearly so.
Giant Squid
Whales
Porpoise
Dolphins
Octopus
We humans think this is about just us....friggen typical.
WILLFULL IGNORANCE.
@@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello Thank you for agreeing that other animals will continue on living. Biological life cycle and geological cycle are dynamic. The Earth's geological history has shown that plant and animal species die off and gets replaced by new species of plants and animals. To think that humans are the guardians or stewards of this Earth is preposterous when millions of years ago for hundreds of millions of years the dinosaurs, big and small, roamed this planet as compared to only 100,000 to 200,000 years of human existence.
During the Jurassic period, millions of years ago, large dinosaurs were abundant. Carbon dioxide level was over 4 times higher during the Jurassic period than it its today. This is a well known established fact but this is not mentioned by the climate scientists. I welcome you to fact check this as this fact is undisputed.
More trees are good- whether planted or allowed to grow "wild"- but such discussions usually ignore that there is a huge market for wood products from 7 billion people- so the discussions should also talk about long term "forest management"- which I know a bit about as I've been a professional forester for 47 years. Yet, hardly anyone asks foresters about trees- which is rather stupid. Of course, much forest management is very poorly done- and that needs to be acknowledged- then we need to move towards high quality forest management to both produce wood products while maintaining carbon in the forest. Here where I live, in Massachusetts, there are many fanatics who say we should never cut trees- but when I ask what will replace wood for homes, furniture, paper products- they have no response.
Using wood as a long term building material effectively captures the carbon for however long the building stands. This also allows the same area to be used again for more tree growth
@@lvd8122 exactly!
Bamboo n hemp appear to b best options from my laymans perspective ... is that correct?
@@kimwarburton8490 Depends on your location, markets and people who can manage those crops. Trees can be left alone for decades with little "management".
We need to get our heads around the ecology of the situation. Trees are great but so are tight herds of herbivores munching through grasslands, hammering carbon into the soil. We need to love this world and act in that way.
If we really want to help the environment we will stop buying the things we don't need. Do we really need that closet full of clothes, 10 pairs of shoes, throw pillows, gift cards, toys, all those kitchen gadgets?! Think about what it takes to create those products. And when you're done with them and want something new, where do those things go? We can make real change if we change individually. Vote with your dollar.
In New Zealand, the government is funding the planting of 1 billion trees by 2028 of which 60% will be native and 40% be introduced mainly Pinus Radiata (Monterey pine). Whilst native trees take longer to grow but they live longer in some cases up to 1000 years so they can store more CO2 compared to the quicker growing introduced Monterey pine which can grow quicker than natives.
Chris McKellar NZ is fine. You also have 80% renewable energy, 👍👌
Sarah's so cute! That sweet voice 😍
When we learn how to eat trees we will plant more. Please remember that grass corn beans and wheat also produce O2.
She's a solid 10.
If you (The Economist) want people to get out of carbon base fuel. First its the West that must make the first move. Walk your talk.
simply put , remove the cause
Film contains very Valuable informations
The planet is the planet. There is no “repairing” it. The planet does not break.
Deep insight in every issues make the economist unique and best.
mindblowing, i wouldnt have thought of that before! trees against global warming, youre ingenious.
thanks economist flims for such an eye opening video stories
Well done. Have enjoyed watching the Economist try new formats over the years, ever since breaking free from 3-colour printing.
Thanks for providing quality, transparent journalism!
Transparent? What a load of shit. This entire video is politicised fake science.
Nature is going to repair itself. It doesn't need saving. We, however, need to save ourselves by restoring nature to its former glory.
Thank You for keeping this topic 'on air'! - 🙏🏻🌱✌🏻 - clearance and more comments about it are required and welcome - ✌🏻🌱💕
Those eye muffs are amazing.
I'd say : stop burning anything is the most urgent demand and keep big natural forests grow!
I thank Economist for clarifying my thought on the use of fossil fuels. It is actually bothersome and what could be the large part of carbon emission. It's even funny to think the Oil and Gas industry are sort of a rich, money earning job...
Can you give us the best tree to plant for best oxygen to carbon ratios? Would love to hear those quantified numbers you speak of.
HippieSkippy100 Acacia tree's grow fast. And bamboo.
Sugar cane and hemp. No, that isn't a joke.
Pablo Abedul - thanks! An actual answer that’s sensible.
What did you say? “Restoring the local habitat is good. Not a silver bullet like no one thinks that. Mono culture bad.” Great video but who’s is it for? People who believe in climate change but also believe no other solution is valid besides tree planting; not forest planting; tree planting also. Also those squares are cute and all but you need some sustainable tree farms for resources for humanity not just all natural forests so more realistically both are needed or a hybrid is needed and tree farms are part of the solution. Either tree farms and habitat restoration/ habitat that is built with a dedicated tree farming section. Agriculture and habitat restoration/ habit that simultaneously provide human food.
A little work can get cause grass can absorb a shitload of carbon.
ADerpyReality indeed
Great report! Well done with first class photography!
Not just trees, bamboo is 3x better in sequestering than trees especially in tropical areas, and way more sustainable too as trees get cut for many reasons at a rate faster than being planted. Bamboo grows back even more after being cut.
We call the nature, mother nature for a reason. She knows how to get stuff done. We should leave her alone rather than forcibly planting stuff. What we humans can do is reduce non vegetarian intake and all sorts of greenhouse emissions. Rest will fall in place by itself.
1:23 any idea what he's talking about? Why such a difference? Do both variants contain the same area? I miss further explanation here.
I agree - not clear yet hugely significant point. I think this means a plantation monoculture as would typically be established for timber, versus ' natural' growth with no intervention. Te latter is much more variable as the surrounding landscape would be the major influence on its development. I think they should have stated the source material at very least.
Because trees require no energy input to capture the co2.
Jeff Berardelli says at 02:15 "Nature SOMETIMES has the best remedies." I couldn't believe what I just heard so I relistened it a couple of times. Yes, he did say SOMETIMES.
The sentence is only meaningful without that extra word. If you put 'sometimes' into the sentence you are either ignorant of facts, or you are made believe (even paid to believe) that often or mostly HUMAN know better. Either way, you are simply a propagandist spreading an intentionally distorted piece of information, better said a substantial lie.
Don't know how Nature operates? OK, just don't interfere with it.
This is a very cheery video about a very dark subject. Yes, please, plant as many trees as you can though you may have forgotten that when left alone, trees plant themselves. We know for a fact that nature can repair its own biosphere, but only where humans can no longer interfere. Chernobyl and Fukushima are two recent examples. Frankly, the activity shown in this video is far too little and far too late. To save the humans, you’re going to have to give up everything-that’s the price, and don’t bother counting it in dollars.
You're an idiot.
5:24 what the is happening with that guys beard
Effects of climate change.
@@sbeast64 hah his face is being deforested
Note to self: always shave with the bathroom light ON. 🤔
With more trees, there will be a need for a lot more Co2 as it is the trees are short
of their favorite food Co2, and trees are trying to adjust by developing less "pores"
in their leaves, this category are referred to as C4. Carbon, unlike oxygen, is not at
a constant level or percentage of the atmosphere everywhere and if levels of Co2
had continued to fall there is a point where trees die then us. Plants flourish with Co2
Ross Smithers Some plants grow bigger, but not necessarily better. The extra growth is some crops is at the expense of protein, mineral content, and other nutrition. So increased Co2 isn’t really that beneficial for humans.
Amazing ❤
Yep nature is what runs the world
Nature's wealth is ours HEALTH&NATUR'S health is ours wealth.
Great video 📸
Do you have the study on boreal forest .l like to see it and understand
Maybe stop cutting down trees if you want the planet saved.
Trees also help stop flooding as well.
Great video thanks
I don't know if you are aware but as a Canadian I can say that both here and in Russia we want it to be warmer. We are closer to the poles and much colder then you are. If the boreal forest is warming this part of the world then lets have a lot more boreal forest. We have no shortage of snow cover. We have no forest shortage either. We are very very happy about warmer temperatures though. You are going about this all wrong if you think that localized warming is negative in any way.
Well , at last , we simply cannot relate global carbon content with the forest area . How to reduce global carbon ? Why should we plant trees ? Both these questions have multiple explanations and we need to explore it and expand our knowledge of how the nature works .
I live in both Japan & Philippines. What I mean by this is I have two houses, both are separate in the countries. I have to go to both every year because I am half Japanese half Filipino. I could've stayed in Philippines forever, but I was born in Japan & I have citizenship there. I'm still pretty happy though :p Ever since, I've noticed how both countries have a difference.. Japan is more clean, but still has a lot more green. Philippines isn't as clean, but has more green the Japan. No matter how clean your country is, you can make it really green & natural. Although, it just may be because Japan is temperate while Philippines is tropical, I believe maybe in the difference of culture Philippines has more experience with the green in our land. No offense to Japan, I love Japan! But this is just a message: Make your ways clean, but green.
The ratio of screen time given to scientists versus to editors/Economist employees is lower than it should be.
I think one of the major aspects the expert failed to bring up was the amount of "Legacy" co2 in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were magically cut to zero tomorrow we'd still have the current or "legacy" co2 in the atmosphere today which would continue to contribute to the climate issues we're seeing around the world.
It is frustrating to watch this, as it does not point out the amount of deforestation that has taken place. 'Planting trees' comes later only after reforestation has taken place. So there is a lot of trees to be planted to recover ecosystems that will then again become carbon sinks. So yes, there is need to plant trees and then plant some more and expand those natural forest areas. If you recover the rainforest for instance and all the other forests harmed by human activities, just that recovery planting process can make a massive difference to climate change. "How many trees would have to be planted for this recovery to be achieved?" is a better question to ask.
All this talk about planting trees while around the world uncontrolled wildfires rage bigger every year. We need to take care of our existing forests by clearing old trees, irrigation where needed and farm billions more for next hundred years to cut back co2 that we produced since the industrial age. Peace
To The Economist: The first "link" you refer to at the end is not a link at all. Please watch the video through to the end and then either change the dialogue of this video to the correct information or CORRECT the "link" so that there is an actual link there. Thanks.
Thanks for this, feeling wised up on this now
You mean brainwashed by incorrect science.
That wouldn't change the behavior of humans which are causing the very issue.
People want to believe that this is all within our power to change. We can clean things up. Dump less plastic into the ocean. Stop using cars? Not so easy.
@@JRobbySh Dumping less plastic in the ocean is still dumping plastic in the ocean. How about not using any plastics in general and not dump garbage in the ocean
@@vitorshaolin You seem unaware that things have to be made of something. Go back to cloth, wood, glass, leather, metal, paper? Easy to say.
0:06 Dang! Spitting Image is so accurate!
One can get a lot better financial results with five or six main species than a mono culture. With the right design and you can accomplish what Elizabeth Tree did in about seven years.
go and study a forest science degree. More to it than medicine.
Wondef if it would be possible to bioengineer a plant to serve as a functional structure.
It would be possible to grow roads, bridges, houses, lightning pillars, safety rails, signs, warehouses, barns...
Wold it be possible to bioengineer a living paint from moss.
serious question. What's better, land used to plant trees or land used for solar panels? coz solar panels make energy that will reduce the co2 put out by fossil fuels, but trees reduce it.
Depends on where. Solar panels near places energy is *needed* are great, trees in general are great almost anywhere (though how and which could use consideration).
Solar panels start off as a negative, as they need lots of energy, resources to make and transport and are hard to get rid of.
More important than using "green" energy is using less energy.
kyle watt A lot of solar farms are built where there were no tree's in the first place like deserts. Trees won't give us power, (unless you burn them of course).
Solar panels cause a lot of pollution
We'd have to put them in areas that are warm because we domt want to disturb natural cold areas
@@itscloudstrife??
Humans cause warmth. Humans need energy. So as long as you do not want to forcibly rehome humans your comment is quite useless.
The real problem is that in localized areas like all cities on earth, there are too many Oxygen consumers and too few oxygen producers. Cities need more trees. Many many many more trees. Plant fruit trees and feed your hungry mouths, why don't you? I live in the forest and I have both plantations and natural forests as my neighbours. I do not like the plantations but it is the fastest way to turn farmland into a natural old growth forest as long as the plantation is managed properly
I see the Economist is trying hard to emulate Vox and Vice. Good effort 👍
Hasan F - yeah, pretty soon they too will start to be a far left channel silencing freethink.
I'm planning on planning 1000 walnut trees a year, but also using coal for heat. Have I found balance? I am serious.
@@Mrbadu72 I feel the same way about batteries, I know we'll never eliminate them completely, but for big ones, the worst, tension and supension can hold energy more effectively. A windmills power is better stored with bags of dirt than a bunch of batteries. I'm planning a system of my own on that principal.
There are simple ways to cool our climate such as reflecting sun light back in to space.
If you paint your roof white it will reflect heat and your house will be cooler.
Now if all houses had white roofs the temperature of the air will be lowered.
The world uses fossil fuel and it is unrealistic to expect it to be abolished any time soon.
The Politicians do not have the ability to replace fossil fuel so do not expect any real change . ( Forget about carbon exchange etc this if all false)
Hello! I have a book "GLOBAL DISORDERS MAN'S FEAR FOR HIS EXTINCTION". Pls how do I get a copy to you? Best Regards.
Got me to watch this but it only concludes what should be commonly known be all the awful thing us most don’t.
The answer to the question posed in the title is, “Yes, but...”.
She said she's a filmmaker. What films did she make.
And the catle and methano?
Her eyes ❤
Do Both!!!!
I dont know is that the understanding ppl have that only tree planting will save us...thats not what im seeing from ppl, its more like everything is needed all at once like renewables and minimizing carbon emmission and tree planting all done appropriately depending on the location and situation of said place
Perfect video. atractive women with high intelectuality is essential to capture the attention of audience for conservation of nature.
it is the growth of humanity that is the real issue, combined by the stock market mentality which based on continued endless growth backed by endless consumerism of junk enhanced by the modern way of life... the continued exploitation of poorer countries, their resources & people maintain the better way of life in the developed world. The world will most likely suffocate in its pollution issue (plastic for one) before anything else...
correction off all the data collected
The simple answer is yes (nature can self heal) tho complicated by how we’re gonna get out of Her way. Then further we can steward, which is like mimicking nature or facilitating nature’s recovery. Like mycorrhized planting of natural diversity of trees outward from existing stands, or planting what will take these days. This will expand the hydrological cycle. Then moving agriculture to the periphery of extant stands of forests, planting orchardlike woodlands (like a grove with a canopy letting dappled light thru). Then in desert regions of full sun e.g. California can grow microalgae in photobioreactors. Fastest growing plant known makes oxygen and sequesters carbon quickly as needed to beat tipping points. Ending oil use would be an interesting transition
What about bushes?
A engineer was hired to plan a platform on which to raise pumping equipment above the level of a recent river flood. He asked my father what is the all-time high? Dad laughed. The highest record level is 45 ft. he replied. The engineer wrote down the fact, but did not understand by Dad laughed.
Neither do I.
What we need is a combination of less consumption on fossil fuels and more sustainable energy. Industrial biochar facilities for manufacturing energy and putting carbon back into the earth with massive biodiversity tree planting not mono tree planting.
Grasses do a better job they fix carbon in the soil and in the northern arctic could actually cause more warming by preventing ice from being reflected also many trees are limiting their transpiration in the north that can cause warming in turn
From since the industrial revolution we have destroyed more than half the soil. Healthy soil is the best absorber of CO2 on the planet today, and it also grows food. At the same time agrichemicals are poisoning the environment, the insects, our coastal waters and us.. Mega monoculture fields wiping out any wildlife. In the last thirty years we have discovered how to restore degraded soil . Using grazing techniques, strategic planting and above all a new understanding of the local bioregions conditions.Sustainable development can only happen with that understanding in partnership with Nature At a grass roots level it could also address poverty at community level, restoring land and sustainably farming it. The monoculture tree planting on an industrial scale is simply more of the same that is destroying us. We have to look after the planet and ourselves at the same time !
This problem has taken years to develop. Will take years to try to fix.
The planet will repair nature.
I cannot tell you how much I enjoy these videos. Please keep them coming.
You break it you buy it
Potential problems with planting trees
Trees do not appear from nothing. They take up important resources like land and water
Trees have low albedo which means they absorb more sunlight and reflect less of it back into space which keeps it in the atmoshpere and warms the earth
Okay so I watched only 7 minutes into the video and you guys started talking about that. Sorry for my impatience
Also I wonder if we can genetically modify a certain type of tree with low albedo high carbon retention that uses limited amounts of water and grows up in a quick period of time. I can dream
You can't even plant enough to compensate for one days worth of CO2 emissions.
Simon Levis is quite right about the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel burning. But he is NOT talking about powerful climate effects of trees besides Carbon sinking. And that is a fatal omission. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and the whole bunch of the so called Greenhouse trace gases respond in totum for only 20% of heat trapping in the atmosphere. But water vapor (yes, gaseous H2O) traps from 66% up to 82% of heat globally. Every climatologist will acknowledge this as a fact, but will stop there, often arguing that water vapor is a unavoidable added greenhouse gas, which concentration trails behind other warming or cooling factors. The BIG omission is that trees interfere DIRECTLY in water vapor concentration in the air, producing a range of cooling effects not properly accounted for by carbon-centric approaches. In fact, trees, if their cooling effect through vapor were computed, could surpass by far their indirect effect on reducing other GHGs like CO2. This omission is a GRAVE mistake.
Tbh I also h8 climate change.
But why would you block the road? It’s just plain annoying and that protest wasn’t the best.
Biodiversity will be restored with time due to evolution. If the factor which disturbes natural processes disappears... And that factor is us!
Kate S we are sinner! O god pray for us!
It's not broken.
All told us you were going to start ramping up global climate change as we come closer to 2021