“Are we the idiots?” - Bill Gates on Planting Trees
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡️Here: bit.ly/SabineBabbelJune2024
Correction to what I say about trees splitting carbon dioxide: They don't split the molecule, it's rather that they transform it, together with water, into a bigger sugar molecule and release oxygen in that process. The result is the same, but the molecule doesn't have to be split. Sorry about that!
Bill Gates has recently been under fire following an interview in which he said that planting trees won’t save us from climate change. Is he right? Is this just another quote taken out of context? What does the science say? Let’s have a look.
Paper: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #tech #technews #climatechange - Наука та технологія
If we talk about trees as a part of the solution, it's a good thing. If we talk about trees as the silver bullet answer, it's not a good thing.
Everybody wants a quick fix.
@@daveh7720 Even the junkies.
Best comment of the video
Part of what solution? There is no solution proposed. Electric vehicles are decades away from replacing ICE engines at best, and it is far from certain that this can ever happen. Not that CO2 emissions are our only environmental catastrophe at hand. Unless the human population is dramatically reduced, the only "solution" would be scalable free energy and star trek style replicators.
That is true of all the solutions. Though people have a hard time looking a things that are part of a system. We like simple solutions.
To “solve” climate change, I’ve gotten rid of my private jet(s), yacht(s), vacation home(s), etc. and now just have a single car and a place to live. I hope Gates will match my devotion to reducing my “carbon footprint.”
I don‘t even have a car, I hope you will match my devotion.
how do you get rid of a vacation home ? by transferring ownership to a different person ? how does that affect the climate ?
@@TheLastBen. maybe by reducing the propability that a new home is build for the persons living in the vacation home permanantly now?
Well he met you half way and got rid of his wife and family
@@PhilfreezeCH
I don't even breathe.
Trees alone won't save us from climate change. But trees help over time. And it is certainly a dumb idea to cut down trees without replacing them. And it is certainly the dumbest idea to cut down rainforests, especially the Amazon rainforest.
Not just the Amazon but all through the tropics.
The dumbest thing altogether is to beLIEve a word that comes out of Gate's mouth and to beLIEve that the earth is hoting up and sea waters are rising lol
@@JohnSmithGlobeLie You are an expert on dumb things for sure.
No matter what we do the climate will continue to change like it has done since the beginning of the planet. Too much climate alarmist posts instead of balanced scientific debate.
What climate change?
Phytoplankton is one of the largest biomass in the world. The ocean is absolutely vital and it itself is in trouble. I spent five years in Southeast Asia working both for Swiss law firms, the faculty of medicine and malaysia, and as a diving instructor and I dove the entire time I was there probably at least 2000 hours there alone. I had never seen the dead ocean until I saw it at the border of France and Spain on the Atlantic side. It was emotional for me it was absolutely shocking and I actually cried because there was plastic and microplastic in the entire water column and not a single living anything and I was completely shocked.
I know the oceans are a mess but you just ruined my day. 😢😢😢
Another study found that money can produce any study you want and any outcome you want.
Well said!
pretty sure if billy wanted a study to say that it's healthy to eat human feces he'd get it.
I'm not joking.
You pay people to "Find" the Answer you want.
Their livelihood depends on satisfying you so that you'll spend money on them once again.
Not to mention the entire "Study" thing is rather broken these days, we invest into profitable research and abandon anything that isn't profitable...
If there was a cheap solution for most our problems, we'd never find it since we keep finding the most patentable solutions..
sadly, it didn't pass peer review, was never published, and the funding got cut for further research.
Oh and I heard the author fell off a cliff while hiking just a couple of weeks ago.
@@axeman2638 axed
@Perry - who did buy that study?
(This is a general statement, forest management is complex and differs greatly depending on your location). As a Forestry professional, many tree planting campaigns seem to be done without any consultation with a forestry professional. Only planting a few species in a naturally mixed forest, planting the wrong native species in the wrong places, lack of care after planting such as invasive species control,and conversion of non forest lands to forest. We also seem to think we have to replant trees when many areas are better left to let trees naturally grow from whatever seed sources are present. The world only seems to care about forests while ignoring almost every other biome. Grasslands and wetlands actually store more carbon than trees and are much more endangered in North America than forests.
Well, once the Permafrost in Siberia has molten, there will be a HUUUGE mass of wetlands. With everything that comes with it. (Methane production which runs separate from pure CO2-calculations). Good luck.
not all woodlands are mixed at any given time. the age of the forest and the dominant species of tree has much to do with how varied your forest will be. as an example, in the western portion of the pnw, the dominant tree is doug fir, which grows in stands that shades out competitors. its not until year 80 or so when the stand starts seeing other species like hemlock come through the canopy in places where the fir is thinner. the idiocy here are generic statements designed to encompass all of nature; easily digestible by bureaucrats and simpletons.
This comment should be pinned at the top. You can't just plug a bunch of saplings into the ground.
How do grasslands store more carbon than woods?
The other issue is people planting trees far, far too close together and/or allowing them to sprout too close themselves. Ireland is 1/5th covered in forest, mostly managed evergreen forrests, down from 4/5ths natural woodland pre-industrial times.
The trouble is. All but the largest ones seem to have simply stopped spending any money on managing them. They have left them at 100% density and they are sick. Full of weak rotted out trees and widowers lying dead against the upper limbs.
Trees would be a great carbon store except for the fact that decomposers figured out how to turn them in to CO2 long ago. So, a tree with a 150 year life, is going to end up dying, rotting and releasing all that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Also. There are approximately 30 trillion trees on the planet. What kind of impact do you think the "Plant a million tree" campaign would have? Even if you had plant 100 million trees it's still a drop in the bucket.
The thing that will really help is healthy ecosystems, including the sea floor and grasslands as well as forests.
In reality we should be 8-10 million people instead of 8-10 billion... I think that's the main problem, we are too many. We are in a level of overpopulation and because of that we use too much of earth's resources without stop and without a more ecofriendly system.
@@user-mu8uu6us1s The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is that we take too much and never give back. Your comment is cynical in the sense that your own selfishness is more important than other people's lives. Consume less, contribute more.
@@user-mu8uu6us1sAnd your solution?
I started learning permaculture and stopped mowing some parts of my lawn. What I observed so far is amazing. A few different species of trees started growing by their own. At the edges of woodland, by the house, fence lines, and even in planters wherever the seeds landed. Since we have plants ID apps now, it’s so easy and fun to find all kinds of native plants choosing their own locations to start growing.
If we all stop mowing our yards today, eventually trees and plants that are suitable for the land will grow and cover the ground. Because that’s their jobs! We don’t have to do anything from beginning.
Haven’t humans learned that more we try to help nature more we cause troubles? I don’t even want to know how many plastic pots they need to grow that many trees… knowing that ultimately it might just fail in ecosystem and wasted.
Exactly
Why you people so obsessed with lawnmowing, seriously why
@@LabNCo
It looks nice and clean. The nature is wild. Your garden will become a forest if you don’t domesticate it.
Fair call but if you own the place you might want to consider that most trees put down pretty extensive root systems which can crack foundation slabs, concrete curbing and driveways. Not to mention collapse waste water and supply pipes, gas lines and possibly even underground power and phone supply conduits. If you are renting your landlord might not be very appreciative either.
I stopped mowing my lawn and the City came after me and fined me. How much CO2 is emitted from all the lawnmowers in the US? The government doesn't really care.
How about we stop cutting the rain forests down first !
SHE AND GATES ARE A PROBLEM NASA **** STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES VERY QUICKLY DOES IT POISON US NO AND IT IS MOSTLY CARBON
NASA STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR? PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES QUICKLY IT'S MOSTLY CARBON AGAIN NASA STATES THIS IS TOTALLY POLITICS AND WRONG
Then get paid in carbon credits for not doing something 😂
@@2bfrank657
Much better than the alternatives.
When you say we I assume you mean they. Funny thing, it's so much easier to tell others what to do.
But maybe you actually live in a country with rain forests, then shame on me.
It's not a competition. It's a cooperation. Plant trees and gardens, find cleaner energy sources, consume less while creating a better, fairer economy based upon supporting the life of the planet and not just us.
I'd say we need to set priorities. If the question us that you don't have anything to do on a Saturday and wanna go volunteer planting trees, definitely. If the question is you have some spare bucks and are deciding where to spend it, I'd say it's better to put 100% to proven effective methods.
"It's a cooperation."
This is great news. All we have to do is get 8 billion people to all think the same and were set!
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p why not both?
@@anthonybrett Cuba ran out of food in the 80s and the whole dang country worked together to grow food in every available space, and then shared it among one another.
some forms of duress are very effective motivators.
@@purposefully.verbose Wow. That's great. One country? That's your example of everyone working together? Tell me, do you see the Palestinian's, Israel, China, the US etc all coming together anytime soon?
Climate change is not about just the atmosphere it is also about saving soil.
No it's about wealth distribution . It's about making you so poor you need the govt hand out. It means social credit scores,bio metric tatoos,please catch up.
We are expert in ignoring the “Context” and react stupidly to everything on the internet
You win !
Trees may not be a complete answer, but they do have a lot of advantages.
For instance, a well designed mixed woodland counteracts soil erosion, nutrient leaching and flooding, and is self-renewing - unlike even the most diligently dusted solar panels!
Woodland also has a very positive impact on human wellbeing and mental health.
Humans interact with a tiny fraction of woodland, and if the amount of woodlands grew, the fraction we'd interact with would likely go down (because there wouldn't be a proportional increase in interaction). So I am not sure it's a good argument for a massive scale-up of tree planting. Your other reasons have more merit, I feel.
@@yeroca
Makes sense but - would you rather walk around a solar panel array or an established woodland?
@@yerocaI'm not sure "fraction of the woodland interacted" is a useful metric - availability is. If there are more trees, more people are able to access them by foot or within reasonable commute range. Trees also improve air quality and sequester heavy metals from all our smoke into soil, so that's a nice direct human benefits.
Also, they're good habitat for a large range of animals - especially the rainforests - and it's cool if those existed. Not directly related to climate change, but since we as a species reduce others' habitats by climate change and other means, would be a nice change of pace.
What about we begin by stopping cutting trees that are more than a thousand years old to make insanely large tables for rich people?
@@yeroca This is a post-lockdown, mental health related response, we see it being used to justify rewilding of farmland and allowing the right to roam in England (where 70% is privately owned farmland). Misunderstanding the massive increase in tourism also plays a part, just look at what's happening in the US with overcrowding in parks, as most people go where they see other people going, not where there's 'nature' just because it's there. Well-designed woodland would be an investment for future generations at least, but I'd just say it would be more worthwhile greening the cities than asking captive-bred city folk to go into the woods...
Trees stabilize the weather, make rain patterns more consistent especially further away from large bodies of water. One of the effects of climate change is extreme weather patterns being more common, which forests help mitigate, along with other benefits.
The ground Traps more heat then carbon dioxide
Don't forget roots prevent erosion.
Sure, but forests don't need to be planted, they just need to be left to themselves. Are we willing to sacrifice fertile farmland and attractive housing areas for forests?
No one's saying trees are bad, even Gates never said that. They're just not the amazing climate solution that some try to sell them as. And in particular the people's love for the idea of tree planting is actually used by a whole bunch of dodgy carbon offset scams to make money while not providing any of these benefits (simply cos they don't plant as many trees, or claim tree cover that was going to be there anyway). It's actually a credit to him that he didn't claim those, as most others who boast about their offsets do. The industry just isn't trustworthy right now, so it's best to look at other methods that aren't as gamed.
@@TheLivirusHow about we stop converting forest to marginal crop land?
I grew up in Indiana, U.S.A., and it is said that when Columbus landed in the West Indies a squirrel could go from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi river without touching the ground. That would be a considerable elevation change across the mountains in addition to some 700km. That cannot happen any more due to the forest being plowed under and paved over.
Breed squirrels to be able to jump further. Problem solved. Next.
that squirrel was bullshittin you
They still can. Now they fly.
The pioneers on the US prairies and plains planted “tree-claims” at the government’s suggestion, it was thought that they would “improve the climate”. Most died, of course. If a location’s climate, elevation, latitude and soil will support trees, they will already be growing there naturally. It takes about 35 inches of annual rain to grow trees, if that’s not there, they will need to be irrigated. The dry prairie and plains were grasslands, not forest, exactly because the climate doesn’t get enough rain for trees. The only natural trees there grew along waterways. Of course, the pioneers in this area soon discovered that there isn’t enough rain to successfully grow food crops, either, so wells and irrigation systems were installed everywhere. This has nearly dewatered the world’s largest aquifer system, the Ogallala. This fossil water accumulated from the snow/ice melt at the end of the Ice Age and is simply not replenished at the rate at which we humans want to withdraw it. This is called ground-water mining.
I run 4km to work and i have 2 options.
1) run along the busy main road.
2) run on the cycle path, parallel and close to the road, but surrounded by tress, grass and a variety of bushes and green stuff. It's 600m longer.
My route is option 2 almost everytime as it's very much fresher.
Won't save the planet but every tree and any green stuff is definitely beneficial to us individually
You actually increase carbon emissions by running 600 m longer. ;)
@@ivarwind bro runs 4km, any one else today would drive that. Simply bad faith comment.
Biking, running, skiing, paddling in trees is my happiest place. Maybe my only happy place. I consider myself part of the universe and the universe gets what it needs by making organisms feel good. Trees and the woods feel good.
Ah yes, because him running is such a significant producer of fossil fuel emissions. Not the 57 companies that are linked to 80% of emissions. @ivarwind
Temporary escape .
“Are we idiots?” - Yes
Bill Gates is just another WEF Tool. We could cut global hot air if these folks would just self-superglue their lips and nostrils shut.
Paris goals or life...?
Take out C02 we starve life... Is C02 heating the planet?
Ask the sun not the scientists....
And hypocrites.
...THE SCIENCE IS IN!
Me no dumb!!! Me is smort!!!
You don‘t have to plant trees. They grow for themselves, when you let them. Rewilding is the Solution! Trees (generally vegetation) are the best air conditioners we have.
Yes. Having more spaces where trees are allowed to grow would be a good thing. In UK farmers claim they are maintaining the environment. We would have a lot more trees if marginal farmland wasn't subsidised to keep sheep.
@@NogginMelodeon Agroforestry will be our future, especially while climate change.
Depends on the place really, no, trees don’t grow themselves everywhere. *Most* places don’t grow trees at all, just look at a geographic map of the planet. Between tundras, steppes, highlands, all kinds of deserts etc … you need a lot of work to get forests growing there if it’s possible at all. Frankly if you want to encourage natural greening we should keep putting out as much co2 as possible, it is quite literally the food plants crave and the rising temperatures will create more landmasses for plants than it will destroy by desertification.
Bill does not waste his time. He is building a sodium-based nuclear power reactor in Wyoming, which can generate sufficient energy for a full city. Let us hope for a good outcome soon. Cheers, Eddie.
Really. What about the waste disposal problem. Like always that will be someone else's problem.
@@billgreen576 Yes. I've heard that nuclear power is the cleanest option we have at the moment. But what do we do with the waste? Who wants that in their back yard? It's gotta go somewhere.
@@TheZaxx I know that this is a problem, but the "waste" produced by fossile fule plants is emitted right into the atmosphere and is a much bigger problem compared to nuclear waste. We have litteraly A LOT of time to take care of nuclear waste.
@@thediaclub4781Exactly
@@billgreen576 Obsolete problem. Already solved decades ago, only ideologists keeps supporting such false statements.
I live in a place that has very hot summers. When I bought my house I planted trees for shade. I knew full well that it would be a long term pay off. It has been fifteen years and I now use much less electricity for cooling my home. Cutting energy consumption is a viable way to not add to the carbon problem.
No, it's viable way to reduce your bills and nothing more
@@tolep respectfully false, taken at scale, if we have tree coverage wherever people live and work, the energy consumption would be greatly reduced. Many places would even skip active cooling. Even cities, which cover more and more of the land, should have big tree coverage, on open areas (streets) and on top of building. Uncovered land is unnatural in a non desert area. Now it becomes the norm. Even if the albedo is high in some rare cases, we might then influence the atmosphere more. Only greenery is perfect in all aspects (hydro, carbon cycle, depollution, solar energy, health, soil dynamics) .
I've allowed a tree to grow near one side of my house which didn't have shutters at the windows. The effect is really wonderful - inside the house and in the garden.
@@tolep 🤣 What? lower bill = lower electricity production = lower pollution, even if your electricity is produced with "clean" energies, "clean" only means less dirty, every type of energy production has some pollution.
Mother Earth always restores balance. One day, a tree will fall on your home and the repair cost will cancel out the reduced bills.
In Uruguay, they replace entire forest by planting eucalyptus trees which are allelophatic trees which practically destroy the ecosystem of Uruguays’ forest. In the Philippines, the Department of Natural Resources reforest by planting Mahogany trees, also an allelopathic tree. In both countries, they prioritize business over saving the natural environment.✌️
Sounds more like government mismanagement.
in Paraguay Mr Andreas Pfeiffer from Mainz makes a useful reforestation : "The Parent tree Farm" with many edible trees and bushes and highgrade Timber and high biodiversity. There are many videos on YT , also with Michael Vogt .
Curious, how does this help business?
@@JTNugget It is definetly business, these business pigs or if you have more worst word you can think of, choose ones which does not grow, sustain then they charge for removal, replant and they will suck government money like leeaches , they will never solve any problem, they flourish with the environmental problems
@@kpg1973 grasslands and steppes are important ecosystems
Trees attract more rain fall in otherwise dry areas,
Trees keep the environment cooler in otherwise hot areas,
Trees attract bird life,
Can you imagine a world of no trees compared to a world with trees,
🌳🌳🌴🌴🌲🌲
One of the topics that is almost never addressed is the excessive level of pollution created by production of solar panels and wind towers and the pollution created in disposing of the used panels and towers. If the goal is to protect the earth, they're doing an extremely poor job by promoting all the solar panels and wind towers. The mentality of "the one solution" guarantees we will fail. Using a variety of approaches, including tree planting and nuclear plants, will take care of a tremendous amount of the perceived pollution
I think one of the many reasons we are failing dismally at "fixing" climate change is we are looking for one big fix. It is multiple technologies that got us where we are, it is multiple initiatives that will get us out.
CALL WRITE NASA THIS IS ALL WRONG NASA TELLS US THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING
We are also totally ignoring that 95% of the world can't afford to do anything.
Nah. It is just stupid things humans assume will improve life.
Plus, nature is just too perfect to accept for humans. Not needing any improvements by us really irks idiots.😅. Nature evolves smoothly. 🥴🤦🏻♀️🇨🇦
@@RS-ls7mmThinking is free. Imagination limitless. Helping others profound. Idleness is just wasted space inhabited by lazy people's. 😊💁🏻♀️🥰 free exists.
There is one big fix - reducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately human nature means that we refuse to accept this inconvenient truth however.
I don't want trees to be planted because i expect it to solve climate change. I want trees to be planted just because i like trees and nature and i want to restore what we destroyed. Not everything has to be for ourselves.
I am talking about good planting not mon🤢cultures. And not just forests but other biomes deserve love too
growing trees turns co2 gas to c solid. monoculture is a good idea, if the cut timber is put to long-term use.
Comprehensive landscape restoration. Not tree mono-cropping.
It does only one thing. It store water. And that water store carbon.
I thougth for just a moment you really disliked the Culture of the Mon (in southeast Asia) :D
We shouldn't plant trees but let forests grow uninterrupted. It's far more natural and ecological.
Planting trees won't hurt, and it's still preferable to starting a company that contributes to the production of megatons of non-biodegradable waste each year.
But it will hurt when idiots plant tree's without thought
@asoul3919 Nonsense. Nature plants trees without thought. Comparatively we put much more care into it.
@@doradoro_com Compared to nature??
The trees good for spamming are also trees that burn themselves off in huge wild fires so they don't spawn too much and glitch the game.
Terrible idea, try again.
I've noticed the climate in a forest is much nicer than a parking lot .
Trees can be a good way to help mitigate the Urban Heat Island effect. I wish cities had more trees.
Yes, and Bill never claimed otherwise.
Britain's National Forest is impressive, taking an area damaged by mining and other activities to increase coverage from 6% to 20% with an eventual 30% goal. I love trees and that is reason enough to get planting.
That sounds more like land reclamation which has other benifits
Have to correct you. The UK almost lost the great war of 1914-18, as it didn't have enough wood, forest coverage was 3% in 1916 with the government calculation that all of it would be gone if the war lasted a few more years. 1919 forestry act seeked to address that, with an increase enough in time for the next big war. Since that forestry act, and several others UK woodland coverage is now 13%.
The problem with tree planting in that time was using fast non-native tree species in dense monocultues with tax breaks as a carrot while planting in wrong habitat zones i.e. on peat bogs - visit Delamere forest, the pennine moors, Formby point (should be a dynamic dune system not pine woods).
Plant bamboo instead, it grows much, much faster.
@@keithdf2001 it's a mixture, some is farmland where hedgerows have been planted or improved. Other places such as mines and extraction pits have been transformed.
@@olavsantiago The national forest is new. No conifers.
I've been saying this for years, it's fun to see that my fears of spreading climate misunderstandings became real...
Another aspect one has to consider is:: The fallen dead leaves and old trees decays; and it gives out CO2 and methane while decaying. The total quantum of the gases given out during decaying is same as that was absorbed during its growth. So one has to use the wood (before it starts to decay) to make furnitures or at least use it as fire wood for cooking and heating.
Hence it's vital that we minimise destroying existing native forests...
Bingo, these fools talk about planting trees while we turn forests into parking lots and fields for grazing cattle at an alarming rate.
@@MiltonRoe never saw anyone interested in planting trees who's not also interested in stopping deforestation but okay. And yes, going vegetarian/vegan is good for the environment (along with health benefits, if done correctly).
Existing forests are carbon neutral. Fully grown trees do not remove carbon. Only growing trees remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Let me tell you the three things that are vital in the order of their importance. This list is as follows, Food, Clothing and Shelter. Only once those three basic needs are met can we begin to worry about anything else. We need the land forests are on to farm and we need the lumber to build with. It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.
@@1pcfred "It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.": There will be no longer "us" if we continue the way we do. Temperature increase will not stop at 1.5 Celsius, and it will also not stop at 5 Celsius if we continue the way we do. At first, 2..3 billion people at the coasts will have to move inland. You completely forget that we already have a huge overpopulation.
The problem with dodgy carbon credits projects (such as paying someone not to cut down trees in the Amazon that they were not going to cut down anyway) is that it makes people feel less guilty of emitting CO2. While that dodgy project did not do anything to absorb more CO2 than it would have anyway, the person who paid for the dodgy project feels free to carry on emitting extra CO2.
That describes Bates to a tee. He acknowledges that all his flights and whatnot generate tons of CO2 but says it doesn't matter because "I offset all of that with carbon credits." Guy is just a sociopath.
Large corporations create a bunch of fake companies that each get their number of carbon credits, then they buy these credits up from themselves, and pollute away!
Which is why Mauna Loa just reported another large rise in CO2 levels... We can pretend we are taking enough action even when the evidence says the opposite.
CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING
In a way I think it validates his idea?
He's basically saying "I do more, so I should pay more"
Gates has basically created a wealth tax without calling it a wealth tax.
I think this is why a lot of other rich folk are campaigning against carbon credits.
"carbon credits" needs to banned first
My small brain clearly heard Gates say "I take the carbon credits" that is enviro-speak for telling people I can exchange my bad things I do for credit of good things I don't do and never change my lifestyle. What BS. Unocal in the 90's was offered "carbon credits" for massive environmental disasters they caused by poorly managing their business. In a nut shell they polluted the ground water and air in California for decades and the state and I am sure the Feds allowed them to buy up old "gross polluters vehicles-cash for clunkers they called it" in exchange for carbon credits. What a load of horsesh*t. That being said Bill who is fairly smart continues to dish out BS to people that take him as a real proponent of climate issues. He says well I can exchange this for that and take my carbon credits. WTF does that actually mean. Clearly he knows that there is no 1 for 1 exchange. You can't do a burnout in your hotrod and plant a tree the next day to offset the pollution caused. Can you? Ugh, I am going down a wormhole here but to credit Ms. Hosenfelder she is making sense but Gates is clearly a shill in the game of climate change which ultimately does not need his money or help. Time to retire Mr. Gates.
What kind of ridiculous studies are being published nowadays that suggest there are better alternatives to planting trees ?
I've done some voluntary work on rewilding projects. The one thing you don't need to do, by and large is plant trees. Remove the invasive species, manage the herbivores and the trees will grow naturally - provided there's a small reserve population.
yeah, it's much more effective to eliminate forest destruction, because trees release way more seeds than we could ever plant manually, they'll grow back if the conditions are right
its make more wetlands.
true, but we should focus on cultivated land, which are vast and have a way worse state (dead soil), we need live soil (which includes ruminants), permanent cover and close to no till. in Europe, semi wild areas often don't have properly managed ruminant cover, because the natural dynamic which forced ruminant to seek each ungrazed spot is lost. No predatory pressure, no natural good over population, which forced migration and more seeking (better coverage). That's why we need dynamic grazing everywhere, including in rotation on crop lands. It employs people, cost close to nothing, improve everything and feed the people. Gates wants us to eat plants, which implies keeping the dead soil dead, he's dumb. We need to put back ruminant on the ground, everywhere, they are the soil manager, the world creator. without them the nature has no balance. With this help plant growing will be way cheaper. It should only cost minimal inputs (implanting, harvesting, covering, managing cover) minimal energy and almost no chemicals. We use chems because the soil is dead, the seeds are unsuitable.
We use chemical fertilizers because the place we eat food isn't the same place we grow it. Thus we aren't able to create a closed loop nutrient systems. Farms essentially act as nutrient exporters. Introducing cows doesn't magically add more nutrients. In fact they would ultimately increase the nutrient export rate as their carcasses are exported.
@@raph151515 so when we stop growing so much food, how do you pick which people die as a result?
I freely admit that I am an idiot. The problem is all those idiots that are convinced that they are absolutely brilliant.
There is nobody more sure of himself then an idiot.
If more people were taught the quote “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing” the world would be a better place lol
I'm brilliant, which is why I understand that planting trees is like shooting bullets, and making wetlands is like dropping nukes. We need wetlands,, which will grow all full of trees all on their own.
@@Indyfficient Most of these cute cliche's are degenerative to people's thinking and speaking. A double-negative sentence is more honest. You know so much it is beyond ever mapping. If you know "who" is on first, maybe you know "nothing" and you need to ALWAYS give yourself proper status without requiring people to speak a paradox as if it has merit. We need to speak with power of genius to get our language FIXED and our patterns of thinking FIXED. Every cliche has beguiled and lowered the general IQ. "Because in comparison to ________, I know nothing." There, that takes us where it should.
@@YouKnowTheyExist you really critiquing Socrates? Lol
Rain forests are the lungs of Earth , saving those should be the priority
Secondly planting local species with mix variety is the key to grow healthy green patches
Third- trees help regulating local climate and temperature , they improve soil quality, great for biodiversity and hundred more things
It does not take decades to achieve canopy growth...this is some mental gymnastics
7 years is what it takes to grow a 40ft cottonwood tree
@@marke219 i got check into that. I live in florida and some plants dont grow well in my yard. I work in the Solar industry and it pains me to see how often trees are removed to allow more sunlight when i have personally tested these modules in extreme shade and they still generate at 100%. The sheer greed, ignorance then stupidity gives me anxiety...these are all lies and probably propagated by the likes Bill Gatee and his "coalition" of globalists. We need to wake up the conscience of everyday people, universally.....no one is safe
So, you don’t know much about forest succession or how long a decade is? Good thing we live in the Information Age they say. Unfortunately not everyone takes advantage of all the free information available.
@@marke219Yes, Cottonwoods are extremely fast growing, but they aren't suitable worldwide and other species do not grow that quickly.
This is a subjective generalization, which is anything but scientific.
Unfortunately, we are the idiots whether we plant the trees or not.
In comparison to higher intelligence that would be absolute.
We certainly aren't scientists like Gates want to believe.
*sigh*
With the internet promoting people acting like 10-year-olds there's no hope because the whole idea is to get these people buying toys from China which is causing massive climate change
Planting trees is the tip of the iceberg. We need to develop and reinvigorate a culture focused on regenerative agriculture and the natural world as a whole
Take a lesson from Japan for instance, they use a cool method called Daisugi, essentially just trimming the top of the trees branches and allowing it to re grow rather than fully cutting them down
@@Indyfficient... Ok, and what does that accomplish? What happens to the cut parts? How is this any better than regrowing a tree from seedling?
@@MelodicTurtleMetal because they don’t need to completely deforest… what’s not to understand, it takes years for saplings to mature. This method bypasses that massive wait time for regrowth
Planting trees is different than planting forests
A company bought a lot of acreage near my home. They planted trees. Then left. The trees all died without maintenance. They tore up the land also. What a waste.
Planting trees is a vague term, it's like comparing a monoculture forestry set up to a mixed native broadleaf forest
Yup, so much divisiveness missing the nuances of this question.
It is not vague, it is well defined, it is however a broad term.
Reforestation would be a better general term. Or "Wood" it?
Tree farms are not forests.
@@joelcarson4602 future beetle homes would be more honest.
No no no, the interviewer stated it stupidly "take care of the climate issue altogether". Of course that is wrong. But to say you DO NOT plant trees? He is talking from how he invests in CO2 removal. Too often, and in this video as well, we discuss something that helps with an overall solution but we criticize it for not being a complete solution. Why focus on extremes?
Yes, this is the most disgustingly stupid video Sabine has ever done.
20% is quite a good chunk better than everything we "Didn't try" so far.
CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS
Yeah, people are taking what Bill said in the wrong context. He's not saying that planting trees won't help, he's saying it's not one of the things he personally does to offset his own carbon footprint, as instead he chooses to focus on things that are easier to directly measure and have a more noticeable benefit for people in America, such as funding more efficient heating and cooling systems for people who couldn't otherwise afford them.
Even if there wasn't a risk of scams or questions on measuring the effectiveness of tree planting, people in America simply wouldn't see the immediate and direct benefit from trees being planted in Brazil, in the same way they would from receiving more efficient heating and cooling systems for their homes.
The real question for me though, is how much of that carbon offset is squandered away by people spending the money saved from lower energy bills on even more carbon generating consumption?
Gates has invested in artificial carbon capture schemes. He's not paying for the machinery to be built and run. He is expecting others (governments mostly) to do that. Every dollar spent planting trees takes a dollar out of his profit margin. So no. Gates means exactly that.
Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the growth rate of most plants significantly and reduces the amount of water required by the plants. It also reduces the amount of water vapor - the most effective greenhouse gas in the air, released by plants.
When forests are removed, either by natural processes like fire or they are cut down by man, there is a noticeable and measurable change in the local, and not so local weather patterns.
I ride my bike everywhere and I have noticed a definite difference in temperature between areas covered by buildings, asphalt, and concrete, versus areas covered by trees and plants. Areas covered by plant life are cooler because they store and use sunlight as opposed to radiating it back. It's not really noticeable during the day but at night it is really obvious.
That's called the "urban heat island effect." It is so significant that it will be a couple of degrees warmer at night in a big city than in the surrounding vegetated places. During the day urban areas can be 15-20 degrees warmer!
@@mygirldarby
"Surrounding vegetated places" sounds a little like what we used to call "countryside". :)
Trees also transpire a lot of water, which leads to evaporative cooling.
That's Transpiration, more trees in cities required. and Less Humans
@@markdowning7959it's not just countryside though, as the effect is still noticeable in places that are developed and have lots of buildings and people living there, such as suburbs, but also happen to be highly vegetated in comparison to the concrete jungle of downtown cores of most cities. Sure countryside sees an even larger effect, but going from zero vegetation to regular vegetation is a larger step than going from regular vegetation to total vegetation.
😂 "...they are really good listeners and if they get too boring you can chop them down and heat with them." Sabine's sense of humor is second to none.
Love her ♥️😂
I imagine she has chopped down a few men on the first date and used them for firewood, lol (JK Sabine, I meant figuratively not literally)
shes dry as a raisin,-
People too, forget that, although rare, one cosmological event or catastrophe could make EVERYTHING a moot point.
I did a 6-month Deep dive into the carbon exchange at the world economic forum for a client when I was a young attorney here in Switzerland he was a philanthropist and we went and we were paid to learn everything about the carbon markets and we came to the conclusion that they were completely unreliable and there was no way to adequately or correctly judge the amount of carbon being trapped in these projects for accountability and we told our client that it would be a bad idea and it's form at that time now it could be changed. If there was accountability and a way to adequately judge quantify the effectiveness of the project.
There was a huge tree right outside my front door of my apartment up until last week when it was felled. Those branches were always filled with chirping birds that woke me up every morning. There was a squirrel or squirrels over the years that liked to tease my dog. And an owl that I'd often hear at night. It was the only large tree nearby and right outside my door. HOA felled it and now all the nature is gone 😢
Those damn HOAs. Did they give any reason?
@@Atommagi I don't understand why the members of this HOAs seem to have no say in their own organization.
@@cherubin7th when you sign into a HOA you are giving up your freedoms for ??? property value? You get what you deserve.
That is awful
Your apartment had an hoa?
How many trees do we have to plants to offset Bill's private jet emissions?
zero, we really need emission less transportation. the idea that we can plant a few trees and fix all our pollution from travel is just really silly. we really just need to change how we travel.
@@scottmcshannon6821 Or stop needless traveling.
It's in the video. He does it by donating solar panels and other green energy sources.
@@scottmcshannon6821 stop with your bullshit.
planting trees isn't gonna solve a problem that doesn't exist. besides the earth is already way greener than it was 100 years ago. even the last 20 years has seen a 15 percent increase
We should also control felling and also switch over to raw food.
Trees should be planted , keeping the mix grass, shrubs trees.
Reducing package materials.
Stop the publishing of news papers.
Scientists need to stop repeatedly giving people contradictory info or else everyone will just ignore them.
It is interesting that trees are discounted as a useful contributor to our CO2 issues because they might only resolve say 10% of the problem while we have everyone and their dog banging on endlessly about EVs when, even if we all had one and charged them from renewable sources they would resolve only around 8.5% of our CO2 emissions. Of course it's hard to corner the market in trees and make billions from them but EVs on the other hand...
Indeed. I work in business consultancy. When we approach some company's operations the people may have this idea that there is one simple solution that changes everything. Instead our approach often is to do the 100+ most impactful solutions, each affecting the operations from 0,05% to 5% (just an example). The cumulative impact of all those small improvements can be huge. One just needs to decide what needs to be done and then be very decisive in implementing solution after solution (or rather multiple solutions in parallel). Everything needs to be done with a sense of purpose: analyze, decide, DO, follow-up, continue.
There should be a Tree department in Ministries of Ecology. Special tree tax, the govt takes care of it and does it properly. Same for the rest. It's all possible, the money is there, but private interests don't want to do anything until they get their money from it.
wetlands. we need wetlands. Wetlands will be much more impactful than just some saplings. And wetlands get packed full of saplings automatically.
planting tree cannot be interesting if more trees are cut than planted ...
@@brucemangy Well, the point of tree-planting initiatives is to make sure that doesn't happen. That is what FSC certification is all about.
there is no one solution, in reality is a mix of solutions that will make a difference.
No "solution" will happen before Earth's self regulatory system snaps us into an ice age. Not if, when. We seem to be on the doorstep now.
The best solution I can think of is actually one solution; although it evades our grasp for now: near free and unlimited energy. I am convinced there is a way to harness the power of the universe and produce all the energy we need with no negative consequences, or at least if there are then those negative consequences can be solved by simply using some of that unlimited energy.
@@CrazyGaming-ig6qq -- thorium reactors or molten salt reactors - are they way.
Maybe not what you were going for, though they have lots of upside - being reliable, sustainable, low carbon and way safer than older reactor design.
Of course, it's already far too late for most, and human greed will preclude any others. The tipping point (Thom's "catastrophe point") has passed.
@@drx1xym154⚛️
Planning trees makes more sense than hoping that EU's green deal may do better at global scale. Science...is there any research or just popular magazines articles ?
This is what happens when you try to solve everything with technology and don't understand natural cycles at all.
It is shocking to see how little understanding of natural systems many of the most powerful and wealthy people have.
Trying to simplify climate crisis solutions down to one variable is already quite alarming. If that variable is atmospheric carbon, it gets even more shocking.
Functioning ecosystems and especially forests are absolutely vital for small water cycles and the stabilisation of weather extremes.
We need trees to transpire water into the air and we need spongy forest soils to infiltrate heavy rain events.
Is a newly planted tree as efficient at sucking carbon out of the atmosphere as a Direct Air Capture facility? Definitely not.
Are trees more important for our global climate than DAC facilities? Most certainly!
We need to get away from looking at climate and nature as separate things.
"If they get too boring, you can chop them down and heat with them" Excellent!
"Trees are really good listeners" < (cant deny the teuth) also... they also can take a beating if you want to vent your frustration without hurting the environment too much, or simply want to vent your frustration against a boss / colleague without harming a human. Keep in mind, trees to "talk" to each other🤔🙄🧐🤫😁
I mean, Trees have knock on effects though. They stabilise soil, protect against wind erosion, retain water etc. etc. All that indirectly "fights" climate change as well.
But isn’t the problem that because of all those benefits, trees would naturally repopulate into any viable soil that humans aren’t continuously clearing?
Like if you stopped cutting a golf course, for example, wouldn’t trees slowly develop there in stages over the next 50-70 years or so with zero human intervention?
So it’s a zero-sum game…there’s only so much arable land. And like she says in this video, humans want to cut it down and build nail salons and shit. Not grow a bunch of trees that don’t benefit humans at all.
Old forests, which are what are useful to help with climate change, are not at all similar to young human planted (mostly) monocultures. The moment the old forests begin to struggle even the slightest because of Climate change? Those young plantations are going to die faster than ice-cream melts in the Texan sun.
@@kated3165 old forests are mostly carbon neutral, only new forests (if properly managed) help offset climate change because they store carbon as they grow. that is why, as counterintuitive as it sounds, things like forest fires help offset climate change. because the carbonized biomass will sink into the soil, and new plant will grow on top of them and capture more carbon.
and most importantly, the breath CO2.
@@danilooliveira6580 It's the "if properly managed" part that's problematic, because a lot of times the forests we cut down aren't great for growing back. Heavy machinery will have compacted the soil and they'll have cleared much of the biomass that would have served to form new (better soil). It's very common for replanted trees to either die in mass or really struggle to grow. Sometimes they will replant over several years because the previous trees keep dying... and even then it will take many more years before they reach decent sizes.
According to NASA we would need to reforest an area the size of Canada and the US (completely) to have significant effect.
Then you need to take into account that forest fires are increasing... so keeping those plantations would be very challenging. While it's true that the carbon of forest fires in wild areas can (eventually) be negated by naturally growing forests, the same isn't necessarily going to be true for forests that were clear cut or used for agriculture.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it at all, but we do tend to be champions at half-assing stuff... and there's a big worry that tree planting could easily become the main (very convenient for politicians and industries) focus. The main focus needs to be on drastically reducing fossil fuels consumption/production first and foremost.
So the ground rule of internet also work with publishing papers, if you want a good answer you are better off making a wrong statement than asking people to answer it.
Completely correct. Planting trees is great and does contribute, but we would need replace a significant number of farms and homes with trees to hit goals; which would lead to significant social issues, which usually in turn leads to more greenhouse emissions through using cheaper methods.
It is really a classic problem of optimized effort. You do not spend a large amount of time and money doing something that has a lower chance of success and impacts a lower piece of the problem. We have much more solid data on other methods that attack the source of greenhouse emissions, those have a high certainty of being effective and a higher net percentage of impact. Now that doesn't mean as larger contributing sources get optimized trees won't then become a more significant factor. But if the other sources are not dealt with that effort in planting trees will be moot. Right now the largest overall contribution that could have massive impacts are, coal power generation & use, natural gas power generation & use, and gasoline use in transportation of people and good; leave those things as they are and you can't possibly get to a good state with trees.
"Planting trees is great and does contribute, but we would need replace a significant number of farms and homes with trees to hit goals" Fortunately, if everyone switched to a vegan diet, we could feed the whole world using 75% less farmland, and farmland occupies 50% of the habitable land on Earth. Get to mostly, vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets--and especially reduce the beef and lamb consumption--and we could easily free up 50-60% of current farmlands for re-wilding and reforesting.
Ref: (Poore & Nemecek, 2019)
Take care.
You want to fix climate change? Simple, stop buying products. You don't need a new phone each year, you don't need 20 pairs of shoes, you don't need "fill in the product". Less demand = less mining, less manufacturing, less pollution. Do they want you to do this, hell no, they love money.
This guy ∆ needs a position in Congress.
The problem is that other people won't stop buying products just because you want them to.
DISREGARD ABOVE CONSOOM PRODUCT
and who are "they"???
CALL WRITE LOOK UP NASA CARBON IS NOT A PROBLEM THEY WILL TELL YOU THIS THAT'S ALL
But the main issue is that trees aren't removing CO2 for good. It's just the cicle, all CO2 eventualy returns to atmosphere when tree rots or burn. To remove CO2 you have to conservate it in form of coal or some other way.
I assume you mean as coal that is never burned
@@katgod No. Coal won't ever be produced from trees again. Coal happened because there were no microbes that could digest the wood in the vegetation at that time. Now there is, and so when a tree dies now, it gets consumed and all its carbon gets released in one form or another.
If you increase forested area, there will be one time capture equal to amount of new trees
@@dmitripogosian5084 Only for a short time measured in decades, not eons.
@@simongross3122 As I said, it is one time reduction, but forever, presuming that trees will continue to maintain themselves in this new area
Photosynthesis has a cooling effect because it converts into chemical energy in the form of sugars, starches and plant parts.
When Bill pays back everyone for their time wasted waiting for Microsoft to work the way we paid for it to work, I'll listen to him.
We have a small forest in our neighborhood and it has been a delight during the last extremely heated summers. A forest is like an air conditioner but without a salesman who lures people into buying his aweful stuff. Always remember what we have to deal with if we are forced to use MS Windows.
Yep. And large-scale landscape restoration can help cool the planet, while restoring ecosystems, retaining water, and beautifying.
Many choose to deal with MS Windows because it is better than the alternatives. :)
@@DonReba some might feel that way, very likely because they have never tried an alternative. Most - especially in the office realm - are forced to use it. In the realm of IT-security most people use Fedora, Ubuntu or Arch as their host system. Those are not inherently more secure by default, however, their notebook/desktop/workstation version have a much smaller attack surface than Windows. There is already a term for what big US companies do to products they acquire from smaller and much more innovative companies and it is called „ensh..ification“. That’s what Microsoft does best.
I wonder if the reduction in air-conditioning was included in the calculations.
@@presence5426 I agree to what you wrote about retaining water, beautifying and preserving ecosystems. However, we won’t cool the planet with forests. We can‘t undo that we dug and burned vast amounts of coal and oil by planting trees. Nature took it millions of years to dispose these excessive amounts of carbon permanently under the earth and under the oceans. If we want to do this in a timespan of let’s say one hundred years, trees are growing much too slow. Ferns and algae grow fast, but who is going to pay for (very, very) large farming or aquaculture of these?
On average, trees are better than people.
What does that even mean?
you just don't know how too cook them right
beware the stately oak, it kills lesser trees with its shade alone! talk about passive aggressive...
that's exactly what a tree would say!
@@synystera Hah, his bark is worse than his bite
One thing about oxygenic photosynthesis (green plants, algae, cyanobacteria): The CO2 is not the source of the O2 in the photosynthetic reaction, CO2 is not broken up during those processes. The O2 comes from the hydrolysis of water instead...
Its not only carbon capture, trees perform a role in the macrocycle of water.
It's not about planting, but mainly where to plant, we have to consider the physiological role of continents and biomes. Yes I said continent's role.
We are quite infantile in our understanding of ecological systems and, in this case, trees and soils. There’s so much work left to do on our part regarding how we understand Earths systems and making sound decisions with our evolving understanding. No doubt, rehabilitating degraded land is a good thing, trees, native grasslands, etc. sequesters more carbon, as well as the litany of other ecosystem services. Does it make corporations richer? Probably not.
In 2023, 2000 square miles of the amazon were cut down. ~800 million trees have been felled in the amazon since 2018.
Facts that make Bill Gates sleep well at night. Going after the trees en masse is a form of eugenics … and eugenics is another pet project
From 2.1 million square miles... barely 1%
It is not coming back.
@@Xanderbelle 1% of the world's largest carbon sink gone in 1 year isn't a problem to you?
@@MrMollusk7It's 0.1% actually.
i live under a giant oak tree.we live in a bungalow.we look out of the kitchen window and all you see is a giant oak. We have no sun light. Can't put washing out because of pigeons landing on the branches that cover my washing line and pooing on washing.the oak is about 13 feet away from my kitchen window.we might as well be living in a tree house.cant I cant put any plants in the ground because of roots and the soil is so dry. We had to call Anglian water out because of a blockage in the pipes.we had raw sewage coming up through the bath room floor,for two days. It was disgusting and the smell was evil.so now the roots are pushing up under the patio and lifting the slabs.dont get me started on preservation orders.they should be😊 abolished.no won has been to check on these trees at all since we have been living here we have to keep calling out maintenance to clear the guttering and the roof.and its slug city at night, cant walk out on to the patio it covered in slugs all of the time.what do you think about it.
I think the core problem is, whatever space on our planet is suitable for trees, trees plant themselves, if u just leave the land to itself.
So, if you want more trees, you need more space that was not covered by trees previously though suitable for it. This is where it tricky. You can try to reforest dry areas, but potential for that is limited. Areas that are suitable for reforestation will do so by themselves.
Of course trees won't solve climate change, but there are a lot of other environmental benefits to reforestation. We can't just outright discount trees.
you can't patent trees, so no body really cares about that option
Neither will billionaires solve climate change. Let's not bother making any more of those, too.
i need that soundbyte of Sabine saying "peanuts!..." 😂😂😂😂 i can imagine numerous situations in which itd be useful...
It's quite simple. If the problem and answer can't be put in two sentences, no one seem to listen. We got solution to most (not all of them, most) of our global problems. We just need to collectively go for them. It's like having a panel of buttons, but you can only click a button once 40% or more of the global population click 'yes'. The reality is that most people would very much like quick patch solutions without any effort on their part (also largely possible, but people insist on not doing it. Because learning is also an effort)
When I turn my heat pump on, my bill doubles.
Thinking on the level of ecosystems themselves is the answer.
To plant trees or not to plant trees is NOT the question.
The question is what can we do in each eco region to regain some semblance of stability and regeneration? Defragmentation, restoration of prairies and old growth forests alike, holistic management of both livestock and plant crops. These things will save us.
Agreed. This is precisely what I came here to type.
Amen. And the restoration of soils and the microbiome so important for carbon capture and the break down of toxins in the air. Wholistic approach necessary agreed
...and swamps, which are huge carbon sinks! This and all of what was mentioned by thread starter needs to be done now,... alas this will not save us. Climate is going down the drain and the only question is, how badly. There are too many 'elephants' in the room for the crockery not to get damaged, like thawing Siberia, rogue China, deforresting madness in Brasil etc. etc.
We could die out. That would have the biggest impact.
@@kostuek You're late to the party. The voluntary human extinction movement (VHEMT) has been a thing for years. Ppl thought of your idea ages ago. Pfft!
Man darf nicht vergessen, dass Bäume Pflanzen relativ billig ist. In der Dritten Welt kostet es nur ca 10 Cent bis 1 € pro Baum, das heißt man könnte für eine Milliarde bis zu 10 Milliarden Bäume pflanzen. Die Bundesregierung hat seit 2016 10 Milliarden für die e-auto-Förderung ausgegeben, zum Vergleich. Bäume pflanzen hat außerdem verschiedene positive Nebeneffekte, es schafft Arbeitsplätze , es verbessert die Bodenstruktur, es verbessert das Mikroklima, den Grundwasserspiegel, die Arten vielfalt und so weiter. und vor allen Dingen wenn ein Baum erst ausreichend groß ist muss man ihn nicht mehr pflegen. Das System läuft dann kostenlos von alleine. Und wenn ich höre, dass Solarpanel besser sein sollen, bin ich fast sicher, dass hier Lobbyisten am Werk waren.
Völlig richtig, nur zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels leider völlig unzureichend. Ich hab auch eine kleine PV auf dem Dach, bei mir, kann ich versichern, waren keine Loobyisten.😊
Wir könnten beispielsweise in Deutschland auf Biodiesel verzichten und auf den riesigen freiwerdenden Flächen Wälder anlegen und die unter Naturschutz stellen. Es wird ja auch häufig vergessen, dass wir nicht nur CO2 mindern müssen, sondern das Land auch fit für die wärmere Zeit machen, das heißt Verdunstung minimieren müssen. Lieber ein Windrad mehr als Quadratkilometer an Monokulturen, die für Bodenerosion sorgen.
Noch billiger wäre es nicht ständig gigantische Mengen an Bäumen abzubrennen.
@@andy02q alte Bäume nehmen nur noch wenig co2 auf. Also in Bezug auf co2 Bindung nicht die beste Lösung
@@tiefensucht in Deutschland ist das Bäume pflanzen zu teuer. Wälder unter Naturschutz stellen hört sich einfach an funktioniert aber nicht. Zuerst muss das Recht beseitigt werden, dass jeder jeden Wald betreten darf. Ich bin dadurch als Waldbesitzer aufgrund der Verkehrssicherungspflicht angehalten alles was runterfallen könnte zu beseitigen. Das und andere Dinge widersprechen aber dem Gedanken den Wald ursprünglich wachsen zu lassen. Grds bevürworte ich es sehr den Wald in seiner ursprünglichen Form wieder herzustellen
It's all about the effects on the albedo of the area where forest are, also the water cycle and the soil quality are heavly involved with the presence of trees. Bill was probably only referring on the co2 impact, and yes on this side you are surely better off cutting down the production in the frist place, but the overall impact of reforestation is positive if done with criteria (looking what is best in each individual cases) and only start with co2 removal. Also the dry body mass of a tree basically come from air, based on the usage you do with it it will remain retained in the solid form or go back in to air
Up to now, we had a good impression of your videos. For the urban heating mitigation alone, it would be well worth filling ALL the space between buildings 100% with trees. (Quite apart from all the other benefits)
Planting trees is great, but they can usually spread just fine on their own. If there aren't already trees in an area, there are two possibilities. The first is that the habitat is fundamentally unsuitable for trees and any trees planted there will die before accomplishing much. The second is that people have cut down the trees and are actively preventing them from returning as that land is used for something else.
There are more possibilities, see Scotland and deer.
@@kajetanch2574 Fair enough. Overgrazing is just as bad as deliberate mowing.
Deforestation is said to contribute at least 12% or more so it makes sense to reverse that.
True, but a much better way to make progress towards this is to stop cutting down trees, not to plant new ones. Given unlimited resources we should do both, but we DON'T have unlimited resources and it's very important to do the most effective and efficient things ASAP.
@@johnmorrell3187 that’s basically what I’m saying. Do both really.
Or just stop deforesting everything. You can't replant trees on a parking lot.
It is almost as it you did not watch the video
As long as we all agree that Gates is the enemy
Most of the photo synthesis happens from the ocean.
Not on the land.
In England it's become an unspoken cash cow for land owners to plant thousands of the same species of tree on their land, paid for with public money grants. They will then often canvas locals to do the work for free under the banner of trees saving the world. A local land owner has had this done recently, kept all the money had the trees planted for free and now he's left them for years the area is a mess with all the plastic casings used and basically just left out there so he's also getting people to come and clear them up for free under the same trees will save the world banner. Great little money earner if you have the land.
And again, no mention by anyone of getting out of productivism and trying to keep use as much energy as we are. Breaking private interests' power would be a good start.
Another thing is that trees emit water vapour which is a green house gas.
Maybe bill should consult with the EPA before inteviews so they can align their narratives
I guess not cutting vast areas of woodland down would help. We are far too much advanced in our problems to think that one single measure can help us. We need EVERYTHING that helps
Does that include nuclear?
They cut down a portion of the forest portrayed in the Brother Grimm's Fairytales to put up windmills.
No, not true. If we were to massively plant hemp, that alone would be enough to stop climate change and decarbonize our industry. Sadly, hemp was only legalized by President Donald Trump in 2018, and most other countries are subsidizing other crops instead. I calculated that if all German farmers added just one season of hemp to their crop rotation, it would increase the total output of food, biofuel, and animal feed, and sequester more than double the current CO2 production of Germany. This means to become completely CO2 neutral, it would be enough to plant hemp every two years.
China is building new coal-fired power plants constantly. They're not held to any standards.
Actually, if you cut down the trees to build buildings and replant, it's even better. The cut down trees are carbon sinks and young trees absorb much more CO2 while growing.
Trees are great for removing CO2, until the burn down. As we move into warmer climates wildfires become more frequent. Trees planted must be carefully chosen to help with CO2 sequestration. Planting trees can be somewhat helpful for many reasons depending on local needs. Planting trees will not save us from filling the air with CO2.
Not only that, trees only remove CO2 while growing. When they stop growing the produce CO2. When they die (which they innevitabely do) they release all the stored CO2 they originally sucked form the air. The net result is producing more CO2 than if there were no trees.
@@MaDrung You can't produce more CO2 than if there were no trees, because where would the carbon come from? Not all trees die in a wildfire, and new trees quickly grow to replace the dead ones. Regular fires help trees to grow by giving more access to sunlight and nutrients. The issue is whether the total area of forests expand (i.e., more total trees), not whether fires occasionally go through.
@@sluggo206 When trees rot, they emmit CO2. No need for fire.
US wildfire burn acreage was much higher in the early 1900s than it is now.
@@MaDrung That's not true. All plants permanently sequester carbon just from root cycling and it gets stored in the soil as humus. Doesn't matter if they die and decompose, that humus isn't going anywhere and is stored carbon.
As a Forest Engineer I can certify that Bill Gates is right and Sabine's analysis spot on. Trees are great but not for removing CO2 out of the atmosphere. Plus a grown forest is actually Net Zero carbon, because trees are processed and decomposed in time and all the stored CO2 will go back to the atmosphere. The Amazon rain forest even if not deforested, is net zero C02. Even a forest as large as 5 Chinas (if that would even be remotely possible) the capability for CO2 retention would be severely limited as the forest matured and CO2 emissions continue.
I just discovered your channel Sabine, and I'm loving it. What depresses me are the comments, basically "hate the billonaire only because he's billonaire".
It's not just carbon, is lowering wind speeds, lowering flood risks, can be used for raw materials etc.
Not one single thing can "save us" from climate change.
The next version of windows might be promising Win12 AI. Where 60% workforce reduction leads to less pollution.
Nuclear winter? Although that would be climate change too, i guess.
Pandemic that kills all humans would do it
The climate will change and we'll manage just fine
Nor any combination of things. At least not things that currently exists. Other than radical human population decline.
Planting trees in cities that are nothing but concreate and asphalt can make a huge difference. Is it the end all solution, no it is not. But even if it is not the ultimate solution we should still plant trees anywhere we can in urban areas.
Also worth noting that trees are almost carbon neutral if we consider their whole life cycle. They release most of the carbon dioxide again when they die and decompose. Much better are peat bogs which hold the carbon in the ground. Unfortunately peat bogs are much less attractive to people.
James Lovelock and other earth scientists have emphasized the need for replacing the canopy and promoting the regrowth of forests. They are scientists, not spokesmen for corporate interests and profits.
Forests do millions of things besides harvest CO₂. You have contradicted no one.
@@mikemondano3624Trees absorb the broad spectered energy of the sun, and stores it as carbohydrates. Eventually, the energy stored in the carbohydrate is released, resulting in heat, energy in the infrared spectrum. That happens, regardless of the tree burning or the tree being digested by fungi, bacteria or animals. If you have seen Sabine before, you probably know, that greenhouse gasses are agitated by infrared radiation, which heats the atmosphere. IOW, converting the broad spectered energy input from the sun, to be primarily an infrared output, is probably a bad thing. The same can be said for solar panels. Perhaps we would be better off, focusing on returning the energy back into space, by increasing reflectivity, and stop harvesting solar energy, that is eventually released as heat? Sabine was right to mention albedo, but fails to connect the dots in regards to harvesting solar energy, regardless of it being trees or solar panels.
they are spokespeople for the climate-industrial complex. A scam if ever there was one.