Climate change: the trouble with trees
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Tree-planting has been hailed as a solution to climate change. But how much can trees really do to tackle global warming? See our research here: econ.st/32HXvXY
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on RUclips: econ.st/2xvTKdy
Summer 2019 - More than 38,000 fires raged across the Amazon. Fires that were man-made. Over the past 50 years almost 17% of the world’s largest rainforest has been cleared. And globally deforestation has almost doubled in just five years.
Since the start of human civilisation it’s estimated that the number of trees around the world has fallen by almost half. Clearing forests increases carbon-dioxide levels but planting them could store away some of the carbon already in the atmosphere.
This woman runs safaris in England. Guests are not only here to see wild animals - they’re here to see wild trees.
Almost 20 years ago Isabella Tree-yes that is her real name-handed 1,400 hectares of Sussex farmland back to nature, by doing, well nothing. She thinks this is the best way to use the land to help tackle climate change.
To stabilise the climate global carbon emissions need to drop to net zero by 2050. Simon Lewis is a professor of global change science.
And there’s never been more global ambition to plant trees. In 2014, 51 countries pledged to plant over 3.5m square kilometres of forest by 2030 - an area slightly larger than India. The 2030 target looks likely to be met. But there’s a catch…
Monoculture tree plantations like eucalyptus grow quickly but the trees are harvested every ten or so years releasing much of the carbon stored in the tree back into the atmosphere - which means that, according to some studies they’ll store only around one-fortieth of the carbon natural forests do over the long term.
In fact, those pledges to plant millions of trees actually promise to store 26bn tonnes less carbon than they could. Sometimes the motives for planting forests are less green than they might appear. By 2020 Ireland ought to have cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% below 2005 levels. But at current rates it will have reduced them by only 5%. Planting forests might help Ireland avoid massive penalties for missing EU targets because the potential carbon these forests could store in the future can be counted as a carbon credit today. In the 1920s Ireland had the lowest forest cover in Europe at around 1%. That’s now risen to 11% and the government has set a target to cover 18% of the land with forest by 2046.
And now local community groups are protesting against these monoculture tree plantations. They say they’re doing more harm than good.
Tree-planting programmes invariably have an impact on the people living nearby. In east Africa one project is demonstrating what can be achieved
when there’s genuine buy-in from the local communities. Green Ethiopia is a mixed-tree planting charity.
The land is communally owned and co-operatives of local women receive benefits for planting trees which are protected from being harvested. Here conserving is just as important as planting. Green Ethiopia assesses whether the condition of the land is good enough to regenerate by itself. When it is-on about a third of the area the charity runs they leave it alone. Just like Isabella Tree, back in England.
Monoculture plantations are often preferred because they make money. So some experts are looking to a future where carbon payments could create financial incentives for natural forests. Ultimately though, the trouble with trees tackling climate change is space
For more from Economist Films visit: films.economist...
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue: econ.st/20IehQk
Like The Economist on Facebook: / theeconomist
Follow The Economist on Twitter: / theeconomist
Follow us on Instagram: / theeconomist
Follow us on Medium: / the_economist
On Friday at 1:00pm GMT we are hosting a live Q&A about the issues surrounding climate change. What do you want to ask our experts? Comment below. They won’t just be discussing trees, so ask anything to do with the issues and approaches to tackling one of the biggest threats to humanity.
Sarah, have the scientists looked into the option to use synthetic biology or chemical processes to bind the carbon of CO2 in material that could be use for buildings (e. g. artificial wood-like material), dams or artificial hills or landfill? This would keep the carbon in the ground in fixed form and could also replace real wood, cutting down the need to cut down more trees as well as plant industrial forests of monotonous conifers. Best. Bernd
Hey, please correct India map.
What is their opinion on use of biomass for energy, especially wood?
I disagree with 'let nature settle the forest by itself' approach. There has been a lot of research on how badly deforested area cannot recover itself, without any help. For example, Easter island used to have huge trees that supports local kingdom in building ships and buildings. Ever since the big trees disappear in 18th century, the island forest has not even recover till this day.
Are tropical storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.; are they in any way in the slightest impacted by climate change? Could Hurricane Dorian have been less severe?
Title is total clickbait. It’s not the trouble with trees. It’s the trouble with tree monoculture. Anyone who has ever done extensive tree planting with a forest management program (such as myself) knows you are better off selecting a minimum of 12 species, and ideally double that... to avoid monoculture infestations that decimate your plantation. Additionally, the variety must include mostly local species so they thrive naturally, and fruit species for the local animals to thrive also. As for “harvesting every ten years lowering carbon sequestration”, that is also a crock if done correctly. You first cull weaker trees at 7 and 14 years, allowing stronger trees to expand and cover the areas previously occupied by weaker trees: thereby fortifying your forest. And as for a self- sustaining business concern, you pick trees to cut after 20 or 30 yrs and you don’t cut more than 1 or 2 percent of the trees you planted and replant new trees in their place right away... so your average tree will reach 50 to 100 yrs, you’ll never have land clearings, and your carbon sequestration will be minimally affected by the ongoing commercial concern.
Simple as that. TREES ARE THE SOLUTION! Monocultures are not.
thankyou .. very agree !
Great point! We need to pin this reply. The video was pretty garbage.
Anushri Thanedar Thank you. Glad you agree.
And neglecting grasslands, which can be far more effective at helping control erosion and conserve water. Trees aren't a cure-all.
You mean monocultures ARE the problem - yes?
Ok fine tree planting is no excuse to stop cutting emissions but this video should be no excuse to continue deforestation!
So true! And the video doesn’t even mention a single reason why so many trees r being cut.
That's not what the video is about.
Where did you get the idea that this video encourages deforestation? It doesn't even provide an overall anti tree planting perspective as it gives examples of it done right and providing real benefits to the local community. It's simply about how we shouldn't take countries planting millions of acres of monoculture as an actual perfect solution to Climate Change, because it objectively isn't that.
@@robotplant5260 Can you not appreciate insights on a particular matter without spinning it into some different narrative? Deforestation is a problem (and implicitly one accepted by almost certainly everybody watching this and certainly the video by its framing of forest loss) - but it's just not the only thing in the world. Realizing the limits of reafforestation, particularly of harvested mono-cultures, is interesting and useful, irrespective of the harms of deforestation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
@Peter Hicks Volcanos are not the cause of current global warming. Or to put it another way: .
Forests have a climatic role not only regarding carbon sequestration. They provide shade, and thus reduce temperatures and increase moisture at local level. Natural regrowth is really powerful, and it can be accelerated and improved through sustainable forest management techniques, such as forest enrichment, among others. The economic factor can never be despised in the efforts to increase the forest area globally, to tackle climate change.
Further, farming compacts the soil and starve it of nutrients not relevant for farming. So besides the trees themselves, when leaving the ground alone, the soil gets porous so fungus and bacteria can sequester additional carbon + there is also a sponge effect humidifying the air above ground, which has a direct cooling effect and keep the whole area cooler. This is why a forrest is noticeable colder in summer than the surrounding fields as you say. Tropical forests have 5-6 time higher metabolism, so every acre is worth more there than in Europe, but still we all need to do our part too.
@@Tore_Lund Your claims are unfortunately a lie for 80% of global lands. Desertification is a natural process in most of the world if land is left alone, and the only way to sequest carbon in the soil is through intense holistically managed grazing. The lady featured here has achieved 20% of this guy - ruclips.net/video/QfTZ0rnowcc/видео.html (specifics at around 14 minutes).
Or this ruclips.net/video/xMjKcCfBtfI/видео.html
Jens Petersen there is no only way to sequester carbon. Lol
@@jenspetersen5865 Thanks Jens, I suspected you knew your stuff, so I should have phrased this as a question instead! I was thinking of the tempered climate forests in Europe, but true, where they have a hard time growing, this won't happen by itself as a desertification method. Yes Grazing was an improtant part also in the book summary I tried to remember in my first reply.
@@Tore_Lund The thing that often gets missed is that the world and climate is complicated. Setting wolves out in Yellowstone did wonders, as did Chernobyl for the wild life there as damaged as it was, as do planned management like what Savory promotes.
In temperate climate like ex. in Denmark (from your name you could be Danish) we have huge areas where planed grazing would massively increase biodiversity and soil function, but I am not convinced that you couldn't switch between some years of holistic management and some with industrial mono culture use.
In the end it is about how much good we can do with little effort. In Denmark we subsidised Tesla S with roughly 100000€ per car for which we at the time could have bought 15000 times as much CO2 reduction on the CO2 exchange and just destroyed the rights.
Plant native species--restore watersheds and natural rivers!!!
Visit natural woodlands near you, and plant those native species you see flourishing....
For me, it included ponderosa pine, a long lived, wild fire resistant tree...
@@davidhollenshead4892 that's actually illegal though.
Yes Plant native people as well
@@alexcontreras6103 I urge you watch to watch It Can Be Done--An Earth Day Message 2020
@@robertcurtin7368 Ok I watched it, what was so special
Of course it is not the silver bullet.
Nothing is.
But taking care of Forrests is one of the many things we need to do.
Yeah, natural reforestation and biodiverse landscapes. That’s what everybody said from the beginning
it's already been happening due to the extra CO2
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
pablo rages now I’m all for doing nothing and letting nature take its cource but
FRN “"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.”
And what about invasive species eh? Just let that harm monoculture? True a contrarian could say their are cases of beneficial ones but what about the dominating ones like invasive see grasses. Humans obviously did something to mess the planet up as it and still humans need resources so demand just keeps growing; it would be foolish to adopt the philosophy of nothing to stop our past self’s efforts.
“The research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% - an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined - and still feed the world.” josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf
UN IPCC report 2019, Chapter 5, Page 76. 33% of global GHG can be mitigated by a global Vegan diet scenario.
“Where no animal products are consumed at all, adequate food production in 2050 could be achieved on less land than is currently used, allowing considerable forest regeneration, and reducing land-based greenhouse gas emissions to one third of the reference “business-as-usual” case for 2050, a reduction of 7.8 Gt CO2-eq yr-1. Springmann et al. (2016b) recently estimated similar emissions reduction potential of 8 Gt CO2-eq yr-1.”
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf
jhunt5578
These are great points and well referenced. If we cut our meat and dairy consumption by half and ate more plant based food instead, the pressure to deforest would be gone, and we would free up 10s if millions of sq km of land to reforest and return to natural wetlands and peat.
I sometimes think the issue of land use is seen as a nice to have. On the contrary - it we got this right, we could secure much better food supplies, completely change the outlook for warming and restore massive amounts of lost life and biodiversity all at the same time.
It's potentially transformative AND unlike the energy system, we can actually have a big impact with consumer choices.
But government action will still be required to change things fast enough. Meat and dairy must pay for the damage they do, and only regulation can internalise those costs.
@@michaelrch I agree that regulation is needed, the cost of animal products is artificially low due to subsidies. Animal ag's damage goes further, it's the leading cause of rainforest deforestation, ocean dead zones, species extinction, top soil erosion, it causes up to half of all ocean acidification and up to 46% of ocean plastics from miles and miles of fishing line and nets lost by vessels. At our current rate of fishing we'll see fish stock collapse by 2050. Animal ag also uses half of the worlds grain and 1/3rd of our fresh water and we're headed towards a water crisis by 2040.
On top of that there are health benefits to ditching meat and dairy.
Harvard Law review: “Climate change. Ocean dead zones. Fisheries depletion. Species extinction. Deforestation. World hunger. Food safety. Heart disease. Obesity. Diabetes. The list goes on. There is one issue at the heart of all these global problems that is too often overlooked by private individuals and policy makers alike-our demand for and reliance on animal products.” harvardelr.com/2015/10/26/elrs-a-leading-cause-of-everything-one-industry-that-is-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-to-thrive-on-it/
Don't forget that market consumerism has a great effect too. We don't have to wait for the government to tell us to eat sustainably, we can change our diets now. In this talk from Oxford researcher Joseph Poore he notes that the annual GHG mitigated between a meat eater and a Vegan is a co2 equivalent to 11 return flights from London to Rome. ruclips.net/video/8miQs3mPGu8/видео.html
Eating animal products is like fly tipping or emptying plastics into the ocean or dumping oil into soil - it's incredibly harmful to the environment but most do not understand how severe a plate of food can be.
I planted somewhere jn the neighborhood of 3 million trees during the 70s through the 90s, in the Pacific northwest. The problem is that they are now logging timber at about 30 years, so a lot of those trees have already been logged and replaced, without ever reaching a fraction of the size of the old growth which originally covered the hills.
You planted three million trees?
@@nicko8605 Yep. It was how I made a living for 23 years, replanting clear-cuts, burned over woods, and even, in the case of the Mt. St. Helens blast zone, volcano blasted forest land. I'm too old for that brutal labor now, of course, but I still miss it, for some reason!
Yes they had programs for tree planting or tree planters mostly hippies did it , it was rough brutal labor.
I'm all for logging and replanting. Seems like the best thing to do
Additionally you likely planted monoculturally. This creates a lot of problems. China is a great example.
In Ireland Bord na Mona is still burning turf, and draining the bogs, which are massive carbon sinks. When the bogs are drained they plant Sitka Spruce non-native tree on land where we know there has been no forest for 5000 years.
It all makes sense....🙄
@FreeDOMofspeechNZ makes no sense, carbon is related to the population rising globally. You can't blame migrants for this one. Be more efficient with land, plant diverse forests . discourage people having more than 2 kids are much more realistic ways to deal with global issues
What Ireland does with its bogs and environment is appalling.
We are one of the least forested countries in Europe and most of the forestry we have is monocultured Spruce planted for rapid profit. Trees that acidify the land and offer little for wildlife.
The once common Nightjar is now extinct, we are the only country in Europe to lose the Nightjar. We don't seem to be bothered too much by losing our species. We are of course superb at talking the talk, but actually doing something, that is meaningful is not so popular.
@xia yxz dont think that is going to happen ........talk is now ofrewettin the bogs , flooding them .....willalso be using them to site windturbines...... 4 very big ones went up 2 years ago very near me .....lovely to see working .........
@@Eoin_D CO2 comprises 400 parts per million of our atmospheres composition or 0.004% (I may have dropped a O), if it was much lower plants would struggle to survive. Global temperatures are not rising.
Monoculture is bad, but the title suggests ALL trees are bad.
I think you have to watch the vid in order to get it, otherwise why would they make one ?
@@kiliandervaux6675 Pound Sterling in this case.
clickbait
Clickbait. There is a problem with monoculture planting
Again that is a little simplified, we also need carbon capture from other methods, planting trees are not enough even though I think it is terrific to do!!
But monoculture helps in reducing the demand of timber hence original forest are saved
@Antoine NeVe The video talks about the problems with MONOCULTURE planting but the title sensationalizes it, to make it appear as if trees are a problem in Climate Change. That's why it's click bait.
Personally I have planted more than 100 trees of all kinds in what used to be a fields used for crops in southern Brazil. I have another 50 native fruit trees which I grew from seeds almost ready to be planted. Will be planting a lot more if am able to. The plan is for the fruit trees to attract more wildlife which will create a more pleasant and cooler environment during the summer months. It would be amazing to offer elderly couples in southern Brazil enticing financial benefits to reforest their plots as opposed to continue farming the land, which for many is hard due to their advanced age.
For one time I feel good that India has been much more prudent regarding avoiding mono culture and going all in for indigenous species
And 100's of coal fired power plants. Which is awesome.
The total amount is not the measure.. It is far behind a number of countries in the total amount.. Wayyyy less per capita pollution
I hope india fix their water pollution problem. Also india should have solar power.
Many countries in the world: "hey, let's plant trees!"
Brazil: "nice, more to cut down!"
I love how the pictures used for deforestation are of lumber plantations. Lumber plantations help combat deforestation by growing trees for lumber sustainably and producing more wood per hectare than natural forests do.
Are you talking about monocultures that offer no benefit whatsoever for biodiversity or the natural ecosystems?
@@flamingtarantula yes i am talking about momocultures that provide no direct biodiversity to the land they are on. That also produce lumber at a cheap enough rate to reduce the incentive to clear cut or illeagally log other areas. Don't get me wrong though the land could be used better. Sylvo patures would be great.
Also there are several ecosystem out there that only have one tree that stretch for many hectares or even miles.
Reforestation is a complex process, complex but not impossible.
I missed the part where you talked about why the trees are being cut in the first place. Or was it not mentioned? Here's why :Animal agriculture.
Yess!!
maybe it is a mix of multiple reasons, and maybe it is different by area (e.g. Brazil subsidizing meat export and therewith clearing of forest to produce soy for animal feed; versus Somalia being in civil war for 60 years or so and traditional social structures, i.e. cultivation and conservation of land, having almost vanished).
Yes
Hi Making Film. Check out the extended excerpt from our interview with Simon Lewis here: econ.trib.al/gVw2Vv2. He talks about reducing meat consumption as a way to fight climate change.
There is no such thing as animal agriculture, the term agriculture is only when refering to plants. Agriculture is the one taking most of the land, livestock take a lot but still much less than agriculture.
Carbon is not the cause of climate change, carbon levels historically rise after the temperatures have risen. All this land used for tree planting, where do we grow the food to feed the world.
Correct.
Vertical building style farms
There is more then enough land and water for everyone, just not enough people with open minds and no corruption by money that are running coutries
This summer in Russia about 7 millions km2 of trees have been burned
And thousands of people are sorrowful so much about that... - by the way, I know wonderful video - I'll find a link - it calls somehow.. 'how trees awaken the city'... - I gess it has Engl. subtitles... - it is not about Siberia🌲🌲😥.. , - it is about other district on the west - about people in Kaliningrad... and their movement to protect their trees✌🏻- I'll find the link...
ruclips.net/video/mMPJqnU5hSc/видео.html
no English subtitles unfortunstely((.. - actually I didn't expect it, because I know most videos of that project are with eng. subtitles((.. - I don't know, why this one particular doesn't have some((... Briefly in a couple of worlds: it is about volonteers in Kaliningrad (Noth-west district) who's trying to save ancient trees aside the roads in their district, which are (the trees) keeping specific nature 'arcitecture' in the district from the times it belonged to Germany... but already for more then half of the century it is their (soviet, then Russian) specific also... And it is very beautiful.. And it is very... good trees.. - they need care and protection... - not destruction.. 🌳🌳🤦♀️.. - I wanted to say only.. That the fact that we didn't struggle for trees in Siberia.. 😢😢 - doesn't meen that... noone cares about the trees... - we are not all as one yet((.. - but there're people that really care...
It also occurs in Indonesia
Fortunately in the US we have burned 1,735,616 less acres than average for this year to date thru September 18, 2019.
The trees are the only thing that 5G can not penetrate, so 'they' are felling them at an alarming rate, and burning them down along the Amazon River.
In cuba the land is so lush because it’s so diverse. It was so special to see their land. They also grow diverse plants that help each other.
To me, it's logical to plant more fruit trees (of various types) rather than conifers
100%!
Right. Big shortage on fruit.
@@donhuffer4637 big shortage on local, organic, pesticide free, microbiome enhancing fruit yes.
Upkeep cost, labor. Pine is planted, left for 10-15 years, thinned then left for another 10-15. Profits. I know several fruit farmers around, like any other farmer their success is largely case to case. In a perfect world, absolutely food sources would be the optimum choice but I understand why people opt not to on their land.
I promise you. There is no shortage of fruit trees or fruit. Also trees are planted per their region. Soil type, rain fall and temperature.
Well, that's not helping my eco anxiety
Exactlyyy
Rea Kariz
6+ billion of humans in the developing countries are aspiring to rise to your quality-of-life level in the coming decades, which will inevitably double (triple/quadruple) their carbon footprints.
If it makes you feel better,we're moving towards much cleaner energy, banning diesel/petrol fuelled cars by 2030 (along with many other countries) and other appliances, and the northern hemisphere has more trees than it had in a decade or two (from when I last checked).
We need rapid change, but most of us are doing it.
It's real too, it definitely felt warmer today,
You never gonna live forever anyway
Harvested did not mean burned a significant amount is used for building or construction work.
pax und peace but it isn’t stored in the ground and put at rest where it should be. That’s the point they’re making
@Yen Tao That is true, but their point is that it needs to be in the ground, where it came from in its most safe form.
4:14 is a pretty pathetic attempt to build a sentence from snippets. How could you think anyone would take that seriously?
Humans ...
Take everything give nothing back till it’s Easter island all over again .
Well said
but I recently visited a Himalayan state of India called Himachal Pradesh on way to its famous hill station capital Shimla I saw whole hills covered with pine and deodar tree growing naturally .In lower altitude around Dehradun ,capital city of Uttarakhand Saal trees were growing in large numbers also naturally with some mango , Semal ,neem trees dotted around them and I have visited many villages there and saw nature itself practicing monoculture (all trees were native except eucalyptus there)
also there are many cities in India which are named on common tree found in that region Baroda now called Vadodara(Baroda derives its native name Vadodara from the Sanskrit word Vatodara, meaning 'in the heart of the Banyan " )
At 0:20 That clock ticking sound with deforestation gave me shivers. A strong way by filmmakers to send message that we're clearing forests much faster than before.
Mayank Singh 😂😂😂
China and India have planted so many trees that NASA is tracking the changes from satellites.
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/
"The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries."
It's a shame it's all BS
www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
come to Indonesia where all forest is burn like xmas tree. There have highest carbon generation than Amazon now.
Carbon is cyclical. It will settle back down to the surface on its own.
@@thedogrunner carbon is not a gas the element C is a solid of which diamonds and graphite are pure forms co2 is 1 part in 2500 in the atmosphere is a free floatng molecule moving in the air currents it does not form blankets or smother the earth and is captured by plant leaves to make more complex compounds of life it takes 6 co2 to make one sugar molecule in a plant you guesswork managers would do better if you knew anything
@@chetlopez8942 The point is, carbon is not going to end the world in 12 years like the left wants us to believe. It's not ever going to cause a collapse to civilization as we know it. And, if it is going to be a problem then the solution is not less people. The solution is clearly more people. New ideas, new innovations. We are not a species that curls up and dies. We innovate. Invent. I don't buy the climate crisis nonsense. I hope you don't either.
Carbon capture technologies have an efficiency of 10%. Innovation cannot solve climate change. Only legistlation and a mobilisation of labour can stop climate change.
@@rorybyrne86 You articulate too well to have missed the point.
If you are going to plant trees, you need to do so with native species and fruits n berries. Feed the animals, people at the same time.
Love this video. I don't entirely believe though that there isn't enough land to plant the needed amount of trees needed. Suburban Gardens help too, especially when it comes to diversity and city and town councils can do a great deal more of planting on residential estates as well as making their planning requirements more inclusive of trees when dealing with developers. There is so much potential.
When the Economist puts out an environmental film, you know what their objective is...
I'm not sure what you are hinting at but I find it a very sober information - it says "trees" have to be done in an intelligent way plus trees are definitely not enough and we have to do more. I think it's important to not stay naive and look at things in just a bit wider context so future doesn't surprise us badly
Not far from where I live, there was a written account of the early settlers felling the trees and burning much of the wood (some would be used for buildings etc). The thing that I found startling is that these above ground fires ignited the organic biomass beneath the surface and the newly created fields would smoke through the winter melting the snow. The amount of organic material in the soils was remarkable when you compare the thin organic layers (top soil) we see today. I am reforesting a gravel pit... no easy task with course mineral soils.
We would love to see some videos updating the progress that you've made, and challenges that you've faced with this project!
@@Green.Country.Agroforestry I would have to dig up some before pictures, but the after result is 16 foot trees after 20 years of growth. Of course growing in gravel is not easy for many trees, the pines have done better than the spruce, I have some Burr Oaks that have adapted well in some course soil areas, and Sugar Maple as well, as my soil is about 7.3 in PH. I do have to water the trees a bit for the first few years, and I also would have higher mortality than ideal sights. I have had less success with trees that like acidic soils. It is a fight, and a love all at the same time. But I would rather see trees than Buckthorn. Cheers from Ontario!
@@pseudopetrusoh shoot was goin f to suggest honey locust but so far north is different world. Hope you protect your forest from 'careless firestarters' this year
Buckthorn as in sea Buckthorn?
I have used Honey Locust with success. I germinated the wild thorny type, and they do quite well in poor sights. I was lucky to find a "local" stand. I am not sure if they are indigenous, but they do thrive.@@DrSmooth2000
Thank you soo much for producing this!! We are a permaculture design firm, think tank, and production company in the U.S. This was a revelation we realized when we looked at the "buy a tree to save the planet" craze that fadded through here a decade ago with a permaculture perspective. In 2014 at a permaculture convergence we shared our findings and thoughts on the matter while encouraging people who really cared to stop driving and burning gas. As you can already guess, it was not well received. It is refreshing to see the same conclusions drawn and shared about the tree planting pandemic that doesn't do a whole lot. Again thank you.
P.S. Here is a link to our cheap, easy, really effective way to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. The system works soo well that we siphoned forest fire smoked air from outside (as is shown in atmoscrubbers in action) for multiple years. Feel free to share if you find it interesting.
Could you please share the link?
With smart forest succession you can regenerate a land in 10 Years versus 100 years, with great biodiversity both in flora and fauna and without fertilisers . This video can be damaging to the effort of people who achieve this kind of challenge. The conclusion that letting the forest succession on its own as the best technique is simplistic.
@Joseph Seeley 👍in tropical areas the food forest is the only sustainable agriculture, in temperate climate a food forest is an important part of agro-silvo-pasture . Hi Joseph, are you doing Permaculture?
@Joseph Seeley there is a free Permaculture course online (I think it's called regenerative institute , there are certainly others) you have to pay only for passing the Pdc. Having done a food forest I believe you have already a solid understanding on how nature works . Success with your food forest! If you want to visit our website for some ideas you can find the website aflorestanova on the WordPress platform. Best.
Tree planting is not a silver bullet but it’s a worthy endeavor. The benefits are immense. Shade on a hot summers day. There’s more to trees than carbon sequestration.
I have some land and want to plant trees. Where can I get free trees to plant ?
You won't get funding for free stuff. You need to sign a contract and agree to a 50-years target if you want trees.
@@nachannachle2706 with who? Who contact ? I'm not wanting them for lumber. And in 50 years I'll be dead
Adaptation is not the solution to the problem because the problem is still there
Should be called 'The Trouble With Money Trees'. Good vid.
What about foodforests? We need to eat as well!
Henk Eshuis
No, that would be using your brain.
I don’t think their ready for that.
Henk Eshuis #permaculture
Restoration Agriculture. I highly recommend looking it up.
They don't worry about that
There is no one single solution. We need to do both. planting tree and cut emission in parallel. There are too many areas that had been damaged and need intervention if not it won't come back by itself. Plant monolithic fist so that the soil can be self-sustained and then leave it alone. Nature returned in Chernobyl in vengeance is a sign of hope.
First do no harm This was based off the Amazon fire switch were not even the most fires going on at the time and were primarily fires from rural farmers green burning farm waste. Changes based on bad data are almost always harmful
Respect nature. Protect nature.
I like how people say it’s just trees
You ever set a tree on fire and try breathing in the smoke??
Yeah, it’s just trees
Carbon neutral by 2025. 2050 is not soon enough
Better get your tinfoil hat snugged up because by then, when nothing terrible happens you will be to old to have fun.
not physically possible
You will all live to see this come to light if we fail to meet our 2025 target. So live in ignorance for now if you want
Hey... you didn't count us... there are 2,719 Hotspots of Forest and Land Fires Spread in Indonesia Until This Morning...
THIS IS THE END... NICE TO MEET YOU ALL GUYS... 😔
@Khurram Aziz grow up. This is serious.
9:44 Incorrect. Current carbon emissions are at 55 billion tons of Co2e per year. So 200 billion negative emissions by replanting all forest land as to pre-agriculture levels is about FOUR YEARS, not TWENTY YEARS worth of emissions, unfortunately.
It would be so much easier to stop cutting trees down and deforesting.
It makes no sense that deforestation is still happening in this day and age
"Not all that counts can be counted and not all that can be counted, counts." (Albert Einstein).
I like how they end the video showing a nuclear plant. One of the cleanest forms of energy on the planet.
hm then what happened in chernobyl?
@@axios7603 poor maintenance, poor safety standards and human error. Nuclear power plants are considered clean because they produce very little pollution when they work right. The issue is that it's not easy to keep them going right
Coal power and nuclear plants both use similiar cooling towers. How can you tell whether this is a nuclear plant or not?
There are people living near the power plant, so this is most certainly not a nuclear plant.
Conifers are a fire hazard during dry and/or hot times. The one main question I would ask your experts is to fully disclose their past work, study and related accreditation’s.
Agreed. seemed like they spent their time pointing out the 10% bad about tree planting than focusing on the 90% good. I feel like they should focus on topics that are 90% bad and 10% good, that would probably open more eyes.
'leaving the land' to its own devices is ok if you have ample rainfall(which explains the ease Ms. Tree achieved success), and if there was enough humus and organic detritus(microbial-fungal stuff admixed with organic matter that holds soil together and retains moisture). In foggy overcast areas of the UK, which is most of the UK, letting moss grow will do the trick for starters..
Desertified land in low-rainfall areas is difficult to re-forest because not many species can tolerate arid, baked earth. Some sort of monoculture, or oligoculture using drought-tolerant/heat-tolerant/pest-free and long-lived species is the way to go to build up humus and leaf litter, then introduce other trees as the soil gets enriched.
Fortunately carbon is not really such an issue. The earth has seen much more carbon historically.
But the rate of change is!
Hey why aren't you discussing the biotic pump effect where scientists have determined the critical role trees play in rainfall inland? CO2 is not the only thing to think about
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
pablo rages finally someone noticed. I’ve been linking these news for ages. There’s an older one too (from 2016). Same observations. The earth is greening and there’s a dedicated satellite that monitors the progress in that respect.
@@C_R_O_M________ NASA and the Australian CSIRO have both had research showing the world is getting greener ...and it's a not insignificant 2.5% per year ... the increased CO2 is improving life not killing people ...and there been a 0.5C increase in temp in the northern hemisphere and zero in the southern ....why do these climate alarmist doomsays keep telling us we only have 10 years left ... it's very frustrating
Fewer iPhones & cars. More forests & animals please.
How does paper decompose and “go into the atmosphere“ ? When trees/forests are harvested and timber produced for construction.... the carbon is stored.
stored? not quite. for a time, and that time can be quite short. the longest lasting use of a piece of timber would be to make high quality furniture or a violin/ cello out of it. The products then might last 100 years or more. But that's not what we do. We chip wood to make chipboard, and shave to make veneers and plywoods, and OSB. They are not reusable. They get burned in a few years on average, and turnover is really high because of changing fashions, so rarely last past the next home refit in 10 to 15 years. In my country, UK, re-use of wood, even planed timber like flooring, is much lower than it was 50 years ago.
Planting trees is not only about combating climate change it is also about providing new habitats for bio diversity and the oxygen we need to breath.
the GIANT bamboo may be a GRASS ... but grows way FASTER than trees
Because it is simple and die quickly.
The wood is very brittle and low quality...
@@WadcaWymiaru ... i have worked with bamboo . . i don't think you have a valid point...anyway, the idea is to grow trees in order to save the planet and this species is easiest to grow in the quickest time. we do not have time... not even for argument...we need action.
@@joaquinmisajr.1215
Then stop talking and TEACH the people about charcoal:
ruclips.net/video/iKP_Dju9UK4/видео.html
and terra preta:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
but "we do not have time" ? For what?
I have plenty of time and power, i am human.
Trees bad, children bad, breathing & farting bad, carbon bad, orange man bad!
Thank you for the personification of the wicked left.
You are tragically misinformed. Here are actual facts: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
why dont you create a crypto-amazon? this way the farmers would have an incentive to create forrest not destroy it.
Hi Jorge, interesting point. We made a film about how blockchain technology can do more than underpin crypto-currencies-it could help save the Amazon rainforest by stopping so called “biopirates” from plundering its biological riches. Watch it here: econ.trib.al/pUvTEP8
That's actually a really good and interesting idea
yes
If we can get farmers worldwide to farm organically it will make a biiiiig difference! We were organic farmers and we cover cropped with vetch and bell beans and worked them back into the soil....in a short time humus and earthworms became abundant and crops were amazing! We used no pesticides nor herbicides. However, we had to be on our toes to follow what and exactly was always happening. My hope is that we can send all our food wastes to be composted and then taken to farmers.
Your headline is not coherent with the need for more trees to combat change as this video implies! The trouble is humans have no respect for this vital commodity!
Trees are important part in climate, but regenerative agriculture and cutting emission are way more important right now.
Is not like we don't have enough hands to do both things, stop belittling the trees 🌴
It's alright. We will be our own demise. Planet Earth will continue evolving without us.
Some of us would rather like to see us be around for as long as possible.
Aside from the benefits of trees storing carbon before eventually releasing it back into the air, it also provides homes to wildlife too as well.
We need tree planting ambitions(obviously non monoculture), that is clear but much more important we need ambitions to not cut them down.
I think we're all going to have at accept that we will have to pay a "tree tax" to fund forests.
Stupid.
@Thomas Headley Those fund the repairing the damages caused by not having forests; they don't fund actual forests.
What we need is a baby tax on people with more than one kid.
All good except the music that is too loud - meaning you can hardly hear the people speaking. Totally unnecessary music which obfuscates the dialogue and message.
0:30 Wait, there is a forest in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?
yes. kelp forests...also endangered by global warming ya nit picking eejit
Yes 80% of all oxygen comes from algea in the sea not from trees.
Nothing there, Its a dessert I think?
Larsino2000 70%, 30% from tree's, 👍. But the source's differ sometimes I guess.
I think they're zooming out from Saint Helena, it's an island nation. Either that or it was Liberia or nearby in western Africa.
Appreciate your efforts Lot of environmental benefits with trees
Tree support hole ecosystem food chain depends on trees
The argument that harvesting trees reduces carbon sequestration because the products return the carbon to the atmosphere is just wrong. Using the paper example, the paper is recycled and eventually put into a landfill which means the paper is sequestered. We should plant trees, we should harvest trees, we should recycle, and we should sequester in landfills.
Furniture, buildings, etc, are also sequestration.
marciacsr I agree. We should cut mature trees which don’t absorb as much carbon and sequester the carbon in products and landfills and then plant news trees which will absorb carbon.
It is time to responsibly cut and replant the forests.
In the past I learned that old growth forests were a net carbon producer because they were decomposing and bacteria was the dominant factor. Lately the ecologists are saying that all forests are carbon sinks, even the Amazon. That doesn't make sense to me because the term "carbon cycle" implies a complete circle and a net equal balance.
All for planting as many trees as possible. But everything about this CO2 deception is just a complete waste of time, money & effort.
Captain Chokdee you don’t need to plant any trees at all. The earth is doing just fine : www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
Planting Trees aint enough.Period
I don't get why decomposing wood would make the carbon go back to the atmosphere.
Decomposition releases carbon dioxide or methane. They also may have meant that cutting down the trees would need fossil fuel burning machines. trucks and all that.
I'd still plant trees (and other plants). It's better than doing nothing to tackle climate change.
PLEASE... in next videos... don't invite just one expert... ok?... I am sure that other expert has other point of view with other critics and solutions... At the end, the experts that I can get in the Magazine, by now, are all the same opinion, the official opinion... "Cut the CO2" "Change your life Style"... so... Be positive and try to find solutions or at least the truth about the real statement and solutions... LIKE IN THE OTHER MATTERS OF THE MAGAZINE,
And if the question is the mono-cultive solution... and also the economic exploitation repercussion... I am sure with a new re-approach with other expert we can find a better solution... TRY with other expert or even with the public financial representatives and experts... PLEASE!!!.
... yes have someone from the Australian CSIRO ... that say that since the CO2 levels have been increasing the world has been getting GREENER
Wow! Really? That is possible? So that means that it does not a problem the co2. Really?!
peon j as real as it can be and there are dedicated satellites that monitor the greening of the earth:
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
(Of course NASA says “That’s a problem too!” They are trolling us big time and tax us to death in the meanwhile. When one day the scale of this hoax will be revealed I’d be quite in favor of lynching certain liars).
@Josef K we all knowclimate deniers ain't shit tho
The man is right and the sad truth is there has to be a cut in emissions. In short cut Human population growth to sustain the world. I wonder how the governments would do these.
Sir, India and China may benefit from your observations. Though China is doing it's best, you could try Muslim families next.
What needs to happen is this :
Plant every sort of tree not just monoculture or silviculture
So much hype and half truths. All be it trees/forests are all important to maintain the local Eco-system and are invaluable for that however what their contribution to CO2 absorption is minimal They digest C02 to convert the carbon to make up for cellular building then expire some CO2 at night then again will expire CO2 when burned or from natural decay when they die. Tree are invaluable for other things but this notion as a cure all is just more GW nonsense. The biggest contributors producing oxygen and as CO2 sinks is ocean plankton which by the way are having a feeding frenzy with the increased CO2 in the oceans. CO2 is food for all plants and plankton which by itself it the holy grail for maintaining life as we know it on earth.
Larry Sullivan rationality alert. Next time try not to make so much sense, they’ll single you out!
Literally no analysis of supply/demand, population growth, or the consequences of below average GDP growth per capita. The Economist, minus any economic analysis....
The number of trees in North America is going up dramatically.
Thank you for that cherry picking! But the rest of the worlds is going down by far more!
"Trees may be looked at like the savior, but it's not. It's not an excuse not to cut our use of fossil fuels." As they show you a picture of a nuclear power plant, one of the cleanest and efficient ways we make energy. That's just steam.
iT's No exCuSe
Thank you for pointing out these issues. I’ve advocated these same points myself. Monoculture is just another industrial problem, not a solution
@K lake dont forget most co2 we put out was organic matter Millions of years ago. Nature stored it primarly with dying alges sinking to the bottom of the sea. Yes building more with wood does Store co2 and does save co2 from Not having to make concrete a big emitter in the building industry.
But sadly we live in a throw away society furnatiure only lasts 20 years or less until it gets replaced.
Hello Sara, the director,
It would be interesting to make a similar video on holistic range management, and the carbon sequestration that big herbivores can provide through, unlike the forests, highly and intelligently managed grasslands. And compare the sequestration capacity of a well managed grassland vs a nature forest.
Dark time! time when humans lost perception of the preciousness of life on this planet earth. Ignorant, do not understand that there is fundamental interdependence between all life types and how is necessary respect and care for
environment and the conservation of biomes to our own survival and the next generations.
No...the dark times always happen when people turn their backs on God who created the world and controls every molecule he created including you and me. In the Bible , when ever someone encountered the presence of God they fell flat on their faces, terrified and unable to move...because the molecules of their body recognized their maker. When people walk away from God they start to think they are wise in their own eyes and their foolish minds become darkened...that's why people have become Climate worshippers...instead of worshipping God who made the climate...last century it was Hitler worshippers and Karl Marx worshippers...how did that turn out ? Jesus Christ said "I am the way , the truth and the life..." When this life is over, and we all have to stand before our maker, the Bible says "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" . Again...it's because the molecules in your body will recognize their creator whether you want to or not.
Just curious...are you vegan?
The best approach to reforestation is not the conifer monocultures monoculture meaning only one culture or one species of tree. The best approach is also not letting forests re-wild themselves but rather making commercial edible forests which take a hybrid approach of both ecological agriculture and permaculture on top of both rewilding and monocultures in other words a poly culture forest poly meaning many cultures of trees. Most of which are either edible meaning the bear fruit or nuts otherwise have a medicinal use or a potential commercial application. The best way to plant forests that insure both profit without the need of carbon credits or whatever or mono culture is to make the forests themselves profitable as an edible forests
We can't think in all or nothing terms with trees. Either we are planting large tracks of land equivalent to what has been lost or it's useless or insignificant. Rather, can we look at ways to green up all landscapes - parking lots, tall buildings, etc, etc... thousands of small changes to support bigger changes in the initiative to re-green our environment.
Native plants only
And native people only
Also, massive farms of chicks/cows for human consumption are an issue for the planet.
Less corporate, more holistic is what is needed.
I clear cut 4 acres of trees two years ago. My cattle are in belly deep grass grazing it today. Those trees where culls or infested with boer insects. They where barren in winter. My cool season grasses are green almost all winter. Those Oak trees stored carbon in the leaves during the warm season. and dropped those leaves and released the carbon in the fall.
"To stabilize the planet... co2 emissions have to drop to net zero" lolllll, great science there
I'm so sick of this Alarmist BS ... CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere(400ppm), nature makes 97% human activity adds another 3% ...how TF can we make a difference
Yes, the whole concept of a stable planet is so absurd you have to wonder whether this is sheer hubris or profound ignorance at play.
@@seekerout The gaia hypothesis was a BS theory when Lovelock proposed it and it still is !
@@pablorages1241 how does .04% poison in your body make you sick? Take some basic science classes. I love the "I can't see it with my own eyes in front of me happening in real time so it must not really be happening" logic of the uneducated.
@@winesap2 ... no ... uneducated is comparing a human body to the worlds environment ... they are not comparable in ANY way
Thank you, Sarah for a well produced documentary, its informative and well researched. Please keep up the excellent work.
leave the fossil fuel in the ground
We need to plant more trees to fight climate change.
Tree planting doesnt just clean CO2 from the air it also generate moisture...imagine if we hand a few more giant rainforests...there's be more rain..and with less desert there's less super hot surface temps. It's all encompassing and yes making Forrests and rainforests would be not that hard and would go along way to cool earth
Dark time! time when humans lost the perception of the preciousness of life on this planet earth. Ignorant, they do not understand that there is a fundamental interdependence between all forms of life and that respect and care for
environment and the conservation of biomes is tied to our own survival and the next generations.
Dark time! time when humans lost perception how preciousness of life on this planet earth. Ignorant, do not understand that there is fundamental interdependence between all life types and that respect and care for
environment and the conservation of biomes is tied to our own survival and the next generations.
Nitrous Oxide? 5:45 That's a laugh! Actually the whole video is.
It is stunningly bad. And the narrative that’s being spun (and how) stinks to high heaven. But chemical fertilizers are awful... Bad polluters as an industry, then there’s all the ecological damage from N And K running all over the place, then there’s the really scary long term disaster scenario of poisoned aquifers.
I'd be willing to sequester a few tanks of that nitrous oxide, you know, for the earth.
Very interesting.
When you think about what we're doing (on a grand scale) : we're taking carbon from underground and turning it into a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. If a tree can take that greenhouse carbon gas and turn it back into solid carbon, we could take that solid carbon and push it back into the ground. To do this as efficiently as possible, you could plant a tree and wait for it to mature to a point where its rate of growth has slowed (turned a large amount of CO2 into solid carbon) and at that point, the tree could be turned into a *product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process.
In this way, you wouldn't simply be using the land to carbon sink once, but to continuously sink carbon back where it was before we interfered with it. I'm aware that such a process of burying a solid tree deep into the ground isn't something that is done (we do with CO2 gas however) but what I'm saying is we should try to mimic what nature has done over millions of years and we'll need to do it more efficiently, using renewable resources of course. And this would need to be done along with a serious and meaningful reduction of our carbon greenhouse gas production to have the quickest effect.
So yes, I do think that planting trees is a necessity and a vital key to our future existence. It's what we do with a mature tree that would need to be rethought.
Just a thought.
You might be interested to hear that some people had the same thought, and did some calculations about its global potential. See for example: Zeng, N.: "Carbon sequestration via wood burial" (2008). And later work by the same author. All available online in open access manner.
Plenty of land to reforest without affect to the agricultural land,....
DESERTS.
Here in Australia, we have massive deserts. Even in the past, was compulsory deforest the landscape to create agricultural land.
Today we all are starting to pay the price of that political decision.
first view omg
You guys are really Full of it, due to CO2, the World has seen an additional greening cover of over 15% which helps to stop deserts.
We all know what the real problem (POPULATION) is. We should work on that.