Here in NZ we have one govt department incentivising planting of non-native pines, while another classes them an invasive pest and spends millions trying to control the spread.
And your point? Are you questioning your authorities? Someone pointed out that those who seek control are usually people who we shouldn't be given anything but crayons for their own safety and the safety of others. Just letting you know that we know you shadow banned this comment. We are watching.
Trees provide shade and cool the earth’s surface. Also, the roots keep the soil together and therefore help against erosion. Furthermore, mother Earth knows what to do and will let flora grow by itself. So yes, appoint pieces of land, build a huge fence around it and never look at it again.
They won't solve global warming alone but planting trees is very helpful to prevent erosion, provide shelter & nourishment for tons of species of smaller plants & animals & more. Win/win/win with trees!!!!
It's a win/win until oil companies are paying organizations to plant trees in order to fool the public into thinking oil is "carbon neutral". The carbon offset market needs to be fixed. Carbon offsets should *ONLY* count if they directly contribute to clean electrification such as adding solar, wind, storage, etc. to the power grid.
Planting trees can cooldown certain temperatures in the world and even can grow nutrients that we can eat transitioning to renewables wont solve any problems it would cause more in fact.
"Getting warmer" episodes are interesting and capturing a lot of interesting viewpoints on decarbonisation efforts. Tree planting is one of these efforts. While I agree to the point that this clip tries to make that "natural and biodiverse forests can store up to x40 times more carbon than plantations", it shouldn't be generalized and simply lead to the conclusion that "the simplest thing we could do is to get out the way and let nature do its thing". Human innovation should always be applied whenever we could especially when it comes to the pressing issue of global warming that we are facing nowadays across the World. For one thing, time is definitely NOT on our side. ** Not only do we need to cultivate trees, but we also need to cultivate mindfulness in regard to the impact our actions have on the climate.**
@@alexanderfuhrmann492 Excellent point not all that exists in original forest can be replicated by humans. But if you create the right conditions nature will introduce it by itself.
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, habitat destruction, water pollution, ocean dead zones and *species extinction* . -United Nations FAO Animal agriculture uses 83% of global farmland and only provides 18% of global calories. When we switch to a plant based food system, we can restore/reforest 76% of global farmland AND be able to feed all humans. -journal Science
there is so much land around my city that has been cleared and abandoned for years or agricultural land that isn't growing anything. governments could easily make a sort of sign up sheet for those with unused land to plant trees. One could program an application that scans satellite data mixed with property ownership and send out application forms to everyone. There are people with several acres of perfectly manicured grass when they could easily have someone else fill it with trees and never have to mow ever again. There are thousands of properties deemed contaminated and too expensive to clean so they lay deserted. It would take very little effort to plant things that could at least help remove the eye sore of an old gas station for example like a field of sunflowers and sign that says not fit for consumption.
It is about money. Contractors get paid by installing toxic wind turbines and solar panels. Elon lobbies the government to promote his toxic and carcinogenic EVs. It is allllll about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Humans are getting better at understanding ecosystems, corporate will be going the other way even when you legally tie their neck to their obligations..
Environmental degradation & destruction got us into this mess, environmental restoration & rehabilitation will get us out of it. Restoring plant life is only one aspect of a complex nature-based solution to restoring the balance. Trees do more than remove carbon - they create micro-climates, manage water, provide habits & shade, provide food, medicine & materials, protect soils etc. Mangrove forests store the most carbon (awa peatlands) than terrestrial forests, with the added benefits of protecting the land from the sea (especially during storms) and provide a nursery for juvenile fish etc. Human systems generally only do one thing, nature provides many many benefits which is why we should restore climate using nature-based solutions.
I love trees and have personally planted over 25 trees. Planting more trees helps erosion control, biodiversity, and pollution reduction, but unfortunately planting more trees does *nothing to fundamentally solve climate change.*
@@DemPilafian In cities trees provide habitat & shade, manages water, calms traffic, enhances property prices, and provides amenity, well-being & improves mental health. While trees may not "solve" climate change on their own, continued deforestation & destruction of mangroves is going to make things much much worse. The destruction of the Amazon & boreal forests make up a considerable proportion of the critical tipping points that could lead to runaway climate change. Reforestation of tropical & mangrove forests are an essential part of an array of nature-based solutions IN CONJUNCTION WITH radical GHG emission reductions. Humans like simple solutions to complex issues - silver bullets. Anything that means they don't have to make drastic changes to unsustainable life-styles. But with the ecological, biodiversity, climate, energy and development crises planting a few billion just won't be enough unfortunately. Have you checked out the Project Drawdown initiative? It's the most comprehensive plan to tackle enviro, social & development issues.
@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 No. At best the number of trees on the planet shifts climate change a few years one way or the other. So what? If Huston, Bangkok, and Jakarta are all destroyed a few years earlier or a few years later, they are still destroyed! The solution is to transition to clean, renewable power as soon as possible.
@@raclark2730 Trees are magnificent, and I support planting MORE trees. However, we environmentalists shoot ourselves in the foot by using invalid justifications. It makes us look like we are pushing a bogus narrative. Big oil can tell a hundred lies and no one cares. Environmentalist tell one lie and it sets back conservation efforts by years.
I think Miyawaki forest plantations can be helpful in Urban areas. It will lead to higher amount of trees planted, various native species and it does become independent in a couple of years.
Capturing carbon by planting more trees is like throwing a sponge into an overflowing bathtub without turning off the faucet. If you don't turn off the faucet, all the sponges in the world won't save you. Trees are great for the *LOCAL ENVIRONMENT,* but planting trees does *NOTHING AT ALL* to end the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Big Oil *LOVES* everyone who supports carbon capture!
@@zumabbar The implication is that its a useless band aid and green washing. That is true for some cases, but not all. Many studies have been done into biological sequestration, the only problem is accurate monitoring of such. The idea that it is sole use is to give licence to big oil is rubbish.
I see the narrator's point. But is this criticism for criticism's sake? In the end. People are trying to change and their efforts are being criticized here. You didn't provide an active alternative solution for people's efforts to get behind. Yes, people's efforts could be more constructive, but you didn't encourage anybody to help.
There's an excellent ecologist by the name of Suzanne Simard who has put years of research into this exact topic. I'm sure you pulled this from her research. Would of been nice to see citations. Additionally, I feel like the title of this video is misleading.
Nature will of course always be the best when it comes to growing forrests. But its also slow. There are a number of tree planting and Forrest conservation companies that do the whole tree planting thing right. Team trees for example, which Mr.Beast used for his tree planting campaign. Which is why i feel its a bit disingenuous to use him as an example in the beginning of the video. Forced planting of batuve trees is the way forward because the rate of environmental destruction from other companies isn't slowing. If we rely on nature we'll all be finished. Plus with manually created forrests that are left to nature after maturing they will be quicker to turn into prime forrest. All in all, there are some people making a genuine contribution to environmental protection.
So donate to organizations that do it right and if you run out of land, start buying up other forest land to preserve it or pay for companies to install carbon capture devices. Money can go a long way.
@@coater31 ”The expansion of pasture land to raise cattle was responsible for 41% of tropical deforestation. That’s 2.1 million hectares every year - about half the size of the Netherlands.” / Drivers of deforestation / Ourworldindata
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this video with the producer. Messaging is dangerous, and as a registered professional forester in Canada, some things need to be clarified. You cannot discuss this globally when there are significant differences in forestry policy.
This video is too simplified! And I'm not even talking as someone that have and still do plants trees as a profession. It needs to be minimum 10 minutes long cause I simple narrow view-ed
I got a Serious Question I seen reasontly that the trees in each country absorb more CO2 than is produced by those countries other than China who Pollutes 30% of the world's total. but even than it seems other countries plant life can absorb most of that extra CO2. What then creates this imbalance in greenhouse gases that causes global warming?
Just so everyone understands total CO2 absorbed by plant life is 100Billion tons, Total greenhouse gases or CO2 released by countries is 55 Billion Tons. Also, as someone who planted trees in the Californian Conservation Corps, I believe they said statistically 75% of the trees planted wouldn't make it past winter. So, 90% is a little high mostly because they planted wrong, but it is better than doing nothing.
There is no single solution to the climate problem. We need all possible solutions at work. Making people give up on efforts is not the answer. Tree planting can help a lot if done in a intelligent, planned manner. We have the knowledge already. we just need a little discipline and help from experts. Many forests which suffered forest fires, when abandoned to themselves will grow invasive exotic seeds if any are there. It happens where I live with eucalyptus and mimosa trees. Help with human intervention is needed There's no official plan in my area of the planet to recover our forests that I know of. How many planned actions are there in other areas? How many of the existing ones are made public and publicized? That's why people are trying by themselves they do what they can with the little knowledge they have. Give them knowledge. Give them seeds. They'll do better. Set up seed or seedling centers. Make available planting plans. Make planting plans for affected areas. Include cities in reforesting plans. Invoke help from landscape planners, forest experts. People need guidance. Give it. Leaving nature to it self is not going to make it in most places. Not anymore, Not for a long time. Conditions are changing as we speak and write. It's urgent.
Space-based solar panel technology, population control, safer/ cheaper/ convenient public transportation and more compact cities are the solutions. Billions of people means more energy, food, water and other resources are required, which will make climate change worse. Unfortunately, territorial, cultural and racial conflicts have been encouraging population growth race
This guy is making generalizations. All the talking heads are unaware that insurance companies are pressuring home owners to cut down trees. Home owners have to eat the cost.
“Fossil fuels” are just decomposed organic matter, not dinosaur bones. It’s a natural resource, and with the right balance, it can be beneficial to the world. The use of carbon isn’t bad, it’s the overuse of it.
TOO PLANT TREES WE CAN'T DO IT, BIRDS ARE THE ONE WHO PLANTED TREES, OTHER SPECIES NOURISH IT'S GROWTH BUT WE CAN'T DO IT ALONE WE NEED TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAN ONLY WE CAN BRING CHANGE
@@sathyamevajayathe1544 He’s not saying that planting trees is bad, he’s saying that planting non-native trees is bad and that protecting already existing forest is just as important. A lot of people become complacent and think climate change is fixed cuz they planted a few trees, that’s also another bad thing he pointed out
This video misleads , actually we should plant trees, at the rate we are destroying forests some crisis may descend on Earth soon. "The amount of oxygen produced by a tree can vary widely depending on factors such as its species, age, size, and environment. However, on average, a single mature tree can produce enough oxygen to support the breathing needs of 2-10 people per year. According to the Arbor Day Foundation, one acre of trees can produce enough oxygen for 18 people per day. This means that an individual would need approximately 0.05-0.25 acres of trees to supply their yearly oxygen needs. It's important to note, however, that oxygen is not the only factor in the air we breathe. Trees also remove carbon dioxide, filter pollutants, and provide habitat for wildlife, making them vital for maintaining a healthy ecosystem."
Appreciate the important points but....why didnt you just make a video about how to do it properly, then?....Just because tree planting has become another box ticking activity for governments or corporations, does that mean that rebuilding the Amazon forests, preserving biodiversity by way of animal habitats , and just increasing the amount of green on our planet, does not have merit initself, just because they cant single handedly offset more than a small fraction of our carbon footprint? Anyone who genuinely cares about their impact on the environment, does multiple things to help...not rely on one..and they got to that point through research...I just dont quite get it...video feels just abit sensationalist
May the Anthropocene epoch make the Permian-Triassic extinction event seem like a minor footnote in the pages of Earths history. Here's to making scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment a reality.
There is nothing in IPCC report that states anything like equvilant to the Permian - Triassic extinction. I thought we were supposed to stick to the science, guess that's selective.
For thousands of years. Human developed their ways of farming and growing their own forests. But nowdays? More and more cities and towns built for the need of human. Not animals. Those water underground and those clean water got used for human needs, for their farms and water trees they want to plant at home and in those towns and cities. But those trees and cities and towns are not there to create rainforest and help the biosystem. Biodiversity only created when all lives are freely develop in the nature ways of nature world. But human as "smartest spiece" think that they are smarter than the nature of this planet that created even before human. 😂😂 reality? They are still focusing on war more than nature. 😂😂😂
The only things those forest need its water. And most human are still dont even have enough water for their needs. And if they could manage their water uses and give some back to the nature. You wont see those rainforest dying. They could spend billions of dolars to build up "fire fighter teams" but they cannot run some pipes just to water those forest everyday. Thats how greedy they are. To them. Farm lands are more important than rainforest. And those old forest to them are just "natural garden". But im sure if you have a garden at home you will water it everyday. Not waiting for your garden to burn then go and help it. Lolz. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I love trees. Planting more trees helps erosion control, biodiversity, and pollution reduction, but unfortunately planting more trees does *NOTHING* to fundamentally solve climate change. Trees are part of the carbon cycle. Trees die. On the other hand, extracting and burning fossil fuels *ADDS NEW CARBON* into the cycle.
@@raclark2730 Thanks oil company shill. I guess we can keep burning fossil fuels now. Drill, baby, drill! _(Fortunately, wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuel, so your side will soon loose out anyway.)_
All these years and no one held any company accountable. Now, blaming people and making us pay for the damage they done. All the while degenerating products, allowing products to be unrepairable, and prices gouge. And society thanks them for the privilege.
Its rubbish for the most part you cannot just select bad projects and say tree planting does not work. Horticulturalist who has worked on revegetation and regenerative conservation projects opinion.
We need GLOBAL TAX credits to support more CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere. Plants are starving and THRIVE with more carbon in the air. Let the forest grow and deserts shrink.
Here in NZ we have one govt department incentivising planting of non-native pines, while another classes them an invasive pest and spends millions trying to control the spread.
You would think that departments would talk to each other but no!!!
And your point? Are you questioning your authorities? Someone pointed out that those who seek control are usually people who we shouldn't be given anything but crayons for their own safety and the safety of others. Just letting you know that we know you shadow banned this comment. We are watching.
Trees provide shade and cool the earth’s surface. Also, the roots keep the soil together and therefore help against erosion.
Furthermore, mother Earth knows what to do and will let flora grow by itself. So yes, appoint pieces of land, build a huge fence around it and never look at it again.
They won't solve global warming alone but planting trees is very helpful to prevent erosion, provide shelter & nourishment for tons of species of smaller plants & animals & more. Win/win/win with trees!!!!
It's a win/win until oil companies are paying organizations to plant trees in order to fool the public into thinking oil is "carbon neutral".
The carbon offset market needs to be fixed. Carbon offsets should *ONLY* count if they directly contribute to clean electrification such as adding solar, wind, storage, etc. to the power grid.
Planting trees can cooldown certain temperatures in the world and even can grow nutrients that we can eat transitioning to renewables wont solve any problems it would cause more in fact.
It would be better if you talk about solutions and not just problems...
Wise
Planting a single type of tree is like giving a person just one single type of nutrition to eat.
I planted over 100 trees in the past 10 years with OVER 30 species. LOL
"Getting warmer" episodes are interesting and capturing a lot of interesting viewpoints on decarbonisation efforts. Tree planting is one of these efforts. While I agree to the point that this clip tries to make that "natural and biodiverse forests can store up to x40 times more carbon than plantations", it shouldn't be generalized and simply lead to the conclusion that "the simplest thing we could do is to get out the way and let nature do its thing". Human innovation should always be applied whenever we could especially when it comes to the pressing issue of global warming that we are facing nowadays across the World. For one thing, time is definitely NOT on our side.
** Not only do we need to cultivate trees, but we also need to cultivate mindfulness in regard to the impact our actions have on the climate.**
Not only capturing carbon, trees can help the ground to capture more water in every wet season (and prevent any kind of erosion)
Much better idea to first protect all old growth forests around the world, before humanity starts planting new ones.
How about both at the same time.
Protect the old forest and expand it so it grows bigger and bigger
@@alexanderfuhrmann492 Excellent point not all that exists in original forest can be replicated by humans. But if you create the right conditions nature will introduce it by itself.
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, habitat destruction, water pollution, ocean dead zones and *species extinction* . -United Nations FAO
Animal agriculture uses 83% of global farmland and only provides 18% of global calories. When we switch to a plant based food system, we can restore/reforest 76% of global farmland AND be able to feed all humans. -journal Science
there is so much land around my city that has been cleared and abandoned for years or agricultural land that isn't growing anything. governments could easily make a sort of sign up sheet for those with unused land to plant trees. One could program an application that scans satellite data mixed with property ownership and send out application forms to everyone. There are people with several acres of perfectly manicured grass when they could easily have someone else fill it with trees and never have to mow ever again. There are thousands of properties deemed contaminated and too expensive to clean so they lay deserted. It would take very little effort to plant things that could at least help remove the eye sore of an old gas station for example like a field of sunflowers and sign that says not fit for consumption.
It is about money. Contractors get paid by installing toxic wind turbines and solar panels. Elon lobbies the government to promote his toxic and carcinogenic EVs. It is allllll about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
When it's done properly it works
not convinced from the video. obviously planting trees wrong does not help as much, but that does not mean tree planting in principle is bad.
He literally said that
Japan did the same and it has a season pollen pollution due to the same type of tree planted in acres
Humans are getting better at understanding ecosystems, corporate will be going the other way even when you legally tie their neck to their obligations..
or atleast what they like you to think of them
If there is no problem, you doesn't need to solve it. Tackle from the roots.
We need grasslands too. It's going to mix of everything to address climate change. Prairie Oak Savannahs are a great mix.
Better than nothing my guy
Environmental degradation & destruction got us into this mess, environmental restoration & rehabilitation will get us out of it. Restoring plant life is only one aspect of a complex nature-based solution to restoring the balance. Trees do more than remove carbon - they create micro-climates, manage water, provide habits & shade, provide food, medicine & materials, protect soils etc. Mangrove forests store the most carbon (awa peatlands) than terrestrial forests, with the added benefits of protecting the land from the sea (especially during storms) and provide a nursery for juvenile fish etc. Human systems generally only do one thing, nature provides many many benefits which is why we should restore climate using nature-based solutions.
I love trees and have personally planted over 25 trees. Planting more trees helps erosion control, biodiversity, and pollution reduction, but unfortunately planting more trees does *nothing to fundamentally solve climate change.*
@@DemPilafian In cities trees provide habitat & shade, manages water, calms traffic, enhances property prices, and provides amenity, well-being & improves mental health.
While trees may not "solve" climate change on their own, continued deforestation & destruction of mangroves is going to make things much much worse. The destruction of the Amazon & boreal forests make up a considerable proportion of the critical tipping points that could lead to runaway climate change.
Reforestation of tropical & mangrove forests are an essential part of an array of nature-based solutions IN CONJUNCTION WITH radical GHG emission reductions.
Humans like simple solutions to complex issues - silver bullets. Anything that means they don't have to make drastic changes to unsustainable life-styles. But with the ecological, biodiversity, climate, energy and development crises planting a few billion just won't be enough unfortunately.
Have you checked out the Project Drawdown initiative? It's the most comprehensive plan to tackle enviro, social & development issues.
@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 No. At best the number of trees on the planet shifts climate change a few years one way or the other. So what? If Huston, Bangkok, and Jakarta are all destroyed a few years earlier or a few years later, they are still destroyed! The solution is to transition to clean, renewable power as soon as possible.
@@DemPilafian How about both, or is carbon the sole and only environmental concern now. Trees help with many other issues.
@@raclark2730 Trees are magnificent, and I support planting MORE trees. However, we environmentalists shoot ourselves in the foot by using invalid justifications. It makes us look like we are pushing a bogus narrative. Big oil can tell a hundred lies and no one cares. Environmentalist tell one lie and it sets back conservation efforts by years.
Preserving intact undisturbed forests is extremely important. I’m looking at you Russia, Brazil, Congo, and Canada.
Also don't forget part of Southeast Asia where the forest are slowly diminishing and turning into palm oil farm
I think Miyawaki forest plantations can be helpful in Urban areas. It will lead to higher amount of trees planted, various native species and it does become independent in a couple of years.
Capturing carbon by planting more trees is like throwing a sponge into an overflowing bathtub without turning off the faucet. If you don't turn off the faucet, all the sponges in the world won't save you. Trees are great for the *LOCAL ENVIRONMENT,* but planting trees does *NOTHING AT ALL* to end the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Big Oil *LOVES* everyone who supports carbon capture!
They do sequester carbon do they not, so what's your problem.
@@raclark2730 they literally said it in their comment
@@zumabbar So they are a part of the tool kit then, no reason not to use them.
@@raclark2730 nobody said it shouldnt
@@zumabbar The implication is that its a useless band aid and green washing. That is true for some cases, but not all. Many studies have been done into biological sequestration, the only problem is accurate monitoring of such. The idea that it is sole use is to give licence to big oil is rubbish.
You can sustainably harvest trees. Some species absorb CO2 more quickly early on in the age. I only know my area. PA.
I see the narrator's point. But is this criticism for criticism's sake? In the end. People are trying to change and their efforts are being criticized here. You didn't provide an active alternative solution for people's efforts to get behind. Yes, people's efforts could be more constructive, but you didn't encourage anybody to help.
There's an excellent ecologist by the name of Suzanne Simard who has put years of research into this exact topic. I'm sure you pulled this from her research. Would of been nice to see citations. Additionally, I feel like the title of this video is misleading.
So besides all biodiversity or legal problems, Is it absorbing carbon or not?
A tree needs carbon to grow. If it grows, it stores carbon.
Nature will of course always be the best when it comes to growing forrests. But its also slow. There are a number of tree planting and Forrest conservation companies that do the whole tree planting thing right. Team trees for example, which Mr.Beast used for his tree planting campaign. Which is why i feel its a bit disingenuous to use him as an example in the beginning of the video.
Forced planting of batuve trees is the way forward because the rate of environmental destruction from other companies isn't slowing. If we rely on nature we'll all be finished.
Plus with manually created forrests that are left to nature after maturing they will be quicker to turn into prime forrest. All in all, there are some people making a genuine contribution to environmental protection.
bro needs a real mic
This felt like having a child tell me how to tie my shoelaces.
🤣
Yes, less people means less global warming.
@@danielben-avraham1539 What a revelation!
Man has to change its lifestyle...
Ecosia 👍
Great video
So donate to organizations that do it right and if you run out of land, start buying up other forest land to preserve it or pay for companies to install carbon capture devices. Money can go a long way.
The biggest single driver of deforestation is raising cattle for beef.
yeah and new companies in country side
Wrong
@@coater31 ”The expansion of pasture land to raise cattle was responsible for 41% of tropical deforestation. That’s 2.1 million hectares every year - about half the size of the Netherlands.” / Drivers of deforestation / Ourworldindata
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this video with the producer. Messaging is dangerous, and as a registered professional forester in Canada, some things need to be clarified. You cannot discuss this globally when there are significant differences in forestry policy.
What kind of smug nonsense are you going on about?
Need biodiversity in Native plants
This video is too simplified! And I'm not even talking as someone that have and still do plants trees as a profession.
It needs to be minimum 10 minutes long cause I simple narrow view-ed
I got a Serious Question I seen reasontly that the trees in each country absorb more CO2 than is produced by those countries other than China who Pollutes 30% of the world's total. but even than it seems other countries plant life can absorb most of that extra CO2. What then creates this imbalance in greenhouse gases that causes global warming?
Just so everyone understands total CO2 absorbed by plant life is 100Billion tons, Total greenhouse gases or CO2 released by countries is 55 Billion Tons.
Also, as someone who planted trees in the Californian Conservation Corps, I believe they said statistically 75% of the trees planted wouldn't make it past winter. So, 90% is a little high mostly because they planted wrong, but it is better than doing nothing.
One tree in 5 years digests the CO2 of a plane from London to Madrid. Why do we do deforestation?
There is no single solution to the climate problem. We need all possible solutions at work. Making people give up on efforts is not the answer.
Tree planting can help a lot if done in a intelligent, planned manner. We have the knowledge already. we just need a little discipline and help from experts. Many forests which suffered forest fires, when abandoned to themselves will grow invasive exotic seeds if any are there. It happens where I live with eucalyptus and mimosa trees. Help with human intervention is needed
There's no official plan in my area of the planet to recover our forests that I know of. How many planned actions are there in other areas? How many of the existing ones are made public and publicized? That's why people are trying by themselves they do what they can with the little knowledge they have.
Give them knowledge. Give them seeds. They'll do better. Set up seed or seedling centers. Make available planting plans. Make planting plans for affected areas. Include cities in reforesting plans. Invoke help from landscape planners, forest experts.
People need guidance. Give it.
Leaving nature to it self is not going to make it in most places. Not anymore, Not for a long time.
Conditions are changing as we speak and write. It's urgent.
I think best thing is to planet native trees. May be i am wrong. Please correct me.
You’re correct. Native trees and plants for the local ecosystem
I think there are research papers on this... You should have added them coz many people don't seem to belive
Space-based solar panel technology, population control, safer/ cheaper/ convenient public transportation and more compact cities are the solutions. Billions of people means more energy, food, water and other resources are required, which will make climate change worse. Unfortunately, territorial, cultural and racial conflicts have been encouraging population growth race
didn't the trees in london actually die?
Better than cutting them
Worst terrible intro title - get offline
This guy is making generalizations. All the talking heads are unaware that insurance companies are pressuring home owners to cut down trees. Home owners have to eat the cost.
Excellent commentary. Thanks for speaking the truth!
You're wrong if you plant noon native trees
All around, really great video.
WHY NOT MITIGATE THE FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION !?
“Fossil fuels” are just decomposed organic matter, not dinosaur bones. It’s a natural resource, and with the right balance, it can be beneficial to the world.
The use of carbon isn’t bad, it’s the overuse of it.
TOO PLANT TREES WE CAN'T DO IT, BIRDS ARE THE ONE WHO PLANTED TREES, OTHER SPECIES NOURISH IT'S GROWTH
BUT WE CAN'T DO IT ALONE WE NEED TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAN ONLY WE CAN BRING CHANGE
These clowns don't want solutions, they want to keep you in a perpetual state of fear so of course they're against planting trees.
🤔 Nooo...!!!!! There's something wrong about this video!
It misleads, it sort of propogates that tree planting is bad.
@@sathyamevajayathe1544 only the title mislead like that
If we don't stop burning fossil fuels, we cannot possibly plant enough trees to save ourselves. It's simple math.
They want to take people hope so they don't question insane policies.
Plant trees, anyone who says dont plant trees are pure evil.
Like Bill Gates, who is very evil
In one word: green-washing.
Planting trees is something we should do more of, since we destroy so many ecosystems
Exactly, but this video is misleading, spreading the notion that planting trees is bad
@@sathyamevajayathe1544 He’s not saying that planting trees is bad, he’s saying that planting non-native trees is bad and that protecting already existing forest is just as important. A lot of people become complacent and think climate change is fixed cuz they planted a few trees, that’s also another bad thing he pointed out
Ecosia
It works if done correctly. The title and the contents of the video are misleading.
There are research papers on this...
Don't punish people to try to solve problems, ALWAYS innovate your way out of problems
What a joke..
Lol so don’t plant trees then?
This video misleads , actually we should plant trees, at the rate we are destroying forests some crisis may descend on Earth soon.
"The amount of oxygen produced by a tree can vary widely depending on factors such as its species, age, size, and environment. However, on average, a single mature tree can produce enough oxygen to support the breathing needs of 2-10 people per year.
According to the Arbor Day Foundation, one acre of trees can produce enough oxygen for 18 people per day. This means that an individual would need approximately 0.05-0.25 acres of trees to supply their yearly oxygen needs.
It's important to note, however, that oxygen is not the only factor in the air we breathe. Trees also remove carbon dioxide, filter pollutants, and provide habitat for wildlife, making them vital for maintaining a healthy ecosystem."
Not what the video says, its just that simply planting more trees by itself won't help much
Appreciate the important points but....why didnt you just make a video about how to do it properly, then?....Just because tree planting has become another box ticking activity for governments or corporations, does that mean that rebuilding the Amazon forests, preserving biodiversity by way of animal habitats , and just increasing the amount of green on our planet, does not have merit initself, just because they cant single handedly offset more than a small fraction of our carbon footprint? Anyone who genuinely cares about their impact on the environment, does multiple things to help...not rely on one..and they got to that point through research...I just dont quite get it...video feels just abit sensationalist
May the Anthropocene epoch make the Permian-Triassic extinction event seem like a minor footnote in the pages of Earths history. Here's to making scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment a reality.
I think you have that backwards.
There is nothing in IPCC report that states anything like equvilant to the Permian - Triassic extinction. I thought we were supposed to stick to the science, guess that's selective.
For thousands of years. Human developed their ways of farming and growing their own forests. But nowdays? More and more cities and towns built for the need of human. Not animals. Those water underground and those clean water got used for human needs, for their farms and water trees they want to plant at home and in those towns and cities. But those trees and cities and towns are not there to create rainforest and help the biosystem. Biodiversity only created when all lives are freely develop in the nature ways of nature world. But human as "smartest spiece" think that they are smarter than the nature of this planet that created even before human. 😂😂 reality? They are still focusing on war more than nature. 😂😂😂
This guy makes a lot of circular arguments.
Hurry to save your life by use Power(money) to plant tree..
Why are they cutting down huge amount of trees in all the cities right now? Why? Plymouth trees massacre
The only things those forest need its water. And most human are still dont even have enough water for their needs. And if they could manage their water uses and give some back to the nature. You wont see those rainforest dying. They could spend billions of dolars to build up "fire fighter teams" but they cannot run some pipes just to water those forest everyday. Thats how greedy they are. To them. Farm lands are more important than rainforest. And those old forest to them are just "natural garden". But im sure if you have a garden at home you will water it everyday. Not waiting for your garden to burn then go and help it. Lolz. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Only plebs have climate anxiety 😅
I guess now I hate trees. 🌲 🌳 🤔
I love trees. Planting more trees helps erosion control, biodiversity, and pollution reduction, but unfortunately planting more trees does *NOTHING* to fundamentally solve climate change. Trees are part of the carbon cycle. Trees die. On the other hand, extracting and burning fossil fuels *ADDS NEW CARBON* into the cycle.
No this is just highlighting when its done wrong. But it can also be done right. You can replant naturally as stated, or mixed use.
@@raclark2730 Thanks oil company shill. I guess we can keep burning fossil fuels now. Drill, baby, drill!
_(Fortunately, wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuel, so your side will soon loose out anyway.)_
All these years and no one held any company accountable. Now, blaming people and making us pay for the damage they done. All the while degenerating products, allowing products to be unrepairable, and prices gouge. And society thanks them for the privilege.
Who believes this? 🧐
Nobody! We live "symbiotically" with trees
What specifically do you disagree with? Just the video title?
@@ethanrogers9627 Trees don't exist.
@@MEETMagazine Oh yeah that's true, mb.
Its rubbish for the most part you cannot just select bad projects and say tree planting does not work. Horticulturalist who has worked on revegetation and regenerative conservation projects opinion.
Ok mulch barren dirt then
poorly done video that does not answer the questions it posits...
Climate change bs
We need GLOBAL TAX credits to support more CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere. Plants are starving and THRIVE with more carbon in the air. Let the forest grow and deserts shrink.