I really like giant sequoias, I don't have a place to plant one in the ground but I bought a 45Litre pot and planted a 1 year old seedling into it and it was struggling the first year in the pot but its nice and healthy after 2 years with me so its 3 years old now.
Ive been telling folks that the best way to combat carbon (if you believe that stuff) is plant sequoias and faster growing trees. I don’t subscribe to that ideology but still grow these trees for future generations. Having walked among wild groves of sequoias in person, they are a wonder of the world that needs to be perpetuated with care.
This sounds great but isn’t it better to plant an indigenous tree? This is an invader species even though it’s an amazing tree. And might have some other impact or problem later on that is not yet understood? Just wondering.
The Giant Sequoia is not an invasive species. Very far from it actualy as it takes many years for it to drop seeds, and these seeds have an extremely low succes rate to grow.
@@markschrama7218 Another interesting fact is that a sequoia tree seed cone needs a wildfire to release its seeds. This means that native trees have gone long before sequoias seedlings got germinated
If you're going to plant a forest don't plant the trees all in straight lines like a grid. That will never look natural, it will always be obviously a planted forest.
Sequoias live for at the least hundreds of years (in America they're 2-3k). By then we'll have solved the problem, or not, in which case it won't matter
LolLol That’s not true. How can you say when wood decomposes 100% of the carbon stays in the soil? Articles about pollution openly admit that construction is a huge pollution creator as cement foundations emit huge amounts of carbon for a decade or two. If cement can emit carbon and it’s basically a rock I doubt decomposing wood wouldn’t release carbon. Maybe I’m wrong I need to look into it but it’s super late and I’m going to bed
Reality check: there are approximately 3,000,000,000,000 trees in the world. That’s roughly 400 trees per person. These capture about 25 percent of the total CO2 emissions. Therefore, 1600 trees per person are needed. The average Brit emits about twice the world average, so a Brit needs approximately 3200 trees. If the sequoia absorbs 10 times the average, you would need about 320 sequoias per brit.
Dunno about the actual numbers of carbon footprint which is kinda silly measurement anyway. However, I love trees and these giants should get help to survive if Americans cannot do enough.🌲🌳
But these tree don't support the native insect species or native animals, don't think this is the solution for the UK, better plant native to the UK species and plant the giant sequoias in their native habitats and countries
I 100% disagree! Keep doing what you're doing. Plant even more. They are a beautiful tree and you just may be saving the species. I understand they are doing incredibly well in New Zealand also.
Sophia The Uk brings in tons of diverse migrants from each country each year cause they believe in diversity. Shouldn’t we also celebrate diversity in trees? It’s one thing if a plant is super invasive like tamerak or the tumbleweed etc but a lot of trees aren’t invasive. Yes you should plant native plants in wildlife management zones but if you in a town that’s super diverse with tons of different migrants etc why can’t nature reflect the diversity of the population living there?
What you said is true!! It's very, very important to make sure native trees stay in their native ranges, especially something as huge and impacting as sequoia trees. There is always too much of a good thing, and this, with its massive size and shade it brings, would completely change the ecosystem surrounding it. All it would take is 1 tree, many people underestimate the impact.
I love Giant Sequoias, and have seen some remarkable individuals in both Ireland and the UK. I've visited the groves of the giants in the Sequoia National Park in California. I'm all for planting lots and lots, anyplace they will thrive and not muscle-out indigenous species. All that said, this 'project', or at least its presentation, really hangs on the edge of superficiality and over simplification. Just starting with the vagueness of its carbon footprint assertion: No way that sprout will compensate for even the carbon resources expended to grow it o its planting size. At what point in its development would it have come even with, and begin to compensate for, ongoing personal carbon impacts? 20 years? 50?
There are 100+ year old giant sequoias in Kew Gardens which is on the outskirts of London. They are very big and doing fine. There are now more Redwoods in the UK than in California though they are obviously much younger.
The life span of these trees is thousands of years and they grow to be massive. Why wouldn't they offset the CO2 emissions of a human life that is on average 72 years?
@@nathanlewis42 your whole life carbon emissions are much, much more than a single giant sequoia. And we need the CO2 out of the atmosphere now, not a few centuries from now. And when the tree eventually dies (20 years on average in urban settings), all that carbon is going to be broken down and end up right back in the atmosphere.
@@ElectricityTaster have you done the calculations??? While I agree 100% about the need for getting the carbon out now the most effective way to achieve that by far is to not emit it in the first place. I am sure you will therefore stop eating meat, flying in planes and driving a car immediately.
Just plant them and shut up about the carbon footprint. I appreciate nature to the highest degree without virtue signaling. I’ve planted more trees than I can even remember. One of the best things of my life is not telling everyone about it. How many people have you told this story to? Sometimes the best action is shutting your mouth about it afterwards.
Hmm, also, is it just me, or ppl might get complacent?, as in, 'Oh well now when I've planted SUCH a tree, I don't need to try as hard to try and reduce my carbon footprint... the rest of my life'🤔
Actually lie 25% of all Sequoias died the last decade I read from fires. Pretty freaking sad if you ask me as more should have been done to reduce fire or fuel load buildup. The trees are meant to survive fires with the thick bark but many old trees died from fire suggesting more prescribed burns should be done to save trees in the future.
@@blakespower They are not going extinct. There are hundreds of thousands of them in 3 states, California, Oregon and Washington, with thousands being planted every year in many states. Soon there will be millions of them in the United States.
What about the Red Wood. The live one thousand and five hundred more years than the Sequoia. That the Sequoia live two thousand years were the Red Wood livea three thousand and five hundred years. As for size at the bottom they are more fat the Sequoia but the Red Wood is the most tallest in the world and for wood they take up more. Also the Red Wood is fire resistant one it gets big .
Millions upon millions of trees are planted by the timber industry every year. Young, vigorous, growing carbon sinks that will sequester that carbon into lumber, not a rotting dying carbon producing tree.
The life of these trees is thousands of years and they grow to be massive. Why wouldn't they offset the CO2 emissions of a human life that is on average 72 years?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
It looks really awkward to plant them in straight rows like that
I respectfully disagree, you can make a cool tree house....100yrs from now lol.
I really like giant sequoias, I don't have a place to plant one in the ground but I bought a 45Litre pot and planted a 1 year old seedling into it and it was struggling the first year in the pot but its nice and healthy after 2 years with me so its 3 years old now.
We have planted 8 Sequoias in our garden. We started 18 years ago and some of them are over 35 feet tall . We are on the west coast of Scotland
Ive been telling folks that the best way to combat carbon (if you believe that stuff) is plant sequoias and faster growing trees.
I don’t subscribe to that ideology but still grow these trees for future generations. Having walked among wild groves of sequoias in person,
they are a wonder of the world that needs to be perpetuated with care.
I'm planting seven on my farm in WV this year.
Love that! Been looking at homes in Wheeling WV lately.
This sounds great but isn’t it better to plant an indigenous tree?
This is an invader species even though it’s an amazing tree. And might have some other impact or problem later on that is not yet understood?
Just wondering.
The Giant Sequoia is not an invasive species. Very far from it actualy as it takes many years for it to drop seeds, and these seeds have an extremely low succes rate to grow.
@@markschrama7218 Another interesting fact is that a sequoia tree seed cone needs a wildfire to release its seeds. This means that native trees have gone long before sequoias seedlings got germinated
If you're going to plant a forest don't plant the trees all in straight lines like a grid. That will never look natural, it will always be obviously a planted forest.
i dont think it matters it will look beautiful too
How does it help if when trees die they are decomposed releasing the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere?
Sequoias live for at the least hundreds of years (in America they're 2-3k). By then we'll have solved the problem, or not, in which case it won't matter
It goes in the ground not in the atmosphere
It captures CO2 for 3,000 yrs before releasing it anywhere. During its lifetime the neighbouring soil will hold 3 times more CO2.
The only thing that helps is when you pay your 65% income carbon tax..
LolLol
That’s not true. How can you say when wood decomposes 100% of the carbon stays in the soil? Articles about pollution openly admit that construction is a huge pollution creator as cement foundations emit huge amounts of carbon for a decade or two. If cement can emit carbon and it’s basically a rock I doubt decomposing wood wouldn’t release carbon. Maybe I’m wrong I need to look into it but it’s super late and I’m going to bed
Reality check: there are approximately 3,000,000,000,000 trees in the world. That’s roughly 400 trees per person. These capture about 25 percent of the total CO2 emissions. Therefore, 1600 trees per person are needed. The average Brit emits about twice the world average, so a Brit needs approximately 3200 trees. If the sequoia absorbs 10 times the average, you would need about 320 sequoias per brit.
They are gonna rise higher and higher long after we will be gone👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Dunno about the actual numbers of carbon footprint which is kinda silly measurement anyway. However, I love trees and these giants should get help to survive if Americans cannot do enough.🌲🌳
I've been raising40 babies three years .they get. Planted this year
The giant sequoias have survived thousands of years of fires and droughts in the sierras. Lol
people have never been so destructive to nature than in the last 100 years
I plan to plant many trees when I get my property
Only if whole plant mass will be fossilized
But these tree don't support the native insect species or native animals, don't think this is the solution for the UK, better plant native to the UK species and plant the giant sequoias in their native habitats and countries
I 100% disagree! Keep doing what you're doing. Plant even more. They are a beautiful tree and you just may be saving the species. I understand they are doing incredibly well in New Zealand also.
Sophia
The Uk brings in tons of diverse migrants from each country each year cause they believe in diversity. Shouldn’t we also celebrate diversity in trees? It’s one thing if a plant is super invasive like tamerak or the tumbleweed etc but a lot of trees aren’t invasive. Yes you should plant native plants in wildlife management zones but if you in a town that’s super diverse with tons of different migrants etc why can’t nature reflect the diversity of the population living there?
Plant one for me, mate.
Thanks 👍
Anyone know the pricing? I looked on thier website and could find no information on cost.
Great job but plant them in a more natural looking way.
They only grow in ONE state in the U.S. …
They grow all around the world... But its in California that they thrive mostly yes.
Nope, they are grown in many states in the US. Just native to Cali. Big ones in oregon and WA
What you said is true!! It's very, very important to make sure native trees stay in their native ranges, especially something as huge and impacting as sequoia trees. There is always too much of a good thing, and this, with its massive size and shade it brings, would completely change the ecosystem surrounding it. All it would take is 1 tree, many people underestimate the impact.
Just got two...Puget Sound.
I love Giant Sequoias, and have seen some remarkable individuals in both Ireland and the UK. I've visited the groves of the giants in the Sequoia National Park in California. I'm all for planting lots and lots, anyplace they will thrive and not muscle-out indigenous species. All that said, this 'project', or at least its presentation, really hangs on the edge of superficiality and over simplification.
Just starting with the vagueness of its carbon footprint assertion: No way that sprout will compensate for even the carbon resources expended to grow it o its planting size. At what point in its development would it have come even with, and begin to compensate for, ongoing personal carbon impacts? 20 years? 50?
good they are trying to save the giant sequoia, I think they like the UK weather
WONDERFUL!
Organic chemistry has left the chat.
thunderf00t got some more busting to do.
There are 100+ year old giant sequoias in Kew Gardens which is on the outskirts of London. They are very big and doing fine. There are now more Redwoods in the UK than in California though they are obviously much younger.
The life span of these trees is thousands of years and they grow to be massive. Why wouldn't they offset the CO2 emissions of a human life that is on average 72 years?
@@nathanlewis42 your whole life carbon emissions are much, much more than a single giant sequoia. And we need the CO2 out of the atmosphere now, not a few centuries from now. And when the tree eventually dies (20 years on average in urban settings), all that carbon is going to be broken down and end up right back in the atmosphere.
@@ElectricityTaster have you done the calculations??? While I agree 100% about the need for getting the carbon out now the most effective way to achieve that by far is to not emit it in the first place. I am sure you will therefore stop eating meat, flying in planes and driving a car immediately.
@@nathanlewis42 yes. I also recycle my coca cola cans and my McDonald veggie burger wrappers.
Just plant them and shut up about the carbon footprint. I appreciate nature to the highest degree without virtue signaling. I’ve planted more trees than I can even remember. One of the best things of my life is not telling everyone about it. How many people have you told this story to? Sometimes the best action is shutting your mouth about it afterwards.
Hmm, also, is it just me, or ppl might get complacent?, as in, 'Oh well now when I've planted SUCH a tree, I don't need to try as hard to try and reduce my carbon footprint... the rest of my life'🤔
Actually lie 25% of all Sequoias died the last decade I read from fires. Pretty freaking sad if you ask me as more should have been done to reduce fire or fuel load buildup. The trees are meant to survive fires with the thick bark but many old trees died from fire suggesting more prescribed burns should be done to save trees in the future.
Giant sequoias are native to California. I'm not sure it's wise to plant them in the UK out of their natural habitat.
Yup it’s very dumb
they are almost extinct in the wild I think its a good idea, nothing is native to the UK in was under 2 miles of ice 15000 years ago
Previous to the last Ice age these trees were found all ove rNorth America and Europe. Europe was their original habitat previous to the last ice age,
@@blakespower They are not going extinct. There are hundreds of thousands of them in 3 states, California, Oregon and Washington, with thousands being planted every year in many states. Soon there will be millions of them in the United States.
@@thedude5599 False!
Grow up! Monoculture, one single thing, is not the answer
What about the Red Wood. The live one thousand and five hundred more years than the Sequoia. That the Sequoia live two thousand years were the Red Wood livea three thousand and five hundred years. As for size at the bottom they are more fat the Sequoia but the Red Wood is the most tallest in the world and for wood they take up more. Also the Red Wood is fire resistant one it gets big .
Spot On ! 🌲
To balance my carbon foot print i flush the toilet twice just for these people
Millions upon millions of trees are planted by the timber industry every year. Young, vigorous, growing carbon sinks that will sequester that carbon into lumber, not a rotting dying carbon producing tree.
this is a joke
Money making scheme.
They're just going to fall over and become coal. Carbon is carbon. The laws of thermodynamics are very clear :)
People in the future may need coal.
He’ll do more damage way before the tree even starts to grow. Sounds nice but yeah….
One giant sequoia tree offsets the carbon footprint of an entire life?? BS
The life of these trees is thousands of years and they grow to be massive. Why wouldn't they offset the CO2 emissions of a human life that is on average 72 years?
"Carbon Footprint"...😂