(This is a general statement, forest management is complex and differs greatly depending on your location). As a Forestry professional, many tree planting campaigns seem to be done without any consultation with a forestry professional. Only planting a few species in a naturally mixed forest, planting the wrong native species in the wrong places, lack of care after planting such as invasive species control,and conversion of non forest lands to forest. We also seem to think we have to replant trees when many areas are better left to let trees naturally grow from whatever seed sources are present. The world only seems to care about forests while ignoring almost every other biome. Grasslands and wetlands actually store more carbon than trees and are much more endangered in North America than forests.
Well, once the Permafrost in Siberia has molten, there will be a HUUUGE mass of wetlands. With everything that comes with it. (Methane production which runs separate from pure CO2-calculations). Good luck.
not all woodlands are mixed at any given time. the age of the forest and the dominant species of tree has much to do with how varied your forest will be. as an example, in the western portion of the pnw, the dominant tree is doug fir, which grows in stands that shades out competitors. its not until year 80 or so when the stand starts seeing other species like hemlock come through the canopy in places where the fir is thinner. the idiocy here are generic statements designed to encompass all of nature; easily digestible by bureaucrats and simpletons.
The other issue is people planting trees far, far too close together and/or allowing them to sprout too close themselves. Ireland is 1/5th covered in forest, mostly managed evergreen forrests, down from 4/5ths natural woodland pre-industrial times. The trouble is. All but the largest ones seem to have simply stopped spending any money on managing them. They have left them at 100% density and they are sick. Full of weak rotted out trees and widowers lying dead against the upper limbs. Trees would be a great carbon store except for the fact that decomposers figured out how to turn them in to CO2 long ago. So, a tree with a 150 year life, is going to end up dying, rotting and releasing all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Also. There are approximately 30 trillion trees on the planet. What kind of impact do you think the "Plant a million tree" campaign would have? Even if you had plant 100 million trees it's still a drop in the bucket.
Part of what solution? There is no solution proposed. Electric vehicles are decades away from replacing ICE engines at best, and it is far from certain that this can ever happen. Not that CO2 emissions are our only environmental catastrophe at hand. Unless the human population is dramatically reduced, the only "solution" would be scalable free energy and star trek style replicators.
Trees may not be a complete answer, but they do have a lot of advantages. For instance, a well designed mixed woodland counteracts soil erosion, nutrient leaching and flooding, and is self-renewing - unlike even the most diligently dusted solar panels! Woodland also has a very positive impact on human wellbeing and mental health.
Humans interact with a tiny fraction of woodland, and if the amount of woodlands grew, the fraction we'd interact with would likely go down (because there wouldn't be a proportional increase in interaction). So I am not sure it's a good argument for a massive scale-up of tree planting. Your other reasons have more merit, I feel.
@@yerocaI'm not sure "fraction of the woodland interacted" is a useful metric - availability is. If there are more trees, more people are able to access them by foot or within reasonable commute range. Trees also improve air quality and sequester heavy metals from all our smoke into soil, so that's a nice direct human benefits. Also, they're good habitat for a large range of animals - especially the rainforests - and it's cool if those existed. Not directly related to climate change, but since we as a species reduce others' habitats by climate change and other means, would be a nice change of pace.
@@yeroca This is a post-lockdown, mental health related response, we see it being used to justify rewilding of farmland and allowing the right to roam in England (where 70% is privately owned farmland). Misunderstanding the massive increase in tourism also plays a part, just look at what's happening in the US with overcrowding in parks, as most people go where they see other people going, not where there's 'nature' just because it's there. Well-designed woodland would be an investment for future generations at least, but I'd just say it would be more worthwhile greening the cities than asking captive-bred city folk to go into the woods...
Our first house had a yard with no trees. Our first summer there was miserably hot and we had no air conditioning so we slept outside on the deck. We then planted about 30 shade and flowering trees, since we both worked at a wholesale nursery and could rescue them from the burn pile. Five years later our yard was at least 10 degrees cooler than outside the yard. The trees on the south side near the house shaded the roof, providing natural “air conditioning”, so no need for a mechanical one. The flowering trees (crabapples, etc.) provided food for birds so we attracted cedar waxwings, finches, tanagers. The lawn under the trees was fertile, with plenty of earthworms and grubs for the robins and towhees. Our desert turned into a paradise. PLANT TREES!
💯 exactly. We forgot the basics. A good microclimate if we preserve locally forests and plant trees around cities is a huge benefit and will regulate climate . On top of it, they are a huge filter for all pollutants. On the contrary windmills with tons of steel that need substitution when they fail verynoften, will destroy more than helping
To “solve” climate change, I’ve gotten rid of my private jet(s), yacht(s), vacation home(s), etc. and now just have a single car and a place to live. I hope Gates will match my devotion to reducing my “carbon footprint.”
Trees alone won't save us from climate change. But trees help over time. And it is certainly a dumb idea to cut down trees without replacing them. And it is certainly the dumbest idea to cut down rainforests, especially the Amazon rainforest.
No matter what we do the climate will continue to change like it has done since the beginning of the planet. Too much climate alarmist posts instead of balanced scientific debate.
pretty sure if billy wanted a study to say that it's healthy to eat human feces he'd get it. I'm not joking. You pay people to "Find" the Answer you want. Their livelihood depends on satisfying you so that you'll spend money on them once again. Not to mention the entire "Study" thing is rather broken these days, we invest into profitable research and abandon anything that isn't profitable... If there was a cheap solution for most our problems, we'd never find it since we keep finding the most patentable solutions..
sadly, it didn't pass peer review, was never published, and the funding got cut for further research. Oh and I heard the author fell off a cliff while hiking just a couple of weeks ago.
I live close to the equator and it can get extremely hot and humid, I find that if you have a small group of trees it is so much cooler to stand under them than if you were to stand in the shade of a building.
That makes sense, trees have a lot of water in them which have a high heat capacity for storing heat. That makes temperature changes more mild near them compared to buildings.
SHE AND GATES ARE A PROBLEM NASA **** STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES VERY QUICKLY DOES IT POISON US NO AND IT IS MOSTLY CARBON
NASA STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR? PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES QUICKLY IT'S MOSTLY CARBON AGAIN NASA STATES THIS IS TOTALLY POLITICS AND WRONG
When you say we I assume you mean they. Funny thing, it's so much easier to tell others what to do. But maybe you actually live in a country with rain forests, then shame on me.
Trees stabilize the weather, make rain patterns more consistent especially further away from large bodies of water. One of the effects of climate change is extreme weather patterns being more common, which forests help mitigate, along with other benefits.
Sure, but forests don't need to be planted, they just need to be left to themselves. Are we willing to sacrifice fertile farmland and attractive housing areas for forests?
No one's saying trees are bad, even Gates never said that. They're just not the amazing climate solution that some try to sell them as. And in particular the people's love for the idea of tree planting is actually used by a whole bunch of dodgy carbon offset scams to make money while not providing any of these benefits (simply cos they don't plant as many trees, or claim tree cover that was going to be there anyway). It's actually a credit to him that he didn't claim those, as most others who boast about their offsets do. The industry just isn't trustworthy right now, so it's best to look at other methods that aren't as gamed.
It's also a lot nicer than solar and wind farms which are causing forests to be cut down and prime agricultural land to be wasted which is ongoing right now in Queensland Australia.
Yes, absolutely. However, it won't solve the problem by itself. We need a better solution and a combination of things. You see not putting sugar in your tea won't help you if you are still drinking sugary drinks and eating sweets all the time. Same idea.
I live in a city with several trees on the border of streets...shade is nice yes, but tree roots wreck streets and birds are essentially pests and shit everywhere en masse near trees making the city a whole lot dirtier. It would be better to have many little/big parks in cities with trees, much less maintenance I think.
@@Pwnzarelli "tree roots wreck streets" This is true. I live in a smaller midwestern city with lots of trees in residential neighborhoods. Especially in the older neighborhoods built pre-1990s, virtually every house lot has 2-3 trees. They genuinely do cause problems with the roads where someone planted a tree too close to it. They also cause problems with gas/water/sewer/power lines too. And, being in tornado alley, they're a real serious risk during storm season. Still, I enjoy them and do think their benefits outweigh their problems.
I run 4km to work and i have 2 options. 1) run along the busy main road. 2) run on the cycle path, parallel and close to the road, but surrounded by tress, grass and a variety of bushes and green stuff. It's 600m longer. My route is option 2 almost everytime as it's very much fresher. Won't save the planet but every tree and any green stuff is definitely beneficial to us individually
Biking, running, skiing, paddling in trees is my happiest place. Maybe my only happy place. I consider myself part of the universe and the universe gets what it needs by making organisms feel good. Trees and the woods feel good.
Ah yes, because him running is such a significant producer of fossil fuel emissions. Not the 57 companies that are linked to 80% of emissions. @ivarwind
I live in a place that has very hot summers. When I bought my house I planted trees for shade. I knew full well that it would be a long term pay off. It has been fifteen years and I now use much less electricity for cooling my home. Cutting energy consumption is a viable way to not add to the carbon problem.
@@tolep respectfully false, taken at scale, if we have tree coverage wherever people live and work, the energy consumption would be greatly reduced. Many places would even skip active cooling. Even cities, which cover more and more of the land, should have big tree coverage, on open areas (streets) and on top of building. Uncovered land is unnatural in a non desert area. Now it becomes the norm. Even if the albedo is high in some rare cases, we might then influence the atmosphere more. Only greenery is perfect in all aspects (hydro, carbon cycle, depollution, solar energy, health, soil dynamics) .
I've allowed a tree to grow near one side of my house which didn't have shutters at the windows. The effect is really wonderful - inside the house and in the garden.
@@tolep 🤣 What? lower bill = lower electricity production = lower pollution, even if your electricity is produced with "clean" energies, "clean" only means less dirty, every type of energy production has some pollution.
I bought a 40 acre farm years ago with 3 large trees in a 3 acre homesite in an area with a maximum ambient temperature of 118 degrees F. In the Summer. I researched, and found empirical data that states if you can "cover" 40% of a land area with tree canopy, you'll lower the local temperature (ground level to 6' agl) by 10 degrees F. I set to work planting fast growing trees - mostly Chinese Elm - and accomplished that 40% within the homesite. That transformed the homesite from an unbearable space to a comfortable space. I don't know what it did for CO2 levels or the climate, but it made a dramatic difference in those three acres.
Trees are usually planted to be havested again, just as crops. Here in sweden harvesting trees is a major part of our economy, planting trees as we harvest them is just a very sustainable way of forestry.
Seems to be the norm in south england, & burgundy france. The two places i've lived/worked/explored. 40 years & i don't think i've ever seen a natural forest. lol
Most deforestation is done to clear up land for animal agriculture, mostly cattle and cattle feed in the Amazon rainforest. Those trees are never planted again, the forest is burned down by the farmers who turn it into a soy field, then a pasture, then a wasteland.
... and it is not done particularly well in Sweden. Clear cutting is still the vastly preferred method and mostly done rather recklessly. The big companies are quite desperately trying to lay their hands on the few percent of pristine forest and on forest with high value for nature and ecosystems. Plus on the long run it is doubtful it will work economically as we do not know yet how quickly the ground deteriorates with every cycle of clearcutting, preparing the ground mechanically and replanting. Additionally we see already now many problems associated with the monocultures used in this process.
Depends on what the trees are planted for, though. If it's to burn, then all the carbon they captured is released in the burning. If it's to make paper, then the carbon is stored in the paper, until the paper is disposed of, in which case it's released again either through burning or decaying. It's only removed from the cycle if it's buried in a landfill in a way where it can't decompose. If it's used as a building material, now it's captured until the building is replaced, which is longer. Still maybe not two generations, depending on what kind of building it's a part of, though...
In reality we should be 8-10 million people instead of 8-10 billion... I think that's the main problem, we are too many. We are in a level of overpopulation and because of that we use too much of earth's resources without stop and without a more ecofriendly system.
@@korngreen The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is that we take too much and never give back. Your comment is cynical in the sense that your own selfishness is more important than other people's lives. Consume less, contribute more.
Your goal is that 3 of each 4 people is 'gone' Guess a more lenient ruler than original comment suggesting 1 in 1000 is left. Just say want us extinct and quit confusing people?@@royhuijsmans6117
I started learning permaculture and stopped mowing some parts of my lawn. What I observed so far is amazing. A few different species of trees started growing by their own. At the edges of woodland, by the house, fence lines, and even in planters wherever the seeds landed. Since we have plants ID apps now, it’s so easy and fun to find all kinds of native plants choosing their own locations to start growing. If we all stop mowing our yards today, eventually trees and plants that are suitable for the land will grow and cover the ground. Because that’s their jobs! We don’t have to do anything from beginning. Haven’t humans learned that more we try to help nature more we cause troubles? I don’t even want to know how many plastic pots they need to grow that many trees… knowing that ultimately it might just fail in ecosystem and wasted.
Fair call but if you own the place you might want to consider that most trees put down pretty extensive root systems which can crack foundation slabs, concrete curbing and driveways. Not to mention collapse waste water and supply pipes, gas lines and possibly even underground power and phone supply conduits. If you are renting your landlord might not be very appreciative either.
I stopped mowing my lawn and the City came after me and fined me. How much CO2 is emitted from all the lawnmowers in the US? The government doesn't really care.
I live in Oregon and even in the wettest Valley where it used to rain daily from Sep to July, there is drought. Many trees in the forests are dying from lack of water. I couldn't plant trees on my property because the ones that are here aren't getting enough water and my well can't support them. I don't even plant flowers because for 9 months I'd have to water them and water is precious. Climate change is terrifying. It's refreshing to hear a logical discussion.
It's not a competition. It's a cooperation. Plant trees and gardens, find cleaner energy sources, consume less while creating a better, fairer economy based upon supporting the life of the planet and not just us.
I'd say we need to set priorities. If the question us that you don't have anything to do on a Saturday and wanna go volunteer planting trees, definitely. If the question is you have some spare bucks and are deciding where to spend it, I'd say it's better to put 100% to proven effective methods.
@@anthonybrett Cuba ran out of food in the 80s and the whole dang country worked together to grow food in every available space, and then shared it among one another. some forms of duress are very effective motivators.
@@purposefully.verbose Wow. That's great. One country? That's your example of everyone working together? Tell me, do you see the Palestinian's, Israel, China, the US etc all coming together anytime soon?
Nice one mate, if everyone planted something, instead of having barbeques and showing off their new car, we might get somewhere. The drop in insects in the uk is frightening over the last five years. No bees, it isn't good, I plant varieties of flowers. Hardly any fruit , it burns or dries out, don't know where you are, they put stripes up nearly everyday, there is always a haze
@@trulymental7651 If you don't like droughts, then we've to stop burning fossil fuels. If you don't like seeing vapor trails in the air, then we have to stop buring fossil fuels. If you don't like to see our environment damaged, then we've to stop burning fossil fuels. The reduction of fossil fuels is much more significant in protecting nature than planting some trees.
@@olska9498 fossil fuel. It's here we use it. It's going to take time to transition to other energy products. Minerals will be used either way. Pick your poison.
Exactly 💯! We should not even debate on the absolute necessity of reforestation! Studies like the ones who deny the role of forests to regulate climate is like looking at the finger when someone points to you the moon. They lose the real point.
@@everev851 Problem is most in power see "reforestation" as planting a mono-culture that can be exploted not a wild forest. NY state has millions of acres of privately owned forest that get logged because people need the money to pay the taxes. If they didn't have to many wouldn't cut. Guys like gates piss me off with there carbon offset bs. Are forest a silver bullet? YES , a big part of it!
Phytoplankton is one of the largest biomass in the world. The ocean is absolutely vital and it itself is in trouble. I spent five years in Southeast Asia working both for Swiss law firms, the faculty of medicine and malaysia, and as a diving instructor and I dove the entire time I was there probably at least 2000 hours there alone. I had never seen the dead ocean until I saw it at the border of France and Spain on the Atlantic side. It was emotional for me it was absolutely shocking and I actually cried because there was plastic and microplastic in the entire water column and not a single living anything and I was completely shocked.
Climate change is a huge and tragic diversion. Who cares about the oceans and the forests of the world? Few people have any idea about their health and the true state they're in
Britain's National Forest is impressive, taking an area damaged by mining and other activities to increase coverage from 6% to 20% with an eventual 30% goal. I love trees and that is reason enough to get planting.
Have to correct you. The UK almost lost the great war of 1914-18, as it didn't have enough wood, forest coverage was 3% in 1916 with the government calculation that all of it would be gone if the war lasted a few more years. 1919 forestry act seeked to address that, with an increase enough in time for the next big war. Since that forestry act, and several others UK woodland coverage is now 13%. The problem with tree planting in that time was using fast non-native tree species in dense monocultues with tax breaks as a carrot while planting in wrong habitat zones i.e. on peat bogs - visit Delamere forest, the pennine moors, Formby point (should be a dynamic dune system not pine woods).
@@keithdf2001 it's a mixture, some is farmland where hedgerows have been planted or improved. Other places such as mines and extraction pits have been transformed.
calling it a national forest is misleading and intentionally deceptive, its not forest and has none of the characteristics of a forest. as much as i like trees i can't abide goverment distortion of truth and manipulation of the gullible
I've done some voluntary work on rewilding projects. The one thing you don't need to do, by and large is plant trees. Remove the invasive species, manage the herbivores and the trees will grow naturally - provided there's a small reserve population.
yeah, it's much more effective to eliminate forest destruction, because trees release way more seeds than we could ever plant manually, they'll grow back if the conditions are right
true, but we should focus on cultivated land, which are vast and have a way worse state (dead soil), we need live soil (which includes ruminants), permanent cover and close to no till. in Europe, semi wild areas often don't have properly managed ruminant cover, because the natural dynamic which forced ruminant to seek each ungrazed spot is lost. No predatory pressure, no natural good over population, which forced migration and more seeking (better coverage). That's why we need dynamic grazing everywhere, including in rotation on crop lands. It employs people, cost close to nothing, improve everything and feed the people. Gates wants us to eat plants, which implies keeping the dead soil dead, he's dumb. We need to put back ruminant on the ground, everywhere, they are the soil manager, the world creator. without them the nature has no balance. With this help plant growing will be way cheaper. It should only cost minimal inputs (implanting, harvesting, covering, managing cover) minimal energy and almost no chemicals. We use chems because the soil is dead, the seeds are unsuitable.
We use chemical fertilizers because the place we eat food isn't the same place we grow it. Thus we aren't able to create a closed loop nutrient systems. Farms essentially act as nutrient exporters. Introducing cows doesn't magically add more nutrients. In fact they would ultimately increase the nutrient export rate as their carcasses are exported.
As someone who lives in the tropics and has witnessed the denuding of tree cover over the past many yeas I can tell you that removing tree cover has devastating effects. Any area that has the original tree cover surviving is substantially cooler than denuded areas. Tree cover areas also draws substantially more rainfall. It may take time to replace felled trees but it would be a step in the right direction. This is probably more effective in tropical zones but I agree it would do little for CO2 sequestration
The problem with dodgy carbon credits projects (such as paying someone not to cut down trees in the Amazon that they were not going to cut down anyway) is that it makes people feel less guilty of emitting CO2. While that dodgy project did not do anything to absorb more CO2 than it would have anyway, the person who paid for the dodgy project feels free to carry on emitting extra CO2.
That describes Bates to a tee. He acknowledges that all his flights and whatnot generate tons of CO2 but says it doesn't matter because "I offset all of that with carbon credits." Guy is just a sociopath.
Large corporations create a bunch of fake companies that each get their number of carbon credits, then they buy these credits up from themselves, and pollute away!
Which is why Mauna Loa just reported another large rise in CO2 levels... We can pretend we are taking enough action even when the evidence says the opposite.
In a way I think it validates his idea? He's basically saying "I do more, so I should pay more" Gates has basically created a wealth tax without calling it a wealth tax. I think this is why a lot of other rich folk are campaigning against carbon credits.
In Uruguay, they replace entire forest by planting eucalyptus trees which are allelophatic trees which practically destroy the ecosystem of Uruguays’ forest. In the Philippines, the Department of Natural Resources reforest by planting Mahogany trees, also an allelopathic tree. In both countries, they prioritize business over saving the natural environment.✌️
in Paraguay Mr Andreas Pfeiffer from Mainz makes a useful reforestation : "The Parent tree Farm" with many edible trees and bushes and highgrade Timber and high biodiversity. There are many videos on YT , also with Michael Vogt .
I think one of the many reasons we are failing dismally at "fixing" climate change is we are looking for one big fix. It is multiple technologies that got us where we are, it is multiple initiatives that will get us out.
Nah. It is just stupid things humans assume will improve life. Plus, nature is just too perfect to accept for humans. Not needing any improvements by us really irks idiots.😅. Nature evolves smoothly. 🥴🤦🏻♀️🇨🇦
@@RS-ls7mmThinking is free. Imagination limitless. Helping others profound. Idleness is just wasted space inhabited by lazy people's. 😊💁🏻♀️🥰 free exists.
There is one big fix - reducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately human nature means that we refuse to accept this inconvenient truth however.
@@MiltonRoe never saw anyone interested in planting trees who's not also interested in stopping deforestation but okay. And yes, going vegetarian/vegan is good for the environment (along with health benefits, if done correctly).
Let me tell you the three things that are vital in the order of their importance. This list is as follows, Food, Clothing and Shelter. Only once those three basic needs are met can we begin to worry about anything else. We need the land forests are on to farm and we need the lumber to build with. It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.
@@1pcfred "It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.": There will be no longer "us" if we continue the way we do. Temperature increase will not stop at 1.5 Celsius, and it will also not stop at 5 Celsius if we continue the way we do. At first, 2..3 billion people at the coasts will have to move inland. You completely forget that we already have a huge overpopulation.
I ride my bike everywhere and I have noticed a definite difference in temperature between areas covered by buildings, asphalt, and concrete, versus areas covered by trees and plants. Areas covered by plant life are cooler because they store and use sunlight as opposed to radiating it back. It's not really noticeable during the day but at night it is really obvious.
That's called the "urban heat island effect." It is so significant that it will be a couple of degrees warmer at night in a big city than in the surrounding vegetated places. During the day urban areas can be 15-20 degrees warmer!
@@markdowning7959it's not just countryside though, as the effect is still noticeable in places that are developed and have lots of buildings and people living there, such as suburbs, but also happen to be highly vegetated in comparison to the concrete jungle of downtown cores of most cities. Sure countryside sees an even larger effect, but going from zero vegetation to regular vegetation is a larger step than going from regular vegetation to total vegetation.
You want to fix climate change? Simple, stop buying products. You don't need a new phone each year, you don't need 20 pairs of shoes, you don't need "fill in the product". Less demand = less mining, less manufacturing, less pollution. Do they want you to do this, hell no, they love money.
I don't want trees to be planted because i expect it to solve climate change. I want trees to be planted just because i like trees and nature and i want to restore what we destroyed. Not everything has to be for ourselves. I am talking about good planting not mon🤢cultures. And not just forests but other biomes deserve love too
You don‘t have to plant trees. They grow for themselves, when you let them. Rewilding is the Solution! Trees (generally vegetation) are the best air conditioners we have.
Yes. Having more spaces where trees are allowed to grow would be a good thing. In UK farmers claim they are maintaining the environment. We would have a lot more trees if marginal farmland wasn't subsidised to keep sheep.
Depends on the place really, no, trees don’t grow themselves everywhere. *Most* places don’t grow trees at all, just look at a geographic map of the planet. Between tundras, steppes, highlands, all kinds of deserts etc … you need a lot of work to get forests growing there if it’s possible at all. Frankly if you want to encourage natural greening we should keep putting out as much co2 as possible, it is quite literally the food plants crave and the rising temperatures will create more landmasses for plants than it will destroy by desertification.
@@royhuijsmans6117 I’m careful with that romanticised view of "rewilding". We have messed much with our ecosystem and apart from some areas around the equator(the rainforests) and the extreme north and south(Siberia, Patagonia) there are little wilds remaining. The problem are invasive species, we introduced a couple that are highly problematic, kudzu is a good example. Sure if you leave things alone long enough they will eventually be in balance again, but that could take decades or even centuries. For example if kudzu overtakes a lightly forested area it will eventually kill all the trees and prevent new ones from sprouting as well as killing pretty much all other macro flora in the area since it has no natural enemies. I think people underestimate the damage invasive species can do to entire ecosystems, once they are introduced the areas pretty much require constant human intervention. Rats on islands they are not native to are another great example, they can easily extinct multiple species of ground nesting birds within a very short time.
I live in a Montana 2012 burn area of native Doug Fir. The drought conditions have worsened to the point that the slow rejuvenation has not happened. Saplings have come up only to die. This year the grass never grew. The ground was too cold in June and too hot in July. The tipping point has passed. Now enjoy the results! All the king's horses and all the king's men could not put...
There was a huge tree right outside my front door of my apartment up until last week when it was felled. Those branches were always filled with chirping birds that woke me up every morning. There was a squirrel or squirrels over the years that liked to tease my dog. And an owl that I'd often hear at night. It was the only large tree nearby and right outside my door. HOA felled it and now all the nature is gone 😢
Thinking on the level of ecosystems themselves is the answer. To plant trees or not to plant trees is NOT the question. The question is what can we do in each eco region to regain some semblance of stability and regeneration? Defragmentation, restoration of prairies and old growth forests alike, holistic management of both livestock and plant crops. These things will save us.
Amen. And the restoration of soils and the microbiome so important for carbon capture and the break down of toxins in the air. Wholistic approach necessary agreed
...and swamps, which are huge carbon sinks! This and all of what was mentioned by thread starter needs to be done now,... alas this will not save us. Climate is going down the drain and the only question is, how badly. There are too many 'elephants' in the room for the crockery not to get damaged, like thawing Siberia, rogue China, deforresting madness in Brasil etc. etc.
@@kostuek You're late to the party. The voluntary human extinction movement (VHEMT) has been a thing for years. Ppl thought of your idea ages ago. Pfft!
No no no, the interviewer stated it stupidly "take care of the climate issue altogether". Of course that is wrong. But to say you DO NOT plant trees? He is talking from how he invests in CO2 removal. Too often, and in this video as well, we discuss something that helps with an overall solution but we criticize it for not being a complete solution. Why focus on extremes?
Yeah, people are taking what Bill said in the wrong context. He's not saying that planting trees won't help, he's saying it's not one of the things he personally does to offset his own carbon footprint, as instead he chooses to focus on things that are easier to directly measure and have a more noticeable benefit for people in America, such as funding more efficient heating and cooling systems for people who couldn't otherwise afford them. Even if there wasn't a risk of scams or questions on measuring the effectiveness of tree planting, people in America simply wouldn't see the immediate and direct benefit from trees being planted in Brazil, in the same way they would from receiving more efficient heating and cooling systems for their homes. The real question for me though, is how much of that carbon offset is squandered away by people spending the money saved from lower energy bills on even more carbon generating consumption?
Gates has invested in artificial carbon capture schemes. He's not paying for the machinery to be built and run. He is expecting others (governments mostly) to do that. Every dollar spent planting trees takes a dollar out of his profit margin. So no. Gates means exactly that.
Not that long ago there was a carbon offset scheme that claimed it would plant trees in PNG to offset carbon for companies willing to buy into the scheme. It turned out that the trees were being logged.
We have a small forest in our neighborhood and it has been a delight during the last extremely heated summers. A forest is like an air conditioner but without a salesman who lures people into buying his aweful stuff. Always remember what we have to deal with if we are forced to use MS Windows.
@@DonReba some might feel that way, very likely because they have never tried an alternative. Most - especially in the office realm - are forced to use it. In the realm of IT-security most people use Fedora, Ubuntu or Arch as their host system. Those are not inherently more secure by default, however, their notebook/desktop/workstation version have a much smaller attack surface than Windows. There is already a term for what big US companies do to products they acquire from smaller and much more innovative companies and it is called „ensh..ification“. That’s what Microsoft does best.
@@presence5426 I agree to what you wrote about retaining water, beautifying and preserving ecosystems. However, we won’t cool the planet with forests. We can‘t undo that we dug and burned vast amounts of coal and oil by planting trees. Nature took it millions of years to dispose these excessive amounts of carbon permanently under the earth and under the oceans. If we want to do this in a timespan of let’s say one hundred years, trees are growing much too slow. Ferns and algae grow fast, but who is going to pay for (very, very) large farming or aquaculture of these?
With the internet promoting people acting like 10-year-olds there's no hope because the whole idea is to get these people buying toys from China which is causing massive climate change
As always, thanks Sabine for bringing up these topics... it seems like we have been talking about this for ages, but we still need to reinforce the message once more... And you have a knack for doing it with a clarity that I lack. Hi, MSc. in Sustainable Development and Environmental Science Engineer here, just sharing my 2 cents: Planting trees is a valuable method for mitigating SOME of the challenges associated with climate change. Trees can also contribute to soil recovery, biodiversity, and urban temperature reduction. However, they are not a panacea for all environmental problems, nor should they be seen as a license do whatever we please with the environment without consequences. Unfortunately, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and the misconception that plants can indefinitely and immediately absorb carbon from the atmosphere has led to confusion (mainly driven by the carbon credits fiasco from a few years back, that we are still paying for). While trees do absorb carbon, and change environments for good (assuming it is done right, and not just planting random trees in random places) this process takes years to develop,like Sabine clearly mentions in her video. We must also remember that they eventually release the absorbed carbon when they reach the end of their lifespan, if this is gradual (natural) then it is somewhat balanced out, but if it burnt or chopped down, then the situation changes. Moreover, in an ever-changing and unpredictable environment, the increasing frequency of devastating wildfires creates a threat to the longevity of trees and their ability to even reach the point when they can provide benefits. To effectively address human-induced climate change, a comprehensive, multidimensional approach is needed. Trees can and do play a role in this solution, but they are just one part of it. The main focus should be on reducing the emissions we generate, transitioning away from fossil fuels, and adopting sustainable consumption practices to reduce resource usage and waste. It is soul crushing for me every time I hear or read analysts lamenting single-digit economic growth as if it were a negative outcome for companies or countries. The emphasis should be on slowing down indefinite growth, distributing it more equitably, and pursuing sustainable development. There is no magical solution to our problems, we created a very complex one, and it is only through vision, sustain effort and commitments that we can achieve our goals. There are good carbon offsetting programs, take a look at the UN Carbon Offset Platform for instance: unfccc.int/climate-action/united-nations-carbon-offset-platform They provide a comprehensive list of available projects, all with sound science backing their claims and fostering sustainable development and inclusion from marginalized societies in the process. Those are the type of projects we should be looking into when looking for good offsetting strategies, but not without working on mitigation and emissions reduction FIRST.
We are quite infantile in our understanding of ecological systems and, in this case, trees and soils. There’s so much work left to do on our part regarding how we understand Earths systems and making sound decisions with our evolving understanding. No doubt, rehabilitating degraded land is a good thing, trees, native grasslands, etc. sequesters more carbon, as well as the litany of other ecosystem services. Does it make corporations richer? Probably not.
@@Mikedeela You already listed one way planting trees can be harmful when done poorly, which is planting invasives. Another way is planting trees in environments which were originally meant to be other biomes. And monocultures aren't good for either making a healthy ecosystem nor storing carbon long term. They make it more easy for any pests or diseases to infect them.
@@Mikedeela Minute Earth has a really good video on this topic. And Planet Wild and Mossy Earth has some videos of this too. All of which can be found if you search "tree monoculture" on youtube.
One main human activity that has helped us to survive throughout humankind’s journey on this planet is planting trees and seeds, not for our immediate use, but for the future.
I mean, Trees have knock on effects though. They stabilise soil, protect against wind erosion, retain water etc. etc. All that indirectly "fights" climate change as well.
But isn’t the problem that because of all those benefits, trees would naturally repopulate into any viable soil that humans aren’t continuously clearing? Like if you stopped cutting a golf course, for example, wouldn’t trees slowly develop there in stages over the next 50-70 years or so with zero human intervention? So it’s a zero-sum game…there’s only so much arable land. And like she says in this video, humans want to cut it down and build nail salons and shit. Not grow a bunch of trees that don’t benefit humans at all.
Old forests, which are what are useful to help with climate change, are not at all similar to young human planted (mostly) monocultures. The moment the old forests begin to struggle even the slightest because of Climate change? Those young plantations are going to die faster than ice-cream melts in the Texan sun.
@@kated3165 old forests are mostly carbon neutral, only new forests (if properly managed) help offset climate change because they store carbon as they grow. that is why, as counterintuitive as it sounds, things like forest fires help offset climate change. because the carbonized biomass will sink into the soil, and new plant will grow on top of them and capture more carbon.
@@danilooliveira6580 It's the "if properly managed" part that's problematic, because a lot of times the forests we cut down aren't great for growing back. Heavy machinery will have compacted the soil and they'll have cleared much of the biomass that would have served to form new (better soil). It's very common for replanted trees to either die in mass or really struggle to grow. Sometimes they will replant over several years because the previous trees keep dying... and even then it will take many more years before they reach decent sizes. According to NASA we would need to reforest an area the size of Canada and the US (completely) to have significant effect. Then you need to take into account that forest fires are increasing... so keeping those plantations would be very challenging. While it's true that the carbon of forest fires in wild areas can (eventually) be negated by naturally growing forests, the same isn't necessarily going to be true for forests that were clear cut or used for agriculture. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it at all, but we do tend to be champions at half-assing stuff... and there's a big worry that tree planting could easily become the main (very convenient for politicians and industries) focus. The main focus needs to be on drastically reducing fossil fuels consumption/production first and foremost.
Man darf nicht vergessen, dass Bäume Pflanzen relativ billig ist. In der Dritten Welt kostet es nur ca 10 Cent bis 1 € pro Baum, das heißt man könnte für eine Milliarde bis zu 10 Milliarden Bäume pflanzen. Die Bundesregierung hat seit 2016 10 Milliarden für die e-auto-Förderung ausgegeben, zum Vergleich. Bäume pflanzen hat außerdem verschiedene positive Nebeneffekte, es schafft Arbeitsplätze , es verbessert die Bodenstruktur, es verbessert das Mikroklima, den Grundwasserspiegel, die Arten vielfalt und so weiter. und vor allen Dingen wenn ein Baum erst ausreichend groß ist muss man ihn nicht mehr pflegen. Das System läuft dann kostenlos von alleine. Und wenn ich höre, dass Solarpanel besser sein sollen, bin ich fast sicher, dass hier Lobbyisten am Werk waren.
Völlig richtig, nur zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels leider völlig unzureichend. Ich hab auch eine kleine PV auf dem Dach, bei mir, kann ich versichern, waren keine Loobyisten.😊
Wir könnten beispielsweise in Deutschland auf Biodiesel verzichten und auf den riesigen freiwerdenden Flächen Wälder anlegen und die unter Naturschutz stellen. Es wird ja auch häufig vergessen, dass wir nicht nur CO2 mindern müssen, sondern das Land auch fit für die wärmere Zeit machen, das heißt Verdunstung minimieren müssen. Lieber ein Windrad mehr als Quadratkilometer an Monokulturen, die für Bodenerosion sorgen.
@@tiefensucht in Deutschland ist das Bäume pflanzen zu teuer. Wälder unter Naturschutz stellen hört sich einfach an funktioniert aber nicht. Zuerst muss das Recht beseitigt werden, dass jeder jeden Wald betreten darf. Ich bin dadurch als Waldbesitzer aufgrund der Verkehrssicherungspflicht angehalten alles was runterfallen könnte zu beseitigen. Das und andere Dinge widersprechen aber dem Gedanken den Wald ursprünglich wachsen zu lassen. Grds bevürworte ich es sehr den Wald in seiner ursprünglichen Form wieder herzustellen
I’m growing trees on five acres in Washington state. We have Atlantic cedar (atlas cedar). The true cedar tree’s here have prolific success here. Many endangered trees were brought here and thrived.
zero, we really need emission less transportation. the idea that we can plant a few trees and fix all our pollution from travel is just really silly. we really just need to change how we travel.
planting trees isn't gonna solve a problem that doesn't exist. besides the earth is already way greener than it was 100 years ago. even the last 20 years has seen a 15 percent increase
The world was coping fine before the internet decided to brainwash adults into acting like 10-year-olds so they'll buy toys from China that is the big problem. But no one wants to admit that they want to act like 10-year-olds so we can't solve this issue
I'm brilliant, which is why I understand that planting trees is like shooting bullets, and making wetlands is like dropping nukes. We need wetlands,, which will grow all full of trees all on their own.
@@Indyfficient Most of these cute cliche's are degenerative to people's thinking and speaking. A double-negative sentence is more honest. You know so much it is beyond ever mapping. If you know "who" is on first, maybe you know "nothing" and you need to ALWAYS give yourself proper status without requiring people to speak a paradox as if it has merit. We need to speak with power of genius to get our language FIXED and our patterns of thinking FIXED. Every cliche has beguiled and lowered the general IQ. "Because in comparison to ________, I know nothing." There, that takes us where it should.
This reminds me of David Brin's book Earth, where they had a Trillion Trees program. As for planting trees, it depends greatly on where you plant them. Planting redwoods where redwoods had previously been cut down will probably work well. Planting shade trees in the city will cool the city in summer, but that directly relates to cooling costs and therefor carbon use prevented.
It is interesting that trees are discounted as a useful contributor to our CO2 issues because they might only resolve say 10% of the problem while we have everyone and their dog banging on endlessly about EVs when, even if we all had one and charged them from renewable sources they would resolve only around 8.5% of our CO2 emissions. Of course it's hard to corner the market in trees and make billions from them but EVs on the other hand...
Indeed. I work in business consultancy. When we approach some company's operations the people may have this idea that there is one simple solution that changes everything. Instead our approach often is to do the 100+ most impactful solutions, each affecting the operations from 0,05% to 5% (just an example). The cumulative impact of all those small improvements can be huge. One just needs to decide what needs to be done and then be very decisive in implementing solution after solution (or rather multiple solutions in parallel). Everything needs to be done with a sense of purpose: analyze, decide, DO, follow-up, continue.
There should be a Tree department in Ministries of Ecology. Special tree tax, the govt takes care of it and does it properly. Same for the rest. It's all possible, the money is there, but private interests don't want to do anything until they get their money from it.
I grew up in Indiana, U.S.A., and it is said that when Columbus landed in the West Indies a squirrel could go from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi river without touching the ground. That would be a considerable elevation change across the mountains in addition to some 700km. That cannot happen any more due to the forest being plowed under and paved over.
I agree that trees can combat greenhouse gases, my only concern is the amount of water required and the coming water shortages, I still don’t understand why we don’t bite the bullet and work more on desalinization of sea water to support large tree growth and address the water shortages where they arise.
The best solution I can think of is actually one solution; although it evades our grasp for now: near free and unlimited energy. I am convinced there is a way to harness the power of the universe and produce all the energy we need with no negative consequences, or at least if there are then those negative consequences can be solved by simply using some of that unlimited energy.
@@CrazyGaming-ig6qq -- thorium reactors or molten salt reactors - are they way. Maybe not what you were going for, though they have lots of upside - being reliable, sustainable, low carbon and way safer than older reactor design.
And again, no mention by anyone of getting out of productivism and trying to keep use as much energy as we are. Breaking private interests' power would be a good start.
It is to prevent soil erosion which leads to flooding during heavy rains and to make the sorrounding air cooler. If you compare the ambient temperature of a concreted / asphalted city compared with a tree laden one, those with much trees and plantd have cooler air.
I guess not cutting vast areas of woodland down would help. We are far too much advanced in our problems to think that one single measure can help us. We need EVERYTHING that helps
No, not true. If we were to massively plant hemp, that alone would be enough to stop climate change and decarbonize our industry. Sadly, hemp was only legalized by President Donald Trump in 2018, and most other countries are subsidizing other crops instead. I calculated that if all German farmers added just one season of hemp to their crop rotation, it would increase the total output of food, biofuel, and animal feed, and sequester more than double the current CO2 production of Germany. This means to become completely CO2 neutral, it would be enough to plant hemp every two years.
Actually, if you cut down the trees to build buildings and replant, it's even better. The cut down trees are carbon sinks and young trees absorb much more CO2 while growing.
But the main issue is that trees aren't removing CO2 for good. It's just the cicle, all CO2 eventualy returns to atmosphere when tree rots or burn. To remove CO2 you have to conservate it in form of coal or some other way.
@@katgod No. Coal won't ever be produced from trees again. Coal happened because there were no microbes that could digest the wood in the vegetation at that time. Now there is, and so when a tree dies now, it gets consumed and all its carbon gets released in one form or another.
A few years ago I watched a video about a woman who did a study about trees and carbon. She picked one species of tree. She found that that species didn’t start storing more carbon than it made until it was about 25 years old. Recently I heard that most of the trees planted in an area are monoculture. Only one species. And they are usually good for lumber. When vast areas are planted that way they often become living deserts. They do not support the growth of native fauna and therefore native critters. I gather the main reason Canada had such huge fires recently is because of the one species of tree it chose to plant everywhere. It burns hot. I volunteered at a botanical garden that specialized in drought tolerant trees and plants. Among the things I learned is that many trees that grow where the ground freezes are drought tolerant. And they are often loaded with natural oils to keep from freezing. 🔥🔥🔥 Tall match sticks. Planting trees is a good idea. It should include a variety and not be in neat rows. A lot of backyard food growers have found that planting different plants that benefit each other works better. I figure trees can benefit doing the same thing. People in very arid countries have found ways to bring back some green. They graze their animals differently and they try to capture any rain that falls in small basins they dig. Bill Gates isn’t wrong and he isn’t right.
Planting trees is great, but they can usually spread just fine on their own. If there aren't already trees in an area, there are two possibilities. The first is that the habitat is fundamentally unsuitable for trees and any trees planted there will die before accomplishing much. The second is that people have cut down the trees and are actively preventing them from returning as that land is used for something else.
Trees make shade. Shade means I don't need A/C. Not using A/C means I use less electricity. Using less electricity reduces carbon emissions. (Bonus because the trees I have planted are deciduous, they drop their leaves in winter and don't impact solar heating of my house in winter.)
You don't need AC in shade? Do you live in the North Pole or what? My last apartment in Eastern Finland was 30C at times and the city is covered in trees. Anything over 22C is sweating time.
Wait what? If your trees drop their leaves in winter, you're definitely not in a very cool climate... Especially if solar heating is an option in winter!
@@brianvernaglia9449 Trees are definitely cool and important. Forests are a big part of our culture too and our cities are very green, but AC is a beautiful thing here in the summer.
I asked a statistically representative selection of trees if their leadership thought that there should be more trees in the world. They did not disagree. The scientific study results were conclusive, within six sigma of certainty. The answer was very nearly unanimous.
Of course trees won't solve climate change, but there are a lot of other environmental benefits to reforestation. We can't just outright discount trees.
2 billion trees are planted each year, but they take time to grow, and we are cutting down 15 billion in that same time. So, the problem is not planting trees, but cutting them down.
My backyard is so full of life since I began planting trees, bushes, herbs and various plants. The soil quality has also improved greatly. Smells wonderful and looks beeeeuuuutiful. My neighbors pay people to put chemicals on their grass. Keep your grass, gimme my Huuuge black beauty elderberry bush about 12 feet high and wide with lovely big blooms, my mockorange that is sooo deliciously fragrant, my showy Tiger Eye Sumac, my big 'all the rage' Rose bush with color that's indescribably gorgeous and all my littler edible plants and flowers, mint, borage, lemon balm. And all of it grows so easily. Then I compost in the fall and put it all right back. Did I mention, butterflies galore? Makes my heart sing.
No it's about wealth distribution . It's about making you so poor you need the govt hand out. It means social credit scores,bio metric tatoos,please catch up.
I don’t know about climate change, but I love trees and I wish people would appreciate them more and stop cutting them down because they don’t feel like raking leaves ,I haven’t raked leaves in 25 years. I just mulch them. I guess they haven’t figured that out yet.
4:20 'planting trees on barren ground changes the albido and more heat results' ... except for it's always cooler in a forest than on a barren spot of land. I will argue that forests reduce temperature, not raise it.
The available evidence looks at the whole picture. Including satellite data etc. Temperature changes a great deal with height in forests. Your experience with the ground level doesn't contradict anything.
The key word you are missing here is "global". Global temperatures is what we care about here. Nobody cares how cool the patch of woodland you came from is.
The pioneers on the US prairies and plains planted “tree-claims” at the government’s suggestion, it was thought that they would “improve the climate”. Most died, of course. If a location’s climate, elevation, latitude and soil will support trees, they will already be growing there naturally. It takes about 35 inches of annual rain to grow trees, if that’s not there, they will need to be irrigated. The dry prairie and plains were grasslands, not forest, exactly because the climate doesn’t get enough rain for trees. The only natural trees there grew along waterways. Of course, the pioneers in this area soon discovered that there isn’t enough rain to successfully grow food crops, either, so wells and irrigation systems were installed everywhere. This has nearly dewatered the world’s largest aquifer system, the Ogallala. This fossil water accumulated from the snow/ice melt at the end of the Ice Age and is simply not replenished at the rate at which we humans want to withdraw it. This is called ground-water mining.
Interesting stuff. I did not know this and appreciate the info. On a smaller scale, the Bahamas HAD a water problem that resulted in actual changes of ruling parties in parliament. The introduction of Reverse Osmosis changed that - and although it is not without issues, has uplifted some of the home islands from a steady decline. Sadly RO is not a viable option in the American mid-west or any other place not near the sea..
James Lovelock and other earth scientists have emphasized the need for replacing the canopy and promoting the regrowth of forests. They are scientists, not spokesmen for corporate interests and profits.
@@mikemondano3624Trees absorb the broad spectered energy of the sun, and stores it as carbohydrates. Eventually, the energy stored in the carbohydrate is released, resulting in heat, energy in the infrared spectrum. That happens, regardless of the tree burning or the tree being digested by fungi, bacteria or animals. If you have seen Sabine before, you probably know, that greenhouse gasses are agitated by infrared radiation, which heats the atmosphere. IOW, converting the broad spectered energy input from the sun, to be primarily an infrared output, is probably a bad thing. The same can be said for solar panels. Perhaps we would be better off, focusing on returning the energy back into space, by increasing reflectivity, and stop harvesting solar energy, that is eventually released as heat? Sabine was right to mention albedo, but fails to connect the dots in regards to harvesting solar energy, regardless of it being trees or solar panels.
I recently made an estimation on how much trees I would need to compensate for the carbon footprint of my household. Turns out I need to plant and maintain over 10.000 trees. I don't have that much land to start with. So I gather is more feasible to reduce my footprint.
Trees are also a very important part of the water cycle helping continue rainfall and make clouds that deflect light from reaching earth. Effectively the natural way of "geoengineering reflective clouds" to reflect light and get less energy to heat earth
On the N American Great Plains, prairie dogs filled the niche of rain creators. Along with beavers in the riparian corridors, they also recharged these aquifers. Their deep burrowing acted as a wick to bring moisture up from the underground aquifers with the tidal system thus increasing the transpiration cycle. There is a Diné/Navajo saying that if you kill the prairie dogs there will be no one left to cry for the rain. Prairie dogs are down to 1 or 2% of their historic populations. I have heard developers & non-restorative ranchers say 5%, but I suspect they have vested interests.🤔
@asktheanimals Yeah the United States has suffered a lot from farms and reducing plant and animal wildlife. The way to fix climate change is by fixing the ecosystem and changing what we use as a society not just individuals
@@cencent2189 the only thing is that we don't need oligarchs telling us how we must live and help nature instead of trying to trying to control it. we are currently trying to control nature, it's not even us, its the oligarchs telling us how to live that are trying to control nature. Earth has a equilibrium that we have to respect and understand that we all live thanks to that, disrupting it in attempts to make it rain whenever we want is breaking it. Co2 is our core problem, our core problem is maniacs that decided it is our main problem. and to "solve" the problem we are causing even more damage to the ecosystem of the entire earth... The solution won't be a fancy machine that costs 500bilion that is patented by billy, the solution will be to put billy back into his place in the world and helping nature fix itself, using it's own natural responses. We had cases in history where there was tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet somehow we are still here. Earth has ways to deal with this issue, we just have to let it fix it.
In Australia we know that one mature needs a replacement of 15,000 seedlings. One part of the Answer is to stop chopping down old growth forests. This is a huge issue in australia which is 80% desert. Yet logging of old growth forests is still allowed despite the full knowledge of the ongoing consequences.
True, but a much better way to make progress towards this is to stop cutting down trees, not to plant new ones. Given unlimited resources we should do both, but we DON'T have unlimited resources and it's very important to do the most effective and efficient things ASAP.
Trees are awesome 🌳🌲 🌴and we need more of them 💖. I love donating to an organization called Seedballs Kenya. They work with local communities to get trees planted in different sectors that are struggling with erosion. 💖🙏🏼
I own about 10-15 acres of mature hardwoods. When I go there on a very hot and humid summer afternoon I instantly notice when I go in there how cool and pleasant it is. The cooling effect of reforestation would have to make a profound difference worldwide. Before even removing any carbon.
I have several acres of mature maples. The problem is that they are all hollow from rotting out. You know what happens when a tree rots? It converts the tree into CO2. I wouldn't be surprised if my trees produce more CO2 than they absorb.
that is not how it works. it's just an island effect because of the shade and evaporation. trees actually tend to increase the temperature of the air above because they have lower albedo.
Fully grown trees do not net remove CO2 anymore. Hence they could be removed - the wood stored and prevented from degrading - and new trees be planted.
Pretty much none after 2030. They'll go almost completely renewable by then If they were fully coal-fire based? 3.61 million metric tons of CO2. Apparently they're about 30% of the way to that goal as of May 2, 2024. Alternatively, they could plant a new, well-managed forest the size of the Netherlands, every year.
@@ironcutter2491 Eat CANDIES. Before climate gets any stranger: Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month down to zero by 2030 by regulated limits on fossil finance and licensing -- "Jevons' Paradox and the clean energy transition", Giri Venkataramanan, Wisconsin Energy Institute; Abate methane emissions as much as possible as soon as possible, especially litho-methane -- "Unsung (climate) hero: The business case for curbing methane | Presented by Stephan Nicoleau", Project Drawdown; National programs to increase energy efficiency 8% per year while cutting licenses for fossil energy saved, and transition new cement pours to carbon-negative 15% per year - Citizens Climate Lobby; Diversify wildlife by conservation efforts equivalent to 40% immediate drop in shipping traffic at sea, and like measures on land, such as Miyawaki Forests; Increase biomass equivalent to a trillion new trees afforested -- and harvested to avoid new methane from their decay -- worldwide by 2060 (The Trillion Tree Project); Educate key policymakers on the economic benefits of climate action (Dr. Katharine Hayhoe); Stop leakage offshore by border measures to keep fossil equipment and materials from moving internationally (The World Bank). The economy will do better without fossil trade.
My small brain clearly heard Gates say "I take the carbon credits" that is enviro-speak for telling people I can exchange my bad things I do for credit of good things I don't do and never change my lifestyle. What BS. Unocal in the 90's was offered "carbon credits" for massive environmental disasters they caused by poorly managing their business. In a nut shell they polluted the ground water and air in California for decades and the state and I am sure the Feds allowed them to buy up old "gross polluters vehicles-cash for clunkers they called it" in exchange for carbon credits. What a load of horsesh*t. That being said Bill who is fairly smart continues to dish out BS to people that take him as a real proponent of climate issues. He says well I can exchange this for that and take my carbon credits. WTF does that actually mean. Clearly he knows that there is no 1 for 1 exchange. You can't do a burnout in your hotrod and plant a tree the next day to offset the pollution caused. Can you? Ugh, I am going down a wormhole here but to credit Ms. Hosenfelder she is making sense but Gates is clearly a shill in the game of climate change which ultimately does not need his money or help. Time to retire Mr. Gates.
Absolutely! 100%. If the carbon credits scam was banned, the globalist billionaires supporting this climate change cult fear porn would soon be changing their tune.
Really? I've never been in a city that had no trees. Most cities have quite a few. They tend to grow along streets, in yards and in parks. And cities also have a lot of concrete, although cement is an ingredient in concrete.
@@mattbosley3531really? A tiny tree in amoung millions of blocks cement is countable as trees. percentage wise amount of trees in a city is negligible.
Planting trees is the tip of the iceberg. We need to develop and reinvigorate a culture focused on regenerative agriculture and the natural world as a whole
Take a lesson from Japan for instance, they use a cool method called Daisugi, essentially just trimming the top of the trees branches and allowing it to re grow rather than fully cutting them down
@@MelodicTurtleMetal because they don’t need to completely deforest… what’s not to understand, it takes years for saplings to mature. This method bypasses that massive wait time for regrowth
Yeah unfortunately anything related to man, whether made or cultivated, will have a carbon debt. We can make passive carbon absorbers, but making it made pollution, we can make carbon pumps, but making and running make pollution, we can plant trees, but we may destroy existing ecosystems are shift their balance, etc. The main thing is that people are too greedy to cut back on things. Technology is the reason we're in the spot we are and you can't just fix it with more technology. Just look how today homes have 2-4 cars where in the 60s it was rare to see a home with more than one. And yes we made more efficient light bulbs but now people just use way more of them. Just think that there are TVs advertising they used over 5000 LEDs.
The other thing people don't consider, especially if they aren't living in a heavily forested country; trees don't hold onto that carbon forever. They go through a natural death and rebirth cycle through forest fires which releases a (literal) tons of CO2. It gets captured again when the seeds left over after the fire grow into new trees but that takes several more decades before the cycle begins again. We often see up here in Canada how aggressive tree and park protection can result in absolutely massive forest fires. It's not politically appetizing to do control burns or to create fire corridors when it's protected land. Planting trees is by no means a solution, let alone a perfect one.
(This is a general statement, forest management is complex and differs greatly depending on your location). As a Forestry professional, many tree planting campaigns seem to be done without any consultation with a forestry professional. Only planting a few species in a naturally mixed forest, planting the wrong native species in the wrong places, lack of care after planting such as invasive species control,and conversion of non forest lands to forest. We also seem to think we have to replant trees when many areas are better left to let trees naturally grow from whatever seed sources are present. The world only seems to care about forests while ignoring almost every other biome. Grasslands and wetlands actually store more carbon than trees and are much more endangered in North America than forests.
Well, once the Permafrost in Siberia has molten, there will be a HUUUGE mass of wetlands. With everything that comes with it. (Methane production which runs separate from pure CO2-calculations). Good luck.
not all woodlands are mixed at any given time. the age of the forest and the dominant species of tree has much to do with how varied your forest will be. as an example, in the western portion of the pnw, the dominant tree is doug fir, which grows in stands that shades out competitors. its not until year 80 or so when the stand starts seeing other species like hemlock come through the canopy in places where the fir is thinner. the idiocy here are generic statements designed to encompass all of nature; easily digestible by bureaucrats and simpletons.
This comment should be pinned at the top. You can't just plug a bunch of saplings into the ground.
How do grasslands store more carbon than woods?
The other issue is people planting trees far, far too close together and/or allowing them to sprout too close themselves. Ireland is 1/5th covered in forest, mostly managed evergreen forrests, down from 4/5ths natural woodland pre-industrial times.
The trouble is. All but the largest ones seem to have simply stopped spending any money on managing them. They have left them at 100% density and they are sick. Full of weak rotted out trees and widowers lying dead against the upper limbs.
Trees would be a great carbon store except for the fact that decomposers figured out how to turn them in to CO2 long ago. So, a tree with a 150 year life, is going to end up dying, rotting and releasing all that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Also. There are approximately 30 trillion trees on the planet. What kind of impact do you think the "Plant a million tree" campaign would have? Even if you had plant 100 million trees it's still a drop in the bucket.
If we talk about trees as a part of the solution, it's a good thing. If we talk about trees as the silver bullet answer, it's not a good thing.
Everybody wants a quick fix.
@@daveh7720 Even the junkies.
Best comment of the video
Part of what solution? There is no solution proposed. Electric vehicles are decades away from replacing ICE engines at best, and it is far from certain that this can ever happen. Not that CO2 emissions are our only environmental catastrophe at hand. Unless the human population is dramatically reduced, the only "solution" would be scalable free energy and star trek style replicators.
That is true of all the solutions. Though people have a hard time looking a things that are part of a system. We like simple solutions.
Trees may not be a complete answer, but they do have a lot of advantages.
For instance, a well designed mixed woodland counteracts soil erosion, nutrient leaching and flooding, and is self-renewing - unlike even the most diligently dusted solar panels!
Woodland also has a very positive impact on human wellbeing and mental health.
Humans interact with a tiny fraction of woodland, and if the amount of woodlands grew, the fraction we'd interact with would likely go down (because there wouldn't be a proportional increase in interaction). So I am not sure it's a good argument for a massive scale-up of tree planting. Your other reasons have more merit, I feel.
@@yeroca
Makes sense but - would you rather walk around a solar panel array or an established woodland?
@@yerocaI'm not sure "fraction of the woodland interacted" is a useful metric - availability is. If there are more trees, more people are able to access them by foot or within reasonable commute range. Trees also improve air quality and sequester heavy metals from all our smoke into soil, so that's a nice direct human benefits.
Also, they're good habitat for a large range of animals - especially the rainforests - and it's cool if those existed. Not directly related to climate change, but since we as a species reduce others' habitats by climate change and other means, would be a nice change of pace.
What about we begin by stopping cutting trees that are more than a thousand years old to make insanely large tables for rich people?
@@yeroca This is a post-lockdown, mental health related response, we see it being used to justify rewilding of farmland and allowing the right to roam in England (where 70% is privately owned farmland). Misunderstanding the massive increase in tourism also plays a part, just look at what's happening in the US with overcrowding in parks, as most people go where they see other people going, not where there's 'nature' just because it's there. Well-designed woodland would be an investment for future generations at least, but I'd just say it would be more worthwhile greening the cities than asking captive-bred city folk to go into the woods...
Our first house had a yard with no trees. Our first summer there was miserably hot and we had no air conditioning so we slept outside on the deck. We then planted about 30 shade and flowering trees, since we both worked at a wholesale nursery and could rescue them from the burn pile. Five years later our yard was at least 10 degrees cooler than outside the yard. The trees on the south side near the house shaded the roof, providing natural “air conditioning”, so no need for a mechanical one. The flowering trees (crabapples, etc.) provided food for birds so we attracted cedar waxwings, finches, tanagers. The lawn under the trees was fertile, with plenty of earthworms and grubs for the robins and towhees. Our desert turned into a paradise. PLANT TREES!
💯 exactly. We forgot the basics. A good microclimate if we preserve locally forests and plant trees around cities is a huge benefit and will regulate climate . On top of it, they are a huge filter for all pollutants. On the contrary windmills with tons of steel that need substitution when they fail verynoften, will destroy more than helping
More trees, please!
To “solve” climate change, I’ve gotten rid of my private jet(s), yacht(s), vacation home(s), etc. and now just have a single car and a place to live. I hope Gates will match my devotion to reducing my “carbon footprint.”
I don‘t even have a car, I hope you will match my devotion.
how do you get rid of a vacation home ? by transferring ownership to a different person ? how does that affect the climate ?
@@TheLastBen. maybe by reducing the propability that a new home is build for the persons living in the vacation home permanantly now?
Well he met you half way and got rid of his wife and family
@@PhilfreezeCH
I don't even breathe.
Trees alone won't save us from climate change. But trees help over time. And it is certainly a dumb idea to cut down trees without replacing them. And it is certainly the dumbest idea to cut down rainforests, especially the Amazon rainforest.
Not just the Amazon but all through the tropics.
@JohnSmithGlobeLie You are an expert on dumb things for sure.
No matter what we do the climate will continue to change like it has done since the beginning of the planet. Too much climate alarmist posts instead of balanced scientific debate.
What climate change?
Here's the thing, you don't need saving from climate change.
Another study found that money can produce any study you want and any outcome you want.
Well said!
pretty sure if billy wanted a study to say that it's healthy to eat human feces he'd get it.
I'm not joking.
You pay people to "Find" the Answer you want.
Their livelihood depends on satisfying you so that you'll spend money on them once again.
Not to mention the entire "Study" thing is rather broken these days, we invest into profitable research and abandon anything that isn't profitable...
If there was a cheap solution for most our problems, we'd never find it since we keep finding the most patentable solutions..
sadly, it didn't pass peer review, was never published, and the funding got cut for further research.
Oh and I heard the author fell off a cliff while hiking just a couple of weeks ago.
@@axeman2638 axed
@Perry - who did buy that study?
I live close to the equator and it can get extremely hot and humid, I find that if you have a small group of trees it is so much cooler to stand under them than if you were to stand in the shade of a building.
That makes sense, trees have a lot of water in them which have a high heat capacity for storing heat. That makes temperature changes more mild near them compared to buildings.
How about we stop cutting the rain forests down first !
SHE AND GATES ARE A PROBLEM NASA **** STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES VERY QUICKLY DOES IT POISON US NO AND IT IS MOSTLY CARBON
NASA STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR? PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES QUICKLY IT'S MOSTLY CARBON AGAIN NASA STATES THIS IS TOTALLY POLITICS AND WRONG
Then get paid in carbon credits for not doing something 😂
@@2bfrank657
Much better than the alternatives.
When you say we I assume you mean they. Funny thing, it's so much easier to tell others what to do.
But maybe you actually live in a country with rain forests, then shame on me.
Trees stabilize the weather, make rain patterns more consistent especially further away from large bodies of water. One of the effects of climate change is extreme weather patterns being more common, which forests help mitigate, along with other benefits.
The ground Traps more heat then carbon dioxide
Don't forget roots prevent erosion.
Sure, but forests don't need to be planted, they just need to be left to themselves. Are we willing to sacrifice fertile farmland and attractive housing areas for forests?
No one's saying trees are bad, even Gates never said that. They're just not the amazing climate solution that some try to sell them as. And in particular the people's love for the idea of tree planting is actually used by a whole bunch of dodgy carbon offset scams to make money while not providing any of these benefits (simply cos they don't plant as many trees, or claim tree cover that was going to be there anyway). It's actually a credit to him that he didn't claim those, as most others who boast about their offsets do. The industry just isn't trustworthy right now, so it's best to look at other methods that aren't as gamed.
@@TheLivirusHow about we stop converting forest to marginal crop land?
I've noticed the climate in a forest is much nicer than a parking lot .
It's also a lot nicer than solar and wind farms which are causing forests to be cut down and prime agricultural land to be wasted which is ongoing right now in Queensland Australia.
Yes, absolutely. However, it won't solve the problem by itself. We need a better solution and a combination of things.
You see not putting sugar in your tea won't help you if you are still drinking sugary drinks and eating sweets all the time. Same idea.
Especially after it rains.
Which is why the metservice places weather stations in urban city heat islands , especially by asphalt Airport runways
Important point: save the #microclimate
As a Boy Scout about a million years ago, I planted well over a thousand trees over several springs. They're still there.
Bill Gates is a Sociopath that wants to depopulate the world, aka, genocide humans. He cannot be trusted for anything.
The main reasons I want more trees in cities is for the shade they offer if placed in streets. And they look pretty ^^
And bird life
I live in a city with several trees on the border of streets...shade is nice yes, but tree roots wreck streets and birds are essentially pests and shit everywhere en masse near trees making the city a whole lot dirtier. It would be better to have many little/big parks in cities with trees, much less maintenance I think.
@Pwnzarelli you sound like a miserable person
concrete makes cities hotter. trees do the opposite. Ask any airport
@@Pwnzarelli "tree roots wreck streets"
This is true. I live in a smaller midwestern city with lots of trees in residential neighborhoods. Especially in the older neighborhoods built pre-1990s, virtually every house lot has 2-3 trees.
They genuinely do cause problems with the roads where someone planted a tree too close to it. They also cause problems with gas/water/sewer/power lines too. And, being in tornado alley, they're a real serious risk during storm season.
Still, I enjoy them and do think their benefits outweigh their problems.
I run 4km to work and i have 2 options.
1) run along the busy main road.
2) run on the cycle path, parallel and close to the road, but surrounded by tress, grass and a variety of bushes and green stuff. It's 600m longer.
My route is option 2 almost everytime as it's very much fresher.
Won't save the planet but every tree and any green stuff is definitely beneficial to us individually
You actually increase carbon emissions by running 600 m longer. ;)
@@ivarwind bro runs 4km, any one else today would drive that. Simply bad faith comment.
Biking, running, skiing, paddling in trees is my happiest place. Maybe my only happy place. I consider myself part of the universe and the universe gets what it needs by making organisms feel good. Trees and the woods feel good.
Ah yes, because him running is such a significant producer of fossil fuel emissions. Not the 57 companies that are linked to 80% of emissions. @ivarwind
Temporary escape .
I live in a place that has very hot summers. When I bought my house I planted trees for shade. I knew full well that it would be a long term pay off. It has been fifteen years and I now use much less electricity for cooling my home. Cutting energy consumption is a viable way to not add to the carbon problem.
No, it's viable way to reduce your bills and nothing more
@@tolep respectfully false, taken at scale, if we have tree coverage wherever people live and work, the energy consumption would be greatly reduced. Many places would even skip active cooling. Even cities, which cover more and more of the land, should have big tree coverage, on open areas (streets) and on top of building. Uncovered land is unnatural in a non desert area. Now it becomes the norm. Even if the albedo is high in some rare cases, we might then influence the atmosphere more. Only greenery is perfect in all aspects (hydro, carbon cycle, depollution, solar energy, health, soil dynamics) .
I've allowed a tree to grow near one side of my house which didn't have shutters at the windows. The effect is really wonderful - inside the house and in the garden.
@@tolep 🤣 What? lower bill = lower electricity production = lower pollution, even if your electricity is produced with "clean" energies, "clean" only means less dirty, every type of energy production has some pollution.
Mother Earth always restores balance. One day, a tree will fall on your home and the repair cost will cancel out the reduced bills.
I bought a 40 acre farm years ago with 3 large trees in a 3 acre homesite in an area with a maximum ambient temperature of 118 degrees F. In the Summer. I researched, and found empirical data that states if you can "cover" 40% of a land area with tree canopy, you'll lower the local temperature (ground level to 6' agl) by 10 degrees F. I set to work planting fast growing trees - mostly Chinese Elm - and accomplished that 40% within the homesite. That transformed the homesite from an unbearable space to a comfortable space. I don't know what it did for CO2 levels or the climate, but it made a dramatic difference in those three acres.
Trees are usually planted to be havested again, just as crops. Here in sweden harvesting trees is a major part of our economy, planting trees as we harvest them is just a very sustainable way of forestry.
Seems to be the norm in south england, & burgundy france. The two places i've lived/worked/explored.
40 years & i don't think i've ever seen a natural forest. lol
No matter what he says, I'm sure he's lying.
Most deforestation is done to clear up land for animal agriculture, mostly cattle and cattle feed in the Amazon rainforest. Those trees are never planted again, the forest is burned down by the farmers who turn it into a soy field, then a pasture, then a wasteland.
... and it is not done particularly well in Sweden. Clear cutting is still the vastly preferred method and mostly done rather recklessly. The big companies are quite desperately trying to lay their hands on the few percent of pristine forest and on forest with high value for nature and ecosystems. Plus on the long run it is doubtful it will work economically as we do not know yet how quickly the ground deteriorates with every cycle of clearcutting, preparing the ground mechanically and replanting. Additionally we see already now many problems associated with the monocultures used in this process.
Depends on what the trees are planted for, though. If it's to burn, then all the carbon they captured is released in the burning. If it's to make paper, then the carbon is stored in the paper, until the paper is disposed of, in which case it's released again either through burning or decaying. It's only removed from the cycle if it's buried in a landfill in a way where it can't decompose. If it's used as a building material, now it's captured until the building is replaced, which is longer. Still maybe not two generations, depending on what kind of building it's a part of, though...
The thing that will really help is healthy ecosystems, including the sea floor and grasslands as well as forests.
In reality we should be 8-10 million people instead of 8-10 billion... I think that's the main problem, we are too many. We are in a level of overpopulation and because of that we use too much of earth's resources without stop and without a more ecofriendly system.
@@korngreen The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is that we take too much and never give back. Your comment is cynical in the sense that your own selfishness is more important than other people's lives. Consume less, contribute more.
@@korngreenAnd your solution?
Your goal is that 3 of each 4 people is 'gone'
Guess a more lenient ruler than original comment suggesting 1 in 1000 is left.
Just say want us extinct and quit confusing people?@@royhuijsmans6117
The only thing that will help is to lower the temperature of the Earth.
I started learning permaculture and stopped mowing some parts of my lawn. What I observed so far is amazing. A few different species of trees started growing by their own. At the edges of woodland, by the house, fence lines, and even in planters wherever the seeds landed. Since we have plants ID apps now, it’s so easy and fun to find all kinds of native plants choosing their own locations to start growing.
If we all stop mowing our yards today, eventually trees and plants that are suitable for the land will grow and cover the ground. Because that’s their jobs! We don’t have to do anything from beginning.
Haven’t humans learned that more we try to help nature more we cause troubles? I don’t even want to know how many plastic pots they need to grow that many trees… knowing that ultimately it might just fail in ecosystem and wasted.
Exactly
Why you people so obsessed with lawnmowing, seriously why
@@LabNCo
It looks nice and clean. The nature is wild. Your garden will become a forest if you don’t domesticate it.
Fair call but if you own the place you might want to consider that most trees put down pretty extensive root systems which can crack foundation slabs, concrete curbing and driveways. Not to mention collapse waste water and supply pipes, gas lines and possibly even underground power and phone supply conduits. If you are renting your landlord might not be very appreciative either.
I stopped mowing my lawn and the City came after me and fined me. How much CO2 is emitted from all the lawnmowers in the US? The government doesn't really care.
I live in Oregon and even in the wettest Valley where it used to rain daily from Sep to July, there is drought. Many trees in the forests are dying from lack of water. I couldn't plant trees on my property because the ones that are here aren't getting enough water and my well can't support them. I don't even plant flowers because for 9 months I'd have to water them and water is precious. Climate change is terrifying. It's refreshing to hear a logical discussion.
there should be much more attention paid to testimonials like yours rather than unconcerned people just debating to justify their own lifestyle
It's not a competition. It's a cooperation. Plant trees and gardens, find cleaner energy sources, consume less while creating a better, fairer economy based upon supporting the life of the planet and not just us.
I'd say we need to set priorities. If the question us that you don't have anything to do on a Saturday and wanna go volunteer planting trees, definitely. If the question is you have some spare bucks and are deciding where to spend it, I'd say it's better to put 100% to proven effective methods.
"It's a cooperation."
This is great news. All we have to do is get 8 billion people to all think the same and were set!
@@user-zw5jj2uf1p why not both?
@@anthonybrett Cuba ran out of food in the 80s and the whole dang country worked together to grow food in every available space, and then shared it among one another.
some forms of duress are very effective motivators.
@@purposefully.verbose Wow. That's great. One country? That's your example of everyone working together? Tell me, do you see the Palestinian's, Israel, China, the US etc all coming together anytime soon?
I plant tree's. I like them. Fruits. Nuts. Birds. Cools the yard. Smells good.
ok
Nice one mate, if everyone planted something, instead of having barbeques and showing off their new car, we might get somewhere.
The drop in insects in the uk is frightening over the last five years. No bees, it isn't good, I plant varieties of flowers.
Hardly any fruit , it burns or dries out, don't know where you are, they put stripes up nearly everyday, there is always a haze
@@trulymental7651 If you don't like droughts, then we've to stop burning fossil fuels.
If you don't like seeing vapor trails in the air, then we have to stop buring fossil fuels.
If you don't like to see our environment damaged, then we've to stop burning fossil fuels.
The reduction of fossil fuels is much more significant in protecting nature than planting some trees.
@@trulymental7651 most toys are expensive and overrated. Peace comes with relationships. I am so much more relaxed than my friends with large bills.
@@olska9498 fossil fuel. It's here we use it. It's going to take time to transition to other energy products. Minerals will be used either way. Pick your poison.
“Are we idiots?” - Yes
Bill Gates is just another WEF Tool. We could cut global hot air if these folks would just self-superglue their lips and nostrils shut.
Paris goals or life...?
Take out C02 we starve life... Is C02 heating the planet?
Ask the sun not the scientists....
And hypocrites.
...THE SCIENCE IS IN!
Me no dumb!!! Me is smort!!!
Trees are not a panacea. Most people know this. Please remember trees provide many more eco-system benefits beyond mitigating climate change.😊😊❤❤
I'm not sure if I believe that "most people know this." People are dumb.
Exactly 💯! We should not even debate on the absolute necessity of reforestation! Studies like the ones who deny the role of forests to regulate climate is like looking at the finger when someone points to you the moon. They lose the real point.
@@WanderTheNomad should read , most intelligent people. Way less than 50% in US apparantly.
@@everev851 Problem is most in power see "reforestation" as planting a mono-culture that can be exploted not a wild forest. NY state has millions of acres of privately owned forest that get logged because people need the money to pay the taxes. If they didn't have to many wouldn't cut. Guys like gates piss me off with there carbon offset bs. Are forest a silver bullet? YES , a big part of it!
Phytoplankton is one of the largest biomass in the world. The ocean is absolutely vital and it itself is in trouble. I spent five years in Southeast Asia working both for Swiss law firms, the faculty of medicine and malaysia, and as a diving instructor and I dove the entire time I was there probably at least 2000 hours there alone. I had never seen the dead ocean until I saw it at the border of France and Spain on the Atlantic side. It was emotional for me it was absolutely shocking and I actually cried because there was plastic and microplastic in the entire water column and not a single living anything and I was completely shocked.
I know the oceans are a mess but you just ruined my day. 😢😢😢
@@bruceb5481it is "splotchy"
Search for 'why oceans are turning green'
Takes a lot of plankton
We are dead if the oceans get much worse.
@@janicewolk6492 But that's a good thing right?
Well at least for the planet....
Climate change is a huge and tragic diversion.
Who cares about the oceans and the forests of the world?
Few people have any idea about their health and the true state they're in
Britain's National Forest is impressive, taking an area damaged by mining and other activities to increase coverage from 6% to 20% with an eventual 30% goal. I love trees and that is reason enough to get planting.
That sounds more like land reclamation which has other benifits
Have to correct you. The UK almost lost the great war of 1914-18, as it didn't have enough wood, forest coverage was 3% in 1916 with the government calculation that all of it would be gone if the war lasted a few more years. 1919 forestry act seeked to address that, with an increase enough in time for the next big war. Since that forestry act, and several others UK woodland coverage is now 13%.
The problem with tree planting in that time was using fast non-native tree species in dense monocultues with tax breaks as a carrot while planting in wrong habitat zones i.e. on peat bogs - visit Delamere forest, the pennine moors, Formby point (should be a dynamic dune system not pine woods).
Plant bamboo instead, it grows much, much faster.
@@keithdf2001 it's a mixture, some is farmland where hedgerows have been planted or improved. Other places such as mines and extraction pits have been transformed.
calling it a national forest is misleading and intentionally deceptive, its not forest and has none of the characteristics of a forest. as much as i like trees i can't abide goverment distortion of truth and manipulation of the gullible
I've done some voluntary work on rewilding projects. The one thing you don't need to do, by and large is plant trees. Remove the invasive species, manage the herbivores and the trees will grow naturally - provided there's a small reserve population.
yeah, it's much more effective to eliminate forest destruction, because trees release way more seeds than we could ever plant manually, they'll grow back if the conditions are right
its make more wetlands.
true, but we should focus on cultivated land, which are vast and have a way worse state (dead soil), we need live soil (which includes ruminants), permanent cover and close to no till. in Europe, semi wild areas often don't have properly managed ruminant cover, because the natural dynamic which forced ruminant to seek each ungrazed spot is lost. No predatory pressure, no natural good over population, which forced migration and more seeking (better coverage). That's why we need dynamic grazing everywhere, including in rotation on crop lands. It employs people, cost close to nothing, improve everything and feed the people. Gates wants us to eat plants, which implies keeping the dead soil dead, he's dumb. We need to put back ruminant on the ground, everywhere, they are the soil manager, the world creator. without them the nature has no balance. With this help plant growing will be way cheaper. It should only cost minimal inputs (implanting, harvesting, covering, managing cover) minimal energy and almost no chemicals. We use chems because the soil is dead, the seeds are unsuitable.
We use chemical fertilizers because the place we eat food isn't the same place we grow it. Thus we aren't able to create a closed loop nutrient systems. Farms essentially act as nutrient exporters. Introducing cows doesn't magically add more nutrients. In fact they would ultimately increase the nutrient export rate as their carcasses are exported.
@@raph151515 so when we stop growing so much food, how do you pick which people die as a result?
As someone who lives in the tropics and has witnessed the denuding of tree cover over the past many yeas I can tell you that removing tree cover has devastating effects. Any area that has the original tree cover surviving is substantially cooler than denuded areas. Tree cover areas also draws substantially more rainfall. It may take time to replace felled trees but it would be a step in the right direction. This is probably more effective in tropical zones but I agree it would do little for CO2 sequestration
The problem with dodgy carbon credits projects (such as paying someone not to cut down trees in the Amazon that they were not going to cut down anyway) is that it makes people feel less guilty of emitting CO2. While that dodgy project did not do anything to absorb more CO2 than it would have anyway, the person who paid for the dodgy project feels free to carry on emitting extra CO2.
That describes Bates to a tee. He acknowledges that all his flights and whatnot generate tons of CO2 but says it doesn't matter because "I offset all of that with carbon credits." Guy is just a sociopath.
Large corporations create a bunch of fake companies that each get their number of carbon credits, then they buy these credits up from themselves, and pollute away!
Which is why Mauna Loa just reported another large rise in CO2 levels... We can pretend we are taking enough action even when the evidence says the opposite.
CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING
In a way I think it validates his idea?
He's basically saying "I do more, so I should pay more"
Gates has basically created a wealth tax without calling it a wealth tax.
I think this is why a lot of other rich folk are campaigning against carbon credits.
In Uruguay, they replace entire forest by planting eucalyptus trees which are allelophatic trees which practically destroy the ecosystem of Uruguays’ forest. In the Philippines, the Department of Natural Resources reforest by planting Mahogany trees, also an allelopathic tree. In both countries, they prioritize business over saving the natural environment.✌️
Sounds more like government mismanagement.
in Paraguay Mr Andreas Pfeiffer from Mainz makes a useful reforestation : "The Parent tree Farm" with many edible trees and bushes and highgrade Timber and high biodiversity. There are many videos on YT , also with Michael Vogt .
Curious, how does this help business?
@@kpg1973 grasslands and steppes are important ecosystems
@@kpg1973 uh.... what
Trees can be a good way to help mitigate the Urban Heat Island effect. I wish cities had more trees.
Yes, and Bill never claimed otherwise.
100%
@@TheSaltyAdmiral And I never claimed that he claimed otherwise. Also user name checks out, so cheers, and have a better day ;)
I wish cities had fewer campers.
Everyone says trust the science, yet the science is constantly changing. People cant keep up with it.
The fact that science changes is why people have to trust it.
It's counterintuitive but that's it.
I think one of the many reasons we are failing dismally at "fixing" climate change is we are looking for one big fix. It is multiple technologies that got us where we are, it is multiple initiatives that will get us out.
CALL WRITE NASA THIS IS ALL WRONG NASA TELLS US THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING
We are also totally ignoring that 95% of the world can't afford to do anything.
Nah. It is just stupid things humans assume will improve life.
Plus, nature is just too perfect to accept for humans. Not needing any improvements by us really irks idiots.😅. Nature evolves smoothly. 🥴🤦🏻♀️🇨🇦
@@RS-ls7mmThinking is free. Imagination limitless. Helping others profound. Idleness is just wasted space inhabited by lazy people's. 😊💁🏻♀️🥰 free exists.
There is one big fix - reducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately human nature means that we refuse to accept this inconvenient truth however.
Hence it's vital that we minimise destroying existing native forests...
Bingo, these fools talk about planting trees while we turn forests into parking lots and fields for grazing cattle at an alarming rate.
@@MiltonRoe never saw anyone interested in planting trees who's not also interested in stopping deforestation but okay. And yes, going vegetarian/vegan is good for the environment (along with health benefits, if done correctly).
Existing forests are carbon neutral. Fully grown trees do not remove carbon. Only growing trees remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Let me tell you the three things that are vital in the order of their importance. This list is as follows, Food, Clothing and Shelter. Only once those three basic needs are met can we begin to worry about anything else. We need the land forests are on to farm and we need the lumber to build with. It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.
@@1pcfred "It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.": There will be no longer "us" if we continue the way we do. Temperature increase will not stop at 1.5 Celsius, and it will also not stop at 5 Celsius if we continue the way we do. At first, 2..3 billion people at the coasts will have to move inland. You completely forget that we already have a huge overpopulation.
I ride my bike everywhere and I have noticed a definite difference in temperature between areas covered by buildings, asphalt, and concrete, versus areas covered by trees and plants. Areas covered by plant life are cooler because they store and use sunlight as opposed to radiating it back. It's not really noticeable during the day but at night it is really obvious.
That's called the "urban heat island effect." It is so significant that it will be a couple of degrees warmer at night in a big city than in the surrounding vegetated places. During the day urban areas can be 15-20 degrees warmer!
@@mygirldarby
"Surrounding vegetated places" sounds a little like what we used to call "countryside". :)
Trees also transpire a lot of water, which leads to evaporative cooling.
@@markdowning7959it's not just countryside though, as the effect is still noticeable in places that are developed and have lots of buildings and people living there, such as suburbs, but also happen to be highly vegetated in comparison to the concrete jungle of downtown cores of most cities. Sure countryside sees an even larger effect, but going from zero vegetation to regular vegetation is a larger step than going from regular vegetation to total vegetation.
CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING ALL OF THE TIME TOO
It depends where. Make rooftops green and you make a difference (not necessarily trees).
You want to fix climate change? Simple, stop buying products. You don't need a new phone each year, you don't need 20 pairs of shoes, you don't need "fill in the product". Less demand = less mining, less manufacturing, less pollution. Do they want you to do this, hell no, they love money.
This guy ∆ needs a position in Congress.
The problem is that other people won't stop buying products just because you want them to.
DISREGARD ABOVE CONSOOM PRODUCT
and who are "they"???
CALL WRITE LOOK UP NASA CARBON IS NOT A PROBLEM THEY WILL TELL YOU THIS THAT'S ALL
I don't want trees to be planted because i expect it to solve climate change. I want trees to be planted just because i like trees and nature and i want to restore what we destroyed. Not everything has to be for ourselves.
I am talking about good planting not mon🤢cultures. And not just forests but other biomes deserve love too
growing trees turns co2 gas to c solid. monoculture is a good idea, if the cut timber is put to long-term use.
Comprehensive landscape restoration. Not tree mono-cropping.
It does only one thing. It store water. And that water store carbon.
I thougth for just a moment you really disliked the Culture of the Mon (in southeast Asia) :D
We shouldn't plant trees but let forests grow uninterrupted. It's far more natural and ecological.
You don‘t have to plant trees. They grow for themselves, when you let them. Rewilding is the Solution! Trees (generally vegetation) are the best air conditioners we have.
Yes. Having more spaces where trees are allowed to grow would be a good thing. In UK farmers claim they are maintaining the environment. We would have a lot more trees if marginal farmland wasn't subsidised to keep sheep.
@@NogginMelodeon Agroforestry will be our future, especially while climate change.
Depends on the place really, no, trees don’t grow themselves everywhere. *Most* places don’t grow trees at all, just look at a geographic map of the planet. Between tundras, steppes, highlands, all kinds of deserts etc … you need a lot of work to get forests growing there if it’s possible at all. Frankly if you want to encourage natural greening we should keep putting out as much co2 as possible, it is quite literally the food plants crave and the rising temperatures will create more landmasses for plants than it will destroy by desertification.
@@royhuijsmans6117 I’m careful with that romanticised view of "rewilding". We have messed much with our ecosystem and apart from some areas around the equator(the rainforests) and the extreme north and south(Siberia, Patagonia) there are little wilds remaining. The problem are invasive species, we introduced a couple that are highly problematic, kudzu is a good example. Sure if you leave things alone long enough they will eventually be in balance again, but that could take decades or even centuries.
For example if kudzu overtakes a lightly forested area it will eventually kill all the trees and prevent new ones from sprouting as well as killing pretty much all other macro flora in the area since it has no natural enemies. I think people underestimate the damage invasive species can do to entire ecosystems, once they are introduced the areas pretty much require constant human intervention. Rats on islands they are not native to are another great example, they can easily extinct multiple species of ground nesting birds within a very short time.
Quite.
I live in a Montana 2012 burn area of native Doug Fir. The drought conditions have worsened to the point that the slow rejuvenation has not happened. Saplings have come up only to die. This year the grass never grew. The ground was too cold in June and too hot in July. The tipping point has passed. Now enjoy the results! All the king's horses and all the king's men could not put...
There was a huge tree right outside my front door of my apartment up until last week when it was felled. Those branches were always filled with chirping birds that woke me up every morning. There was a squirrel or squirrels over the years that liked to tease my dog. And an owl that I'd often hear at night. It was the only large tree nearby and right outside my door. HOA felled it and now all the nature is gone 😢
Those damn HOAs. Did they give any reason?
@@Atommagi I don't understand why the members of this HOAs seem to have no say in their own organization.
@@cherubin7th when you sign into a HOA you are giving up your freedoms for ??? property value? You get what you deserve.
That is awful
Your apartment had an hoa?
Thinking on the level of ecosystems themselves is the answer.
To plant trees or not to plant trees is NOT the question.
The question is what can we do in each eco region to regain some semblance of stability and regeneration? Defragmentation, restoration of prairies and old growth forests alike, holistic management of both livestock and plant crops. These things will save us.
Agreed. This is precisely what I came here to type.
Amen. And the restoration of soils and the microbiome so important for carbon capture and the break down of toxins in the air. Wholistic approach necessary agreed
...and swamps, which are huge carbon sinks! This and all of what was mentioned by thread starter needs to be done now,... alas this will not save us. Climate is going down the drain and the only question is, how badly. There are too many 'elephants' in the room for the crockery not to get damaged, like thawing Siberia, rogue China, deforresting madness in Brasil etc. etc.
We could die out. That would have the biggest impact.
@@kostuek You're late to the party. The voluntary human extinction movement (VHEMT) has been a thing for years. Ppl thought of your idea ages ago. Pfft!
No no no, the interviewer stated it stupidly "take care of the climate issue altogether". Of course that is wrong. But to say you DO NOT plant trees? He is talking from how he invests in CO2 removal. Too often, and in this video as well, we discuss something that helps with an overall solution but we criticize it for not being a complete solution. Why focus on extremes?
Yes, this is the most disgustingly stupid video Sabine has ever done.
20% is quite a good chunk better than everything we "Didn't try" so far.
CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS
Yeah, people are taking what Bill said in the wrong context. He's not saying that planting trees won't help, he's saying it's not one of the things he personally does to offset his own carbon footprint, as instead he chooses to focus on things that are easier to directly measure and have a more noticeable benefit for people in America, such as funding more efficient heating and cooling systems for people who couldn't otherwise afford them.
Even if there wasn't a risk of scams or questions on measuring the effectiveness of tree planting, people in America simply wouldn't see the immediate and direct benefit from trees being planted in Brazil, in the same way they would from receiving more efficient heating and cooling systems for their homes.
The real question for me though, is how much of that carbon offset is squandered away by people spending the money saved from lower energy bills on even more carbon generating consumption?
Gates has invested in artificial carbon capture schemes. He's not paying for the machinery to be built and run. He is expecting others (governments mostly) to do that. Every dollar spent planting trees takes a dollar out of his profit margin. So no. Gates means exactly that.
Not that long ago there was a carbon offset scheme that claimed it would plant trees in PNG to offset carbon for companies willing to buy into the scheme. It turned out that the trees were being logged.
Planting trees is a vague term, it's like comparing a monoculture forestry set up to a mixed native broadleaf forest
Yup, so much divisiveness missing the nuances of this question.
It is not vague, it is well defined, it is however a broad term.
Reforestation would be a better general term. Or "Wood" it?
Tree farms are not forests.
@@joelcarson4602 future beetle homes would be more honest.
We have a small forest in our neighborhood and it has been a delight during the last extremely heated summers. A forest is like an air conditioner but without a salesman who lures people into buying his aweful stuff. Always remember what we have to deal with if we are forced to use MS Windows.
Yep. And large-scale landscape restoration can help cool the planet, while restoring ecosystems, retaining water, and beautifying.
Many choose to deal with MS Windows because it is better than the alternatives. :)
@@DonReba some might feel that way, very likely because they have never tried an alternative. Most - especially in the office realm - are forced to use it. In the realm of IT-security most people use Fedora, Ubuntu or Arch as their host system. Those are not inherently more secure by default, however, their notebook/desktop/workstation version have a much smaller attack surface than Windows. There is already a term for what big US companies do to products they acquire from smaller and much more innovative companies and it is called „ensh..ification“. That’s what Microsoft does best.
I wonder if the reduction in air-conditioning was included in the calculations.
@@presence5426 I agree to what you wrote about retaining water, beautifying and preserving ecosystems. However, we won’t cool the planet with forests. We can‘t undo that we dug and burned vast amounts of coal and oil by planting trees. Nature took it millions of years to dispose these excessive amounts of carbon permanently under the earth and under the oceans. If we want to do this in a timespan of let’s say one hundred years, trees are growing much too slow. Ferns and algae grow fast, but who is going to pay for (very, very) large farming or aquaculture of these?
Unfortunately, we are the idiots whether we plant the trees or not.
In comparison to higher intelligence that would be absolute.
We certainly aren't scientists like Gates want to believe.
*sigh*
With the internet promoting people acting like 10-year-olds there's no hope because the whole idea is to get these people buying toys from China which is causing massive climate change
We are Easter Islanders with a bigger piece of land.
As always, thanks Sabine for bringing up these topics... it seems like we have been talking about this for ages, but we still need to reinforce the message once more... And you have a knack for doing it with a clarity that I lack.
Hi, MSc. in Sustainable Development and Environmental Science Engineer here, just sharing my 2 cents:
Planting trees is a valuable method for mitigating SOME of the challenges associated with climate change. Trees can also contribute to soil recovery, biodiversity, and urban temperature reduction. However, they are not a panacea for all environmental problems, nor should they be seen as a license do whatever we please with the environment without consequences. Unfortunately, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and the misconception that plants can indefinitely and immediately absorb carbon from the atmosphere has led to confusion (mainly driven by the carbon credits fiasco from a few years back, that we are still paying for). While trees do absorb carbon, and change environments for good (assuming it is done right, and not just planting random trees in random places) this process takes years to develop,like Sabine clearly mentions in her video. We must also remember that they eventually release the absorbed carbon when they reach the end of their lifespan, if this is gradual (natural) then it is somewhat balanced out, but if it burnt or chopped down, then the situation changes. Moreover, in an ever-changing and unpredictable environment, the increasing frequency of devastating wildfires creates a threat to the longevity of trees and their ability to even reach the point when they can provide benefits.
To effectively address human-induced climate change, a comprehensive, multidimensional approach is needed. Trees can and do play a role in this solution, but they are just one part of it. The main focus should be on reducing the emissions we generate, transitioning away from fossil fuels, and adopting sustainable consumption practices to reduce resource usage and waste. It is soul crushing for me every time I hear or read analysts lamenting single-digit economic growth as if it were a negative outcome for companies or countries. The emphasis should be on slowing down indefinite growth, distributing it more equitably, and pursuing sustainable development. There is no magical solution to our problems, we created a very complex one, and it is only through vision, sustain effort and commitments that we can achieve our goals.
There are good carbon offsetting programs, take a look at the UN Carbon Offset Platform for instance:
unfccc.int/climate-action/united-nations-carbon-offset-platform
They provide a comprehensive list of available projects, all with sound science backing their claims and fostering sustainable development and inclusion from marginalized societies in the process. Those are the type of projects we should be looking into when looking for good offsetting strategies, but not without working on mitigation and emissions reduction FIRST.
We are quite infantile in our understanding of ecological systems and, in this case, trees and soils. There’s so much work left to do on our part regarding how we understand Earths systems and making sound decisions with our evolving understanding. No doubt, rehabilitating degraded land is a good thing, trees, native grasslands, etc. sequesters more carbon, as well as the litany of other ecosystem services. Does it make corporations richer? Probably not.
It's not just carbon, is lowering wind speeds, lowering flood risks, can be used for raw materials etc.
No one thing is an answer. Planting trees is a good thing, regardless of what influence it has on world climate.
Yeah. They provide shade, moderate winds, absorb dust and relax the eyes 🙂 Maybe irrelevant for global warming but important for local environment.
Depends on how you do it. If you do it poorly, it won't only be ineffective. It'll be harmful.
@@WanderTheNomad In no way will planting trees be harmful. An invasive species may not be good but that is it.
@@Mikedeela You already listed one way planting trees can be harmful when done poorly, which is planting invasives. Another way is planting trees in environments which were originally meant to be other biomes. And monocultures aren't good for either making a healthy ecosystem nor storing carbon long term. They make it more easy for any pests or diseases to infect them.
@@Mikedeela Minute Earth has a really good video on this topic. And Planet Wild and Mossy Earth has some videos of this too. All of which can be found if you search "tree monoculture" on youtube.
One main human activity that has helped us to survive throughout humankind’s journey on this planet is planting trees and seeds, not for our immediate use, but for the future.
I mean, Trees have knock on effects though. They stabilise soil, protect against wind erosion, retain water etc. etc. All that indirectly "fights" climate change as well.
But isn’t the problem that because of all those benefits, trees would naturally repopulate into any viable soil that humans aren’t continuously clearing?
Like if you stopped cutting a golf course, for example, wouldn’t trees slowly develop there in stages over the next 50-70 years or so with zero human intervention?
So it’s a zero-sum game…there’s only so much arable land. And like she says in this video, humans want to cut it down and build nail salons and shit. Not grow a bunch of trees that don’t benefit humans at all.
Old forests, which are what are useful to help with climate change, are not at all similar to young human planted (mostly) monocultures. The moment the old forests begin to struggle even the slightest because of Climate change? Those young plantations are going to die faster than ice-cream melts in the Texan sun.
@@kated3165 old forests are mostly carbon neutral, only new forests (if properly managed) help offset climate change because they store carbon as they grow. that is why, as counterintuitive as it sounds, things like forest fires help offset climate change. because the carbonized biomass will sink into the soil, and new plant will grow on top of them and capture more carbon.
and most importantly, the breath CO2.
@@danilooliveira6580 It's the "if properly managed" part that's problematic, because a lot of times the forests we cut down aren't great for growing back. Heavy machinery will have compacted the soil and they'll have cleared much of the biomass that would have served to form new (better soil). It's very common for replanted trees to either die in mass or really struggle to grow. Sometimes they will replant over several years because the previous trees keep dying... and even then it will take many more years before they reach decent sizes.
According to NASA we would need to reforest an area the size of Canada and the US (completely) to have significant effect.
Then you need to take into account that forest fires are increasing... so keeping those plantations would be very challenging. While it's true that the carbon of forest fires in wild areas can (eventually) be negated by naturally growing forests, the same isn't necessarily going to be true for forests that were clear cut or used for agriculture.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it at all, but we do tend to be champions at half-assing stuff... and there's a big worry that tree planting could easily become the main (very convenient for politicians and industries) focus. The main focus needs to be on drastically reducing fossil fuels consumption/production first and foremost.
Trees are not the scam, carbon credits are.
But I give munny, y car bin stil heer?
Man darf nicht vergessen, dass Bäume Pflanzen relativ billig ist. In der Dritten Welt kostet es nur ca 10 Cent bis 1 € pro Baum, das heißt man könnte für eine Milliarde bis zu 10 Milliarden Bäume pflanzen. Die Bundesregierung hat seit 2016 10 Milliarden für die e-auto-Förderung ausgegeben, zum Vergleich. Bäume pflanzen hat außerdem verschiedene positive Nebeneffekte, es schafft Arbeitsplätze , es verbessert die Bodenstruktur, es verbessert das Mikroklima, den Grundwasserspiegel, die Arten vielfalt und so weiter. und vor allen Dingen wenn ein Baum erst ausreichend groß ist muss man ihn nicht mehr pflegen. Das System läuft dann kostenlos von alleine. Und wenn ich höre, dass Solarpanel besser sein sollen, bin ich fast sicher, dass hier Lobbyisten am Werk waren.
Völlig richtig, nur zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels leider völlig unzureichend. Ich hab auch eine kleine PV auf dem Dach, bei mir, kann ich versichern, waren keine Loobyisten.😊
Wir könnten beispielsweise in Deutschland auf Biodiesel verzichten und auf den riesigen freiwerdenden Flächen Wälder anlegen und die unter Naturschutz stellen. Es wird ja auch häufig vergessen, dass wir nicht nur CO2 mindern müssen, sondern das Land auch fit für die wärmere Zeit machen, das heißt Verdunstung minimieren müssen. Lieber ein Windrad mehr als Quadratkilometer an Monokulturen, die für Bodenerosion sorgen.
Noch billiger wäre es nicht ständig gigantische Mengen an Bäumen abzubrennen.
@@andy02q alte Bäume nehmen nur noch wenig co2 auf. Also in Bezug auf co2 Bindung nicht die beste Lösung
@@tiefensucht in Deutschland ist das Bäume pflanzen zu teuer. Wälder unter Naturschutz stellen hört sich einfach an funktioniert aber nicht. Zuerst muss das Recht beseitigt werden, dass jeder jeden Wald betreten darf. Ich bin dadurch als Waldbesitzer aufgrund der Verkehrssicherungspflicht angehalten alles was runterfallen könnte zu beseitigen. Das und andere Dinge widersprechen aber dem Gedanken den Wald ursprünglich wachsen zu lassen. Grds bevürworte ich es sehr den Wald in seiner ursprünglichen Form wieder herzustellen
I’m growing trees on five acres in Washington state. We have Atlantic cedar (atlas cedar). The true cedar tree’s here have prolific success here. Many endangered trees were brought here and thrived.
How many trees do we have to plants to offset Bill's private jet emissions?
zero, we really need emission less transportation. the idea that we can plant a few trees and fix all our pollution from travel is just really silly. we really just need to change how we travel.
It's in the video. He does it by donating solar panels and other green energy sources.
@@scottmcshannon6821 stop with your bullshit.
planting trees isn't gonna solve a problem that doesn't exist. besides the earth is already way greener than it was 100 years ago. even the last 20 years has seen a 15 percent increase
The world was coping fine before the internet decided to brainwash adults into acting like 10-year-olds so they'll buy toys from China that is the big problem. But no one wants to admit that they want to act like 10-year-olds so we can't solve this issue
On average, trees are better than people.
What does that even mean?
you just don't know how too cook them right
beware the stately oak, it kills lesser trees with its shade alone! talk about passive aggressive...
that's exactly what a tree would say!
@@synystera Hah, his bark is worse than his bite
I freely admit that I am an idiot. The problem is all those idiots that are convinced that they are absolutely brilliant.
There is nobody more sure of himself then an idiot.
If more people were taught the quote “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing” the world would be a better place lol
I'm brilliant, which is why I understand that planting trees is like shooting bullets, and making wetlands is like dropping nukes. We need wetlands,, which will grow all full of trees all on their own.
@@Indyfficient Most of these cute cliche's are degenerative to people's thinking and speaking. A double-negative sentence is more honest. You know so much it is beyond ever mapping. If you know "who" is on first, maybe you know "nothing" and you need to ALWAYS give yourself proper status without requiring people to speak a paradox as if it has merit. We need to speak with power of genius to get our language FIXED and our patterns of thinking FIXED. Every cliche has beguiled and lowered the general IQ. "Because in comparison to ________, I know nothing." There, that takes us where it should.
@@YouKnowTheyExist you really critiquing Socrates? Lol
This reminds me of David Brin's book Earth, where they had a Trillion Trees program. As for planting trees, it depends greatly on where you plant them. Planting redwoods where redwoods had previously been cut down will probably work well. Planting shade trees in the city will cool the city in summer, but that directly relates to cooling costs and therefor carbon use prevented.
It is interesting that trees are discounted as a useful contributor to our CO2 issues because they might only resolve say 10% of the problem while we have everyone and their dog banging on endlessly about EVs when, even if we all had one and charged them from renewable sources they would resolve only around 8.5% of our CO2 emissions. Of course it's hard to corner the market in trees and make billions from them but EVs on the other hand...
Indeed. I work in business consultancy. When we approach some company's operations the people may have this idea that there is one simple solution that changes everything. Instead our approach often is to do the 100+ most impactful solutions, each affecting the operations from 0,05% to 5% (just an example). The cumulative impact of all those small improvements can be huge. One just needs to decide what needs to be done and then be very decisive in implementing solution after solution (or rather multiple solutions in parallel). Everything needs to be done with a sense of purpose: analyze, decide, DO, follow-up, continue.
There should be a Tree department in Ministries of Ecology. Special tree tax, the govt takes care of it and does it properly. Same for the rest. It's all possible, the money is there, but private interests don't want to do anything until they get their money from it.
wetlands. we need wetlands. Wetlands will be much more impactful than just some saplings. And wetlands get packed full of saplings automatically.
planting tree cannot be interesting if more trees are cut than planted ...
@@brucemangy Well, the point of tree-planting initiatives is to make sure that doesn't happen. That is what FSC certification is all about.
I grew up in Indiana, U.S.A., and it is said that when Columbus landed in the West Indies a squirrel could go from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi river without touching the ground. That would be a considerable elevation change across the mountains in addition to some 700km. That cannot happen any more due to the forest being plowed under and paved over.
Breed squirrels to be able to jump further. Problem solved. Next.
They still can. Now they fly.
@@carlpanzram7081Calugos are the squirrels of the future
In 2023, 2000 square miles of the amazon were cut down. ~800 million trees have been felled in the amazon since 2018.
Facts that make Bill Gates sleep well at night. Going after the trees en masse is a form of eugenics … and eugenics is another pet project
From 2.1 million square miles... barely 1%
It is not coming back.
@@Xanderbelle 1% of the world's largest carbon sink gone in 1 year isn't a problem to you?
@@MrMollusk7It's 0.1% actually.
I agree that trees can combat greenhouse gases, my only concern is the amount of water required and the coming water shortages, I still don’t understand why we don’t bite the bullet and work more on desalinization of sea water to support large tree growth and address the water shortages where they arise.
there is no one solution, in reality is a mix of solutions that will make a difference.
No "solution" will happen before Earth's self regulatory system snaps us into an ice age. Not if, when. We seem to be on the doorstep now.
The best solution I can think of is actually one solution; although it evades our grasp for now: near free and unlimited energy. I am convinced there is a way to harness the power of the universe and produce all the energy we need with no negative consequences, or at least if there are then those negative consequences can be solved by simply using some of that unlimited energy.
@@CrazyGaming-ig6qq -- thorium reactors or molten salt reactors - are they way.
Maybe not what you were going for, though they have lots of upside - being reliable, sustainable, low carbon and way safer than older reactor design.
Of course, it's already far too late for most, and human greed will preclude any others. The tipping point (Thom's "catastrophe point") has passed.
@@drx1xym154⚛️
i need that soundbyte of Sabine saying "peanuts!..." 😂😂😂😂 i can imagine numerous situations in which itd be useful...
And again, no mention by anyone of getting out of productivism and trying to keep use as much energy as we are. Breaking private interests' power would be a good start.
It is to prevent soil erosion which leads to flooding during heavy rains and to make the sorrounding air cooler. If you compare the ambient temperature of a concreted / asphalted city compared with a tree laden one, those with much trees and plantd have cooler air.
😂 "...they are really good listeners and if they get too boring you can chop them down and heat with them." Sabine's sense of humor is second to none.
Love her ♥️😂
I imagine she has chopped down a few men on the first date and used them for firewood, lol (JK Sabine, I meant figuratively not literally)
shes dry as a raisin,-
I guess not cutting vast areas of woodland down would help. We are far too much advanced in our problems to think that one single measure can help us. We need EVERYTHING that helps
Does that include nuclear?
They cut down a portion of the forest portrayed in the Brother Grimm's Fairytales to put up windmills.
No, not true. If we were to massively plant hemp, that alone would be enough to stop climate change and decarbonize our industry. Sadly, hemp was only legalized by President Donald Trump in 2018, and most other countries are subsidizing other crops instead. I calculated that if all German farmers added just one season of hemp to their crop rotation, it would increase the total output of food, biofuel, and animal feed, and sequester more than double the current CO2 production of Germany. This means to become completely CO2 neutral, it would be enough to plant hemp every two years.
China is building new coal-fired power plants constantly. They're not held to any standards.
Actually, if you cut down the trees to build buildings and replant, it's even better. The cut down trees are carbon sinks and young trees absorb much more CO2 while growing.
But the main issue is that trees aren't removing CO2 for good. It's just the cicle, all CO2 eventualy returns to atmosphere when tree rots or burn. To remove CO2 you have to conservate it in form of coal or some other way.
I assume you mean as coal that is never burned
@@katgod No. Coal won't ever be produced from trees again. Coal happened because there were no microbes that could digest the wood in the vegetation at that time. Now there is, and so when a tree dies now, it gets consumed and all its carbon gets released in one form or another.
If you increase forested area, there will be one time capture equal to amount of new trees
@@dmitripogosian5084 Only for a short time measured in decades, not eons.
@@simongross3122 As I said, it is one time reduction, but forever, presuming that trees will continue to maintain themselves in this new area
A few years ago I watched a video about a woman who did a study about trees and carbon. She picked one species of tree. She found that that species didn’t start storing more carbon than it made until it was about 25 years old.
Recently I heard that most of the trees planted in an area are monoculture. Only one species. And they are usually good for lumber. When vast areas are planted that way they often become living deserts. They do not support the growth of native fauna and therefore native critters.
I gather the main reason Canada had such huge fires recently is because of the one species of tree it chose to plant everywhere. It burns hot.
I volunteered at a botanical garden that specialized in drought tolerant trees and plants. Among the things I learned is that many trees that grow where the ground freezes are drought tolerant. And they are often loaded with natural oils to keep from freezing. 🔥🔥🔥 Tall match sticks.
Planting trees is a good idea. It should include a variety and not be in neat rows. A lot of backyard food growers have found that planting different plants that benefit each other works better. I figure trees can benefit doing the same thing.
People in very arid countries have found ways to bring back some green. They graze their animals differently and they try to capture any rain that falls in small basins they dig.
Bill Gates isn’t wrong and he isn’t right.
Planting trees is great, but they can usually spread just fine on their own. If there aren't already trees in an area, there are two possibilities. The first is that the habitat is fundamentally unsuitable for trees and any trees planted there will die before accomplishing much. The second is that people have cut down the trees and are actively preventing them from returning as that land is used for something else.
There are more possibilities, see Scotland and deer.
@@kajetanch2574 Fair enough. Overgrazing is just as bad as deliberate mowing.
We are expert in ignoring the “Context” and react stupidly to everything on the internet
You win !
Trees make shade. Shade means I don't need A/C. Not using A/C means I use less electricity. Using less electricity reduces carbon emissions. (Bonus because the trees I have planted are deciduous, they drop their leaves in winter and don't impact solar heating of my house in winter.)
You don't need AC in shade? Do you live in the North Pole or what? My last apartment in Eastern Finland was 30C at times and the city is covered in trees. Anything over 22C is sweating time.
Wait what? If your trees drop their leaves in winter, you're definitely not in a very cool climate... Especially if solar heating is an option in winter!
Boston, MA. Not very hot. Not very cold. Minimal AC needed. Thanks to trees.
@@brianvernaglia9449 Trees are definitely cool and important. Forests are a big part of our culture too and our cities are very green, but AC is a beautiful thing here in the summer.
22 C is cool. I'd sleep with a blanket at 22! 😂
I asked a statistically representative selection of trees if their leadership thought that there should be more trees in the world.
They did not disagree. The scientific study results were conclusive, within six sigma of certainty. The answer was very nearly unanimous.
Of course trees won't solve climate change, but there are a lot of other environmental benefits to reforestation. We can't just outright discount trees.
you can't patent trees, so no body really cares about that option
Neither will billionaires solve climate change. Let's not bother making any more of those, too.
2 billion trees are planted each year, but they take time to grow, and we are cutting down 15 billion in that same time. So, the problem is not planting trees, but cutting them down.
My backyard is so full of life since I began planting trees, bushes, herbs and various plants. The soil quality has also improved greatly. Smells wonderful and looks beeeeuuuutiful. My neighbors pay people to put chemicals on their grass. Keep your grass, gimme my Huuuge black beauty elderberry bush about 12 feet high and wide with lovely big blooms, my mockorange that is sooo deliciously fragrant, my showy Tiger Eye Sumac, my big 'all the rage' Rose bush with color that's indescribably gorgeous and all my littler edible plants and flowers, mint, borage, lemon balm. And all of it grows so easily. Then I compost in the fall and put it all right back. Did I mention, butterflies galore? Makes my heart sing.
Climate change is not about just the atmosphere it is also about saving soil.
No it's about wealth distribution . It's about making you so poor you need the govt hand out. It means social credit scores,bio metric tatoos,please catch up.
🤣
@@jean-marclamothe8859 Brilliant answer
I don’t know about climate change, but I love trees and I wish people would appreciate them more and stop cutting them down because they don’t feel like raking leaves ,I haven’t raked leaves in 25 years. I just mulch them. I guess they haven’t figured that out yet.
4:20 'planting trees on barren ground changes the albido and more heat results' ... except for it's always cooler in a forest than on a barren spot of land. I will argue that forests reduce temperature, not raise it.
The available evidence looks at the whole picture. Including satellite data etc. Temperature changes a great deal with height in forests. Your experience with the ground level doesn't contradict anything.
The key word you are missing here is "global". Global temperatures is what we care about here. Nobody cares how cool the patch of woodland you came from is.
The pioneers on the US prairies and plains planted “tree-claims” at the government’s suggestion, it was thought that they would “improve the climate”. Most died, of course. If a location’s climate, elevation, latitude and soil will support trees, they will already be growing there naturally. It takes about 35 inches of annual rain to grow trees, if that’s not there, they will need to be irrigated. The dry prairie and plains were grasslands, not forest, exactly because the climate doesn’t get enough rain for trees. The only natural trees there grew along waterways. Of course, the pioneers in this area soon discovered that there isn’t enough rain to successfully grow food crops, either, so wells and irrigation systems were installed everywhere. This has nearly dewatered the world’s largest aquifer system, the Ogallala. This fossil water accumulated from the snow/ice melt at the end of the Ice Age and is simply not replenished at the rate at which we humans want to withdraw it. This is called ground-water mining.
More Grasslands will be getting increased rainfall than forests will lose minimum threshold
Anthropocene has new rules
Interesting stuff. I did not know this and appreciate the info. On a smaller scale, the Bahamas HAD a water problem that resulted in actual changes of ruling parties in parliament. The introduction of Reverse Osmosis changed that - and although it is not without issues, has uplifted some of the home islands from a steady decline. Sadly RO is not a viable option in the American mid-west or any other place not near the sea..
There's no shortage of water. Earth is a water planet. It's only a question of how much you're willing to pay for it.
@@darylfoster7944 often falls from sky for free, thank the gods
Without the meat industry, we could free up 80% of farm land and we could have a tree covered world again. We can have three trillion more trees!
James Lovelock and other earth scientists have emphasized the need for replacing the canopy and promoting the regrowth of forests. They are scientists, not spokesmen for corporate interests and profits.
Forests do millions of things besides harvest CO₂. You have contradicted no one.
@@mikemondano3624Trees absorb the broad spectered energy of the sun, and stores it as carbohydrates. Eventually, the energy stored in the carbohydrate is released, resulting in heat, energy in the infrared spectrum. That happens, regardless of the tree burning or the tree being digested by fungi, bacteria or animals. If you have seen Sabine before, you probably know, that greenhouse gasses are agitated by infrared radiation, which heats the atmosphere. IOW, converting the broad spectered energy input from the sun, to be primarily an infrared output, is probably a bad thing. The same can be said for solar panels. Perhaps we would be better off, focusing on returning the energy back into space, by increasing reflectivity, and stop harvesting solar energy, that is eventually released as heat? Sabine was right to mention albedo, but fails to connect the dots in regards to harvesting solar energy, regardless of it being trees or solar panels.
they are spokespeople for the climate-industrial complex. A scam if ever there was one.
I recently made an estimation on how much trees I would need to compensate for the carbon footprint of my household. Turns out I need to plant and maintain over 10.000 trees. I don't have that much land to start with. So I gather is more feasible to reduce my footprint.
4:17 that may be the case for the surface albedo, but forests in temperate and boreal areas actually produce more clouds, which reduces albedo.
4:28 solar panels are dark coloured, it also retains heat and doesn't reflect it, it retains more heat than trees.
Trees are also a very important part of the water cycle helping continue rainfall and make clouds that deflect light from reaching earth. Effectively the natural way of "geoengineering reflective clouds" to reflect light and get less energy to heat earth
On the N American Great Plains, prairie dogs filled the niche of rain creators. Along with beavers in the riparian corridors, they also recharged these aquifers. Their deep burrowing acted as a wick to bring moisture up from the underground aquifers with the tidal system thus increasing the transpiration cycle. There is a Diné/Navajo saying that if you kill the prairie dogs there will be no one left to cry for the rain. Prairie dogs are down to 1 or 2% of their historic populations. I have heard developers & non-restorative ranchers say 5%, but I suspect they have vested interests.🤔
Also they make oxygen which animals (humans) need to literally live. Obvious but sometimes it seems to be forgotten.
@asktheanimals Yeah the United States has suffered a lot from farms and reducing plant and animal wildlife. The way to fix climate change is by fixing the ecosystem and changing what we use as a society not just individuals
@@cencent2189 the only thing is that we don't need oligarchs telling us how we must live and help nature instead of trying to trying to control it.
we are currently trying to control nature, it's not even us, its the oligarchs telling us how to live that are trying to control nature.
Earth has a equilibrium that we have to respect and understand that we all live thanks to that, disrupting it in attempts to make it rain whenever we want is breaking it.
Co2 is our core problem, our core problem is maniacs that decided it is our main problem.
and to "solve" the problem we are causing even more damage to the ecosystem of the entire earth...
The solution won't be a fancy machine that costs 500bilion that is patented by billy, the solution will be to put billy back into his place in the world and helping nature fix itself, using it's own natural responses.
We had cases in history where there was tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet somehow we are still here.
Earth has ways to deal with this issue, we just have to let it fix it.
In Australia we know that one mature needs a replacement of 15,000 seedlings.
One part of the Answer is to stop chopping down old growth forests.
This is a huge issue in australia which is 80% desert. Yet logging of old growth forests is still allowed despite the full knowledge of the ongoing consequences.
Deforestation is said to contribute at least 12% or more so it makes sense to reverse that.
True, but a much better way to make progress towards this is to stop cutting down trees, not to plant new ones. Given unlimited resources we should do both, but we DON'T have unlimited resources and it's very important to do the most effective and efficient things ASAP.
@@johnmorrell3187 that’s basically what I’m saying. Do both really.
Or just stop deforesting everything. You can't replant trees on a parking lot.
It is almost as it you did not watch the video
As long as we all agree that Gates is the enemy
Trees are awesome 🌳🌲 🌴and we need more of them 💖. I love donating to an organization called Seedballs Kenya. They work with local communities to get trees planted in different sectors that are struggling with erosion. 💖🙏🏼
I own about 10-15 acres of mature hardwoods. When I go there on a very hot and humid summer afternoon I instantly notice when I go in there how cool and pleasant it is. The cooling effect of reforestation would have to make a profound difference worldwide. Before even removing any carbon.
yes, but it probably wouldn't bring billions into BGs pocket, so shut up.
I have several acres of mature maples. The problem is that they are all hollow from rotting out. You know what happens when a tree rots? It converts the tree into CO2. I wouldn't be surprised if my trees produce more CO2 than they absorb.
Why? Why would the "cooling effect" of trees (which is basically just evaporative cooling and providing shade) "make a profound difference worldwide"?
I have a parasol in the garden that has a similar effect.
that is not how it works. it's just an island effect because of the shade and evaporation. trees actually tend to increase the temperature of the air above because they have lower albedo.
Fully grown trees do not net remove CO2 anymore. Hence they could be removed - the wood stored and prevented from degrading - and new trees be planted.
How much CO2 would turning off the microsoft server farms save?
Pretty much none after 2030. They'll go almost completely renewable by then
If they were fully coal-fire based? 3.61 million metric tons of CO2.
Apparently they're about 30% of the way to that goal as of May 2, 2024.
Alternatively, they could plant a new, well-managed forest the size of the Netherlands, every year.
@@bartroberts1514 shame, I would still like to do it.
@@nigeljohnson9820 Now ask me how much CO2 would be saved by turning off any of the world's top fifty fossil companies operations?
@@bartroberts1514 Eat crickets, use bike, but do not touch multi trillion companies!
@@ironcutter2491 Eat CANDIES. Before climate gets any stranger:
Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month down to zero by 2030 by regulated limits on fossil finance and licensing -- "Jevons' Paradox and the clean energy transition", Giri Venkataramanan, Wisconsin Energy Institute;
Abate methane emissions as much as possible as soon as possible, especially litho-methane -- "Unsung (climate) hero: The business case for curbing methane | Presented by Stephan Nicoleau", Project Drawdown;
National programs to increase energy efficiency 8% per year while cutting licenses for fossil energy saved, and transition new cement pours to carbon-negative 15% per year - Citizens Climate Lobby;
Diversify wildlife by conservation efforts equivalent to 40% immediate drop in shipping traffic at sea, and like measures on land, such as Miyawaki Forests;
Increase biomass equivalent to a trillion new trees afforested -- and harvested to avoid new methane from their decay -- worldwide by 2060 (The Trillion Tree Project);
Educate key policymakers on the economic benefits of climate action (Dr. Katharine Hayhoe);
Stop leakage offshore by border measures to keep fossil equipment and materials from moving internationally (The World Bank).
The economy will do better without fossil trade.
"carbon credits" needs to banned first
My small brain clearly heard Gates say "I take the carbon credits" that is enviro-speak for telling people I can exchange my bad things I do for credit of good things I don't do and never change my lifestyle. What BS. Unocal in the 90's was offered "carbon credits" for massive environmental disasters they caused by poorly managing their business. In a nut shell they polluted the ground water and air in California for decades and the state and I am sure the Feds allowed them to buy up old "gross polluters vehicles-cash for clunkers they called it" in exchange for carbon credits. What a load of horsesh*t. That being said Bill who is fairly smart continues to dish out BS to people that take him as a real proponent of climate issues. He says well I can exchange this for that and take my carbon credits. WTF does that actually mean. Clearly he knows that there is no 1 for 1 exchange. You can't do a burnout in your hotrod and plant a tree the next day to offset the pollution caused. Can you? Ugh, I am going down a wormhole here but to credit Ms. Hosenfelder she is making sense but Gates is clearly a shill in the game of climate change which ultimately does not need his money or help. Time to retire Mr. Gates.
Absolutely! 100%. If the carbon credits scam was banned, the globalist billionaires supporting this climate change cult fear porn would soon be changing their tune.
Wow, this sounds almost like English, which is a language I understand.
carbon credits is new feudalism
@@reckneya Well said! This vid is all about grammar after all.......
I have read studies that cities are usually warmer because we have no trees and all the sunlight and heat is absorbed by all the cement structures
Really? I've never been in a city that had no trees. Most cities have quite a few. They tend to grow along streets, in yards and in parks. And cities also have a lot of concrete, although cement is an ingredient in concrete.
@@mattbosley3531really? A tiny tree in amoung millions of blocks cement is countable as trees. percentage wise amount of trees in a city is negligible.
@@shmwmlam3953 Exactly, just look at Google Earth satellite. It's pretty clear, gray, dead land, that's a city.
and you really needed to read a study for this revelation? wow
Hmmm, I don’t think nature would have ever come up with carbon offsets, it prefers trees.
Planting trees is the tip of the iceberg. We need to develop and reinvigorate a culture focused on regenerative agriculture and the natural world as a whole
Take a lesson from Japan for instance, they use a cool method called Daisugi, essentially just trimming the top of the trees branches and allowing it to re grow rather than fully cutting them down
@@Indyfficient... Ok, and what does that accomplish? What happens to the cut parts? How is this any better than regrowing a tree from seedling?
@@MelodicTurtleMetal because they don’t need to completely deforest… what’s not to understand, it takes years for saplings to mature. This method bypasses that massive wait time for regrowth
@@Indyfficient That's called pollarding and is used all over Europe and other places.
Scientists ! "Don't plant trees. Buy this gadget we've invented instead."
😅😂😅
Look at it this way: Can we replace our fossil fuel use by burning trees instead? If no, then we can't "unburn" fossil fuels by planting trees either.
Yeah unfortunately anything related to man, whether made or cultivated, will have a carbon debt. We can make passive carbon absorbers, but making it made pollution, we can make carbon pumps, but making and running make pollution, we can plant trees, but we may destroy existing ecosystems are shift their balance, etc.
The main thing is that people are too greedy to cut back on things. Technology is the reason we're in the spot we are and you can't just fix it with more technology. Just look how today homes have 2-4 cars where in the 60s it was rare to see a home with more than one. And yes we made more efficient light bulbs but now people just use way more of them. Just think that there are TVs advertising they used over 5000 LEDs.
Brilliant answer
Who needs trees when you can live in a Mad Max world?
I don't like sand, it gets everywhere.
💩
Excellent point 😃!
@@TheKingWhoWins If you look carefully, you can see it trickling out of Billy's head.
CALL WRITE NASA SHE AND GATES ARE WRONG
The other thing people don't consider, especially if they aren't living in a heavily forested country; trees don't hold onto that carbon forever. They go through a natural death and rebirth cycle through forest fires which releases a (literal) tons of CO2. It gets captured again when the seeds left over after the fire grow into new trees but that takes several more decades before the cycle begins again.
We often see up here in Canada how aggressive tree and park protection can result in absolutely massive forest fires.
It's not politically appetizing to do control burns or to create fire corridors when it's protected land.
Planting trees is by no means a solution, let alone a perfect one.