Another study found that money can produce any study you want and any outcome you want.

@Magic-mushrooms113

Ай бұрын

Well said!

@zloyboy8

Ай бұрын

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..

@axeman2638

Ай бұрын

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.

@Magic-mushrooms113

Ай бұрын

@@axeman2638 axed

@rolandkarlsson7072

Ай бұрын

@Perry - who did buy that study?

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.

@daveh7720

Ай бұрын

Everybody wants a quick fix.

@SupertzarMetal

Ай бұрын

@@daveh7720 Even the junkies.

@dannymira1

Ай бұрын

Best comment of the video

@vids595

Ай бұрын

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.

@theguyfromsaturn

Ай бұрын

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 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.

@stevep2430

27 күн бұрын

Not just the Amazon but all through the tropics.

@JohnSmithGlobeLie

27 күн бұрын

The dumbest thing altogether is to beLIEve a word that comes out of Gate's mouth and to beLIEve that the earth is hoting up and sea waters are rising lol

@MrKapeji

26 күн бұрын

@@JohnSmithGlobeLie You are an expert on dumb things for sure.

@Dave-sw2dm

26 күн бұрын

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.

@billsmith8853

25 күн бұрын

What climate change?

Phytoplankton is one of the largest biomass in the world. The ocean is absolutely vital and it itself is in trouble. I spent five years in Southeast Asia working both for Swiss law firms, the faculty of medicine and malaysia, and as a diving instructor and I dove the entire time I was there probably at least 2000 hours there alone. I had never seen the dead ocean until I saw it at the border of France and Spain on the Atlantic side. It was emotional for me it was absolutely shocking and I actually cried because there was plastic and microplastic in the entire water column and not a single living anything and I was completely shocked.

@bruceb5481

17 күн бұрын

I know the oceans are a mess but you just ruined my day. 😢😢😢

@DrSmooth2000

15 күн бұрын

​@@bruceb5481it is "splotchy" Search for 'why oceans are turning green' Takes a lot of plankton

@janicewolk6492

13 күн бұрын

We are dead if the oceans get much worse.

@user-fr2jc8xb9g

13 күн бұрын

@@janicewolk6492 But that's a good thing right? Well at least for the planet....

@andrewst9797

12 күн бұрын

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

(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.

@Gunni1972

Ай бұрын

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.

@bryanwales6487

Ай бұрын

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.

@shawnbottom4769

Ай бұрын

This comment should be pinned at the top. You can't just plug a bunch of saplings into the ground.

@sebigamer

Ай бұрын

How do grasslands store more carbon than woods?

@1over137

Ай бұрын

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.

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.”

@PhilfreezeCH

Ай бұрын

I don‘t even have a car, I hope you will match my devotion.

@TheLastBen.

Ай бұрын

how do you get rid of a vacation home ? by transferring ownership to a different person ? how does that affect the climate ?

@marctruller9735

Ай бұрын

@@TheLastBen. maybe by reducing the propability that a new home is build for the persons living in the vacation home permanantly now?

@michael1

Ай бұрын

Well he met you half way and got rid of his wife and family

@unduloid

Ай бұрын

@@PhilfreezeCH I don't even breathe.

I've noticed the climate in a forest is much nicer than a parking lot .

@GazGuitarz

8 күн бұрын

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.

@edwardmedina1236

3 күн бұрын

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.

@yvonnem.langlois5197

3 күн бұрын

Especially after it rains.

"carbon credits" needs to banned first

@MikesGarageBadDecisions

25 күн бұрын

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.

@GazGuitarz

8 күн бұрын

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.

@reckneya

7 күн бұрын

Wow, this sounds almost like English, which is a language I understand.

How about we stop cutting the rain forests down first !

@PeachesCourage

Ай бұрын

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

@PeachesCourage

Ай бұрын

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

@2bfrank657

Ай бұрын

Then get paid in carbon credits for not doing something 😂

@andrasbiro3007

Ай бұрын

@@2bfrank657 Much better than the alternatives.

@KabonkNo1

Ай бұрын

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 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.

@yeroca

Ай бұрын

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.

@markdowning7959

Ай бұрын

@@yeroca Makes sense but - would you rather walk around a solar panel array or an established woodland?

@ZeroPlayerGame

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Alfred-Neuman

Ай бұрын

What about we begin by stopping cutting trees that are more than a thousand years old to make insanely large tables for rich people?

@LoremIpsum1970

Ай бұрын

@@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...

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.

@NogginMelodeon

27 күн бұрын

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.

@ankebrodauf8011

27 күн бұрын

@@NogginMelodeon Agroforestry will be our future, especially while climate change.

@sebastianbauer4768

26 күн бұрын

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

6 күн бұрын

Exactly, thank you.

@royhuijsmans6117

6 күн бұрын

@@sebastianbauer4768 I think that's why he says , rewilding. And to me thats not solely trees, but an ecosystem....we can do with less deserts, there a few, unintentionally, manmade. and we must support the part of nature that creates life, because nature also throwes big rocks at us vulcanos and earthquakes and tsunamis.

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.

@DrSmooth2000

15 күн бұрын

More Grasslands will be getting increased rainfall than forests will lose minimum threshold Anthropocene has new rules

@dereksollows9783

8 күн бұрын

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..

@royhuijsmans6117

6 күн бұрын

A greater Public knowledge of nature, ecology at all schoollevels, with a practice part with it, would be a good idea, i think. We definitely need more knowledge and respect for nature. Drop our status- ego- thing with big cars, big overluxerious houses...stuff in general

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.

@user-zw5jj2uf1p

Ай бұрын

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

Ай бұрын

"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!

@purposefully.verbose

Ай бұрын

@@user-zw5jj2uf1p why not both?

@purposefully.verbose

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@anthonybrett

Ай бұрын

@@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?

The thing that will really help is healthy ecosystems, including the sea floor and grasslands as well as forests.

@user-mu8uu6us1s

19 күн бұрын

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.

@swyveu

18 күн бұрын

@@user-mu8uu6us1s The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is that we take too much and never give back. Your comment is cynical in the sense that your own selfishness is more important than other people's lives. Consume less, contribute more.

@bruceb5481

17 күн бұрын

​@@user-mu8uu6us1sAnd your solution?

@royhuijsmans6117

6 күн бұрын

@@swyveu I think you're are partly right. we need to consume less, but 75% less people would help a lot too. And would be a lot nicer world . more space for everybody i'm not so happy with lot's of people around me everywhere. A few can be good company though.

Bill Gates clearly thinks the rest of us are idiots.

It's rather about the root causes. The biggest in my opinion: Deforestation. But people, also Bill Gates, don't like to talk about the actual problems..

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.✌️

@gevansmd

Ай бұрын

Sounds more like government mismanagement.

@chriss.9060

Ай бұрын

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 .

@JTNugget

Ай бұрын

Curious, how does this help business?

@venrams

Ай бұрын

@@JTNugget It is definetly business, these business pigs or if you have more worst word you can think of, choose ones which does not grow, sustain then they charge for removal, replant and they will suck government money like leeaches , they will never solve any problem, they flourish with the environmental problems

@lourencovieira5424

Ай бұрын

@@kpg1973 grasslands and steppes are important ecosystems

“Are we idiots?” - Yes

@mutantryeff

Ай бұрын

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.

@pathfinderfergusfilms6630

Ай бұрын

Paris goals or life...? Take out C02 we starve life... Is C02 heating the planet? Ask the sun not the scientists....

@JZsBFF

Ай бұрын

And hypocrites.

@jriceblue

Ай бұрын

...THE SCIENCE IS IN!

@JimmyDoyel-by2cp

Ай бұрын

Me no dumb!!! Me is smort!!!

Lots of studies show that trees immediately and cheaply cool urban areas. Loading up our cities with trees is still a good idea even if they don't remove enough C02. Temperature is the issue, right? Lowering temperatures in cities has already been done with lots of success in scores of locations. Gates is all about money and it's hard to make billions of $ planting trees. I'd like to see this topic treated in more depth.

Climate change is not about just the atmosphere it is also about saving soil.

@user-ts5qw6tr9b

25 күн бұрын

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

8 күн бұрын

🤣

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.

@osmosisjones4912

Ай бұрын

The ground Traps more heat then carbon dioxide

@rolandotillit2867

Ай бұрын

Don't forget roots prevent erosion.

@TheLivirus

Ай бұрын

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?

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

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.

@tgorski52

Ай бұрын

​@@TheLivirusHow about we stop converting forest to marginal crop land?

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

@ivarwind

Ай бұрын

You actually increase carbon emissions by running 600 m longer. ;)

@JustDan718

Ай бұрын

@@ivarwind bro runs 4km, any one else today would drive that. Simply bad faith comment.

@m.bird.

Ай бұрын

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.

@malikjackson9337

Ай бұрын

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

@Elo-hv3fw

Ай бұрын

Temporary escape .

It does not take decades to achieve canopy growth...this is some mental gymnastics

@marke219

25 күн бұрын

7 years is what it takes to grow a 40ft cottonwood tree

@SurfingBoulder

25 күн бұрын

@@marke219 i got check into that. I live in florida and some plants dont grow well in my yard. I work in the Solar industry and it pains me to see how often trees are removed to allow more sunlight when i have personally tested these modules in extreme shade and they still generate at 100%. The sheer greed, ignorance then stupidity gives me anxiety...these are all lies and probably propagated by the likes Bill Gatee and his "coalition" of globalists. We need to wake up the conscience of everyday people, universally.....no one is safe

@CanVultus

23 күн бұрын

So, you don’t know much about forest succession or how long a decade is? Good thing we live in the Information Age they say. Unfortunately not everyone takes advantage of all the free information available.

@EvelynKirkaldyArt_BearSmart

23 күн бұрын

@@marke219Yes, Cottonwoods are extremely fast growing, but they aren't suitable worldwide and other species do not grow that quickly.

@EvelynKirkaldyArt_BearSmart

23 күн бұрын

This is a subjective generalization, which is anything but scientific.

I've been saying this for years, it's fun to see that my fears of spreading climate misunderstandings became real...

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

Ай бұрын

No, it's viable way to reduce your bills and nothing more

@raph151515

Ай бұрын

@@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) .

@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl

Ай бұрын

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.

@BernardoPC117

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@sburn1919

Ай бұрын

Mother Earth always restores balance. One day, a tree will fall on your home and the repair cost will cancel out the reduced bills.

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.

@keithdf2001

Ай бұрын

That sounds more like land reclamation which has other benifits

@olavsantiago

Ай бұрын

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).

@SkepticalCaveman

Ай бұрын

Plant bamboo instead, it grows much, much faster.

@Charonupthekuiper

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@JohnPretty1

Ай бұрын

@@olavsantiago The national forest is new. No conifers.

Plant the trees closer together. Also, feed the mayonnaise directly to the tuna.

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

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.

@Fionnualagh

28 күн бұрын

Exactly

@LabNCo

27 күн бұрын

Why you people so obsessed with lawnmowing, seriously why

@nostaljiturkce

26 күн бұрын

@@LabNCo It looks nice and clean. The nature is wild. Your garden will become a forest if you don’t domesticate it.

@clintonrobinson8070

26 күн бұрын

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.

@peterkilbridge6523

26 күн бұрын

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.

Trees can be a good way to help mitigate the Urban Heat Island effect. I wish cities had more trees.

@TheSaltyAdmiral

Ай бұрын

Yes, and Bill never claimed otherwise.

@GazGuitarz

8 күн бұрын

100%

@ravenlord4

8 күн бұрын

@@TheSaltyAdmiral And I never claimed that he claimed otherwise. Also user name checks out, so cheers, and have a better day ;)

Can’t save us, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t help.

A company bought a lot of acreage near my home. They planted trees. Then left. The trees all died without maintenance. They tore up the land also. What a waste.

@jean-marclamothe8859

8 күн бұрын

😂😂😂

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.

@rosiepone

Ай бұрын

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

@tsmspace

Ай бұрын

its make more wetlands.

@raph151515

Ай бұрын

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.

@Imaboss8ball

Ай бұрын

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.

@gagenater

Ай бұрын

@@raph151515 so when we stop growing so much food, how do you pick which people die as a result?

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.

@larion2336

Ай бұрын

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.

@alphagt62

Ай бұрын

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!

@gavinminion8515

Ай бұрын

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.

@PeachesCourage

Ай бұрын

CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING

@hherpdderp

Ай бұрын

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.

This is what happens when you try to solve everything with technology and don't understand natural cycles at all. It is shocking to see how little understanding of natural systems many of the most powerful and wealthy people have. Trying to simplify climate crisis solutions down to one variable is already quite alarming. If that variable is atmospheric carbon, it gets even more shocking. Functioning ecosystems and especially forests are absolutely vital for small water cycles and the stabilisation of weather extremes. We need trees to transpire water into the air and we need spongy forest soils to infiltrate heavy rain events. Is a newly planted tree as efficient at sucking carbon out of the atmosphere as a Direct Air Capture facility? Definitely not. Are trees more important for our global climate than DAC facilities? Most certainly! We need to get away from looking at climate and nature as separate things.

I love how they say "deserts are a terrible result of man's technological progress and free choice" AND.. when we say ok let's turn those deserts green by planting trees... the SAME people say "No we need deserts to save the planet from man's technological progress and free choice".

@DrSmooth2000

15 күн бұрын

We will eat the desert with trees

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.

@PeachesCourage

Ай бұрын

CALL WRITE NASA THIS IS ALL WRONG NASA TELLS US THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE AND GATES ARE SAYING

@RS-ls7mm

Ай бұрын

We are also totally ignoring that 95% of the world can't afford to do anything.

@N0_191_

Ай бұрын

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. 🥴🤦🏻‍♀️🇨🇦

@N0_191_

Ай бұрын

​​@@RS-ls7mmThinking is free. Imagination limitless. Helping others profound. Idleness is just wasted space inhabited by lazy people's. 😊💁🏻‍♀️🥰 free exists.

@2bfrank657

Ай бұрын

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.

Planting trees is a vague term, it's like comparing a monoculture forestry set up to a mixed native broadleaf forest

@asktheanimals

Ай бұрын

Yup, so much divisiveness missing the nuances of this question.

@silentwilly2983

Ай бұрын

It is not vague, it is well defined, it is however a broad term.

@phil20_20

Ай бұрын

Reforestation would be a better general term. Or "Wood" it?

@joelcarson4602

Ай бұрын

Tree farms are not forests.

@vultureTX001

Ай бұрын

@@joelcarson4602 future beetle homes would be more honest.

„Enough trees“ would be 1.5 TRILLION trees…1 for every 2 already existing. The amount of area required would be less than 5% of all the agricultural land in the world.

Most of the photo synthesis happens from the ocean. Not on the land.

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...

@InnocentiusLacrimosa

Ай бұрын

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.

@e.d.1642

Ай бұрын

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.

@tsmspace

Ай бұрын

wetlands. we need wetlands. Wetlands will be much more impactful than just some saplings. And wetlands get packed full of saplings automatically.

@brucemangy

Ай бұрын

planting tree cannot be interesting if more trees are cut than planted ...

@ColinMill1

Ай бұрын

@@brucemangy Well, the point of tree-planting initiatives is to make sure that doesn't happen. That is what FSC certification is all about.

Unfortunately, we are the idiots whether we plant the trees or not.

@rafaelgonzalez4175

Ай бұрын

In comparison to higher intelligence that would be absolute.

@adayinthelife5496

Ай бұрын

We certainly aren't scientists like Gates want to believe.

@lorn4867

Ай бұрын

*sigh*

@James-kv6kb

Ай бұрын

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

„trees are very good listeners and if they get to boring you can chop them down and heat with them.“ Saruman: „Yeah, that‘s what i said.“

One second. You completely forget about the earth's microbiome which is killed by solar pannels in a field but proliferates with trees.

😂 "...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.

@elizabeththomas6323

Ай бұрын

Love her ♥️😂

@charlesdinkel408

Ай бұрын

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)

@MikkelGrumBovin

Ай бұрын

shes dry as a raisin,-

i need that soundbyte of Sabine saying "peanuts!..." 😂😂😂😂 i can imagine numerous situations in which itd be useful...

I'm Brazilian. In most situations here, you don't have to actually replant the trees. Just by preventing fires, cattle grazing and leaving the area alone it will reforest itself. By planting certain tree types, you can accelerate the process. The main issue is not the feasibility of reforesting large swathes of land. It is the competition of forests with agriculture/cattle grazing and the demand for food worldwide. In my opinion, the determining factor is the population. And that never seems to get mentioned. Our economic model simply demands an ever increasing population to cover the costs of those retiring and the general growth of the economy. As long as that is the only model, climate change is a certainty.

THere are no huge subsudies for tree planting, so he makes no 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

@alfred-vz8ti

Ай бұрын

growing trees turns co2 gas to c solid. monoculture is a good idea, if the cut timber is put to long-term use.

@presence5426

Ай бұрын

Comprehensive landscape restoration. Not tree mono-cropping.

@robertagren9360

Ай бұрын

It does only one thing. It store water. And that water store carbon.

@cavejohnson982

Ай бұрын

I thougth for just a moment you really disliked the Culture of the Mon (in southeast Asia) :D

@pja8901

Ай бұрын

We shouldn't plant trees but let forests grow uninterrupted. It's far more natural and ecological.

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 😢

@Atommagi

Ай бұрын

Those damn HOAs. Did they give any reason?

@cherubin7th

Ай бұрын

@@Atommagi I don't understand why the members of this HOAs seem to have no say in their own organization.

@lostvisitor

Ай бұрын

@@cherubin7th when you sign into a HOA you are giving up your freedoms for ??? property value? You get what you deserve.

@GoingtoHecq

Ай бұрын

That is awful

@adamrussell658

Ай бұрын

Your apartment had an hoa?

If planting a trillion trees does nothing then cutting 1 trillion trees will also do nothing, and if that does nothing let's cut all the 3 trillion trees on Earth with no bad side effects. But we all know that is not the case.

@Strategies2010

26 күн бұрын

You've entirely missed any of the nuance of the video, nice

"misquoting someone" is what generates clicks in today's media landscape. The more you can "angle" it toward shocking, the more clicks you get and there are countless people waiting to react with total ignorance to that as they never go beyond reading the headline.

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?

@epajarjestys9981

Ай бұрын

Yes, this is the most disgustingly stupid video Sabine has ever done.

@Gunni1972

Ай бұрын

20% is quite a good chunk better than everything we "Didn't try" so far.

@PeachesCourage

Ай бұрын

CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS

@LoreTunderin

Ай бұрын

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?

@obsidianjane4413

Ай бұрын

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.

I freely admit that I am an idiot. The problem is all those idiots that are convinced that they are absolutely brilliant.

@wally7856

Ай бұрын

There is nobody more sure of himself then an idiot.

@Indyfficient

Ай бұрын

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

@tsmspace

Ай бұрын

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.

@YouKnowTheyExist

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Indyfficient

Ай бұрын

@@YouKnowTheyExist you really critiquing Socrates? Lol

Only about 25% of the carbon reaches the soil when the tree eventually dies and rots up on the ground. I'm growing a few acres of trees, however it's more for privacy. Plus we use heat pumps for heating, cooling, hot water and drying our clothes, which have lowered our energy usage. Now if I could just afford enough solar panels to power it all.

I’ve been saying this for a while…more trees aren’t the answer, let’s not be morons.

Hence it's vital that we minimise destroying existing native forests...

@MiltonRoe

Ай бұрын

Bingo, these fools talk about planting trees while we turn forests into parking lots and fields for grazing cattle at an alarming rate.

@delos2279

Ай бұрын

@@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).

@ObjectsInMotion

Ай бұрын

Existing forests are carbon neutral. Fully grown trees do not remove carbon. Only growing trees remove carbon from the atmosphere.

@1pcfred

Ай бұрын

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.

@mpmpm

Ай бұрын

@@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.

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

@Indyfficient

Ай бұрын

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

Ай бұрын

​@@Indyfficient... Ok, and what does that accomplish? What happens to the cut parts? How is this any better than regrowing a tree from seedling?

@Indyfficient

Ай бұрын

@@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

We can cut down trees in a day but it takes decades for trees to grow. Planting enough trees to compensate the trees we cut down seems very hard.

The most important when it comes to trees, is to stop deforestation. The forests we have is collecting an enormous amount of carbon dioxide. So even if we don't plant trees, we have to protect the remaining forests we have here on earth.

"If they get too boring, you can chop them down and heat with them" Excellent!

@GeekusKhaniCAs

Ай бұрын

"Trees are really good listeners" < (cant deny the teuth) also... they also can take a beating if you want to vent your frustration without hurting the environment too much, or simply want to vent your frustration against a boss / colleague without harming a human. Keep in mind, trees to "talk" to each other🤔🙄🧐🤫😁

I 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.

@mygirldarby

Ай бұрын

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!

@markdowning7959

Ай бұрын

​@@mygirldarby "Surrounding vegetated places" sounds a little like what we used to call "countryside". :)

@Vindolin

Ай бұрын

Trees also transpire a lot of water, which leads to evaporative cooling.

@Oi....

Ай бұрын

That's Transpiration, more trees in cities required. and Less Humans

@LoreTunderin

Ай бұрын

​@@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.

Scientists need to stop repeatedly giving people contradictory info or else everyone will just ignore them.

While we debate whether planting trees helps or not and whether that is the only solution to the problem, more and more forests are disappearing every day. At the same time, for example, the EU is negotiating trade agreements with South American countries to supply products that would also grow here. But they don't because they are making it harder and harder for farmers here by inundating them with requirements. These strict requirements do not exist in the countries with which they are negotiating. They then cut down primeval forests to supply us with the things whose production we have made virtually impossible here because they producew them for a fraction of the costs we can produce them here. Of course it is not as simple as I have outlined - but I think it broadly describes the problem very well.

there is no one solution, in reality is a mix of solutions that will make a difference.

@tooncesthedrivingcat7105

Ай бұрын

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.

@CrazyGaming-ig6qq

Ай бұрын

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.

@drx1xym154

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@mikemondano3624

Ай бұрын

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.

@CHIEF_420

Ай бұрын

​@@drx1xym154⚛️

How many trees do we have to plants to offset Bill's private jet emissions?

@scottmcshannon6821

Ай бұрын

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.

@JoelSalazarM

Ай бұрын

It's in the video. He does it by donating solar panels and other green energy sources.

@virgiliustancu9293

Ай бұрын

@@scottmcshannon6821 stop with your bullshit.

@ijustwannaleaveacommentony6511

Ай бұрын

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

@James-kv6kb

Ай бұрын

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

So basically the rich don't give a flying F 🤣

If nature wants trees, let nature have trees, if nature wants grassland, then let nature have grassland... I have a lot more confidence in nature than I do in Gates.

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.

@zloyboy8

Ай бұрын

you can't patent trees, so no body really cares about that option

@OrangeNash

Ай бұрын

Neither will billionaires solve climate change. Let's not bother making any more of those, too.

In 2023, 2000 square miles of the amazon were cut down. ~800 million trees have been felled in the amazon since 2018.

@douginorlando6260

Ай бұрын

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

@Xanderbelle

Ай бұрын

From 2.1 million square miles... barely 1%

@beismlive

Ай бұрын

It is not coming back.

@MrMollusk7

Ай бұрын

@@Xanderbelle 1% of the world's largest carbon sink gone in 1 year isn't a problem to you?

@NorbertKasko

Ай бұрын

​@@MrMollusk7It's 0.1% actually.

Insurance companies are making us cut down trees in order to ensure our homes, great world we live in!

Wow, advertising for language apps is everywhere, even in videos about science. Planting trees can't hurt. And everyone can also save energy.

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.

@wmpx34

Ай бұрын

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.

@kated3165

Ай бұрын

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.

@danilooliveira6580

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@THEMRblackboy7thst

Ай бұрын

and most importantly, the breath CO2.

@kated3165

Ай бұрын

@@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.

i live under a giant oak tree.we live in a bungalow.we look out of the kitchen window and all you see is a giant oak. We have no sun light. Can't put washing out because of pigeons landing on the branches that cover my washing line and pooing on washing.the oak is about 13 feet away from my kitchen window.we might as well be living in a tree house.cant I cant put any plants in the ground because of roots and the soil is so dry. We had to call Anglian water out because of a blockage in the pipes.we had raw sewage coming up through the bath room floor,for two days. It was disgusting and the smell was evil.so now the roots are pushing up under the patio and lifting the slabs.dont get me started on preservation orders.they should be😊 abolished.no won has been to check on these trees at all since we have been living here we have to keep calling out maintenance to clear the guttering and the roof.and its slug city at night, cant walk out on to the patio it covered in slugs all of the time.what do you think about it.

yes, lets all listen to the guy that wants us to live like in the dark ages and eat bugs for lunch while he has a fleet of private jets that he uses to go everywhere lols.

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

Ай бұрын

I assume you mean as coal that is never burned

@simongross3122

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@dmitripogosian5084

Ай бұрын

If you increase forested area, there will be one time capture equal to amount of new trees

@simongross3122

Ай бұрын

@@dmitripogosian5084 Only for a short time measured in decades, not eons.

@dmitripogosian5084

Ай бұрын

@@simongross3122 As I said, it is one time reduction, but forever, presuming that trees will continue to maintain themselves in this new area

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.

@TheKingWhoWins

Ай бұрын

This guy ∆ needs a position in Congress.

@sluggo206

Ай бұрын

The problem is that other people won't stop buying products just because you want them to.

@Gotonis

Ай бұрын

DISREGARD ABOVE CONSOOM PRODUCT

@pawelzielinski1398

Ай бұрын

and who are "they"???

@PeachesCourage

Ай бұрын

CALL WRITE LOOK UP NASA CARBON IS NOT A PROBLEM THEY WILL TELL YOU THIS THAT'S ALL

Anything Bill Gates is reported to say these days makes me instantly wary. As has been said previously, planting trees alone won't solve the problem, but it is still vital to help stabilise the problem. There are many things we can and should do to, if not stop the change outright, slow it enough that we can find better ways to fix it.

The statement "people would rather use the land to grow food" seems to be a false dichotomy, an assumption that tree crops are not a thing. Apples, pears, walnuts, hazelnuts... these can sequester carbon while yielding food.

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.

@presence5426

Ай бұрын

Yep. And large-scale landscape restoration can help cool the planet, while restoring ecosystems, retaining water, and beautifying.

@DonReba

Ай бұрын

Many choose to deal with MS Windows because it is better than the alternatives. :)

@pgress1867

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@MB-xe8bb

Ай бұрын

I wonder if the reduction in air-conditioning was included in the calculations.

@pgress1867

Ай бұрын

@@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?

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.

All the animals in the rain forests have already met and discussed this. Topic: Do we do anything anything about the destruction humans are causing to the planet. Consensus: do nothing. They concluded human greed will cause their own downfall.

Well he's half right. Canada and Russia have so many trees that both countries are carbon negative but our governmentment is still in a panic over carbon emissions.

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.

@carlpanzram7081

Ай бұрын

Breed squirrels to be able to jump further. Problem solved. Next.

@billgreen576

29 күн бұрын

They still can. Now they fly.

@DrSmooth2000

15 күн бұрын

​@@carlpanzram7081Calugos are the squirrels of the future

Deforestation is said to contribute at least 12% or more so it makes sense to reverse that.

@johnmorrell3187

Ай бұрын

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.

@RickLaBanca

Ай бұрын

@@johnmorrell3187 that’s basically what I’m saying. Do both really.

@MiltonRoe

Ай бұрын

Or just stop deforesting everything. You can't replant trees on a parking lot.

@keithdf2001

Ай бұрын

It is almost as it you did not watch the video

@TheAbeKane

Ай бұрын

As long as we all agree that Gates is the enemy

Thank goodness Bill is not in charge of reforestation! Each tree would have to pay a single user license, so please don't encourage the man!

I would argue, panting trees is not enough, if we want fastest returns, growing trees, cutting them down, making any long lasting stuff out of them and planting new trees to repeat the cycle is far more efficient. There are companies doing this for a reasonable profit all across Europe. So ... this is only a win-win-win situation. Also note that these are not your average trees. They grow like crazy.

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.

We are expert in ignoring the “Context” and react stupidly to everything on the internet

@SuperOhdannyboy

29 күн бұрын

You win !

Bill Gates sounds like one of those guys who would say no thanks we don't need the national guard, we want a protest to get out of control.

The problem is we cut down more than we plant and trees take decades to grow

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.

@mikemondano3624

Ай бұрын

Forests do millions of things besides harvest CO₂. You have contradicted no one.

@StangspringDK

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@DavidTh2

20 күн бұрын

they are spokespeople for the climate-industrial complex. A scam if ever there was one.

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.

@Thomas-gk42

Ай бұрын

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.😊

@tiefensucht

Ай бұрын

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.

@andy02q

Ай бұрын

Noch billiger wäre es nicht ständig gigantische Mengen an Bäumen abzubrennen.

@carstenmueller5364

Ай бұрын

@@andy02q alte Bäume nehmen nur noch wenig co2 auf. Also in Bezug auf co2 Bindung nicht die beste Lösung

@carstenmueller5364

Ай бұрын

@@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

Stupid idea. Where is the profit in planting trees?

As a Forest Engineer I can certify that Bill Gates is right and Sabine's analysis spot on. Trees are great but not for removing CO2 out of the atmosphere. Plus a grown forest is actually Net Zero carbon, because trees are processed and decomposed in time and all the stored CO2 will go back to the atmosphere. The Amazon rain forest even if not deforested, is net zero C02. Even a forest as large as 5 Chinas (if that would even be remotely possible) the capability for CO2 retention would be severely limited as the forest matured and CO2 emissions continue.

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.

@kajetanch2574

Ай бұрын

There are more possibilities, see Scotland and deer.

@battleon81

Ай бұрын

@@kajetanch2574 Fair enough. Overgrazing is just as bad as deliberate mowing.

Scientists ! "Don't plant trees. Buy this gadget we've invented instead." 😅😂😅

@chrisjager5370

Ай бұрын

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.

@Skylancer727

Ай бұрын

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.

When the leaves fall, or the tree eventually dies, all the CO2 is released again when it rots.

I plant tree's. I like them. Fruits. Nuts. Birds. Cools the yard. Smells good.

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.

@asktheanimals

Ай бұрын

Agreed. This is precisely what I came here to type.

@vernugt

Ай бұрын

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

@ref8893

Ай бұрын

...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

Ай бұрын

We could die out. That would have the biggest impact.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

@@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!