If We Plant 1 TRILLION Trees Can We Stop Climate Change?

[@TommoCarroll]

Dude! Thanks so much for giving a little nod to my little channel! As a fan of yours for YEARS this is really amazing. :) ✌️

[@samsunglover6336]

www.ecosia.org/ use it to search like Google but plant 1 tree each 45 searches. it cost you nothing, its free! :D

[@baguette745]

@@samsunglover6336 cool

[@saswotlamichhane5862]

@@samsunglover6336 Awesome!

[@harrietyes]

@@samsunglover6336 imma search everything!!!!!

[@botigamer9011]

We need to protect the Carroll reefs *ba dum tss*

[@Master_Therion]

Planting trees is one way to... spruce up our planet.

[@madide3978]

Master Therion You would be a birch if you didn’t 🤣

[@Antweezy]

Im gonna go out on a limb and say it will be a while before we all stick to this plan of planting 1 trillion trees.

[@izzy4liferulz]

Regardless I’m hoping the idea really branches out

[@misskimbly123]

Master Therion best thing I’ve read all day!

[@randolphthomasii7040]

I'm pining for the day where we can have cleaner air!

[@appa609]

teamtrees: 20 million trees! this guy: Cool now do that 50,000 times

[@Matasuh]

Ngl it would be easy if we got 1 billion people and made them all plant atleast 1 tree.

[@coldfireball6384]

@@Matasuh half the planet can't afford to eat. What makes you think getting 1/7 of everyone is even possible. Most are babies. Children. People who don't even know what a tree is. The rest of the billions clearly don't care. Getting even a few thousand people to do anything together is impossible. A whole billion to do anything collectively is not only unheard of, but we have a higher chance of leaving the planet than that.

[@Matasuh]

@@coldfireball6384 I'd say more than 1/7 people know what a tree is

[@Matasuh]

@@iiiiiii8113 Hire a translator lol

[@kirabean5441]

@@Matasuh ah yes, how many languages in the world are there? Sorry man but that's just too much time and money wasted on something stupid

[@JJ-de9vf]

I literally shed a tear when he mentioned Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman who was so passionate about tree planting and the first African woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Sadly she passed on a few years ago but she led a life worth emulating. Btw am from Kenya, hakuna matata🇰🇪❤️

[@user-bm9cv9vn2k]

❤️

[@hectoralvarado3173]

My wife and I lived together in Nairobi for a little over year, i love you your country.

[@yoonyiachang1390]

In our school we learned about her and she is very awesome

[@felipecastanha9161]

I'll remember to thank her when I get to heaven if I'll ever get the honor

[@skfestus9000]

aaaah mkenya mwenzangu

[@aatt3209]

Also, protecting the Amazon rainforest NOW, is a must. The biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest is not something that can be generated instantly by planting 21 million trees.

[@someguy2135]

What can each of us do to protect forests? Switch to a pure plant based diet. ""Eating a vegan diet could be the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on earth, a new study suggests. Researchers at the University of Oxford found that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent.Sep 24, 2020" Even if the world never goes vegan, each of us can make a huge difference by doing the single most effective change to do our part. Link on my channel under "About."

[@someguy2135]

Why are the trees that make up the Amazon rain forest being intentionally burned? Animal agriculture. The arsonists want to graze cattle or grow soy, most of which (70% +) is fed to livestock. Don't support animal agriculture with your money. Go vegan!

[@treeplantation3133]

Try using ecosia every 45 searches they plant 1 tree 🌿🌱

[@someguy2135]

@@treeplantation3133 I do use Ecosia. No reason we can't do that, and go vegan, and all the other things each individual can do.

[@lexitnute1306]

@@someguy2135 Going Vegan doesn't do anything to save earth.

[@thelongtony]

I have already planted 8 trees at the garden of my home, all of them natural of the region I live: the Brazilian cerrado. And I intend to plant at least more two next year. Most of them produces fruits to attract the local fauna, specially birds. I also plan to instal a system to reuse water in my house in the next 5 years. By now, I have already installed solar panels to reduce our electricity demand.

[@abelhapedras]

topíssimo, q árvores vc plantou? eu adoro árvores frutíferas, aqui em casa temos um abacateiro e uma amoreira!

[@strafniki1080]

You are example

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Thank you! You're doing an amazing job.

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

Plant fruit and nut trees in your yard, the ultimate in local food.

[@Himewna]

important addendum: plant fruit/nuts trees that are native to your local ecosystem!

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

@@Himewna That would mean no bananas, apples, pears, Asian persimmon, fejoa, plums, or loquats would be in my yard...

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

@@Poon1312 Trees that produce food in your yard provide food with a negative carbon footprint. And good for you too. Who cares if trees drink water? We get 5 ft of rain a year.

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

@@Poon1312 It's a joint effort. Can't blame industry for making stuff without blaming the public for buying it. People piss money away on trinkets.

[@mr.boomguy]

Wait 🤔...

[@Julika7]

I just watch the German film "The secret of trees" in the cinema. One of the most important points is to not only plant any tree anywhere but a type that naturally grows there and also let it grow in a forest for decades or better centuries, not use them as wood plants.

[@paulmcgreevy3011]

Julika7 ....... use them as wood plants to trap co2 in construction then grow some more.

[@avancalledrupert5130]

That's not true they start releasing when mature . Better to cut them and trap the carbon in buildings . The fact I'm a carpenter has no influence on my opinion I swear.

[@Julika7]

@@avancalledrupert5130 How should they release more co2 than o2? They grow all their lifetime!

[@avancalledrupert5130]

@@Julika7 no they don't they reach maturity and slow down . Barley grow at all after that and when it falls to the ground it's all relased. Building with farmed timber is carbon capture all other forms of building releases it .

[@sceplecture2382]

@@avancalledrupert5130 no, its not "released". The carbon is the wood. the wood degrades from fungi and bacteria and most of it goes back into the ground.

[@MyLastSong719]

I’ve planted over 50 trees on my property. Not only did it drastically reduce the temps but gave so many creatures a habitat where there was none before. If everyone who had the space did the same we could plant that trillion with not much effort

[@alvinrasmus6674]

Did it drastically reduce the temperature on your property? Is it that big of a difference really? Well id like a warmer yard here in Finland anyway I suppose but that's no reason to ignore climate change

[@TDN3052]

Just bought my first house at the end of last year. Already working on it 😁🌱

[@GoofyAhhBoxy]

honestly I think a trillion is just impossible. That means at least everybody on this planet would have to plant like 125 trees somewhere. I think a trillion is just impossible to manage

[@Ziaonfilmandtv]

@@GoofyAhhBoxy125 per person is manageable.

[@jankauza8694]

@@Ziaonfilmandtv think about it again.

[@jacobopstad5483]

"Reduce" has always been my favorite of the three Rs.

[@ViratKohli-jj3wj]

So?

[@jacobopstad5483]

@@ViratKohli-jj3wj Reducing our carbon emissions is kind of the point of the video.

[@LateNightHacks]

@@jacobopstad5483 I'm more of a reuse fan, but reduce is not far behind either

[@jacobopstad5483]

@@LateNightHacks I love reusing whatever I can too.

[@bullie86]

I like recoil and rimjob.

[@johnlarson111]

plant hemp. hemp sequesters four times the co2 per acre of trees. has multiple uses from food, clothing and construction. grows to maturity in sixth months

[@SunnyDMolish602]

Yes!! I wish I could! There are lots of barriers and stigma around hemp.

[@johnlarson111]

@IAN SHYUE it sucks up pollutants. nationalhempassociation.org/hemp-for-remediation-and-green-spaces/

[@AtomicReverend]

@@johnlarson111 how about a source that isn't clearly biased.

[@dumbledoor9293]

Also good for smoking 💨😎

[@beniaminorocchi]

@@AtomicReverend well, it is true that hemp is efficient in taking metals out of the ground. Poplar do that too, that's why you often find them near heavy industries (at least here in Europe), and they grow fast too

[@oeeveemkittygfreak]

In Quebec, it is law that every house MUST have a tree on its property. It'd be nice if other people adopted this law.. sure it's just a single tree per house, but it definitely helps. :)

[@EnamarieNavarro]

Most definitely.

[@nurailidepaepe2783]

even better would be a single tree per person

[@MirrimBlackfox]

@Talebird K Unless you can show that the tree is/would be a danger like it was rotting inside and going to fall... Also, trees planted to be cut (like a coppus, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing) should be exempt.

[@b_uppy]

I'd be more impressed if they based it on lot size.

[@michaelhearne3289]

Sounds like soft Tyranny to me. Which will only get worse. Tell the govt to stick it, and just plant it because you want to.

[@callmejeffrey4999]

We need to protect the Coral reefs and the Planktons!

[@AtlasReburdened]

We've learned to propagate coral pretty easily. There are people currently growing tons and tons of new coral and seeding/building new reefs.

[@callmejeffrey4999]

@@AtlasReburdened yea but the thing is they are getting bleached faster than they are grown due to the higher pH in ocean water.

[@evolutionhasevidenceopinio5234]

@@callmejeffrey4999 did you hear what he said about releasing carbon into the atmosphere? At the end did you hear, if each of us; Reduce how much you contribute to the global warming. Reduce your plastic consumption and reduce your energy/electricity consumption.

@@evolutionhasevidenceopinio5234 this is litterally the worst approach ever. I don't know what kind of people you've met in your life, but basically nobody i know, me included, likes to take time and energy to think about that, any motivation doesn't last more than a month. Any project that asks people to put energy in the "collective good" will fail. We have governaments and policies for this stuff too, if petrol pollutes, then don't let people sell it! You gotta git the seller, not the consumer!

[@evolutionhasevidenceopinio5234]

@ what is "literally" the worst approach ever?

[@tommunyon2874]

I surrounded my house with trees and shrubs even though my lot is small. I'm always astounded when I see a home on a large lot with narry a tree in sight.

[@Keevstar]

Some people don't like to have trees nearby in case one falls on their house, but I understand what you are saying, if you have a load of land put some scenery on it!

[@sandal_thong8631]

@@Keevstar Last year a neighbor cut down all the evergreen trees and bushes in his back yard along the sidewalk of the main street for no reason I could see. I don't think they were tall enough to fall on his home, and now the street noise must be louder for him too.

[@enjy1635]

I live in a city with no front or back yard but i do have a decent sized balcony which i practically filled with small plants. Not quite trees but still works!

[@imadude85]

My sister in law live in a rather warm state, but because her apartment are surrounded by large trees, its actually pleasantly cool inside her house.

[@strafniki1080]

@@Keevstar i have never seen tree falling on a house

[@mkroon2331]

Good to see others are starting to get on board. I've been planting trees since I was 8, I'm now 54. Make sure you plant a variety of trees.

[@TheRealGuywithoutaMustache]

Trees are undoubtedly helpful with the climate, if anything will help even more, it's to reduce carbon emissions

[@matheussanthiago9685]

we receive daily many times the equivalent of humanity's anual energy consumption in the form of sunlight support solar

[@murtamp9828]

Planting trees won’t reduce carbon emissions but will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also if we reduce the amount of CO2 then plants won’t grow as well or as big they need CO2 to survive. So I suggest we keep CO2 at life sustaining levels.

[@vernongoins]

Why not just reduce the source of carbon emissions, humans? Fewer humans = lower demand for products = lower carbon emissions.

Tell that to China

[@vernongoins]

@ Over population is a world wide problem. The Chinese know all too well the problems associated with having too many people. They’re really the only nation who have tried to reduce their population.

[@LimeyWatson]

I love this. Trees = great. But as someone currently working in land conservation and in partnership with federal and state land managers, I wish this pro-trees conversation could include a little more nuisance. I'm so tired of hearing that we need to stop cutting down trees. My work centers largely on fire mitigation and invasive species removal, both of which involve cutting down trees FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET. We cannot find enough funds or enough people to do this important work of keeping our forests and ecosystems healthy and it's a problem no one knows about. If you plant a tree in an over-crowded forest or plant an invasive tree, it could be more detrimental than doing nothing. I also get that this might be too much nuisance when our world is burning, but I reserve the right to be annoyed by it.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Interesting. That is a good and useful point. I'm sure it's just an important to be thoughtful about land management versus only maximize planting new trees in every location. In California our fires have been devastating and out of control for years. Unsurprisingly this is largely because the State agencies are full of smug arrogance based on ignorance, and have summarily rejected the Native American wisdom gathered over 1000s of years regarding the practice of controlled burns. I don't know even now if these morons are changing their ways, even after the last five years. Until they do, irreplaceable priceless communities like Paradise, 1000s of innocent victims, and billions of $$$ in property damage will continue to be the result. It's not that by using controlled burns no unintended fire damagewill ever result, it's just that their damage will be less or significantly less. You probably already know this.

[@b_uppy]

One solution that is often overlooked is 'planting water.' Localized rainwater harvesting earthworks would help raise the watertable as well as keep trees and other plants better hydrated. They can be very durable and worth the invested time. Much cheaper and simpler in the long run as it requires zero working parts once installed compared to irrigation, reservoirs and far away dams.

[@DinoCon]

Everyone wants to reuse and recycle, but few people want to reduce. And that's the biggest problem.

[@pappu4539]

We can't stop traveling by cars. That has become necessity

[@alvininthechipmonks]

​@@pappu4539that's our fault as citizens. becoming too entitled with our cars, not fighting hard enough for public transportation, and too much BS division between states when trains/subways should really be cross country

[@shiny_x3]

"For some reason...." I'm pretty sure we all know why we learn about the accomplishments of some people and not others.... 3:47

[@etilworg]

Wangari Maathai Nobel prize by tree planting as womens empawering ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ we still dont know

[@besmart]

Yeah I wonder what it could be

[@videogyar2]

That is not surprising at all. Most people can't even name one person who got a Nobel peace prize. Whether its a black woman or a white guy has little to do with it.

[@arsim612]

@@BBxx19 you are acting like racism was a focus of the video.

[@MariaMartinez-researcher]

@@BBxx19 It seems that your idea of a black woman planting trees and empowering other women is something like they reunited at her nice house, chanted some hymns, drank herbal tea with pastries and then went to some nice place to watch men planting trees. In Kenya, empowering women, going against deforestation, meant risking your life and be beaten up by police. Seemingly you don't know Wangari was a PhD, nor that she had active political participation, again including aggressions and jail. Ever read her biography? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai You are underestimating her as Churchill did with Gandhi. Except that you aren't Churchill. About the race/gender thing, it's amazing (telling?) that you take it as a personal offense, as if it were a nonexistent issue, to the point of doubting this whole channel teaching of science. Yes, telling, more than amazing. Take a look at CrashCourse History of Science. Race and gender bias is present everywhere, and impacts science things to the point that many women active and important in science were simply suppressed from the accounts, by considering them as mere secretaries or auxiliaries of research. Also, the non white male collaborators or discoverers or expeditionaries. Please also consider than a Peace Nobel Prize requires a quite different system of qualifications, unless your opinion about that award is the same as Sheldon Cooper's. Einstein revolutionized physics, but people can live perfectly without ever knowing of his work. Salk saved many lives, yet he didn't risk life and limb to do it. Wangari changed millions of people's lives, at risk of her own, and deserves recognition. A pity you take that as an attack on your personal dignity.

[@ntt2k]

Finally. One of the first videos that talks about solutions rather than re-iterating that we have a climate change problem. That's so 2010. Most people agreed. So, this video a step in the right way!

[@dawnpalmby5100]

You can also check out Just Have A Think

[@someguy2135]

What can we as individuals do? Stop consuming animal products! It is the single most effective change any individual can make. Animal agriculture contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined! That was the conclusion of the expert panel of the U.N. That's why they urged mankind to switch to a plant based diet ASAP to avoid irreversible climate change.

[@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174]

@@someguy2135 Right on! I'll tell half the world to starve! That'll work. And if you're talking about the developed countries, tough luck! Even if you make developed countries stop eating all food at all, you'll go back just a few years back in CO2 emissions until the rest of the world will very quickly catch up to the little dent you have done. Ain't that simple, buddy.

[@someguy2135]

@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 Switching to a plant based diet would free up a lot of land and result in more food for a hungry world. Now we grow crops to fatten animals for a much smaller amount of calories than the plants we feed them. Compare pulses like beans and meat and see similar results for protein. Currently, we feed a lot of soy to animals.

[@someguy2135]

@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 Subsistence farmers with a cow for milk are not likely to be reading this debate.

[@TrippelSrules]

Durable usage of wood is also good for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere, this means if you do cut trees, instead of burning the wood, keep the wood as furniture or housing materials so it keeps the carbon stored. Of course you can (and should) replant the trees again for capturing more afterwards.

[@buzzman4860]

Exactly, what people don't get is that once a tree matures it isn't going to capture anymore CO2, you have to cut it down to plant a new tree

[@ThatOneLadyOverHere]

I'm from WA and frequently drove past a tree farm. I think they used birch because it's fast growing so they could cut down the trees, replant them, and have more trees to cut down in only a few years. We don't need to stop cutting down trees, we just need to do it responsibly. Which in some countries we are doing, but like he said, it's those in the tropics that aren't, that's where the attention should be.

[@IlyaDemidov]

Bio fuels is also a great way to store C02. If you do not mine any fossils, grow bio fuel and burn, then you are actually still zero emission. If you want to do your part look up solid fuel heaters that run on wood chip.

[@nicolasagulleiro2997]

@@ThatOneLadyOverHere the problem is that many countries with the greatest amount of trees (like Brazil, with the Amazonas) are going through difficult economical situations and, even though environmental management should be high priority, the main priority is for the population not to starve

[@sandal_thong8631]

@@nicolasagulleiro2997 I think that's B.S. The industrialized world could have paid Brazil to protect its tress since the 1980s, but they (we) don't want to.

[@behrozkhan7097]

Pakistan has planted 1 billion trees and is planting 10 billion more so if almost every country does it it will make a huge change.

[@louievito5701]

We need to turn our deserts into forests. It can be done.

[@Spyd4]

@@louievito5701 no it can't be done, deserts are deserts for a reason.

[@maxolande7431]

@@Spyd4 Sahara desert was once a tropical rain forest 🙄

[@Spyd4]

@@maxolande7431 correct, it was, no longer is for at least a million years.

[@strafniki1080]

@@Spyd4 ehm look at gobi desert, china remade it into forest, just look it up

[@ZephyrsTuneOfficial]

Thunderf00t has a good video explaining the viability of planting trees to combat climate change. He goes pretty in depth. I will say I like his bluntness.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

He doesn't really go in depth at all, all the information he showed you was first page google searches and that he can use a calculator (he was correct of course but that's because it's very basic). Also he's not blunt he's smug.

[@ZephyrsTuneOfficial]

We say no to pay to win I will agree he is smug. I just appreciate his realism when almost everyone seems to not know even the basics of how viable it really is to make any difference that Team Trees intends. I also agree his calculation is simple but he goes into some other aspects of the conversation as well.

[@skullfreak102]

Thunderf00t is sometimes good, but he will once in a while be wrong about a subject and not apologize for it

[@louievito5701]

A lot of dummies just hate him in a kneejerk reaction, but he is one of the most important youtube voices i reckon.

[@naominaor6785]

I was again anxious due to global warming, but hearing Jo calmed me. For now.

[@Haren94]

Keeping the trees we have is not enough. Old forests are usually carbon-neutral and some can become carbon emitters. That's because trees breathe aswell, and old trees grow more slowly and even stop growing whatsoever. The solution is responsible forestry, taking down grown trees for wood (and storing the CO2 this way) and planting new trees to capture more carbon.

[@n.a.f.k]

Yeah but when they breathe they emit O2 not CO2

[@firesoullv]

@@n.a.f.k Someone hasn't attended their biology lessons... The process you described is called photosynthesis. But trees also need to breathe and they breathe O2 just like us.

[@Fabelot1]

The mass of the trees are literally the stored carbon. When they die some is probably released back but most is still stored in the organisms eating the tree

[@Haren94]

Fabian Hugert that's the thing. Cut the trees and use the wood to store carbon, use the freed space to grow more trees. Wood is actually a very durable construction material if treated properly.

[@crackedemerald4930]

@@Haren94 bro, check this out arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/chemically-treated-wood-could-send-excess-heat-to-space/

[@acephotino]

6:00 Joe:"there is more carbon locked up in all the worlds trees than in all of the fossil fuels" America:Changes from fossil fuels to tree fuel

[@LateNightHacks]

And they'll promptly attack the amazon forests because they have A=> weapons of mass destruction B=> a nuclear program C=> harbor terrorists D=> all of the above

[@acephotino]

LateNightHacks The amazon has all of that???

[@LateNightHacks]

@@acephotino well, it all depends, do they have good quality timber to burn? yes, ....and also yes

[@acephotino]

LateNightHacks ok Maybe america started the amazon fires to get all the wood!

[@alba2162]

I didn't know about the nukes but send animals to war

[@user-th5hx7kl1l]

Thank you for sharing the impact of planting trillion 🎄 trees. ❤❤❤❤❤😊😊😊😊❤❤❤❤❤ Millions of blessings, Esther St Juste

[@Nvwheeler]

Advocacy for your local wetlands is important too. Wetlands are great carbon sinks

[@cristianvillanueva8782]

I feel like every country that can should have a mandatory amount of forrested or woodland lands that we as a species should just leave alone.

[@AtlasReburdened]

Yeah, they pretty much do. That's what reserves are.

[@Kevin-kb]

@@AtlasReburdened But most of them are not properly protected. Brazil is a great example

[@chregig7967]

Sure, Switzerland is up for that, and Germany as well, but we're just a drop in the barrel compared to China and the US

[@cassiewight8455]

One thing that's missed in these tree planting campaigns is the fact that when you leave a piece of land alone, it will reforest itself in a much healthier, more biologically diverse and sustainable way than if you blast it with a bunch of human planted trees.

[@Delivor212]

How planting the trees can make climate worse: plant them in the natural dry grasslands (steppes, etc). Roots of grass in the natural dry grasslands are huge (so-called "forest upside down") and contains huge amount of carbon dioxide. People planting trees there, trees degradates or burn out, as sites are not suitable for the trees and becoming even less suitable due to the changes of climate, and ecosystems of grasslands are also destroyed. Result: more carbon dioxide in atmosphere. This is what actually happens in southern Eastern Europe, particually in Ukraine: international "Kyoto" money are given to plant trees in Ukraine, they planting it in the natural steppes (of high conservation priority with tons of endangered steppe endemics), destroying it, in the few years there is no forest either, and they planting it AGAIN. Better made a video about this, that trees should be planted where they were naturally growing before, not in naturally forestless habitats. And native trees, as they often planting INVASIVE trees, not suitable for native biodiversity, American Robinia pseudoacacia in Europe, etc.

[@ranimeRAT]

Solution: only plant native trees in their historical range and habitat.

[@ranimeRAT]

Solution: Plant native trees in their native ranges

[@Delivor212]

@@ranimeRAT right, but try to explain it to those who doing the opposite in the huge proportions

[@Handsy_McGee]

Smarter Every Day made a video about this, I think. He talked about a certain species of pine native to his area of the US that basically requires forest fires to grow past knee high. Which is another thing to bring up, fire is a natural process almost everywhere. Rural Aussies were blaming their government for these fires, saying they wouldn't allow them to burn during the winter when it was safer.

[@diggleda2952]

It’s actually the mycelium that collects the carbon. The trees trade carbon with the mycelium networks. Fun fact we are defendants of fungi

[@jerrinschannel5941]

I did the math and if each one of us in the world plant 150 trees then we will get to one trillion trees! #teamtrees

[@AlexMartinez-dc4pe]

Mexican president started a program last year for reforestation of 1 million hectares. 👍

[@AtlasReburdened]

Seems like a lofty goal with the cartel in control of the country.

[@talhatariqyuluqatdis]

MashAllah

[@laletemanolete]

So did FCH and it didn't work, I hope it works this time.

[@knightriderfan1]

It's been proven it would do more harm than good.

[@guilhem3739]

@@knightriderfan1 really? By who?

[@Pottery4Life]

2020: Hey, let's bio-engineer a different kind of plant. 2120: My gawd, what have we done?

[@klmtiptoptiptop474]

What possible Can go wrong

[@hexenwulfen]

LOL. I was thinking the same thing.

[@ralfian0234]

How would trees that merely consume more CO2 freeze the earth?

[@okije]

did the tree said "I'm Groot"?

[@felixfaulkner5293]

@@abstractrussian5562 lmao

[@cardster1216]

4:28 That’s Thanos wiping out 50 percent of the trees...

[@rickdees251]

I'm in fourth grade I recycle most or my water bottles! I'm saving the planet. Whenever I find a pine cone I soak it in water, separate the seeds and plant them. If everyone did this the problem would be solved in 6 months. (sacasm)

[@iwatchedtoomuchsaikik8949]

Your smarter then me and im a year older then you, good solution!

[@Richard_Nickerson]

1:50 Right... we need like 20 million trees to be planted every year, and we need to stop cutting them down too.

[@LateNightHacks]

well, we probably would need to cut them down. if we let them die and decay, we achieve nothing. we probably have to turn them to chip/pulp and pump it back deep back underground

[@n.a.f.k]

@@LateNightHacks because that was so bad when it happened before humans cut down trees?

[@jamaly77]

@@n.a.f.k stop asking, start thinking.

[@aquasnippy]

N.A.F.K why let nature do something moderately okay when we can literally just do that but better and faster and more healthy for the environment?

[@Not.Your.Business]

*20M / day... 3 times a day

[@yoonyiachang1390]

We can also use moss too! Let's save the world!

[@guyguy463]

*sort comments by “Newest First”* This is where the real fun begins

[@odinfromcentr2]

"You suck excess carbon" That globe has no chill. 😂

[@campkira]

tree do let it back out at night.. most imporatant is we reduce co2... why you think i move to japan and stop driving daily after 10 yeasr of daily driving....

[@retrothecake]

Lol I get it because it's losing its chill from global warming

[@quandaledingle7092]

@@campkira not all trees

[@MrDead00]

Campkira i dont think that youve moved to japan

[@Kat-ru7hx]

Felix Finkbeiner looks like if John Mulaney and Zack Kornfeld had a love child, that was the first thing I thought when I saw his face and I can’t get the image out of my head now

[@Jan-nl6kq]

Joe:"Hey Smart people joe here" Me:*eating ICE cream with a fork* "MH YES"

[@WhattheWhatShow]

Woah, I was literally eating ice cream, too. But with a spoon 🥄

[@Jan-nl6kq]

@@WhattheWhatShow im happy for you and i hope it was delicious.

[@WhattheWhatShow]

@@Jan-nl6kq it has peanut butter in it, so it’s exactly perfect. 🤓😂

[@Ltellin669957]

speaking about agriculture, what is the difference in the amount of co2 absorbed by trees compared to the amount of co2 absorbed by plantations

[@jameskaminski2813]

Most agriculture would produce more pollutants than it takes out. It COULD potentially be a net zero, but whatever carbon it takes out, we redistribute most back into the atmosphere through waste. Trees are a carbon sink because they survive for decades to centuries locking huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.

[@Ltellin669957]

@@jameskaminski2813 any source?

[@jameskaminski2813]

@@Ltellin669957 www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/forests-carbon www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data The emissions created still outpace the carbon sequestered. It's not that agriculture isn't a solution, but that it's not currently there yet.

[@Ltellin669957]

@@jameskaminski2813 Neither articule takes to account the amount of co2 absorbed from agriculture, only estimates the emissions.

[@hazelcalderbank1556]

@@Ltellin669957 That's because it only absorbs CO2 long term if the plants stay there: and they don't. We cut them down and eat them, so the CO2 is going right back into the atmosphere

[@vexcarius7100]

Planting a tree should be a requirement for students before graduating their class. Also if one person plant a tree each a year, it’s a big impact. Governments can incentivize people who planted trees with tax reduction. Everyone can plant a tree, it’s just that we are too lazy to do it because we don’t have any short-term rewards

[@Celis.C]

If only it were quite so simple. Haphazardly planting trees without considering which trees are planted in which area will very likely mess up the balance in biodiversity and flora diversity in said areas. Furthermore, I daresay that one giant and ancient tree stores more CO2 than several saplings combined. It takes time for planted trees to reach their full potential. So yes, knocking off the whole tree deforestation is a decisive necessity, but when it comes to planting, I still feel like we should let nature do what it's always done best, and focus more on globally becoming carbon negative in the very near future.

[@imadude85]

Giant tree's roots goes deeper into the ground too, thus are able to extract more underground water for the use of life on the surface.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

I fully agree. But I say let's do both. Every little bit helps as they say. But definitely getting off fossil fuels is of primary importance.

[@hoggif]

Everyone is talking about 20M trees. Some small countries like Finland plant 150 million trees every year and has done so for a long time. Something like 20M trees for a larger country is nothing.

[@alia7960]

hoggif Never knew Mr Beast and his team was a country...

[@rawfodog5182]

The climate will change no matter what we do. It's been changing for millions of years.

[@msg4672]

Billions

[@urielgonzalez900]

But human influence have accelerated the pace of climate change

[@Aaron-er8ps]

Facts!

[@msg4672]

The concept that CO2 is some sort of control knob for the climate is laughable.

[@talhatariqyuluqatdis]

We MUST reduce our emissions. We should stop producing more than we need- stop the insane waste. This may be the solution, but I need to do my research, as do you. The challenge is not action, it is people knowing everything about the solutions, and how to VERY REALISTICALLY implement them- they will then know what to demand from their governments.

[@potatobomb13]

The government also has to think about economical problems that this will cause, it probably is not very cheap

[@LateNightHacks]

We know what we need to do, problem is, it's all very inconvenient and there is little profit in it

[@heyimmashark9030]

Leafa 100% agree maybe nuclear isn’t a long term solution, but we need it right now since it is actually pretty clean. Solar panels create more waste (at least that’s what my dad tells me)

[@heyimmashark9030]

Leafa exactly! I’ve always thought nuclear was a must have in the present

[@someguy2135]

What can every individual do? Stop consuming animal products! It is the single most effective change each of us can make. Animal agriculture contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined! That was the conclusion of the expert panel of the U.N. That's why they urged mankind to switch to a plant based diet ASAP to avoid irreversible climate change.

[@SG003]

2:49 "we should plant 1 million trees in every country" How do you gonna convince Kim Jong Un?

[@limonabr]

Don't think deforestation is so bad there th

[@Handsy_McGee]

Or Winnie the Pooh? They're the biggest carbon emitter, as shown in this video

[@frankkawaitran2429]

Handsy McGee China has one of the most expansive tree planting projects in the world and are leading in implementing green energy technology. Per capita, one Chinese person emits 4 times less carbon than one American.

[@Handsy_McGee]

@@frankkawaitran2429 funny, they have 4 times the population and still double the carbon emissions. The math don't add up. Plus their, ahem, *lax* environmental standards. Carbon ain't the only pollutant. Apparently there are still CFCs in use SOMEWHERE in the world... wonder who would do that.

[@handsomejack697]

With uranium

[@bingleblorp993]

We could also look into planting kelp and seaweed plants 🤔

[@johnellis8401]

TREES ARE CARBON NEUTRAL! THIS IS A FANTASY! The best point made in all of these videos about planting trees is that we need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Trees don't sequester carbon, they borrow it and then give it back later. We need a long term solution of carbon management and sequestration. Yes I said management, we were powerful enough as a species to create this problem and we are certainly powerful enough to swing it back and cause the opposite problem if we are not careful.

[@RedLeader327]

Thunderf00t has proven why trees aren’t enough. Fossil fuel costs need to go up significantly (reduction of use), and nuclear + renewables will aid with energy production.

[@arthas640]

that's why it pisses me off how everyone hates on nuclear, it's currently our best bet to reduce coal and natural gas use. Renewables like Hydro are perfect if not for the limited locations you can put them and solar and wind just arent up to the sheer amount of power we need and they're not predictable enough and it's almost impossible to efficiently store power on that scale.

[@santiagoplazas6335]

@@arthas640 the problem with hydro is tje space ot takes, it needs a big body of water and in the building ot affects ecosystems

[@arthas640]

@@santiagoplazas6335 thats one of the main reasons I said it can really only happen in certain locations, ideally they need a strong river going through a canyon without alot of people around. That's why there are a ton of them in places like the Columbia river and Colorado river. The space constraints dont matter as much with canyons because it's really easy to make the artificial lake taller rather than wider and you can more easily do multiple dams in series, which generates more power vs area and water. The ecological effects can be easily minimized by installing fish ladders and similar systems. There are smaller dams that dont require alot of area or large retention ponds but you just dont get nearly the return on investment, they're smaller, and theyre less predictable since they cant store as much power. Dams are also an issue in that there just isnt that many rivers that can be easily dammed since you really need some mountain pass, gorge, or similar natural formation to butt your dam against and to act as a retention lake AND it had to be a decent sized river. Those 2 traits alone disqualify most of the planet since you usually have a major river in a flat area (like the Mississippi) or you have a weak river near its source in the mountains. Then theres still the transmission problem since most cities arent built near large gorges in the mountains, they're usually near the coast or a plain

[@besmart]

Trees buy us time to do the emissions reductions and renewable conversion we need. Footy and I don't disagree here

[@BluesyPixie85]

@@besmart what about how trees often darken the landscape and increase solar absorption? Or how Bush encroachment has caused an unnatural increase in woody species partly due to fire exclusion and increased carbon dioxide concentrations? What about the increased water use of trees compared to whatever vegetation was there before, so much do that parched rivers starts flowing again when alien trees are cleared in upper catchments? What about the fact that wood eventually releases the co2 back into the atmosphere, not even furniture last too long. And last but not least, what about the ecosystems these trees are meant to replace? Just use the money to restore ecosystems and increase nature reserve sizes!

[@AliHaider-ms9kj]

Pakistan 🇵🇰 has already planted 1 billion trees and is going to plant 10 billion more trees so we have started this project. Hope it inspires other countries.

[@martinzumbuhl9160]

Just use the search engine "Ecosia" to plant trees.👌👍

[@sirmiles1820]

oh hello

[@vishwakumar2864]

I was actually searching if anyone has mentioned about ECOSIA or not . 😝 You should have explained about it a bit more , but thats okay you did good job 👍

[@iceyyicee]

I agree that we need to plant more trees! But... Knowing humans... After we save climate change (some how), they would cut more and we would be in the same spot as we are now.

[@domowoi2077]

So then just let's not plant any more humans ^^

[@jamaly77]

and who has planted the most trees in the last few decades? Right, it's China with their "Green Wall". Who would have thought?

[@leshao806]

The late Professor Wangari Maathai, Kenyan blood, and still celebrated here in Kenya for her legendary work.

[@Noukz37]

Excellent video guys! I hope next one will be on the ocean and how it's absorbing (way more) carbon from the atmosphere!

[@StrangeVeIocity]

You should mention that a tree has to be harvested at the right time to make the emission problem more efficient. When trees are aging they "sucks" less and less carbon. And yeah If you don't harvest them at all they will rotten and start to emit the stored co2. Please don't burn trees but use them wisely! Every harvested trees should always be replaced by a new one.

[@IlyaDemidov]

Why not burn trees? They will rot and release CO2 without producing positive energy. You have energy from burned wood. So you do not need to mine fossils to produce more CO2.

[@sandal_thong8631]

Was thinking if we could bury them deep or put the wood down old mines to forestall decomposition.

[@StrangeVeIocity]

@@sandal_thong8631 Expensive solution. You need to have it without air, In a closed system, not touching water. Or use some carbon caputure device but again expensive. The wood will decompose very slowly, and some weird species would evolve down there :) Just better to have governments who cares, to make plans for how they should harvest and crop at the right time.

[@evelienheerens2879]

It matters quite a where we plant them. Usually trees are planted in places that already have existing ecosystems that the trees disrupt by changing them. Which trees we plant where matters for this too because you want the species to match the environment and you don't want to kill an existing ecosystem, releasing more carbon rather than capturing it. You also want to avoid simply planting the fuel for the next wildfire. Most trees being planted are planted in things like bogs, which is an existing ecosystem that already traps a bunch of carbon. Killing that ecosystem by swarming it with new trees, releases that carbon. So it's not a straight numbers game. As always, it is more complicated than that.

[@Sunkissedguy]

KZbinrs proposed to plant 20 million trees but every Christmas, the US alone cuts 27 million trees to be used as fresh Christmas trees

[@sandpiper_]

my old neighbour would buy small trees that were still living and watered it in a pot. and i think it would get planted in the ground after christmas.

[@chrisbreezy-ryanbarbosa4320]

Yes but they plant 2 new ones for every they cut down.

[@GraveUypo]

here in brazil our christmas trees are all artificial and reusable. we use the same one for the last 30 years or so here in my house.

[@ecoclubglobal5472]

I plan to plant a million trees by the end of the year. However, we should also fight for carbon emissions

[@kenagrawal]

I plan on planting a 1000 trees this year and take it further from there. Let's connect if you're serious

[@ecoclubglobal5472]

@@kenagrawal Yes that will be awesome! You can reach out to me on my instagram or twitter or even telegram chat

[@raja7775]

@@kenagrawal how's it going?

[@olehhyryn8304]

An interesting math equasion to think over: a = CO2 a tree consumes at daytime b = CO2 a tree produces at night time. c = CO2 a tree produces when it rottens (leaves every year, branches, trunk, root). Now a question: are you sure that a>b+c?

[@JosephSeabourne]

9:27 TreeOS 14.2 is ready to be installed on your plant.

[@fromtheunderbrush]

Unfortunately, research has shown that we are not seeing a significant increase in biomass in spite of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere today, which is what one might expect if plants assimilated the CO2 during photosynthesis. This is because of climate change itself,i.e., increases in regional and global temperatures are offsetting the ability of photosynthetic plants to sequester carbon. Moreover, we are also observing a shift in plant diversity from C3, to C4 plants due to increasing temperatures, i.e., fewer tree species, more grasses.

[@avalanche5790]

I also found out that faster growing plants absorb more plants. That also means more tree. The most efficient tree is the Empress tree, at about 103 tons of Co²/per acre/per year. That means about 2 mil km² to replace all the Co² on earth! Only about the size of the entirety of the Australian desert...

[@commentbot9510]

If space to grow trees becomes an issue, I think it would be really cool to grow trees on the roofs of buildings (if possible). I like the idea of having a mini forest patio lol

[@Burt1038]

Pretty sure having a tree weighing thousands (or tens of thousands) of pounds on top of your house is a bad idea.

[@sandal_thong8631]

@@Burt1038 Maybe evergreen bushes to start with?

[@Roronoazoron]

Imagine all the insects invading your house haha

[@Burt1038]

@@Roronoazoron insects have just as much right to live in your house as you do, you bigot.

[@sparkling925]

@@Burt1038 sarcasm?

[@y37chung]

@It's Okay To Be Smart Can you do a video exploring the feasibility of enhancing phytoplankton production? I theorized that harmful algal blooms happen only because we are creating concentrated spots of nutrients locally (hotspot). Beneficial stimulation of phytoplankton production is only possible if we can disperse plant nutrients in a more even and gradual manner. Maybe some kind of aerosolization machine using nutrient-laden wastewater generating a range of particle sizes that would fall back to the ocean under a predicted range of time (and distance) could potentially do the job.

[@jasehuitl9639]

Shed a tear with the Wangari Maathai bit. Especially with the white boy admiring the work of the African woman. Love seeing people come together without regard to cultural, gender, and racial differences. ❤🌳

[@jeffreym68]

I feel so ignorant for not knowing Wakari Matai (sp). Gotta keep up better with the Nobel prizes!

[@martinndere]

Wangari Maathai

[@en5788]

When he said "solve climate change" he lost me. The proper word is mitigate.

[@traveling47]

I'm all for planting trees so long as we try to at least emulate the biodiversity of the local ecosystem. Another great one that i rarely hear people talk about is natural roofs and rooftop gardens.

[@TotallyRadicoolDude]

Great video, I would also add, in a majority of countries it is abundantly clear that the central government is not going to do anything/enough about climate change in time, so we, all of us, need to just go out there and make change happen without any help from our governments. This is gonna be extremely hard but we have to try.

[@TrueREAL]

"Hello smart people..." Yo is he not going to say hello to me

[@african9686]

It has been proven that planting more trees actually speeds the process but no one want to go there yet...

[@Eza_yuta]

We should plant 20 million tress every single day to make significant effect.

[@fenrirr22]

Even that would not have significant effect

[@Hanguyen-mg1ue]

Mr. Apriza Yutama I think that is a bad idea because we are cutting more trees than we plant and it takes years for trees to even grow and it cost a lot of money to plant 20 million tress every day and who would fund it

[@Eza_yuta]

@@Hanguyen-mg1ue my comment is sarcasm about my sceptism to the 20 million tress project.

[@Hanguyen-mg1ue]

@@Eza_yuta ok

[@vishwakumar2864]

We all can ecosia.org as search engine to make our daily internet searches, that way we could be able fund for 20 million trees every day (if only everyone starts using it) 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@ThumperPruitt]

Excellent video. I like the balanced approach to climate change, as I have been telling everyone for a long time, that there is no single magic bullet here, but rather we need to do a lot of things, and one of those is deciding what we consume and what is important. For example, choosing a product with a lower carbon release footprint is better than choosing one with a high carbon release footprint. With the sheer number of people on the planet, if each one us did a single activity, that would collectively add up to a very large activity. So, we need to work together, collectively, to solve this dilemma, and that includes reducing the carbon releasing activities that we are currently doing to more sustainable levels.

[@trinityalps3695]

I've planted thousands of trees... On another PBS video, I saw that during the first 20 years, trees actually dump more carbon than they produce.

[@GrandeSalvatore96]

So glad to see John Mulaney branching out from comedy!

[@j2art]

(Grasslands are more effective than trees at capturing and retaining carbon. They are also easier to regenerate)

[@juliansantos5579]

Source?

[@IndigoIndustrial]

More Resilient.

[@K447-k2f]

i love the thumbnail so much cuz i just imagine its an epic rap battles of history of trees vs climate change

[@mbmurphy777]

Why doesn’t anyone stress nuclear power? It’s the one tech that can replace fossil fuels *right now*.

[@knowledgecenter2806]

Fusion is getting a good deal of funding. Fission is better to skip.

[@recklessroges]

@@knowledgecenter2806 I look forward to Fusion when its ready, but we could replace all of the base-load coal power stations with fission now. (Takes a few years to build.) Even when they came online, fusion could be used to provide intermittent load, (with renewable filling in peak load until they take over.)

[@electronresonator8882]

if you just want constant source of heat, then geothermal is already down there for billion of years...

[@stefantherainbowphoenix]

Nuclear waste issues, nuclear proliferation, national security, potential dangerous and costly accidents, cancer risk, energy production issues, not enough sites, much higher costs, etc. www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy

[@Rockzilla1122]

@@stefantherainbowphoenix 1. Negated by modern reactor design 2. Irrelevant. Nuclear energy =/= nuclear weapons and modern reactor designs are even more divorced from the technology used to enrich uranium to the point that it can be used in nuclear weapons even more than outdated reactors are 3. Negated by modern reactor designs and proper safety precautions 4. Negated by modern reactor designs and proper safety precautions 5. Completely false. Nuclear energy is thousands of times more efficient than any form of energy per ton of raw material 6. Irrelevant. A modern nuclear plant can be established essentially anywhere a traditional energy plant can be, which are already situated far from population centers to begin with. This is actually an issue with most forms of green energy, not nuclear. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal all require being situated in specific environments. Nuclear does not. 7. False. When comparing efficiency of the energy produced and the amount of it, given the establishment of infrastructure nuclear quickly far outpaces the cost of establishing other means of harvesting energy. Wake up. Nuclear is the only option for humanity's future.

[@nickolasjeffrey5866]

What if you also planted vast giant kelp forests in the world's oceans

[@nickolasjeffrey5866]

By the way Kelp forests are not mentioned as much as they should be. trees get all the attention. When kelp has twokey advantages over trees 1. it doesn't have to take up space on land it can be planted in the vast oceans. 2. They are one fastest growing plants.

[@adamhero459]

The one issue with the video is that we can’t solve climate change on the way people think. The earth has been heating and cooling forever. So climate will change over time no matter what we do. All we can do is slow it down.

[@jaykoerner]

Not that I think your completely on the wrong track, the issue isnt the climate changing or even completely the speed at which it's happening (though the speed is the major factor for why it's such a priority that we solve it fast), the main issue is the fact that much of the carbon we have been adding to the environment was without our intervention near permanently placed underground over 300 million years ago, almost all coal was made before bacteria have the ability to breakdown lignan trees are made of, they were buried and then couldn't be broken down, same with oil, so now take the world currently with all the life on it evolved to deal with the current environment and give it all the carbon buried over basically half a billion years and shove it all in the atmosphere in 100 years, it's a big change and far faster then almost any natural process that wouldn't be considered a disaster.... Basically it's not that the world can't change, it's that it can't change this fast

[@Drecon84]

Honestly, Nobel Peace prize winners are usually mostly talked about if their prize is contentious or if they were already well known. Not to say that this woman shouldn't be talked about though, since she should be, but it's not that rare for nobel peace prize winners to not get that much exposure I think.

[@areez119]

Genetically engineering crops that take enormous amount of CO² and less water than usual, Can also help a lot cz even farmers will grow them in farms and can easily make a huge difference..... Even here in INDIA.

[@_Crazyman109]

There’s not enough space for the amount of trees we need. But we need more than just trees.

[@drekowski]

Cutting trees to make lumber that builds houses or furniture that lasts decades locks that carbon as well, even longer and makes room for young trees.

[@thatrandomguy8567]

Just... No.

[@bevanfindlay]

@@thatrandomguy8567 Actually, yes. We usually construct buildings out of either timber, concrete, steel, or some combination of these. Both concrete and steel require pretty hefty carbon outputs to produce (especially concrete). So, the benefit of wooden structures isn't so much the captured carbon itself (though that's good), but the emissions avoided by not using other materials.

[@DiscoChixify]

An interesting take. We would have to seal them so they don’t break down.

[@drekowski]

@@DiscoChixify With construction, it's mostly constructive wood preservation that prevents it, i.e building so that water doesn't even get to the wood. With furniture, it's sad to see that most is build without longevity or being able to make repairs and refinish them in mind.

[@marvinspowers]

Just grab some bonemeal fr

[@VansLudwig]

the climate is gonna change no matter what.

[@marchofnature636]

Yeah, but humans are making the change happen much faster than it should've.

[@VansLudwig]

@@marchofnature636 plant or don't climate still changes

[@skyem5250]

I was expecting this to be the usual IOTBS debunking scientific misconceptions instead of perpetuating them. In terms of acting as carbon sinks, trees do very little compared to diatoms. (A type of microscopic photosynthetic eukaryotes). Diatoms account for HALF of all photosynthesis. Trees are less than 10%. Trees are important for other reasons, but as carbon sinks, they are not a solution. As for electric cars, they are certainly not good for the environment. Traditional cars burn fossil fuels at the point where they are used. Electric cars burn fossil fuels at a power plant far away, and they have to use a lot more because a lot of energy is lost in transmission and charging. On the other hand, since we don't see any exhaust (which is mostly water droplets by the way) we feel good about it.

[@midnight8341]

That's not entirely correct. A lot of electricity comes from renewable sources depending on country, some countries produce no electricity with fossil fuels at all (Bhutan). And even if we were to use only fossil fuels for our electric cars, a few large power plants are always more efficient than millions or billions of small engines, because they can always run under perfect and preplanned conditions and not waste as much energy on heat and acceleration/deceleration on each stop light. But even then, you completely ignore that fuel doesn't just magically pop into existence at gas stations. All the energy (most of it electricity for heating and machines) that has to be spent on pumping the crude oil out of the ground, transport it to the refinery either by ship or pipeline, then run it through all steps necessary to process and clean it (which uses a lot of cobalt and lithium btw) and then carry it halfway across the country by truck just to be pumped into a tank under the gas station. All that is energy spent and carbon dioxide emitted that isn't even calculated into the emissions of the cars that use said fuels. Compared to that, the power line losses and losses in charging and discharging the battery are almost negligable in terms of percentage of energy wasted.

[@skyem5250]

@@midnight8341 You make some good points, but maybe you should do the math.

[@midnight8341]

@@skyem5250 the math has been taken by people who are way better at it than I am and every way the automotive lobby wants to turn it, battery electric vehicles are always more environmentally friendly compared to combustion engines.

[@skyem5250]

@@midnight8341 How do you think the automotive lobby wants to present it? Remember who is selling electric cars. It's car companies who are telling consumers that their products are environmentally friendly and lobbying governments to promote electric vehicles.

[@AtomicReverend]

Aren't trees considered carbon neutral? They may lock up carbon for a few centuries but when the tree dies it will then release its carbon through the natural decaying process?

[@jameskaminski2813]

But in that lifespan, they produce offspring capable of locking more carbon. If my understanding is correct, If one tree only produced one seedling before it died, it would be carbon neutral.

[@matheussanthiago9685]

@@Poon1312 we're prolonging our time, and prolonging the viability of our modern lifestyle, one that allows us to create and enhance real carbon negative techniques, like direct atmospheric sequestration which is good

[@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596]

Thank you for sharing this information with us 🙋🏼‍♀️

[@SciFactsYT118]

Random fact: Nearly two people die each second.

[@Dildo.Baggins]

Nearly? So, 1 nearly 2 then 😅

[@exc911ence_channel]

And nearly four are born to replace them. Unsustainable growth.

[@Dildo.Baggins]

@@exc911ence_channel coronavirus will sort that issue. 😷

[@captainrobots1]

@@Dildo.Baggins the flu will since right now the flu is more deadly.

[@Dildo.Baggins]

@@captainrobots1 Yes but china will not give the exact number of deaths. Why is there such a huge effort to contain the virus if it's less deadly that influenza?

[@JabirAH]

So, I am curious to know something. Can these RuBisCos' suck out carbon from our atmosphere at 5-10 reactions per seconds and store them inside the trees for as long as the trees lives or does the trees have some sort of storage capacity?

[@connorconnor1631]

I think more carbon just makes the tress thiccer, so I don't think there's a limit

[@jean-philippebeaudry5677]

In Canada we plant 10 of millions of trees avery years, and that just to maintain and replace what we cut down.

[@ecsolha]

Thunderf00t already debunked the tree planting thing.

[@RedLeader327]

That he did. But planting trees makes people feel like they’re helping.

[@madil2259]

At least it helps the local weather.

[@ecsolha]

@@RedLeader327 That is true, I am not saying we shouldn't plant trees. I like trees especially beech and birch. Excellent materials for furniture.

[@RedLeader327]

Ola H Oh I agree that tree planting is good. It’s just not good enough...

[@BenjaminFranklin2u]

Ya, even a trillion trees only temporarily sequester 25% of CO2 moving forward. It does nothing to reduce the 100 or so yrs of CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere.

[@leothesleepingdog6055]

Fun fact: most of the oxygen comes from the ocean

[@TJZ243]

Well the planet is mostly water and water itself is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

[@leothesleepingdog6055]

@@TJZ243 you also know we are destroying the oceans and nobody talks about it. Things like phytoplankton and kelp also help in producing the most oxygen. It needs the same amount of attention as trees and maybe more. We are constantly destroying the ocean and really nobody cares about it.

[@TJZ243]

@@leothesleepingdog6055 That is also true but the amount of people in the world that just don't care greatly out numbers people like us that actually do care. It's inevitable, we as a species either need to evolve, move to a different planet, forcibly change our ways of living, or just give up and die.

[@billcipherproductions1789]

@@TJZ243 Even if we fix Earth by 100%, sooner or later we need to abandon it.

[@sanjaymahato7138]

@@leothesleepingdog6055 CORAL REEFS...

[@drokolesko12]

We az Kazakhstan planted more than 70 000 hectars of forestry green belt around Nursultan city (former Astana). Great to contribute to the climate safety

[@Thom35UO]

For historical reasons I know that changing the ecosystem with engineering on a big scale is a TERRIBLE mistake.

[@therobotics1rthegreat157]

This would be reversing our effect on nature. Sure. It'd have its own side effects but they'd be much smaller than if we didn't try to reverse the damage we've done.