That's why miyawaki reforestation is a thing. It is a kind of process in reforestation that starts with small shrubs then moves on with small trees to medium sized trees than on with large trees. It's very effective in reforesting at that it promotes more biodiversity. 1 note it is also important to plant native trees so..... goodluck

@@gk7754 but grasslands are also needed, and they have even more diversity by aq meter than rainforsts, so also grasses are needed, but native grasses.

@@codniggh1139 Citation needed. Also lawn = / = grassland.

There was an awesome Ted talk on permaculture focusing on native biodiversity, by an Indian engineer who became somewhat of an ecologist, several years ago. It was one of the best lectures I have listened to.

permaculture also contains building ponds storing water in the soil, instead of wasting drinking water on irigation

Naive ones who wanted help save or atleast slow/halt climate change

People who have no real insight into how nature works. "A tree is a tree." mentality. Because they are only looking at it from the perspective of carbon sequestration, rather than the other, perhaps even more important, functions and benefits of trees.

People want to be performative rather than stop to think a bit.

People who want to cut these trees down for timber down the road... and their lobbyists in governments.

@@Waldemarvonanhalt justhaveathink

The greening of the urban areas don't add much to the global budget, but in our urban hellscapes, they do remind us of the land and biota we are supposed to be connected to and.

Why not plant trees but plant diverse trees? For example all the trees that naturally live in the UK (or another country), in the % they would occur. How would that not work? And if they don't want to plant/reforest, why should we plant trees in cities and environs? I don't get it. We know we're cutting too many, how would replanting lost amazonian forest be bad? It takes hundreds of years to naturally grow back and the 21st century doesn't have hundreds of years.. Also the trees would help animals, which we are also destroying en masse. There are examples of individuals or small groups that planted huge swathes of forest over decades, so that even tigers and elephants returned where they were gone before.

I agree monoculture is bad, but the reasoning around the albedo affect in a planted forest in Israel was bizarre. Warming the planet by absorbing heat? Its absorbing heat and carbon and locking it in, not warming the air, the reflected heat from the desert is warming the air.

Yeah, but sometimes the forests we need to protect most are populated by armed rebels or impoverished people who will turn around and cut down the trees as soon as you leave. Rainforests are mostly in problematic areas for conservation. There's nothing wrong with trying to aforest an area if, as the video points out, it's done right.

Monoculture has it's place. It's basically industrial crop.

yeah same issue with elms in north american cities

@@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 :(

Angsana still the go to tree for indonesia gov lol. Fast in growing but Easy to break and fall down.

Revitalizing ecosystems is free if they are simply left alone to recover from hardship naturally. Just like the phytoplankton that have been responsible for most photosynthesis on Earth since before plants even existed, they do well without human intervention.

@@JA238979 this is also why I despise renewable energy. Because of course, what our planet needs is MORE massive tracts of developed land. Please, build a 3,000 acre solar farm. Nothing could go wrong with that.

I am so glad to see people who think rationally about this subject. Carbon sequestration is dominantly done by the oceans, and the temperatures of the oceans are the cause of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, not the consequence. It is so absurd to see all these renewable energy projects that are so unreliable when it comes to energy and so bad for the environment. I miss the old days when we actually cared about saving the environment and talked about actual problems and not this co2 bs that always seem to have "economy" attached to it.

@@michaeldeslex9834 Thank you for your thoughtful response! There is much more liquid water than gas on this planet by mass, as you know, nobody knows the temperature of it all, measurements of temperature variations are rarely shown in degrees K, corresponding graphs are always cropped, illusory correlations and limited data are represented as objective truths, and we would all die if there were not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. Europe had a shortage of purified CO2 a few months ago, for that matter. :)

Yeah, I want to restore the redwood forests, with other species of trees and animals of course. Allowing the mycorrhiza to thrive

'The United States forest products industry accounts for approximately four percent of the nation's total manufacturing GDP, producing over $200 billion in products every year.' Jul 29, 2021 Source: USDA

1:25

@@GjaP_242 I wonder how climate change will effect those numbers?

That's a great initiative!

Bring back the Neanderthals!

I used to be against deer and pigeon hunting on the basis that taking pleasure in killing another creature corrupts a person's conscience. Now I think about what working in a slaughterhouse often does to people (PTSD, high rates of domestic violence and alcoholism, injuries, contagious diseases) and about livestock welfare, and I wonder whether deer hunting might be the least of our worries. Most hunter-gatherer societies had rituals to be at peace with the animal lives they took. But if we all ate 50% less meat then there would be far fewer problems as a result of the livestock industry - including carbon and methane emissions. By going vegan one day a week, people could gradually get better at making vegan meals and getting the right nutrition. And making meals together - like Britian's National Food Service groups do (no connection to the government, people organised it themselves) can help pass down skills and recipes. Unfortunately, most governments only know one way of limiting consumption, and that is by having prices increase. That cannot work. Everyone should make the same effort. But rationing won't happen in my lifetime.

Thankfully there are proposals the government is assessing to reintroduce lynx in Scotland, not sure about south of the border. It’s not just early stages, there’s discussions about how much to pay farmers if they get livestock eaten and stuff like that. I’m really hopeful it could work, they’re basing it off of successful lynx reintroductions on the mainland.

4:23

Unlocking climate funding for forest and farm producers 14 December 2021, Rome 'Worldwide, over 1.5 billion people depend on rural forest and farmland for their food and income. These people are often all-too-familiar with the adverse effects of climate change on their land and livelihoods.' Source: FAO

Yeah that example was really dumb, the Costa Rican government would be all over that if it was the case

Nah trust me costa rica is a loose place ive lived there the government dosent have enough power people still poach all the time and kids sit in the front seat of cars without a seatbelt. But at the same time atleast where i live hardly anyone cuts down forest to plant it back

@@sarcohuman8147 Uhh, how is that relevant?

@@thiccityd9773 how isnt it

Yes i agree strongly but in environment where trees where depleted we need to plant forest manually as long as we plant it high native biodiversity

So should they have left it totally baren??

@@mitchmitchell3142 Yes, They should have left nature do it's own thing there without interference from us.

@@mitchmitchell3142 exactly what the video said, leave it to mother nature and protect it from human intervention

@@guycross493 Doesn't work as proven in Iceland.

@@guycross493 Leave it mother nature LOL So naive....

Yep

mmm no, it's a big mistake to blame animal industry because industrial beef is made in tight spaces, not in farmlands. And it's also a big mistake that also natural woods are the best option, grasslands needs to be restored, and they sequester more carbon in soil than forests in soil and wood. And the only way to regenerate grasslands is with animals, whether it might be bisons or other rustic animals like water buffalo or even cattle, using regenerative grazing. By far, the agriculture uses more land and destroy more. And there is also silviculture, where they use trees and grazing and this regenerate soils, so, no, animals are not the problem they can be used to regenerate landscapes much, much faster than when letting nature alone, there have been many successful projects around the world.

@@codniggh1139 Animal Ag uses over 80% of land and produces less than 20% of our food. Please go read Poore et al 2018. If everyone at a plant-based diet, we could reduce the amount of land we use by 3/4 - an area 3x the size of the USA. Fir the average person living in the global north, the biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint and your impact on the environment is stop eating meat. I can quote you chapter and verse on the studies here. Also read Clarke et al 2020. There is no way to get to a stable climate without a dramatic reduction in animal Ag.

@@codniggh1139 Where is the food that feeds industrial cattle grown, I wonder? Regenerative grazing will certainly play a role in solving the climate crisis, but the cutting down of rain forests to plant soy and other grain for factory cattle will need to end. And that, of course, means eating less beef.

@@martinhoffmann1063 that's totally false, it's a myth that all that soy goes to cattle and all those grains. There is an excessive and artificial supply because subdisidies, that you have even corn being used for ethanol. Then you have a very big industry of soy products that are not edible, and btw we can use all those parts of the plants that we can't eat, cow can eat it or other animals and you will have all that demand covered, but obviously they don't use that. Reality is that most of that grains are for humans not cattle.

Its not that easy. The fastest growing species of animals and plants would end up dominatting almost every ecossystem

Exactly this. Some fair points made but much missed. Nothing said of UK conifer plantations producing high quality construction timber that locks up carbon, creates a lot of jobs and reduces the amount of timber we bring in (we import 80% of our wood). With careful planning and execution, we can create forests that deliver both productivity and ecological enhancement. That process will not be summarised in a five minute video that massively simplifies a subject that is as complicated as forest management.

Yes and I'd like to add that forestry takes time. So, we might see some stands of forest that were planted decades ago before the current science evolved. It takes years to grow trees and forestry methods change but the results might not be easy to see for decades.

But they’re not criticising plantations for lumber, they’re criticising supposed carbon sequestration schemes. The fact that the former can often masquerade as the latter is exactly the problem!

As a professional forester this video made me chuckle a few times

Considering that basically every scrap of land in the UK, where i live, has moisture and grass etc, particularly where the tree are planted, the first step you describe is there. Here, it only took and few years for willows and birch to establish themselves on a new bit of land, and most recently, a baby oak, from a Jay's acorn. Rather than only letting things come in naturally, which will be slower, we can jumpstart the process. The environment and ecology shifts much faster.

Just letting all trees grow back wont work as we have seen what happened in iceland we just need to plant native trees and trees that have high biodiversity

I would like to say, overall clearcutting is better than selection forestry, when done through the regulations already set in place. Selection forestry has much higher rates of compaction, erosion, and stream sedimentation which damages site quality immensely. Also, modern day clear-cuts do not clear every single tree from a site, streams and waterways are heavily protected, "snags" which are dead trees important for many wildlife are protected, and modern practice works extremely hard to prevent the negative effects associated with logging. Every state in the United States has BMPs (Best Management Practices), in some states they are mandatory and some they are not, but in the ones where they are not mandatory they still undergo constant inspect and if they fall behind they will loose their certification (SFI, SFC, etc.) if an area looses it's certification it is almost impossible to sell the timber that comes from it. Yes, there are ways we can improve forestry here in the United States, issues like monoculture planting are very real, but what I can say, as someone who has almost completed my degree in forestry is that we are working diligently to ensure the sustainability and longevity of our forests.

Of course.

Its a terrible thing that we need btw

It's a crop to harvest and has it's place.

Interesting. On UKposts or in real live?

Accountable offsets, there has been offset schemes that turned out to be scams that just made things worse but but look carbon neutral or negative just on paper.

They're in the description. Apologies for leaving them out at first.

Yes, I know a few spots where this was very effectively done in Scotland. But it's not a large scale answer for much of the northwest of the country because vast areas have been entirely deforested over centuries - there aren't the 'granny trees' to provide the seed.

A bit like talking to us about why recycling doesn't work without talking about the plastic makers

Agroforestry and permaculture principles need to be adopted yesterday. Two birds with one stone, sequestering carbon while phasing out damaging traditional agriculture is certainly what we need to be doing.

Do you have a source for this?

Why take it as the government’s responsibility? Even the best governance can never understand the complexity of ecosystems. Apart from street planting and establishing national parks etc. forests need to be allowed to recover on their own. Even if you plant all the right species and sparsely, having trees of the same age is detrimental. They’re not going to come back and plant a few trees every 15 years, cause in that time a forest will have started reestablishing itself anyway. Nature knows itself best let’s just stop messing with it.

@@Freshbott2 Having trees of the same age is not detrimental in a diverse forest. Trees all have different lifecycles and belong to different layers of the forest. Humans can vastly accelerate the natural regeneration process by pruning fast growing, short-lived trees, to build soil and give light to later stage species growing underneath.

@@wildforestorganics7298 yeah so that involves continually returning and having to maintain things over time. Trees of the same age are *absolutely* detrimental because it prevents niches and stratification. The whole point from a commercial forestry perspective in planting trees together in a single stage is to prevent exactly that and make everything uniform.

This "climate change denier" knows more about climate science then you do.

the whole comedy of life unfolds in and around such trees, one may then consider oneself truly a "man of culture"

More biodiversity allows for more resources to be used by different organisms in an ecosystem, which increases productivity (like sequestration of carbon by plants)

@@VinisVideoVault That's hypothesis, not evidence. I'm not saying that particular statement is wrong by the way. Just that journalists aught to support their claims with evidence, just like scientists are expected to do.

Liu, X. et al. (2018) Tree species richness increases ecosystem carbon storage in subtropical forests, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, doi/10.1098/rspb.2018.1240 About a six percent increase in carbon capture per species added. Also the maturity of a tree his a positive effect (in a nutshell) In the Pacific Northwest the natural course of regeneration typically involves a flush of berries and shrubs followed by growth of alder which is quick growing as well as having relatively high numbers for carbon sequestration__. Instead common practice is to choke back the alder and plant whatever species is getting highest market value in bulk (in other words replace with a monoculture of whatever they want to log. In the first 20 (less?) years the monoculture will have greened up enough that it will have shaded out all of the understory, creating a virtual desert beneath the canopy. this will be the case for the next 200 year give or take, at which time the forest will be entering what is called structural stage six, where some trees are dieting allowing some openings in the canopy and some new growth on the forest floor. You can cite me on that ;)

Exactly. This restores natural local water buffer and transpiration water cycle. Sequesters carbon and is superior to conventional farming, such as dairy

and the lumber they produce now is VASTLY inferior to wood from a few decades ago..most people haven't noticed, though..

Bro thats the worst possible thing to do the planet will become like venus and theres no returning. They just saying to help regenrate the forests that are already here and plant the same trees that belong to that area. If earth was stripped of trees thats the end of this planet

Yes. Often it is part of the liscencees green light to cut old growth that they have “replaced” it

Pitajee reddy, which study are you quoting.

Depends on where they're planted. Pine forests where I live are filled with undergrowth.

Yes everyone needs to know the symbiotic relationship

First forests on earth, paleozoic, 400 million years ago. First chainsaw, 19th century Forests seem to be doing fine without our "help".

And I'm talking about like bamboo and Savannah grass not our lawns