“Are we the idiots?” - Bill Gates on Planting Trees 

Well, once the Permafrost in Siberia has molten, there will be a HUUUGE mass of wetlands. With everything that comes with it. (Methane production which runs separate from pure CO2-calculations). Good luck.

not all woodlands are mixed at any given time. the age of the forest and the dominant species of tree has much to do with how varied your forest will be. as an example, in the western portion of the pnw, the dominant tree is doug fir, which grows in stands that shades out competitors. its not until year 80 or so when the stand starts seeing other species like hemlock come through the canopy in places where the fir is thinner. the idiocy here are generic statements designed to encompass all of nature; easily digestible by bureaucrats and simpletons.

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

How do grasslands store more carbon than woods?

The other issue is people planting trees far, far too close together and/or allowing them to sprout too close themselves. Ireland is 1/5th covered in forest, mostly managed evergreen forrests, down from 4/5ths natural woodland pre-industrial times. The trouble is. All but the largest ones seem to have simply stopped spending any money on managing them. They have left them at 100% density and they are sick. Full of weak rotted out trees and widowers lying dead against the upper limbs. Trees would be a great carbon store except for the fact that decomposers figured out how to turn them in to CO2 long ago. So, a tree with a 150 year life, is going to end up dying, rotting and releasing all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Also. There are approximately 30 trillion trees on the planet. What kind of impact do you think the "Plant a million tree" campaign would have? Even if you had plant 100 million trees it's still a drop in the bucket.

Everybody wants a quick fix.

@@daveh7720 Even the junkies.

Best comment of the video

Part of what solution? There is no solution proposed. Electric vehicles are decades away from replacing ICE engines at best, and it is far from certain that this can ever happen. Not that CO2 emissions are our only environmental catastrophe at hand. Unless the human population is dramatically reduced, the only "solution" would be scalable free energy and star trek style replicators.

That is true of all the solutions. Though people have a hard time looking a things that are part of a system. We like simple solutions.

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

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

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

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

@@PhilfreezeCH I don't even breathe.

And bird life

I live in a city with several trees on the border of streets...shade is nice yes, but tree roots wreck streets and birds are essentially pests and shit everywhere en masse near trees making the city a whole lot dirtier. It would be better to have many little/big parks in cities with trees, much less maintenance I think.

It's also a lot nicer than solar and wind farms which are causing forests to be cut down and prime agricultural land to be wasted which is ongoing right now in Queensland Australia.

Yes, absolutely. However, it won't solve the problem by itself. We need a better solution and a combination of things. You see not putting sugar in your tea won't help you if you are still drinking sugary drinks and eating sweets all the time. Same idea.

Especially after it rains.

Which is why the metservice places weather stations in urban city heat islands , especially by asphalt Airport runways

Important point: save the #microclimate

Well said!

pretty sure if billy wanted a study to say that it's healthy to eat human feces he'd get it. I'm not joking. You pay people to "Find" the Answer you want. Their livelihood depends on satisfying you so that you'll spend money on them once again. Not to mention the entire "Study" thing is rather broken these days, we invest into profitable research and abandon anything that isn't profitable... If there was a cheap solution for most our problems, we'd never find it since we keep finding the most patentable solutions..

sadly, it didn't pass peer review, was never published, and the funding got cut for further research. Oh and I heard the author fell off a cliff while hiking just a couple of weeks ago.

@@axeman2638 axed

@Perry - who did buy that study?

SHE AND GATES ARE A PROBLEM NASA **** STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES VERY QUICKLY DOES IT POISON US NO AND IT IS MOSTLY CARBON

NASA STATES THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS GOT SUGAR? PUT IT OUTSIDE ON A HOT DAY IT DEGRADES QUICKLY IT'S MOSTLY CARBON AGAIN NASA STATES THIS IS TOTALLY POLITICS AND WRONG

Then get paid in carbon credits for not doing something 😂

@@2bfrank657 Much better than the alternatives.

When you say we I assume you mean they. Funny thing, it's so much easier to tell others what to do. But maybe you actually live in a country with rain forests, then shame on me.

Humans interact with a tiny fraction of woodland, and if the amount of woodlands grew, the fraction we'd interact with would likely go down (because there wouldn't be a proportional increase in interaction). So I am not sure it's a good argument for a massive scale-up of tree planting. Your other reasons have more merit, I feel.

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

@@yerocaI'm not sure "fraction of the woodland interacted" is a useful metric - availability is. If there are more trees, more people are able to access them by foot or within reasonable commute range. Trees also improve air quality and sequester heavy metals from all our smoke into soil, so that's a nice direct human benefits. Also, they're good habitat for a large range of animals - especially the rainforests - and it's cool if those existed. Not directly related to climate change, but since we as a species reduce others' habitats by climate change and other means, would be a nice change of pace.

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

@@yeroca This is a post-lockdown, mental health related response, we see it being used to justify rewilding of farmland and allowing the right to roam in England (where 70% is privately owned farmland). Misunderstanding the massive increase in tourism also plays a part, just look at what's happening in the US with overcrowding in parks, as most people go where they see other people going, not where there's 'nature' just because it's there. Well-designed woodland would be an investment for future generations at least, but I'd just say it would be more worthwhile greening the cities than asking captive-bred city folk to go into the woods...

Not just the Amazon but all through the tropics.

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

No matter what we do the climate will continue to change like it has done since the beginning of the planet. Too much climate alarmist posts instead of balanced scientific debate.

What climate change?

Here's the thing, you don't need saving from climate change.

The ground Traps more heat then carbon dioxide

Don't forget roots prevent erosion.

Sure, but forests don't need to be planted, they just need to be left to themselves. Are we willing to sacrifice fertile farmland and attractive housing areas for forests?

No one's saying trees are bad, even Gates never said that. They're just not the amazing climate solution that some try to sell them as. And in particular the people's love for the idea of tree planting is actually used by a whole bunch of dodgy carbon offset scams to make money while not providing any of these benefits (simply cos they don't plant as many trees, or claim tree cover that was going to be there anyway). It's actually a credit to him that he didn't claim those, as most others who boast about their offsets do. The industry just isn't trustworthy right now, so it's best to look at other methods that aren't as gamed.

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

Seems to be the norm in south england, & burgundy france. The two places i've lived/worked/explored. 40 years & i don't think i've ever seen a natural forest. lol

No matter what he says, I'm sure he's lying.

Most deforestation is done to clear up land for animal agriculture, mostly cattle and cattle feed in the Amazon rainforest. Those trees are never planted again, the forest is burned down by the farmers who turn it into a soy field, then a pasture, then a wasteland.

... and it is not done particularly well in Sweden. Clear cutting is still the vastly preferred method and mostly done rather recklessly. The big companies are quite desperately trying to lay their hands on the few percent of pristine forest and on forest with high value for nature and ecosystems. Plus on the long run it is doubtful it will work economically as we do not know yet how quickly the ground deteriorates with every cycle of clearcutting, preparing the ground mechanically and replanting. Additionally we see already now many problems associated with the monocultures used in this process.

Depends on what the trees are planted for, though. If it's to burn, then all the carbon they captured is released in the burning. If it's to make paper, then the carbon is stored in the paper, until the paper is disposed of, in which case it's released again either through burning or decaying. It's only removed from the cycle if it's buried in a landfill in a way where it can't decompose. If it's used as a building material, now it's captured until the building is replaced, which is longer. Still maybe not two generations, depending on what kind of building it's a part of, though...

ok

Nice one mate, if everyone planted something, instead of having barbeques and showing off their new car, we might get somewhere. The drop in insects in the uk is frightening over the last five years. No bees, it isn't good, I plant varieties of flowers. Hardly any fruit , it burns or dries out, don't know where you are, they put stripes up nearly everyday, there is always a haze

@@trulymental7651 If you don't like droughts, then we've to stop burning fossil fuels. If you don't like seeing vapor trails in the air, then we have to stop buring fossil fuels. If you don't like to see our environment damaged, then we've to stop burning fossil fuels. The reduction of fossil fuels is much more significant in protecting nature than planting some trees.

@@trulymental7651 most toys are expensive and overrated. Peace comes with relationships. I am so much more relaxed than my friends with large bills.

@@olska9498 fossil fuel. It's here we use it. It's going to take time to transition to other energy products. Minerals will be used either way. Pick your poison.

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

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

Biking, running, skiing, paddling in trees is my happiest place. Maybe my only happy place. I consider myself part of the universe and the universe gets what it needs by making organisms feel good. Trees and the woods feel good.

Ah yes, because him running is such a significant producer of fossil fuel emissions. Not the 57 companies that are linked to 80% of emissions. ​@ivarwind

Temporary escape .

I'd say we need to set priorities. If the question us that you don't have anything to do on a Saturday and wanna go volunteer planting trees, definitely. If the question is you have some spare bucks and are deciding where to spend it, I'd say it's better to put 100% to proven effective methods.

"It's a cooperation." This is great news. All we have to do is get 8 billion people to all think the same and were set!

@@user-zw5jj2uf1p why not both?

@@anthonybrett Cuba ran out of food in the 80s and the whole dang country worked together to grow food in every available space, and then shared it among one another. some forms of duress are very effective motivators.

@@purposefully.verbose Wow. That's great. One country? That's your example of everyone working together? Tell me, do you see the Palestinian's, Israel, China, the US etc all coming together anytime soon?

Yeah. They provide shade, moderate winds, absorb dust and relax the eyes 🙂 Maybe irrelevant for global warming but important for local environment.

Bill Gates is just another WEF Tool. We could cut global hot air if these folks would just self-superglue their lips and nostrils shut.

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

And hypocrites.

...THE SCIENCE IS IN!

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

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

@@tolep respectfully false, taken at scale, if we have tree coverage wherever people live and work, the energy consumption would be greatly reduced. Many places would even skip active cooling. Even cities, which cover more and more of the land, should have big tree coverage, on open areas (streets) and on top of building. Uncovered land is unnatural in a non desert area. Now it becomes the norm. Even if the albedo is high in some rare cases, we might then influence the atmosphere more. Only greenery is perfect in all aspects (hydro, carbon cycle, depollution, solar energy, health, soil dynamics) .

I've allowed a tree to grow near one side of my house which didn't have shutters at the windows. The effect is really wonderful - inside the house and in the garden.

@@tolep 🤣 What? lower bill = lower electricity production = lower pollution, even if your electricity is produced with "clean" energies, "clean" only means less dirty, every type of energy production has some pollution.

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

In reality we should be 8-10 million people instead of 8-10 billion... I think that's the main problem, we are too many. We are in a level of overpopulation and because of that we use too much of earth's resources without stop and without a more ecofriendly system.

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

​@@korngreenAnd your solution?

Your goal is that 3 of each 4 people is 'gone' Guess a more lenient ruler than original comment suggesting 1 in 1000 is left. Just say want us extinct and quit confusing people?​@@royhuijsmans6117

The only thing that will help is to lower the temperature of the Earth.

The Earths Liver. Iron seeding has increased plant plankton growth.

Can we not be concerned about both?

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

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

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

Tree farms are not forests.

@@joelcarson4602 future beetle homes would be more honest.

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

@@MiltonRoe never saw anyone interested in planting trees who's not also interested in stopping deforestation but okay. And yes, going vegetarian/vegan is good for the environment (along with health benefits, if done correctly).

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

Let me tell you the three things that are vital in the order of their importance. This list is as follows, Food, Clothing and Shelter. Only once those three basic needs are met can we begin to worry about anything else. We need the land forests are on to farm and we need the lumber to build with. It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.

@@1pcfred "It's us or the trees! I'm going to have to cast my vote for us.": There will be no longer "us" if we continue the way we do. Temperature increase will not stop at 1.5 Celsius, and it will also not stop at 5 Celsius if we continue the way we do. At first, 2..3 billion people at the coasts will have to move inland. You completely forget that we already have a huge overpopulation.

Sounds more like government mismanagement.

in Paraguay Mr Andreas Pfeiffer from Mainz makes a useful reforestation : "The Parent tree Farm" with many edible trees and bushes and highgrade Timber and high biodiversity. There are many videos on YT , also with Michael Vogt .

Curious, how does this help business?

@@kpg1973 grasslands and steppes are important ecosystems

@@kpg1973 uh.... what

I love trees and nature. Your answer should satisfy me, but it doesn't. Because not everything is that simple and linear. I agree to some extend that human nature is prone to destroy and not recover, but the solution is not "the more trees the better and completely stop cutting". It's too long for me to summaries, so just search for "How we get tree planting wrong | It's Complicated" on youtube.

In Finland we plant 150-200 million trees every year, its about 16% of all new trees. So Natura takas care of the rust 84%. So every year we shall get 1-1,5 billion new trees. The most CO2 intake is when a trees are 30-80y old. Before and after the co2 intake is poor.

Depends on use case. Young tree absorb carbon faster. Wood retains carbon is a physical form. Renewing a forest is good if the wood stays a hard form.

That sounds more like land reclamation which has other benifits

Have to correct you. The UK almost lost the great war of 1914-18, as it didn't have enough wood, forest coverage was 3% in 1916 with the government calculation that all of it would be gone if the war lasted a few more years. 1919 forestry act seeked to address that, with an increase enough in time for the next big war. Since that forestry act, and several others UK woodland coverage is now 13%. The problem with tree planting in that time was using fast non-native tree species in dense monocultues with tax breaks as a carrot while planting in wrong habitat zones i.e. on peat bogs - visit Delamere forest, the pennine moors, Formby point (should be a dynamic dune system not pine woods).

Plant bamboo instead, it grows much, much faster.

@@keithdf2001 it's a mixture, some is farmland where hedgerows have been planted or improved. Other places such as mines and extraction pits have been transformed.

calling it a national forest is misleading and intentionally deceptive, its not forest and has none of the characteristics of a forest. as much as i like trees i can't abide goverment distortion of truth and manipulation of the gullible

Exactly

Why you people so obsessed with lawnmowing, seriously why

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

Fair call but if you own the place you might want to consider that most trees put down pretty extensive root systems which can crack foundation slabs, concrete curbing and driveways. Not to mention collapse waste water and supply pipes, gas lines and possibly even underground power and phone supply conduits. If you are renting your landlord might not be very appreciative either.

I stopped mowing my lawn and the City came after me and fined me. How much CO2 is emitted from all the lawnmowers in the US? The government doesn't really care.

Yes, and Bill never claimed otherwise.

100%

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

I wish cities had fewer campers.

Really? I've never been in a city that had no trees. Most cities have quite a few. They tend to grow along streets, in yards and in parks. And cities also have a lot of concrete, although cement is an ingredient in concrete.

​@@mattbosley3531really? A tiny tree in amoung millions of blocks cement is countable as trees. percentage wise amount of trees in a city is negligible.

@@shmwmlam3953 Exactly, just look at Google Earth satellite. It's pretty clear, gray, dead land, that's a city.

and you really needed to read a study for this revelation? wow

In comparison to higher intelligence that would be absolute.

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

*sigh*

With the internet promoting people acting like 10-year-olds there's no hope because the whole idea is to get these people buying toys from China which is causing massive climate change

We are Easter Islanders with a bigger piece of land.

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

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

Nah. It is just stupid things humans assume will improve life. Plus, nature is just too perfect to accept for humans. Not needing any improvements by us really irks idiots.😅. Nature evolves smoothly. 🥴🤦🏻‍♀️🇨🇦

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

There is one big fix - reducing and eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately human nature means that we refuse to accept this inconvenient truth however.

What does that even mean?

you just don't know how too cook them right

beware the stately oak, it kills lesser trees with its shade alone! talk about passive aggressive...

that's exactly what a tree would say!

@@synystera Hah, his bark is worse than his bite

That describes Bates to a tee. He acknowledges that all his flights and whatnot generate tons of CO2 but says it doesn't matter because "I offset all of that with carbon credits." Guy is just a sociopath.

Large corporations create a bunch of fake companies that each get their number of carbon credits, then they buy these credits up from themselves, and pollute away!

Which is why Mauna Loa just reported another large rise in CO2 levels... We can pretend we are taking enough action even when the evidence says the opposite.

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

In a way I think it validates his idea? He's basically saying "I do more, so I should pay more" Gates has basically created a wealth tax without calling it a wealth tax. I think this is why a lot of other rich folk are campaigning against carbon credits.

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

Comprehensive landscape restoration. Not tree mono-cropping.

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

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

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

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

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

We are dead if the oceans get much worse.

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

Climate change is a huge and tragic diversion. Who cares about the oceans and the forests of the world? Few people have any idea about their health and the true state they're in

That's called the "urban heat island effect." It is so significant that it will be a couple of degrees warmer at night in a big city than in the surrounding vegetated places. During the day urban areas can be 15-20 degrees warmer!

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

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

​@@markdowning7959it's not just countryside though, as the effect is still noticeable in places that are developed and have lots of buildings and people living there, such as suburbs, but also happen to be highly vegetated in comparison to the concrete jungle of downtown cores of most cities. Sure countryside sees an even larger effect, but going from zero vegetation to regular vegetation is a larger step than going from regular vegetation to total vegetation.

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

zero, we really need emission less transportation. the idea that we can plant a few trees and fix all our pollution from travel is just really silly. we really just need to change how we travel.

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

@@scottmcshannon6821 stop with your bullshit.

planting trees isn't gonna solve a problem that doesn't exist. besides the earth is already way greener than it was 100 years ago. even the last 20 years has seen a 15 percent increase

The world was coping fine before the internet decided to brainwash adults into acting like 10-year-olds so they'll buy toys from China that is the big problem. But no one wants to admit that they want to act like 10-year-olds so we can't solve this issue

yeah, it's much more effective to eliminate forest destruction, because trees release way more seeds than we could ever plant manually, they'll grow back if the conditions are right

its make more wetlands.

true, but we should focus on cultivated land, which are vast and have a way worse state (dead soil), we need live soil (which includes ruminants), permanent cover and close to no till. in Europe, semi wild areas often don't have properly managed ruminant cover, because the natural dynamic which forced ruminant to seek each ungrazed spot is lost. No predatory pressure, no natural good over population, which forced migration and more seeking (better coverage). That's why we need dynamic grazing everywhere, including in rotation on crop lands. It employs people, cost close to nothing, improve everything and feed the people. Gates wants us to eat plants, which implies keeping the dead soil dead, he's dumb. We need to put back ruminant on the ground, everywhere, they are the soil manager, the world creator. without them the nature has no balance. With this help plant growing will be way cheaper. It should only cost minimal inputs (implanting, harvesting, covering, managing cover) minimal energy and almost no chemicals. We use chems because the soil is dead, the seeds are unsuitable.

We use chemical fertilizers because the place we eat food isn't the same place we grow it. Thus we aren't able to create a closed loop nutrient systems. Farms essentially act as nutrient exporters. Introducing cows doesn't magically add more nutrients. In fact they would ultimately increase the nutrient export rate as their carcasses are exported.

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

Those damn HOAs. Did they give any reason?

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

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

That is awful

Your apartment had an hoa?

This guy ∆ needs a position in Congress.

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

DISREGARD ABOVE CONSOOM PRODUCT

and who are "they"???

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

Indeed. I work in business consultancy. When we approach some company's operations the people may have this idea that there is one simple solution that changes everything. Instead our approach often is to do the 100+ most impactful solutions, each affecting the operations from 0,05% to 5% (just an example). The cumulative impact of all those small improvements can be huge. One just needs to decide what needs to be done and then be very decisive in implementing solution after solution (or rather multiple solutions in parallel). Everything needs to be done with a sense of purpose: analyze, decide, DO, follow-up, continue.

There should be a Tree department in Ministries of Ecology. Special tree tax, the govt takes care of it and does it properly. Same for the rest. It's all possible, the money is there, but private interests don't want to do anything until they get their money from it.

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

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

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

I couldn't agree more. It's just where to put them. The entire planet has been divided up for human consumption and the first thing that happens when humans buy land is they cut the trees down, so they can get started on their idiotic scheme. So sad. We're an evolutionary failure.

There is nobody more sure of himself then an idiot.

If more people were taught the quote “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing” the world would be a better place lol

I'm brilliant, which is why I understand that planting trees is like shooting bullets, and making wetlands is like dropping nukes. We need wetlands,, which will grow all full of trees all on their own.

@@Indyfficient Most of these cute cliche's are degenerative to people's thinking and speaking. A double-negative sentence is more honest. You know so much it is beyond ever mapping. If you know "who" is on first, maybe you know "nothing" and you need to ALWAYS give yourself proper status without requiring people to speak a paradox as if it has merit. We need to speak with power of genius to get our language FIXED and our patterns of thinking FIXED. Every cliche has beguiled and lowered the general IQ. "Because in comparison to ________, I know nothing." There, that takes us where it should.

@@YouKnowTheyExist you really critiquing Socrates? Lol

Love her ♥️😂

I imagine she has chopped down a few men on the first date and used them for firewood, lol (JK Sabine, I meant figuratively not literally)

shes dry as a raisin,-

Yes. Having more spaces where trees are allowed to grow would be a good thing. In UK farmers claim they are maintaining the environment. We would have a lot more trees if marginal farmland wasn't subsidised to keep sheep.

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

Depends on the place really, no, trees don’t grow themselves everywhere. *Most* places don’t grow trees at all, just look at a geographic map of the planet. Between tundras, steppes, highlands, all kinds of deserts etc … you need a lot of work to get forests growing there if it’s possible at all. Frankly if you want to encourage natural greening we should keep putting out as much co2 as possible, it is quite literally the food plants crave and the rising temperatures will create more landmasses for plants than it will destroy by desertification.

@@royhuijsmans6117 I’m careful with that romanticised view of "rewilding". We have messed much with our ecosystem and apart from some areas around the equator(the rainforests) and the extreme north and south(Siberia, Patagonia) there are little wilds remaining. The problem are invasive species, we introduced a couple that are highly problematic, kudzu is a good example. Sure if you leave things alone long enough they will eventually be in balance again, but that could take decades or even centuries. For example if kudzu overtakes a lightly forested area it will eventually kill all the trees and prevent new ones from sprouting as well as killing pretty much all other macro flora in the area since it has no natural enemies. I think people underestimate the damage invasive species can do to entire ecosystems, once they are introduced the areas pretty much require constant human intervention. Rats on islands they are not native to are another great example, they can easily extinct multiple species of ground nesting birds within a very short time.

Quite.

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

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

CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS

Yeah, people are taking what Bill said in the wrong context. He's not saying that planting trees won't help, he's saying it's not one of the things he personally does to offset his own carbon footprint, as instead he chooses to focus on things that are easier to directly measure and have a more noticeable benefit for people in America, such as funding more efficient heating and cooling systems for people who couldn't otherwise afford them. Even if there wasn't a risk of scams or questions on measuring the effectiveness of tree planting, people in America simply wouldn't see the immediate and direct benefit from trees being planted in Brazil, in the same way they would from receiving more efficient heating and cooling systems for their homes. The real question for me though, is how much of that carbon offset is squandered away by people spending the money saved from lower energy bills on even more carbon generating consumption?

Gates has invested in artificial carbon capture schemes. He's not paying for the machinery to be built and run. He is expecting others (governments mostly) to do that. Every dollar spent planting trees takes a dollar out of his profit margin. So no. Gates means exactly that.

Take a lesson from Japan for instance, they use a cool method called Daisugi, essentially just trimming the top of the trees branches and allowing it to re grow rather than fully cutting them down

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

@@MelodicTurtleMetal because they don’t need to completely deforest… what’s not to understand, it takes years for saplings to mature. This method bypasses that massive wait time for regrowth

@@Indyfficient That's called pollarding and is used all over Europe and other places.

That is the beauty of AI, and technology!! "Information Overload". This is done on purpose! It is absolutely by design, as "Designed for the Dump" is American way to do things, we invented that idea. We live on that idea. The internet, and Science has allowed us to spread so much information!

No "solution" will happen before Earth's self regulatory system snaps us into an ice age. Not if, when. We seem to be on the doorstep now.

The best solution I can think of is actually one solution; although it evades our grasp for now: near free and unlimited energy. I am convinced there is a way to harness the power of the universe and produce all the energy we need with no negative consequences, or at least if there are then those negative consequences can be solved by simply using some of that unlimited energy.

@@CrazyGaming-ig6qq -- thorium reactors or molten salt reactors - are they way. Maybe not what you were going for, though they have lots of upside - being reliable, sustainable, low carbon and way safer than older reactor design.

Of course, it's already far too late for most, and human greed will preclude any others. The tipping point (Thom's "catastrophe point") has passed.

​@@drx1xym154⚛️

But isn’t the problem that because of all those benefits, trees would naturally repopulate into any viable soil that humans aren’t continuously clearing? Like if you stopped cutting a golf course, for example, wouldn’t trees slowly develop there in stages over the next 50-70 years or so with zero human intervention? So it’s a zero-sum game…there’s only so much arable land. And like she says in this video, humans want to cut it down and build nail salons and shit. Not grow a bunch of trees that don’t benefit humans at all.

Old forests, which are what are useful to help with climate change, are not at all similar to young human planted (mostly) monocultures. The moment the old forests begin to struggle even the slightest because of Climate change? Those young plantations are going to die faster than ice-cream melts in the Texan sun.

@@kated3165 old forests are mostly carbon neutral, only new forests (if properly managed) help offset climate change because they store carbon as they grow. that is why, as counterintuitive as it sounds, things like forest fires help offset climate change. because the carbonized biomass will sink into the soil, and new plant will grow on top of them and capture more carbon.

and most importantly, the breath CO2.

@@danilooliveira6580 It's the "if properly managed" part that's problematic, because a lot of times the forests we cut down aren't great for growing back. Heavy machinery will have compacted the soil and they'll have cleared much of the biomass that would have served to form new (better soil). It's very common for replanted trees to either die in mass or really struggle to grow. Sometimes they will replant over several years because the previous trees keep dying... and even then it will take many more years before they reach decent sizes. According to NASA we would need to reforest an area the size of Canada and the US (completely) to have significant effect. Then you need to take into account that forest fires are increasing... so keeping those plantations would be very challenging. While it's true that the carbon of forest fires in wild areas can (eventually) be negated by naturally growing forests, the same isn't necessarily going to be true for forests that were clear cut or used for agriculture. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it at all, but we do tend to be champions at half-assing stuff... and there's a big worry that tree planting could easily become the main (very convenient for politicians and industries) focus. The main focus needs to be on drastically reducing fossil fuels consumption/production first and foremost.

"Trees are 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🤔🙄🧐🤫😁

You win !

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

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

2 billion trees are planted each year, but they take time to grow, and we are cutting down 15 billion in that same time. So, the problem is not planting trees, but cutting them down.

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

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

@@DonReba some might feel that way, very likely because they have never tried an alternative. Most - especially in the office realm - are forced to use it. In the realm of IT-security most people use Fedora, Ubuntu or Arch as their host system. Those are not inherently more secure by default, however, their notebook/desktop/workstation version have a much smaller attack surface than Windows. There is already a term for what big US companies do to products they acquire from smaller and much more innovative companies and it is called „ensh..ification“. That’s what Microsoft does best.

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

@@presence5426 I agree to what you wrote about retaining water, beautifying and preserving ecosystems. However, we won’t cool the planet with forests. We can‘t undo that we dug and burned vast amounts of coal and oil by planting trees. Nature took it millions of years to dispose these excessive amounts of carbon permanently under the earth and under the oceans. If we want to do this in a timespan of let’s say one hundred years, trees are growing much too slow. Ferns and algae grow fast, but who is going to pay for (very, very) large farming or aquaculture of these?

I assume you mean as coal that is never burned

@@katgod No. Coal won't ever be produced from trees again. Coal happened because there were no microbes that could digest the wood in the vegetation at that time. Now there is, and so when a tree dies now, it gets consumed and all its carbon gets released in one form or another.

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

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

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

Völlig richtig, nur zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels leider völlig unzureichend. Ich hab auch eine kleine PV auf dem Dach, bei mir, kann ich versichern, waren keine Loobyisten.😊

Wir könnten beispielsweise in Deutschland auf Biodiesel verzichten und auf den riesigen freiwerdenden Flächen Wälder anlegen und die unter Naturschutz stellen. Es wird ja auch häufig vergessen, dass wir nicht nur CO2 mindern müssen, sondern das Land auch fit für die wärmere Zeit machen, das heißt Verdunstung minimieren müssen. Lieber ein Windrad mehr als Quadratkilometer an Monokulturen, die für Bodenerosion sorgen.

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

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

@@tiefensucht in Deutschland ist das Bäume pflanzen zu teuer. Wälder unter Naturschutz stellen hört sich einfach an funktioniert aber nicht. Zuerst muss das Recht beseitigt werden, dass jeder jeden Wald betreten darf. Ich bin dadurch als Waldbesitzer aufgrund der Verkehrssicherungspflicht angehalten alles was runterfallen könnte zu beseitigen. Das und andere Dinge widersprechen aber dem Gedanken den Wald ursprünglich wachsen zu lassen. Grds bevürworte ich es sehr den Wald in seiner ursprünglichen Form wieder herzustellen

Facts that make Bill Gates sleep well at night. Going after the trees en masse is a form of eugenics … and eugenics is another pet project

From 2.1 million square miles... barely 1%

It is not coming back.

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

​@@MrMollusk7It's 0.1% actually.

My small brain clearly heard Gates say "I take the carbon credits" that is enviro-speak for telling people I can exchange my bad things I do for credit of good things I don't do and never change my lifestyle. What BS. Unocal in the 90's was offered "carbon credits" for massive environmental disasters they caused by poorly managing their business. In a nut shell they polluted the ground water and air in California for decades and the state and I am sure the Feds allowed them to buy up old "gross polluters vehicles-cash for clunkers they called it" in exchange for carbon credits. What a load of horsesh*t. That being said Bill who is fairly smart continues to dish out BS to people that take him as a real proponent of climate issues. He says well I can exchange this for that and take my carbon credits. WTF does that actually mean. Clearly he knows that there is no 1 for 1 exchange. You can't do a burnout in your hotrod and plant a tree the next day to offset the pollution caused. Can you? Ugh, I am going down a wormhole here but to credit Ms. Hosenfelder she is making sense but Gates is clearly a shill in the game of climate change which ultimately does not need his money or help. Time to retire Mr. Gates.

Absolutely! 100%. If the carbon credits scam was banned, the globalist billionaires supporting this climate change cult fear porn would soon be changing their tune.

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

carbon credits is new feudalism

@@reckneya Well said! This vid is all about grammar after all.......

True, but a much better way to make progress towards this is to stop cutting down trees, not to plant new ones. Given unlimited resources we should do both, but we DON'T have unlimited resources and it's very important to do the most effective and efficient things ASAP.

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

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

It is almost as it you did not watch the video

As long as we all agree that Gates is the enemy

No it's about wealth distribution . It's about making you so poor you need the govt hand out. It means social credit scores,bio metric tatoos,please catch up.

🤣

I don't like sand, it gets everywhere.

💩

Excellent point 😃!

@@TheKingWhoWins If you look carefully, you can see it trickling out of Billy's head.

CALL WRITE NASA SHE AND GATES ARE WRONG

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

They still can. Now they fly.

​@@carlpanzram7081Calugos are the squirrels of the future

Look at it this way: Can we replace our fossil fuel use by burning trees instead? If no, then we can't "unburn" fossil fuels by planting trees either.

Yeah unfortunately anything related to man, whether made or cultivated, will have a carbon debt. We can make passive carbon absorbers, but making it made pollution, we can make carbon pumps, but making and running make pollution, we can plant trees, but we may destroy existing ecosystems are shift their balance, etc. The main thing is that people are too greedy to cut back on things. Technology is the reason we're in the spot we are and you can't just fix it with more technology. Just look how today homes have 2-4 cars where in the 60s it was rare to see a home with more than one. And yes we made more efficient light bulbs but now people just use way more of them. Just think that there are TVs advertising they used over 5000 LEDs.

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

Amen. And the restoration of soils and the microbiome so important for carbon capture and the break down of toxins in the air. Wholistic approach necessary agreed

...and swamps, which are huge carbon sinks! This and all of what was mentioned by thread starter needs to be done now,... alas this will not save us. Climate is going down the drain and the only question is, how badly. There are too many 'elephants' in the room for the crockery not to get damaged, like thawing Siberia, rogue China, deforresting madness in Brasil etc. etc.

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

@@kostuek You're late to the party. The voluntary human extinction movement (VHEMT) has been a thing for years. Ppl thought of your idea ages ago. Pfft!

we need more wetlands. trees are like bullets in a war, if wetlands are like nukes

I think that is wrong. Read somewhere that plants in oceans are #1.

Trees aren't a _source_ of oxygen, nor do we need _more oxygen._ What we need is _less greenhouse gases._ Trees extract some oxygen from atmospheric CO2, which is 0.04% of the atmosphere to begin with. Even if they somehow managed to extract _all_ of it and release it back into the atmosphere, you'd only have about 0.1% more oxygen than you do now. Completely irrelevant. The (vaguely) useful impact that trees have is in capturing carbon. But they release it again (after combining it with carbon - in other words, they release CO2) when they decompose, so even if you could plant 15 trillion trees, it would only be a short-term solution, until some of them start dying. Also, the vast majority of photosynthesis is done by algae and marine bacteria, not trees. But, again, "more oxygen" won't actually solve anything. What we need is _less._ Less CO2, less methane, less heat production, etc..

@@willdehne1 - Yep. Not just plants, but marine bacteria as well. 🦠 And the issue isn't "lack of oxygen". Even if trees somehow managed to extract all the oxygen from atmospheric CO2, you'd only have about 0.1% more oxygen than you do now. The point is to remove CO2 (and methane, etc.). But trees release CO2 back when they decompose, so it could never be a long-term solution. What we need is to dump less of those gases into the atmosphere in the first place, and / or remove them in a way that's a) fast enough and b) doesn't get released back.

@@willdehne1 - For some reason RU-vid keeps deleting the comment where I listed the actual percentages (I guess their amazing AI "spam filter" thinks I'm trying to *advertise* CO2... sigh...), but yes, it's mostly algae and marine bacteria. But the OP's premise is flawed anyway (the issue isn't lack of oxygen).

It's really mental how many people falling for his junk.. solar panels are a environment hazard, their production requires rare materials that cause harm overall.. their life cycle is a joke.... they are sht at efficiency as they work based on the mood (Weather/time), and the even worse part is that you need batteries to actually have any use from them... And batteries production is hundreds of times worse... the entire EV craze is another load of bollocks, the same issue as mentioned above and you still get your power from a coal plant in who knows where.... Generally the entire environment caring movement is hijacked by profit seeking criminals, taking a topic we all can collectively agree upon which is that we should care about the world and take all that positive energy and turn it into a profit that in the end is practically a net-negative in the long run...

His point is that a lot of tree planting carbon offset schemes are a scam, or don't do their due diligence and the trees end up dying anyway, as they are often planted in monocultures. That is why planting trees is not an effective way of doing carbon offsets atm. Also solar panels make money, at least in my country they make up for their cost in like 5 years.

And why should we trim down our forest? There are a lot of ways to install solar panels that doesn`t involve chopping down tree. Like on houses and other buildings. In the video Gates even talks about assisting low income household to modernize with heatpumps and solar panels, which has the doube benefit of aiding those households and lower CO²-emissions.

There are more possibilities, see Scotland and deer.

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

Plant trees yes, but voting for what?

No we haven't, where are you getting your facts from? how about checking what is the actual de/reforestation status

@@Songfugel aye, it's a mere 35%. Should have looked it up. It'll be 50% in a couple of decades. For what it's worth the figure is closer to 90% in Britain.

@@brettmeikle The number is decreasing, not growing, that is the main point. While the West have been severely slacking in this respect, Asian countries, particularly China and India have been reforesting the Earth like crazy in the past 2 decades, to desperately try to fix what they broke Deforestation is not actually a huge problem, quite the opposite. Problem is what sort of forests and their unique flora & fauna is being lost, particularly in Southern American countries, mostly for the sole benefit of a handful of Western countries

@@Songfugel problem is they're planting species of little ecological value. Eucalyptus may tick a carbon box faster than most but that's about all it does. Sitka similarly in the UK. If we want to restore ecosystems we have to be careful to separate that endeavour from fast plantation carbon cycling.

Jede Rodung von Bäumen für Windanlagen ist nur zulässig wenn die gleiche Fläche aufgeforstet wird also laber nicht so einen scheiß

@@llortz-nw8dn Wissen Sie nicht, wie lange neue Bäume zum Wachsen brauchen? Temporär erhöhen wir hier die CO2 Menge immens. Wird aber in keiner Statistik erfasst. Ob eine Kompensation stattfindet überprüft am Ende niemand: „Der Bundesregierung liegen hierzu keine Angaben vor. Für die Genehmigung der Windenergieanlagen sind die Länder und Kommunen zuständig. Zudem werden Ersatzmaßnahmen individuell in jeder Genehmigung geregelt.“

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

@@mikemondano3624Trees absorb the broad spectered energy of the sun, and stores it as carbohydrates. Eventually, the energy stored in the carbohydrate is released, resulting in heat, energy in the infrared spectrum. That happens, regardless of the tree burning or the tree being digested by fungi, bacteria or animals. If you have seen Sabine before, you probably know, that greenhouse gasses are agitated by infrared radiation, which heats the atmosphere. IOW, converting the broad spectered energy input from the sun, to be primarily an infrared output, is probably a bad thing. The same can be said for solar panels. Perhaps we would be better off, focusing on returning the energy back into space, by increasing reflectivity, and stop harvesting solar energy, that is eventually released as heat? Sabine was right to mention albedo, but fails to connect the dots in regards to harvesting solar energy, regardless of it being trees or solar panels.

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

Because 5 Trillions would be better? Everybody seems to think, 20% is nothing. Must be an Investor-mindset-thing.

Spend the money somewhere else?

@@WaveOfDestiny Trees increase home value and are extremely cheap to plant. So, nope. Not even that makes sense.

@@bobmcbobbington9220How does “it increases the value of homes” go against “it isn’t a money-efficient way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere”?

Because it's only pretending to address the problem. All these 'solutions' make people think that reducing and eventually eliminating use of fossil fuels is optional.

You don't need AC in shade? Do you live in the North Pole or what? My last apartment in Eastern Finland was 30C at times and the city is covered in trees. Anything over 22C is sweating time.

Wait what? If your trees drop their leaves in winter, you're definitely not in a very cool climate... Especially if solar heating is an option in winter!

Boston, MA. Not very hot. Not very cold. Minimal AC needed. Thanks to trees.

@@brianvernaglia9449 Trees are definitely cool and important. Forests are a big part of our culture too and our cities are very green, but AC is a beautiful thing here in the summer.

22 C is cool. I'd sleep with a blanket at 22! 😂

Solar panel roofs over parking areas would cool the area and generate electricity for chargers at the same time.

You might be confusing the concept of shade in parking lots with the concept of global warming. ;-) Getting rid of all the cars in that parking lot would do far more for the environment than covering it with trees.

No, it is just feeding for the next level AI😁

But if we don't stop climate change it won't really matter which you prefer because the trees will all die anyway. It's not a matter of the end goal but of effective immediate action.

I also know which I would rather have but I can't speak for the ecosystem.

Can we get a third option? I'd like to pave over the planet myself. Think of the traffic jams we could avoid then. If only every road was wider.

Let's do both.

You can't plant trees everywhere. There are barren lands and deserts

On the N American Great Plains, prairie dogs filled the niche of rain creators. Along with beavers in the riparian corridors, they also recharged these aquifers. Their deep burrowing acted as a wick to bring moisture up from the underground aquifers with the tidal system thus increasing the transpiration cycle. There is a Diné/Navajo saying that if you kill the prairie dogs there will be no one left to cry for the rain. Prairie dogs are down to 1 or 2% of their historic populations. I have heard developers & non-restorative ranchers say 5%, but I suspect they have vested interests.🤔

Also they make oxygen which animals (humans) need to literally live. Obvious but sometimes it seems to be forgotten.

@asktheanimals Yeah the United States has suffered a lot from farms and reducing plant and animal wildlife. The way to fix climate change is by fixing the ecosystem and changing what we use as a society not just individuals

@@cencent2189 the only thing is that we don't need oligarchs telling us how we must live and help nature instead of trying to trying to control it. we are currently trying to control nature, it's not even us, its the oligarchs telling us how to live that are trying to control nature. Earth has a equilibrium that we have to respect and understand that we all live thanks to that, disrupting it in attempts to make it rain whenever we want is breaking it. Co2 is our core problem, our core problem is maniacs that decided it is our main problem. and to "solve" the problem we are causing even more damage to the ecosystem of the entire earth... The solution won't be a fancy machine that costs 500bilion that is patented by billy, the solution will be to put billy back into his place in the world and helping nature fix itself, using it's own natural responses. We had cases in history where there was tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet somehow we are still here. Earth has ways to deal with this issue, we just have to let it fix it.

so why not wetlands?? wetlands are much more impactful than a few trees.

@@tsmspace You really like wetlands I'm guessing?

@@clintonrobinson8070 wetlands make a soil that you can literally dry out and shovel into a furnace.

@@tsmspace Peat moss you mean? As in plant matter.

@@clintonrobinson8070 it's a little more complicated than some moss. And peat can be a lot of different things, everywhere from a soil to a sludge.

But my assumption is: if we cover all deserts with trees then we have rescued the climate

And nothing in this video says otherwise. So basically a non sequitur

Yup. Temperate grasslands are considered the most endangered ecosystem on the planet.

Well, stop planting humans everywhere in a non- Nomadic way. They are "Invasive species #1"

What do you think of bamboo or kelp for carbon capture?

​@@wnose I'm not very well read in this area but here are some things that come to mind: how it's done must be well argued for and it should be studied as there are several risks involved. Risks: 1. Partial oxygen depletion. 2. Development of anaerobic breakdown of organic matter causing the release of methane. 3. Disrupting ecosystems due to the two previous points leading to no extra carbon being absorbed = time wasted/higher negative impact. A possible way to mitigate risks: use an area that previously had kelp forests but don't anymore, of cause depending on the cause, as this could be positive from an ecological standpoint. You also need to take the kelp out of the water to remove the possibility of reducing oxygen concentration in the water due to consumption from aerobic bacteria. Then you can MAYBE use the kelp as a fish feed in a land based facility and capture the carbon from the fish's waste (highly theoretical and could be dumb, needs more studies). The land based fish farm would also need to have to use 100% green energy. Last step is to use a technology to shoot the carbon down into the earth Problems with carbon capture usually arise from one of the following: 1. it's costly. 2 it needs a lot of electricity. If it's costs more than it would to make stable green energy it's not worth as you should prioritize having 100% green energy first. If the technology takes a lot of energy and you dont have 100% green energy the technology will force the energy system to make more electricity, usually from fossile fules, in turn creating more co2 emissions. Since we also have to act fast in trying to mitigate climate change, being too slow is also a risk. States should invest a lot of time and effort to look into potential solutions like this before its too late.

CALL WRITE NASA THEY MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF THIS

Does that include nuclear?

They cut down a portion of the forest portrayed in the Brother Grimm's Fairytales to put up windmills.

No, not true. If we were to massively plant hemp, that alone would be enough to stop climate change and decarbonize our industry. Sadly, hemp was only legalized by President Donald Trump in 2018, and most other countries are subsidizing other crops instead. I calculated that if all German farmers added just one season of hemp to their crop rotation, it would increase the total output of food, biofuel, and animal feed, and sequester more than double the current CO2 production of Germany. This means to become completely CO2 neutral, it would be enough to plant hemp every two years.

China is building new coal-fired power plants constantly. They're not held to any standards.

Actually, if you cut down the trees to build buildings and replant, it's even better. The cut down trees are carbon sinks and young trees absorb much more CO2 while growing.

you are agreeing with gates and sabine.

If you love trees so much, plant some yourself. It does not cost a cent to gather some seed and plant them in the ground. Why should it be Bill Gates's responsibility. He is already doing what he thinks has better results.