Nope, I was about to question this, too! I don't know which is correct, but, without searching for, I guess there are millions, not billions, mostly because I doubt the Earth reach even one billion km².
I especially love that whenever RU-vidrs put pictures of climate change on the screen, they decide to show nuclear power plants, which, granted, make a lot of smoke, but it's just water vapor. They might have the problem of nuclear waste, but they still have nothing to do with climate change
Nuclear has a bad name because of shitty Soviet technicians and a particularly dimwitted decision to build a nuclear reactor right next to the ocean. And then put the safety systems below sea level, including the backup generators. On an island with an immense amount of seismic activities. *surprised pikachu face* New reactors, such as the CANDU, even help solve conventional nuclear waste issues, as it can use it as it's primary fuel. It also doesn't require enriching at all for it's normal fuel. Nuclear has so much potential, but uneducated implementation has nearly ruined it for everyone.
@@dovid916 Mind you, it's not just „Shitty soviet technicians“ Firstly, those people were highly qualified engeneers for their time, and tschernobyl was mostly caused because of overseers not knowing how far you could push the plant. The united states fueled the disaster just as much as the soviet union did, by prioritizing the production of nuclear weapons over efficiency and safety. If they strained their plants to the maximum, so would the ussr, and pushing it to the maximum they did.
@@sehr.geheim bruh in the Soviet union highly qualified generally meant highly loyal to the state, Infact, the guy in charge of keeping the reactor running didn't follow standard safety procedures and tried to speed run the whole safety test so that electric supply to Keiv wouldn't be cut and he wouldn't be fired for causing the power cut
Especially when they show a video of the Sahara being a desert and then becoming green and then going back to a desert.. but this time it went back to how it was.. because of climate change caused by people. Lol.. rightttttttt
Yeah 😂 But the principal problem in Africa isn't rain... it's the capacity to the soil to absorb water.... because many water are in the surface and create floods, or disappear in the air.
Eritrea was at war with Ethiopia until late 2018 and seeing as the African Union is headquartered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia I'm assuming that has something to do with it. Whether they will eventually contribute to the project remains to be seen I suppose.
Not just Eritrea but also Ethiopia Let me explain the curve bend towards central Ethiopia because the northern part of the country (Tigrai region) is a full desert therefore the tree wall must divide Northern Ethiopia combined with Eritrea from the remaining part of the country. Edit: I'm also from Ethiopia
Congratulations on your anniversary. This is the first of your videos I have seen (recommend by YT), great video and topic. It is very concerning to see how the predicted population explosion in Africa, along with temperature rise, less fresh water, less agricultural land, it doesn't bode well for the children born today in the continent of Africa.
The US has been the number 1 oil producer for awhile. Since the US developed fracking we dont need oil from anyone. We are a net exporter. Biden may change that...empowering lots of bad places. But we will see.
Video makers need to stop showing stock footage of nuclear power plants when discussing the challenges of climate change. That's water vapor you're showing and it doesn't add to CO2 emissions.
Yes and the irony is that the nuclear is one, if not the one, sector that emits the less co2. Coal or Oil powerplants are desastrous in co2 emissions and fine particules, solar and wind, extremely poluting to produce and we can't really recycle any of them. Dams use so many ressources to build and desastrous for the biodiversity. The only one that's better than nuclear fission centrals is geothermal centrals. (but can't be built everywhere, needs very specific conditions) The best option would be nuclear fusion. Using "rare" (1 part per 3000 if i remember correctly) isotopes of water to create 10 times the energy used for the reaction. What dangerous chemicals does it release then ? Dihydrogen Monoxyde : H2O. Also known as water. Nothing more. No radioactive materials for millenials, no way-more dangerous fine particules (like coal and oil powerplant does), Anything but water. So stop making nuclear sector look bad. It is one of the best, and its future is even greater.
@@Karriefy23 did you account for the extraction of rare earth elements that need toxic acids and render huge areas inhospitable for life ? Because they're used for both solar and wind, moreover in the batteries needed for such power plants to work. Batteries that are desastrous environnementally. And that we can't recycle neither solar panels (that start piling up in third world countries, contaminating soil and waterbeds) nor wind turbines. I won't even reply about what you've said about nuclear powerplant would account for 30% of the air pollution.
@@Calle19881 in a desert, there a season where the wind blows from inland towards the coast. The air heating up as it blows over the hot desert. When you open your front door it's literally like opening an oven door. The air not just picking up heat, but sand as well. And when the stars alighn, it rains during all this. Once I experienced weather when it rained hot mud. Whatever this season is called, it's coming.
it's not 8 billion! It's 8 billion for the actual project but you need another 800 billion to pad the pockets of corrupt official to make it happen. Back in the 90's after a really bad flooding in Bangladesh, the gov't issued USD $60 per effected family to replant crops but by the time the families got that money it was only 2 cent. rest of the money is in the pocket of everyone involve (with the distribution of the funds) taking a cut.
blueBeanieboos TV are you familiar with the term “Carrying capacity?” A population can only grow if resources are in excess. If there is not enough resources in a certain area, then the population cannot grow. That’s why humanitarian crises such as drought, famine, and disease occur.
@the virtuous man maybe on the south that’s for sure I agree that Sahara caused us way to many problems (wish include weather and climate change rising temperatures) the northern Mediterranean part is not affected but we should plant something to stop its progression not only for safety but for climate and agricultural purposes
@@sebbo_h7121 Barely. You could probably count the number of times he has done that on a single hand. I'm saying he dosnt use the glorious measurement of a Toyota Corolla enough to justify being a meme.
"The estimated cost of constructing such a titanic structure-" Oh boy, it's going to be some absurd number I can't even fathom, isn't it? "- is believed to be around 8 billion dollars" ... That's it? I don't know, but after hearing the ludicrous numbers being raised by countries to sustain their country's companies during this pandemic, 8 billion dollars sounds like a drop in the bucket.
The real problem is not the money, but the LOCAL manpower (you can not drop "genesis bombs" to magically alter the ground & insert the trees). -> The LONG (time) logistics necesary to sustain all of the "micro-branches" of the megaproject on each individual region (county_level) are difficult to organize, mantain & efectively acomplish (even without tribal wars & simple incompetency murking things).
I think rather than funding the biggest challenge is the fact that the countries in the Sahel aren't particularly stable and lack proper government machinery to undertake such a massive project, aside from all the corruption plaguing to the region. Like the countries which have contributed the most like Senegal, Ethiopia and Nigeria despite their internal challenges are the ones who are more well off when compared to the other countries in the region.
@@thelakeman2538 And don't forget that there's an Islamist insurgency (Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Chad and Burkina Faso) plus ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. Plus ongoing conflicts between pastoralists and farmers etc.... The one crucial country is Nigeria, due to the size of its population and economy: if its government were to take the lead it would encourage the others to cooperate and carry out the necessary program without much fuss. And somewhere in the multiverse, there exists a stable, competent and incorruptible Nigerian state, that is capable of this task, as opposed to the Nigerian government of our universe, which doesn't give fuck all about anything other than lining their pockets in a nonstop kleptocratic orgy. So yeah, its doomed.
At 3:21 he says that the Sahara Desert covers over “9.2 million km” while on screen it shows “9.2 billion km”. This is either a typo or a voiceover mistake. Just wanted to point this out.
I love this video and project so much and really appreciate your awesome works! Unfortunately I only found an ad link and no sources referring to your content. Please share your sources with us. :-)
@@XR190190 who do you think mined the rare minerals used to make the phone/computer you wrote this with? but you're correct, child labour is heinous... but the current 135,000,000 inhabitants? are they all toddlers? that's about the same pop. as Russia... trying to tell me they cant find a needle of manpower in that haystack?
@@dylwhite8831 FYI 50% of those 135 000 000 inhabitants are under 14. You can check on the UN stats. Now don't forget that these people don't have any means of going to the trees sites. No roads, not much car/truck like in developed countries. It's a different logistic !
@@XR190190 why would that matter? toddlers cant drive... but again, im not here to solve multiple nations infrastructure problems, just pointing out there is a huge population and that 'triple in size' wont just be births:deaths but also immigration. maybe the government, knowing its in danger, should priorities money and labour distribution... countries like Spain and Australia are often in drought and have put money into desalination plants for their future water consumption.
The Sahara has been exponentially increasing in size for 3,000 years. It's already started reaching the asteroid belt. You didn't know because you've been living inside the Truman Show for your entire life.
@@Hjernespreng Just replying to your comment growth was mostly to the south..... There is litle land to the west, Almost none to the North, and not that much to the East. Its a map thing that you state the obvious that growth has mostly been to the south .....
@Patrick Swan North and West has mountain ranges which blocks the desert (Atlas Mountains) North and East is desert all the way to the sea and south is also the directions wind blows most of he year
@@isetta4083 not politically though They are behind in that domain compared to it's neighboring country Tunisia but at least Algeria didn't mess up as badly as Libya did
@@mohamedelhediissa289 definitely, they could really benefit from some democracy or some more political influence from people who aren't rich guys over the age of 70
@@swargpatel7634 I was kidding. Though there are a lot of really dumb people in this world so I guess that level of stupidity I was feigning was believable.
@S E P Or the countries around it are too disorganized, as they have always been. But it's easy to never put ourselves in question when all we have to do is blaming others, the west in particular, about basically anything that is wrong in Africa.
@S E P I was talking in general, not in this thread specifically. In every video talking about africa, there are a lot of comments like that, including in the comment section of this video here.
@@xenotypos i understand what youre saying, but historically, Europe has a lot to answer for a lot of the issues Africans face. I agree guilt and shame doesnt help anything, but reparations will. But knowing this political climate, white liberals will hijack this train of thought.
@@cia3058 but without europe 90% of Africa would still be in the stone age/ the arabs would have colonized later anyway. Africa was almost left untouched by colonization and many africans didn't even see an european. Obviously many atrocities were commited, like during leopold of belgium reign, but after his death belgium actually threated natives well
ID also like to point out to people this one very crucial fact: SOIL HEALTH makes most of the world completely useless by using the rather damaging method of single crop farming and also using materials which leak into damage the soil. Seriously people look it up and if you can do simple things in your area that might help!
I'm curious about the trees. Is it possible to grow some type of fruit tree/plant? Then not only are you solving the original problem, but the people can reap from the products as well.
8 billion is basically nothing for most industrialized countries... Germany for example now pays 40 billion to shut down coal plants until 2038. Or in other words this money is needed to keep the coal plants going until then because they are already making losses :/
@@admiralkipper4540 it does... It destabalizes countries, which can fuel war and terrorism. Terrorists doing stuff in America is be a concept you should be familiar with. Despite that the US is one of the biggest contributers to climate change, which directly makes America partially resposible!
I can't believe I've never heard of this before and what a great project! So many great benefits and we really should be planting as many trees as we can to makeup for all the deforestation going on all over the world
It would be nice to see some footage of those trees being planted. Also, these numbers with millions of trees don't look that high. Is it easier or harder to plant trees in Sahel than on average? Do the trees need to be planted densely?
2:05 Love how all of Australia is shaded, even the parts that aren’t desert Edit: Just realised Tasmania isn’t on the map he used, which, as an Aussie, is fucking hilarious
To be fair it’s not entirely their fault. European empires left them with independence but divided the land along lines that benefited them not the locals and made it harder for the new governments to actually govern their new subject regardless if they were republics or not. European colonies were also often sucked dry before they became independent. And were so petty they often destroyed their own infrastructure before leaving so that the locals could never become a super power contender of their own. African nations have access to some of the most fertile resource centers on earth. However, their forced to make uneven trades with the world because they don’t have the skilled workers necessary to actually extract the resources or the infrastructure to actually produce it themselves
@@bruhz_089 it’s not as simple as that. Even if they did most of these nations are already running unstable regions each with their own unique problems. Ranging from ethnic turf wars to drought and famine issues. While other places are prospering but still suffering from wealth inequality. Also what country would give up their land willingly to another solely on the premise that one side would get benefits the other one could use as leverage for political influence around the world. It’s even worse that a lot of these nations don’t have the infrastructure to make skilled workers fast enough because their educational systems simply didn’t receive any investment when they were still colonies. For example much of what was once French Africa. Is still dependent on French intervention because they destroyed all the schools and factories when they left so that the governments couldn’t produce resources without their help. And in an act of desperation many nations ended up making horrible deals with foreign powers like China to rebuild their economies. However, many of these deals are debt traps designed to conquer the very regions the governments are trying to save.
Like many others, you made the mistake of showing nuclear plant steam as an example of pollution. It's just water steam, not CO2 emissions. They're a great example of clean energy.
@@augustjay6436 There is a tiny amount of radioactive waste. The problem is that you can't safely store it. Also, it's not fair to compare nuclear to no nuclear, you need to compare it to other power generation methods. And then nuclear scores above average, how close to the top it is depends on what you prioritize. If you aim for lowest CO2 emission per kWh, then nuclear beats everyone. If you aim for shortest term pollution then burning wood cut from a well managed forest wins. If you aim for lowest cost then burning coal wins. If you aim for lowest construction costs, then nuclear is the worst option there is. If you aim for lowest water use, then I think solar is the best option.
@@bramvanduijn8086 I'm aware of the strengths and weaknesses you've listed. I only said there is waste and not on the form of steam like the person said. Also thousands of tons of waste is generated a year. I wouldn't call it small.
@@augustjay6436 Cool, then we are mostly in agreement. I completely agree that the steam is an bad picture to use as a symbol of waste. I just remembered that the cooling water is still warm when it leaves the plant, so that should count as waste too since it affects the place it is released negatively. So I agree, nuclear does have quite a bit of waste. Still... less harmful than coal.
@@augustjay6436 Have you even considered that this "waste" could be refined to be used elsewhere ? Technology have quite progressed on the matter and would even go faster if the public didn't have such a bad opinion on nuclear. Plus people often think nuclear plant = radioactivity = cancer to people around. Yet there are so many more cancers cause by coal and/or fuel powerplants. (300x more iirc) So it's quite ironical to see Germany stopping nuclear powerplants (that could have still worked for few decades. the cost of building is already done and all the infrastructures that has been in contact will be considered nuclear waste to be stocked so why not use it fully to have the best efficiency ?!) to replace them with coal powerplants, so + economic costs to build, + release of Co2 in the atmosphere, + release of fine particules that'll make people sicks. And yet they congratule themselves for doing that for the planet, being so much ecological and safe for populations.....
This reminded me of a successful project in Izrael (? not sure, but I think it was Izrael or somewhere nearby). They had a mini desert that used to be fertile land, but for reasons I forgot, soil also couldn't hold water anymore. Well, a man made a project that would grow a bunch of trees (or bushes?) of something that could grow in relatively dry conditions, and paid close attention to keep it growing ans not letting it go to waste. Well, after a bit (more) of effort, the soil there hold water pretty well, and this is only the first step. They should keep taking care of it even more until they have good fertile land from what I got. So Africa's green wall shouls work perfectly if they really take care of it and don't just leave it for the first x number of years
@@rutvikk. Hey, I have the perfect solution. How about we all nuke ourselves? If everyone is dead, there is no one left to complain, which means that all problems are solved for an infinite amount of time. It's perfect (:
To be fair it would probably mainly look just the same as today, albeit a bit further north. The wall of trees will increase vegetation coverage south of it so you wouldn't really be able to see where the wall was actually created.
Domed enclosed integrated system, combined with permaculture and hydroponics. Triple that with an ocean/seawater giant circulated filtration system, connecting it multiple lakes increasing the water supply and it travels back into a hovering water system above the soil, increasing the agricultural yield.
I know that they are hoping that adding a forest line will slow or stop soil erosion, help keep moisture in the soil and have a positive effect on the albedo of the area. Have they considered working desert plants into the Sahara to try and reverse this? Or work to build artificial oasis to grow out of the interior of the desert? I have a several questions about how they could address this but they go with one of the simplest and expensive options to just plant trees? I understand the thinking but this will not see any real effect for years, possibly decades. And I will agree that $8 billion for such a project is reasonable. I feel it is a putting all your eggs in one basket kind of solution.
Every animal and plant species copulate at times of uncertainty. Guess you never heard about the baby boom in America after the world wars. It gives a greater chance for your genetic offspring to live on. Once Africa solves hunger and infrastructure issues it has enough land to support 8 billion people, you can fit China and India in Africa and still have space for the US and the entire UK with space left over, so I'm interested to see Africa become the most diverse continent in History even though it kinda already is.
@@theoligarchstepper Key word there is after. And ya if Africa can solve its greatest issues than it would be able to support its population but those are very difficult tasks to accomplish. Hope the continent can but hope shouldn't replace a pragmatic view of the situation.
@@benjamin7871 Keyword isn't after at all you can't anticipate war and uncertainty you can only react after it happens, the baby boomers were born after both world wars and the great depression that didn't excuse them from war. All of them were born during the Korean wars and most likely served in the Vietnam and Cold war, all periods of uncertainty, this is just America so people can understand it happens to all humans. Other people are dealt in heavier hand being that they fall into the sphere of influence of regional powers. The only reason there's no country in Africa on par with Europe or Asia is that their Navy's weren't advanced enough to defend the coast and they had no knowledge of gun powder. Great Zimbabwe for example was past the iron age when encountered by the Portuguese who just destroyed the whole city from the shore using cannon fire, raided the city of its resources, and later renamed it Rhodesia and told people Asain's built the city, not native Africans. Only a fool thinks their government tells them the truth.
@@theoligarchstepper I'd argue that there is a lot of other factors and uncertainty has lead to both rises and falls in population. Your not wrong that it didn't excuse them from war but just as you pointed out "you can't anticipate war". Some were born during the Korean war but it lasted 3 years not 18 like the baby boomers generation did, so no all were not born during it. Plus it was a tenth of the size of WW2. The Vietnam war would be a great example except for the fact that it literally happened the year after the baby boomer generation ended, weird how that happened huh? Africa being colonized is due to a multitude of factors like infighting between countries, European medical advancements, and political instability. While European weapons were more advanced and definitely played a factor keep in mind that most of non coastal Africa wasn't colonized until 1880; most had access to guns and gunpowder. The times that European powers successfully colonized just about anywhere, it heavily relied on divide and conquer tacits or they just got lucky with their timing. All of this isn't to say Africa can't or won't rise just that it still faces some great challenges.
SUPRISE! I am the funniest YTer evah!!!! Just kidding, it was no surprise. Everybody knew already. HAHAHHAHA!!!! That was an amazing joke (it was real talk though). WAWAWAWAWA!!!! Good afternoon, dear agam
Human beings coming together while Google is running the planet I don't think so . Their business model is creating hate and different groups so they can make money out of credit while people are arguing
