This is interesting, we can use the fictional trees he likes to guess what he's a fan of. So far we've gotten hearts on Yggdrasil and the Deku Tree, but nothing for Dragon Ball Z, Elden Ring, or Naruto.
@@TheRenegade... Perhaps, but the implication was that he had already done the math for this at a previous time for unrelated reasons. Which is weird but not truly surprising given everything Hank does on a daily basis.
@@mayaenglish5424No you assumed it was for unrelated reasons. Nothing he said implies it but his choice of words and candace is, as always, self congratulatory and borderline deceptive.
@@FedSmoker64 Actually what implied it was both his word usage and ambiguous tone but thanks for playing lol. And why are you here if you don't like him? Spare yourself the grumpyness and go find something you enjoy.
hi!! what about bamboo? depending on the species it can have a lot more biomass than trees, can absorb more CO2, grows faster, and you can cut down and use 3/4 of the plant and it will keep growing back. people should get in the habit of planting bamboo instead of trees if they’re doing it for eco friendly sustainable, climate fixing reasons IMO
One thing to consider is that bamboo is often very weedy and it can rapidly form a monoculture 'forest', displacing native vegetation and destroying local biodiversity. Bamboo can definitely be useful, but must be used carefully.
@@mrdeanvincent yes totally that can happen with “running” species of bamboo with long rhizomes (a common running genus is phyllostachys) , but there are “clumping” types (a common clumping genus is bambusa) that don’t spread and take over. those clumping types would be the ones I would suggest for individuals who don’t want a whole bamboo forest! but yes this is important to keep in mind, thanks for the reply :)
This is a good idea where bamboo is native but elsewhere there's two problems: Bamboo doesn't grow as fast outside the tropics, especially when the soil is poor. And: native species provide more than carbon capture. If your goal was to just capture as much carbon as possible, a giant vat of algea that's periodically harvested, sun-dried and the powder burried underground would probably be your best bet - but we go for forests because they also preserve biodiversity, enrich the soil and prevent soil erosion
@@theninja4137 hi there thanks for the reply! i grow bamboo in arizona and bamboo can actually be quite happy here - there are even native bamboos to the US and mexico (river cane, arundinaria gigantea, used to cover a large portion of the southeastern US and there’s a movement to bring it back) but yes typically the soil needs to be replaced if it doesn’t have enough nutrients. but of course biodiversity is important - i definitely don’t think bamboo should be the only solution, but it’s more versatile than people realize, and there are thousands of species that grow in all kinds of climates. some are tropical, but some are quite resistant to heat into the 100s and even below freezing. also bamboo can be really helpful in preventing soil erosion as well as a useful building material. just some food for thought :)
@teetaloo Arizona has quite warm climate right? In most central European countries, you can grow bamboo, but it is slow growing and needs lots of care and time to get anything larger than finger-thickness stalks. So while it's possible to grow it, other plants will grow more biomass in the same time (and growing biomass is what captures CO2). Bamboo does prevent soil erosion better than no plants, but it has few thick roots instead of a network of fine strands, and it roots comparatively shallow, so most other shrubs and trees anchor the soil better and more long-lastingly
It may just be the length. My hair is a similar amount of curly, but looks radically different when it's an inch or two longer and the curls can lie along my scalp instead of STICKING! STRAIGHT! UP! Or depending on humidity or how much oil is in there.
also the surface area of smaller trees in the same space would be higher and so it would be more effective to grow smaller trees closer together. that must be why we dont already of one massive tree we have forests instead.
That would look pretty cool. But seriously has anyone done research into genes that encourage CO2 consumption in plants? Really rooting for genetically modified carbon eating super trees here.
Wouldn't the most effecient way to reabsorb carbon be the rewilding and reforesting of the land currently dedicated to animal agriculture?The research from Oxford University, an enormous meta-study by Joseph Poore has shown that if we went vegan we could reduce our current agricultural land by 75% and rewild all of that. It would solve so much.
The general public are too scared of GMOs for these kinds of projects to get the extensive founding they need, unfourtunally. But some research is being done!
Most of the plant biomass is actually algae and phytoplankton in the oceans. Trees are less than half of the picture for organisms that soak up carbon. Important, but not the solution by themselves. Also, it's less about the number of living trees than about "carbon capture": the amount of dead wood and plant matter that becomes part of the soil without breaking down and releasing carbon back to the atmosphere.
Yes, but we only cut down like 46% of trees since beginning of agriculture. So if we plant trees on all our fields and cities etc we would only double our tree amount.
Why can't we just stop animal agriculture and turn 75% of our current agriculture land into rewilded land? As has been shown is possible by the research of Joseph Poore of Oxford University
YOU HAVE SPOKEN THE MAJEEK WORDS. BEHOLD BRETHREN THE POWER OF THINE MIND. In botany, they have failed to meld common practices to produce efficiency beyond dreams. Take limb grafting, root grafting, notching, layering, and inosculation. Assuming you know what these all are, realize that you can notch while limb and species grafting combined with using inosculation and species grafting with root grafting to specialize layering principles and end up with acres full of most any single plant in dramatically shorter times. Not plant species. Individual, with many cooperative species. You may do this because C4 photosynthesis is more efficient while species tailoring practices are expensive and prone to unexpected side effects. Likewise, with more energy to share, more species of food can be grown under the same canopy, providing shade and the benefits of multi species natural bug mold mildew and fungus repellants available throughout the variety of species, but not typically on the most vulnerable varieties. Strengthening against climate change and providing large leaf benefits to small leaf species.
A tree isn’t the best at this. Plankton in our oceans absorb way more Co2 and produce way more O2 than all our trees combined iirc. We need to target ocean pollution and make sure our plankton are surviving. Not to say planting trees is a bad idea, bc there are millions of reasons for why it’s a GOOD idea. But we NEED to make sure our oceans are better protected, bc they’re key to the survival of all life on earth.
I'm... kinda anti planting trees. At least against all the 'carbon offset' greenwashing orgs that just plant trees wherever and don't check if those trees would fit in that environment or even survive. There's good ways to plant trees, but generally I'm very skeptical of any organization whose stated goal is planting trees.
Wouldn't the best strategy to defend the oceans to stop eating fish and stop animal agriculture,which is the largest cause of ocean dead zones and ocean acidification?
Also it would somehow need to be spread out because it would only purify the air in its vicinity. It's almost like having a bunch of trees is a better idea
Another interesting fact for you! The most comprehensive meta-study on food and the environment by Joseph Poore of Oxford University has shown that if we went vegan we could reduce our current agricultural land by 75%. That 75% of land can be rewilded and reforested,which would be the largest possible carbon absorbtion strategy we have.
Even if we just want to break even, the volume of air and water it would need to move to absorb and release just to halt the increase in atmospheric carbon would create a big weather system by itself.
Might the thermodynamics of that actually produce more heat than it absorbs? I'd think that you'd have to put out a lot of heat to incorporate that much carbon over such a short timescale.
But we don't have to sequester all of the carbon that was released since the industrial revolution, we only really need to sequester the carbon that's been released in the last 50 years to make a significant impact against anthropogenic climate change.
I wonder if anyone else has heard about the long house makes if north America. Being so skilled they affected nature in a fully imoactful way. They were displaced by local peoples and the sudden stoppage of tree felling led to a cold snap?
The only thing that is really stopping us from reforesting that much is animal agriculture essentially. If we switched to a plant.based food system,we could reforest 75% of ALL the agricultural land we use now. It would be a game changer. For evidence please check out the metastudy on food and the environment by Joseph Poore of Oxford University
@@charlieistryinghisbestit would not really. We cut only 46% trees since beginnig of agriculture. So getting like 2x from what we have requires we would need go rewild not only farms but also cities etc. And we would still need more.
@@michal1743 I'm not saying it would reabsorb 100% of C02,but it certainly would absorb a lot of it. And we would see lowering of temperatures anyway because we would stop producing methane,which is 86 times worse for the environment than C02. It doesn't have to be sufficient for it to be necessary,right?
Alright, but given how fast bamboo grows, if we were to grow bamboo, make charcoal out of it, and bury it or use it for water filters and stuff, what's the sweet spot between acreage and time required?
What if it's not a tree but a huge blob of phytoplankton. How big would the blob have to be ? Taking into consideration the density and depth at which phytoplankton absorb the highest amount of CO2 of course.
I did the Maths once to find out how many splar panels with top efficiency would it take to power the London Underground and... its a lot. As it needs the same amount of power as every gouse does in a city of 800k people. Talking solar panels built into buildings, The O2s roof being solar pannels with this too.
They do grow trees fast for timber in other countries they came from Australia, eucalyptus trees. However, they caused more environmental problems, they cause bushfires burning extremely hot, they destroy native ecosystems.
Not quite enough math. Assuming it's the circumference of an average tree how tall would it be? What about if it had the proportions of a normal tree, how thick would it have to be?
This video made me look some stuff up. So assuming having this tree 3-4x as big means that if we have 3-4 more trees it would be good enough i assumed: hey, this might be a way. And even if that would not be possible then maybe doubling our tree coverage would help mitogste stuff. Andni found out that global tree coverage declined only by 46% since invention of agriculture like 12k years ago. So even if we cover in forest ALL our cities AND farms we would not make a big enough impact (except we would stop adding more co2). Wild.
