One simple change to save our forests | Chris MacAskill | TEDxBoston 

Seems like he's talking about diet and resources here, so please go plant based. I'm plant based for the environment and health, and i'm vegan because animals deserve rights too.

Thank you so much, Marishcha. 🙂

8 months!! At 63 so happy I made the change. Feel its the best action i can make for the planet.

Thank you, Frenchie! So happy to hear what you're doing in Puerto Rico. 👏

Thank you so much, Panes. 🙂

Hi where can I learn more about your work, please?

Thanks!

Thank you so much, Talya. 🙂

Thank you, Lygia! Nice to see you over here. 🙂

Thank you, Taurui. 🙂

The easier solution would be to end taxpayer subsidies to these harmful industries. Even better solution would be to give subsidies to these innovative plant based companies. The best solution would be to do both simultaneously. No need for new taxes. Let's just stop propping up industries that are harmful and would fail without our tax money.

That ignores the huge subsidies in fossil fuels.

Other countries like Germany have adopted solar in much higher rates.

Your comment seems to be rooted in the naturalistic fallacy. Clean cultured meat produced using lab technology is healthier since it avoids the pathogens found in slaughtered animal flesh. Why do you think you have to cook it so thoroughly? Feces from the animal's intestines ends up on or in the meat. It also bypasses the problems of antibiotics and growth hormones found in slaughtered meat.

Beyond Meat fell victim to inflation. The "green premium" price difference suddenly became unacceptable to many consumers. The SWAP-MEAT study proved that plant based meat alternatives are healthier than slaughtered meat.

The most effective diet change (short of going vegan) for the environment would be to quit buying beef and dairy.

@@someguy2135 BYND is dying on the vine because of a lack of demand, not inflation.

@@someguy2135 There's more to it than simply to simply having to quit. For example, replacing a portion of your diet with fruits and lowering red meat intake can make a difference. For the biggest difference, changes in diet must be combined with other lifestyle changes.

Did you watch the video? Animal agriculture is the top cause of deforestation! Established forests capture and sequester CO2 much better than grassland. They also have other advantages, like increasing rainfall.

Yes, thank you, I watched the video and usually comment on what I saw/heard. Now, did you read my comment? Didn't you think that forest sequester the CO2 ONLY until the next death of the teee (or even more likely next wildfire, disease or a strong winter wind). And then? Where does this 'sequested CO2' go? You come with a plastic bag and vacuum machine and collect it? Sorry for the irony, but my comment was all about that: dead tree reemits all the captured CO2, and even methane, if tree is not induatrially used for heating, but left to rot. Furniture, you may say. Yes, you can keep some wood (and captured CO2) as furniture. But, after some time, again it will either rot on some depo and produce methan and give back sequested CO2, or it will be recycled into new furniture or paper or whatnot and will delay its inevitable fate to release CO2 (and maybe methane). BTW, the more you recycle that wooden furniture into furniture will decrease the demand for furniture from fresh wood, so recycling will just speed up the CO2 reemission. You may consider increasing human population to increase demand for furniture, but that is just extinguishing fire with petrol, since each human is nothing but CO2 emitter (among other things, like scientists, artists, carpenter, forester, herder, oh, sorry, herders may be considered inhuman for some).

@@anotherviewofthings "After a massive tree die-off, conventional wisdom has it that a forest would go from carbon sink to carbon source: Since the soil microbes are still around, they are expected to release large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is thought to accelerate climate change. "Surprisingly, we couldn't find a big pulse," said Moore, who is also a member of the UA Institute of the Environment. Trahan added: "In the first few years after beetles have come in and killed trees, the carbon release from the surrounding soil actually goes down." Large amounts of dead trees, it turns out, hold on to their carbon for a long time and prevent it from quickly being released into the soil or the atmosphere. According to Moore, this might be due to several reasons: First, while trees take up carbon dioxide during the day during photosynthesis, they release some of it at night when they switch to respiration. "Once the trees are dead, respiration by the trees goes away," Moore said. "In addition, if you cut off the carbon that a tree put into the soil while it was alive, you reduce the ability of the soil microbes around the roots to respire." "After five or six years, there is a buildup of some dead plant material, leaf litter and so on, and that seems to drive the rate of respiration up again. But it never recovers to the point it was before the beetles killed the trees, at least over the span of a decade," Moore said."- University of Arizona Title, subtitle- "Dead Forests Release Less Carbon Into Atmosphere Than Expected Trees killed in the wake of widespread mountain pine beetle infestations have not resulted in a large spike in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, contrary to predictions, a UA-led study has found." On the other hand, burning trees, as has been done in the Amazon rain forest does release their carbon into the atmosphere, and very quickly! As Chris pointed out, that was done to raise cattle and to grow soy, almost all of which was used to feed to farm animals.

@@anotherviewofthings "Didn't you think that forest sequester the CO2 ONLY until the next death of the teee (or even more likely next wildfire, disease or a strong winter wind)." You REALLY haven't thought this through, yet your are poking fun at someguy's comment. Counting wildfires and dead tress (which get replaced with live ones as the dead one slowly rots away), forest sequester enormous amounts of carbon in their trunks, limbs, roots, and the soil. There are scientists who study forests for a living, and most types of forests sequester far more carbon than grasslands can. Thus, your long comment is disproven by scientific facts. However, to get the land to grow lots more forests and trees, LOTS people need to stop eating beef/meat/dairy, or eat it much less often. More cattle=less wilderness, less biodiversity, and higher CO2 levels. Period.