The problem with tree planting and the success of Insure our Future | XR UK
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 04. 2024
- Extinction Rebellion’s co-founder Clare Farrell and conservation scientist Dr Charlie Gardner team up once more to discuss issues and stories they feel are not getting enough airtime. They want to make sure that the latest news in science and important reports that are relevant to the climate and ecological crisis are flagged and explained in ways that are easy to understand.
EPISODE 10: The problem with tree planting and the sucess of Insure our Future
This time, Clare and Charlie discuss the problem with tree planting as a climate solution and why we should be targetting insurance companies and their role in the fossil economy.
Albedo effect:
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
Climate choir:
/ 1765856822932472179
---------------------
If you found this useful please, share, comment, subscribe, like, mobilise, and donate! chuffed.org/xr/uk
Extinction Rebellion UK: extinctionrebellion.uk/
THE 3 DEMANDS
1. Tell The Truth
2. Act Now
3. Decide Together
#extinctionrebellion
#climatechange
#globalwarming
#citizensassemblies
Very insightful, thank you!
Particularly at a time when WMO just announced a doubling of the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past decade, a 1.46°C warming since Pre-industralisation, etc.
The problem of tree planting is WATER access. Most of the many millions of trees planted in Northern India for CO2 sequestration since 2016 died. A similar picture in China ...
Trees depend on a network of specific mycorhizzal fungi to absorb water. This symbiotic system took millions of years to evolve.
Climate Heating is now affecting marine ecosystems too, irreversibly. Be it kelp die-back, unprecedented coral bleaching, fish stock depletion, etc.
Nothing less than an Eco-Revolution will do to stop the degradation of Earth's environments from our over reliance on Fossil fuels!
Unfortunately CO2 is LITERALLY wildfire fuel and also CO2 is LITERALLY THE ONLY wildfire fuel. Talk about Catch 22 with the planting more trees, having thicker vegetation. The CO2 of 425-278 = 147 ppmv is LITERALLY from vegetation that failed to burn 300 million years ago and got buried instead. Well where on Earth did you THINK it came from ? Uh oh.
There is a want for simplistic solutions, science solving all our problems with ''technological'' fixes, so that we do not have to change our behaviour or alter our consumption habits. If the climate catastrophe experts told people they had to consume less or stop fixating on their desires/focus on the common good, people all around the world would be screaming that their human rights were being violated.
I think what it always comes back to is that we need a multitude of changes, but ultimately we need to embrace DEGROWTH, then when we talk about ecosystem restoration, go beyond the 'timber plantation' model. To answer the issue of trees 'sucking the water' out of an area, I feel like in parallel with encouraging natural regeneration, we do also need to think about preceding that with earthworks to better hold and infiltrate the more abrupt crazy rain that we are increasingly seeing.
embrace DEGROWTH Yep
You wouldn't believe the amount of people I've met of the last 40 years who said, "We've gotta plant more trees" and not one of them, to a man and a woman, planted a bloody tree! The problem with planting trees is.....getting people tp plant them!!!!
Thanks for taking the time to discuss the climate issues so everyone can understand, awa dispel mis & disinformation.
Climate change in ia nutshell is
- too many GHGs being put into the atmosphere (mainly CO2, methane & nitrous oxide + trace of others) by human activities
- we have destroyed / destroying natural mechanisms that remove GHGs from the atmosphere (most important include oceans, kelp & mangrove forests, seagrass beds, peatlands, tropical forests & soils (these need to be restored asap)
Main sources of human GHGs
- agriculture
- energy
- transport
- buildings
- human waste
- industry & manufacturing (eg steel, cement, amonia, paper etc)
90% of the economy can be decarbonised if we electrify everything & derived from renewable sources (such as wind, solar, geothermal, micro hydro, the ocean etc supported by battery storage (such as community batteries, liquid metal batteries, flow batteries, off river stored hydro etc avoiding lithium & other rare metals as much as possible)
Ditching fossil fuels requires corporate investment & gov subsidies to stop. I believe there are 100 companies responsible for 80% of emissions? Also, the wealthy emit FAR MORE than the "average Joe".
Alternatives to many materials (such as plastics) must also be found asap.
What’s your plan?
@@Limestone.1 Reduce GHG emissions from all sources named. Restore & repair ecosystems named. Electrify everything using renewable energy (interconnected mini grids & community battery storage etc with offshore wind to plug gaps required by major industries (many industries are okay using rooftop solar, often with enougj to spare to sell back to the grid). Farmers can earn stable second income via agrivoltaics.
70 - 80% people will live in cities by 2050'ish. Cities MUST provide solutions re food security as much as posdible, (urban agri), water security (LIUDD, WSUDS, SuDS, Sponge Cities) & awa protect urban enviro (blue, green & grey infrastructure). Sustainable urban waste management is also essential (community composting, zero waste to landfill).
A small city in India is already powered 100% by solar. France is the first country to ban food waste to landfill. A country in Scandanavia no longer has street animals. Once something is accomplished somewhere first, methods & skills spread and become easier & easier to accomish & get scaled up.
Also check out Curitiba (Brazil), Tirana (Albania), Singapore, and many Scandi cities. Also C40 network of cities.
Actively target the top 100 emitters of GHGs awa institutions that support them via investments & subsidies. Scientists & designers actively finding alternatives to many fossil fuel based products eg mycellium / fungi, kelp / algae, bamboo, rattan, hemp etc
Also check out Project Drawdown (developed by scientists) for sector specific climate solutions, which also includes family planning & educating etc women & girls.
Those are all objectives. I asked for your plan. i.e. how will it be done.
PS. The small city thing in India thing is not true.
@@Limestone.1 Think global, act local. Every country is different so different approaches required, starting with top 20 highest emitting countries.
National orgs such as the UN keep pressure from the top. Coalition of NGOs for practical action at local level. Coalition of Mayors making cities greener. Activist groups keep pressure on big emitters via direct action, legal action & boycotts etc.
More people / orgs / groups are winning in courts - kids & older people just won big court actions. I believe the World Court has been approached for a judgement on climate change - haven't heard if there's been a final judgement, but that could be a big help with further legal action. I also believe there is a push for making ecocide a criminal offence... this is critical.
I think XR is doing a great job taking on UK gov & financiers etc. I'm a big admirer. Members are very brave & tenacious.
@CitiesForTheFuture2030 OK, you don’t know. Just like XR.
✨ FREE THE PLANTS 🌱 FREE THE PLANET 🌍 FREE ALL PEOPLES 🌳
Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect).
------
So suppose I calculate how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen:
- LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2
- LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2
There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation).
The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent).
The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent).
------
That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant).
-------------
So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.
johan rockstrom stated something really important about relying on nature based solutions to sequester carbon and 'make up' for all the emissions we produce. it puts immense stress on these systems, cannot truly be done at scale due to the sheer amount of trees that would be needed and most notably, acts as a distraction because tree planting cannot be the silver bullet solution out of the crisis.
Yep
The super rich need to realise that if we're to survive and thrive on our one planet Earth together they must be taxed to have money flow back to the grass roots people. Sponsoring local food growing and businesses that provide sustainable products. Products that are built to last/be repairable/all parts recyclable. We need to create cycles with all our manufacturing. Develop using solar power. As we live in Love and safety with ourself and each other we will find solutions to our problems. Together we have all the answers ❤
Thank you for confirming that it’s nothing to do with the climate and all about the money.
Wetlands also drawdown carbon and wetlands are still being drained and developed (destroyed forever) while they "mitigate' by building permeable water basins which do not do the same thing.
Wetlands are unlicensed methane reactors and vector for tropical mosquito 🦟 born diseases.
It's shocking that the insurance industry hasn't acted faster, but it's been clear they are the only actual long view players in finance.
When you replant 1 tree for every 1 tree you cut, you're still taking away biomass. A 47-year old tree is a house for many insects and animals. A 1 year sapling can't replace that in the next 46 years. When you keep going like this and tell everyone you're doing good. Then you're setting nature back with every year you proceed.
What's next? Spray chemicals in the air to bind to carbon dioxide and let it rain down to the ground?
@@boiling.behaviours suppose good for soil microbes if bad for plants
Population needs to be in balance with jobs, resources, nature and the environment. Having a bigger population in any country than the country can support makes no sense. Access to food, water, shelter, energy and jobs should guide population levels. The worlds population is still expected to add another billion people to feed, clothe and produce pollution. Humans are crowding out all other species of plants and animals. Education and birth control are key to reducing poverty and hunger. Having a child that you can not provide for yourself is cruel and irresponsible. We need solutions not just sympathy. Endless population growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. Every country needs to "TRY" to be more self sufficient. When there are not enough resources to sustain a population something has to give. Countries need to focus on quality of life for their citizens and not just quantity of life for cheap labor. Why import fossil fuels when wind and solar energy can be produced locally and solar energy can power electric vehicles. We need solutions not just sympathy.
And yet the Green Party (which I am a member of) is pro migration to the UK. People don't seem to realise how little useable land we have left in the UK and we just keep piling people in.
What’s your plan?
Nice monstera!
There is absolutely no doubt that trees are made for England. With increased rainfall, they will absorb the water. Woodland is the natural environment here.
Prairie is a good thing for much of North America.
I dont see anything wrong with the real bad people who profess to run things. it's our own people, who live next door to us & even in our homes, our so called friends & close associates, the ones who give them who really dont care everything they need to keep everyone separated, we need real close nit communities, quite like the travellers or indian & Pakistani communities, but more like the travellers, they hard as nails but got each others backs, we need to trust ourselves we wont let each other down & stick to our guns. Look how quickly Earth 🌎 replenishes itself during the lockdown, which was mighty selfish of us, we should be locking down because of the greedy damages we have inflicted on this planet, June 22nd 2024 lets give our all including helping those behind this madness & stop this insane living & just change to suit a vastly more appropriate lifestyle, lets make the 1st move instead of just carrying on & only changing when we know we have no other choice, we here now so yes destined to be always be here but we dont know for sure & to end our existence through our own stupidity is of the scale in terms os sense, how have we got the term common sense when its actually quite rare ❤✊️, enough is enough, peaceful uprising essential.
👍🏽
Forest is richest ecosystem. Plantations not so much, ok
Like to see some documents that C4 Grasslands are better
can you start promoting algae in the deep oceans also - see Sir David King - along with near ocean algae farms - see Raffael Jovine. thanks
You look tired.
You both need a trip to the movies.
I recommend the following.
*Climate: The Movie*
*Martin Durkin*
Every home and business should install a rain water collection and storage system along with solar panels.
Even in areas where rain is infrequent it is crazy to waste the little rain that does fall and waste it.
We need to stop planting green lawns and switch to local native plantings around homes.
It is crazy to plant lawns and build golf courses in dry desert areas. We waste too much water and electricity.
the future is electric. Wind and solar energy along with electric vehicles are the future. Stop using fossil fuels. There is a climate crisis.
What’s your plan? Currently solar provides about 2% of global energy and wind about 3%. Also, where will all extra electricity for electric vehicles come from?
I wouldn't pin on those numbers but I will agree to it's a low percentage.
Try gettong doctors to plant some helimg hrbs in the massive gardens....
📍29:44
2📍38:23
We are imbesils. Money not reason controls everything and it always leeds to corruption. We need nature solution and reduce consumption but honestly. Nature afterall stored ones all the fossil fuel we have used. Animal agriculture has a plan to be a carbon sink by pooring gypsum to animal feed fields and same time make money to mining industry. This dishonestly is called natural solution. Animal agriculture will use this new study to enhace that plan and they have governments backing for sure. Animal agriculture is also coopreating with fossil fuel industry, that they totally support anyway, to create "bioenergy"-industry to make both look good but are just more freely continuing to destroy everything. If there is a industry that is fighting hard for fossil and mining industries but also other horrible ones, like Monsato, and have governments backing, that is animal agriculture. It's sad that most climate scientists and groups miss this.
Clear evidence that a vegan diet is detrimental.
You're tripping
@@gordonaliasme1104 Don't be like that. Check what your agriculture ministry is doing for climate or nature.