Trees are excellent carbon stores, and planting them in various locations can help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by climate change. By focusing on design, plant selection, and maintenance, gardens can become carbon-sequestering systems that reduce the release of methane and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere. Reforestation can also help reduce carbon, protect habitats, and support local communities.
Tree planting is one of the most effective ways to tackle climate change caused by greenhouse gases. As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Healthy soil offsets emissions by soaking up carbon from dead plant matter. To lock in as much carbon as possible, soil needs a good balance of water, pockets of air, and living organisms.
Growing plants and building healthy soils can help reverse the accumulation of heat-trapping gases and slow future warming by reducing carbon emissions and increasing carbon storage in soil and plants. Climate-friendly gardening can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from gardens and encourage the absorption of CO2. Mycorrhizal fungi grow on the roots of plants, acting as a carbon sink and contributing to taking greenhouse gases out of the air.
Traditional gardening practices can contribute to climate change by causing soil erosion, releasing greenhouse gases, and using up valuable resources. The main reduction from gardening comes from diverting food waste from landfills, where it rots and emits methane and nitrous oxide. In urban areas, sustainable gardening and landscaping helps minimize water use and sequesters atmospheric carbon both above and below ground.
📹 Reduce your carbon footprint with gardening | Becoming self-sufficient | Gardening Australia
Jerry shares tips on how you can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from your garden. Subscribe: http://ab.co/GA-subscribe …
How do we stop producing greenhouse gases?
Renewable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro energy are gaining popularity worldwide, as over half of the US’s electricity comes from polluting coal-fired power plants. Denmark’s wind energy provides 10% of its total energy needs, emitting no greenhouse gases once operational. Most states offer alternatives for customers purchasing green power, with 50 to 100% renewable options available.
Solar panels are also becoming more accessible due to federal and state government incentives, making them an excellent long-term investment. For a complete list of green power options, visit the US Department of Energy’s Buying Clean Electricity web page.
Do greenhouses reduce greenhouse gases?
Traditional greenhouses, powered by non-renewable energy sources, significantly contribute to CO2 emissions, with conventional greenhouses emitting around 575kg of CO2 per ton of lettuce. Advanced greenhouses, using renewable energy and closed-loop water systems, emit 352kg of CO2 per ton. This highlights the need for technological and methodological advancements to reduce greenhouse environmental impact. Additionally, greenhouses require significant energy to maintain optimal growing conditions, often sourced from fossil fuels, resulting in carbon emissions.
How does organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Organic farming has a significantly lower carbon footprint due to the prohibition of fossil fuel-based fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. The production of these farm chemicals is energy-intensive, and eliminating synthetic nitrogen fertilizers alone could lower direct global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by about 20. Organic farms use 45 less energy compared to conventional farms, maintaining or exceeding yields after a 5-year transition period.
Fumigigant pesticides, commonly used on crops like strawberries, emit nitrous oxide (N2O), the most potent greenhouse gas. Research indicates that chloropicrin, one commonly used fumigant pesticide, can increase N2O emissions by 700-800. Organic farming also improves soil carbon sequestration.
Are plants good for the greenhouse effect?
A greenhouse is a device designed to keep plants warm by trapping some of the heat inside. It is made of glass or clear plastic, allowing sunlight to enter. However, if the greenhouse becomes too hot, it can be opened and cooled by opening windows and doors. This is particularly useful for growing heat-loving plants. However, if Earth’s atmosphere becomes too hot, it can become a greenhouse. This is because the atmosphere holds onto too much heat at night, instead of escaping it into space.
The next day, the Sun heats Earth’s surface even more, making the entire planet a hotter greenhouse. This is why greenhouse gases, created with gumdrops, are essential for maintaining Earth’s temperature.
How can farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Soil management plays a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural soil is a dynamic biological system that stores and releases greenhouse gases, and its role in storing and releasing these gases can be influenced by soil management. By increasing soil organic matter levels, farmers can decrease CO2 emissions and increase the soil carbon sink.
Healthier crops and reduced tillage operations can increase soil organic matter levels by trapping more carbon in their roots, which can be converted to more stable soil organic matter. Conservation tillage systems, which reduce the amount of organic matter oxidized and released as CO2, can increase soil organic matter levels, reduce fossil fuel consumption, and reduce soil erosion.
Perennial forages in crop rotations can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing carbon storage in agricultural soils. For example, perennial forages can sequester 2 to 3 more tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year than annual crops. Alfalfa can also fix its own atmospheric nitrogen, eliminating the need for commercial fertilizer applications in the years following establishment.
Nutrient management can also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The use of commercial inorganic fertilizers or manure increases GHG emissions from soil. Nitrification, a process that converts ammonium to nitrate by soil microorganisms, releases small amounts of nitrogen dioxide. Denitrification, on the other hand, occurs in anaerobic soils and requires both carbon and nitrate, releasing nitrogen dioxide and oxygen.
How does the greenhouse affect farming?
Greenhouse technology aids farmers in maximizing land space for food production, particularly in vertical farming systems. This method allows multiple crops to be grown in layers, allowing more crops to be produced on a small area of land. This continuous production, a key element in sustainable food production, can be achieved through greenhouse farming. It is essential to understand the concept of a greenhouse before adopting this technology, as it can significantly enhance the efficiency and sustainability of food production.
How do greenhouses control climate?
Climate-controlled greenhouses are structures designed to maintain optimal temperatures for plant growth, using systems like hot air heaters, evaporative cooling systems, and heat pumps. These greenhouses have been a crucial tool in agriculture since ancient Roman times, altering the microclimate inside to encourage crop growth. Unlike traditional greenhouses, which involve climate control, climate-controlled greenhouses have a distinct distinction between them.
Despite the importance of climate control in greenhouses, understanding the difference between traditional and climate-controlled greenhouses is challenging due to their unique features and functions.
How to remove greenhouse gases?
The Paris Agreement aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This includes a range of techniques, including biological methods like planting trees and increasing carbon storage in soil, and engineered methods like enhancing mineral weathering and CO2 capture devices. To assess the effectiveness of these techniques, it is crucial to understand the long-lasting storage of CO2 away from the atmosphere and determine the social acceptability of deploying them at scale.
The exact amount of GGR required depends on the temperature goal, emissions reduction rate, and climate sensitivity. Estimates suggest that between 400-1600 billion tonnes of CO2 will need to be removed from the atmosphere over the century. To demonstrate the effectiveness and social acceptability of these techniques, resources must be allocated for research and development, along with detailed consideration of regulatory frameworks to incentivize their deployment.
What removes CO2 from the atmosphere naturally?
Trees and forests play a crucial role in storing carbon dioxide, which is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. To increase carbon removal, tree management approaches include reforestation, restocking, silvopasture, cropland agroforestry, and urban reforestation. These methods help restore ecosystems damaged by wildfires or cleared for agriculture, increase density of forests, incorporate trees into animal agriculture, and increase tree cover in urban areas. By leveraging the power of photosynthesis, these natural sources of carbon can be effectively managed.
How do plants help with greenhouse gases?
Trees are of paramount importance in the effort to combat climate change. They accomplish this by removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Trees provide a number of benefits to humans and the environment. They offer cooling shade, block winter winds, attract wildlife, purify the air, prevent soil erosion, clean water, and add beauty to homes and communities.
How do plants reduce carbon dioxide?
Photosynthesis is a crucial method for measuring the exchange of greenhouse gases between the atmosphere and vegetation and soil. Plants and soils sequester about a third of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning each decade. To measure this activity, scientists can put a leaf in a closed chamber and quantify the dropping carbon dioxide levels in the air inside. However, it is difficult to measure the amount of carbon dioxide an entire forest takes up.
Initiatives like AmeriFlux have built over 500 micrometeorological towers in forests and other ecosystems to measure the exchange of greenhouse gases. However, these towers are expensive and limited in geographic coverage, making them less effective in estimating photosynthesis rates. Scientists rely on satellite images to map the Earth’s greenness, which allows them to infer global photosynthetic activity. However, with rising carbon dioxide emissions, relying solely on greenness becomes problematic.
📹 Does planting trees actually cool the planet? – Carolyn Beans
Dig into common mistakes that tree-planting programs make, and explore strategies that can successfully re-green the planet.
Reforestation is often proposed as a major solution to climate change, but monoculture plantations designed to meet targets can often end up causing further damage. Our crew explored the ins and outs of reforestation and talked to the rangers who protect trees like endangered species. An innovative project in Kenya aims to stop deforestation for economic reasons, contributing to a greener planet.
One thing to also help planting programs is properly training people how to plant trees. My cousin works at a plant nursery, and has gone to planting days, where many of the volunteers don’t know how to plant trees properly. She has spent hours afterwards going back to these improperly planted saplings and redoing the work.
This article was a real eye-opener! I always believed that planting more trees was the key to reducing carbon emissions and building a sustainable future. However, it highlighted the importance of focusing on other crucial aspects as well. Instead of prioritizing commercial timber plantations in unsuitable locations, we should be focusing on mandating big corporations to drastically reduce their carbon emissions. Additionally, preserving existing forests and prioritizing reforestation efforts in the right places are vital for preserving our planet earth for future generations.
I’ve heard about the issues of trees absorbing too much sun in colder areas! The treeline is expanding in Arctic areas due to climate change, absorbing sun/heat and hastening the melting of snow and the destruction of unique tundra habitats. Some indigenous Saami reindeer herders are trying to combat this by encouraging their reindeer to eat the trees to preserve their lands. Really demonstrated to me the importance of indigenous knowledge and that climate change solutions can’t be one-size-fits-all.
So far, I have thought people should plant more trees. However, after I watched this article, I realized that it is more important to think about the surrounding environment and species of trees: Some trees may not suit the temperature and humidity. Also, to plant trees, factories are necessary to be built. Thus, if the treeing is held ineffectively, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the factories may outdo the amount of carbon absorbed by the trees. This article tells me many important things!
Reforestation of complex native and/or endemic ecosystems will always work better than monoculture plantings of non native trees, especially if they are only going to be logged. We must rewild the world and restore degraded ecosystems. This means restoring grasslands just as much as means restoring mangrove forests
woww, so many learning and understanding about how growing planting trees with the right ways and how takes cares native forest with the right ways, Thank you TED-Ed website with amazing article with beautifull stop motions and deep learning how to cares forest with the right ways, Thank you for amazing explanations article about nature 🌱🐱
Similar story in the Philippines’ 10-ha Bilar Man-made Forest. The forest only grew one introduced species, 𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑎—a native of Mexico to Bolivia & Brazil. It completely acidified the soil and is biodiversity-dead. Visitors were impressed by the cool temperatures while passing along the 2-km road stretch but the man-made forest is eerily quiet.
Planting trees is the cheapest,oldest and one of the most natural means of fighting the global warming menace.Since afforestation alone can not completely sequester all the carbon emitted by humans over centuries, there should be, simultaneously,full swing implementation and practice of many other carbon sequestration measures across the globe (e.g:- Farming of Corals,Sea Weeds,Algae and Kelps on the ocean floor; setting up of carbon capturing plants; banning of fossil fuel industries;feeding of algae, sargassum,sea weeds and charcoal to farm animals;desert reclamation; etc.) in order to meet the ambitious goal of keeping the average rise in global temperatures below 1°Celsius by the year 2030 set by UNO (in 2016 Paris Climate Summit).
As someone from Chile who has grown up surrounded by pine trees (trees from North America) I can say that forest plantations are a problem. 🌲There are regions so extensive with pine trees that they are called sacrifice zones, because they do not allow the development of native flora and fauna, besides every summer they favor the propagation of big fires destroying houses and native forest. Today, forestry plantations are not a tool to take care of the planet but only for profit 🌲🌲🌲
there’s a a tree planting site near where i live.. i’m in 1st grade when it started. i remember my oldest brother is one of the members of a tree planting group and he invited our whole family to participate. i remember one summer i saw some of our neighbors and family friends were there too, alongside our whole family and we have the whole day preparing and planting LOTS of trees. It’s one of my happy core memories. but now decades later, my mom informed me that they discovered that the trees we’re illegally logged by illegal settlers from next town. They tried issuing warning on those people and the people said that the people who planted those trees ‘technically’ didn’t own those trees and that they were free to all people because the trees was on ‘government-owned lands’… how can we protect those trees?
A couple things: 1.) Biodiversity, there’s a reason we don’t plant the same tree everywhere. 2.) Forest fires happen naturally in many parts of the world and some plants even rely on the fires to remove the older trees so the new stuff can come in. The problem is that because there is so much overgrowth, often times the fires burn so hot it actually reaches a lot of the new saplings waiting under ground. 3.) Deforestation should be illegal, and clear cutting, over selective logging is a national problem, the proper maintenance of our forests such as cleaning and thinning should be more acceptable but isn’t. Don’t even get me started on the plastic in the ocean and how our corals are all bleaching.
We replaced barren debris land in our society with different sorts of native trees of fruit and flowers, now after 5 years, neighboring cemented structures is boiled while we enjoy and nurture cool breeze in 40 degrees,still we are adding new plants, ..replenish native nature it will pay you back ❤❤❤❤❤
It sounds more complicated than just planting one types of tree where there’s space but in actuallity not by much. Plant several kinds of trees native to the land, plant it where forests once stood, don’t plant it in a straight line and give basic maintenance such as controlled forest fires and fencing off large areas of saplings for a number of years if there are species that would eat them (for example, moose). The great thing about this is that the government doesn’t even have to be entirely responsible for it, you can give the responsibility to logging companies. They know they’ll have a shortage some time in the future so they plant trees anyway. Yes they’re a big contributer to deforestation but only mainly because their plantations aren’t sustainable. If they mass plant healthy forests, leave it for ten years like they would do anyway, let nature thrive and then come back and selectively cut their timber, it’s not ideal but it would give a capilatist incentive to reforestation.
Same thing came in my school exam as a reading passage and i started to think about the promises made by big corporated giants about planting trees to become carbon neutral as they say. After perusal this article i had a weird but good enough thought for a large scale(entire earth) project which i would like to work in future.:yt:
00:09 Planting trees isn’t always effective at curbing climate change 00:50 Chile focused on afforestation for tree planting. 01:32 Tree planting can help cool the planet, but there are challenges. 02:16 Commercial forestry plantations in Chile have limitations in carbon storage. 02:56 Not all land should be forested. 03:36 Planting trees can have unintended consequences on the planet. 04:09 Protecting forests and letting nature do the work may be more efficient in re-greening the planet. 04:50 Planting trees isn’t a catch-all solution
Forests are being planted for the wrong reasons; Sure, they provide carbon sequestration and soil retention, however they should really be used as “water repeaters”. I use this term because like radio repeaters are used to propagate a signal to areas that would not receive the signal without them, trees can take rainfall and return the water to the atmosphere, allowing it to continue on and reach areas that otherwise would be arid and lifeless …
I feel like a lot of people misunderstand this. Having a forest itself isn’t “good” for the environment, since this forest isn’t removing carbon from the atmosphere; a forest is only doing that when it is growing. So old forests aren’t capturing carbon (they are, but only in minuscule amounts); they are storing the carbon. So, there are actually big benefits with the lumber industry. This is because they remove the carbon and (hopefully) store it in a good place, like a house made out of wood, and then a new forest can grow there and capture even more carbon. There are negatives as well with the lumber industry, like removing habitat and biological diversity.
Most already know that it’s the ocean and photosynthetic microorganisms that produce more than 50% of the oxygen and cool the planet the most by absorbing the most CO2, but we’re still stuck up on trees. Yes, trees help a lot but when it comes to terrestrial flora that help the most in O2 production and CO2 absorption, it’s the grasses that contribute the most.
Without the help of Trees, we would not exist at this very moment. Planting trees are vital to nature and our existence. Not only does trees provide oxygen, making it possible to breath in pristine air, but it also reduces the amount of carbon dioxide. Trees also help stabilize the soil, without this soil wouldn’t be as dense as it is today. Trees also provide homes to a diverse set of wildlife, and also provide food to many different species. Overall I think trees are crucial in maintaining a balance in society and let’s face it, we would not be alive if it weren’t for trees🌲🌴🌳
Well I think it’s complicated, afforestation can be good. But needs proper professional planning. Plantations have their own pros in some places, and can bind as much carbon as natives. Also it does matter if the plantation goas on a grassland a wetland to a plown land. Also if the cut down trees go to fuel it doesn’t accomplish much but if it gives building material which can be there for an additional hundreds of years while the new tree grows and it replaces concrete in the building industry is much better. Also trees don’t just capture carbon, they also protect the soil, break down the bedrock and can increase the potential rainfall and humidified the air. It is complicated and have to be done with caution and good intention not as green washing, but it should be done in every form possible I think.
There are vast areas covered by grass in the world, but there are very big differences in carbon storage of different grasses. While this is a controversial idea, imo the best carbon-storing grasses should be introduced in areas that perform poorly in this field. This is the best method of biological carbon capture in the time of climate emergency, because most of carbon is stored in the roots of grass and therefore not only it’s resistant to wildfires, but also prevents desertification, erosion and floods.
In order to store CO2 in the long run the trees have to be used as building materials. If you just leave them standing they culminate and later, when they die and rot, release the carbon again. So should we plant plantations with single species? Nope. But should we use forests as ressources? Absolutely.
I can’t believe that this needs to be emphasized to adults who are supposed to be smart enough to run countries and companies- plant only the kind of tree that can grow in a place that is otherwise degraded. Do not plant monoculture trees that are not suited for the place only to cut them down in 10 years. This planet is really going down bad
That’s a pretty flawed logic Pine is actually the perfect solution, as its wood can be used in construction, meaning that the carbon captured by it is actually truly stored, on the other hand forest trees can only store what they make in new wood layers, a large portion of the carbon you said is “captured” is actually leaves that fall and are broken down by fungi releasing their carbon back Also using pine instead of concrete further helps the climate since it not only stores CO2 but also doesn’t produce it like concrete Every ton of concrete is a ton of CO2 produced, every ton of wood is 1.5 ton of CO2 captured, using pine for construction is an effective ~2 ton CO2 emissions reduction per metric ton of wood (1.5 ton captured plus additional 0.5 from not using concrete)
agreed but I think the reason it is not good because most of it is to replace or offset the deforestation for farmland or commercial development. in other words, it is best to leave forests or trees alone. it is also hard to believe that we still use wood as for many products especially building. Wood is not really good for a house or building or furniture except that it is “artificially” cheap because of exploiting our forests.
Well it depends ! Balancing is the main idea. Depending what will be too much on the atmosphere. Prevention is good, but it is even better human stop emitting pollution air. It almost never hurts (the environment) planting more trees, Planting tree in a design that prevent huge fire should be consider better than allow trees to grow naturally, why ? seperate trees with a distance help fire fighters or make fire fighters less dangerous + easy.
Well done, nice stop motion, and for most part important messages. However the piece says not a single word about the most important climate service from trees: water transpiration. For each molecule of CO2 fixed in photosynthesis, around 120 molecules of water are released by trees. Evaporation remove sensible heat (temperature) and export it to high up in the atmosphere (where clouds form). This heat released at 5 km high is closer to space, so this is a powerful cooling mechanism. There are others mechanisms through which trees cool the planet, all linked to the ways trees transfer water from the ground up to the atmosphere. Please see this animation based on the latest science to understand how trees are über important for the climate regulation, much beyond only the carbon history (youtube.com/watch?v=B-oJyInmTTo&t=89s). Yet, even for this climate regulation functions via powerful interference in the water cycle, there is the right and the wrong way to do it. Agree with that part in this clip, native forests are much better than monoculture and plantations. And replanting should be connected to proximity to a large water body, like oceans and seas.
Video title and content missleading. Forests are a major carbon storage. Of course if you plant them in the wrong place (sabana) or for the wrong reason (commercial timber) is going to go wrong. And don’t forget companies are the major carbon emissioners, but that’s hardly mentioned at the end of the article.
I think we don’t need billion-dollar funds for afforestation. Instead, we should just leave natural forest land free. This can grow the most stable and successful forest ecosystems on its own and will help to re-establish biodiversity, which is.” the most powerful way to fight climate catastrophe. Also it is not possible without reducing population..
The short solution in to stop reproducing or at least reduce it to minimal then start reestablishing the eco systems that we destroyed and restore the bio diversity then the planet will heal it self while we keep our damage to minimal by reducing population thus reduce the energy land logging food demands
why do developing countries have the burden of fixing the environment like our in the Philippines its illegal to cut tree and about to be married couples in our city are required to plant trees where we have to buy seedling at like 1usd each some 3 usd before theyre allowed to marry, while developed countries produce like 20x to 100+x carbon emissions of developing countries They only reap benifits like burn more carbon and sometimes contribute little, because climate mitigation is allowing developed countries to produce more carbon in the atmosphere for money at the expense of developing countries. Developed countries should fund climate mitigation 120%, 20% as salary for labor of the developing countries. where countries can earn as main income reducing carbon emmisions, creating jobs and helping developing countries develop to improve their education where many Im sure will focus their education and brains on climate change mitigation.
Silly article; natural forests that have bypassed their peak diameter growth are closer to net producers of carbon. Making the argument that tree plantations are worse at sequestering carbon is farcical. Diameter growth in the stem sequesters carbon; not foliage growth. And forest products like lumber keep carbon locked up in useful products. Not the best article they have put out. Source: am a Forester.
Another typical NGO messaging filled with nonsensical cliches. When you work with these organisations you will realise that they are very good at PPT and making sounds that soothes ears but has next to no PRACTICAL & USEABLE plans. This article omits so many facts on the grounds that it’s practically useless as an informational piece. Typical.
We simply have no idea about Carbon ! We are carbon ! Substitute humans for trees in your arguments and you have EXACTLY the same conclusion for humansas for trees. It is called a cycle which has no beginning or end. It goes around at it’s own pace Sometime trees and humans have a life span of 30 yeras, some toimes 80 years or more. Take a snap shot and you get the WRONG ANSWER !
God loves you and takes care of you so that this message reaches you. God is the one who created this great universe and has complete control over it. And the greatest loss that a person loses in this life is that he lives while he does not know God who created him, knowing the Messenger of Muhammad, the last of the messengers, and the Islamic religion, the last of the heavenly religions. The great intelligence, before you believe in something or not, is to read it, study it, and understand it well, and then you have the choice to believe in it or not. I advise you on this now before you do not have time to do that.