Also, please do not post your comment multiple times. Since the comments are moderated, they will not publish until I have read them and recorded your name. I try to check comments in the morning and evening Monday - Friday. If you post late on Friday, or over the weekend, your comment may not show up until Monday. As long as the time stamp is within the week, you will receive full credit regardless of when I get to the moderation queue.
This week's links:
49 comments:
In this article, Stitzer introduces biostimulants, including biopesticides and biofertilizers. She writes that biofertilizers are compounds such as manure, algae, or decayed material that enrich the soil. This summer, my family started growing a garden in our backyard. We mostly have flowers, but we also grew potatoes (that turned out to be tiny!), tomatoes, and even zucchini. Since my sister is learning horseback riding at a nearby farm, she brought home horse manure when we first planted everything. We used horse manure to enrich the soil, just like how companies in the agricultural microbial market produce biostimulants. Now, we also use compost, or "decayed material." Our compost consists of mostly eggshells, but we also have fruit and vegetable peels (like oranges!), coffee grounds, leaves, newspaper, grass, and pine needles. We even included a bird's nest in one of our trees (don't worry, the mama bird and her babies left many weeks before). I think it's interesting that companies like AgBiome, Pivot Bio, and MyLand use different methods to produce fertilizers and "designer soil microbes." Of course, I think it's easier to use homemade fertilizer when you're gardening at home; however, farmers who have to produce such a large quantity in a short amount of time don't have that luxury. So, I think these companies must continue working to make efficient, affordable alternatives to pesticides that harm the Earth, our food, and ourselves. Just like Stitzer writes, "We eat what we sow," and we are what we eat.
The article “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” was eye-opening, as it made me realize just how much damage humans have done to the planet. To add on, it is clear that humans still aren’t doing enough to fight climate change. Countries like Turkey have attempted to plant tons of trees to combat climate change, but that isn’t enough because people aren’t taking care of the trees after they have been planted. Such simple approaches to fighting climate change do not work, as people must focus on helping the trees grow rather than just planting them. For example, those participating in these projects must also plan on watering the trees and pay attention to when they plant the seedlings. The phrase “Think globally, act locally” at the end of the article resonated with me, as it illustrates how saving our plant is a group effort that everyone should focus on. While some may think that they cannot do anything to help, simple things like carpooling and reducing meat intake can truly make a difference. While one person alone cannot end climate change, one person can inspire many to make sustainable changes to their lifestyle. This way, we can limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere instead of having to remove them from the atmosphere. The article inspired me to make more climate-friendly choices in my life and support climate movements such as the One Trillion Trees Initiative.
I read the article "Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change" which was probably a surprise to many seeing that many of the worldwide projects implemented to grow trees aren't taking any effect overall. With this, trees are losing in drastic numbers yearly and the burning of fossil fuels and contribution to global warming is ongoing. Obviously when planting the trees, the scientist or planter should make sure there are proper environmental surroundings and conditions for the tree to flourish throughout its growing years. Any species inhabiting the area, location, weather and human interference are all important factors for the tree's future. But while focusing on ways to increase the number of trees, we should also be focusing on preserving the ones we currently have. This means using recycled products and emphasis the severity of illegal logging or deforestation. As long as these methods are known and implemented, the fundings will be impactful and make a difference in the community. This doesn't just apply to trees or forest biomes but to other landscapes such as savannahs and natural grasslands. They hold a lot of carbon in their soil which is an important molecule when studying anything science related. Trees hold about 50% of carbon and is keeping global warming somewhat better regulated. Since it absorbs the carbon for the use of its natural processes like photosynthesis, it keeps some of it from going to the atmosphere which circles back to the importance of the trees and its preservation. Overall, planting and preserving trees is a global effort and only if everyone worldwide participates in this, global warming won't be much of an issue. This relates to the importance of carbon and any efforts to keeping all biomes, including forests, intact in hopes of giving the future a safe and healthy path.
The “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” article was truly an intriguing one. Trees simply symbolize a greater possibility of hope - with their growth and evolutionary transformations. Not only do trees establish a way of faith for the public, but offer a way to store carbon and other chemicals underground. It is understandable that climate change has increased due to the gas emissions into earth which raised the average temperature up to 1 degree Celsius. However, I think it’s interesting how Fargione states that trees are not the only ways to help. In fact, the main solution could be as simple as reducing the amount of emissions into the environment. Instead of hoping multiple trees can do the work of helping with climate change, yielding the root causation of the problem would be another option. In my opinion, cutting the root cause can be as impactful as the ideology of working around the problem in order to find the solution. Not only to stop putting out gasses into the atmosphere, but pulling away the preexisting chemicals can be a challenge as well. Going back to the trees’ solution, I do concur and believe that forests can lead to a larger impact in helping with climate change. Not to mention, the point about how much less expensive it can be for the forests to finish the job. As I read the end of the article, I came to a conclusion that in order for climate change to stop, a global nation has to do their part and contribute to the world. Whether that’s planting more trees or owning electric cars in order to not emit greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - I believe that small steps can truly change the world for the better, and the article made me realize that.
The first article I read was about using trees to reduce carbon emissions. Climate change is becoming a big problem in our world with the increased amount of carbon emissions. We have turned to nature to help us resolve our problems. I agree that trees are a natural way to get carbon emissions out of the atmosphere, but this can only be a temporary solution since they can only get a certain amount of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. However, to maximize our efficiency in using trees as a carbon-containing system we need to know when and where to plant these trees. We need to use trees as a bridge to develop other systems that can also capture carbon. It might take a long time however to develop these new technologies. If we can correctly use trees as an advantage over carbon emissions, then it will give us sufficient time to develop new tech. However, to make sure that this happens, people need to be motivated. Without the support of many people, big-scale tree planting projects can’t be done properly. We would need guidance from experienced scientists to know when to plant the seeds, where to plant them, and which seedlings to plant. In my opinion, the post-planting stage is the most important, since we need to take care of the trees to successfully grow.
The second article I read was about microbial technology. I never thought much about the tiny microbes in our soil, but I also was surprised to learn that these tiny living things help to grow our food and influence how plants grow. Not only do these microbes help plant growth but they also reduce diseases in the soil, and are the source of medicines. These microbes are so diverse that one handful of dirt has more microbes than the entire population of humans which is stunning. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance is becoming more of a problem to modern medicines and pesticides and one innovative solution to this is by harnessing the power of various microbes in our soil. In my opinion, this is a great way to increase crop yields without using pesticides since it also saves money. I believe that the future of healthier soil is in these new microbial technologies because soil microbes are what makes soil grow healthy plants, and with research, crop yields will become even higher. However, we need to be cautious when developing such technologies because we don’t know the side effects of using living microbes to combat pests and other plant diseases. Therefore, I believe that microbial technologies will replace current pesticides but we need to be careful in assessing the side effects of these new technologies.
"Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change" Article: This article discussed how planting trees can’t solve the issue of climate change and how they’re several other factors to be considered. These projects need planning in order for it to be something that lasts for a longer time. Most tree seeds that get planted don’t get taken care of and eventually die, which isn’t the best solution.I was surprised to find out how planting trees doesn’t do much. I never really realized how there might be other factors. I strongly believe that we should take care of the plants and trees after taking an initiative to plant the seeds. We shouldn’t abandon them, yet continue to plant more seeds. I think we, as a community put in a lot of time in tree plantings, but we are not sure what happens after that. Even then, we have to do more than planting more trees. The majority of the solution to climate change will need to come from reducing our emissions. I believe we can use modern day technology to do this. This will be helpful and use it to our advantage. It's important for the atmosphere and the Earth. This created an interest in me to find out more about how we can use different technology to do this and what types of technology can be even used. To add on, It made me curious to find out whether scientists have even found or used new technology to do the job.
July 19, 2021:
Planting Trees Isn’t Enough: As I read through this article, it did make me realize that people who are trying to help the climate change problem occurring right now are not having as big of impact by just planting trees. The common misconception that planting millions of trees at once can ultimately reverse the major impacts of carbon emissions in our air shows how much of negative impact humans have had on the planet with the industrial and chemical businesses that have been built over time because these numbers will only increase with time and industry. As I read further through this article and learned more about several studies down to aid in this problem, I came across the One Trillion Trees Initiative, where the entire organization and movement aren’t based on reaching a specific number of trees but rather having a movement strong enough that encourages a multitude of communities to fight for the restoration of the planet. I have heard of the movement before and have also expressed my concerns as I read multiple articles from researchers saying things about the space that is available for planting, the carbon that is accounted for, etc. However, as I learned the major goal that overpowers all of the other mathematical estimates and reports, I fully support the entire mission behind the One Trillion Trees Initiative and many more ways in helping the organization through personal usages of recycling and considering the things I use daily. For the final basis of this, one more thing that I found truly interesting about this entire topic is the efforts down by certain countries and the outcomes they have had. Specific countries being, China and Turkey, have shown drastically negative effects from their efforts down and missions they have launched. Both China and Turkey had launched their own restoration movements but had only ended up failing because the saplings in the agriculture died or were not able to grow in those conditions. I find this part of the article the most interesting as it truly shows the impact of human industrialization and how it may take a longer amount of time for the restoration efforts to begin working. As I stated at the beginning of my comment, which is, the major impacts humans have had is greater than we thought, reigns true in this part of the article because countries like China, Turkey, and even India, who had tried to put in the work for tree restoration, ended up having insufficient supplies, areas/land, or workers which only caused their efforts to fail. With all of this information at hand, it can be only be known that the missions and efforts launched may take longer but will still remain important for the restoration of trees and for the betterment of our planet.
Trees Article: I have always thought that the best way to combat climate change was through lowering carbon emissions as well as planting trees. Though this article is in no way suggesting that planting trees would not be helpful, it is suggesting that reducing carbon emissions is also very important. There was a small part of the article that particularly peaked my interest and caught my attention. The article said that there is a negative emissions technology that consists of removing carbon dioxide from the air and converting it into fuel. This technology sounds incredible and would greatly help reverse climate change. The article mentions that it may be more beneficial to preserve the trees we have now than work to plant significantly more. This statement makes intuitive sense, though it would not be my initial thought.
Soil Article: The most surprising things to me in this article were the statistics about the soil and the microbes. The quantity, diversity, and origins of microbes and soil are astounding. I really liked the analogy of comparing the microbiome in soil to the microbiome in your gut. I continued to see similarities between them throughout the article. The four examples of microbiome technologies that make the soil healthier that are listed in the article are all very interesting and impressive technologies. However, the one that stood out to me is MyLand. It is so fascinating to me that they are able to replicate existing algae well enough to be able to use it as fertilizer. The uses for this technology could be extraordinary. Eventually, there will be less need for fertilizers which will be a great improvement to agriculture.
Planting Trees: Whenever someone hears climate change, one of the things that come to mind is planting trees. However, people tend to forget that just planting trees may not be enough. To me, the Amazon Rainforest has always felt like the "savior", because of the vast amount of trees it has. But seeing how by 2050, the forest may become a carbon source, is a terrifying realization, and the technology stated in the article about the negative emissions seems like a great place to start. The way I thought that the only thing countries had to do was plant a lot of trees now seems consequential, seeing how the aftermath of plant trees is not monitored properly. The best way to protect our ecosystems and planet may not be to act sloppily and spend money only on planting trees but considering the surrounding resources and having a global agenda that does more.
Microbial Technology: Microbes were never something I paid too much attention to, I always thought of them as insignificant. But what really surprised me was the comparisons between their diversity and amount to that of the human population and organisms in the Amazon rainforest. Their importance is unmatched in terms of agriculture. The dangerous effects of fertilizer are widespread and are seen everywhere. The innovation by Pivot Bio really interested me by saying how nitrogen fixation can be as natural as breathing for the microbe, which is astounding. And this can also reduce the harmful effects that fertilizer runoff has on the environment.
I read the article "Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to stop climate change", written by Carolyn Gramling. This article resonated with me, as it went in depth with how scientists and conservationists believe we should save the planet, versus what most people believe is the way to save the planet. It explained how people believe that the way to combat climate change is through planting trees, but they don't think about what happens to the trees after they are planted. Gramling uses statistics to explain how much carbon we emit every year, and how many trees we would need to plant to store that carbon. I liked how the article uses the history of past tree-planting endeavors, using the examples of China's Three-North Shelter Forest Program and Turkey's reforestation efforts and how they failed to teach the reader how we should move forward with the tree-planting process and cutting down on carbon emissions to fix the damage we have caused. She used the words of Forester Lalisa Duguma to show that for all of this to work, people need to grow the trees as well and not just forget about them after planting. In China, they planned to plant a stretch of trees 4,500 kilometers long at the northern part of the country, but this failed due to the trees being nonnative to the area and not suited to the environment there. 85% of the trees planted had died. In Turkey, 90% of the trees planted perished after having insufficient water and being planted in the wrong season. This occurred because after planting the trees, the planters did not help them grow and allow them to thrive, resulting in the failure of these programs and the deaths of these trees. I agree with this, as these trees will not survive unless we help them survive and thrive. Gramling also goes into the different methods in which these trees can be planted and monitored: through allowing forests to naturally grow back, to turn some land into bio-fuel plantations and protect other land for forest growth, and to turn all land into bio-fuel plantations. She uses a bar graph to represent this data, showing the amount of carbon (in gigatons) that would be sequestered for each method. This goes to show that there is so much to conservation than just planting trees, which is what most people think, and that we need to work to protect the remaining forests and pursue lower emissions and reforestation to save our planet.
“Saving Our Soil: 4 New Microbial Technologies That Keep Soil Healthy and Us Fed” opened my eyes to everything that soil truly is and the importance of it. Soil microorganisms such as fungi, insects, bacteria, and algae have so many responsibilities that are crucial to our survival and success. I found it really interesting to read about how diversity is the key to good soil. Having all of those microorganisms together is what makes soil so useful and beneficial. Just like how a team would work, if one of those components was lacking, the soil wouldn’t be able to properly complete its role in the ecosystem. AgBiome is one example of the impressive new technologies that are trying to restore and enhance the health of soil. AgBiome is particularly significant because it serves as a natural pest control, so if this solution becomes more widely used, it could vastly cut down the usage of harmful chemicals and pesticides. Having healthy soil is so important because humans rely on nutrients in plants that come from the soil. But even more importantly, the soil needs to be healthy enough to support large yields of crops to sustain the growing population. Never again will I look at soil and think “dirt,” instead I will see and appreciate all of the smaller components that make up soil and the impact that soil has on our lives.
The article, "Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to stop climate change" by Carolyn Gramling was very informational and insightful. The article sought to control the trend and address the various concerns around badly designed tree planting programs, the article states, "There’s too much focus on numbers of seedlings planted, and too little time spent on how to keep the trees alive in the long term, or in working with local communities" and, "There’s too much talk about trees, and not enough about other carbon-storing ecosystems". I like how the article tries to increase the public's perception about how trees help the environment and how they should not only be concerned about planting trees, but also about developing those ecosystems. I liked how the article also talks about reducing carbon emissions in conjunction with developing more carbon trapping ecosystems. I was very intrigued by the approach of removing CO2 from the air and turning it into fuel, even though it's in the early stages of development. I feel that the action of heavily investing in reforestation in the USA is extremely necessary. After reading this article I feel more informed about climate change and the correct ways to try and stop it as well as intrigued to see what the future may hold for the reversal of climate change.
Nishan Nayak: After reading the article “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change,” I came to the conclusion that combating climate change requires a much more informed population and government system. Many people have just accepted the idea that “planting more trees is good” and went ahead with it. This could be inefficient, worthless, or even disastrous for the environments these initiatives take place in. Governments are becoming too quick to act and thus not taking time to truly soak up all the information that scientists from all sides of the argument are stating. For example, in the China initiative to push back the Gobi desert, it was a gigantic failure because they used trees that weren’t even suited for the harsh desert climate. This seems like one of the first things that would be taken into account based on common sense, but the Chinese government still acted too quickly. That’s a lot of money wasted that could have been spent to actually benefit the environment. Had the Chinese government taken the time to study the hypothetical results of the plan they were going to make, they could have succeeded. It’s not too late to reverse (or at least slow down the effects of climate change dramatically) the damage that has been done, but this requires methodical action. Communities and governments should be much more focused on rebuilding what has been destroyed. By allowing natural ecosystems to regenerate with human assistance, they are bringing back nature the way it was meant to be. When nature takes charge, human error becomes less of an issue and it is more cost effective for everyone involved. The main goal of conservationists should be first, inform the people of the outcomes of what they are doing. Of course this has to be done in an easy to digest way. Secondly, they should focus on incentivizing the people involved in maintaining these new tree populations. Farmers need to find economic advantage for their efforts, so targeting communities that would benefit the most from these efforts is important. People have good intentions, its up to the people in charge to guide those intentions in the right direction.
The second article, “Saving our soil: 4 new microbial technologies that keep soil healthy and us fed,” was an interesting piece on alternative technologies. What I found interesting when reading the article was the diversity of the 4 companies listed. They all fall into the field of soil microbiome technology but all have their own specific niches. For example, Biome Makers is more of an analysis firm, scanning the soil to see what's best, while Pivot Bio focuses on replacing nitrogen fertilizers. The differences between the companies will only be helpful to farmers as they can improve their soil in all ways. After evaluating the four companies however, I have made the conclusion that Biome Makers will be the most influential in shaping a more efficient and healthy food supply in the future. This is because Biome Makers doesn’t follow the trend of solving a broad range of problems with one specific product, it insteads finds what works best for a specific problem. This is important because although ecosystems might look the same on the outside, their nuances can create large contrasts in how they operate. Biome Makers will provide good information to farmers so they can create the most sustainable yield possible. The final thing that caught my interest in the article was the graphic that compared how humans acquired nutrients from soil from the pre-industrial to the industrial age. Both cycles show that humans get their core nutrients from soil, but the industrial cycle has a lot of added things. These added things, such as pesticides, might only bring harmful chemicals to humans. As a population, we need to find ways to replace these unhealthy parts of the cycle, with clean alternatives. I believe that soil microbiomes, as they improve in the future, will be the solution that humanity is looking for.
The article I read today was “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” by Carolyn Gramling. I chose this article because the title debunked a myth that even I believed in - that climate change can be fought with massive reforestation. It seemed very clear to me before I read this article, that a huge increase in trees can reduce the amount of carbon in the air, and solve climate change. Now I know that the solution is not that simple, and there are a lot of things that go into the fight against climate change. While planting trees certainly do help, it can actually make the problem worse. For example, the Amazon rainforest can actually emit more carbon in the air than it absorbs (by 2050). This is because of the extensive land clearing, wildfires, and the burning of wood products when maintaining a forest. Another big problem is that communities all over the world are trying to do mass reforestation, but do not have the proper skills or knowledge to maintain the plants. For example, Turkey’s efforts to grow up to 11 million trees failed. Large projects like this must have the resources and motivation to sustain the seedlings. Adequate water, sunlight and space have to be available to the tree in order for it to grow. 90% of the seeds planted in this project did not grow into a tree, because the planters did not take care of them properly. I think that a big part of the problem is that the right people are not leading these reforestation projects. All the money and resources being used for large scale projects should be going to experts, so the plants will have the proper care it needs to grow into a forest. Overall, I think that planting trees will definitely help with climate change, but the main thing that needs to be done is a decrease in carbon emissions by humans.
I read the article "Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change" by Carolyn Gramling. Climate change is a huge problem that we are facing. I had always thought that trees helped stop climate change because they store carbon and provide clean air for us. However, this article is suggesting that there are many concerns with tree planting programs even though there are numerous benefits of planting trees. These projects do not focus enough on keeping trees alive for a long period of time which causes them to die. Also planting trees aren't the only way to stop climate change. In the article, Fargione says, "The majority of the solution to climate change will need to come from reducing our emissions." We could bike more instead of driving, and make our homes more energy-efficient. Adding more trees to forests could also be a problem because every forest requires a different amounts of carbon, and forests could even affect the climate. This article taught me a lot about how we can help stop climate change in plenty of ways.
Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change: The title of this article was enough to hook me in, as planting trees would be one of the first things you would expect to solve climate change. The article poses a good point, as it states we may plant the trees, but not maintain the earth properly, leading the plantation to be utterly useless. A good analogy is that of working out with out the proper diet, you will need both exercise and diet to succeed, the same applies to the situation the article poses. Trees may also become a carbon source, which is the last thing we would expect as we have been taught that trees are the most beneficial biological organism to exist. People don't realize how much damage we do to the earth, while it is necessary if we want to continue our way of life, it is still not right. Planting trees is most definitely not the solution, and the resources should be used in order to create a new renewable energy source, which is currently under development. It is safe to say that new scientific technologies will come and allow us to live our lives without harming a planet, either that or we will be colonizing other planets. All in all, trees may benefit humans in how we function, but in terms of the Earth it can adversely effect it, causing major complications to arise.
I chose to read the article ‘Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change’ because I believe that climate change is currently happening and I am looking forward to finding a solution for it. This article proposed the solution of large-scale tree-planting projects. Trees are a symbol of hope and life, because of their predicted ability to solve climate change. However, there are several factors that are to be considered before designing such massive projects. In my knowledge, I thought that planting more trees to reduce the amount of carbon in the air and slow the rate of climate change would be an easier task than it actually is, without many factors to consider. If they aren’t properly constructed, they can do more harm than good. Trees should be properly taken care of with the same focus there is for planting as many seeds as possible. I feel like humans should consider putting more work and effort into helping the environment of the only survival planet for humans. After reading this article, I realized how much we really need to accomplish to reduce climate change. We have to greatly reduce emissions and reduce our carbon footprint. This goal can easily be achieved with the use of modern technology. My knowledge about climate change and the Earth has greatly increased after reading this article and inspires me to help the concern for climate change. If technology continues to improve, we can do so much more than just solving climate change.
The article “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” by Caroline Gramling was very interesting for me. Climate change is such a massive issue that the practice of planting trees around the world in great numbers wouldn’t help solve climate change. I feel as if many people believe that planting trees is a method to solve it but this couldn't be further from the truth. Due to many anthropogenic activities in forests and other carbon sinks, the planting of more trees wouldn’t do much more than store more carbon waiting to be released through practices such as deforestation. As stated in the article itself “The Amazon’s forests may flip from carbon sponge to carbon source by 2050”. This shows how alternative solutions must be found. Furthermore, the planting of trees and the reforestation of large deforested regions only remains a temporary solution, which does not pose much of an impact on the issue of climate itself. Carbon sequestering will only worsen around the world the more the issue of global warming is not addressed. New solutions are being formed around the world to combat climate change such as using photovoltaic cells or wind power for energy. Major corporations and many people in developed countries have begun to be more eco-friendly by using clean and renewable energy which is a major step in the right direction. In conclusion, the replanting of trees can definitely be beneficial to the maintaining and improving the biodiversity in a region, but it is not a solution to climate change and new methods of dealing with it must be found.
The article, “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” is really remarkable, in the sense that it addressed a common misconception and all the repercussions to climate change. I knew we needed other initiatives but I never realized how much harm planting trees causes. Different ecosystems and biomes have different maximum capacities for trees, overpassing this could be detrimental. Additionally, there needs to be a global effort to stop climate change before it is irreversible. The article “Saving our soil: 4 new microbial technologies that keep soil healthy and us fed” is intriguing. Microbial technologies uses biological alternatives to several as a natural pest control solution. Pests are becoming more resistant to chemical pesticides, so these microbial technologies are probably going to be used instead. This solution improves not only the quality of the soil, but the environment and human health.
"Why Planting Tons of Trees Isn't enough to solve Climate Change," was a highly informative article. In our current society, climate change is one of the biggest issues that we are facing. This article helped me to see that planting a massive number of trees might not help the environment as much as we think it will. Most of the time, people think that if we plant billions of trees, then climate change will go away and we will be completely safe, which is most likely not the case. There is so much more that goes into reforestation, and reforestation does not mean just planting rows of trees. People have to figure out prime locations to plant trees, and how many trees they should plant. Crowding one area with trees may not be as effective as many think it would be. This article helped me realize that planting trees is not the only way to help with climate change. There are so many forests that need to be repaired, and if everyone put a big effort towards doing that, it can help a lot. The task of getting rid of climate change can also be helped by new technology that is under development, but that does not mean that humans should continue to pollute the atmosphere with CO2 and other harmful gases. If we continue to speak up about climate change and protecting our environment, we can reverse climate change and save nature in the process.
"Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to stop climate change" by Carolyn Gramling was a beautifully written article and provided me with valuable insight on the issue of climate change, while also educating me on the reality of tree planting and how it is isn’t always beneficial as it seems.
“Trees are the first line of defense”
This was the quote that piqued my interest and truly stood out to me. This quote demonstrates how trees are only one type of defense against climate change, in fact, it is only the first line of defense! I like to think of this in relation to the game of chess, where typically the pawn is the first line of defense. It is true, that the pawn is vital and important in the game of chess. However, it is important to realize that there are more beneficial and versatile pieces on the chessboard as well - it wouldn’t make sense for the chess player to only make use of only one of the pieces in his arsenal, much less a weak piece like the pawn - in the end, it is the utilization of varying pieces, both strong and weak, that awards a chess player his victory. Similarly, in our present battle with climate change, it wouldn’t make sense for us to expend most of our resources and time on 1 method of defense such as planting trees. If we want to win our battle, we need to explore and make use of multiple and varying forms of defense against climate change - this includes getting out of our comfort zone and doing our best to decrease our own daily carbon emissions, instead of solely relying on planting trees. Both pawns and trees are vital and important in their respective “battles”, yet they are still relatively weak when looking at the grand scheme of things, hence why trees were referred to as only the “first line of defense” in our climate change battle. Trees, despite being popularly viewed by the general public as the perfect tool to combat climate change, are not as effective and game-changing as people make it sound - this is due to the fact that trees can also provide detrimental results in our progress to revert the effects of climate change - this is demonstrated by human activity in forests, such as forest clearing, wildfires and the burning of wood products, which actually turn forests into sources of carbon and emit carbon back into the atmosphere, rather than dispose of it. This just goes to show why we need to vary our carbon emission defenses and fund new research in finding new possible ways to decrease carbon emissions, rather than pour all our money and efforts into something as potentially unreliable as planting trees - this change will allow us to fight our climate change on multiple fronts, “utilizing multiple pieces” rather than just one. This change must begin with educating the general public and governments. After all, it is the enthusiasm among governments, businesses, and individuals that leads to impulsive decisions and ambitious projects to plant trillions of trees - I view this as almost “putting all of your eggs in one basket” due to the fact that investing in all of these trees does not always guarantee that carbon emissions will be lowered, and can even prove to be harmful - resulting in the waste of large sums of money and time, that could have been well spent elsewhere. However, by learning from our past and better planning for our future, we can diversify and implement new methods to combat climate change, effectively allowing us to one day put an end to this formidable foe.
I read ‘Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change". This article was really informative and really intrigued me. I liked that the article was super informative and interesting. Through this article, I actually learned why simply planting trees would be ineffective to help the environment. I used to think that just planting trees would help the climate by removing the carbon dioxide in the air, but if the trees are planted wrong they could just die, and that would be ineffective. Considering the state that our climate and environment are currently in, it is definitely necessary for humans to work towards helping the climate get better. If our climate simply gets worse and worse, we won't be able to survive. We should be able to use our new technology and find ways to put it towards helping the climate.
I read and found the article “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change.” interesting for multiple reasons. For example, the title surprised me as climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, which made me think for a long time that therefore enough trees could stop climate change as they would take in and convert all of this excess carbon dioxide. I found this article interesting as well as I never would have thought that adding more trees to certain areas could bring more harm than good, such as adding trees to snow-covered areas. In addition, I found the statement, “...a 2011 analysis suggested that up to 85 percent of the plantings had failed...” very surprising. While I have thought about how important tree planting is, I have never considered something as simple as whether or not these trees survive as I had previously believed that newly planted trees could simply survive with their environment’s resources and no human interference past planting.
This week, I read the article “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” by Carolyn Gramling. This article debunks the popular belief that planting trees will reverse the centuries old effects of climate change caused by humans. I found this article very intriguing because throughout my educational career, I was always told that planting trees would help to halt the quick effects of global warming and climate change, however, this article explains how massive tree planting projects are often unsuccessful, and how even more needs to be done in order to preserve the environment and all of the diverse species that exist today. For example, many projects suggest adding numerous amounts of trees to small regions, which can negatively impact the climate by increasing solar radiation, which ultimately leads to additional warming. One thing I found very interesting in this article was how the author differentiated reforestation and afforestation and both of their effects on carbon reduction. When I usually hear of planting trees, I always think they would be planted in an environment where the trees could thrive and help other species as well, but rather, afforestation essentially creates a new forest-like environment in a location where a forest never existed prior. Because of such plantations, more carbon can actually be released into the environment, defeating the entire purpose of planting trees. We are always encouraged to plant trees for the environment, but people should understand that much more needs to be done rather than planting a simple seedling in their backyard. After reading this article, I realized that the effects of human-caused climate change are far worse than I thought, and it concerns me when I think about all the different plant and animal species that will be affected in the near future. In order to do my part, I will make sure to implement the phrase at the end of the article- “think globally, act locally”- into my life and help in any way possible.
The article, "Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to solve climate change", made me realize that climate change is actually a much larger issue than it is made out to be, and that simply planting trees is not enough to stop it. While trees can serve as excellent methods of storing carbon dioxide and preventing it from entering the atmosphere, if they are not properly taken care of (which happens quite often), not only would the money that was spent on them go to waste, but the carbon dioxide that the trees were storing would be released. Carbon dioxide gets trapped in the atmosphere, thus causing even more global warming. The growth of the trees planted by anti-climate change groups such as the One Trillion Trees Initiative must be supervised, or else planting them would be useless. An example of this is when Turkey planted 11 million trees nationwide, but ninety percent of them were found to be dead three months later due to poor maintenance. Another issue arises from the fact that human activity in forests, such as land clearing, wildfires, and burning wood products, also emits carbon dioxide. This leads to forests only absorbing a fifth of the carbon dioxide that humans produce. However, scientists have found a way to aid forests in absorbing more carbon dioxide. The 2011 Bonn Challenge, a global project with the goal of restoring 350 million hectares by 2030, noticed that naturally regrowing forests tended to store much more carbon dioxide than if the land was turned into plantations or left as is. While there are technologies in development to aid in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, we should still do our best to try and help the trees do their job. If humans continue to be negligent about issues involving our environment, we may very well have to say goodbye to the Earth soon.
The first article that I read was, "Why Planting Tons of Trees Isn't Enough to Solve Climate Change." As I started to dive into the article my mind was blown by how complex of a process planting these new trees was. The project had to include the minds of scientists, agriculturalists, and economists. I started to learn more about the importance of trees and what they actually accomplish for the betterment of society. They are essentially the foundation of almost all living things on earth, which makes it frightening that they are slowly moving out of existence. When learning about forests I found out how crucial these plants are to our society, and how simple yet versatile they are. In my mind, I connect these organisms to a PBJ sandwich. Much like the trees, the sandwich is almost always an option but never glanced on for more than a second. Furthermore, this meal remains a staple in the majority of the population's families. Similarly, trees are the main source of oxygen and have always been there, but people rather want to build cities than support the growth of the trees. This article leads me to believe that if humans attain something, and have ownership over it they often take advantage of it. This pattern continues to occur until it becomes too late. This is quite exactly what is happening to the trees. We have swept the problem of CO2 emissions under the rug for far too long. Now that global warming is occurring at a critical speed we are just sorting through this issue.
The second article that I read was, "Saving our Soil: 4 New Microbial Technologies that Keep Soil Healthy and us Fed." Before reading this article I didn't know much about the soil microbiome nor how diverse it was. I did initially think that dirt was just, well dirt. I am starting to understand that soil just isn't soil it's more than that. The dirt needs the correct conditions to flourish much like all living things. It needs care, products, and to be pruned. Unlike humans, this is done through biofertilizers, biostimulants, and biopesticides. These are all products that tend to the survival, growth, and strength of the soil. I think that we often forget how important dirt is to society. It seems like the simplest thing but we forget about its niche in society. It helps all primary producers grow, and without them, there wouldn't be a food chain let alone any organisms. Furthermore, I didn't realize how expensive nor intricate this industry would be. From people from Silicone Valley working on it, to the millions of dollars for this project it is seemingly timely. In my opinion, another crucial thing to realize is that not all of these plants are the same. This means that each and every one of them requires different amounts of care, and help. Overall, this article taught me a multitude of things. There has to be the perfect health of the soil, this can be done through pesticides, fertilizers, etc. This changes for different areas with different soils, as climate can be different. Another thing I learned, is that healthy soil is crucial to a growing population. This field of science requires extra credibility for the amount of work it does to maintain the population.
I think it is foolish that we continue to plant trees. It has become an political tool to gain a following. Although it would be nice to lower our carbon emissions etc it won't help. In the article it proved that global warming won't be fixed by planting more trees. It will still be a massive threat. It is ridiculous that the only thing most people can agree on is a false ideology. People from both political parties agree that we should plant more trees even though it is proven that it isn't the way to help. Planting more trees can only go so far. I think it is childish that they are using global warming as a tool to gain a political following on a serious issue. They are turning the devastation we have caused to the world into an opportunity to bring more people to their side. I think that the world is doomed if our elected officials only care about a world threatening problem when it will help them get votes. It shows the truth behind human nature, we are selfish creatures who justify the destruction of the environment, extinction of species, and other disasters we cause by creating the idea that we are superior to all other species. We have implanted the idea that we have the most right of all living beings to be on this planet and that species only live by our say so, we destroy ecosystems just to build unnecessary structures and buildings. Yet we are a very flawed species and the only one that is truly destroying this planet and yet we act like we are the best thing for it. If things don't change soon I'm afraid we will cross the point of no return and either we will settle on a new planet or drag down every living thing on this planet with us for our selfish desires.
The article that I read is called “Saving our soil: 4 new microbial technologies that keep soil healthy and us fed”. I liked how the article explained the importance of soil and microbes within soil. It also mentions how people in urban areas are not exposed to them in the same quantity as people in suburban and rural areas. Good soil is essential to humans because it contains nutrients, such as hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Plants receive these nutrients from the soil, and we get them by consuming those plants. This signifies the importance of the microbial technology mentioned in the article. I also liked how the four companies use different methods to improve soil quality. For example, Biome Makers is a company that measures biological soil quality to give advice to farmers to better take care of their crops. This is done by using an AI system which quantifies how healthy a field of crops is based on how the farmers treat it and the soil functionality for any crop. This company was the most interesting to me because it combines multiple fields, such as microbiology, data science, and software engineering. Finally, I enjoyed how the article ends with a note of optimism by describing how technology is improving. With future technology, we may be able to make our soil and people healthier.
The article I read was “Why Planting Tons of Trees isn’t Enough to Solve Climate Change”. It is eye-opening and distressing seeing how much damage humans have caused this planet. Planting masses of trees cannot reverse the effects of climate change which humans have brought about. Climate change is accelerating at an alarming rate, which is causing issues from the Arctic to Australia. Although these trees can eliminate some of the fossil fuels, Fargione explains how there are other ways to preserve the ozone layer, the (in all likelihood) greatest and most efficient option would be to slash carbon emissions largely. Slashing carbon emissions in these current times would most likely rely on technologies that reduce carbon emissions or remove them from the atmosphere. There are a multitude of ways for us to reduce the carbon emissions that enter our atmosphere but nevertheless, these solutions cannot fully solve the issue if it is individual efforts. As a community, we have to make an effort to reduce our carbon footprint because the faster that climate change occurs, the quicker our Earth will deteriorate and no longer be habitable.
Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change: From when I was a kindergartener I was always taught how planting trees is an important step toward saving the planet. Even I participated in tree-planting efforts to benefit the earth, but after reading this article I realized that planting trees is not having quite the impact we imagined. The article discussed how not much thought goes into the trees once they are planted. We don’t continue to care for them to make sure they grow to there full carbon-soaking potential. Even I have been guilty of that, I thought to myself reminiscing about all the plants I let die. People have also become to focused on planting trees that the thought of finding alternative and additional methods to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere has been overlooked. An example of hwo this negatively affected countries can be seen with the outcomes in China and Turkey, whose restoration projects both failed due. Humans have come along way from the Industrial Revolution, but I feel it is time we have a new revolution, an eco-revolution. With more preparation and thought being put into planting trees, we may be one step closer to our goal of saving the planet.
After reading the article titled "Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to solve climate change" I was surprised to find out that many public works projects centered around planting trees are not thought through and are just planting for no reason. Many government programs have created efforts to plant billions and trillions of trees, but haven't thought of how to care for them in the long term and their uses outside of CO2 absorption. Many of us haven't given second thoughts to trees and plants and have mostly ignored them. This needs to stop, and society should become more environmentally conscious. Although policies and protests might bring some change, there needs to be more permanent long-term efforts to make the Earth a safer place for everyone.
Why planting trees isn’t enough to solve climate change: This article further informed me about why trees are not enough to solve climate change. I was previously aware of this issue because my friend is interested in solving this problem. She told me that trees were not enough to solve climate change simply because they need long-term care (planting trees isn’t enough). When I read the article, I realized that several of these “tree-planting projects” were unsuccessful because the trees were not kept alive in the long term. Planting an abundance of trees could also affect the climate; the article discussed how trees could increase the absorption of solar radiation in snow-covered regions. This makes me wonder, that if we do not take the right precautions, we could end up adding to global warming rather than preventing it. I also noticed that we, as humans, try to look for ways to solve this issue (trying to plant more trees) without preventing the issue in the first place (rather than preventing it in our daily lives). As the cause of the problem, I believe that we should work harder to reduce our emissions: although this is easier said than done. It also shocked me when I read that in 2050, the Amazon rainforest would be releasing carbon rather than absorbing it due to the amount of deforestation occurring there. I always assumed that the rainforest was protected and would not be cut down for industrial purposes.
Article: Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change
- Throughout this article I've learned a lot about the different solutions needed to increase climate change. Not only is planting trees can help, but numerous ways are also open towards helping climate change. Trees are a big help through photosynthesis as it helps to grow their branches, roots, and leaves. What I found fascinating was according to the Pew Research Center, "large scale tree-planting projects have broad bipartisan support." Lots of big time centers are pushing towards the making of numerous trees as it can help everyone's goal to helping climate change. One other thing I learned was about the carbon containing system. It opened my mind to a different level when I read about it. I feel that this process is unique and is worth trying. Still, after planning this, researchers are still concerned about the fact that over the years lots of emissions were released and also about whether or not planting trees will permanently fix the solution. As I was reading this quote caught my eye by Lalisa Duguma. It stated,"We invest a lot in tree plantings, but we are not sure what happens after that." I agree with this statement because of how she is thinking about the far and long time possibilities of this idea. This article enabled so many thoughts into my mind and kept me thinking on the different types of solutions presented in the article.
The article that I read was "Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to solve climate change." I found this article very fascinating because Gramling informs the readers that planting all these trees won't impact climate change the way we think. I always thought that planting trees would automatically solve climate change. In fact planting trees could increase climate change because some forests in Southeast Asia and parts of the Amazon release more carbon dioxide than they store. This shows that planting tons of trees could actually harm the Earth. Planting trees would preserve the climate but since the leaves of those forests absorbed too much carbon dioxide, they start to release CO2 instead of releasing it because of clearing for plantations and uncontrolled fires. The article says that the best way to stop climate change is to save the trees we already have since they are affected with too much excess CO2. Even though humans have caused a lot of climate change by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans can also save the trees already planted instead of planting tons of more trees which wont have the type of affect that they think they will have.
I read the article, “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change,” by Carolyn Gramling, which I found confusing initially. I thought that the solution to climate change was as simple as planting more trees and controlling how much carbon dioxide is emitted into atmosphere. After reading this article, I learned that there is so much more to climate change than what I had expected. Planting new trees requires much more planning than anticipated, which is necessary for the long term use of the trees’ CO2 storage. Although planting new trees does help, taking proper care of the already existing trees is equally as important. Deforestation, wildfires and the burning of wood products, releases previously stored carbon dioxide into the air. This, along with the carbon dioxide emitted due to other human activity, reduces the amount of carbon dioxide being stored. Every year, 16 billion tons of CO2 are stored by forests, but 8.1 billion tons of that are released due to human activity in forests. This means that a net amount of 7.6 billion tons are being stored each year, which is roughly one-fifth out of the 36 billion tons of CO2 emissions. In accordance to these statistics, saving the pre-existing trees takes priority over planting new ones. I think that if the technology for tuning CO2 into fuel is successful, it would make an even larger impact than trees. I also think that if conservation groups raised awareness on taking care of existing trees, it would bring more attention to the problem of climate change.
Amanda Vaysbukh
The article "Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change", by Caroline Gramling, cleared up a lot of misconceptions I, myself had about the environment. From an extremely young age I was always encouraged to donate to help plant trees as well as in school projects that planted trees. After reading this article I concluded that what I have been taught my entire life isn't enough. There is a common misconception that all we need to do as a community is plant trees to fix the planet when in reality it is not enough. I believe schools should begin teaching the proper follow up care for trees planted. We donate to plant trees and plant trees when in reality we have no idea what will happen to them. We also never ensure that the organizations we donate to are scientifically researched. As expressed by the article, if the organization is unaware of what kind of tree is native to that environment as well as the time of year to plant the trees, then all the efforts made will be pointless as the tree growing would fail. Furthermore, the part of the article that stood out to me was that forest that were previously absorbing green house gases have begun emitting more green house gases then they are absorbing. If we do not focus on maintaining the forest environments we already have then this is going to be continuing issue. We are creating a solution that is marketed to the public as a quick- fix. In reality however, if we do not find a way to lower the greenhouse gas emissions then a solution for the aftermath will be too late. We need to find a way to prevent climate change from being a continuing issue before we focus ALL of our time, energy, and money in fixing the aftermath. I myself am guilty of following the mentality of planting trees when in reality I too should help focus on making sure professionals are handling the issue and that I am researching methods to help aside from tree planting (new technology and ways to decrease my emission of greenhouse gases). With more follow up care, focus on maintaining forest environments already in existence, as well as more researched planning we can really help fix the environment.
Article I Chose: "Saving our soil: 4 new microbial technologies that keep soil healthy and us fed."
As a child, I would help out my mother in our garden, and I never really thought how unique the soil we were standing above was. Initially, I thought soil was just dirt with some organisms living in it like worms, but after reading this article and taking environmental science classes, I discovered that soil is made of billions of microbes which was really interesting to me because all these microbes played a role on the Earth's health and human's health too. The article brought up some fascinating topics like how four new microbial technologies are helping improve soil health and our health too! Out of the four, I thought the innovations from Pivot Bio were the most interesting because they could make clean and close to natural alternatives to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. This solution given by Pivot Bio sounded amazing to me because, from previous knowledge and the facts stated in this article, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers can be extremely harmful to our environment and species living in it too. Therefore, with technology rapidly evolving year from to year, I have a good feeling that the microbiology technology industry will ultimately make soil healthy, fill it with the right microbes, and make the perfect microbiome for it! One last thing from the article that caught my eye was that if we keep our soils healthy, there is a strong correlation to sustain more healthy individuals on this planet because of the increase of healthy crop yield. Therefore, I hope more industries like the ones mentioned in the article start to come and diverse/advance the innovations in soil microbiome technology to make our soil healthier, ultimately making the Earth a healthier place for all kinds of life!
“Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” by Carolyn Gramling” - Climate change affects more societal aspects than primarily believed from the environment to even political agenda. It’s no shock that hundreds of programs and organizations have taught us that their conventional plans would do so much and create a much better environment for the future. While their efforts are still useful and much appreciated, climate change, on our planet’s scale, needs to be addressed far more vigorously, one of the simple ideas this article helped me understand. The main goal of reducing climate change would be to persistently lessen the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Trees are a huge help in doing this, but with the efforts of planting comes the responsibility of keeping up with the large amounts of increased vegetation and knowledge on carbon dioxide in relation to the types of trees planted, not something society focuses on. This to me seems as a one step forward two steps backwards narrative. Wouldn’t keeping up with the trees and catering them to the environment improve carbon emissions in the long term? Can an increase in cautiousness cool down the planet and relieve it from the constant methane and carbon dioxide atmosphere? If trees are planted in all 900 hectares of land, totaling over one trillion trees, wouldn’t the 206 billion tons of carbon dioxide captured over a century be enough to control climate change? Continuing my research, I was thoroughly disappointed about why climate change can’t be fixed all through tree planting. The idea of tree planting is thoroughly political and may only be used when it fits into society’s delusion. Planting trees wherever and whenever may only harm the environment more and only cause temperatures to further rise. The best way to deal with climate change would be to let plants repopulate themselves. More must be done about stopping human carbon emissions than with continuing our ways and trying to counterbalance our actions by planting trees. Planting trees is meaningless if nothing is being done to stop the actual emissions from spreading to the atmosphere in the first place. I believe stopping the burning of coal, oil, and natural gases is the only way to truly stop global warming. No action can be seen if the right actions aren’t taken.
The article "Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change" by Carolyn Gramling was an informative read that provides readers insight on Global Warming and a possible solution to planting trees. While reading the article and analyzing the diagrams, there were a few pieces that caught my attention. The first thing I would like to point out is the growth expansion of trees. I am one hundred percent encouraging the idea of more trees to be planted around the world; they are an essential aspect of our globe and provide numerous benefits to life. However, I do have to agree with the author's opinion that no matter how many trees stand on our soil, climate change will not reduce and here's why: Global Warming has existed since the 19th century (200 years) and there is no definitive solution on how to prevent it. Planting trees has been an ongoing idea but as we can see, there is no effect, and with climate change increasing by one degree Celcius each year, our world might just come to a halt. My theory is that a percentage of trees obtained are getting chopped off for our revolutionized lifestyles, thus, having no "pure" results. But I will admit, I do admire those who are taking the initiative to stop this dreadfulness. I would just advise the world to reduce their own carbon footprint by decreasing the consumption of gas (carpooling), maybe install solar panels, or just grow your own outdoor garden. One other thing that I would like to emphasize is the map on "The net annual average contribution of carbon dioxide from Earth’s forests, 2001-2019" I noticed an evident trend that regions near the equator (Parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America) are releasing more Carbon than storing. So rather than focusing on the entire world, maybe concentrate on parts of the world that are impacted severely. That way, the hassle isn't as much and the consumption of time will be less. In summary, there are a lot of things you can take away from this article, and it's important to acknowledge that you can play a significant role in keeping our environment healthy by reducing your own carbon footprint. - Aryan Agarwal
The article I read was “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change”, by Carolyn Gramling. Climate change is an issue that is frequently spoken about. When talking about climate change, many people believe the myth that planting trees will ultimately help solve this worldwide issue but this article surprised me in informing me that climate change has gotten to the point where planting large amounts of trees wouldn’t assist in solving the issue. The way I used to believe that the only action we had to take to solve climate change was to plant many trees now seems pointless, given how the consequences of planting trees are not properly assessed. Planting additional trees wouldn't accomplish much more than store more carbon ready to be released through practices like deforestation because of various anthropogenic activities in forests and other carbon sinks. This demonstrates the importance of finding other options. Additionally, tree planting and regeneration in huge deforested areas are merely a transitory remedy that has little impact on the climate crisis. Some new solutions that are currently being found to fight climate change are using photovoltaic cells or wind power for energy. Instead of wasting money, time, and resources, examining nearby resources and building a global strategy that achieves more may be the most effective way to save our ecosystems. Overall, the planting of trees is not a solution to climate change and new solutions must be developed.
This week, I read “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” written by Carolyn Gramling. Many businesses use the marketing strategy that if you buy the products being sold, a tree will be planted. This leaves their customers feeling that they have helped and creates this popular belief that planting trees will solve climate change. Although, this article proves that planting trees is an inadequate response to climate change. Trees hold many benefits to humans as stated in paragraph 5, “... they store carbon, they help provide clean air, prevent soil erosion, shade and shelter homes to reduce energy costs and give people a sense of well-being.” Simply planting trees will not help. These trees also need to be cared for properly. Carolyn Gramling brings up a phenomenal point that trees planted through tree projects are not treated well. Most of the time, they value the number of trees they set as a goal. For example, if someone says that they have a goal of planting a million trees, just because they plant a million trees doesn’t ensure that these trees will make a large impact. Personally, I have always been the quality over quantity type and I feel that this slogan applies here too. I always believed that tree projects, such as One Trillion Trees, helped with climate change dramatically. I never thought about the technicalities such as how many trees actually survived and how well these trees were taken care of. I never considered the land these seeds were planted in and how it affected its environment. Reading this article is completely mind- opening to me and honestly disheartening because it made me realize how easy it is to make something that might not be so great, appear so well to the public eye.
For this weeks assignment I read, "Why Planting Tons Of Trees Isnt Enough To Solve Climate Change". Climate change is a topic that is discussed at length. Many people believe the notion that planting trees will eventually help solve the global issue of climate change, but this article disturbed me by informing me that climate change has evolved to the stage that planting considerable quantities of trees will not help solve the problem. Given how the repercussions of planting trees are not properly analyzed, the way I used to assume that the only action we had to take to solve climate change was to plant more trees now seems meaningless. Trees and plants would merely store more carbon, which would then be released through practices such as deforestation as a result of varied anthropogenic activities in forests and other carbon sinks. This emphasizes the significance of exploring difficult viewpoints. Consequently, tree planting and regeneration in vast deforested areas is only a band-aid solution that will have little impact on the climate catastrophe. Photovoltaic cells and wind power are two innovative ways to combat climate change that are currently being explored. Examining nearby resources and developing a worldwide strategy that achieves more, rather than squandering money, time, and resources, may be the most effective method to save our ecosystems. Overall, tree planting is not a viable answer to climate change, and new approaches are required.
The article "Why Planting Tons of trees Isn't Enough to Solve climate Change" opened up a whole new perspective to how climate change is not a topic that most people take into account. Many organizations and communities have agreed that planting more trees would be the best solution to our climate change struggles. Although trees are great for CO2 consumption, providing clean air, preventing soil erosion, and shading and sheltering homes to reduce energy costs, they might not be the most efficient solution. Initially, I always thought that more trees would help climate change. I believed that since there are great amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere that has been lingering, trees would help to solve the problem. Due to the fact that trees need to go through photosynthesis to survive, my thoughts were that CO2 was taken away from the atmosphere and we are left with fresh oxygen as a bi-product. However, this CO2 would often be released due to other leading issues such as deforestation. Additionally, planting trees can only keep up with the fast rates of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans are producing more and more pollution, such as methane and CO2, causing the average temperature of Earth to increase by one degree Celsius.
But in the end of the day its a numbers game. Our forests consume abut 16 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. This is a great amount of CO2 absorption. However, our trees can not nearly keep up with our greenhouse gas emissions. We emit on average 36 billion tons of CO2 annually. Unfortunately the trees are not enough to help the cause. This make me thinks how we can make more eco-friendly solutions that will clean our air pollution quicker.
I read the article “Why planting tons of trees it’s the enough to solve climate change”. I had always generally known that planting a bunch of trees wouldn’t be enough to help with climate change, but I didn’t really have a clear idea why. This article helped me to realize that it’s not just about getting trees in the ground, it’s about them growing and being a natural part of the forest. I hadn’t even considered that there was a possibility of too much trees or that planting a lot of trees could do more harm than good. After all, wasn’t getting rid of too many trees the problem in the first place? But the article made it very clear that there must be a balance in order for the absorption of carbon from the air to be most effective. Natural forest regrowth is really the best thing for trees right now, not over planting. I also never really considered what would happen after the trees were planted. In my mind, once they were planted all climate change problems went away. But it’s much more complicated than that. Planting numerous trees is not going to be a one step solution to climate change, many aspects of our lives and economies have to change as well. The climate only gets a certain level of protection from the trees as well. There is also the factor of how biodiversity will be affected and the possibility that carbon storage can decrease from lack of biodiversity. This article helped clear up for me about what exactly would be a good solution for climate change. I had not considered how many factors there were to changing a factor in the environment. Overall, I learned much more about the delicacy of our planets’ ecosystems and was able to think deeper about the role of trees in our climate and in nature.
Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to solve climate change:
When I saw the title of this article I was confused. As I started to read, my point of view on conservational efforts changed. I now realized that bigger numbers didn't always result in better outcomes. For the longest time, whenever I thought about the efforts to plant trees, I would mostly consider the number. It is presently evident that just planting a large number of trees won't guarantee a change and this is because people don't consider what comes after. According to Forester Lalisa Duguma, “Every year there are billions of dollars invested [in tree planting], but forest cover is not increasing.” Trees are planted without consideration of its needs for survival. To succeed, restoration projects have to think about the most suited time to plant the seeds and where they should be planted, which seeds to plant, and who will take care of them. A good example that the article provides of a failure to consider these factors is that, "Adding trees to snow-covered regions could increase the absorption of solar radiation, possibly leading to warming." The article also mentions that "human activity can turn forests into sources of carbon" and instead of clearing carbon, carbon is increased. I believe that solely relying on trees is foolish when we do things to contradict their purpose; such things include: deforestation, fires, and land clearing. "An effective global restoration agenda needs to encompass the diversity of Earth's ecosystems and the people who use them" (Veldman). In conclusion, although planting many trees is beneficial, we need to contemplate on how we will protect them and still provide for people's needs.
The title of the article “Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change” shocked me. News from the media and many scientists have proclaimed that preserving trees and nature is vital to battling climate change in order to make up for the copious amounts of carbon dioxide humans output. The article agrees that trees are a major help in solving the climate crisis, however, it also urges people to take note of the negative effects planting trees can have if not done properly. Many developed countries and corporations have announced their concerns about the planet and have funded projects to plant trees, such as the Trillion Tree Campaign and One Trillion Trees Initiative. I assumed nothing could go wrong with how these organizations were rebuilding forests and helping to ease carbon dioxide emissions, but the article provided an excellent graphic that depicted how planting trees could have the reverse effect. It was shocking to find out that trees could actually release the carbon they had been storing in their roots if they are cut down or burned, therefore justifying the article’s point about how it’s not the number of trees that are planted, its about saving the trees we have. Therefore, these trees will actually behave as a carbon-containing system and not just as a performative act of conservation. The article goes into further detail about the variables that organizations must consider when enacting large tree-planting initiatives, such as biome, climate, and sunlight, that could actually lead to increased warming. It was disappointing to learn that the One Trillion Trees Initiative did not take these factors into account since it wastes a lot of their team’s efforts and does not help the environment as much as they say it will. It was interesting to learn however, that reforesting land naturally sequestered tons of carbon more than simply planting more trees. Additionally, incentivizing landowners to build plantations seems to be another futile endeavor to prevent climate change because they decreases biodiversity and don’t increase carbon storage. It appears that the best way to solve climate change for now is to let the Earth heal itself while we do all that we can to protect it.
The article I read was “Why planting tons of trees isn't enough to solve climate change”. This is a topic that concerns the entire world, one that should not have political differences, but should have people working together to achieve the solution to climate change. In recent years, the effects of our carbon emission are becoming more noticeable, as weather patterns are starting to differentiate. This article was a shock to me because it challenged the common notion that if we simply plant more trees, then the issue of climate change will be resolved. However, it turns out that it is more important to plant the trees strategically for the greatest impact on carbon emissions. In Turkey for example, they planted a record number of trees, but most of them died because they were planted during the wrong part of the year and had insufficient supplies. While people tried to plant trees immediately, they did not look into the preservation of trees in the long wrong, and the impact it could have on the surrounding ecosystems without the right attention to detail. Wildfires and dying trees also cause more carbon emission, reducing the impact of planting trees. It is important for people to know that carbon emissions are a problem that needs to be handled immediately, but other nations are not willing to decrease their carbon emissions to the amount necessary for long term preservation. People should not only try to reduce their own carbon emissions and plant trees, they should also focus on the growth of the trees, so that they can truly help the environment and reduce the impact of climate change and global warming. This issue also needs the support from everybody and every nation to truly make a difference.
The article that I read was "Why planting tons of trees isn’t enough to solve climate change". This article changed my mind and informed me about the enviorment and how to save it. At first I thought planting trees was the best way to help the environment since so many people were doing it but I found it its not enough. I've always seen fundraisers to help plant more trees. You can't just plant a tree and forget about it, you need to plan about where you're planting it, will it get enough of sunlight or water, and will it help benefit the ecosystem in the long run. I was even surprised to read that some forests in the Amazon and Southeast Asia release more CO2 than they absorbing it because of how much CO2 is in the air from wildfires and pollution. The article insists that the trees that we already have must be protected in order to maintain a balance in the environment. Many problems like deforestation, pollution, and wildfires endanger these trees and we need to deal with these problems first to help solve climate change.
- Arsalaan Zaki (Late Comment)
Article: Saving our Soil
This article did not interest me in the typical sense but more as introducing me to a messy business that didn't handle dirty work as "dirty" but just work. Dirt and soil isn't something that you would usually bat an eye towards, but apparently just inside a handful a soil is billions of microscopic creatures following an ancient process that still holds mysteries and wonders today. Solving the problem of unnatural farming methods that kill keystone species and negatively impact environments and human health is one of the top concerns for nations across the world (#savethebees!), introducing us to biostimulants and biofertilizers that can solve this problem by simply giving a helping hand to the microbes that have grown our crops for thousands of years instead of depending on pesticides and nitrogen enrichers that can destroy local ecosystems. Personally, I love bees, and a huge threat to North America's bee population is pesticides (neonicotinoids specifically), bees are invaluable to the environments they inhabit, and we need pesticides to grow large amounts of crops to support our growing populations, so in steps the biostimulants, replacing the need for poisonous pesticides and fertilizer and instead boosts the fertility of the soil and replaces the harmful products, protecting our pollinators and further increasing crop yields. Making sure that the things we eat are healthy for us and the environment as well is one of our most pressing tasks, and we better pay attention to it or us, and our world would be at risk.
Post a Comment