Trees Are the Answer | 5 Minute Video
Everybody loves trees, so why are they so controversial? Patrick Moore untangles the knotty issue of “deforestation” and shows how, from a purely environmental perspective, it is possible and desirable to grow more trees and use more wood products.
🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/
📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS âž¡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage…
Download for Android âž¡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de…
📳 Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
For all future stewards of the earth — and that’s all of us — here’s a quick quiz. What is the most renewable and sustainable material with which to build our homes? How can we turn some of the CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere into an asset? And how can we make the world more beautiful and green?
The answer to all these questions is… trees.
Trees make up about 90 percent of all the living biomass on Earth. And forests serve as home to the majority of species on the planet. We use thousands of products — many every day — that come from trees. Some are obvious like wood and paper and many not so obvious like microcrystalline cellulose, a key ingredient in many medicines.
Anyway, who doesn’t love trees?
Yet trees, especially in the last few decades, have become very controversial. People are divided into two broad camps. One group sees trees as a critical source of renewable material and of renewable energy. This group generally favors planting trees and making use of the many products derived from them. The other group emphasizes the value of forests as ecosystems to provide a protected habitat for threatened species. This group prefers to see forests off-limits to commercial use.
The arguments between these two groups can get pretty heated. But here’s the good news: if we do it right, we can use our trees and enjoy them, too. Before I explain how, I need to define two terms: The first is “forestry,” which means the creation, management, and use of forests. The second term is “deforestation,” which means the permanent loss of forests.
There are two widespread misconceptions about forestry. The first misconception is that forestry, as practiced by the forest industry, is responsible for deforestation. We may think that when we buy wood from a lumberyard we are causing a bit of forest to be lost somewhere. But what we are really doing is sending a signal to the marketplace to plant more trees to produce more wood to supply the demand in the lumberyard. It is no different from any other renewable crop. It’s just that trees take longer to mature than annual farm crops. The giant paper company Boise Cascade is just as much in the business of planting trees as it is in harvesting them.
The key point is it’s not the harvesting of trees that causes deforestation. Deforestation is the result of harvesting and then not replanting a forest, or not letting it grow back naturally, which it would do if just left alone.
Deforestation sounds like a bad word — and it can be — but usually it’s not. All it means is that after the trees are harvested, the land is used for a different purpose. The largest cause of deforestation is agriculture, the creation of new farmland. But farming is important. After all, the world has seven billion people to feed. Another reason for deforestation is to make way for towns and cities. Manhattan was once a great forest. Now it’s a great city.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/trees-are-answer
source
..not just trees but birds and animals as well, so they supply trees and plants with the Nitrogen they need to make proteins..
I love trees
Good message, all about management of our national forests which are renewable. And coming from one of the greenest scientist on the planet.
Why do people that live in cities think they should preach to people who live in the forest about deforestation? They live in the deforested place? I guess in their childish mind that makes them experts
In the eight years since this video was posted the main cause of deforestation has shifted away from agriculture and toward the building of wind farms. Well over 15 million trees in Scotland alone. Scotland is a relatively small country… This move did not solve any energy issues. It sure didn't help the planet. It was one big virtue signal that Scotland will be paying for for a century at least.
I truly don't believe that the "environmentalists" will be happy until we are all living in caves
The truth of what was said is apparent to anyone who has lived as an adult for more than 20 years. I own 15 acres of land atop The Cumberland plateau, a little more than 20 years ago a significant portion of this land was bulldozed. I know this because I hired the bulldozer myself, you should see the magnificent Forest that has returned upon the bulldozed land. To tell the truth I'm not sure mankind as the power to stop the forests from growing!
If there's a criticism of this video it is the you cover a very complex subject with far more benefits, like the way trees moderate the temperature. Long before we had thermometers and records humans learned to rest in the cool shade of the old oak tree.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed have deforested over thirty percent of the state of Rhode Island and placed hazardous panels in there place
Virgin forest ( old growth forests ) must stay untuched , the rest is availuble to discusion and arguments. Period.
And more trees means more co2 converted to o2
Trees, grass, more crops any growing plant, the formula for life on earth is, 6H2O + 6 CO2 = C6H1206 + 6O2. The end of the formula show more oxygen for us to breathe. What could be better?
Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere
Forgive me but I have zero worries about it, if you increase total Co2 10% !!! It goes to 0.044%
Do not worry, it's a fart in space
And hemp it grows quicker it can be used for making building materials fabrics or extracting oils. It grows more rapidly than trees and many different growing environments. So like George Washington let's plant hemp.
I don't disagree, but……
P
One of the biggest reasons that marijuana was banned was so that Hurst could keep on deforesting making paper for his newspapers. Time to legalize marijuana production and use cannabis for the benefits it can provide both medically and as a replacement for trees. Marijuana can provide paper fabric and oils that can be made into fuel or type of biosafe plastic. Decriminalize marijuana now
I read and watch the PragerU channel and appreciate your positions. We are strong supporters.
Regarding this video, I am not in agreement that wood is the best material for house construction for a number of good reasons. We are engineers and architects for over three decades. Most of our client's projects are wooden luxury houses. Commercial uses structural steel, concrete and CFS. The trees cut for framing wood are not renewable. They are only used one time and there is a roughly 15% to 18% waste factor (more sometimes). If a house is torn down, the wood is no longer useful again. You can shred into mulch or dump into the landfill. That is not green and renewable. Basically it is zero recyclable. It also rots, burns, molds, encourages insects, etc. I have watched this for decades. CFS is made of a material that is over 90% recycled, steel. The new methods with CFS use thicker gauges which are load bearing and do not require structural Steel. The waste factor is essentially zero. Any steel left over is returned to be used again. So, when the CFS is used for studs, joists, beams, rafters, etc. the building is actually greener. The land fills have far less material going into them. Using other sheathing products (Fiber reinforced Gypsum and Magnesium oxide board) further reduces wood use as the plywood or OSB is not needed. If these products are used you also have an essentially fireproof structure. Will not rot, mold, burn and no insects. The reader below noted the rainforest being slashed and burned which is a huge problem. Also Mangroves are being destroyed for fish farms (which do not store carbon and emit oxygen). A few points to consider.
Deforestation actually is bad. 7 million people on this Planet is way too many. It has to go down.
For what paper is concerned. It no longer should come from wood but from hemp which grows faster.
Forestry is treating forests as crops instead of nature. I firmly believe that about two thrids of this Planet should become wild again and untouched by the human hand.
As usual PragerU knocks one out of the park in terms of hard truths in a short amount of time.
FORESTS SHOULD BE ECOSYSTEMS NON USED AND HARVESTED (DESTROYED).
If everyone would grow their own food we would be better off.
INDEED…..
Tree huggers don't produce anything and they won't let others produce anything. They are by definition the SCUM of the earth.
drink a quart of roundup
more trees require more water.
This guy is going to get canceled soon because he makes sense…
Been saying this for awhile now. Trees are nature's air cleaners. Of course. The left thinking they know everything. Want to stupidly throw money at the problem.
Amen!
It’s quite obvious there’s no money in planting trees.you don’t see any government pushing the planting of trees.we are all meant to suffer and pay the price of shite like solar,wind,electric cars.
You missed a major issue: the concept of fire ecology has destroyed millions of acres of trees (deforestation). Prior to the rise of this concept based on pre-19th century stonage culture in America with a very small relative population and a cool Earth, we had a US Forest Service that concentrated on farming the trees and preventing forest fires. The logging roads were maintianed so that they served as fire breaks and access to small fires before they blew up into huge wildfires. Young trees consume more CO2 and give off more O2 than old trees but wildfires destroy the humus in the ground thus delaying reforestation. Stop the modern Forest Service from their insane fire ecology and bring back our timber industry!
While agree with the sentiment of this video, it is very poorly done. Heck, "Clarkson's Farm" did a better job of explaining this. Responsible forestry harvests wood products, improves the environment for both the remaining trees and the species that live in woodlands, and increases CO2 absorption. Win, win, win.
I must stand in the middle of those two people. I know it is bad to harm the earth through dicing trees, but we need trees for our survival, as it is a catch 22, but I will always cherish and love trees.
There is plenty of water, it just needs to be managed properly, Build desalination plants and irrigation infrastructure throughout the country. Apply energy as needed, it doesn't matter whether that is nuclear, oil, natural gas, wind, solar or anything else. Provide abundant water and plant trees, even in deserts and prairies. One big green lush country.
I live in NC. We have alot of tree farms. They cut down trees. Then replant them. Sometimes they just cut down some of the trees and let more naturally regrow. That way there's still a forest and tends to bother the animals less. Also keeps constant growth.
More giant kelp and the oxygen levels will rise
I remember when the tree huggers made us ban paper bags, so we all switched to single use plastic, and the tree huggers celebrated and plastic products were celebrated. Now, we have seen the damage that so much plastic pollution can cause in the oceans and lakes, we are going back to paper. I hope some people at least learned a lesson from all that.
Known this for a long time. Plants and trees turns carbonmanoxide into air
I hate to see trees cut for a new mall.
Trees are part of the answer. We also need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, get plastic out of the oceans, etc. If protecting the environment was as simple as planting trees, there wouldn't be environmental issues.
The problem with these "green" organizations is at the executive level. They scare genuinely concerned people with propaganda to fill their own pockets. I once heard a gentleman on the radio tell his story. You could tell he was a genuine and sincere man. He belonged to the Sierra Club, and donated generously. He said that he went to one of their conventions where Sierra Club executives were staying in 5 star rooms and drinking martinis on the donors' dime. He said he went in calling it "Sierra Club" and came out calling it "Club Sierra."
Yes and less high altitude air travel… there are no trees at 36,000 feet!