This Gene-Edited Tree Captures More CO2. Should We Plant It?

There was an audio problem in a previous version, and now it's fixed! Thanks to everyone who flagged it for me. I appreciate you having my back :)

From a purely economical view, there are lots of people who would see the tree getting to its adult size as an important feature that they would pay for. Just look at how much people already pay for fully grown trees when landscaping.

I’ve wondered before why no one is doing this with algae… there’s way more ocean than land on earth. And you can swim trough algae so it wouldn’t obstruct shipping routes. Combine that with the idea of dumping stuff in the ocean for algae to feed on and there’s huge potential for capturing carbon, isn’t there?

I love how scientists, engineers, advocates, citizens, and more are coming together to combat climate change! WHEN we get though it, it should be remembered in history that all of these people helped to combat climate change. As a student, this video has given me more hope about my future :D

I believe that it is more complicated than they think, because giving such advantage to an species would alter ecosystem and population dynamics. Say you introduce that mutation to a hundred willow trees and you plant them near a natural reserve, then when they flower, through cross-pollination potentially thousands of willow trees will end up having a mutation that makes them grow faster and that sounds good until you consider the fact that trees requiere sunlight to grow and faster growing trees would shade the slower ones, which could slow their growth and thus reaching maturity would take longer, which would in the long run decrease their populations. That's the best case scenario because slow growing trees could simply get so much shade they can't even photosynthesize enough and die. I think this could be a good idea for crops since we need them to be more efficient but doing it to other species that will inevitably end in the wild needs to be reconsidered

The whole idea of genetically adapted plants to mitigate effects of climate change is gaining pace nowadays. Not only for sequestering CO2 but also to enhance crop yield, minimizing the area needed for agriculture and in turn leaving more space for wilderness. We might also have a look into this topic from that angle to find out its actual potential or whether it's just empty promises.

If I had to choose one word to describe this episode, and in reality, your channel and mission as a whole, it would be: HOPE. Thanks for another fantastic episode.

As a biologist, I'm left with a lot of question and uncertainty by the project. My biggest of all: Maddie failed to answer your question about invasive species. The engineered tree would be considered as a separate species from it's original and therefore shouldn't be considered as a native species. Why? Because they do not share exactly the same traits. They said it themselves that engineered species grow faster and store more carbon. Growing speed of species is a trait that can influence greatly it's surrounding because it affects the sun/shade distribution underneath it. This simple trait is foundation to how a forest grow and age through different reign of tree.

The invasive species theory should have been asked around a bit more, because having multiply species of invasive trees is not necessarily a reassuring answer.

Ecosia.

7:39 Whilst making the fast carbon cycle more efficient might help in the short term, this graphic suggests that all that carbon will eventually get back into the atmosphere anyway. Seems to me that it's the long carbon cycle that needs fixing. i.e., How do we remove all of the carbon that has been released from fossil fuels permanently? The carbon needs to be captured and held in such a way that it cannot get back into the atmosphere, similar to how it was held captive in coal, gas and oil.

Another point for the section on controversy of planting trees: there is no one singular solution to climate change. I’m actually working on a video on this for my own channel but here’s the gist of it: the IPCC and the Drawdown project have both worked to assess over 100 different possible climate change solutions. While there are many which have a huge impact (like tree planting, solar panels, and wind turbines) there is not one solution. So we need to engage aggressively in all these things. And if those trees manage to suck up more carbon than normal? Heck yea!

I wonder if thicker tree rings from the faster accumulation of biomass would result in weaker overall trees that wind and storms break. Also, seems this in combination with making trees more water efficient would help, especially if deserts could be planted.

Would’ve preferred a quantifiable number for how much more efficient these super trees are at photosynthesis (30%? 200%?) than the unhelpful descriptors (Eg; significant, huge, massive…etc)

My gut reaction was that if the trees are not as efficient at storing carbon as they could be then there is probably a good reason. The researchers seem to assume they are making “better” trees, but I would want to understand why natural selection hasn’t already produced more efficient carbon storage? There maybe some negative trade offs that the researchers aren’t aware of.

Very interesting! I'm surprised Patrick didn't say that the quick growth by itself is already good enough? Of course it would be great to have bigger trees or something like that, but in my mind that isn't the only option for getting more carbon sequestration. Picture this; let's say the trees end up growing to the same size, but the altered trees do it in half the time it would take the normal ones. What this means it that in the usual cycle of one tree you can now still sequester twice the amount of carbon "by planting a second tree after the first one is done growing". I would love to see more houses being build out of wood as that is such a great method for keeping the carbon from reentering the atmosphere. I think the quicker growth goes Hand in hand with a larger amount of carbon capture / time unit, which is ultimately what it is all about.

So, in my view this really is something geared towards the forest industry and nothing else. The thought of those trees being planted in the wild is legitimatley scarring me. Ecosystems are often operating at very fine balances. Balances that have become even finer through all the stresses we humans put them through. Altering the fitness of plants within those ecosystems needs multiple lifecycles of those plants to study the effects this will have on the ecosystems even just on the surface. Since we're talking trees here, that means centuries. We don't have that time. And I'm afraid we'll see these in normal seeds used for ecological projects by people who simply don't know better. And for what percentage increase in C storage? To me this is a technology that isn't huge if true. It's kinda fun if true and huge if wrong.

Please make more videos on any of the following topics: gene editing/ genetic engineering , biotech, cloning, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, I just found you channel 2 weeks ago and I love it honestly the best technological journalism yt channel I’ve seen in years

I love that I'm here so early. Very very quickly this channel has become my favorite account on YouTube. You were great on Vox but you are killing in now that you've gone fully independent. You always cover topics I'm naturally interested in anyways, but the way you tackle each video is fantastic! Keep creating, I'm so here for it lol.

Much better audio… great video by the way👍