Can We Terraform the Sahara to Stop Climate Change?

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

Real Engineering : I wouldn't normally push Patreon, but with production quantity and quality going up, every bit helps. If you gain value from the content and want to give back in some way, consider supporting on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/realengineering (edit: discussion point, should I remove comments of climate change deniers, or let my intelligent audience drown them out?)

FutureNow : Sounds easier than terraforming Mars as our planet B.

安土竜 : It would be a bad idea to do this with only a single species of tree.

Curious Airlines : 3:23 did you just say cute little shits?

Marcelo Rodrigues : ANOTHER THING: trees can create an "ocean in the skyes" as we see here in Brasil(Amazonas). The transpiration of the amazonic forest create a mass of water "in the air" that create rain in the entire continent. Creating a Forest in Sahara can help all the Africa not with CO2 sequestration, but whit pure aqua too!

MA Wizard : I wonder how your figures would change if instead we used something like a mangrove tree that can deal with salt water instead of using desalination.

Enrique : Great Idea.... while deforesting the Amazon Rainforest.. we are going to terraform the Sahara...

PENETREITOR : .... This is stupid... Eucalyptus reforestations are a problem in my country because the acidification of the land. Eucalyptus as tree pick for the proyect its just stupid.

MiccaPhone : Terraforming Sahara should be trivial compared to terraforming Mars.

Epic Journeys : The problem with growing trees in the Sahara has nothing to do with water. Many parts of the Sahara infact become flooded during certain times of the year. The fundamental problem is the high salt content. You can water that sand as much as you like. You're not going to grow any trees. You didn't mention that once in your video and this is a VERY basic fact.

Count Mustard : There is a way. Mushroom farming. Mushroom spores act as a nuclei for water droplets, since they condensate on them, and a lot of spores are carried by wind. The solution is to build giant mushroom farms on the coast of Saudi Arabia, since that's where winds blow into the majority of the Sahara. If you'd like to hear me go into more depth about this, I'll explain it in a reply.

Timothy McLean : Cheap solar and wind energy are nice, but they have too many downsides. They're inactive much of the time, they take up loads of space, etc etc. We need to supplement them with _some_ kind of power which can be generated 24/7 in small plants, with minimal carbon footprint. Luckily, we have that. It's called nuclear power. The risks are overstated (a properly-maintained power plant emits less radiation than you'd get in Denver, nuclear waste is kept in-plant until its radiation output slows to a safe rate, meltdowns are incredibly unlikely if you don't turn off safety systems [Chernobyl] or get hit with multiple simultaneous natural disasters [Fukishima], etc), and the benefits are immense. I'm not saying we should use nuclear _instead_ of solar and wind; I'm saying that we should use nuclear _in addition to_ solar and wind. And geothermal, and maybe some forms of hydropower, and probably some other stuff. But nuclear should be part of that equation—it fills in so many gaps left by the weaknesses of other green power sources.

korencek : gadhafi was teraforming it but western imperialists destroyed the country before he could finish the job.

UKz Romulus : Money makes the world go round. But to save the world and keep it going round everyone needs to stop being greedy and become non profit in some situations

Uneti Tree : Once we afforested Sahara, China will deforest them down.

El Mahdi Ettaleb : As someone who lives in the Sahara, let me explain why this is impossible: Wind. Constant wind. Wind resulting from both the rainforest and mediterranean being low pressure zones, and the Sahara being so exposed to the sun. Wind that you cannot overcome. It's hot, dry, constant wind that will dry out any drop of exposed water. Wind that dries out any water from unadapted live beings. Wind that carries abrasive dust that harms humans, technology and vegetation all year long. Wind that carries enormous amounts of dust and sand, expanding the sahara despite the BILLIONS spent by locals and governments planting, ironically considering the video, vegetation to stop the expansion. Wind whose effect over millions of years made the soil absolutely incapable of holding serious vegetation. It's solid, too heavy for saplings to grow through, too porous to retain rainwater. Wind that dries out the air so much, static shock is a constant threat to electronic devices. *Wind you cannot stop.*

Alberto_Valentini : Don't eucalyptus trees tend to self combust all the time?

Yung Swaggot : I'm glad you brought up the fact that the nutrient rich dust from the Sahara would no longer be blown to the Amazon and the Atlantic. This alone is enough to negate the project in my opinion. Not even bringing into account all the other negatives like the albedo and the energy costs to water and plant the desert, we would be planting one forest and possibly killing another.

Capitain Greenhat : Catastrophic idea. Seriously bad. The amazon gets essential nutrients from Saharan dust. Without the dust from such a massive dessert the amazon would immediately start depleting phosphorous and start to decline. I work as an environmental scientist. I am very interested in terraforming and actually think we should start with earth since we already geoengineer the planet with our current activities.

ahri : Anyone who denies climate change is stupid. The Earth's climate is very different from what it was 100 years ago. How much humans have contributed to it is the debatable part.

Eric Burkhart : This would be the dumbest project ever.  For one, it acts like it's the Moon or something. These projects would kill off hundreds, if not thousands of unique desert dwelling species of plants and animals.  For two, 3 out of 4 people on Earth don't have access to clean drinking water, but lets water a bunch of eucalyptus trees? For three, we breed like rabbits. They could go through all this trouble, and we would be back to square one in a couple hundred years anyways. The harsh reality is we need less people, not more trees.

TagMyBat 76 : I support this project, i hate sand it's coarse and rough and it gets everywhere....

valuesim : You are wrong about the deserts when it comes to their "value". Dig into what "feeds" the jungle in the Amazonas and South America with valuable minerals through the weather system. Compare it with the jungle in Indonesia lacking nutrition and minerals.

That Scar : 0:20 For the love of god, please don't truncate charts! Thank you.

Igor Kralnova : I think electric cars are not worth your time yet. Think of it like this: a normal car (diesel) can run for 7 hours with a full tank, with a refueling time of 1,5 minutes, making travel quite the breeze electric cars can run for 2 hours with max capacity with a refueling time of 1 hour, which makes traveling much slower = normal cars: 421.5 min for a 700km drive while moving at 100km/h electric cars are 2.3x slower in terms of total travel time for a 700km / 7h drive (moving at 100km/h) (travel time: ~969min) making them not worth your time yet unless you want to waste 2.3x more of your life driving

James : "This is fact, you're wrong if you deny it".. that doesn't sounds like science. that sounds like a cult. may be this is exactly the reason why so many people are denying it.

Skyer : If they want to plant that many trees, a Monoculture would be a horrible idea, A minimum of 4 tree species would be needed

Cris Camara : It is too easy for developed countries to say let's afforastate the Sahara or any other country after ruining the world's climate with their CO2 through history. And the Amazon rain forest belongs to the Brazilian people. Stop thinking that other countries have any saying on it because they don't. Afforastate your own land first before thinking about ours.

AnGry Goy : Lol cute little shits...!! Good video

Jim Ferdinando : Wouldn't this also destroy the south American rainforests? Because it relies of saharan sand?

Makvandar : A hectare of spekboom - a succulent plant - consumes ten times the amount of carbon in comparison to a hectare of the Amazon rainforest.

Timothy McLean : Oh, _your_ country is going to miss its carbon targets? I'd probably empathise more if my country's incumbent executive officials (and too many of its legislators) weren't actively denying that anthropogenic climate change was a thing.

veipunii lana : Let heat up the anterctica so that we can go and live there

Alex Tan : West got a lot to learn from China on transforming desert into lush greenery. China has been doing that for decades.

Pixie Panda Plush : (1:22) How is economically punishing someone for not meeting goals a good idea? It's like when parents are going to punish their kids economically (by taking a fee) because they haven't been able to earn enough to move out ... now it will just take longer.

Henry Hahn : It will only change the climate in unknownways! #cobraaffect

peter lewis : can we stop terraforming the good land into desert first ?

DSWynne : It's not fact. "Climate Change" has always existed in one form or another, because it comes in CYCLES. Secondly, the fact that previous IPCC reports fudge the numbers leave much to be desired. And finally, any solution that the IPCC comes up with is flawed, like when one panelist stated that the only way to reduce carbon emissions completely is by ENDING ALL LIFE. Not going to happen. And personally, I'm not about to trade my standard of living for anyone. Ergo, if the temperatures around the Earth is going to up, thanks to humankind (which ignores the fact that the biggest "carbon emitter" are the oceans), then so be it. But having stated this, the only way to truly reduce carbon emissions is by making energy more efficient. That, my friend, is what we should be focusing on, not just implementing "green technologies" (which are not 100 percent dependable, 24/7, at this time).

Donald Boughton : The problem with this idea is that dust from the Sahara fertilizes the South Atlantic and the Amazon. Teraforming the Sahara would stop the dust storms that provide the fertilizer. Standby for reduced Amazon vegetation growth and decreasing South Atlantic fishery productivity. This is yet another demonstration of Green supporters inability to analyze problems in depth.

Mark Arnott : THERE WON'T BE A MARS COLONY 🌲🌳🌴 - its a dream also of mine to forestrate🌲🌳🌴 the aussie outback >HERE'S WHAT i would do every year QLD floods like 10 feet water + thats wasted but alot goes down the Murray river to SA 3,000kms But IF alot that water run off is captured and sent to the middle deserts we can store & grow crops trees mainly a rain forest Then Nature will take over & spread seeds via animals birds 20 50 years time A new country LIFE Its not just a good idea to say here local tribes that hardly exist & do fook there to own it Got wake up take it on & create jobs along the way etc be awseome to go on a holiday to the New rainforests in central oz 2050 say > STUFF TO DO ⏲🙋‍♂️🌳🌴🍆🐔🍅🌲👩‍🍳🍗🐣🐑🤣🐕💨👩‍🚀🎵🌗🌌🐑🚀🤹‍♀️🚨💤👍🥕

Jose brasil_2018 : Of Course you can, Ask to the Chinese Peoples :)

Al Ex : Download ecosia!!!! #fortheenvironment

Doublescoop BS : China has been transforming the Gobi desert for more than 30 years. See their results and on going efforts making their desert into productive areas.

JOSH HILL : I think we should not forget that the Sahara plays a huge role in the fertilisation of the Amazon rainforest, Atlantic wind currents carry the rich sand and moisture from the atmosphere. If you destroy the second largest part of the Amazonian life cycle, you would destroy more trees than you would be able to grow. Plus the same rule applies to the jungles of Papua New Guinea and the iron rich sands of the out back.

Dziobaczek Gadułka : It would be a superb test before terraforming Mars.

Smee : We can't stop climate change from occurring. But what we can do is insure with suggestions like reforestation of deserts that we can survive the change.

Buddy Scogin : Human-caused climate change is unproven. Human beings have not even begun to understand the most complex system in our purview (climate). The claim that science has achieved a concensus is at best premature and at worst hubris. Climate change is possibly natural and only remotely related to CO2 emission. We should look closely to soil degradation as an engine of climate change rather than fossil fuel. Politics should never have inserted itself into climate science. Now we have orthodoxy built upon shaky modeling and circular argumentation. If you take into consideration the enormous policy demands that are indicated, this becomes almost an anti-human ideology. It will force the developing world to stay poor longer. To what end? There is nothing certain about climate models or the effect any of these carbon policies will even have on global temperature. (Get it right fellas)

Microphonix Virtual Studio : I take climate change very seriously, it changes all the time and has been for thousands of years, so what is the big deal?

Moon Boy : You obviously wouldn't start at that scale... It's still a good idea.

Johnny Yu : Why don't just use nuclear power plant ?