Environmentalist may be able to replant the clear cut forest of South America. The soil is sensitive and I do not know if this would ever be a viable project or not. I do know that they not only clear cut and burn our deciduous forest in Appalachia but blow the tops of the mountains off and push the overburden over into a valley. There is no way it can ever be reclaimed, the valley or hollow especially. Once buried under several hundred feet of rock debris the valley can never be restored.
    The Amazon Rain forest gets more attention than the Appalachian Forest. I guess it may seem more sheik or PC to talk about the Brazilian forest but I can't under stand why environmentalist give them so much attention while our deciduous forest are being not only clear cut but the topsoil blown or scrapped off. I have no idea how much co2 the Appalachian Forest capture or sets during the spring through fall season. The methane gas from the rotting forest floor may offset what carbon they capture. A quick Google Earth tour of East Ky. And W.Va. Will give you an indication of the scope of the problem. Environmental attention and action should begin at home. I doubt U.S. Environmentalist will have much influence on foreign governments especially when they can't even stop deforestation in their home country.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

in 2004, according to the IPCC, humans emitted 49 gigatons of c02 equivalent gases total.  Of that, I think 26 gigatons was from fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide is like 2 1/2 times as heavy as carbon.

I like the concept of food forests, but caution against Brasil Nuts as a major component--they concentrate selenium, and while one or two a day is good for obtaining trace amounts, making them even a semi-significant portion of a diet will likely lead to selenium poisoning.

BTW, this was the diagnosis on House the only time I ever got one right...

Tropical forests don't only have to deal with the tree's carbon.

But they also have a large amount of carbon beneath the soil

AND the trees themselves emit water vapor during the day, and not at night.  This allows for the region of the earth that gets the most sunlight, to reflect sunlight back out into space.

You get a lot more bang for your buck in tropical regions.

-David Ahlport

The Mojave, when left intact, has been proven to be as effective a carbon sink as temperate forests, yet many of you would advocate for its wholesale destruction to bolster Industrial Solar and Industrial Wind profits, and to ensure that already built environments (like our load centers) do not get the renewable energy infrastructure we need.  Why?  Why would you advocate killing one GREAT carbon sink, while destabilizing the grid, impoverishing property owners/ratepayers, emitting enormous amounts of GHGs in construction and maintenance of these boondoggles, and missing economic opportunities in the jobs, property values and feed in tariff sectors?

Point of use solutions are the only economically and environmentally viable renewable energy solutions.  we need to STOP killing the Mojave, and allow it to function in the way it was designed to function, and focus on policies that will get panels and windmills onto structures and feeding TRULY clean power into the grid.  40 Nations, including Albania and Algeria are ahead of every state in the US on clean energy policy, even if their solar and wind resources are only 50% what ours are.  why?  because Big Energy is trying to scam us - again - into their greenwashed lies about how much we need to destroy open spaces for energy, and our government is enjoying the cover the "environmentalists" are providing for their big donors...

It's so obvious what they are doing - can we all rise up and refuse to participate in these environmentally devastating pyramid schemes and insist on FITs, efficiency, storage, smart grids and other solutions that will actually HELP the planet?

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

The underlying premise that natural or anthropogenic CO2 drives climate has long been proven wrong.  The earth's atmosphere acts nothing like a greenhouse, unless you were to install sprinklers, turn large fans on and off, and cut large holes in the roof of a greenhouse.

The backbone of this cruel hoax rests on two falsehoods.  First, that our atmosphere is like a greenhouse (ie. more CO2 increases heat absorption).  Second, that there is scientific consensus that agree with the first premise.  I'd sure like to see the thousands of scientists that supprt these two notions sign their names to a report or a petition.  Why are they unwilling to put their reputations on the line?

Can we now move on to addressing real environmental and energy problems?

Also, more CO2 in the air means more crop yield, which equals less land to produce the same amount of food.  CO2 is a good thing.  We need MORE of it, not less in the atmosphere.

"The backbone of this cruel hoax rests on two falsehoods.  First, that our atmosphere is like a greenhouse (ie. more CO2 increases heat absorption). "

Well, were you to look around our solar system you would find at least one planet that gets enough sun to be nice and warm, but a planet devoid of an atmospheric blanket to hold in a sufficient amount of that heat.  

You would only have to go as far as our moon to find a place that would benefit from a nice greenhouse blanket.

Here - from "Ask an Astronomer for Kids"...

"The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. Because the moon has no atmosphere to block some of the sun's rays or to help trap heat at night, its temperature varies greatly between day and night."

Now...

"Second, that there is scientific consensus that agree with the first premise."

That, and much of the rest of your post, is factually incorrect.

The very, very vast number of climate scientists have looked at the issue and are in amazing agreement that we've got a serious problem staring us in the face.

I suspect you've been mislead by one of those phony lists that contains the names of scientists whose names were placed there without their consent (and who accept global climate change),  scientists who are dead, and people who really aren't climate scientists but economists, biologists, weathermen, ....

the real bottom of the barrel now.

next it will be proven by real scientists that warmth comes from inside the earth; the sun is a heatless sparkler for our pleasure.

Don't jump from the discovery that there  is some carbon sequestering going on in places one wouldn't expect to the idea that leaving all our deserts devoid of trees is the best idea.

Remember that there are many deserts that man created.  Think about the "Cradle of Civilization".

Some math will tell us whether it makes sense to return trees to places we stripped.

No one is suggesting we reforest National Parks.  

air temperature drops as distance from molten core increases.

the great planetary heating element is made of trillions of moths, drawn to the sun's glow. this is why the dark side becomes colder.

but what about the billions of foxes, skunks, and other little furry creatures that emerge and warm the nighttime with their increased activity levels?

are we perhaps warming the climate because we are not eating enough possum?

smith said that excesses of possum, crow, and hats crowd out productive investment and infantilize the economy.

it's all those moths.

back in the olden days, when we didn't need government at all and everyone was incredibly wealthy, the moths moved heat to the sunny side of the globe, thus allowing nighttime cooling.

now mankind has screwed up the climate by leaving our porch lights on and disrupting the rhythm of nature....

Liberal, left wing environmentalist may be the prime source of global warming as methane gas is more the culprit than co2 when considering the gas blanket that is presently warming the planet. It is yet to be determined if the excess methane is being caused by the flatulence from this mostly vegetarian crowd or if it is just all the hot air they release about saving the environment while really getting nothing done about the problem.

It may not be a question of eat a possum and save a tree. It may come down to save a tree and eat a possum to cut down on all the methane gas produced by the vegetarian tree huggers who are simply put "full of it"
.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.