I just saw this and thought that people here would appreciate it. If that's not the case, I can delete it.
Not my photo, but the photographer doesn't know what it is, and I don't either. Understory herbaceous thing.
Well, that'll do it. Thanks! Whether that's what the author meant is another question...
That's what this guy was trying to tell people nearly 25 years ago: https://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_overview.html
"fruit trees, native trees, and other beneficial vegetation"
Seems likely. Even just "native trees" would almost need to include Inga species, which are legumes, and there are native Amazon nuts like Caryodendron orinocense that might also grow wild in the area.
But even just considering carbon emissions, which have reduced in intensity
Anyone have a source to support that claim? It sounds like something that could be true on a per-capita basis, at least in "developed countries" over a cherry-picked time interval.
But even just considering carbon emissions, which have reduced in intensity
Anyone have a source to support that claim? It sounds like something that could be true on a per-capita basis, at least in "developed countries" over a cherry-picked time interval.
Syntropic agriculture (agroforestry) practices can help with adding organic matter and keeping the soil covered, even on a backyard scale. Prune trees/bushes/whatever and use that as mulch. In temperate climates, the largest pruning would be in the autumn, after trees have started to go dormant, and this pruned material would provide additional soil cover around the trees over the winter, even helping to protect young trees' roots from frost damage.
One would think that far-right free-market people would at least make the point about supply and demand; if the people stop buying it, the businesses will stop doing it. Alas, it seems that the majority (of the loud voices in the news) still prefer to downplay or deny the environmental crisis altogether.