1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Thepotemich [5.8K]
3 years ago
10

In 2009, environmental analyst Lester R. Brown estimated that reforesting the earth and restoring the earth's degraded rangeland

s would cost about $15 billion a year. Suppose the United States, the world's most affluent country, agreed to put up half of this money, at an average annual cost of $25 per American citizen. Would you support doing this? Explain. What other part or parts of the federal budget would you decrease to come up with these funds?
Geography
1 answer:
fredd [130]3 years ago
5 0

Considering how large of a GDP the US have, I would agree with such a move. There's several reasons why I would agree on such a move. One of them is of course the well being of the nature, as it is crucial for the survival of every living organism, including the humans. Reforestation will bring in lot of benefits that will gradually return the investment. For starters, the air quality will improve, and by doing so, the health problems among the people will reduce significantly, thus much less will be spent on healthcare. Part of the new forests can be fruit forests, which will be an enormous reserve of organic food without having to use any labor or effort in production. Also, by establishing forests, whole ecosystems will get back on the scene, so lot of useful plants can be harvested from the forests, such as herbs and mushrooms. If the US makes a deal so that it can use certain part of the benefits from the forests until it gets its enormous investment, it will be a win-win situation for everyone. In order to have the budget for the global reforestation, it would be the best to cut down on the budget for development of weapon of mass destruction and the budget for war.

You might be interested in
Whats the answers for this question
MAXImum [283]

Answer:

windbreak

it is already written there what was the point of adding the answer if you wanted an answer

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
throughout the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth there has been a natural, low rate of species extinction known as
AlexFokin [52]

Answer: Bacteria.

Explanation: Bacteria

7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What answer choice does NOT provide a fact about the mockingbird
kozerog [31]
<span>The mockingbird does harm to those around it.</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
I really need help plz
Ipatiy [6.2K]
20. is Memphis Tennessee
21. is Knoxville Tennessee
6 0
3 years ago
The decayed matter in soil is known as......
vfiekz [6]

Answer:

The Answer is A.) Humus

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • It is generally consider that dinosaurs lived in warm climate ,yet fossils are found in Antarctica.how can this be explained?
    6·1 answer
  • What is the lowest land point on Ewrth?
    10·1 answer
  • Consider what you know about cultural diffusion and cultural isolation. How have these factors affected Australia, New Zealand,
    7·2 answers
  • What line divides the earth into the eastern and western hemisphere?
    9·1 answer
  • Study the timeline. A timeline. 4.5 billion years ago, Earth is formed. 4.3 billion years ago, Earliest water. 4.1 billion years
    9·2 answers
  • The main rivers of Africa include the
    9·2 answers
  • Ek nagar me do striya​
    9·1 answer
  • In which of the following areas would one likely find Aridisols? In which of the following areas would one likely find Aridisols
    15·1 answer
  • ROCKS AND MINERALS
    15·1 answer
  • Northernmost point in the contiguous united states.
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!