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.
Answer:
In Africa not all places are able to enforce laws or provide basic goods and services to its citizens because of high crime rates, political corruption, ect.
Explanation:
Answer: Cropping patterns
Explanation: refers to proportion of area under different crops at different points of time. It also indicates the time and spatial arrangement or sequence of crops and / or fallow in a particular land area.
I believe the answer is B. decomposers moving nitrogen into consumers.
Answer:
Called "the mother of the civil rights movement," Rosa Parks invigorated the struggle for racial equality when she refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama. Parks' arrest on December 1, 1955 launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott by 17,000 black citizens.
