Reduced animal agriculture means increased land availability for forest replanting. During the final months before being killed, a cow is fed about 10x more food value than its muscles produce, mostly grain and soy which could otherwise feed humans. 100 Cal beef = 1,000 Cal grain. This excess feed needs 1,000% extra land and labor and fertilizer and pesticides and water to grow, which along with run-off manure washes away into our waterbed and chokes nearby freshwater ecosystems.

Reforestation should also help slow our current mass extinction, having replaced about 50% of Earth's wildlife with humans and animal agriculture in the last fifty years.

Hmm, but what if we didn't do that... and instead... cut down the Amazon?🤔🤷🏼‍♂️

Expansionary austerity? Are you sure you aren't a right wing economist?

I'm not approving of it, just pointing out our trajectory.

Also, the headline and quote kind of glosses over the part where this is meant to be a multi-century project... leading one to wonder how well will this plan hold up to forces of nature in the meantime. I'm still all for it, and have been even before this article, but it sounds very much like planting trees for the species that come after us.

But what if we plant too many trees, and create a Snowball Earth scenario?

We'll need to burn more coal.

What if the combination of Snowball Earth and Greenhouse Effect leads to a Snowglobe Earth situation?

The only thing we would have to fear is a giant alien shaking the Earth.

or an even gianter alien shaking the universeglobe

I wonder if that has all ready happened.