wolfyvegan

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

video presenting the same information

"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.

You might appreciate this: https://slrpnk.net/post/20138177

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.

Let's all remember that while jet aircraft emit much more than other forms of transportation, this is nothing compared to the emissions of animal agriculture.

I agree that while reducing emissions from air travel is beneficial, it isn't enough of a solution. However, I think that "pissing off many normal people" is inevitable in the process of arresting climate change, as eliminating animal agriculture is necessary in order to solve the problem. People won't like that.

Old-growth forest stores more carbon than younger trees, so continually "recycling" fast-growing plants is not superior to letting the forest grow. A combination of syntropic agriculture and forest conservation would probably be more effective.