wolfyvegan

Is "spikes" a euphemism for durian?

Do you have plum blight in your area? Something to be aware of if planting native Prunus species. If you don't have problems with fungus there, then I definitely recommend Prunus americana.

I also second the suggestion of Diospyros virginiana. I've heard praise of the 'Meader' cultivar in particular.

Are you familiar with Amelanchier laevis? It should be native to Ohio.

For those finding this post for the first time, OP is now an admin of https://lemmy.vg/ which is a Lemmy instance run by vegans for vegans.

There are people trying to reforest the Amazon pasture lands with food forests which should reduce the incidence of fires as well as providing many other benefits.

The Dunstan chestnut is a traditional hybrid developed decades ago. It wasn't exactly the same as the original American chestnut (Castanea dentata), but was that really such a problem?

There is one type of regenerative agriculture that is good and should be promoted: Regenerative Veganic Agriculture. Veganic farming is the organic cultivation of plants and crops with a minimal amount of exploitation or harm to any animal. For instance, no use of animal manure or bone/fish meal, and use instead mulch, vegetable compost, green manure, or chipped branched wood. No pesticides and no use of animals to plough fields either. Veganic farmers try to produce their sources of fertility directly on the farm and use crop rotation and polyculture. Regenerative Veganic Agriculture is the transformation of veganic gardening or small-scale veganic farming into a scalable solution to address the current global environmental crisis.

Regenerative veganic agriculture is exactly what is needed, especially tree-based agriculture (agroforestry) using syntropic methods to build fertility. If more people would convert pasture land to largely tree-based agricultural systems, like various projects are doing around the world, then that would spare existing forests from agricultural expansion while simultaneously planting trees as a by-product of growing food on land that would not have otherwise been allowed to naturally reforest itself anyway. It is by far the most sensible and sustainable form of agriculture, with the potential to be the most ethical as well.

Thank you for taking the time!

Lychee can grow at tropical latitudes, but it needs hot (rainier) summers and (drier) winters w/ 50-150 hours at 0-12°C in order to fruit well, so it's more of a subtropical fruit.

!fruit@slrpnk.net welcomes you!

Thank you for sharing such beautiful words of wisdom in these troubled times.

Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated.

I think that this is the crux of the matter, and of course you're right. The total amount of carbon stored in fossil fuels is (presumably, without searching for the numbers) much greater than the amount currently stored in living organisms, so there is a finite amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt before the carbon emissions exceed the capacity of forests/vegetation to capture it. Do you know what that "finite amount of fossil fuels" would be? From what I have seen, it is quite large, though humanity is rapidly approaching it. What's needed is for the rate of emissions to be reduced below the rate of capture, and so a reduction in fossil fuel use is urgently needed, but I wouldn't say that completely eliminating fossil fuel use is more important than protecting forests. All that's needed in the long term is for carbon capture to at least equal carbon emissions. In the short term, the planet is already close enough to the "point of no return" that reforestation is necessary in order to bring down levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of how quickly fossil use ceases. It has to be both. Burning fossil fuels is not a sustainable way to meet the energy needs of 8 billion+ humans. Cutting down forests for biofuel is not a sustainable way to meet the energy needs of 8 billion+ humans. Deforestation for biofuel would be sustainable for a much larger population than would burning fossil fuels (due to the extremely slow renewal rate of fossil fuels), but we're past that point. There's not enough land. Either energy consumption needs to drastically decrease, or non-combustion sources of energy are needed.

I get the impression that we are essentially "on the same side" and just quibbling over details. You make an excellent case against fossil fuels! Looking at it in terms of the broader carbon cycle makes the necessity of ending fossil fuel use very obvious even ignoring any concerns about pollution, destructive extraction practices, or other harmful effects.