> of the usable land What are you referring to when you say "usable land"? What means usable? Presumably you refer to agriculture and I'm not sure where your n

> of the usable land What are you referring to when you say "usable land"? What means usable? Presumably you refer to agriculture and I'm not sure where your number comes from. 42 percent of the land acreage of Canada is covered by forests. This is the percentage forest cover by each State in the U.S. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_and_territory_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_and_terr... > In which other areas do you propose to increase trees and plants? Anywhere else appropriate. > This seaweed additive they propose is a distraction It's a solution, given that among the problems framed is the level of methane emissions. > Even if it would work, it's a band-aid at best. There has been research papers illustrating the impact of seaweed in cattle feed for years now - it works. No one is framing this as the entire solution to global warming. If it can curb methane to that extent, it has a substantial impact. > The real, more simple, cheaper and healthier solution is to make meat and dairy from plants directly. We already have "alternative" products on the market which aren't that popular, but no actual lab-grown meat on the market. The "real" solution (to this minor subset of a larger issue) is one that exists, or could viably be cost-effective enough to consumers tastes. I see no suggestion that lab-grown meat would be cheap, or healthier, or simpler.