I think part of this, at least, it eating meat much more sparingly. From what I understand huge swaths of the Amazon are slashed and burned to make room for cattle which do the opposite of sequestering carbon by converting any it finds into methane (and meat).
So basically we need to eat less meat to give plants more room. And we will need lots of room since we need to not only sequester the carbon of the trees we've previously destroyed (assuming they were burned and not converted into buildings), but all the millions (billions?) (trillions?) of pounds of hydrocarbons we've pumped out of the ground.
To sequester that much carbon we need trillions of pounds more life on earth than we currently have which means we need to let the oceans fill up with carbon-based mass (algae, fish, etc), let the rain forests and other carbon-high forests grow to their geographic boundaries.
I don't think it's the silver bullet, but it's definitely a great start and technologically easier than turning CO2 into graphene or diamonds or whatever.
I think part of this, at least, it eating meat much more sparingly.
Eating less meat gets mentioned whenever a climate change debate appears here. Perhaps my own position as a meat eater makes react somewhat critically to this (when I was a vegetarian, I had trouble with my digestion that eating meat seemed to solve).
With that caveat, I should say that even if producing less meat was a good solution to climate change, individual abstention seems unlikely to be a path that's going to get us very far towards this change. One can see various social movements against a variety of products which don't by themselves prevent the production of these products. Whichever actions one might describe in a "ten things one can do to save the planet" list, those actions will done by a limited number of people, determined by sociological factors. Moreover, reduce the demand for X environmentally product from group Y and you decrease the price, stimulating demand from group Z.
More concretely, I have friends are homeless and nearly homeless. Eating less meat might be healthier and less environmentally destructive but these people aren't going to make that choice because their choices and values revolve around what lets them survive. And broadly, if producers of a product can't sell to one group, they can find another group.
My claim is that any shift in agricultural CO2 production is going to require regulation, whatever choices some consumers might make just won't change things and to various extents, acting as if these choices are a program does more harm than good.
In the US, beef production accounts for about 2.6% of GHG emissions. Most beef eaten in North America was raised there. If you are from these regions, reducing meat consumption won't help the Amazon or much else.
Note that the issues with clearing the forests of the Amazon for beef won't end if beef production is banned or whatever. Those people still need to do something, which is why forest clearing for soy production is on the rise.
So basically we need to eat less meat to give plants more room. And we will need lots of room since we need to not only sequester the carbon of the trees we've previously destroyed (assuming they were burned and not converted into buildings), but all the millions (billions?) (trillions?) of pounds of hydrocarbons we've pumped out of the ground.
To sequester that much carbon we need trillions of pounds more life on earth than we currently have which means we need to let the oceans fill up with carbon-based mass (algae, fish, etc), let the rain forests and other carbon-high forests grow to their geographic boundaries.
I don't think it's the silver bullet, but it's definitely a great start and technologically easier than turning CO2 into graphene or diamonds or whatever.