Like the idea and as for how to pay for the workers they are on welfare now, and I don't think we would be able to export though we need fresh fruit in our country now. I do believe we could expand on this idea and use vacant public land for this use such as the old schools that have closed down and the area in the clover leafs of our interstate system and maybe even between the lanes of our highways "the grassy areas" Good luck and if you want to get something started like this lets get together and see what we can do!
2007-06-10 05:07:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Moose 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the amount of fruit trees required to make a dent in carbon dioxide and to feed/export is unrealistic. Where would they be planted? Most fruit trees would have to be in somwhat of a temperate climate, so the northern half of the country wouldn't work. That leaves the states of the old Confederacy and the southwest. The government would have to buy a significant amount of land to plant these trees which would probably offset any finincial benefit from the reduced social welfare. If they hired farmers to grow the trees, they would have to make it more profitable than whatever crop they are currently employing. And with the ethanol craze skyrocketing corn prices, I don't think the government would be able to provide a significant amount subsidies to make it economically viable for the producer.
2007-06-10 11:17:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by jesse2337 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Where are you going to plant? Maybe we should just start some government busineses where to welfare people go to work and take thier kids for free daycare. It will be piece work so no work no pay. Can be any business that is good for the location that it is put in. And like you said might be nice if it were something to export overseas to help the national debt.
2007-06-10 10:55:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by ronnny 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Noble, but I can't see this being a good thing by involving the government. I have fruit trees and share excess fresh fruit and preserves with family, friends, and neighbors. I don't get any money for it, and can guarantee that I lose money in labor and material costs (luckily, I harvest rainwater, so I don't pay for that.) But, I do get the reward of doing something for the environment and for my fellow man without feeling I have to "profit" from it.
2007-06-10 11:39:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by 3DM 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's stupid to use the poor that are on welfare as a cheap labour pool, just doesn't sound right.
You want to pay people to put up trees, fine, but don't do it just for the poor, do it for everyone. If you're not equal opportunity, then I won't go for it.
2007-06-10 13:47:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Luis 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not only trees but all plants that use photosynthesis to produce their food .
2007-06-10 16:39:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by JOHNNIE B 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
firstly ,u r rigjht , in case of global warming preserve nature i.e preserve trees, grow trees. and i agree with u . u will always see our govt. sleeping and yarning but u will always see them making money 24 hrs . and when our "SARKAR" is busy making money - not for INDIA FOR THEIRSELF . u can't expect anything else. because of our govt. we will never get developed.
dob u know israely govt. is sincere towards their nation but our's is only sincere towards their own self.
2007-06-10 11:00:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by nyonika j 1
·
0⤊
0⤋