If this finding is true, I would pay significant money (voluntary tax?) that would pay people and / or countries not to cut down their forests, as well as to restore and regenerate what they have cut down. If every comfortable middle class family in the world paid $1000 a year into a fund to save the forests, at LOT of money could be generated. And we could then fly to our heart's content ... except that rising fuel costs are going to put air travel out of financial reach for most people. It's a double bonus for the environment, though.

This clip was featured on today's clipiversity video podcast. Definitely a great way to think about how to combat global warming. Stopping damage instead of fixing it later... Sounds smart to me!

Seems like a losing battle based on these findings. They say trees actually contribute to the problem.

The finding that plants emit methane is being questioned in the latest research. See my clip - Plants 'not to blame' for potent greenhouse gases.

You mean the one where the source of both of these clips contradicts itself on the same topic?

The New Scientist, as the UK's number one science magazine read by literate scientists, is an excellent source in my experience. Independent science media at its best.