I'm only worried about how to make it proper (so not to disrupt the current ecosystem nor create too many cobra effects)
Otherwise you probably want a forester looking after it.
Of course it's far harder to put back than not lose in the first place...
If the west truly cares about solving the problem of climate change, then we have to accept that we’ve benefited disproportionately from ignoring the negative environmental externalities of our wealth expansion, and pay countries to protect natural resources that benefit the world.
It should be more lucrative for brazillians to protect their forest than it is to burn them down to grow animal feed.
More to the point though is it isn't A) US has to fix itself or B) the developing world needs to be mindful of how it develops - it's both. It's perfectly possible to be "Holy shit guys, the US needs to change how it consumes!" and be like "Holy shit, the developing world needs to change how humans have developed historically!" Hopefully, we'll get back on track in 2020 nationally on A...
I can only make changes by being politically active and making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others. I do these things, but don't have the power to force systemic change.
United Kingdom 6.50
>making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others
It looks like the Brazilians are doing a better job at that than you are. All I'm trying to say here is we aren't really in a position to wag the finger at anyone. Least of all the people of Brazil.
Climate catastrophe is going to hit the lower GDP nations the hardest, because they're starting with less capital to adapt and mitigate the effects. All they'd be doing by developing carbon intensive economies is flooring the accelerator towards the cliff.
At any rate, it's a false dichotomy. With the current state of renewables, countries like Brazil, India, China, and Nigeria can continue to industrialize with clean energy and skip coal-based industrialization. They can also develop cities and infrastructure to support mass transit much better than some other nations did.
It's 10% of the population, about a quarter of GDP, so not "mostly". Brazil is usually put into the Newly Industrialised Country category. It has quite a bit of secondary sector giants too.
Western countries have not eliminated a quarter of their GDP to prevent climate change, shouldn't they do that before telling those much poorer than they to do so?
Keep in mind that the deforestation is purely caused by the livestock industry trying to squeeze profits. There are other ways to produce meat that don't involve invading and burning forests.
According to the government, in 2017 only 5,7% of the GDP is directly related to agriculture and livestock production . And according to an industry website livestock was responsible for only 31% of that .
The rest of that "one quarter" is related to processing and distribution, which can happen in urban areas closer to the southeast, far away from the Amazon, and those things don't benefit at all from the deforestation.
And the processing/distribution industry could exist by itself without local production, as proved by places like Hong Kong, the largest importer of Brazilian beef. 
By the way, the biggest producer of beef in Brazil is the state of Sao Paulo, which is on the other side of the country, not at all related to Amazon. 
So nope. Stopping the Amazon deforestation RIGHT NOW won't even make dent in our GDP.
It happens to be a crime here in Brazil to invade lands and burn preserved areas. People should and have been arrested for it.
The deforestation is purely a political problem, this has nothing to do with economics as you've tried to portray here.
Btw, by "political problem" I mean that the government was outright saying that the deforestation and fires "are normal" , or they're accusing NGOs of starting the fires , or even denying external help to avoid the fires in Amazon .
The current position of the government is different, however. Now is that the fires should be stopped, and the army has been sent to Amazon to arrest people. 
And that was thanks to both external and internal pressure. Why did it took so long? Because there were too many criminal apologists trying to justify why burning the country was needed. But it wasn't.
it's been reported plenty of times that europe keeps getting more forests e.g.
> Between 1990 and 2015, the area covered by forests and woodlands increased by 90,000 square kilometres - an area roughly the size of Portugal.
The problem with european forests is mostly, AFAIU, the fact that the few remaining old growth ones are still being cut, such as in Poland.
That is rich, considering Brazil is the world’s leading exporter of both beef and poultry, exporting to more than 150 countries. Brazilian beef is the main reason for the massive deforestation in the Amazon.
> A 2004 World Bank paper and a 2009 Greenpeace report found that the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon, supported by the international beef and leather trades, was responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region, or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the largest single driver of deforestation in the world. According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 70% of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture.
People who eat meat imported from Brazil blames Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest? Even if you do not eat meat imported from Brazil, you should "blame" the consumers who do. If there would be no demand for it, there would be no financial incentives for all this destruction.
If Brazil wants to become as rich as Europe it needs to focus on things that made Europe what it is right now: industry, services, technological innovation.
The Amazon deforestation is only beneficial to agriculture. Focusing on it is basically sending us back to the 19th century.
EDIT: I also made another comment pointing out how minor the effects of stopping the deforestation altogether would be in our economy: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=21101628
The one example it cites is for a species of moth from the Balkans. Last time I checked the Balkans were still part of Europe so this species of leaf-mining moth could be expected to colonise more northerly parts of the continent as the climate warmed. So no real surprises there. It's probably happened in the past and yet we still have horse chestnut trees.
Other weasel sentences such as "The study said 42% of the 454 tree species in Europe, which include some found elsewhere, could die out on the continent." So "some found elsewhere". What percentage are found elsewhere? Where exactly is elsewhere. Some species are probably very widespread indeed so losing a few at the edges of their range are inconsequential.
The real story here is Europe's fragmented habitats means that a lot of trees are going to have a hard time adjusting to climate change - there's nowhere to go. Pollution puts a lot of stress on trees - remember acid rain? While there is a real problem with imported insects, fungi, etc. none of that is mentioned.
A lazy article, written by a lazy journalist who just threw in "extinction" to spice things up and sow fear, doubt and uncertainly.
The EU has a policy to get the member states to reach a certain percentage of 'renewables' in the energy basket or face stiff fines. So far so good. However, commercial logging managed to get 'wood pellets' on the list of 'renewables'. The result? Forests and roadside trees are being 'harvested' like there is no tomorrow because it helps meet the quota.
The EU set up a program for returning surfaces to more 'original' vegetation. Much of Europe's forests in low forested areas are created 2 or 3 centuries ago to serve as hunting grounds for the aristocracy. 'Nature' organizations (pretend green lobbies in reality) are now strip cutting forests in the name of 'planting more native species' and even 'landscape diversity' in regions that barely have tree left. 'Coincidentally' raking in nice subsidies to do so with a positive financial return, allowing them to buy more land to 'converse' raking in more subsidies...
Yeah, I know you can see the excessive airquotes, but I'm mad as hell.
I wonder if the lack of diversity (yes even in trees!) is causing problems. If there were a mix of male and female would trees be able to evolve or at least grow more offspring.
Then what's the point writing to our politicians?
I don't need convincing, I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm just pointing out that you went too far with the FUD tactic. It's counter productive to your call to action, if you also insinuate that action is futile.
I don't want to convince skeptics. I want people who are aware of the situation to take actions themselves, and ask for actions from others, be it their representatives, local politicians, family, local associations, etc.
While the idea that planting more trees to ameliorate climate change is a good one there is a risk that simple, ignorant, solutions such as planting fast growing eucalyptus or pine species could be seen as the fast path to success. Instead focussing on native species, which are slow growing in comparison, would actually solve the much greater problem that comes with climate change - habitat degradation and generate ecosystems that are generally most robust and able to withstand stresses better.
At the other extreme, we do know the problems associated with extensive monocropping. We've seen the effects of monocrop agriculture and forestry through the 20th century. The more healthy biodiversity we can keep in all species, the better for us.