I’m going to stand out on a fairly strong limb and make a declaration just about everyone (from treehugger to tea partier) can agree with: restoring degraded natural areas is a good thing. Luckily this thinking is gaining ground in some pretty important circles.

When the summer heat starts inching up towards the triple digit mark, many people notice an increase in their power bill from running the air conditioner more. But what will the bill look like when the planet’s temperature goes up? Unfortunately, it is going to be in the billions of dollars.

Some folks argue that burning trees as an energy source — either for heat or electricity — is a “carbon neutral” resource — one that takes away as much carbon as it releases. It seems logical — new trees grow in the place of those that were cut down, and the new ones can absorb whatever carbon was released when the original tree was cut and later burned.

However, as with many things, the devil is in the details.

The Congressional Budget Office — a non-partisan agency that examines the financial impact of legislation — released its report on the American Power Act, the climate and energy bill from Senators John Kerry (Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.).

The CBO’s report confirmed what many of us already knew — that saving the planet by cutting carbon emissions was good for us. What we didn’t know was how good it was.

In his first speech from the Oval Office, President Obama added to the growing momentum for climate change legislation by calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill. But it’s still up to the Senate to pass this long-awaited legislation — and it will take a continuous outpouring of public support to keep the Senate focused on this issue.