This article tries to sound like it is presenting a fair and balanced assessment of natural climate change solutions, but it falls into the same trap previous ones have. Let's try to go over a few important points 1/n https://www.wired.com/story/president-biden-please-dont-get-into-carbon-farming/
2/n no body, literally no body who understands the science behind carbon farming and climate change that I know of, argues we should just pursue this option. First, we need to lower FF emissions and then, pursue natural climate change solutions to make even more difference
3/n natural climate change solutions offer multiple benefits including avoided future emission of GHGs from land use, drawdown of CO2 from atmosphere and its sequestration in slower cycling pools in soil; AND benefits of improving soil and overall ecosystem health
4/n As is clear in this recently published Carbon Dioxide Prime, we to accomplish the removal of "massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, transforming landscapes to store it in ecosystems and developing industrial means of storing it underground." https://cdrprimer.org/read 
5/n And it has to be said, every time you hear such statements that dismiss the inclusion of natural processes in our climate change mitigation efforts (going against so much science and societal benefits that could be derived from this effort), you have to wonder why?
6/6 Discounting natural climate change solutions & associated improvements to soil health also dismisses the global crisis of land degradation (affecting abt 1billion mostly Black and brown people globally) that these options simultaneously address. https://time.com/5864693/climate-change-racism/
You can follow @aaberhe.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.