[ddebernardy]

Author here.

TL;DR for those who don't click links:

- Corporate green solutions are shams

- Promote gardening if you care about fossil fuels

- An accounting chicanery keeps natural emissions out of view

- The hockey stick is actually about canopy loss

- Switching to alley cropping would reverse it

Happy to answer questions.

[madelyn-goodman]

I really like your point about working with nature leading to more abundance. I think that a broad approach is still necessary to make any sort of real impact to curb climate change. Sure focusing only on curbing fossil fuels won't work, but I also think that only focusing on the agriculture industry similarly won't work. Sweeping change can't happen all at once, so changing many industries little by little I think will have the largest impact.

[ddebernardy]

For the longest of times I thought the same way. Realizing that the actual issue was almost entirely tied to topsoil loss is what made me change my mind.

If you look into the atmospheric carbon dioxide data, you'll observe seasonal up and downs with the low point that takes us back to around where the high point from about a decade earlier. This means that we could resolve the issue very quickly in a scenario where farms keep enough plants around to soak up the soil emissions during tilling and harvesting operations.

Alley cropping is just one option to do so, btw. As I explain in a separate article [1], any well designed intercropping scenario should do the trick. The point is to not have a wide open field with no plants that could keep the fungi alive, block the wind to keep the carbon dioxide around, and soak up the carbon dioxide.

It can't be perfect because of night emissions and because trees eventually lose their leaves in the fall, but we can do far better than what we're currently doing.

[1]: http://ddebernardy.substack.com/p/stop-climate-agenda-soil-n...