Yes, methane does break down in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean that the greenhouse gas is all gone. Methane breaks down into several things, including carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Yup that is also food for elgee that is in the atmosphere I'm not saying that we are not causing problems I'm jest saying let's take it slow to fix sed problems none of us want another cane toad issue in our history
Talking about the greenhouse effect, we can't mention ch4 and co2 without making it very clear that water vapor is the main factor that makes the greenhouse effect possible.
Geo Girl you are doing a seriously good job of getting these important points across. Hopefully as the older people on the planet see their health extending and their wealth contracting their children may really start to do something about it .
Great points about the soil! The long run outcomes are not given due attention, as you've explained. Big machines certainly do a lot of damage (often without informed consent from landowners), causing topsoil to runoff and rarely get regenerated, as with logging in forests. Horses can do nearly as good a job with a fraction of the soil disturbances.
Depends on the style of logging... the old strip and not replant is a net negative fresh new trees tend to grow faster, capturing more carbon dioxide...if you can move more agriculture into the Canadian style of greenhouses, you get more space for temperature forest agriculture.... a recovery of the American chestnut trees... moved to more agricultural lands west of it's old range as the crops in that area are moved indoors... the old biome of the American chestnut was a very impressive one for food production and wood production before the fungus was accidentally introduced into the American east coast... there are GMO varieties that have been developed that are being examined before they can fix the problem created by a too mobile society too early before they learned the hazards of biology.
@@lethaleefox6017 Its actually been shown that it is a myth that (at least some ) trees like redwoods slow down in carbon sequestration with age they actually become more effective with age as the living outermost layers of a woody plant increases with age while the old dead inner layers that provide stability and structural support remain intact so long as no weak points into the inner layers are created to allow fungi and various microorganisms to infiltrate.
@Dragrath1 I had also heard that temperate forests are outperforming tropical forests for carbon capture... not sure how accurate that is. I haven't hunted down research papers on claims like that yet. In watching videos of the travels of Itchy Boots and camping in Europe, there is a lot of wide open spaces that could use some more trees... I live in the Puget Sound region of Washington state... we have trees that grow like weeds... but then I have flower pots that are overcrowded with seedling Western Red Cedar...
This message came across so smooth, I probably will use these ideas in my garden, along with fungi. I like your ability to share knowledge so it makes sense.
Excellent video, as many have commented! I missed a portion of it cooking lunch, but saw you did touch on what I had planned on commenting on about how my composting worms are a critical component of turning my corner of the desert (Chihuahuan) green. Carbon sequestration in soils needs more attention as it’s so simple. You did touch on many systems and I would only add in how rise of the Himalayas most likely triggered our current ice age, chemical weathering. Excellent video 👍
I buy worms at the gas station nearby that are sold for fishing bait...I turn them loose in my gardens, and everywhere in my yard..I've been turning over rocks and finding six to ten inch worms now!! My soil is crazy rich and my hens are happy and full too..there's no way my plants and livestock would be thriving like that without the rescue worms...love love love them
@@squirrelfrendotcom Just be aware that there are circumstances from an ecological POV where worms can do more harm than good in formerly glaciated or permafrost environments where native worms have not yet been able to reach due to worms slow dispersal. While there is a whole advance and retreat of glaciers Plant communities in northern ecozones that have adapted to be ahead of the worms can't survive without a cumulative leaf layer which complicates things a bit.
Your videos are really good and thank you for providing the videos for the public. I wanted to let you know that I understand anxiety and understand about loving the earth and wanting the best for the earth. I also understand that sometimes as we learn more about certain topics, we get anxiety because of what some different web pages or documents a person reads. So that happens and may take several days or months to calm down and think about things with our own minds, the phases of processing information emotionally. So pertaining to anxiety about that all of the topsoil being gone in 60 years, I just have to let you know its probably not going to happen all over the earth, because in many towns and metropolitan cities, yards, parks, parking lots, roads and interstates and fields are not going to be dug up and moved away to a nowhere place. So for instance, I bought a home that is about 70 to 80 years young and I would believe that the yard is the same way that it once was pertaining to the land level of the yard and that many home properties are the same way. Many times humans and myself get anxious and or get anxiety and have to allow whatever it was that made us anxious or to have anxiety, it takes time to process what we have learned or have read and it takes time settle down and calm down within a few days or several days or a month we then start feeling better. Ya also got to realize that an audience is going to be watching and listening to your videos and so every word you say can have an effect on the audience. So you may want to be more specific pertaining to the locations about the topsoil not being available in 60 years. So perhaps when you were making the video you had been studying about open mining pits and mining rocks and soil on some mountains and so that would make sense that in those areas of open mining pits the top soil is gone by several feet, yards, or measurements. I have been experiencing the thoughts that the human race should just have logged more and used tree wood for building buildings and many products, instead of digging the rocks and cement from the earth. I wish that every town had a recycling pick-up station or containers for putting recyclables in and maybe someday that can be available in smaller rural towns. Good luck and am going to eventually watch and listen to all of your videos and share the video, so that your information is learned by more people.
Thank you so much for this excellent video. Among the points you make is the very salient one about the timescales of climate action. Everyone is talking about limiting greenhouse gas emissions but even the most successful possible results in this area amount to only partial mitigation. The effects of industrialization and modern agriculture are cumulative and have a long time constant and are manifesting themselves now and will continue to do over the coming decades. The approach of soil sequestration offers hope of actually turning things around in a time frame that people can imagine in their own lives. It seems more hopeful than the idea being tried in Iceland to build filtering plants to extract carbon dioxide from the air and pump it underground, all of which is very energy intensive.
Thank you for great content. Remember that higher CO2 levels enables plants to photosynthesize in drier conditions because they don't loose as much water during CO2 uptake where more water escapes the less the concentration of CO2. We have been conditioned to be rediculously so afraid of bacteria and viruses that they have basically replaced ghosts and fear is a lucrative business.
This was such a great video ! It'll be so great if we can get videos related to phenomenon like El Nina, La Nina, Why deserts are mostly in western parts of many continents?, Trade winds, etc. While a simple google search can answer these questions I really really love the way you explain things and that might help me easily grasp the concept. Thank you !
That is a great idea! I am definitely not an expert in that stuff, but I will look into it and see if I can find enough references to make a future video! Thanks for the comment & suggestion ;)
@@GEOGIRL rain shadows and direction of rotation is a starting point... the winds blowing dust from Africa to South America is another point to explore... if dust in Africa is held in place by trees and vegetation will that reduce the fertility of the Amazon and reduce hurricanes.
I've been trying to dive into Biogeochemical cycles for a while and it lead me to sequestration. There is ALOT to learn in order to learn the biogeochemical cycles but it's a good way to learn the connections.
Last year I already experienced panic and worrying about pesticides on crops, (foods) and on fruit trees. After studying for many months I discovered that the pesticides are not a problem and are safe for humans and the ground. Besides, when it rains the rain dilutes the pesticides. Most pesticides are approved by the EPA environment protection Agency. The important thing to remember is that it's the amount of dosage that is used in things or consumed that makes the difference of dosages that are too much and not healthy and or the right amount of dosages is fine. It's like water, if a person drinks too many gallons of water in one day a person can die from drinking to much water in one day, however, if a person drinks only 5 to 6 glasses of water a day then they are fine. The water example is an example of the amount of dosages that was typing above. So it's in the dosage that matters.
Rachel, my two questions have been deleted: 1. How do plants transfer OC (the carbon in the form of carbohydrate) to soil microbes? 2. I can understand that tilling release water vapor (because soil is wet), but how does tilling cause release of carbon dioxide? For the first question. Thank you very much for explaining how plants transfer OC to soil microbes. I’ve watched “Kiss the Ground” thrice, but I had failed to have heard them explained the mechanism how plant ultimately transfer OC to soil microbes. For second question. Tilling destroys humus layer of soil (you explained), but it does not explain why there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. As you mentioned (according to Kiss the Ground), June - July: CO2 in the atmosphere is low because it is stored in the vegetation and the soil but April - May: we are tilling soils lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. I appreciate if you could elaborate on this. Thank you.
I can kind of help with the second question. Healthy soil has structure to it. There are many different structures, granular, blocky, platy/plate-like, prismatic/column-like etc. These structures are typically full of bacterial and fungal organisms which can help hold them together with their own physical structure as well as things they secrete. Breaking up these structures in the dirt disrupts those communities, causing many of the organisms to die and decay, and the carbon contained within them is released into the environment. Because the soil has been so disrupted, much less carbon stays than otherwise would when the organisms would die in the intact soil structure. In the video she mentioned the natural oxidization of geological carbon when it is brought up to the surface due to uplift. I'm not certain, but I think this same thing happens to the carbon in the soil once the microbes are no longer alive to keep it in an organic form. And of course, due to tilling, that carbon is now right at the surface.
As well the cows or other ruminants punch down with their hooves into the soil which, besides speeding up incorporation of organics, does the grass a big favor since the thatch would eventually smother the grass. Love the part at the end with the tie-in to clay, thanks.
I liked the video for sure! But it’s always unfortunate learning about another aspect of how we’re overworking and mistreating our earth and resources :/
I remember when I heard about the conservation of mass and wondering if it was true, why are their not holes under trees. I had always assumes that trees got their mass out of the ground, but if that were the case there would be a hole under the tree, because trees don't move around, all of their mass would have had to come from the location where they grew. Then I sort of realized there there was another source of mass I had not considered. After all, we don't usually think of it as mass, but it actually weighs quite a bit. Trees are not made from the ground, they are made from the air!
Everyone used to think plants got all their nutrients by consuming the soil. A scientist named Jan Van Helmont in the 1600's did an experiment where he grew a tree in a pot to find out how much soil the tree consumed and how that mass was conserved and converted to the mass of the tree. He weighed all the water and compost he gave the tree, and weighed the tree in its pot periodically over several years. He was surprised to learn that the mass of the tree, soil, and pot was way more than the starting mass plus everything he added, so he concluded that the additional mass must have come from the plant taking in air.
We have an old Japanese maple in our yard that has lower ground in the lawn around it, I sometimes think of adding more dirt to the lower area to make up what that tree has used to grow over the half century I have known it. It takes time for trees to use in minerals in the soil to make a noticeable difference impact... have you ever done a fire in a firepit and seen how little ash is left behind to clean up if there's no charcoal left in the ash...
I used to live in a communal place where the landlord had left a huge example of what we call a bizzy lizzy. It is a house plant with a very fleshy stalk. My mother used to have them but I had never seen one this big, it was huge, maybe a yard across and in a huge pot. We had jobs where we could all be away for a few days at a time, and the central heating was an unusual hot air system which dried the air out. Anyway everytime we came back this plant had completely collapsed into a mat. By adding two or three pints of water to the pot, you could literally sit and watch it pump itself back up to its former glory. Fascinating sight.
I'm sequestering carbon with Biochar. We have sandy soil so Biochar helps with water-retention and cation exchange capacity, both of which support soil development and plant growth which are small scale feedback loop.
I have been composting for decades was raised with the concept, I learned recently about no till gardening from a guy in England who has been doing it also for decades... the last few years more is being done ... the replanting of trees in Mongolia and north Africa and the use of solar cookers introduced to natives in those areas to reduce the dependence on firewood on sunny days... findings that temperate forests may be more effective than tropical one for locking up carbon was a slight surprise... there is more positive Information coming since the early scare papers were popular before Covid... not say things are fixed.... but their are projects that are helping... one should up date from 2019 to the things that are making a difference... helpfully we won't reach a new PETM event, that may have been what got our ancestors out of the trees in Africa and on the road to running the world for better or worse. We have to adapt very fast with this issue... and the more we learn the proper care of our environment the sooner we can learn to live off planet too.
So during the summertime when those chart maps are showing that more carbon dioxide is noticed is because the US Forest Service and different countries' Forest Services are conducting prescribed forest fires and the fires are making too much fire smoke that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide during the summer months.
I wish i could like this video more than once. More people need to be talking about regenerative agriculture is been known for a while and it doesn’t require technology to be developed that is currently science fiction. We just need to manage the natural resources we use to produce food differently and at scale. Even if that means environmentally destructive farming methods that use tiling are penalized economically that could make foods produced through regenerative means more cost competitive. I’ve always been big on composting. I compost all my food scraps at home as well as raw cardboard. My thinking is why buy soil when i can make soil instead? Soil that can be put to productive use to grow edible plants that can save me some money
Hey, just found your channel and love your videos, currently in a geology major so its nice to see our field get some traction. Haven't watched all your videos but I think something that be cool to do a video on would be the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as it gives us a rough equivalent to anthropogenic climate change to sort of measure what the effects might be like.
If desertification is such a concern, more CO2 in the atmosphere actually helps plants grow much better, especially in arid environments. I will find a link.
Rachel, I got two questions: 1. How do plants transfer OC (the carbon in the form of carbohydrate) to soil microbes? 2. I can understand that tilling release water vapor (because soil is wet), but how does tilling cause release of carbon dioxide?
Great questions! 1. Any dead plant material (e.g., leaves, roots, etc.) are degraded by microbes in the soil. Some soil microbes even employ enzymes that they can extrete out of their cells that bind to and transport certain organic compounds back into the cell, how cool it that?! And as microbes process the OC they create more refractory organic carbon compounds which are creates an OC-rich humus layer in the topsoil, and this is where OC can be stored long term. 2. Tilling causes the release of CO2 to the atmosphere indirectly because it destroys the humus layer of soil which is the layer that stores OC long term.
I hope you can come more available for TV or online interviews. You would also be very effective in articles. Getting your message out more broadly, would provide for thought for so many of the public.
RU-vid recommended one of your videos a day or two ago and I think I've watched a couple hours of your content now. I've seen a lot of niche science channels, but not a geology one like this :)
Thanks for the explanation ! it's a insightful video. Can you recommend how to improve carbon storage and increase the organic carbon in a simple private garden ? While compost is probably the best option, Could it also helpful if we just burry plant or weed waste in the soil (instead of disposing it) ?
It is -6 C at my backyard, the forecast for next week says around -10 C. I don't see any desertification anywhere around except that by snow and cold. In summertime the soil grows everywhere if not covered by concrete or tarmac. And sometimes, indeed, plants are pushing through the tarmac! As far as I understand, plants don't need carbon from soil, they take the carbon from air. But nitrogen might be the thing. See this document of lupines in Iceland: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pQ-dSxYonog.html
As someone who has composting as a hobby.... You do release a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere as microbes break down the organic matter. Quote from the Cornell composting guide: " each time that organic compounds are consumed by microorganisms two thirds of the carbon is given off as carbon dioxide. The remaining third is incorporated into the microbial cell along with the nitrogen and later released for further use as the cell dies." While composting built our top soil over the millenia that this planet carries life to me it doesn't seem to be the solution to our problems because the process is too slow. You only keep 1 third in the microbes. Other than that I agree with pretty much most of this. I agree that the soil life is what makes minerals available for plants, that's why plant roots actively feed microbes by root exudates. The symbiosis gains both microbes and plants. So to feed plants we have to feed microbes and we do that by leaving enough dead plant matter for microbes to consume aka compost. Because yes, you can optimize the habitat of microbes and make them really happy in a compost heap. But it's the same process albeit taking more time to just leave dead plant parts on the ground. The problem is rather the current energy crisis. We don't leave anything on the ground. There are technologies that are farming and burning grass, miscanthus, for energy. We no longer have time enough for trees to grow big before we burn it. You no longer get wood chips anyway for your garden, they now burn wood chips for energy. They make pellets to burn of every tiny left over wood particle. And we do eat plants and we can't put human feces back on the field because residue of medecine like antibiotics, pathogens and parasites. And we have increasingly many people to feed who all need energy and we all want renewable energy - which for many means burning renewable plant matter. We do not leave enough organic matter on the ground for microbes. And even if we did, two thirds of carbon still go back to the atmosphere. Mineral fertilizer: there are studies that say that adding mineral nitrogen to the soil life increases the microorganisms need for carbon. Because they always need both. So apparently the microorganisms take it from the already bound Carbon in the soil, aka humus. So using mineral fertilizers reduce the humus in the soil. There are two kinds of humus. One is the immobile one that has built over millenia and that is stable, it usually doesn't get consumed by plants and microbes (and I don't know what geological processes it went through to become that stable humus but maybe we get a video about that one?). And one is the volatile mobile one that gets consumed. The compost that I make from my garden and that I spread in my garden gets consumed. Gone. It doesn't build up. I get a good fluffy soil structure, I have happy plants, I can't know cause I am not a scientist but I think I have an alive soil due to composting. But it gets consumed. My vegetable beds do not get higher than the wooden planks I have around them despite adding a shitload of compost several times a year. The compost gets consumed, plants grow, I eat the plants, the matter disappears in the sewage. The problem with adding mineral nitrogen to our soils is that the microbes start to make the immobile humus mobile. They start to take that carbon that's stored in them. Because there isn't enough dead plant matter around to take carbon from. Basically, adding an excess of easily available mineral nitrogen erodes our soils longterm. And that process is a gazillion times faster than the process that builds topsoil lastingly. I doubt that carbon sequestering into our soils is the solution to getting to a net zero of emissions.
I think your video ended where it should have started. Maybe the Wren video gives more specifics. You did a great job describing the issues and providing motivation but left a mystery about what "we" can do. How will we ever get corporate farming to use no-till methods? They need to produce x amount of food to fill children's cereal boxes (yes, I'm being facetious). I hate corporate farming but it can't be eliminated. It will only change by people not buying their products. People are too selfish (as a whole) to give up convenience and cost. Cows are great but, you can't turn Kansas/Nebraska back to grasslands for cow pastures, to eliminate feed lots. I think also there should be a deeper dive into what does happen to organic matter grown on tilled land. You said it isn't composted, but I believe it is. Although, I've heard people say composting is bad too (releases carbon?). I compost for my home and have a vermicompost too. But what about the millions/billions of cubic yards it would take to permaculture a corporate farm? Is that just fantasy?
Regenerative agriculture can sequestor truly vast amounts of carbon in the soil. Look up Mark Shepherd, Gabe Brown, Greg Judy, Joel Salatin, Geoff Lawton and Joel Salatin who all have numerous videos here on youtube as well as many books to learn more.
Directly offset your carbon footprint with Wren: www.wren.co/start/geogirl The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name! Also, CORRECTION: I meant to say that glyphosate has been shown to *potentially* cause cancer; however, other results have indicated it does not, or that in some it may indirectly contribute but does not directly cause cancer. So please forgive me for misspeaking, it was a passionate moment and I forgot to mention the "possibly" part haha. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this video as much as I enjoyed making it! This is one of the coolest topics in my opinion, and it's also so important and becoming more important every day! ;D
For those that don't understand sientific theories, I wrote this reply many times. Lets take the theories of relativity by we all know who. For the GPS system, both relativity theories, Special Relativity and General Relativity to get them to work with ultra precise atomic clocks, ah yes, there's also that quantum scientific theory a work there... So, you don't believe, you should also not use a computer or any other electronic device because quantum theory again, and also electromagnetic theory, because electricity and magnets. You don't see infrared light but it can be measured. You don't see atomic radiation, feel free to go live in the core of a nuclear reactor. Ignorance is bliss ain't it🤪 Bon courage with those trolls, financed and/or propagandised when not organized by the fossil fuel industry. May I recommend this video out of a few I know of "Revealed: ExxonMobil’s lobbying war on climate change legislation" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5v1Yg6XejyE.html If you want more info, I got plenty. As a basic rule, every molecule made of 3 or more atoms is a GHG Have a nice day Geo Girl 🖖and maybe a comforting hot chocolate. It is winter up here 🥶
@@a.randomjack6661 *_”I cannot tell the difference between Science and Theory…”_* ~Randomjack 2022 Maybe I can help you..? The “Falsification Principle,” proposed by Karl Popper; is a way of determining science from non-science. It suggests that, “for a theory to be considered ‘scientific’ it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.” For example: the hypothesis that, "all trees have green leaves;” can be falsified by observing a tree with red leaves.
Plants also pump carbon directly into the soil in the form of sugar. This feeds the microbes (fungi) which provide the plants with nutrients. Fungi can "digest" rocks with their enzymes so to say lol. Watch Geoff Lawtons youtube channel for info on building soil, sustainable gardening and greening the desert. Peace ✌
When I first heard about desertification, I heard that grazing was the problem, although it was the grazing of camels that was specifically mentioned and not cows. Does the loss of swamps and wetlands have an impact?
Ok but no one has ever claimed that windmills were sequestration. They can count for carbon offset credits and such depending on the system, but that's not sequestration and no one said it was.
Geo girl; Love your channel and your energy. One thought that came up with your suggestion that free range cattle grazing at the correct density "can" improve soil health, specifically compared to holding the cattle in a feed lot and tilling that same land to produce crops to feed the cows. The important caveat here is that is only a narrow comparison, primarily in relation to the issue of tillage. A far bigger problem is that when primary ecosystems, such as tropical forests, are cleared and converted to cattle grazing, the soil health and carbon storage situation runs in much the opposite direction: degradation. Likewise, when cattle are grazed at too high of a density on marginal quality semi wild scrub lands, the result leans towards soil degradation due to compaction, the stripping of vegetation, and harm to the natural ecosystem. Historically, the lands in the Mediterranean basin suffered this fate due to the overgrazing of sheep and goats, as well as cattle. And finally, no discussion of ruminant digestive systems would be complete, without mention of the back door (?), which would be methane production by the animals. Keeping in mind how much more potent a greenhouse gas methane is, it has to be considered as an offset in any attempt to work through a carbon sequestration balance for grazing land usage. Best, d
I wondered what this new term regenerative farming that keeps popping up means. I see it just means traditional mixed farming as used to still exist substantially in the UK back in the 60s and 70s before governments screwed things up (including eec and EU mismanagement). I don't know how no till is supposed to work for most crops as there are multiple reasons for clearing other plant life out of the way so your crop is not competing for resources. (fruit trees are an exception) Even a return to balanced mixed farming (livestock and crops) will probably reduce yields, and remember there are an extra 4 billion people on earth since we were told 3 billion was too much in the 70s. The changes in agriculture and medicine since then have allowed that extra population to exist. Anyone who advocates a return to more sustainable way of life needs to account for a slow method of reduction in world population or you will get massive price spikes and popular unrest. Much of this makes sense but can't be looked at as a solution in its own right without taking into account all the other considerations. I would be wary about some of the claims of some of these studies, 2/3 of the world being desertified now is a big claim. You would expect the media to be screaming about this if there were any obvious evidence of this happening, just as they do with any other climate change related phenomenon.
That's a good point, I should've also been more clear that I don't think it's been absolutely proven that it can cause cancer, only proposed. I think the major point here is that if we lessen our overall use of pesticides that would be beneficial to the soil microbes, which in the long term will both improve the plant/crop health and store C longer term. But thank you for pointing that out, I think it is important that we understand that moving to no-till farming is a dynamic process that isn't black and white and we will still need to use fertilizers and pesticides especially early on in the transition to no tilling. However, I do think that there are many chemicals out there like glyphosate that should be studied a bit more deeply before used commercially. I feel there is so much we use because economically it is beneficial, but then later on we find out it is harmful for us. I just hope we can do the research in the first place rather than as an afterthought :)
Thanks for engaging! Many studies report bacterial decomposition of glyphosate into plant available phosphorus & tiny amounts of co2 with half life averages around 42 days. Not too bad compared to alternatives. Of course weed resistance necessitates alternatives, different modes of action, different toxicities, different breakdown pathways, yada yada... There's actually a natural cyanobacteria produced glyphosate substitute in development pipeline with the same mode of action that's made of C5 sugar 7sdh... It isn't studied well enough yet 😂 Glyphosate has advantages of being one of the most thoroughly studied compounds in history, obviously leading to addictive overuse & profiteering for both proponents & opponents, both prone to skew science for their own biases. Almost all herbicides need some surfactant to penetrate plants' waxy cuticle layer. These can often be more persistent & harmful to soil microbes than herbicides active ingredient themselves. They work like dish soap. Figure about 1-2 drops per SQ yard average glyphosate application would contain maybe 1/4-1/2 drop surfactant. Maybe 2 applications annually, depending on crop & cover crop implementation. What I have yet to see is robust peer reviewed research showing cost competitive & calorie competitive benefits to regenerative ag methods. Farmed acreage with lower yields at higher costs feeding fewer people means more acreage deforested for lower productivity farms means CO2 & biodiversity disadvantages. I think cover crops are a great opportunity, but they have to be grown somewhere in order to be scalable & economically viable. Cows might be good for some cases since they can graze areas that can't otherwise be farmed for human food, but somewhere land has to be used to feed cows. But I digress - often, proposed alternatives for herbicides amount to higher fuel consumption, higher human labor, increased plastic waste, increased food cost, fewer people eat, more land has to be deforested... yada yada... Always tradeoffs 😂
@@GEOGIRL I thought you should know that glyphosate has been around since ~1970. It is a very well studied chemical. Unfortunately it got swept up in the anti-GMO nonsense because glyphosate resistance is a trait used in bioengineered crops. It is really fairly benign, and as eliasednie points out, a great boon to no-till practices.
@@GEOGIRL check on fungus inoculations that might replace chemicals in improving nutrient harvesting in soil in no till situations... a longterm fungal relationship might be more effective.... not sure where the research is on that concept yet... it might take a few years to research which fungi are hanging out with which crop plants and thinking about looking for the those fungi and exploring the relationships... less soil disturbances should allow time for the relationships to develop... it might be research that would be useful for space farming methods where the whole biome should be explored... inoculation could be a simple amendment.
@@richardgreen4705 Glyphosate is fine. The additional crap added to enhance activity, cell penetration, surfactants can be a problem. Misapplication, corner cutting safety measures, untrained or misinformed usually low-wage workers applying it can be a problem. It has been rolled into GMO hysteria, and I mean it often is hysterical, but likewise real problems have long been subject to misdirection campaigns and coverups by the industry. They come to light, the result is mistrust. Partly hysterical but often with a lot of historical validation. Glyphosate is fine, but its use is closely associated with the profit motive.
I recommend _Braiding Sweetgrass_ by Robin Wall Kimmerer. While the book isn't about carbon sequestration per se, it is about paying attention to the interactions between organisms in a given ecosystem, i.e. how plants, animals, microbes, soil, etc. all work together. The book is about healing the ecosystem & has some neat advice for thinking carefully about what you plant where. That being said, I'm not sure agriculture is going to change anytime soon. Farmers have to deal with a lot, from regulations to the noted effects of tilling/desertification/overuse of chemicals. Most do not have the resources or knowledge to change anytime soon.
Silicate weathering (especially of Ca-containing silicate minerals, such as basalt) increases the Ca flux to the oceans and this increases Ca carbonate production which is the major buffer of the oceans pH. :)
@@GEOGIRL Rachel, is Ca carbonate production or the influx of Ca2+ ions in the oceans that is the major buffer of the oceans pH? Ca2+ ions react with excess CO2 in the atmosphere to produce CaCO3. Please clarify. Thank you.
Love your geology videos. Carbon sequestration is a silly idea, however, and not worth thinking about. CO2 is plant food, and we'd be better off w more of it in the atmosphere
@@AndrewMellor-darkphoton nobody said there weren't but we are told they are becoming 2/3 of the earth's surface which doesn't seem evident. Your comment didn't actually mention deserts, just water loss.
@AndrewMellor-darkphoton I think there's much more water than co2 on earth. Co2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04% or dangerously close to zero while water vapor is 1% or 25 times more abundant. Plants get liquid water from the soil but they inhale co2 from the air, exhaling oxygen in the ptocess, during day times. They get small amount of oxygen during the night exhaling small amounts of co2 in the process.
GeoGirl! You are smart and enthusiastic and inspirational! I know you're a "small" ewetubber; you've tagged a couple of my comments, so I know you still read the comments. I mean NO disrespect; my channel is tiny compaired to yours. I have a serious question. If carbon sequestration is a goal (and in my opinion it's a good goal), would not charcoal be an answer? There are patches in the Amazon an acre or ten in size that produce crops all year round. These sites are based upon ancient canoe building sites: wood burning was stopped before the wood became ash, becaus the long log wasn't being burnt, it was being shaped. Pottery shardes show their use as scrapers. Pottery was used as water haulers, and when they broke they were used as tools. Anyway, we could more efficiently sequester carbon than those ancient canoe builders. We could produce billions of acres of vastly improved soil, and that would become home microbes and carbon and water (oh my)! Ping me on one of my Planetary Air Conditioner videos if you think this is a good idea.
hi i hope school is going well for you - i have an off topic dating question - what is cosmogenic nuclide dating? i saw it used in the news recently regarding a discovery of early humanoids who may have used fire. gracias if you can explain geo doc!
hi - i know yr busy - if anybdy wants to know i found my answer: Cosmogenic nuclide dating uses the interactions between cosmic rays and nuclides in glacially transported boulders or glacially eroded bedrock to provide age estimates for rock exposure at the Earth’s surface. It tells us how long the rocks have been located at the surface, for example, on a moraine. It is an excellent way of directly dating glaciated regions. It is particularly useful in Antarctica because of a number of factors: The lack of terrestrial marine organisms makes radiocarbon dating difficult; High winds make burial by snow less likely; Burial and cover by vegetation is unlikely.
Just noticed where you go to school. How do you like the department? Have you checked out the UTD geoscience studio? We have a few PhDs working on geo education. Also, no mention of peat bogs. We want peat bogs!
Yes! I heard of UTD geoscience studio when I met a few of the students who worked on it at GSA this year! It was great to see what they're doing, I love it ;D
I'm on board with the regenerative agriculture concept and I've been working that into my own gardening practices. I did start with rototilling extensively but that was mostly about the rocks which I've removed more than a cubic yard of from the upper 6"-8" mostly over and area about 1100 sq. ft. I did incorporate several yards of manure and compost and so hopefully with a little time I'll have a lovely soil environment. Incorporating poison into the soil and other modern methods practiced to diminish the health and well being of the people is easily recognizable as deliberate and there's no indication or reason to believe that is going to change globally before the return of יהושע. We'll never have to worry about man made climate change due to, it's not in the script. We can anticipate some truly terrifying changes to the climate but it won't be man made, that is in the script, specifically Rev.16 which speaks at length about such. I'm hoping to miss all of that. The climate models the possessed are using as a pretense to deceive and subjugate the masses are dubious at best and contradicted by Word of Elohim as well as by empirical evidence just like Darwinism and the absurd notion of the universe being 4.5 billion years old (Earth is only about 6-7k, Ref. Gen. 1). Never fear, He'll fix it. It'll be fine. There's a video worth watching called 'Is Genesis History?'. Trabantoslaw (channel)- 'Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?' makes the claim that they're not figuring generations correctly and I haven't researched the topic nearly enough to feel like I've done my due diligence but even if the claim is valid, the guy presents a compelling case, the video is still very good at explaining some of the aspects of creationism that cause a stumbling block by folks having been indoctrinated for generations by academia shaped by the Jesuits. Consider what if I'm wrong then, what if I'm right? I'm gonna go check your trailer link now. 🙂
Incredible video, so much I didn’t know, I literally just got off a Zoom meeting on Climate and saw Geo Girl’s notification for this video. Have been sharing this as it has many points overlooked or that people are unaware of. Viva microbes!
Yes! Microbes are the heros! I also didn't know a lot of this before watching the documentary and looking into it more, much of this surprised me and I couldn't believe people weren't talking about this stuff more, so I had to make a video because I just think these points are so important! Anyway, thanks for the comment and thanks so much for sharing! ;D
@@GEOGIRL sometimes they are villains too. American chestnut blight is a villain fungus because it was moved to the wrong place... look into fungal communication networks, origin of fungi and soil development before land plants were able to move more inland.... effects on erosion and prevention of erosion... how big some fingal networks are recently found to be an how they can work with getting nutrients into plants by digesting rocks... it is an interesting rabbit hole.
Microbes provide so much! Everything we put in our fertizilers, the microbes would provide that stuff to the plants if we just stopped killing them. For example, nitrogen fixation is a process carried out by microbes in which atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is converted into 'bioavailable' (biologically accessible) nitrogen compounds such as ammonia (NH3), and from there ammonia is converted to ammonium (NH4), nitrogen oxide compounds, and pretty much any other nitrogen compounds because microbes use these reactions to gain energy, these reactions are their version of metabolism. We humans metabolize by oxygen respiration and plants by photosynthesis, but these processes only produce CO2 and oxygen, respectively. But ALL the other compounds life needs, like phosphorous, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds are produced by phosphorous, nitrogen, and sulfur metabolizing microbes which create a suite of organic compounds containing these elements so that the plants can take up those compounds to gain nutrients, and then we can eat the plants and gain the same nutrients. So, the microbes produce these compounds, which then are stored in the humus, and there are a few ways that plants can take up these nutrients, such as by direct uptake through molecule-specific transport enzymes in their cell walls, or by excreting transport enzymes to bind and transport these molecules into their cells. The plant can then metabolize and it provides the microbes with OC. It is a mutually benefiting relationship between plants and microbes. And then humans and other animals eat the plants and release CO2 which the plants then use again, so that is another mutually beneficial relationship! It is all this beautiful cycle :D But unfortunately, we have really hindered the cycle by taking the microbes out of the equation because now we have to rely on providing the plants these nutrients with fertilizers instead, with which we tend to overuse and this causes and increased nutrient runoff to coastal regions and this leads to ocean anoxia, but that is a story for anothe day hahaha I could just go on and on about this so I will stop myself here lol! ;)
@@GEOGIRL Rachel, I only knew about nitrogen fixing bacteria (fixing N2 from the atmosphere into nitrogenous nutrient for plants), but how do P and S metabolizing microbes produce P and S for plants? We are talking about how microbes provide plants with essential nutrients. The P and S to begin with must be present in the soil. Please comment. Thank you.
Farmers used to plant peas or bean crops periodically because the pea family grows root nodules for containing symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria, to improve the plant available nitrates in the ground. This was all part of the crop rotation scheme that was used since Turnip Townshend invented it back in iirc the medieval times. Cheap nitrates allowed farmers to move away from crop rotation, which was still often used late last century. Four year rotation including one year fallow to allow recovery and one year of legumes (pea family) plus use of returns from livestock as fertiliser. However yield is less, see overpopulation problem.
Plants capture carbon. By photosynthesis. They do not sequester it. They do store it. Temporarily. Soils do not sequester carbon. They can store it and eventually provide a gateway to sequestration, which is a geological process and which takes in only a tiny percentage of the captured carbon and takes geological timescales. Here is a vid that explains: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZadE0OWwtWY.html Runs a bit over 10 minutes and includes a couple of examples of shortcuts to actual carbon sequestration. The vid also explains why getting the terminology correct is important.
Even more useful than cattle are perhaps sheeps. In not so long times ago there were shepherds with their sheep letting them grase on harvested fields. There they ate the herbs and the grass and left their dung behind. I still remember this from my childhood. 30 years ago the herds were abolished as they didn't pay off. The price for the carbon sequestration was not calculated in the price. Even the wool nobody wanted then.
I hope she has done a clip a similar clip on Nitrogen. As it also has terrible effects my country of the Netherlands is struggling with (legislation that is helping us to combat this is being attacked by media and agri-business to kill the legislation. That's been captured by the far right to serve their corporate sponsors.) Nitrogen is needed for a healthy soil but, too much of it kills trees and plants (except a few species that thrive of it), causes algae blooms, kills our corals and Ocean acidification. Also, consumer emissions is 30% of the total emissions 70% is emitted by large corporations of which 70-80% is emitted by a handful of companies. Most of which are agricultural multinational companies. Who also are terrible to the humans that work for them, often killing them in short term through drowning them in debt and extorting them for profits.
Nitrates can be a problem and careful usage should be the way to go. However the ruckus about the limitations in the Netherlands, from my reading, is nothing to do with the far right (which in reality is anyone the far left don't agree with, including the soft left) but I think due to the perception it is being used as an excuse to exert control over the farmers, and therefore the landowners by deceit. I am sure the farmers would love to use less nitrates as it costs them money, but the public still want their cheap food. As far as I can see the fear is that the EU is not just telling the farmers to stop using nitrates but to quit farming altogether and transfer their land to other, currently undisclosed, parties. You should stop worrying about far rights under your bed and wonder where your food is going to come from in the future and whether you will be able to afford it. Remember the EU is importing a lot of new people and yet they want to restrict food production for those who are already there. That doesn't really sound like a recipe for harmony on any level. And when other EU countries are doing the same and Ukrainian grain is restricted. You are possibly going to look back at todays high food price inflation as the golden years. There is also the general perception that nitrogen is now being used as another instrument of the climate change debate to cudgel the population with. I agree that in specific instances that nitrates or noxs can be a problem and therefore should be dealt with in those specific areas. However there seems to be a movement to sneak nitrogen into the mix as a climate change arbiter. It is bad enough that carbon and carbon dioxide are conflated regularly in the popular media, but when other materials suddenly become part of the narrative, we should be asking for evidence, not just allowing politicians to drive us into poverty with ill considered policies. If we are supposed to be following the science why can't people differentiate between carbon and carbon dioxide? They are not the same. It just smacks of laziness or deceit. The educators really need to start correcting the media's ignorance on this subject. Sorry for the rant but it bugs me when people can't get this right when it is so basic.
I generally agree with you about poor farming methods. I am seriously convinced that whatever minor climate change is probably not correlated with CO2. I would be willing to defend this position in a formal debate. Any takers, we could stream it over zoom or something.
Post you evidence. There are so many nut jobs that have opinions without approved and collaborated scientific cause and effect evidence, that only a fool would entertain that idea.
Is there actual evidence for a little bit of CO2 dissolving marine animal exoskeletons? Sea water is rather alkaline, and it has a supercritical amount of CaCO3 dissolved. This can be tested in a laboratory environment. Sea water is like a pH buffer, and it takes more than a tiny amount of CO2 to seriously affect the pH. Especially because if the water warms, less CO2 can be dissolved.
Apparently the videos of h2co3 dissolving sea shells in a tank was found to be sulphuric or other more active acids and was done for media purposes. Carbonic acid is known to be weak as it takes a long time for it to dissolve limestone caves. The sea is well buffered and co2 apparently is more soluble in cold water and tends to exit warmer water. I assume that's why fizzy drinks don't work well when warm, among other reasons.
I am using the sequestering methods in my self sustaining gardening. I give the soil more than I will take from it. My harvests are not bad. Potatoes are not seldom at the size of 2 hands broad. Honestly this is not true for green vegetables as I use neither pesticides nor mineral fertilizers an so many of the green will be a victim of pests as well as many fruits are eaten by birds. Thus I concentrate on several roots and a few resistant herbs with good results.
A lot of things described here are out of proportion in terms of effect and cause and effect. Desertification is not happening globaly, the opposite is happening, deserts are shrinking and the reason according to Nasa is earth greening due to co2 increase, mostly natural, some by human. Because when its warmer like now, the oceans release co2. Sequestration happend to a mindblowing extend by shell producing organisms. The current *daily* plant co2 sequestration is just a tiny fraction of this whole process and the human agriculture is another fraction of this ever ongoing process. The Co2 release in spring is due to the warming of taiga and tundra and the whole northern hemisphere, it is not the resullt of our agriculture, or again that would be just a fraction. The slight acidification is more likely to have no effect, again after all the human emissions are just a fraction of the whole carbon cycle, compared to earth history the Co2 level is very low with 0,04% life was flourishing with more. The ammounts of CO2 needed to change the average ph value of our oceans by 0,1 would not be accomplished by burning every fossile fuel we have.
Shouldn't you mention that co2 is only 0.04% of dru air while water vaper is 1% of the atmosphere? There's 25 times less co2 than water diluted in the atmosphere. BTW... Argon in the atmosphere is close to 1% or 25 times more abundant than co2 also. Co2 is dangerously close to zero, considering that it is essential for all life in the form of green plants and animals who eat directly or indirectly green plants. Please point this out for clarification.
We basically need to terraform our Earth back to a sustainable means that can support our collective existence. I'm all for that. Agriculture is big business however... and though there certainly are well educated farmers out there... by and large they tend to be a rather conservative lot with a typically higher than average high school drop out rate (45% in my area when I was tending HS back in the early 90s.) They're labourers and equipment operators first and foremost... they pay attention to science that translates directly into dollars. If destructive practices and chemicals are pushed on them with the promise of 'greater yields per acre' then that's who and what they'll listen to. You need to change the rural culture and incentivize good sustainable practices with a short term pay off in order to get them to affect real change. Otherwise they'll just do 'whatever worked in the past.' They generally don't think too far ahead.
Those changes since the 70s (in UK at any rate) have allowed the world population to over double since then. If you return to more sustainable farming (traditional farming really) where the yield is less, you need to have a plan to feed those extra people who now rely on new farming to supply their food. No good feeling good about how sustainable your farming is if there are millions of starving people swarming to steal your food.
Cows aren´t bad...but rewilding is better. Wild megaherbivores recycle nutrients at same pace or faster than cows and need less taking care of. We almost extinguised all megafauna but some remain (bison, wild horses, etc). By letting them, or their proxies , roam free again where feasible, soil and essential ecological processes would be restored, carbon sequestration included.
"What is C Sequestration" - What is non-Eulerian semi-rings? What is non-Riemannian hypersquares? What is a 20-Fano manifold? What is an invariant variety? What is a Kodaira dimension? Sorry, had to have fun with "what is? Ever since the book "What is Mathematics" came out, way back in like 1940's or 50s', mathematicians seem to like writing "what is" articles. I don't think it's that great of a book. I am enjoying the latest John Stillwell book - the Story of Proof But anyways . . . When I first saw this title of "What is Carbon Sequestration", I was like "something only a Geologist would like." I'm glad I watched the video though! I'm always fascinated with how scientists(and mathematicians) can make the most mundane sounding thing interesting!
Not enough Cows? I see Cows in the fields all the time. Well, at least when I go just a little further East - out into Descanso. But, that's just one small patch of land. I'm tempted to say we need to make the foresters farmers and to have cows and such. I can't imagine the worlds population just stopping what they're doing, going out into the country and having a bunch of Cows. 60 years left? That's 2080. That's about the timeline I have for global warming to really bring down the ecosystems. As I've said there, we'll have nanotech, quantum computers, and A.I. long before then. We could have A.I. Cow Shephards!
What I mean by nanotechnology is the Richard Feynman and Eric Drexler nanotechnology - not mere chemistry. Richard Feynman first came up with the nano-manufacturing idea back in 1959(just two years after Sputnik!). But, he dropped working on it almost immediately, figuring, correctly, nanotech wasn't going to happen in his lifetime. Then, in the late 1970s, an Eric Drexler hit upon the idea as well. He tried to make it happen - working out the mathematics and trying to steer the experimentalist into the direction of making nanotechnology happen. Well, Eric Drexler's favorite pathway to nano-manufacturing was through proteins. But that ran into the protein folding problem. A problem nobody thought would be solved in a million years! Despite Drexlers' idea of designing proteins to be predictable, the protein pathway never materialized - till about a two years ago. An A.I. group showed they can make an A.I. program that can reliably solve a protein folding problem. The theoretical problem of protein folding is still not solved. There's no deductive proof for protein folding. But, they can approximate how a set of amino acids folds into a protein . . . down to the last atom! Before two years ago, it took scientists years to solve a single protein. Now, they can solve a protein in ten minutes(a few months ago, they got it down to seconds!). Since then, Since then, lots of researchers the world over have come up with more protein folding software. They've gone from protein folding prediction to design and engineering. They've already solved all the proteins i a human body and other species like a year ago! They have almost nothing better to do than work on nanotechnology! I expect a nano-sputnik in a month or so.
They'll still need to bootstrap from wet protein(and even DNA and RNA!) nanotech to a vacuum non wet nanotech, but proteins can solve the worlds energy, pollution and even health problems(cancers and even viruses!). When the nano-era comes, we'll be in a new era - like the way the iron age was to the stone age. We'll be able to make products pollution free, and the products will not pollute. We can recycle the industrial past.
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 "People swarm everywhere, talking of incomprehensible matters, in hovels, streets and square, marketplaces, and crossroads. When I ask how many oboloi I have to pay, they answer with hairsplitting arguments about the born and the unborn. If I inquire the price of bread, I am told that the father is greater than the son. I call a servant to tell me whether my bath is ready; he rejoins that the son was created out of nothing." - this from a Gregory of Nyssa around 400 A.D. no less!
If you believe Jesus was God in the flesh and call on his name you will be forgiven your sins because He is God who took on human form and offered Himself as a sacrifice. Be on the lookout for Satan's impending appearance on earth where he will pretend to be Jesus. Jesus was eating at Simon's house (Simon was a leper whom Jesus had healed) a few days before He was crucified when a lady arrived with a box of priceless ointment and anointed Him with its contents. The disciples thought the woman was crazy since she might have sold the ointment and donated the money to the needy. She had anointed him for burial, Jesus said, and he commanded that what he had done be reported so that she would be remembered wherever the gospel is preached.
@@jaykanta4326 I'm not worried, I'm just telling a joke, because there's going to be a lot more rocket engines, and they burn such a fire. But, I want more rocket engines, not less.
@@daniel.Armando Oil is organic, that is where the reduced C comes from that allows us to oxidize (burn) it to gain energy. The only group of inorganic carbonaceous minerals that form on Earth are carbonates, which we cannot burn to get energy... I am sorry I am just a bit confused haha, could you explain further what you mean? Thanks :)
So why aren't GMOs illegal if scientists even KNOW glyphosate causes cancer?? I've followed Dr Zach Bush MD for years. The fact that I can still buy round up gives me rage. I thought it must still be legal because people didn't know, but if you can say it just like that... the cancer rates in the Mississippi Delta and the fact that the rivers are so polluted it's illegal to even go boating on it... whyyyyy? (It's possible I'm slightly triggered by the mention of glyphosate.) Please don't delete me 🤦♀️😂💖
So I calmed down once you started talking about clay. Regenerative agriculture and its failings is actually the whole reason I ended up here. You know I try to grow a garden in heavy clay. That led to basic gardening and the recommendations of dumping toxic chemicals on everything- which of course led to no dig/Regenerative agriculture, which led to Sri Lanka, Vandana Shiva and a sense of ultimate hopelessness for the world. You can imagine how your bright shining face restored my faith in humanity, while you also gave answers to many long held questions. Thats why I needed to know geology. That's the whole reason I'm here. To try to understand what makes, creates, changes the earth's crust. Where rock ends and soil begins. In the 10 k or so Regenerative agriculture videos I've watched not a single one ever said "dirt is displaced soil. Soil is formed in place, once its moved, its dirt." Profound. Clanger, face palm moment. And remember- no Regenerative agriculture video taught me what you did. Keep your head in there geo girl. There are flaws in the Regenerative agriculture philosophy that haven't been resolved. Maybe you'd be a good person to have a crack at it. Anyway, this whole video was disturbingly relevant. Disquieting almost. Take care lovely. Great job. 💖
Ok Ok, so I slightly mispoke when I said glyphosate causes cancer, I should've said *some* findings suggest it causes cancer, but others suggest it doesn't, or it may contribute indirectly. So I am sorry for making that seem a bit worse than it actually is haha. However, I will say that pesticides definitely degrade our microbiomes which can be very harmful and drasically lower our immune systems. That being said, we should note that pesticides and GMOs are not the same thing and GMOs are not bad. GMOs are genetically modified organisms, and there are plenty of genetically modified crops that have cut down the need f or pesticide and herbicide use. I think the phrase 'genetically modified' scares people but really almost everything we encounter in our life is genetically modified, our cats, our dogs, our cows, our cow meat, I mean we genetically altered all of these things to become our pets or our food over time through selective breeding, and now we can do it a bit faster with chemicals and that makes people scared, but really there is no difference. GMOs are not scary chemicals or anything, they are just genetically modified (all the genes are still natural, they've just been modified so that they are more desirable or economic in some way, but there is no harm in GMOs). I should also say, not all the chemicals contained in fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are 'bad' like glyphosate may be. These products include an incredibly diverse set of molecules and they all have very different effects on life, some are even beneficial, which is why we use them for crops in the first place. It's just that we need to do a more careful job of checking their effects on humans before we use them to grow our crops because we now understand that these chemicals get incorporated into the crops and the groundwater and that makes it to us. Anyway, that was quite long, but I hope that helps clear things up a bit ;)
@@GEOGIRL mmmm yes and no to clearing things up! I'll have to read your very thoughtful reply a few times before I can pretend to understand it! I seriously appreciate your time and reply, so much more than words.
@@GEOGIRL ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RF9aoLmWJ-A.html This is something I would dearly like your opinion on. He goes into what findings he was allowed (and not allowed) to submit. Getting to the truth of the "findings" is proving more difficult than it should. I'd really really like to know what you think about it.
Lol no, don't stop the farmers, we just need to farm in a more thoughtful way (which thankfully) will end up being more healthy for us too, so it's a win win!) :) And many farmers have already began no-till farming and seeing the benefits to their soils ;D
@@GEOGIRL I saw some papers that thought almost all the co2 over 200 something ppm is from topsoil loss. Thanks for the videos ! A video on oil would be another good one to . Preciater
There are people who state that anything below 180 ppm of co2 will starve all plant life. Imagine not only no food for vegans, or anyone else, but no oxygen production. So back to a prokyrote (can't spell it) future if we are stupid enough to sequester too much co2. In fact some posit that our co2 output actually saved plant life from a gradual decline and possibly another ice age. That sounds far more dangerous to us all than anything that has been predicted (and often not appeared at various deadlines previously quoted) by the global warming gurus. Even greta has been deleting tweets because her claims for this year never happened.
Good luck with that. The government hates livestock. My footprint averages 3.3-3.8 per year. Last time I donated funds to combat climate change, that organization sent a substantial amount of funding to lobbyists and political organizations. I'll dig further into Wren's financials, but noticed on the superficial side their employee compensation is a bit on the high side, and they're located in California which in my opinion creates unnecessary overhead.
