As usual, the NYT will cover just about anything other than phase-out of fossil fuels, which I’d both what we need and would upset major advertisers
As usual, the NYT will cover just about anything other than phase-out of fossil fuels, which I’d both what we need and would upset major advertisers
No, it can’t.
While soil is a big pool of C, the effort needed to pull enough C into the soil to make a meaningful difference is astronomical.
C increases in soil take much more time than we have to get our carbon balance under control. Instead of focusing on things that make actual differences (green energy, reductions) start ups like this have us chasing our own tails.
Improving soil C is a great thing, just not the solution
Correctly differentiating between “good enough idea to be worth pursuing” and “greenwashing scam” is a difficult skill too few people have. Doing it while also avoiding the pitfalls of seeking a single silver-bullet solution, falling for misinformation (e.g. “EVs are worse than gasoline cars” or anti-nuclear hysteria), or succumbing to cynical nihilism is even harder.
I think the most relevant part of your comment is not falling for silver bullet thinking. It’s a highly complex problem; why would a simplistic answer work?