This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint.
Downloads
Authors
Abstract
The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is chiefly tied to land stewardship.
Farmers and loggers have removed the plants that, until the industrial era, kept the soil fungi alive, kept soil emissions nearby by breaking the wind, and soaked those up. The result is plumes of carbon dioxide.
Putting plants back in would curb these emissions. Farmers and loggers could address biodiversity loss in the process.
Auditing the deceitful carbon accounting shows that these emissions are the only ones that matter. A chicanery hides them from view while fueling dubious activities.
The contribution of fossil fuels to atmospheric carbon dioxide is small. It likely comes from emissions sources with no nearby plants, like industrial smokestacks. Bio-sequestration could curb that wasted carbon dioxide.
This topsoil loss is fueling desertification. Better land stewardship would reverse the latter.
Desertification, natural variability, and other man-made decisions can be confused as climate change by those who do not work with nature.
In the end, the carbon accounting framework is Orwellian Newspeak. So is the language used in nature conservation. The policies that they serve to justify warrant a closer look.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31223/X57077
Subjects
Agriculture, Climate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Environmental Engineering, Environmental Studies, Food Science, Forest Management, Hydrology, Natural Resources and Conservation, Natural Resources Management and Policy, Oil, Gas, and Energy, Other Environmental Sciences, Soil Science, Sustainability, Water Resource Management
Keywords
climate change, nature conservation, soil, topsoil loss, carbon accounting, carbon sequestration, bio-sequestration, Desertification, Land Stewardship, narrative, newspeak, climate policy
Dates
Published: 2023-04-06 18:50
Last Updated: 2023-05-13 03:50
Older Versions
License
CC-By Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Additional Metadata
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data Availability (Reason not available):
None (Publicly available data)
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.