And yes, these conversations are vital — the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is the highest it’s been in over 4 million years.
But there’s an equivalent problem nobody seems to be talking about: for all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there’s not nearly enough carbon in the soil.
Conversations around soil carbon sequestration have endured for years, and a lot of coverage would have you believe there are two groups — one that believes it’s a panacea for climate change, and another that discounts the science around it.
Those carbon-rich soils create higher yields and require fewer inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, thus saving farmers thousands of dollars annually.
In other words, recarbonizing soil isn’t just a good idea — it’s imperative to adapt and de-risk our food supply to climate change.
People outside of farming are always surprised to learn the biggest answer for recarbonization is something they learned about in junior high: photosynthesis.
It’s incredibly hard to accurately track, leading to disagreements about just how much is in the ground, how much is being released, and how much could be sequestered through regenerative agriculture.
As it stands, there isn’t a set of tools good enough and cheap enough to reliably measure the carbon in soil at scale.
Just being able to say with certainty how much carbon is restored through regenerative techniques will help pave the way for a carbon credit market — a whole new carbon economy where soil is a trusted asset class.
The First Nation began converting its farms to regenerative practices four years ago, and it’s already seen incredible results in more than just food production.
It may sound clichéd, but there’s a good reason the carbon cycle is otherwise known as the circle of life.