Eurico Vianna on Nostr: Suppose climate change is a scam. Is there any possibility that industrial society, ...
Suppose climate change is a scam.
Is there any possibility that industrial society, corporations (geoengineering) and planetary movement are all affecting Earth's climate to some degree and at the same time?
Even it's completely proven that climate change is a hoax, does that mean we shouldn't be looking at soil erosion, biodiversity loss, desertification, deforestation, and water cycle polution, for example?
Would it mean that there isn't any problem with the western's anthropocentric view of the world? That we can simply keep going exchanging the health of the environment for a sick growth economy?
For instance, whether or not climate change is a hoax, the level of carbon in agricultural soils plummeted during the decades of the current 'Green Revolution'. Any farmer can attest to that.
When we increase SOC (Soil Organic Carbon), and have more individual plant species and plant families per square metre, we increase the nutrient availability in the soil without adding any inputs, as well as the nutrient density of whatever we produce, be it plants or animals (Dr. Christine Jones).
Not only that, when we increase SOC, soil aggregation and water infiltration also improve proportionally. So, why shouldn't we be thinking about carbon sequestration and fixation regardless of the root cause of climate change?
None of these food production related issues, which are a life and death matter for everyone, are discussed in the recent polarised debates about whether or not climate change is a hoax.
Shouldn't we be discussing how we can live and produce our food in ways that enhance all life supporting systems instead of trying to be on the cleverer side of a dumbly framed argument?
#agriculture #climatechange #climatehoax #culturalwar
Is there any possibility that industrial society, corporations (geoengineering) and planetary movement are all affecting Earth's climate to some degree and at the same time?
Even it's completely proven that climate change is a hoax, does that mean we shouldn't be looking at soil erosion, biodiversity loss, desertification, deforestation, and water cycle polution, for example?
Would it mean that there isn't any problem with the western's anthropocentric view of the world? That we can simply keep going exchanging the health of the environment for a sick growth economy?
For instance, whether or not climate change is a hoax, the level of carbon in agricultural soils plummeted during the decades of the current 'Green Revolution'. Any farmer can attest to that.
When we increase SOC (Soil Organic Carbon), and have more individual plant species and plant families per square metre, we increase the nutrient availability in the soil without adding any inputs, as well as the nutrient density of whatever we produce, be it plants or animals (Dr. Christine Jones).
Not only that, when we increase SOC, soil aggregation and water infiltration also improve proportionally. So, why shouldn't we be thinking about carbon sequestration and fixation regardless of the root cause of climate change?
None of these food production related issues, which are a life and death matter for everyone, are discussed in the recent polarised debates about whether or not climate change is a hoax.
Shouldn't we be discussing how we can live and produce our food in ways that enhance all life supporting systems instead of trying to be on the cleverer side of a dumbly framed argument?
#agriculture #climatechange #climatehoax #culturalwar