To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil.
Improving the atmosphere by improving the soil, a virtuous circle. We can measure global warming mitigation by tons of biomass created.
> Good topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch of topsoil. Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology.
What about all the land that isn't even farmed or managed?
How exactly are we supposed to accomplish this thing we "only" need to do?
Not very much later:
>To grow topsoil on a massive scale may or may not be practical, depending on the economics of farming and forestry.
Oh, so it might not be practical, without much math into whether or not it's an easy "only" or an "actually this would be far harder than other approaches" idea?
> All that we can say for sure is that this is a theoretical possibility and ought to be seriously explored.
Starting from the sweeping statements of "all we need to do" and then landing on "theoretically this is possible" is not convincing me that there's credibility here. Later we get into "maybe actually the carbon will help prevent an ice age, we don't know."
"We need further study" is not heretical; "we have time to wait" seems increasingly iffy a position; and "let me toss out some wild possible alternatives that I haven't studied myself" is more just unhelpful than heretical?
This is the mental trap of technical-only problem solvers.
Food insecurity and going to the moon are both technically solved problems, but we cannot secure food for everyone nor are we currently capable of landing on the moon because we cannot solve the social-financial problems that would make them happen. The engineer's disease is biased against social understanding as well as seeing social problems as legitimate[real] problems.
> What about all the land that isn't even farmed or managed?
Dyson was talking about "half" the Earth's land area. https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ says "Globally agricultural land area is approximately five billion hectares, or 38 percent of the global land surface." That's surprising to me too -- maybe they're wrong?
> Oh, so it might not be practical, without much math into whether or not it's an easy "only" or an "actually this would be far harder than other approaches" idea?
That part was eye-opening: had he simply gone to Princeton’s library, he would have learned that people have been studying this concept and had a far more precise understanding for how effective it would be than simply guessing. This is especially disappointing given the stakes: if he was right, the outcome is that we do it quickly and put the issue to rest; if he was wrong, billions of peoples’ lives are upended.
