Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
From a soil science perspective, Monbiot's opening comments are easy to deconstruct. Either he's unaware of or doesn't understand any of the recent soil & range science that he claims to have read and asserts is so definitively on his side. He also doesn't see to be aware of... show more
20,775 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)
9 Kommentare

'Carbon opportunity costs' just the latest deflection.

That's all part of the myth of forest rhetoric & myth of wilderness. Grasslands w fibrous root systems connected by AMF networks in mollisols store as much or more carbon than most types of forests + are less susceptible to fires esp in fire ecosystems

And water vapour.

He’s being paid to promote corporate ‘solutions’. 😉

Yeah, that's definitely what makes some of his comments very ironic.

ah yes, James White; he featured in a talk at @NatOrgSkill #BioFarm Conference a few years ago (if I recall it was remotely during 2020 or 2021). @ireland_farming a selection (not incl James White if I recall):

@DefendingBeef Didn't see the event so, it's hard to see how your post relates Thanks for posting though

Monbiot's opening argument was basically the same "grazed and confused" argument made by FCRN in their 2017 white paper. I noted the shortcomings of FCRN's paper in this 2018 blog response: So FCRN's white paper was a meta-analysis of old soil science papers that didn't account for microbiology plus that white paper also didn't account for hydroxyl oxidation. Given how much soil science has progressed in the past 10 years due to new metagenomic & metscriptonomic tools, meta-analysis of soil science papers from 10 to 20 years ago is largely a pointless exercise.

Cause he doesn't care. He has an alternative agenda that doesn't go with facts.
