These are some of the basic processes by which natural systems have always removed atmospheric carbon. But scientific breakthroughs in the past several decades have given us a better understanding of the damage being done to soil communities and the many problems this is causing as well as how to better restore them and make them even more efficient at sequestering atmospheric carbon. This is why this win/win strategy works on “both sides” of the atmospheric CO2 solution. As mentioned above, on one side of the equation, degrading agricultural and grazing lands along with wildfires become net contributors of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The process of restoring ecosystem health almost immediately halts these emissions. Then, very shortly, these lands become effective sinks on the other side of the equation, removing large quantities of CO2.
Just as improvements in scientific understanding and practical experience on the ground over the past few decades have improved our ability to more efficiently sequester carbon they have also improved our ability to increase the many valuable co-benefits that this win/win strategy generates. These include increased and more sustainable production of higher quality food, greater biodiversity, better resilience to changing climatic conditions and especially better drought resistance, improved water quality and quantity, and reduced need for agricultural inputs such as herbicides and artificial fertilizers which can mean much higher profits for producers and stimulate the revitalization of rural economies. All of these are very serious and pressing issues in their own right which can be directly addressed while reducing atmospheric carbon.
The obvious question is, if this win/win strategy has so many advantages (and, really, no downsides) why is it not being adopted as the primary strategy for dealing with excess CO2? Part of the answer is profit motive. Unlike most of the other alternatives, the only direct and significant benefit to the “bottom line” is for the local farmer or grazer and the local community. The main reason why Win/Win CO2 Solutions Alliance was organized was to inform those concerned about climate change, food security, environmental quality and rural development about these truly effective win/win/win/win options to address their concerns.
But the other part of the answer to this question is that, in fact, sequestration in natural sinks has been at least partially recognized as a viable and effective solution. For example, the Paris Climate Accords (see our analysis of the Paris Accords here) emphasizes the importance of protecting and expanding natural sinks for CO2. This approach has also been adopted by nearly 40 countries as an interim approach to dealing with rising CO2 levels through a voluntary international agreement called “4 per Thousand” (see our analysis of “4 per Thousand” here) Spearheaded by France, these countries along with nearly 200 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) financial institutions, regional development agencies and university research institutes have all agreed to develop and implement policies to increase the average soil carbon stocks in just the worlds agricultural and forest soils by an average of just 0.4% per year. Research shows that if that can be accomplished all of the projected increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the next several decades could be safely sequestered. For several reasons, this is a very conservative goal.