Nature Wants Her Carbon Back

You can all stop crying now, it's gonna be Okay.




By looking down, things are looking up.

Here's a little known fact about climate change: According to NOAA, if we could magically cut all current CO2 emissions worldwide to zero today (a feat even Merlin couldn't achieve) it would do nothing to stop climate change from continuing to get worse for centuries. Unless we actually draw some of the carbon already emitted back down to earth we are simply telling a 400-pound patient to gain weight a little more slowly.

Amazingly, however, doing so may be significantly easier than reducing emissions. According to a steadily increasing number of studies, it turns out we can blow by the goal of slowing climate change and actually reverse it. While we've all been looking to the atmosphere and the amounts of CO2 we emit into it for the answer, the solution itself may be right under our feet. In the dirt.

According to the latest research from Ohio State University's Rattan Lal, Texas A&M's Richard Teague, IFOAM's Andre Leu (as reported in the UN paper "Wake Up Before It's Too Late" (UN) and the Rodale Institute anywhere from one-third to one-half of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere comes from industrial agriculture. That's more than all the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels worldwide. How is it possible that with the entire planet focusing on reducing CO2 emissions we're not even paying lip service to the single largest contributor? (Rodale)

But that's only half of the story. To makes matters worse, industrial agriculture compounds the problem by preventing soil from reabsorbing that carbon, thus trapping it in the atmosphere.

To understand how, it's important to remember a few simple facts: There is no waste in nature (she reuses everything); We don't create carbon (we just move it from place to place); and, nature is literally dying to take back the excess carbon we put into the atmosphere and reuse it to grow us more stuff.

So why isn't nature doing this? Turns out that our mistreatment of soil is preventing nature from doing what she does naturally and cycling carbon back from the atmosphere. We are literally disrupting the process of photosynthesis -- where plants break CO2 molecules apart, release the oxygen and take the carbon underground -- by killing the life that should exist in soil that needs that carbon. We do this by spraying it with chemicals, tilling and killing the latticework of fungi, and growing one plant in a field when nature needs variety the same way we need proteins and fats and fruits and vegetables to remain healthy.

Those same studies report that transforming even a small part of industrial agriculture land to healthier, regenerative methods can lead to sequestering more than 100% of current CO2 emissions in just three years. And everything the soil sequesters that's above what we're currently emitting will come from -- you guessed it -- the excess in the atmosphere. That means we are literally beginning to reverse climate change in just a few years. Re-open the pathways, draw down the carbon. (Drawdown)

But haven't we been told we'll all starve to death without industrial agriculture? Absolutely, and by some of the same people who tell us the science is still out on climate change. The science shows quite the opposite. In fact, regenerative farming yields are equal to industrial yields in normal weather, and superior to them in stress times of drought and flooding. So we're not simply reversing climate change, we are creating more food, and more food security. (IFOAM Report)

Currently we have over 400 PPM of carbon in the atmosphere. We have been told we need to stay below 350 to maintain a livable planet. New data, however, report that every 1% of organic matter added to our farming and grazing soil reduces the PPM by 50. Studies have also shown that we could literally return the atmosphere to pre-Industrial Age conditions in as little as twenty years (Drawdown) -- the Chinese government studies say it may be forty, but I'd take that deal happily.

The Industrial Revolution lead to explosions in human development, and Industrial Agriculture has enabled us to feed a population that went from one billion to over seven virtually overnight.

But now we know that an unintended consequence of how we fed those people is climate change. Just like it is with how we've produced energy. Fortunately, we also now know that we don't need to continue to use these destructive techniques to feed and power the same amount of people.

Need more proof? Nature's done this before. During the Cambrian period, and in other volcanic times, the earth saw levels of 600 to as much as 7,000 PPM. And every time, without humans messing up the process, the carbon was reabsorbed into the soil and created an explosion of plant growth. So think abundance, not starvation.

One final point -- this is not a license to continue polluting and letting nature deal with it. It's a gift of time. Time to transform into a carbon-neutral society while also dealing with climate change.

Nature wants to do this. In fact, nature needs to do this. If we let her the planet, and we humans, can all breathe easier.

For more information visit The Carbon Underground here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-kopald/nature-wants-her-carbon-b_b_6173358.html

whatever dipshit wrote this doesnt know shit about agriculture.

but it's from huffington post, so it's just the usual bullshit.
 
Plants don't fruit/bud because of temperature smart guy, this being a marijuana growing forum, you should already know that..

right...

thats the stupidest thing i ever read.

tomatoes dont set fruit if the temp is too low.

thats why gardeners in colder regions like SF have to grow specific varieties like Foglifter and Early Girl or they get no tomatoes.

thats why you can grow bananas in carpinteria, but not in sacramento

thats why you can grow tobacco in virginia but not saskatchewan.

temp has far more to do with a plant's growing cycle than photoperiods.
 
So it's safe to assume you have a thick layer of fur.


Well, it's still pretty thick on top, but it is a little thinner than 30 years ago.

th
 
right...
thats why you can grow tobacco in virginia but not saskatchewan.

But it can be grown in the Okanagan? THAR BE DESERTS, CAP'N! YA HAAAARrrrrrrrr...


Tobacco Growing in the Okanagan
Cuban seed was used, this was renewed every three to four years, so as to maintain smaller leaves. Smaller leaves produce finer tobacco. Tobacco industry here at its peak produced 800,000 cigars annually. The filler being of local tobacco, wrapped in Sumatra leaf, also grown in Kelowna.

Kelowna soil proved very suitable for tobacco growing. Two factories were established and it looked as if tobacco might become a successful enterprise. It had great difficulty, however, breaking into the market and coping with fees and duties.
tobacco.jpg


I think they could grow it in Saskatchewan, too, if they wanted. Perhaps not efficiently, though.
 
But it can be grown in the Okanagan? THAR BE DESERTS, CAP'N! YA HAAAARrrrrrrrr...

Tobacco Growing in the Okanagan
Cuban seed was used, this was renewed every three to four years, so as to maintain smaller leaves. Smaller leaves produce finer tobacco. Tobacco industry here at its peak produced 800,000 cigars annually. The filler being of local tobacco, wrapped in Sumatra leaf, also grown in Kelowna.

Kelowna soil proved very suitable for tobacco growing. Two factories were established and it looked as if tobacco might become a successful enterprise. It had great difficulty, however, breaking into the market and coping with fees and duties.
tobacco.jpg


I think they could grow it in Saskatchewan, too, if they wanted. Perhaps not efficiently, though.

tobacco CANNOT be grown that far north, except in hothouses, or with some other elaborate measures (as seen in your picture)

you COULD grow tobacco, papayas, bananas, or pretty much any crop in the arctic circle if you had a controlled environment, and worked your ass off, so you are TECHNICALLY correct.

cliche_technically_correct.jpg
 
tobacco CANNOT be grown that far north, except in hothouses, or with some other elaborate measures (as seen in your picture)

you COULD grow tobacco, papayas, bananas, or pretty much any crop in the arctic circle if you had a controlled environment, and worked your ass off, so you are TECHNICALLY correct.

cliche_technically_correct.jpg

I'll concede that technical point in regards to Sask.
However, in the case of the Okanagan, it is something of an anomaly, IMHO. They grow many types of trees we can't grow in the lower mainland being a semi-arid shrub-steppe. Those Rocky Mountains do a helluva job in altering the local climate relative to the Prairies.
I believe that "apparatus" you see in the old photo is just some manner of netting, either to guard against birds/insects and/or dew. The Berry farms around here use that a great deal.
I sincerely doubt it is some thick polymer for the purpose of "greenhousing". Or do you mean "can't be grown wild" ?
 
I'll concede that technical point in regards to Sask.
However, in the case of the Okanagan, it is something of an anomaly, IMHO. They grow many types of trees we can't grow in the lower mainland being a semi-arid shrub-steppe. Those Rocky Mountains do a helluva job in altering the local climate relative to the Prairies.
I believe that "apparatus" you see in the old photo is just some manner of netting, either to guard against birds/insects and/or dew. The Berry farms around here use that a great deal.
I sincerely doubt it is some thick polymer for the purpose of "greenhousing". Or do you mean "can't be grown wild" ?
thats a frost tent

it's a temporary shelter, usually made from muslin, to keep frost off the plants.

theres no birds, and only a few insects that can eat tobacco, that frost shelter wouldnt stop the few tobacco pests at all.
there may be a few small microclimates in canadia where you can grow some selected warm climate crops, but they will still require unusual measures.

but youre still technically correct, and i applaud that.
 
I'll concede that technical point in regards to Sask.
However, in the case of the Okanagan, it is something of an anomaly, IMHO. They grow many types of trees we can't grow in the lower mainland being a semi-arid shrub-steppe. Those Rocky Mountains do a helluva job in altering the local climate relative to the Prairies.
I believe that "apparatus" you see in the old photo is just some manner of netting, either to guard against birds/insects and/or dew. The Berry farms around here use that a great deal.
I sincerely doubt it is some thick polymer for the purpose of "greenhousing". Or do you mean "can't be grown wild" ?
It's a sunscreen.
Tobacco needs to be shielded from the direct sun
 
It's a sunscreen.
Tobacco needs to be shielded from the direct sun
Really? Why? Kynes' "frost-shelter" makes some sense, but sunscreen? Burley tobacco?
'Splain Lucy...UV? I can't see what frequency Tobacco would disapprove of, otherwise.
I know my Canuck Virginia strain is loving the Multichip (now with 1 green LED).


DSCF1856.JPG
 
Really? Why? Kynes' "frost-shelter" makes some sense, but sunscreen? Burley tobacco?
'Splain Lucy...UV? I can't see what frequency Tobacco would disapprove of, otherwise.
I know my Canuck Virginia strain is loving the Multichip (now with 1 green LED).

Connecticut shade tobacco is grown under tents to protect plant leaves from direct sunlight. This imitates the conditions of tobacco plants growing in the shade of trees in tropical areas. The result are leafs of lighter color and of a more delicate structure. They are used as outer wrappers for some of the world's finest cigars. It is not entirely clear who introduced this method of growing tobacco, but it is likely that the New York firm of Schroeder & Bon or its founder Frederick A. Schroeder were instrumental in developing this agricultural innovation.[4]
Early Connecticut colonists acquired from the Native Americans the habit of smoking tobacco in pipes and began cultivating the plant commercially, even though the Puritans referred to it as the "evil weed". The plant was outlawed in Connecticut in 1650, but in the 19th century as cigar smoking began to be popular, tobacco farming became a major industry, employing farmers, laborers, local youths, southern African Americans, and migrant workers.
Working conditions varied from backbreaking work for young local children, ages 13 and up, to backbreaking exploitation of migrants. Each tobacco plant yields only 18 leaves useful as cigar wrappers, and each leaf requires a great deal of individual manual attention during harvesting. Although the temperature in the curing sheds sometimes exceeds 38 C (100 F), no work is done inside the sheds while the tobacco is being fired.
In 1921, Connecticut tobacco production peaked, at 31,000 acres (125 km²) under cultivation. The rise of cigarette smoking and the decline of cigar smoking have caused a corresponding decline in the demand for shade tobacco, reaching a minimum in 1992 of 2,000 acres (8&NBS;km²) under cultivation. Since then, however, cigar smoking has become more popular again, and in 1997 tobacco farming had risen to 4,000 acres (16&NBS;km²). However, only 1,050 acres (4.2&NBS;km²) of shade tobacco were harvested in the Connecticut Valley in 2006. Connecticut seed is being grown in Ecuador, where labor is very cheap. The industry has weathered some major catastrophes, including a devastating hailstorm in 1929, and an epidemic of brown spot fungus in 2000, but is now in danger of disappearing altogether, given the value of the land to real estate speculators. The older and much less labor-intensive Broad leaf plant, which produces an excellent Maduro wrapper as well as binder and filler for cigars, is increasing in area in the Connecticut Valley.
 
tobacco600.jpg

FOR five months a year, from May to September, they work 18 hours a day, seven days a week — just to see the fruits of their labor go up in smoke.
Renowned worldwide for producing the large, caramel-colored, smooth-veined leaf favored by high-end cigar makers, Connecticut’s nine shade tobacco farms are largely unknown in their home state. That is mostly by choice, said Rick Macsuga, the spokesman for the State Department of Agriculture.
“Let’s face it — tobacco isn’t a politically correct crop,” Mr. Macsuga said. “So even though Connecticut’s shade tobacco is considered one of the most premier cigar wrappers in the world, farmers tend to be quiet about what they do because of the associated health woes.
“The other part is that they don’t have to market their crops,” he added. “Connecticut shade tobacco sells itself.”
Shade tobacco is used as the outermost layer of high-end cigar brands like Davidoff, Macanudo and Arturo Fuente. It is the state’s No. 1 agricultural export in dollars, bringing in more than $30 million a year, according to the federal Department of Agriculture.
Grown on just 1,000 acres under white mesh canopies that protect the plant’s delicate leaf, shade tobacco is the state’s fifth largest agricultural commodity by volume. By contrast, Connecticut’s dairy industry earns $3.8 million on about 70,000 acres, Mr. Macsuga said. “That our tobacco farms have these kinds of earnings on such a small production area is pretty amazing,” he said
 
Back
Top