I mean, it seems you're framing the issue in a disingenuous way, unless I'm missing something. Cutting carbon emissions is about mitigating the environmental and atmospheric effects of global warming, not soil health. I agree that both are important things to work on for future generations, but I think the global warming thing is the more acute issue, hence the focus. If this planet becomes uninhabitable in the next 300 years, then our soil issues are mute. Additionally, the atmospheric changes of global warming are important for biodiversity and soil health, but not necessarily the other way around.

Granted, these are not my areas of expertise, so it's very possible that I'm wrong. Feel free to correct me with available data.

Edit: grammar

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

95% of food production comes from soil, and areable soils are disappearing at an alarming rate. FAO in 2015 stated there are approximately 60 harvests left...

Soils contain a shitpile of carbon, and that's not including organic (peat) soils. Disturbance and increased air temps speed up this release.

I don't think I'm understating things