Dr Sarah Taber

The amount of carbon that grasses can pile into the soil varies WILDLY depending on management, length of growing season, rainfall/irrigation, plant species mix, etc. So it's wibbly wobbly. Policymakers HATE wibbly wobbly.

And IME when faced with "X can work amazing but you have to do it right" or "Y only works half as well but it's *guaranteed* to work half as well," policy makers & nonprofits will pick Y every time.

The other thing is that "How much carbon can we lock up in trees?" is a lot better researched than "How much carbon can we lock up in grasslands?" Because northwest European land management is more about forests than grasslands, so that's where rich countries' grant $ goes.

So there's a whole world out there of plants that can sequester carbon: Forests Grasslands Wetlands Seagrass meadows Kelp forests But when we talk "sequestering C with plants," we always mean trees. Because cultural biases.

Why's this matter? Because MOST OF THE WORLD'S SURFACE AIN'T FOREST TERRITORY, Y'ALL

So it's not just grasslands. Everything that's not trees gets ignored bc of cultural biases. Trees also *gasp* also just aren't the best plants in the world at sequestering carbon. They're just, again, the plants that rich countries' granting agencies like the best.

Let me put in a really big plug for why we should be a lot more serious about sequestering C in grasslands. In a lot of the world, you *can* grow trees. But every 10 years they just burn down and just release the C back into the atmosphere. *cough* California

Perennial grasses sequester most of their carbon deep in the soil where fire can't reach it. Call me crazy but I kinda think fireproofing our carbon sequestration is a good idea?

Huge swaths of the world's land surface are too dry for forests, but can grow grasses. And, C-enriched soils hold water better. This is really important for arid areas where rain can come as torrential downfalls months apart. C-rich soils slow down droughts and flooding.

*"Arid areas" doesn't just mean sand dunes. It also means ... like ... the Great Plains. Most of central Asia. Places that you wouldn't think of as desert, but don't have enough rainfall to support forests. Huge parts of the earth's land surface.

I did my undergrad at BYU where they're really heavy on teaching how to manage arid grasslands. I took it for granted that everybody who did environmental sciences got that background. The more I watch the climate convo on twitter the more I realize that probably ain't true.

A quick word to journo friends- if you need to interview a scientist re: CO2 consequences of the following -grassfed livestock -growing more plants (not just trees!) -wildfires -any agricultural practices really please include a SOIL SCIENTIST, they will be so helpful.

Can't count the number of articles that needed a "cow expert" to talk climate impacts of grassfed vs grainfed livestock so they ask … a veterinarian!? Listen... once the shit leaves the cow, vets don't deal w it anymore. That's soil scientists' job.

Also pls check in with a forage & pasture scientists like @PasturesPolitic because most cow scientists know shockingly little about raising grass to feed them. That's like a whole different job. A forage & pasture scientist's job.