Calculating how much carbon is absorbed by which forests and farms is a tricky task, especially when politicians do it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When you look at the social cost of carbon - and there is a lot of ambiguity around that - what you also need to be doing is looking at the benefits of carbon and what that has on increased agriculture production.
If we moved from industrialized agriculture to re-localized organic agriculture, we could sequester about one quarter of the carbon moving into the air and destroying our glaciers, oceans, forests and lands.
Many scientists and economists also say putting a price on carbon through carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade is necessary.
If you're eating grassland meat, your carbon footprint is light and possibly even negative.
The places that are most likely to grow trees for carbon sequestration are places where trees aren't growing now.
We hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is.
As with any difficult challenge that the public and policymakers face, there is no single solution or silver bullet that will serve as the answer to how the United States works to reduce carbon emissions.
Eighty per cent of global warming comes from livestock and deforestation.
Putting a tax on carbon could be an effective approach for curbing global warming pollution.
The struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions all has a single, very simple solution... Here it is: Put a price on carbon.