I don't necessarily disagree with your premise and applaud you addressing the danger of climate change but I have to ask how you square the above statement with what follows soon after in your story: "It can take many decades, but it can be accelerated by adding external organic material to the soil to stimulate the process. The result is staggering and would stabilize the atmospheric changes for the next "15 to 20 years."

I'm not sure how processes that can take "many decades" can, at the same time, "stall global warming for the "upcoming 20 years".

It can only be one or the other, either the "upcoming 20 years" or "many decades".

And most farmers are aware of proper crop rotation and wise farmers leave fields fallow between planting crops, although putting a new emphasis on the practice is certainly a good idea. Factory farms control the vast majority of arable land in the developed world and probably ignore such things because they simply plant GMO seeds, then use poisons to kill pests (destroying ecosystems) and artificial fertilizers to maintain artificial (non-sustainable) yields. In short, they poison the soil and leave it useless for future generations. And are subsidized by taxpayers for doing that.

Much of the Sahara desert was once forested but between a drying climate in that part of the African continent and local people cutting trees for fuel, the desert has grown much larger and continues to grow by the day.

I am glad to see this facet of climate change addressed as well as you have, especially knowing that climate change denialists will crawl into the light to denounce you. As at least one of the comments clearly shows, through the writer's twisting the meanings of words and presentation of lies and fake charts and graphs and references and a link to his own conclusions, which I read and found to be standard denialist lies, as facts. They are not in the least bit factual. If I had the time, I'd simply rebut that writer's attempt at a coherent argument with actual facts but that would be little more than a waste of my time so I'll simply allow denialists to wallow in their delusional world. Talking to a brick wall doesn't get one far. It's like casting pearls before swine.

Thank you for writing this story, it's important and these things should be known but I still must take issue with your implied claim that tackling climate change can be easily done, because it can't. The practices you promote are good and should be done but the underlying cause(s) still aren't addressed. What you offer is a bandage, a badly needed bandage to be sure, but a bandage merely stops the bleeding without addressing the source of the blood.

Then again, in times of emergency, a bandage does buy time to solve the problem and you offer a well-constructed bandage. I hope that it's used before the patient (humanity) bleeds out.