A ) Is the reason that you are not sharing this most important concept on how life on this planet will end without mankind's intervention because?

         It does not paint mankind as in the wrong, at least on this issue, or the simple fact, that it is all carbon-based life on the planet that has contributed to some form of carbon-sequestration by living and dying, yet mankind is the only species on the planet that has not done so? (yes we are one of the planet's great carbon sequestraters, but we release more than we bury, and we do bury a lot, only shellfish and other ocean-based lifeforms have squestrated more carbon than mankind) Or has every teacher, book, both non-fiction and fiction, or futuristic movie, all show mankind as a non-caring, ruthless species, who only care about money and power, and will be the cause for the planet's destruction? While the truth is that the vast majority of people on the planet, simply wish to lead a fulfilling life with friends and families! Two completely at odds concepts, and yet both can be true. Isn't nature much the same? From the largest predators to the smallest of prey, everyone attempting to raise the next generation, and trying every trick they know to do so, giving their "own" the best chances, to both survive and overcome others in the process. Plants are no different, we are just learning how plants can communicate with each other in ways that just a few years ago would have seen as impossible for a "dumb" weed to do. And if "Covid-19" has not shown us how even viruses continually find way's to overcome a host's attempt to rid their bodies of the virus thus attempting to ensure their own survival. Why should mankind be any different, than any other species on the planet?                                             How we learn to change the way we see ourselves, is easiest done when we are young, age can give us perspective, but may not be able to overcome deeply ingrained beliefs! We see this all the time with prejudice and treating others as less important than ourselves. Empathy must be taught, or a least encouraged at a young age for the suffering of others to be understood. Mother Teresa, known for her work with the poor of Calcutta, India could wake up every day and face the suffering, that I could never do. and she did it for over 60 years! Somehow she could have empathy, love, and compassion, for so many without losing herself by seeing so much pain of others. Few people can do that, most need to leave such suffering for their own welfare, and peace of mind.                                                                                                                                       Yet, for me, that is truly one of the biggest reasons for my putting forth "the plan" it has the capability of lifting so many millions of families out of poverty and starvation, and setting them on the path of being self-employed farmers! While also saving all carbon-based life on the planet, for as long as mankind can remain a viable species. If mankind does stop being a viable species on the planet then our passing will doom the rest of the planet's carbon-based life form in a short period of time from the continuing carbon sequestration! For within 600 years of our passing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will have continued to drop and would now be below the levels needed to maintain temperature levels from causing the Earth's next, last, and never-ending ice age! With the levels of carbon dioxide in the Oceans well below what would be necessary to warm the planet's atmosphere by its release of what is left of carbon dioxide in the oceans. This is in conjunction with an ever so slow cooling interior of the planet's core, thereby reducing the rate of volcanic activity which is the one way that carbon dioxide is able to be released in large enough quantities to reverse carbon sequestration.

    Why do I say within 600 years? By using the rate of carbon sequestration at 10 gigatonnes a year and plate tectonics only replacing 3 gigatonnes a year for an average net loss of 7 gigatonnes per year so that in 600 years, times 7 equals 42,000 gigatonnes while the planet simply does not have that amount of carbon in reserve. If the planet adaptation abilities would design a bacterial that would eat carbon-bearing rocks that would then release carbon dioxide straight back into the atmosphere so that carbon-based life could then continue, life would have to change so much, so quickly, because how would bacterial that had access to an unlimited supply of food be regulated to only releasing just the right amount necessary of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as to maintain the "Status Quo" Dan 402-890-7946 Please tell others!