[boryas]

>> biodiversity loss, deforestation, eutrophication/pollution, pesticide/herbicide use, ethical concerns etc

All the arguments in favor of regenerative meat production that I have heard consider, and in fact stress all these issues. Your link was a technical debate about soil carbon storage, (which I suspect regenerative ag proponents would dispute the details of, which would be an interesting thing to get to the bottom of). It doesn't at all cover any of those other more important topics you brought up in this quote. Anyway, a smart guy citing his chosen evidence in a public debate hardly settles any issue either way.

>> no science exists supporting your claims

this is hyperbole, and easily disproved by a quick google search.

"white oak pastures debunked", to avoid finding biased pro-regenerative papers, links to an anti-regenerative writeup: https://civileats.com/2021/01/06/a-new-study-on-regenerative...

which says also: "The new peer-reviewed study looks at the multi-species rotational grazing done on the ranch and found that White Oak’s approach reduced net greenhouse gas emissions of the grazing system by 80 percent. Regenerative practices helped sequester 2.29 megagrams of carbon per hectare annually. To put that into context, sequestering just 1 Mg of carbon per hectare each year on half the rangeland area in California would offset 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, roughly the annual emissions from energy use for the state’s commercial and residential sectors."

[myshpa]

There's a difference between sequestering and storing carbon.

Also we should not compare "regular" agriculture and "regenerative" farming, but natural ecosystems and "regenerative" farming.

What's better way to protect/repair nature is obvious then.