i see that you have taken up heavy pushing of biochar as one of your "the answer" answers that you cling to.
Note that the critics referenced in this article see biochar as yet another mitigation "fix" that actually will serve to enable established colonialist and corporate powers to shunt off accountability by "accounting" for their carbon by "subtracting" biochar from their emissions. They also point out that it will serve to remove land from other uses including traditional low-impact agricultural practices:
"This, she fears, means that developed countries could supplement their mitigation goals with plans on purchasing land used for agriculture and turning it into biofuels or biochar. As Teresa added, if this was in fact to occur, it could affect poor and subsistence farmers, especially in developing countries.
“What we have learned from the biofuel land grab, it is always the hungriest, the poorest, the most marginalised who suffer the most. In the end, they get pushed off their land and thrown into poverty as they can’t afford the price of food.”"