I mean, it seems you're framing the issue in a disingenuous way, unless I'm missing something. Cutting carbon emissions is about mitigating the environmental and atmospheric effects of global warming, not soil health. I agree that both are important things to work on for future generations, but I think the global warming thing is the more acute issue, hence the focus. If this planet becomes uninhabitable in the next 300 years, then our soil issues are mute. Additionally, the atmospheric changes of global warming are important for biodiversity and soil health, but not necessarily the other way around.

Granted, these are not my areas of expertise, so it's very possible that I'm wrong. Feel free to correct me with available data.

Edit: grammar