Nate Hagens

I mean, who else could?

I mean, how else could the world from where it is now boost our ecological primary productivity by 50%?

Could it happen just by...

I didn't know that.

So climate change, and I usually prefer to call it global heating, is real, is urgent, and it's going to accelerate with respect on its impact on humans and the biosphere.

But what you're saying is...

it was maybe a branding and systems problem from the get-go.

And if we had referred to it as a living systems challenge that incorporated all these other aspects, even though, like you said, we didn't have the compute power and some of the science we have today, that would have been a better approach 50 years ago.

So your work at the center of it is called Living Systems Management.

Maybe you can bridge that here and explain what that is and why it's relevant to this conversation.

I mean, I'm still kind of processing this.

So only a third of the pre-industrial to today's emission increase in the atmosphere is from the actual burning of the ancient carbon and the rest is from increased water vapor and land degradation and the soil burning, the soil going into space and all those things.

So presumably the impact or the implication is if we regenerate those things, does that draw the carbon back down?

Right.

I'm going to assume that you're friends with climate scientists around the world.

Do they know all this?

is more than half.

It's like 90% of what we can immediately do more about.

I'm suspecting, but keep going, Brett.

I think viewers might want to know, because I want to know, what's the difference between, use the word, restoration and regeneration?