Nate Hagens

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?

What's the difference between those?

And we have to face the biophysical reality and constraints that we have today.

So one would be regeneration for more life.

But a subset of that is regeneration, given that we've degraded the biosphere and we're headed for two to three degrees Celsius plus on the current trajectory.

And

the drying and multiple standard deviations of heat waves and droughts and floods and all those things.

So it's regeneration.

with that already in the pipeline should be the backdrop and our goal for planet-wide sort of response to all this.

It all makes so much sense to me.