 It is a mistake to ignore agriculture and agriculture has been largely sidelined in these discussions and that's a mistake for at least two basic reasons. One is that agriculture, especially if you include forestry as part of agriculture, is a big part of the problem. It's responsible for a lot of emissions and you can argue about the exact number, the World Watch Institute in its recent State of the World report put it at 25 to 30%. You've seen the UN Food and Agricultural Organization give figures ranging from 18 to 40%. There's even a couple of former World Bank economists, Robert Goodland among them, who say that if we really counted it properly that agriculture could be responsible for as much as 48% of all of the global emissions. Even if we were completely successful under the current paradigm of cutting all new emissions, which is a pretty hard thing to do, but let's imagine for a second that we did that. So no more coal plants in China, no more deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia and Brazil, no more gas guzzling automobiles in the United States. Even if we did all of that tonight, given that 400 parts per million that's up in the atmosphere, the temperatures on this planet would continue to rise for another 30 years. Last month my family's farm lost 50 acres of squash because of the just relentless rain that they had throughout the month of June. It caused this disease to spread in the soil. They had to tear it all out. It was pretty terrible. I talked to my father afterwards and I said, you're a Republican farmer. I think a lot of people probably would think that you don't believe in climate change. He says, of course I believe in climate change. I go outside and I can tell it's all effed up. It's just a carbon cycle. It's exactly what you were describing with biochar as a possible solution. Carbon goes up, carbon goes down, carbon goes up, carbon goes down. But what the marine carbon projects finding is once they put one half inch of compost on the soil, they're flipping on the soil and all of a sudden the natural systems are actually kicking in all on their own. And from the soil scientists I've met, they said about 10 years ago they would have told you they knew about what 10% was in the soil, what microbes are in the soil. Now the smart ones are telling us they know 1%. They just don't know. But we're calling it a biome. And if I hold a handful of very healthy soil, I've got 70,000 different types of organisms in my hand. Frankly, most of the people who are engaged in policy discussions are urban people who think that your food comes from a grocery store. And that's one of I think the great achievements that the food movement is beginning to have in this country, especially with our kids, is to let them understand, go to a farm and see where your food comes from. And if you're eating meat, which is your choice, know what that means to eat meat. What I'm learning now is that that biome is also feeding us and now we're a biome. Finding out that humans are 90% of what's in my body and your body is not you. It's a different DNA organism. Anybody who read Pollan's book Omnivore's Dilemma, you came out of that book thinking, wow, I better not eat meat if I care about the climate. And the gimmick of our piece was that Mike was saying, well, no, actually you can eat meat. And eating meat could actually even help the climate. The question is not meat versus no meat. The question is what kind of an of agricultural system do you grow the meat under? One way to make things happen really fast, but I'm not convinced that this is possible right now is to begin to internalize some of the costs that are now externalized. And by that I mean, in the cost of a product, the damage that it's causing, et cetera, and flipping that around to subsidize rather, even the word subsidize makes me very nervous, but somehow have people encouraged to use regenerative practices. Because when you're building soil carbon, not only are you sequestering that carbon, but you're also creating a scenario where the land can hold water, which has a huge, huge impact in terms of dealing with resilience to drought, in terms of dealing with flooding because if the land isn't dry, then the water can go in because basically flooding often happens when you have drops of water, flooding begins when you have drops of water hitting dry earth. So when you're building the system and people are rewarded and encouraged to build the system, then it will shift. Agriculture plays a key role in climate change policy, but it's both a driver of events that happen in the atmosphere and that impact the environment and also one of the economic sectors that's most directly impacted by climate changes. And firms participating in the agricultural sector are going to have to adapt or suffer the consequences. And the question is about how does the structure of the industry create the opportunities for that to happen effectively or not? Yeah, what we wanted to do in the piece that Lena and I did was really shine a light on the ability of our society to generate the ideas and test the different techniques that we're going to need to grow food in the future 10 years, 20 years, 30 years out. And you know, this is a time as we know of pretty rapid climate change. And we maybe some of these ways of sequestering will turn out to work or maybe not. And if that's the case, we have to adapt our systems. And now we've done actually as human beings, we've done a really good job of adapting our systems over the last few centuries of expanding them of of mastering new ways to to grow a lot more food. But we have to be able to keep doing that. And what we're saying in this piece is that we have a really, really big problem. And the problem is that we've seen massive concentration of power over our most of our technological systems. Now we talked about Monsanto, but this is true throughout the political economy in the United States, but it's a really big issue. You know, if if if there's concentrated power over the production of mattresses, which there is, that's, that's, you know, that's something we can live with at higher prices. But when it comes to your food, this is something that could really affect the supplies of grains of produce that we have tomorrow.