 What I'm going to say is true in pretty much any polarised debate, which is that the key to unlocking it lies in the questions neither side is asking, and the secret assumptions that both sides share. So they get stuck in a debate that is defined by the terms of the debate and not what they're not looking at. So in the case of climate, you have one side that says because of carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, we're at the, at or past multiple tipping points that are going to cause runaway global warming and the end of civilisation as we know it or worse. That's what one side essentially says, and there are some that are more alarmist than others. And the other side basically says no, carbon dioxide really isn't a problem, they're warming if there is any, it's not runaway and there's nothing to worry about as far as the environment goes because global warming is not an issue. Okay. What both sides agree on is that the conversation, the primary environmental conversation is about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. So I wrote a book about this topic called Climate A New Story and what I came to in the research and in the meditation and in the whatever legal and illegal investigations I did into the nature of life. What I came to is that the planet earth is alive. Its organs are things like soil, water, forests, wetlands, species, fish, whales. Every ecosystem, every species is an organ of a living being. Therefore, if we continue to cut down the forests, over fish the oceans, develop the wetlands, drain the swamps, destroy the soil, etc., etc., poison the water, then it doesn't matter if we cut emissions to zero because earth will still die a death of a million cuts because it would be like if you had, like suppose you had a runaway temperature and it was because your organs are all getting eaten alive by a some, you know, by a flesh eating bacteria and you're like, oh man, temperatures rising better take some, you know, medicine to reduce my temperature. It's like, no, your organs are being destroyed. So what I came to is that where our attention as environmentalists needs to go is to the sacred living nature of this planet and to devote our care into protecting and healing all that's been damaged, which is a completely different emphasis than the standard narrative of climate change. Very few climate activists spend any time deeply investigating the work of the climate skeptics. And when I did that, I'm like, you know, like some issues, I'm like, okay, I could refute this, but on other issues, I'm like, you know, they really have a point here. And what I came to is that it is really dangerous for environmentalists to hitch their wagon to the global warming horse, because what if that horse gets tired? As this guy Patrick Moore is saying, you know, like maybe the ice caps aren't actually melting. I mean, like I remember like they were predicting that that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015, you know, like that didn't happen. Like what if the skeptics are right? And we've hitched our wagon, like of fracking pipelines, like all this, all these stuff. We've said, we can't do that anymore because climate change. Well, what if, you know, that runs out of steam. What I came to is like, I don't actually care if it's causing climate change. I still want oil exploration in the inner Niger Delta, which is displacing millions of people and destroying pristine wetlands and making oil spills that are like endangering children. And like, I still want that to stop. I still, like, have you seen the tar sands excavation photos in Canada, you know, like these beautiful forests turn into this, this hellscape of like pits, you know, and, and dead trees, you know, and pollution. Like I want that to stop. I want the earth to be beautiful. It doesn't. And I think that environmentalism used to be about that. In the 60s, it wasn't save the whales because if we don't bad, things are going to happen to us. It was save the whales because they are magnificent beings.