 I have kind of a new motto that's helped me clear the fog in the political realm these days, which is that in any polarized debate, the most important thing is in what neither side is saying and what both sides unconsciously agree on. So one of these polarized debates comes up in the area of climate and sustainability and stuff, and it's like, is it possible to transition to a carbon neutral energy source? Can we have what they call a sustainable economy, a sustainable society? Can we have enough solar panels and wind turbines and biofuels, etc., etc. to continue running our civilization? I think that is the wrong question, or it is one of these debates that obscures the real question. So the question essentially of can we sustain, like what sustainability means, what are we sustaining? Essentially what they're asking is can we sustain the world as we know it? The assumption there being that it's worth sustaining, but do we really want to sustain this? Do we want to sustain like in this country, a world where the of spreading subdivisions and McMansions and traffic and automobile culture and the homogenization of what had been local cultures and the whole setup of modern society, do we want to sustain that? If we say maybe not, then we can look at the energy crisis and the climate crisis through a different lens. We can say, this is an opportunity to stop sustaining it. This is an initiation, a potential initiation into a different kind of society where we question those things that we've taken for granted as progress and we receive alternatives. We create alternatives. We undo some of what we have already had. We look at the values underneath it and we ask questions like, well, what do we really want? What does a beautiful life look like? That's the invitation that crisis in general can offer. Whereas the refusal of the invitation would be to say, let's do everything we can to prevent that crisis from affecting anything else. So that would be the world in the climate conversation. That would be to install giant carbon-sucking machines in every city to enable the continued combustion of fossil fuels, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, the continued development of unspoiled places on earth. I've written a book on climate change, which I hesitate to say because as soon as I say it's on climate change, people may not too polite to say this to me face-to-face, but they're thinking I'm not going to read that. I already know what it's going to say. It's hopeless. It's urgent. I've got to do this. I feel paralyzed anyway. I don't know what to do. I don't want to read another book on that. So that's why I'm a little bit shy about saying that I've written a book on climate change. It's called Climate a New Story. And one of the things that it questions is sustainability. Do we want to sustain this? And what would an alternative look like?