In my youth, we learned in school that it takes 500 years to build an inch of top soil. But there are people who are doing it 500 times faster than that. And if these practices were adopted on a global scale, according to some estimates, it could offset all emissions. We could begin draw down, like right now. But we'd sacrifice agricultural productivity, right? No. Actually, these methods can be as productive or more productive than chemical-based agriculture. There's two things, though, that they do require that represent a profound shift in our agricultural system and our entire society. The first is that they are more labor intensive. In the United States, approximately 1% of the population is directly engaged in farming. That might have to go up to 10%, as it was in 1950. And maybe if you include gardens, maybe go up to 50%. And the other is that in regenerative agriculture, what works in one place may not work on another continent or even in the next valley over. The only way to make them work is to be a patient, attentive observer of that particular land. So it requires an ongoing internet relationship that is unique between the human interacting with that land and the land itself. That does not fit into an industrial model. The essence of industrialization is standardization. That's what makes it efficient. That's what allows a machine to do it. In order to have a truly regenerative agricultural system, we have to undo that way of thinking. And that's another reason why we would need more people in close relationship to the land.