Yeah, new book coming out in September, it's called Climate, a New Story. And the purpose of the title, partly, is because it is about climate and most people don't read anything that has climate in the title. So I thought, okay, because like, right, I already know what it's going to say and I feel helpless to do anything about it and it's just too depressing, et cetera, et cetera. So that's why I also put a new story in there. But also because it's accurate to the content because it says that, or one thing it says is that the basic narrative that we have around climate change is itself part of the problem. That climate change is a lot bigger than we think it is, that we have put way too much emphasis on fossil fuels and emissions and not nearly enough emphasis on ecosystems, bio-divertive diversity, water, soil, forests, wetlands, and so forth. And the reason for that, the reason we need to put more emphasis on that is that this planet is alive, not just a complicated machine whose inputs we can monkey with to create a better result, but that it's a living being. And that through what is called development, we are destroying the organs and the tissues of this living being. That's what the forests are. That's what the coral reefs are. That's what the wetlands are, the mangroves, the grasslands. These are organs of a living being, and we degrade those, and then the body of this being becomes less capable of dealing with challenges. One of those challenges could be rising levels of atmospheric gases. But it could be other challenges too. And if we keep so basically my thesis is, and I have a lot of, I cite various science to substantiate it, but my thesis is basically that even if we cut emissions to zero overnight, if we continue to degrade the biosphere, the planet will still die a death of a million cuts. And that we might not even face global warming. We could face global cooling. We could face climate derangement where we have these gyrations and fluctuations of like if your body were unable to maintain its constant temperature anymore, unable to maintain homeostasis because of one organ after another is getting degraded. That's the crisis that we face. So basically then we need to shift toward Earth care, toward regeneration, toward conservation, toward healing, what has been damaged over hundreds and hundreds of years. Like in New Zealand, most of the rivers are so poised and you can't even wade in them, like much less swim or drink from them. And that's not because of climate change. That's because of agriculture runoff and toxic pollution and mining and things like that. And that kind of seems like in the dominant narrative, that's not an existential threat to the planet. It's like that kind of comes second. First thing is carbon. And then we can deal with the toxic waste and stuff like that and the plastics and things like that. And I think that mentality is mistaken. I think that it really is the opposite. That we cannot have a healthy planet without healthy rivers. So that brings the focus of environmental urgency to a more local level, which also is more tangible. Doesn't require trust in the institutions of science. That who's computer models tell us that in 50 years, the levels are going to rise by whatever. Like we can see the damage right in front of our face here and now. And we can act on it here and now. And that doesn't mean that we can continue business as usual and pick up the litter. No, this requires a fundamental change to our relationship to this material world. A change toward every single decision takes into account more than just ourselves.