- Welcome to Forum.

I'm Lesley McClurg in today for Alexis Madrigal.

And for years I covered the environment, you know, the rising temperatures, the wildfires, the species on the brink of extinction, basically a drumbeat of crises after crises.

And after a while, all of that bad news really wore me down.

I am now a health reporter for that reason.

And, and these headlines, you know, they painted this future of catastrophe and carbon was often cast as the villain in that story.

But what if the narrative was part of the problem?

Paul Hawken argues that we're telling the wrong story about carbon and about life itself.

And he joins us now to talk about his latest book, "Carbon, the Book of Life."

Welcome, Paul.

- Thank you very much.

I'm really happy to be here.

- So what did I get wrong?

As an environment reporter, what story is the media not telling, and how are we framing it that is inaccurate?

- It's a really good question.

I mean, the, the narrative is ubiquitous and told from high to low.

I mean high, the highest levels of government or conferences, the conference of the party and other sort of international complications all the way down to grammar school, extinction rebellion in England is telling that to kids.

And so the problem with that narrative is that it is the thinking that caused the problem.

And the thinking that caused the problem is the objectifying the living world as if it's the problem.

In fact, the problem is if it's a knit, it's not a knit.

The biosphere and atmosphere are inseparable.

Climate cannot have a crisis.

It's just the climate.

It's, it's like saying, oh, this lake is having a crisis.

No, it's not.

The crisis is us, our behavior to each other and to the world which we inhabit.

So that narrative is about fight, tackle, combat, those words, and then, or fix.

And with all respect to my gender, those are very male verbs.

And they presuppose that it's something you can basically conquer or - The, the climate itself is something you can - Conquer.

Yeah, you can conquer it instead of seeing source and see, instead of seeing cause.

And so for most people, the climate narrative riddled with jargon, carbon neutrality, net zero decarbonization, I can go on and on.

I have no meaning whatsoever because in fact, and I can say this, not as a scientist, they're meaningless.

There's no thing as, no such thing as carbon neutrality.

There's no such thing as decarbonization.

There's no such thing as net servo.

These are just pipe dreams, you know?

And so that is why today if you did some kind of polling around the world, and there's spot polls all over, you know, so we don't know exactly, but a fraction of 1% of the people on earth do anything about the heating planet, which is really what we're talking about.

Global heating, - Right?

- And that's it.

And maybe 40% understand it or sympathetic or, you know, nod their heads and, you know, but they don't do anything either.

And so that's where we are after 50 years.

And so that narrative to me, well intended, I don't question people's intention or concern, but failed.

And I don't think that narrative's going to take us any, isn't gonna work any better.

In fact, in the last, obviously, you know, two, three months, we're seeing the narrative flip in the United States.

But put that aside, we need a better story.

If - You could be writing the headlines of these stories by the reporters, or if you were arming the activists in a, with a different story, what would those headlines be reading or what would those activists be doing?

- Well, that's a really good question too.

I mean, I think what we look to is basically top-down solutions.

Big solutions, you know, big government, of course, conference of the parties, as I mentioned prior, where, you know, delegates from all over the world, scientists and, and NGOs and corporates and government officials get together for several days.

Last time, Azerbaijan this year in Brazil and talk about it, we had a 2015 climate mandate, you know, basically came the Paris mandate, excuse me, came out of conference, conference of the parties with Christiana Fugues, you know, leading it.

And we've gone nowhere since 2015.

And what's interesting, because when I wrote my book to write down, we had researchers go to Paris during Cop 15, and we asked people in the blue zone, the Green Zone, the Blue Zones official delegates, the green zone is the NGOs and environmentalists.

And we asked them, what are the top five solutions to reversing global warming?

And nobody could answer the question.

I'm not kidding.

It's, it's shocking.

And furthermore, besides basically renewable energy and recycling, which is incorrect, by the way, there's a major solution.

They're wrong.

They, they didn't know.

And so here the top people in the world are coming together to create the Paris mandate to, you know, hold temperature increases to 1.5 C. And they didn't know what the solutions were.

That's why I did project data and then project regeneration for that reason.

But the thing is that they, we don't, so my headliner to your question would be things that really don't make the news cycle.

'cause the news cycle is very much about the amygdala and about clickthroughs and things that creates fear, you know, or threat.

And actually, when I learned about climate was that Stanford Research Institute, you know, almost 45 years ago.

And the narrative there was about fear and threat, future existential threat.

So this is basically the words that the climate movement has used to try to rally support and to wake people up.

But the fact is, human beings don't move towards end games.

They move to possibility.

And so our narrative has to be about possibility.

I don't mean just recycling or this or that.

I mean, really in a, in a community sense, what people are gathering together and do all over the world.

And it's extraordinary.

But they're small.

They don't make the news cycle.

They're considered, oh, that's just Botswana, that's just here, you know, the headwaters of the Amazon, or that's just here in Nebraska.

So, you know, nice, good, pat, pat on the head, you know, but we have a big problem.

We have big solutions, you know, but we have a big problem.

But we do not have big solutions.

- Your book inspired a lot of awe and wonder, you talked a lot about the miraculous nature of life and, and Carbon's role in it.

Would you wanna see a more positive story in the news about the planet?

Or should we be focusing on these really horrific events?

And especially right now with our government acting again, in a, in a very destructive way, - We can't ignore horrific events.

I mean, the, the, but at the same time, what I like to see is more science, because I said the jargon is not science, direct air capture is not good science.

The, some of these, you know, mega solutions are really bad science, bad physics.

What I wanna see is a narrative that really does bring truth to the subject, you know, which is carbon is a flow, is the flow of life.

And the flow of life is definitely being interdicted interrupted, harmed change or extirpated, no question about that.

But it doesn't change what carbon is, and carbon is the flow of life.

You take carbon outta the mix.

There is no life whatsoever.

We know that.

But it's the flow of life within our cell, it's within our forest, it's within our seas of our land.

It's everywhere.

And we have 1.2 trillion carbon atoms in every cell in our body, you know?

And so when you think of people saying, you know, carbon is the problem, like, hold on, hold on, time out.

Can we talk about it for a minute?

And so, yeah, carbon, the book of life is really to try to immerse people in the wonder in of of, of what's going on around us.

I don't think we know where we live really in that sense.

There's more life under the ground and above the ground on earth, and we sort of think, oh, that's soil, dirt or whatever.

We just have not been educated in a way that really brings us to a sense of like a child, you know, like, oh my gosh, is that true?

Yes.

And is this true?

Well, look at that, and it may sound childlike, but I think we have to touch that part of us that actually does appreciate and becomes astonished at how this world actually works - To then care about it.

- Absolutely.

And the thing is, when we have that experience, it changes who we are.

And fear doom, again, I'm not arguing the facts, but I mean, fear doom, the rate of destruction, migration, you know, crop loss, you know, drought, flood, hurricanes, all that.

Those are real, I'm not denying that, but I'm just saying is that they don't bring us to life.

And so "Carbon, the Book of Life" is trying to just tease that out.

You know, it's not that I'm an expert on that so much as, as I really rely upon extraordinary scientists, Monica Gagliano, Robin Wall Kimmerer and Zoe Schlanger.

I mean, there's a just amazing amount of new science that's emerging.

And to me it's kind of a, a melding of both traditional ecological knowledge from indigenous peoples around the world and western science, empirical science.

And they're coming together.

And what we're discovering is what we don't know.

We're discovering how mysterious it is.

There's a humility in the new science.

It's emerging.

There's both observational and empirical.

And I feel like we're turning a page on the reduction to science that has, you know, you know, sort of penetrated every aspect of, of the world, including botany and biology and oceanography and the, the sciences of the, of what we call nature.

And even getting to the point where we're starting to see that the idea that people and nature are two different things.

They're not, they're also inseparable in an extraordinarily complex and mysterious way.

- We're gonna talk more about that.

We are talking with Paul Hawken.

He is an environmentalist, an entrepreneur, an author he is, latest book is "Carbon: The Book of Life," about that relationship he was just describing his other books include Regeneration, Drawdown, Blessed Unrest, and the Ecology of Commerce.

We wanna hear from you, from listeners.

What questions do you have about carbon?

What have you done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

How are you playing a role?

We'd love to hear about it.

Give us a call at one eight, excuse me, at 8 6 6 7 3 3 6 7 8 6.

Again, that's 8 6 6 7 3 3 6 7 8 6.

You can also shoot us an email.

Your comments and your questions can go to forum k qed.org or find us on social media, Bluesky, Instagram.

We're at KQED Forum.

We wanna hear from you.

You can also join our Discord community.

We'll be right back after this break.

Welcome back to Forum.

I'm Lesley McClurg.

I'm talking with Paul Hawken.

He is an environmentalist, an entrepreneur, and an author.

His latest book is "Carbon, the Book of Life."

It really inspires.

I think that the difference between this book and, and another environmental book is it kind of shifts.

It's not about the environment, it's about how you be with the environment.

That's really the relationship part of it that I thought was unique.

And I'd love to start this segment with you reading a passage from the book.

This is on page nine.

- Yeah, I'd be happy to.

This is the passage you chose, and so I printed it out.

- Thank you for doing that.

- I was trying to memorize it, but failed.

- I mean, that would be impressive.

- It would've been, but the human journey is the daily practice of gaining and sustaining life.

We can do this selfishly or gracefully, within and around us, is a living, breathing sphere of consciousness woven by a billion years of evolving life.

Sentience is underfoot in the canopy, in the favelas, in the breath of a child, the intricate, masterful web of life beneath, above and around us.

This awareness is always our story.

A broken planet lies before us, but there is also a buzzing thrumming, thriving sphere, imbued with imagination, mystery, and courage.

These pages are a journey into the realm of plants, the cosmos of insects, labyrinths of fungi, droves of mammals, spinning of trees, and convocation of human brilliance.

The flow of carbon is a sacred dance that entwines and weaves through all our stories.

- You said this was a unique passage we were chatting before at the interview.

What did, what did you mean there?

I mean, I just thought it was beautifully written and it had a very poetic relationship to what you're writing about.

But, but why is it unique for you?

- I think it's because it comes at the end of the first chapter.

And the first chapter is one where you're basically inviting people to read the rest of the book.

And somebody asked me once, what makes a great book?

And I said, did you wanna turn the page?

- That's, that's very true.

That's what you want.

- If you don't, - Then you kind of messed up.

Yeah, - Exactly.

And so in a sense at the end of the chapter is, do you wanna read the next chapter?

And so the whole imitation in of that part of the book is definitely about carbon.

But somebody who had a PDF did a search and said, yeah, actually you don't use the word very much carbon.

I said, no, it's not about that.

It's about this flow of life itself, you know, which is infused animated by carbon itself, without which our planet is simply a rock in space.

- Well, Steven agrees with you.

Steven writes the so-called villain in climate change is not carbon, it's carbon dioxide.

When it's released in the atmosphere, people have taken a casually saying carbon, which is an unfortunate shorthand.

We'd love to hear from other listeners, what questions do you have for Paul Hawken about carbon, or probably maybe about this moment on the planet?

We are all feeling, I think, a lot of pain watching this government take action in ways that may not feel in alignment with the environment.

What have you done to reduce greenhouse gases?

What climate messaging would you like to see?

Give us a call now at (866) 733-6786.

Again, that's 8 6 6 7 3 3 6 7 8 6.

Or shoot us an email forum@kqed.org or find us on social media.

Again, we're at KQED Forum on Bluesky, Instagram, Discord.

Let's go to the phones.

Cheryl in Petaluma, you are on the air.

- Thanks so much.

I just wanted to say I have five kids and my youngest is 19, and I've been really struck by how his response to so much of the doomsday talk around climate, that's, I think, very real concern is, you know, oh, well, we're just, you know, we're doomed.

We're, he'll use a different expletive, but I'll use doom.

And so, you know, I'm not even gonna try.

Why should I do anything?

Because, you know, we're just doomed.

Whereas recently, here in Petaluma, after a, after a big rainstorm, there was a gorgeous rainbow.

And he looked up in this sky and he's like, oh, you know, it's so beautiful.

The planet's so beautiful.

So I think there's something really important about making sure that we don't overwhelm the next generation so much that they are paralyzed and in action, especially with what's happening with our government.

And really, I think there's something powerful about that message of like, isn't this worth, you know, doing these small things for, like, it's hard to get him to recycle if he thinks that we're all just doomed.

So anyway, that's my comment.

Thanks.

- Yeah, I couldn't agree more.

I think, again, it goes back to narrative.

That narrative doesn't work and it certainly doesn't work for what I call the new arrivals.

That is young people and and they've just, like I say, they're 10, they're 12, they're 14, they're 19, whatever.

And relative to the rest of the world, older people, I mean, they're newer and they're looking around and going, what?

You know, - Why did you not do something sooner?

- What were you thinking?

Right?

You knew how - You create this.

- This is not new science.

This science goes back to Eunice foot in 1856, right?

A woman scientist who proved categor without question, you know, the CO2 carbon acid she used.

But anyway, CO2 would warm the planet.

So this is something we've known for a long, long time, and we've overridden it.

And then to, you know, like, again, the, the, the, the, the caller's just absolutely right.

The narrative we use for our children, you know, is upside down, backwards.

We can talk about facts, you know, this is the fact, this is true, but then it's about really.

Got it.

Whoa, thank you.

Now let's do - Something on that note.

So Tea on Discord writes, the author Paul Hawken alluded to there being five actions that all the climate activists should know but didn't.

It would be great if he would actually tick them off for us so we could know them.

- Gosh, I'm not sure what they are.

- What would you want climate activists to be doing, to be focusing on?

- Well, that's a good question.

Maybe I can answer that.

First of all is to understand the science thoroughly.

And one commenter said CO2 is a problem, not C, no, CO2 is not the problem.

Either.

CO2 is metabolized by every plant to make sugar, to make food, to feed the soil, to feed the so forth.

So CO2 is innate.

The problem is the combustion of fossil fuels and forests and other wood.

That is to say that emits CO2, you know, combines basically oxygen with the carbon, you know, and then you get combustion and you get CO2 and so forth.

So you don't wanna break the C and the O2 apart, you know, I mean, they're really instrumental to life on earth, you know, it's the way carbon travels around and goes back and recycles again.

So I think the, the most important thing is to know where you live.

- But before we go there, if we just stay on the science - Yeah.

- And the scientists.

So government funding is slashing, right?

Just this morning I saw Trump wants to lay off a thousand scientists at the EPA.

So with that funding, getting frozen, getting slashed, how are the people who are working in favor of the climate, many who are about to be unemployed, what do they do?

What would your advice be for them?

- Well, for the scientists, I just feel really bad because in Noa and particularly, but in certain government areas and so forth, the scientists are quite remarkable, dedicated, and in many cases give up higher paying salaries or whatever to stay with the government to serve, you know, the citizens of the United States, in fact, beyond that.

And so I can't imagine the grief and the loss and, and it's also a loss of papers and work.

And I mean, almost every scientist is doing something that's in progress, - Right?

That's going to be coming out in two or three or five or 10 years.

- Yeah.

It's never finished.

And to cut off that, maybe something will come out of that in terms of a counter movement.

Now that will not be government dependent or taxpayer dependent.

I don't know.

That would be the ideal thing, but that's not true in the rest of the world.

So United States is the outlier.

And, but I feel the same thing.

I know some of the scientists and I know some of their work, and it's just unimaginable to me that that is happening.

Especially I know Noah, better National Atmospheric administration and the what they do for, to protect people in terms of weather, in terms of storms.

And I mean the, it's extraordinary, the monitoring they do around the world, and particularly in the United States.

And the oceans is one of the leading indicators of what's happening with respect to human activity on earth.

So, - Well, let's stick with callers Robert, in San Jose, since we're on politics.

Has a comment.

Robert, you're on the air.

- Yeah.

Yes.

Hello.

Hi, Paul.

Hi.

Fascinating discussion.

I'm gonna come at this from a little different angle and I hope it makes sense to you.

The problem that you have here with the science and the denial of science is based on the Christian background of the MAGA movement.

And this is where I wanted to let you know that we have a silver bullet here to deal with that.

There's new discoveries that have shown that the religion of the Christians, the Christian religion is based on a, an aberration of, or a plagiar of agnostic teaching.

So if we can, if we can overcome the MAGA movements, anti-science bias, we could really make progress.

We are the outlier, and it's based on this falsehood of the Christian religion.

It's something that I've been working on for years, and I, I just hope that people understand that we need to show that this is where this is all coming from.

It's a denial of science based on this Christian falsehood.

And it's something I wrote about in my book, misreading Judas.

I don't wanna promote the book, I just want people to know about it.

- Thank you so much, Robert, for that, for that comment.

Yeah.

How do you think we overcome?

- Well, first of all, I wouldn't complain, Margo with Christianity.

Christianity like all religions has done some extraordinary things and continues to do so, and has done some really cruel and awful things as a religion.

I don't think there, it's so above the liberal religions, so that's the innate to it.

But the Christianity is based on compassion, is I think of Jesus.

I think of, you know, those teachings, you know, as the basis of Christianity.

And so what I see is actually the opposite.

I see Christians being very, very concerned about their home, about people, about children, about the future.

MAGA is something else.

I don't think it's a movement as such.

I think it's an identification to be sure.

And so I feel like we wanna speak in a way that brings people together, brings people out, you know, shows where we're connected and united, you know, instead of focusing on where we're divided.

And it's not, with all the respect to the caller, it's not about being right.

I mean, we we're live in a world where so many people are saying they're right, they're right, they're right, I'm right, you're wrong, and so forth.

And that is not how we can come together.

We wanna come together as community.

And community is about listening, accepting, respecting.

And I feel like the climate, true climate movement has to start in place, you know, in a village, in a church, in a town, in a farm, any association that people have.

And it has to start with wanting to create a better life for people and children in that town and that place in that community and that region, and go from there and grow from there.

And that is happening.

There is really, there's 250,000 people, not people, but together, restoring life on earth right now.

And they're recorded on restored eco, which is from the et h university in Switzerland.

You can see that, you know, restore without an e eco eco.

And so we need to see humanity as being extraordinary, as opposed to being stupid.

And, you know, and how, you know, citizens have been beguiled and be betrayed and, you know, seduced into doing some things that are not in their interest has happened before.

And we are right in the middle of that.

But I think it's really powerful, you know, not to categorize people and, and to, I I'm working with Benji Backer, and he is one of Trump's favorites, but he has an organization called Nature is Nonpartisan, and he and I are writing an op-ed together because nature is not partisan.

- Well, we just saw, I mean, we're seeing in the headlines, I think good news, the Republicans are pushing Trump to maintain the Biden era, clean energy tax cuts.

I, I mean, that's showing some movement towards one another.

If you had the ear of the Republican lawmakers right now, because we have this idea that the Democrats are on one side and the Republicans are on the other about environment.

How would you make that bridge?

- I think one of the things we know about the Republican party was actually, was the leader in the environment for many years.

And Nixon and Rockel House and many other Republicans were leaders in creating the laws and statutes we have today about protecting the environment.

And what's difficult now to re Republicans is they just fall in line.

In other words, they actually do what they don't necessarily believe in.

They, they actually have to suppress who they really are, because if they don't suppress it, then they get punished.

So we have a very different political system than the one that existed 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

Richard Nixon was one of the best environmental presidents, and he was also a liar.

So, - So how would you build that bridge today?

Or if you could say, you know, you're gonna get punished, but I, yeah.

What, what would you, what would you, how would you get their ear?

- I think, I think it's gonna happen because, and we've seen already congress people and senators have to go back to their home districts and talk to people.

And right now they're already seeing a real pushback from Right.

You know, and they're Republicans pushing back and Democrats saying, no, I didn't, I didn't vote for you for this and this and this.

- I'm benefiting from those, from that.

Yeah.

- Yeah.

And so I think that's really the, the, the pushback.

I don't mean, you know, burning down Tesla dealerships or, you know, spraying painting cars.

I mean really talking, you know, in dialogue with those people in power, you know, and they have to listen at certain points.

- Let's go back to the phones.

Clayton in Cupertino, you're on the air.

- Hi Lesley and Paul really enjoying the conversation.

And I really like Paul's sort of beautiful appeal to POS logic.

They appeal to emotion.

But I think that at the end of the day, to solve our problem, we need, we need the logos appeal, we need the logic.

And so my question is, how do you use the pos appeal to the maximum benefit and then at the end of the day, translate it into a logical solution, a physical solution that creates a better environment for us?

- Thank you so much.

I work constantly on logos myself, actually work with technologies and companies that I think can make a huge difference and are making a huge difference.

So I don't think that the left brain and the right brain should be so disconnected as they are in our culture.

I think we need both.

And the right brain is synthetic and synthesizes and connects and doesn't see solutionism as the only way out.

And right now the logos part is solutionism is I think what sort of be devils us in the sense that, you know, we can fix this and this is a problem, we'll do this, we'll do that so forth.

I'm not gonna argue for against those so much as that it leaves out the, you called emotion, but it leaves out that sensibility that all people have that's actually, that, that integrates, that connects, that sees how things are inseparable.

And we've been taught that basically nature and human beings are different and they're not.

I mean, for 200,000 years, homo sapiens have changed, completely altered the planet who lives here, you know, the charismatic species.

I mean, it's just astonishing.

And when the settlers colonists first came to North America and Turtle Island in South America, they were astonished at how developed the landscapes were, the farms, the food, the systems, and immediately with their smallpox, you know, wiped out 90% of the people in the Americas.

But that ignorance was, was just a tragedy because really people have been living here for tens of thousands of years, in some cases in Australia for 65,000 years that we know of and so forth, and have actually created a very, very, very, what's the word?

Fertile and abundant planet.

And abundance was the name of the game in our state here in California, the me walk ate lilies.

And so what they did every year is basically harvest, eat one, plant two.

So there'd be more food in the future for more people.

- We're gonna talk about food that was a big part of your book, which I, I absolutely loved thinking about how that's gonna make a difference.

We are talking with Paul Hawken about his new book, carbon, the Book of Life.

His other books include Regeneration and Drawdown.

We'll be right back after this break to continue our conversation.

Stay with us.

Welcome back to forum.

I'm Lesley McClurg.

I'm in today for Alexis Madrigal and I am joined by Paul Hawken.

He is an environmentalist entrepreneur and the author of his latest book, one of Many Carbon, the Book of Life.

There's these amazing comments coming in.

Matthew writes, I'm struck by how the guest views reflect on animist worldview, which is antithetical to modernity.

The reductionist worldview, which still dominates most science is so firmly entrenched.

I wonder what will facilitate the necessary paradigm shift.

Generally, it takes a preponderance of anomalies and a better paradigm for such a shift.

Do we have time to make this shift before the worst case scenarios occur?

- Yeah.

- Don't you, do you know the answer to that?

- Well, what I wanna say is nobody knows the answer to that.

- Yeah.

- And nobody knows what to do.

Can we just put that stake in the ground?

So - It's kind of relieving to hear in some - Way?

Yeah, yeah.

And but that doesn't mean that human beings are extraordinary and brilliant.

We are.

And it takes time.

There's a lag, you know, for people really assimilate, understand, you know, where they are and what's happening.

And we'll see, you know, TT TK as they say, I'm a writer and to come.

So I don't try to be that person.

I have the answers, you know, listen up, you know, I don't, I don't go there.

Where I wanna go and try to go in the book and in my own life is to ask questions, to be curious and more curious.

And that really goes back to my childhood, you know, which is just like, I wasn't safe inside my home.

I didn't have great parents.

Don't feel sorry for me.

Because what happened is I went outside and I felt safe in nature.

I've, I just felt included, held that nothing really bothered me out there and so forth.

And even rattlesnakes.

'cause my uncle was a herpetologist 'cause he had been captured by the Japanese and then escaped into the Philippine jungle and ate snakes for three years.

And when he came back, he became a herpetologist and taught me how to hold rattlesnakes and other things and so forth.

So - Someday I wanna have that conversation.

- Yeah, - More about that.

But keep going.

- Yeah, well, just like, I felt, I just felt the beauty of nature, you know, and the, and and the complexity and the mystery of it and so forth.

And so I was very blessed in that sense.

And I think that we have, you know, our media, our what we see, what we watch and you know, TV and all that sort of stuff where is really just takes us away from actually who we are and what's around us and how it, it's just, it's basically a miracle what's going on.

I mean, one seed of rye, one seed, you know, like a grain has 14 million roots, 14 million roots, you know, 4 million or hair roots.

So 10 million roots.

And they're all connected to mycelia with the hyphae.

And the mycelia is talking to those roots and they're exchanging sugar for phosphorus or nitrogen and potassium or selenium.

And they're communicating how can those 10 million roots be communicating with fungi in the ground who are actually transacting?

We don't, I mean this, - I wish everyone could see your face right now you're just like, can, can you believe that this is so incredible?

Let's go to the phones Eddie in San Francisco you're on the air, - Growing up in a western society, growing up in a western society, we're taught, you know, survival of the fittest and only the strong survive.

And lately I've been, you know, thinking a lot about just how wrong that is.

And that in reality it's those that collaborate the most, those that share and work together, those are the species that survive and, and last not only for decades and centuries, but millennia.

And that we as as humans have the opportunity.

We are capable of being the absolute best at sharing and collaborating.

And you know, I think it's something you've been speaking to that we used to do.

And you know, in today's society we just don't do much of anymore.

And I think that permeates across all of our societies.

So I, I would love to see, you know, in our western culture a shift towards, you know, recognizing that collaboration and working together is what allows us to survive and thrive.

- Let's stay with the phones anise in San Jose.

You're on the air.

- Hi, good morning.

Can you hear me?

- Yeah, you sound great.

- Okay.

I really enjoyed the conversation in the show.

You know, I'm really eager to read the book, how it takes fresh, fresh perspective.

My question for Mr. Hawken is, you know, when we come down to common people like myself, you know, just regular citizens who can do something about climate change, as much as it's, you know, fascinating and and motivating, it does create this frustration where, you know, you at the end of, sometimes you really take it so personally and you feel stressful.

That can I really make a difference?

So what I'm wondering is when this problem can be, it's so difficult to address the government level, infrastructure level.

Does it even make sense to involve citizens?

I mean, - I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna let Anise, anise, your connection is not great.

I think we got the nugget of your question.

Yeah, Paul, go ahead.

- Yeah.

It only makes sense for individuals.

That's what I'm saying.

Nature is is not top down.

And I'm not saying it's bottom up, I'm just saying it is very different than the structures of change that we have been taught to be effective and effective.

But what we see is the one that's top down.

It's usually violent or coercive or forceful or harmful.

And not always, but almost always.

And so we just have to look at what actually informs us and its nature, it's life and we are a community.

Our cells are a community.

Everything starts with community.

And we have 40 trillion microbes inside, outside on our eyelashes and revolving around us every day.

Without them we're dead.

So we are a community of entities.

And so all change arises from community.

And so one person is the beginning of community, one becomes two, becomes four, becomes eight.

And so it's not like if you don't wanna isolate yourself as an individual, if you find ways and, and, and the callers thing I, the first thing I would focus on is food and farmer's market and getting in touch with those people who really care about you because they care about the food and the quality and they, they don't get paid that much frankly.

And yet that is the source of life.

And every culture in the world has always called it Mother Earth.

They didn't call it Father Earth and the reason they called it Mother Earth 'cause they knew life came from the earth.

So if people could just get in touch with the earth, by patronizing and you know, supporting those men and women who are really trying to grow food in such a way that regenerates the soil, regenerates human health and so forth, that's where to begin.

And you'll meet people and you'll connect to people that you don't know if never met.

- I love going to the farmer's market on Saturday morning, a listener on discord rates.

I'd like to put in a good word for reductionist science.

It is necessary to look at systems.

But in the absence of good data about specific well-defined entities, we can very quickly end up treating as real in the world things that map only to spooks in our heads.

Like life sacred cooperation, competition, respect, good and the like all and any of which can mean whatever the most persuasive person in the room example, the Oval Office wants them to mean when describing the world.

We are talking about material objects and the forces between them and anything which cannot at least conceptually be reduced as such can readily tell us more about human minds than about anything else.

Let's go back to the phones Al in Berkeley, you're on the air.

- Hi there.

I just had a comment.

The United States is one of the biggest, if not the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet.

And we help shape policy on this issue all over the, all over the world.

And yet consensus in this country on this issue is far from settled.

And scientists here and elsewhere frame this issue in terms of two to three degrees Celsius.

But most people in the US don't use Celsius, maybe don't even understand it.

And I wonder if we, if we'd be having a different conversation in this country, if people started saying five to six degrees Fahrenheit.

- Even just you saying that, I'm like, wow, that's a big difference.

'cause when I think about two degrees, not so much, but five to six degrees is different.

Paul, - I I absolutely agree.

I once did a, a fake man on the street, you know, interview.

I had a fake microphone.

- I'll give you a real one if you, - Okay, I love it.

And I went to people and said, what do you think about 1.5 C?

And they looked at me like, are you a crank?

And I said, but they could look at me.

And I wasn't, I was serious and so forth and said, one five, what is that?

What is one five C?

And I said, well centigrade, celsius, whatever you prefer.

And I said, they just shrug and go, I never heard of it.

And said, well do you know it that means in terms of Fahrenheit?

And said, oh you know, it's 2.74 degrees.

But you know, it's like there is this vast ignorance out there because of the way we've put out the information and the call is quite correct.

And that is that that doesn't seem like much either.

'cause we think, oh well 70 degrees is fine.

What's another, you know, 2.7 degrees That doesn't make any difference at all.

No, the ambient temperature on earth is, you know, 16 C. And so you look at 1.5, you know, that is a big, that's a 10% difference and so forth.

So yeah, again, it goes back to parlance the communication about how we are exercising, not we're exercising, but I mean the narrative around climate and the call is quite correct.

It absolutely doesn't touch people.

- Let's stick, let's stick with the phones.

Lisa in San Jose, you're on the air.

- Okay, great.

Yeah, two things Paul.

I just wanted to say what an honor to, to hear you speaking on my way into work today and, and just super grateful.

We're a family of scientists.

We have your book draw down, I think it's often on our coffee, coffee table.

And I also wanted to mention how inspired I was with your conversation around listening and community and, and the importance of that, you know, especially in these times.

And we hold that very dear as well and, and try to spread that.

So thank thank you for sharing that.

And my second thing is we just ordered the book, what If We Get It Right by Ayana Johnson?

And I wondered if you'd heard of the book.

I was attracted to the title.

She was interviewed on NPR once.

And if you had any thoughts on it, if you've heard of it and just let the audience know that it looks pretty interesting.

- Thank you.

Yeah, it does.

Ayana Johnson's amazing scientist and it, it's an interesting title.

What if we did, I think the, some questions I have about the book are what does right mean?

And I think some of the things she talks about don't work and or won't have a big effect.

And she might argue against that to me and that'd be fine.

I'd love to listen to it.

So - She, well I'll point out she, she was on forum so people can look her up and and hear and and then decide for them For themselves.

- For themselves.

Yes, absolutely.

And so forth.

And I'm just, I am quite skeptical of what have been put out as solutions even of my own book draw out.

Now the reason is because they measure global solutions.

There is no global, there is no global solution.

So if you talk about, oh, changing the CFCs and air conditioners, you know, what does that mean to Botswana?

Nothing.

Right?

And, and so there has to be a granulation here in terms of you know, where a solution applies and where somebody can do it and where it'll make a difference.

And that's what the problem with the climate narrative is that there's some mega solution, these big things like direct air capture and my take on direct air capture, which is to suck air down, you know, four parts per 10,000, separate the sea from the O2, you know, liquefy the sea, pump it, the sea being carbon, pump it and then put it into geological formations and so forth.

Use is a tremendous amount of energy that CO2 in the atmosphere is entropy.

It's what happens when you combust coal, gas and oil and you raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that's what's caused global heating.

And then you're on land and you're gonna what?

More entropy.

More entropy.

'cause you're burning or using energy, whether it's wind or solar and so forth.

So you're saying we're gonna cure entropy with entropy and that is like, we'll make a physicist faint because it's so, so - I don't think we want our physicists faint.

- No we don't.

But I mean in terms of how idiotic that is, you know, it's like saying I'm gonna, all these cow patties are my pasture.

I'm gonna make a cow out of these cow patties.

'cause the cow pat is entropy, right?

You eat grass and you know, you take out the nourishment away and then you poop.

Okay.

So I'm just saying I am a skeptic of a lot of the things that are put out there as solutions because they just don't pencil out.

But I'm not skeptical of human beings.

- What I do like about her book though is what if we get it right, like even just that title, it's kind of what your book is saying.

It's a lovely title is sort of spinning it and like what if the world is not gonna end that?

That'd be a nice thing to lean.

- Yeah.

Right.

- Let's go back to the phones, Frank in Petaluma, you're on the air.

- Hi.

I read several of the author's books thanks to a friend of mine.

But principally I want to just reinforce a comment another recent caller made, you know, where it's often portrayed survival of the fittest.

And, but I think what's more legitimate is that when we work together, we're far more of a successful paradigm than when we are apart and measured as a part.

You know, if you look to the military, it's essentially about communication and cooperation.

Everybody fulfilling a role.

If you're on any kind of navy vessel or civilian vessel for that part, everybody carrying out their role means the ship probably gets into a safe port.

And the other thing I wanted to say was, you know, when this thing about the survival of the fittest, you know, we forget that the individual makes a difference and we forget, we forget about this entirely.

- Absolutely.

Paul, Paul is is nodding there.

Thanks for that comment of, of reminding us exactly what I think Paul is trying to illustrate is that each one of us can make a difference.

Abby writes, I look forward to reading the book.

I've participated in many protests against pipelines and wars and I haven't had any success changing what others do.

What can, what I can control is what I eat and what I feed my family and friends.

Animal agricultural contributes to climate change and pollution.

So I've learned to nourish my body, my mind and spirit without animals or products.

Many people have become very creative in their kitchens using more plants instead of animals.

So we can keep ourselves strong while we eat less destructively.

If everyone turned to a plant-based diet, what kind of a change significance would that make - Rather extraordinary actually.

And even if it wasn't total plant-based, but very mar you know, animal food was very marginal.

It would make a huge difference.

Statistically 50%, 50% of emissions are related to animal agriculture.

I think it's actually much higher than that because I mean, you look at the corn soy production around the world, what is, why so much corn, soy for ethanol cattle, pigs and chickens, you know?

And so, I mean, Iowa has the second highest rate of cancer, you know, in the United States.

And it is corn, soy capital within Nebraska, you know, just glyphosate and, and pesticides, you know, covering the land and in the water.

You can't even drink the water now in Iowa.

You have to filter it and purify it.

And that's from the kind of agriculture that we have.

You know, and if you sort of take animals out of that picture, you know, and say, look, we have so much food to feed people properly in this world and we don't right now.

And prices are going up and people can't afford it.

And so we're ha it's a compounding problem.

We're killing the soil.

And the soil is an organism.

And again, going back to, you know, me and madre, you know, the mother earth, that idea that life comes in the earth, we are killing mom.

- There's this great, I need it to be short 'cause we're up against the end of the hour, but there's this scene at the end of or middle of your book in Cape Cod where you see this circle of animals that just blew my mind.

Tell that story briefly - Is it was in the weapon territory and I was just, I used to run a lot and then I was just walking, I had run and I came across seven animals in the circle, quail turtles and oh five others.

I keep forgetting them and so forth when I'm on, on the spot.

But they were in a circle and, and facing each other.

And I came around the corner and there they were and I was startled, what am I looking at?

They were startled.

They all went into the bushes, the turtle went away, the slowest, you know, trying to get away.

And what I, what I mentioned in the book, I just wanted to say, if you spend a lot of time in nature, you'll see things you can't understand.

I have no understanding of what was going on.

What, - But it's like a council of animals maybe having a conversation, right?

That's they were - Facing each other in a circle, you know?

And that's not possible, but it did happen.

And that, that's, I shared it.

Beautiful.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

- Thank you so much.

We've been talking with Paul Hawken, again, environmentalist, entrepreneur and author.

His latest book is "Carbon, the Book of Life."

It's a beautiful read and if you wanna know what to do, read his book, Regeneration.

Lots of ideas there.

Thank you all for joining us and Paul, such a pleasure.

- Thank you again.