Wheat feeds billions but it has some big climate problems. Wheat production degrades the soil, which releases carbon. It also requires a lot of land. That means clearing land—often forest—to make room for it, which also releases carbon. Plus, wheat harms ecosystems: fertilizer runoff causes water pollution, and monoculture hurts biodiversity.
One alternative? Kernza. Developed over decades by the Land Institute, it’s a perennial relative of wheat that sequesters carbon with its massive root system. But does its carbon-sequestering power make it truly climate-friendly?
This week, Mike and Tamar talk about Kernza and the decades-long movement to domesticate the holy grail of grains: a crop that not only produces high yields but also improves the environment.
To leave a message for Mike and Tamar, call the Climavores hotline at (508) 377-3449. Or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. We might feature your question on a future episode.
Climavores is a production of Post Script Media.
Mike Grunwald 00:08
Everyone has been bugging us to do a show about regenerative agriculture and soil health. I mean, we talk about it all the time. We always say we’re going to do a show about it. But it’s just such a big topic. And there’s so much money flowing into it, and everybody’s into it: the United Nations and corporate America and every politician from ag country. You hear so much about regenerative ag. Well, we’re finally going to do a show about regenerative ag. And we weren’t sure how to get into it, so we decided if we were going to do a show about SUVs, we’re doing the Hummer. If we were going to do a show about forests, we’re doing the Amazon. We decided to start with extreme regenerative ag.
Tamar Haspel 00:58
Extreme this is! If this is the X Games for regenerative ag then we are doing Kernza. Now, when it comes to like ag nerds Kernza separates … I was gonna say the men from the boys but the wheat from the chaff…. Get it? And if you are an ag nerd, you know what Kernza is, but if you’re just an ordinary mortal, you probably don’t. So here’s what Kernza is. Kernza is a grain that is a perennial. Now almost all the grains we eat – corn, wheat, oats, sorghum – they’re all annuals. And that contributes to the climate footprint because they have to be harvested and cut down in the fall and regrow new in spring and anyone who has a garden is familiar with the difference between annuals and perennials. And Kernza is a relative of wheat. It’s not actually wheat, it’s something called intermediate wheatgrass. And it tastes a lot like wheat. And more on that later. And it has a lot of advantages that annuals do not have.
Mike Grunwald 02:16
So Kernza was the brainchild of the Land Institute, which was founded by a guy named Wes Jackson. He’s one of the godfathers of regenerative ag and this whole idea that regenerative essentially refers to the soil. The idea is that instead of extractive agriculture, if we should try to have regenerative agriculture, that builds up the soil that maybe puts carbon in the soil that restores the microbiome of the soil, all those good microbes, and earthworms and all the cool stuff that gives soil its healthy awesomeness that people love to talk about. And you hear all the time about how there’s more life in a tablespoon of soil than there is in all the rain forests in terms of mammals. There’s a lot of stuff going on in soil. And certainly, the idea of regenerative agriculture is to try to promote that. And perennials, particularly when they have the kind of big roots, they’re around all the time. The idea is that this is really, really good for the soil.
Tamar Haspel 03:24
And Kernza has kind of become the poster crop for regenerative agriculture. The people of Patagonia have latched on to it, and they’re making some products with it. And it for good reasons. It does all of the things that you were just talking about. It has these big root systems that reach in deep that sequester carbon deep in the soil, that enable these microbial communities that contribute to soil health. You don’t have to plow, it’s great for erosion control. There’s lots to love about Kernza.
Mike Grunwald 03:59
Yeah, and look, not to give any spoilers, but the good folks at the Land Institute, they did send us some of their products to try and Kernza is still… it’s only on 6000 acres, where we have 400 million acres of farmland and of cropland in the United States. So it’s still very tiny, but they gave us some crackers and pasta and flour and beer. And because my partner on this show, Tamar is a phenomenal chef, she cooked some of this stuff up for us. And we were able to see that they make a lot of big claims about how this is beer that’s drawing down carbon, it’s climate smart pasta. So we’re gonna get into it because there are a lot of really cool things about Kernza. But there is one big problem.
Tamar Haspel 04:52
I hope I didn’t cook it wrong.
Mike Grunwald 04:55
No, you’re an amazing chef among all the other bazillion things you do well and it was really quite delicious, not to give away the end of our show. But yeah, Kernza does have this, I don’t want to say fatal flaw, but certainly a currently fatal flaw. And people talk around it. The Washington Post did this massive magazine story about Kernza. That was like 7000 words, and you had to get to the 38th paragraph before they even mentioned this one huge problem. It’s a problem that listeners to this show will be familiar with. It’s kind of one of those “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?” It’s, it’s a pretty big problem. And I think we’re gonna get into it. So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln. I’m Michael Grunwald.
Tamar Haspel 05:56
And I’m Miss…. I’m Tamar Haspel. And this is Climavores, a show about eating on a changing planet.
Mike Grunwald 06:08
So pretty much as long as we’ve had industrial agriculture, we’ve had people complaining about industrial agriculture. And for good reasons that we talk about a lot on the show: the huge chemical use, the pollution, the fertilizers, the effect on the soil. There really is all kinds of substantive agronomic problems, as well as the kind of larger political and cultural problems that we talk about as well. In terms of the subsidies, the lobbying against climate action, the mistreatment of farmworkers, people really don’t like industrial agriculture. And Wes Jackson, who is the author of New Routes for Agriculture, was one of the real pioneers in saying, hey, we need to come up with a better way. And to wildly oversimplify his work, Wes was from Kansas, and he looked at what had happened to Kansas and essentially said, “You know, this used to be a prairie. And it was really nice. And now it’s a wheat field. And there are problems.” And that’s when he started thinking about how can we come up with a way to regenerate rather than erode the soil. And he had this idea of perennial agriculture that either you could domesticate wild perennials or “perennialize” domesticated annuals are the two choices of how you could do it. And he recognized it was going to be really hard when he wrote in his book in 1981. And he said, “Given a little bit of money, and 100 years, we can do it.”
Tamar Haspel 07:51
And how many years ago was that?
Mike Grunwald 07:56
So that was 40 years in, and I think we’ve got 60 left. To one extent, he did it, there is Kernza. So Tamar, tell our listeners a little bit about what is Kernza. And really what is a perennial, and why we care about it.
Tamar Haspel 08:11
So anyone who gardens is intimately familiar with the difference between perennials and annuals and how the asparagus and the rhubarb come up every year. And, and the tomatoes don’t unfortunately. And so, those amber waves of grain wheat is an annual and when you have to kill off the crop or let it die off and dry in the ground, and then prepare the soil for the next crop, a number of things happen. Even if you’re doing no till you still have to drill and plant and you lose some of the carbon that’s sequestered in the soil, you disturb the microbial communities there. You encourage erosion and runoff. And I would say that nutrient runoff into bodies of water is probably the number one environmental impact that that these systems have. And perennials solve a lot of those problems, or at least they go a long way towards solving them. So when I was at the Land Institute, they have this picture of the root system of Kernza versus the root system of annual wheat. And they have to hang it in the stairwell because the root system of Kernza is so big, it’s like eight feet tall. Did you have a visual aid? Oh, you have that! I have one here. It’s like a normal weed plant, which I guess this is just 1/6 of the actual size. But the normal weed plan kind of looks like it’s maybe the size of my arm up to the elbow. And then they have the Kernza plant which is half my body. And they have the full-sized one at the Land Institute. And it’s remarkable. And of course, when you have a robust root system like that, all kinds of good things happen. For starters, in a dry climate, this is particularly important. And as weather patterns change, it becomes more and more important, long, deep roots have access to deep water that annuals don’t have access to. And also the roots, the microbial communities develop around these roots deep into the soil. And when the plant dies, that root system is going to lock most of its carbon, most of its organic matter in the soil. So it is great for erosion control. It’s great for dry climates, it’s great for sequestering carbon. And of course, it’s good for biodiversity because it’s something different from what’s out there right now. And you know, if you’ve ever been to the prairie, you see this like riot of all kinds of different grasses. And that’s the model the Land Institute is using, and perennial grains are part of are envisioned as being part of a solution that includes all kinds of other plants as well. So you have this biodiverse collection of plants working together, sequestering carbon supporting beneficial insects preventing erosion,. I mean, it has a lot going for it.
Mike Grunwald 11:36
Right, right. So they talk about this kind of polyculture of perennials, as opposed to the monoculture of annuals, right. And that’s the kind of amber waves of grain that are usually subjected to this constant chemical warfare that we’re always talking about. So there are two different types of benefits we’re talking about. One is you don’t have to run your tractor over and over again, all year long. And you hear about cover crops, because this idea that you want to keep the ground covered all year long, so it doesn’t blow away. And of course, perennials solve that problem by not dying. So it’s covered all the time. And then one thing that the Land Institute really talks about, and it’s funny, because we use this word in another context, again, to avoid the spoiler alerts, but that they’re very efficient, these perennial crops, not in the efficiency that we sometimes talk about, and we’ll talk about later, but in the in the way their relationship to inputs is incredibly efficient. Because they have these roots, they capture so much of the nitrogen that’s dumped on them, as much as 95%, while an ordinary wheat plant might only capture 50%. And that means less nitrogen that leeches into the aquifer or runs off into the stream or the river or into the Gulf of Mexico. Those are really big problems, as you said, and also for water, particularly as wheat is often such a dryland crop, they really want to take advantage of every drop of water that falls. And when you have these roots deep into the soil, you use the water better, and again, less runoff so it doesn’t wash the soil away and wash all the bad stuff away.
Tamar Haspel 13:34
And what’s happening right now is sort of putting this in stark relief. We’re seeing farmers struggle with wheat yields as weather patterns change. And, you know, you mentioned it’s a dryland crop, it’s not irrigated. And so when there’s no water coming out of the sky, there’s no water for the wheat. And so, you know, this is sort of the perennial grains’ superpower is to be able to survive when there’s very little water and every day that seems to become more important.
Mike Grunwald 14:08
And you do hear that generally about the people who are proponents of regenerative agriculture. One thing they talk about is that it’s it’s more resilient to nasty conditions, particularly drought. Certainly one of the selling points is that as we get into this warmer world, with weirder weather, that if you’re taking care of the soil, if your plants are deep-rooted in the soil, they’re just going to be better prepared for the nastiest nastiness that’s coming along.
Tamar Haspel 14:40
But that infrastructure does not come for free. And this is where we get into one of the problems with perennial grains. So the plant has to devote a lot of energy to building that root system and the good people at Land and have estimated that perennials devote about half of their energy to roots, whereas annuals only devote about a quarter of their energy to roots. And the less you devote to roots, the more you can devote to seeds, which is the part of the plant that we eat. And so perennials, they start like they’re handicapped, because they’re only using half of their energy to build the plant above ground. Now, some of it, they make up a little bit, because anyone who’s ever done spring foraging for greens knows that some perennials are up very early in the spring. And perennials start growing long before you can put your annuals in the ground, so they do get a head start. So it’s kind of a bigger pie of sunlight, but they devote a smaller slice of it to seed heads. And so here’s the here’s the question: how does that play out in the plant itself? And the big issue, which, of course, you know, already is yield. Yeah, it’s a problem, man. You know, we do talk about this incessantly on Climavores but yield matters. It doesn’t just matter to Cargill and Monsanto and big evil agriculture companies, it matters to the climate. Because lower yield means that it takes more land to make the same amount of food. And right now, the world is basically divided evenly between agricultural land and natural land. And that means at this point, we can’t keep expanding our agricultural land, because that means more deforestation, and more emissions. We need to if anything, shrink our agricultural footprint, and that’s going to mean much higher yields even higher than we already have now. And unfortunately, Kernza, while their yields are improving a few years ago, they were only 1/4 of wheat yields, they are now up to 1/3 of yields. But that’s terrible! It means they need three times as much land to make the same amount of food. And this rate is not sustainable. All right. Wait a second, I got to tell a story out of school here. So when I was over at Mike’s house, and I made the dinner with the Kernza pastas and Mike has this dog isn’t his name is Wags. He’s really cute and he’s really sweet. And he’s like this little Jack Russell rat terrier mix of some kind and one of his ears flops over. And you know, he was hanging around the table. Come on, he was hanging around the table. And I’m like, “Oh, he’s so sweet and he’s so nice.” And Mike says, “He’s dumb as a post.” And I said to Wags, “Oh, Daddy doesn’t mean it.” And Mike’s like, “Yeah, daddy totally means it.” And when Mike says things like, “this is terrible!” I always want to say, “Oh, Daddy doesn’t mean it.” But of course, he does mean it.
Mike Grunwald 18:21
I mean Kernza and to their super credit, this is something in the regenerative agriculture world. You see a lot of people trying to hand wave away the question of yields, basically saying, “Oh, yields don’t matter. We can just stop wasting so much food or stop eating so much meat, or we’re going to store so much carbon, it isn’t going to matter, we’re going to save the world that way.” And to their credit, the folks at the Land Institute are not like that. They care about yield and they know that currently yield is a huge problem, and that no farmer is going to want to plant Kernza if the yield stay this low.
Tamar Haspel 19:06
Right, it’s not a viable crop climatically, it’s not a viable crop financially, unless the yields improve. And of course, working on it, the fact that they’ve gone from, you know, a quarter to a third of the yield of wheat is a very significant uptick. And, and, of course, it’s really tempting to say, Okay, well, given time, we can just get the yields higher and higher. And there’s some truth to that. Right. I should say that they say that even by 2035, which I think is a little optimistic, but conceivably with better breeding they could match current wheat yields, which aren’t good enough. That would be awesome. And, you know, there is, I think, in some of the conversations and not the ones with the Land Institute, I’m a huge fan of Land Institute. I think they’re wonderful. But in the conversations out in the public about perennial grains, there’s there’s a little bit of magical thinking, because there are some inherent constraints in the infrastructure, in the roots that perennials have to put down. And it makes it harder for them to yield the kind of of amounts that we need to have a viable grain. But I do think that it can get better. I do think the headstart that they get in the spring is going to be meaningful. I do think that there is going to be a place for perennial grains. And I think it’s also important to note that it’s going to vary by plant.
Mike Grunwald 20:45
I think this is really key to mention that upfront, like even in New Routes for Agriculture, when Wes Jackson was first thinking about this in 1981, the introduction was written by Wendell Berry, the great environmental writer. And he focused right in on this, he said, “The main practical difficulty is that a perennial cannot afford to concentrate all its energy into seed, just like Tamar just said. Some energy must be saved to maintain its root system through the winter and start growth again in the spring. Thus, the hardest question is about a possible conflict between herbaceous perennialism and high yield. It can only be answered by success or failure.” And to which I will add the folks at the Land Institute today, they will say that question has not yet been answered. They might fail. This might never amount to something that farmers will be willing to adopt. And that can actually make a real impact on the food system. It’s great that they say that they’re storing an extra, at least for the first couple of decades, they think they store about an extra ton of carbon per hectare. And that’s about two and a half acres. And that’s great. But that’s nowhere near enough to make up for the losses of having to cut down two acres of prairie or wetlands or forest for every acre of Kernza that you plant.
Tamar Haspel 22:11
However, a piece of evidence in favor of the ability for perennials to have high yields, is a perennial with high yields. And although Kernza has become the poster crop for perennial grains, there’s a better one, and it’s perennial rice. And it was developed in China. And it’s actually being planted in a lot of places in China. And it’s showing yields that are equivalent to and in some cases a little better than the annualized version of those plants. And it’s yielding about a little under seven tons per hectare, which is a little under three tons an acre, which is less than we get in the United States, but equivalent to what they get in lots of parts of the world. And on my very important super nerdy ag metric calories per acre, it does very well at 10 million calories per acre. And that compares to about 15 million for corn, which is incredibly productive. And about four to six million for wheat, which is not nearly as productive as corn. So perennial rice is doing very well. But there’s a reason for it. Rice has some perennial-ish characteristics. It’ll grow new shoots if you chop it down. And it also has a very close relative, that is a bonafide perennial. But the third reason that perennial rice has been a success is that the Chinese threw a lot of money at it. As you know, for all the reasons Mike just said, for a plant breeder, this is a really hard problem turning an annual into a perennial. And it takes a lot of iterations, there’s still a lot of trial and error in plant breeding, even with the precision tools that they have now. And a lot of places are unwilling to go with genetic modification because people are really unnerved by that and if this is going to work, it has to be a success in the marketplace. But the and that perennial rice might it gives me optimism.
Mike Grunwald 24:32
I think one lesson of that, as you said, rice is more perennial-ish than wheat to begin with, right? It really does matter how we grow what we eat, but often what we eat matters even more. And this might be ultimately more of an argument for the world needs to shift towards perennial-ish types of crops like rice and away from inherently annual-ish types of crops like wheat, when you see how hard it is to try to make wheat behave like a prairie, and still provide the kind of yields that you want from a wheat field. That is really difficult. I will point out that, and this is sometimes more Tamar’s theme than mine is that, while yield we both are 100% agree is massively important. And when it comes to the climate impact of food yield is the most important thing. But yield isn’t everything. And I talk about….
Tamar Haspel 25:43
Who are you what have you done with Mike?
Mike Grunwald 25:45
Well, they talked about that a lot at the at the at the Land Institute. And in fact, their Twitter handle is nature as measure. And their idea is: yield, very easy to measure. Like we know how to compare Kernza to wheat, and right now, it’s not nearly as good and it’s got to get way better. But also nature is an important value too, not just in the “we like things that are natural,” but in the soil carbon, in the biodiversity, in things that we really care about, and in the health of the soil, which can someday contribute to yields. And so they’re very keen on this idea that you want to measure more than just the output. You want to measure, essentially, not just how much is it like a wheat field, but how much is it like a prairie. And that’s important to what we’ve seen. And you know, my classic example is when I went to Tom Steyer’s Regenerative Ranch in California, which does an excellent job of being a natural land than a normal pasture. So there is much more biodiversity, they have different kinds of grass. But it is not a biodiverse landscape. If they just let it go to nature and took the cows off, it would be way more biodiverse. And the yield on that place is just absurd. And it turned out it wasn’t even storing more carbon. So again, to quote Tamar, they’re all tradeoffs all the time. But you really have to make the tradeoffs. And here with Kernza, there’s a gigantic yield trade off that is at this point not acceptable by any measure with some modest biodiversity and carbon gains. The hope is that as they use this, as Tom Steyer is trying to use this as a laboratory to do the research, they’re talking about more intercropping, so that you’ll have the Kernza, maybe with some legumes, and some soybeans, or who knows, that will have more biodiversity, as well, as maybe higher yields, and also you need less pesticides.
Tamar Haspel 28:12
And that’s right. And when I was there, the Land Institute is next to a field that by all the records they can dig up, indicates that it’s original prairie, it’s never been plowed. It’s never been touched. And I stood there looking at it with the then president of the Land Institute, Fred Iutzi, and Fred, if I’m butchering your name, I’m really sorry. And we’re looking at this big riot of different kinds of plants. There’s tall ones and short ones, there’s yellow ones, there’s green ones, there’s flowering ones, there’s non-flowering ones, there’s all these insects buzzing around, they’re all coexisting, and the soil is rich, and it’s sequestering all of this carbon. And Fred points at it and says, you know, this is the system we’re trying to mimic, but not because it’s natural, but because it works. And so they’re trying to learn what it is about these systems that we can harness in an agricultural system. And so a system with Kernza isn’t big fields of Kernza for a couple of reasons, because perennials for all of their advantages have some problems, too, and one of them is pests. So if you have a perennial field that just sits there year after year, the pests are going to become a huge problem because they’re like, “Hey, nobody’s taking this away, and in the fall, we can just hang out.” And so the vision is what Mike what you were just talking about, intercrop with legumes. It’s not going to be there eternally. Just because it’s perennial doesn’t mean that yields don’t fall off and you have to replant it at some point. And you know, the one perennial crop that is in common rotation here is alfalfa and it’s not there for good and all. Farmers put it there for a few years, and then they take it out as it starts to yield less and less. And so this isn’t a solution, it’s a piece of a solution. And actually, one of the best things I learned when I was out there was that you can put two different crops in a field, and you can alternate rows, and do everything like that because modern combines, which are just amazing machines, can be programmed to plant and harvest in that way. And I didn’t know that when I went to Kansas, and all you farmers out there kind of rolling your eyes and laughing at me that I didn’t know that. But I am the president of the combine fan club, not just because it means that people don’t have to do the backbreaking labor of planting and harvesting themselves.
Mike Grunwald 30:59
I understand it “combines” some of those 🙂
Tamar Haspel 31:03
Yes, yes, hence the name. But it can also do really amazing things. And, you know, this is another thing in the ag space that I think sometimes gets short shrift, because expensive combines, and they can be seven figures, expensive combines are only an option for really big farms, and really big farms have been taking it on the chin from the good food people. But the thing about farms is that they scale. And when you have a really big farm, you can afford to farm it with machinery with much less labor, and that is one of the ways that food stays cheap. And you know, we were talking about yield and talking about farming and one of the things that’s been incredibly frustrating to me is that our industrialized food system it’s all been lumped together, and it’s been labeled bad. And so efficiency and machinery sometimes go in the same bucket, as you know, nutrient runoff and monocropping, and the machines and the efficiency are the good part of industrial agriculture and like every day out on Twitter, I’m out there trying to decouple what’s good about our industrial system from what’s bad about our industrial system, because the answer to a bad industrial system isn’t the non industrial system. It’s a better industrial system.
Mike Grunwald 32:43
Your hard toiling in the Twitter fields, we appreciate your back-breaking labor. I do think this is these are like really good points, but scale really does matter. And right now, in fact, even Kernza, when we’re talking about this as a viable crop, we’re talking decades in the future. And this problem of feeding the world without frying the world is a right now problem, right? We’re heading fast towards 9 billion people on Earth. We are going to need another quadrillion calories every year soon. And we’ve got to reduce deforestation. So we talk about moving past monocultures to these kind of nicer, more garden like, more prairie like diverse fields. That’s going to be tough, because there is a tradeoff. And it’s not a coincidence that even after 40 years, the Kernza that we ate Tamar, and I think we’re going to talk about that next, it was grown in a monoculture. It was grown with modern fertilizer and just as much as a wheat field. So again, there’s this vision of the future and it’s a regenerative future, and it’s exciting. And it probably does depend on reducing food waste and reducing ruminant meat consumption, and a lot of other changes in the way we farm. So that, you know, some of these yield penalties are not as penalizing. But there’s also this really desperate emergency that we’re looking at. That’s going to require a lot of food and a lot less land in a real hurry.
Tamar Haspel 34:32
So here’s the thing. If you buy some of those products, and some of them are for sale, Patagonia sells at least a beer and I think another kinds of product as well. There are Kernza products on the market. And if you buy them, you are doing your part for climate but not because Kernza is doing its part for climate, yet. You’re doing your part for climate because you’re putting money in the pot for people to continue to do the breeding work that will someday, we hope, make Kearns a part of the solution. But the key question, what does it taste like? And the answer is good! I’ve tasted a bunch of Kernza products in, including a couple of years ago, a kind of a porridge where you really can taste it. And the beer, which tastes like beer. But we had two kinds of pasta, and we had crackers, and we had Kernza flour, and I made a banana bread with half Kernza, half just plain white flour. And we had a panel of tasters, including my husband, and Mike’s son, Max. And then Mike’s daughter, Leena, and Mike’s wife Christina ventured in and it was funny because we had the crackers out. And they were encouraging everybody to try them. And both Leena and Christina did exactly the same thing: they picked up a cracker and they took the tiniest little nibble off the end of it, chewed, thought for a second and said, “Hey, this is delicious.”
Mike Grunwald 36:20
And basically, I don’t want to overly mystify this, right. I mean, this was delicious. Well, the crackers are delicious, because they’re like crackers. And they have more wheat flour than Kernza flour. And the pasta was delicious. Because it was like wheat pasta and Tamar made a delicious sauce with some sausage in it and it was awesome. But again, I think even the pasta, I think one of them was the egg noodles or knockoff were like 20% Kernza. And the more normal kind of shell type pasta was like 30% Kernza.
Tamar Haspel 37:08
And the crackers had a ton of butter in them which of course makes everything taste better.
Mike Grunwald 37:12
So did the banana bread which which because Tamar did not have the courage of her Kernza convictions was only 50% Kernza flour. And again, they do actually call them climate-smart noodles. The beer calls it “draw down by drinking up.” And that’s still kind of bogus. I mean, I think as we’ve said, like, as long as the yields are this lousy, you’re actually not helping the climate by eating this stuff. But it’s exciting. And as we say, when we talk about alternative proteins, the fake meats, all that kind of stuff, like taste is going to be non-negotiable. And so the fact that this stuff, at least, you know, clearly does not ruin the taste of a cracker or a flour, and that’s exciting. That means that they can proceed, you’re still not there yet, because your yields are still ridiculous. But we can see you’ve at least got one part of the of the solution here right.
Tamar Haspel 38:21
I’m sure that the Land Institute is on the edge of their seat just waiting for the Climavores stamp of approval, and they’ll breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they’ve got it. Climavores is a production of Post Script Media. The show is hosted by me, Tamar Haspel. And me Michael Grunwald. Scott Clavenna and Stephen Lacey are the executive producers and senior editor is Anne Bailey. Producers are Dalvin Aboagye and Daniel Walldorf. Mixing is by Sean Marquand and Roy Campanella.
Mike Grunwald 39:08
Post Script Media is supported by Prelude Ventures, a venture capital firm focused on climate solutions across energy, Food, Agriculture, Transportation, logistics, and advanced materials. Thank you so much for listening to us. And we would love it if you said nice things about us. You can spread the word by giving us a rating or review on Apple podcasts or Spotify. We’re also streaming on Amazon music. And please tell your friends send them a link. Tell them to listen.