You're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host, and I've got Dr. Tony Salas, CEO and co founder of Shared-X and impact farming company on the show. And welcome to the program. Dr. Tony.

Thank you so much for inviting me met.

Well, it's great to have you so. So tell us a little bit about your story as to what, what brought you to this world of impact farming? And, and how did you get here?

Well, I actually I started, I'm a biologist by training, and then I did my masters and my PhD is in the US. So I mean, that's how I got involved a little bit more in learning how, how the how the businesses in the US work. And that led me to be more creative. And the things that I was doing at that time, I was a consultant in the enact business, and I traveled the world doing that.

So I was a consultant for large companies, small companies, poor guys, rich guys, whatever. So I was involved in over 30 countries, probably 500 Different ag projects all over. And after that, I had the sense that I mean, I had a lot of knowledge, but I didn't achieve a lot I mean by myself. So I went to try the American way.

And I talked to a actually a former client I had in, in Silicon Valley at Kleiner Perkins. And we decided to launch a company together, where three founders, John Dennis, and myself and UCLA community, and we decided to go ahead and start doing something in the impact investing world. And that is a sector that has been growing tremendously over the last years.

And I think it's going to be still growing over the next decades. So it's more I mean, focus on impact in the social way, and environmental way. And those are two things that I mean, need to be stressed and need to be bound together when you think about agriculture or the new way of farming. And that's what I tried to do in the last seven years. So we found a Shared-X in 2015. And well, since then, it has been a fantastic journey.

Well tell us a little bit more about impact investing. In some ways. I've read a bit about it. But I think the audience probably you'd like to hear a little bit more about what does that mean?

Yeah, well, if people talk a lot about ESG, you probably have heard about ESG, you know, so that's environmental and social and governance, and everybody wants to have is ESG division. And everybody brags about what they do, and ESG, and so on.

So a, I think it impact investing is, is inherently implements ESG the principles, but I mean, ESG is not inherently impactful. So what I'm saying is that I mean, ESG is just saying, Well, you know, I have I give equal products to women or do this or do that. And that's how I create my governance. Now I recycle, blah, blah, but impact investing is, is really more deep, like it's in the DNA of the company. And what it needs to do is, it needs to be the mindfulness of the company.

So it needs to be at the heart of the company. Every time the company takes a takes a breath, it needs to think about how can I impact more with the things I'm doing. So that's really the difference between ESG and impact the ESG actually, you can outsource, you can carry it out, you can have a division doing that.

Every all the companies can do that. But impact investing is something that the core of the company is how the company got started, and try to talk more in the real world. Just imagine a mining company. So they want to do good to the environment. Are they around?

So it's okay, well, I mean, I have a lot of farmers around, why don't give away good genetics in cows. So I mean, these are gold mining companies. So it's not inherited to their business, the car business, you know, I'm saying, I want to be good. So I want to be okay with the neighbors. So to give away cars, they make a lot of money.

So they give away whatever, 500 cars one year, but next year, they don't make so much money so they give away only 50 cars, or depending on how they feel they could give more out what are they reported they have some KPIs and that's the way they deal with ESG which is a different thing of impact investing impact investing is them themselves being cowboys, then themselves being cow. Investors, you know, and then they have that interaction with other I mean cattle growers in geyser in that particular business in in the best day if they do better than the small haul.

The Carl roles will also do better. So that exchange makes it more important because it's aligned, it's perfectly aligned, the benefits are aligned. And the risks are also aligned. So the rest of the farmer are also the risk of this larger company. And that's what impact investing is.

So what we want to do is we don't only want to go and tell the smallholder farmer, what they should do is I mean, we are also farmers, and we want to share our knowledge with them, and we want to sell the products together. So I think that is what creates impact because you are aligned in the same purpose.

So how does your business work? Are you designed to make money for your shareholders? Or are you designed as a non for profit, or not for profit corporation,

I think in order for everything to be sustainable, it needs to be a business. So the idea of making something sustainable, and just being an NGO, and then bringing in money from foundations from for whatever, I mean, that has a limit. So there's not going to be enough money given away for just doing good. So you need to create a business around it in order to make it sustainable.

And that's what we have done. So we are a for profit company in the I think that's that's how we have been dealing with I mean, with the business all around. So we started trying to build larger farms, where we are sustainable and self sufficient with our profits. And what we have seen is that the big problem in smallholder farming in the rural areas, in poor countries and even in the states is that I mean, a lot of farmers, they don't have access to markets, and they don't have access to technologies.

So they are consequently poor, because the lack of access. So it's not a money thing. It's an access thing. So we can actually construct a farm that provides the access the platform for them to be efficient in the commercial engagements, or the technology that they are adopting, that is something that's value for them.

So we establish a large farm, and then we share our technology on our market access together with them. And then we sell everything together, we charge them for doing that. Because again, it needs to be a business. But everybody benefits from that. So it's an online business, we're not actually buying Providence mall for the farmer and just reselling it.

Because otherwise, there's a perverse incentive, I will be incentivized to buy the cheaper price and sell high, you know, because that's my profit. Here. I have my own farm. So the farmer wants to participate this great. If he doesn't, that means that he has another option that's better than what I'm offering. So that's great. So we just are creating this platform of access, because we think poverty is entangled as a consequence of not having that access.

Well, I totally agree with the concept that building for profit businesses have the potential for greater impact, because then it is, in a sense, sustainable, as you said, meaning that as a business model, it can go forward without the kindness of donors. I mean, there certainly is a place for donors to be involved in certain projects that maybe are too risky, or first of their kind.

But if you've got something that's a business like agriculture, that's been a business since the beginning of humanity became civilization. So it's a business that should be potentially profitable. We all pay for food, there's a potential for profit there. So tell us a little bit more about you know, exactly what the Shared-X model is, where you guys are located, where in the world, you have farms or offices. And what's your growth been like?

Well, I will just start by stating that. I mean, a lot has been said about innovation. You know, everybody wants to be an innovator. And you go to Silicon Valley, I mean, they create a lot of digital things. And they are in the ACT tech business today. And they think that they could tell the farmer how they should grow their food. And that's something I mean, that's not sometimes real.

Okay, because I mean, the real world is real here is a little more complex than the one that you imagine sitting in Sunday rolls. So what I would say is that, I mean, we need to innovate in the model. I mean, our schools, they are built up for innovating in engineering operations, reduce the costs, economics, I mean, just be more efficient because of machinery to do that. In nobody has thought about innovating, in the model of impact. How can you create more impact?

Is there a model for that and that's what impact for So impact farming is a business model that says, Okay, everybody can own a farm. But if we can share stuff with smallholder farmers, environmental technologies, environmental safety technologies, regenerative agriculture, technologies, and we can share, then our access to market, then we can build something together that has a long lasting effect. That's what impact farming is. That's what Sharif does in different crops in different parts of the world.

Well, I certainly think that having a farming industry or farming having our farmers be doing things that are environmentally friendly, is is vital to to our future. And unfortunately, Big Ag has gotten in and they're just way too many fertilizers. And you see the the impact that downstream is polluting our rivers, lakes, aquifers, oceans, here in California, the pollution runoff from from farming killed a lot of the kelp forest off the coast of California.

So it's something that's real, and has it as the direct impact on everybody who lives in California, you don't think of it naturally that farmers miles away from the coast could destroy the kelp forests. But that's what happened.

So we'll be right back, you're listening to A Climate Change. I've got Dr. Tony Salas on the program CEO and co founder of Shared-X, an impact farming company. And we'll be right back.

You're listening to A Climate Change. It's Matt Matern, your host. And I've got D r. Tony Salas on the program. Dr. Tony, tell us a little bit about regenerative agriculture and how that can make a difference in our farming and make it more environmentally friendly.

Well, I mean, what you just said is very important, also what's in there for the farmers to make that transition from being a conventional agricultural farmer to go into regenerative agricultural practices. So first of all, just I mean, as the term says, the concept of regenerative agriculture is, is based on a soil health. So we have, we have always thought I mean that the plants just need a lot of fertilizers, and the soil is just there, so the plant doesn't fall off.

So even you can drip irrigate everything with hoses and water, you can dissolve the nutrients in the water. And that's what you need. So, but now, we understand that the soil is very, very important. And we are going back to our ideas about the soil, the microbes in the soil, the way they actually are minors of those fertilizers to make them more available to the plant that they create those colonies have in the roots, and they communicate to the plant in different ways.

And that's so great that this is coming back to us now. Because that is the only thing that will have a resilient agriculture in the future. So now a as you were stating, The farmers need to go towards that way. But however, most of them stay in the status quo. So why is the transition to regenerative agricultural regenerative farming so slow?

So that's the first question that we'll have to say, first of all is well, we will have to find incentives for the farmers to do that. Why should we ask farmers to accept lower family incomes to save the world? I mean, farmers may be poor, some of them are they're stupid. So they need to make more money, or at least I mean, be paid somehow, so that there are incentivized to go into regenerative agricultural practices.

So this is not only something that I mean, will diminish the risk in the long term, but needs to also increment the profits of the farmer. Otherwise, you won't have any technologies adopted in regenerative agriculture, and you will still have just conventional agriculture everywhere.

So what new policies you think that we should implement here in the US or around the world that would incentivize farmers effectively to move to regenerative agriculture? And maybe you could also explain a little bit more as to what regenerative agriculture is for the listeners?

Well, Jenna monoculture goes beyond organic you know, organic has been has been that particular seal that everybody knows, and they have that certification program to be organic. And that's just a check out of list the things that you cannot use the things that you can use, okay, but I mean regenerative agriculture goes beyond that. It says, Well, okay, we're thinking about the soil as well.

When we bring less inputs from the outside, when we create our own inputs inside the home, the entire farm, want to understand how microbes react to the soil react towards the root system of the plant. And that's the thing that goes beyond organic.

Organic is a certification. regenerative agriculture is known as alleviation as of today, some of them are trying to make it as certification, I think we should think about not all or nothing approaches, like organic agriculture. So we should think about that a conventional farmer can adopt regenerative technologies, while still being a conventional farmer.

But he's adopting the knowledge of regenerative agriculture with time, which is great, because that means transition. Otherwise, if you just put black or white and say, You're not going to be qualified for the certification of regenerative agriculture, then we're going to see any changes. So we need to allow farmers to adopt technologies of regenerative agriculture.

So he can be a conventional farmer use some nitrogen, whatever he needs, fertilizers have synthetic, I would say, raw materials, but at the same time, he's adopting those technologies that will lead to a more sustainable farm.

And that's why we are finding for so is that, like, a level five regenerative farmer is like a top, you know, uses no outside input and a level one is somebody uses a fair amount of outside input, but it's at least made their first steps into it.

I think that's a great way to look at it. Because I mean, otherwise, with all or nothing, we're getting nowhere. See, I mean, we thought that we will get a lot of organic certifications everywhere. I mean, and you're talking about 9%, in Europe, 3%. In the US, 1%. In Latin America, this is zero, this is almost nothing. And without group, we're going to be achieving 30% in Europe by now.

And we haven't done that. Why? Because our whole process, I mean, has failed to scale. And because we call it a certification of all or nothing. And I don't think regenerative agriculture should go that way. So what can we do to make farmers adopt regenerative agriculture techniques? Or be more? I mean, into that?

I think, well, definitely, we need two things. Now. One is the push of the public sector. So we need public sector to adopt, I would say policies, subsidies, a r&d, you know, I mean, because we need, you need a lot of research and develop because research and development has been doing research in synthetic agriculture has been doing research in pesticides. That's what everybody has been paid by the larger corporations to do research for, which is fine, because that's where the money went for research. Because I mean, they had the money to do that.

Now, we need to start doing research in regenerative agriculture. So we can sell, I mean, real stuff, and not just I mean, imaginative actions of microbes in the soil. How many microbes should you apply? When so all things I mean, we have all those land grant universities, we have the National Science Foundation, we have all that infrastructure into place, all the brains are there, we just need to give them money to do more research into regenerative agriculture and regenerative agricultural practices.

So that's one thing we need to have research and we need to have technologies that are proven science based. Second thing is I think we should have subsidies for guys that actually adopted into their own farms, and they in so that public sector, private sector indefinitely, we need to have consumer engagement, we need to find a way that consumers are going to be the market pool of all those products.

They're going to say no to other processes, but to say yes, to regenerative agricultural practices and products. So they will have to demand that this comes to the table. And one way of also financing all this is where this big decarboxylation I would say trend, meaning that I mean, you have more regenerative agriculture, you will probably have more carbon sequestration in the soil in agriculture, and that could be great.

Well, that's, you know, it seems as though the that there would have to be some kind of label on the goods in order for a consumer to have the demand. So, you know, I understand you had said that the label of organic wasn't sufficient, but it certainly drives some consumer behavior and as it becomes more effective, hopefully it'll drive more but I hear what you're saying in terms of we need to have some kind of some kind of demand from consumers for these products.

And, and partly it's that consumers may not know, the benefits of regenerative farming, I mean, that there's a lot of carbon sequestration in the soil if you farm in a regenerative way versus if you're farming in a kind of the way current modern farming is done, there's a lot of carbon that's emitted through tilling the soil and, and all the carbon heavy fertilizers that are put on the on the soil to help grow the food.

Right. Exactly. And what you'll see there is that I mean, there's a big trend that talks about well, two trends. One is the greenwashing No, so everybody claims to be the ones that are doing it good and blah, blah. And then the consumer is so confused, because he reaches known for for something at the shelf, and he has so many different seals.

And in one he sees the frog of rainforests and the other one he sees the fairtrade thing. So at the end, I mean, there won't be enough space in the coffee bags to put more seals on. So I don't think we need a new seal, I think we need just better communication.

And I think green washers are just taking advantage of of the imbalances of that communication in order for them to profit on that. So we need to just I mean, be more, be more capable of communicating better. So that's, that's also definitely something like I mean, radio, people, TV shows and films and whatever.

Well, I think one thing that comes to mind as the lawyer, I think of lawsuits and that against green washers, who are who are lying about their products, I mean, because clearly there are some products out there that are saying, Hey, we are doing X or Y or Z, and they're not actually doing it. I don't think that's the sole solution.

But you know, somebody's got to be held accountable. And that's why I feel like, you know, companies when they promise that they're going to deliver an environmentally friendly products should be actually doing it.

Well, I mean, look, what you see in green washing is also that they just mentioned this stuff, we captured 10 million tonnes of carbon, is that a lot? They should be they should be doing twice as much maybe.

So they just give you the data, the role, they don't give you information. And then you are you're you're amazed by that. So I think greenwash is a very smart by doing their job. And we should be smart. That's the only thing in the end. That's why educating the public.

That's why I guess we'll be back in just one minute. But, you know, I have a little bit of a disagreement with Dr. Tony on that one. And that I feel like it's so challenging for consumers to get up to speed.

That's why the label of organic helps it for, for instance, people who are not sophisticated or you know, just don't have, you know, 500 hours a week to, you know, look through all the grocery items to make sure they're organic. They're trusting that the producers meet the standard, but we'll be right back in just one minute. talking to Dr. Tony Salas, CEO of Shared-X and impact farming company.

You’re listening to A Climate Change, this is Matt Matern, your host. I've got Dr. Tony Salas on the program. Tony is the CEO of Shared-X and impact farming company and just kind of backing up a second. How does agriculture affect climate change? Can you give us a broad description of why or how agriculture affects climate change?

Well, I mean, we just got the news No, the United Nations. Just I think that I mean, report that we have reached 8 billion people. So that's, that's that's a lot of mouths to feed and consequently, more challenges to our environment as well. I will say, currently generates 20 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

And without action that presents it's definitely it's going to be pricey, you know, if you add to probably the logistics of delivery and this and that and in sending products overseas, and so to be more than 30% and if we have now more people is going to be higher.

So I mean, the impact is there, and the only way to mingle with that is not necessarily to reduce it, but we need, we need to think we need to, to suck it, you know what I'm saying we need to have something that we can have into control in order to sequester the carbon that we're emitting. Because some of that, I mean, we cannot stop.

So A, we can think about two things here. People talk about trees, which I think is great. So those are definitely a carbon sink. And a lot of people don't talk about soil, which is a much more efficient carbon sink, and trees. So we think about soil, we have all that land to do that, we will think about regenerative agriculture being really, really a way of sequestering carbon in the soil, which is much more efficient entries.

But tell us how how is it that soil is more efficient than trees in sequestering carbon that kind of seems like counterintuitive to those of us who kind of been brought up to believe that trees are, you know, big and obviously can suck carbon in and soil, please upgrade, and I'm in favor of trees.

And the thing is now, I mean, you have to have biodiverse trees, you kind of have all of them. And you have I mean, fires in the forest and this and that. But I mean, I think trees are great, what they do is they grow very slowly, they bring in carbon from from when they do photosynthesis. And they I mean, I mean, transformed the carbon into the woods, basically.

And they of course, they sequester also some carbon in the soil. But in agriculture, the plants are domesticated to grow very fast. Now, so what's happening is photosynthesis, foods dedic activities very fast. So they bring in carbon inside very fast. And what they do is I mean, 60% of the carbon is gone, goes to the root system.

And it goes to a root system, because the carbon feeds the microbes that are in the soil, what they eat, they eat sugars, they eat carbons, and they exchange nutrients in the soil for carbon that the plant is excavating.

So what's happening from 1000s of millions of years is that I mean, what is happening is that that carbon is been transferred into the soil in agriculture much more efficient and literally, so you have for example, in Amazonian rainforest, can capture what probably three, maybe maybe four tonnes per hectare per year if it's efficient, now, and then you have soil and carbon that can capture 20 tonnes.

So you're talking about it's much more what's happening, if the photosynthetic activity is just I mean, greater. That's what did you get that? Matt? I want to be sure.

Yeah, that's, that's a very stunning statistic that the Amazon rainforest is five times less efficient at capturing carbon than soil growing kind of regular agricultural products is that that is a fair statement.

Exactly. Because I mean, you grow an arm on tree or you go to a wine in grapes, or whatever. And then you have to prune it every year, and all the current goes into the soil and stays there, and it's chipped down. Some of that, of course, is gets gets evaporated in co2, but I mean, a lot of them stays in the soil. And that's what you want.

So just by increasing 2%, of all of the soil, I mean, that we have today, I mean, we will solve the whole climate change position was not going to happen. But I mean, what I'm saying is that you have to plant in trees, and then probably five times the entire world in order to to sync all the carbon that were emitting. So at the end, I would say both are important for key planting trees.

But I think we should really focus on soil and agriculture in that's what the big thing is, and we haven't done that yet. So carbon credits, everybody talks about carbon credits in the in the trees, not a lot of people talk about current policy design.

So if we think about that agriculture is an activity that everybody actually it's dependent on. A I think we should be start thinking how do we monetize that carbon in the soil with farmers are doing the right thing.

So how do you do that what what are the ways in which you can enhance the soil as well as increase the amount of carbon that sequestered in the soil? What are the practices that create that condition?

Well, no tilling is one of them that you just mentioned, when you open and crank up the soil again, I mean, all that thing goes out again. So the idea is to reduce the tilling methods Uh, more definitely perennial crops when you plant whatever oranges are almost an olive trees, I mean, they I wouldn't say those stay forever, but those stay for 3040 50 years you don't take them out.

So that's been carbon been sequestered in soil for a long, long time. And then carbon goes down, down down and at the end, actually, I mean, it turns into into oil, that that's the A. And so what I'm saying is that I mean, they are regenerative practices today, with microbes in the soil with biostimulants, for the plants that really allow the plants to fight against stress, and to start sequestering more carbon into the soil.

And if you apply less synthetic fertilizers, you will make the colonies of the microbes more efficient, because they will be producing the nutrients the plant needs, and you won't be killing them with pesticides, because we apply the pesticide herbicide kills, I don't know how much but a good percentage of the microbes who are living in your soil that we're doing good. So you're killing also the good microbes there.

And so I mean, that reduces the amount of carbon that's been sequenced in the soil. So the idea is to go more into regenerative agriculture, because that has that particular benefit. And that is really creating resilience going up and mitigating the effects of climate change, and making the farmer at the end more efficient in the long term. So how can we make it so that the farmer gets more money out doing that, and doesn't do the other way? Because I mean, the farmer is also thinking on his pockets.

So we need to find a way with subsidies, we need to find a way with incentives, we need to find a way for consumer engagement for getting this done in I think carbon credits in the soil is something that big companies can actually help also in the voluntary market to address and to pay for those in to get an incentive done.

Well, that's a that's a great ideas that actually larger companies that are emitting a lot of carbon could get credits by paying farmers that are using regenerative agriculture techniques and and sequestering lots of carbon by not telling their soil, they would get paid through these markets, the free market for carbon credits, and then the government's not even having to pay dollars out of its pocket. Exactly.

Government should be involved in the regulatory way. No, because I mean, you don't want a company say, Oh, that's great. And now the current crates are available, I can just dump everything I want.

In I just mean, with my left hand, I just buy some corn crates from from some poor farmers, and I continue the basis the way I was doing that before. So you don't want to have that perverse incentive. So the government needs to step in, in order to regulate that as well. Right?

Oh, of course, of course, you know, in a, in a world that we live in, that's going to actually survive, we've got to be regulating and reducing the amount of pollution that companies are, are creating. So that that goes, maybe not without saying because everybody may not be on that same page yet, but I certainly am. In terms of subsidies, obviously, farmers are already getting lots of subsidies in the US and have been for decades.

So even though some conservatives might say, you know, got more subsidies. But I mean, realistically, they're already getting tons of subsidies. So why not subsidize them to do something for good, versus the subsidies that they've been getting have been to get grow more corn that is primarily fed to livestock and not to humans? Most of the agricultural production that we have in the US, to my understanding is fed to animals. Right?

Exactly. And not even the US. So you're actually feeding animals in a different part of the world. So it's not. So that's important for everybody to know. But what you said is very interesting. No, I mean, companies, they can only reduce so much, you know, it comes to Manuel, they can recycle paper, you can do that, but they still have to actually they're in the 11th floor, they still have to take the elevator on so on whatever.

So I mean, there is always something that they need to offset by buying those credits. And I think that's great. That's a way of farmers getting I mean, paid for what they're doing. So I think subsidies and that is good. And I mean, the time will come when you don't need those subsidies. And all the grocery stores are going to be built up with those products and the consumer demand is going to pitch for that is going to demand that so it's going to be market poor.

Basically, well, that's the day we're hoping for. We need that day to come pretty soon because we're in a bit of a crisis and things don't look too good for us from a environmental front, Tony.

So you're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host. I've got Dr. Tony Salas on the program and we'll be right back in just one minute to talk to Dr. Tony.

You're listening to A Climate Change. This is Matt Matern, your host, and I've got Dr. Tony Salas on the program.

Dr. Tony, just want to ask you, you know, we talked a little bit offline about this, and the fact that ESG is not good enough. Because a lot of times, companies are going right up to the limit as far as how much they're polluting. And in order to get real reductions in the level of pollutants and greenhouse gases, we need companies to go beyond that and actually continue to reduce their emissions below what their minimum or requirements are, and maybe give them incentives to produce less and less pollution. How do we do that?

Yeah, that would be great. That's definitely a way of having an aligned incentives for reducing those emissions. And the only way is just a mean, getting the public sector involved and in the private sector involved in order to get those engagements.

The thing is, I mean, it will wait the public sector just to do the business. We can wait setting No, because I mean, public sectors are really very, very slow in producing a response to what I mean, what we need today. So I think we should force the public private companies that are doing good say, No, I'm doing good.

I mean, is there an incentive for me? And that's what you're talking about? Matt? Being able to just I mean, go, I mean, half the limits a quarter the limits that I mean, the revelation is saying, in order to get extra cash for those companies, that right reward, reward the good behavior?

Oh, you've done a lot of work in, in developing countries. And in working with farmers there, how are the farmers different in those societies? And are? What kind of changes can they make to, to get carbon credits or to do regenerative agriculture so that their farming more effective way and polluting less?

Well, we need to understand that 70% of the food that we eat is produced by 70% of the farmers and 70% of the farmers are poor. So a when you draw a line apart, the you say, Well, what is your incentive? My incentive is, I mean, how do I feed my family? So that particular tree, whatever happens to the future with the sustainable environment?

I don't necessarily, I mean, concerned with that, because I need to fit them today. In poverty then has been, together with other factors, of course, one very, very important thing, or issue for land degradation and deforestation, especially in the poor countries, like in Africa, Asia, and South America. So not all the poor farmers are like the poor farmers in the US, where they get the subsidies or whatever, or they engage with land grant universities, in those particular sites.

I mean, they are not so I mean, they go into the forest and deeper into the forest and cut down that tree. And they don't have techniques that I mean, grow sustainable, I mean, in their own land. So when the land is degraded, so it doesn't produce a yield they used to do five years ago, so they go deeper into the forest deeper. That's called shifting our culture.

So shifting agriculture is really a the reason why why land degradation deforestation in the Amazon basin in the Congo Basin in Africa, is being done today. So we need to do something in order to address poverty.

If we want to address climate change and environmental changes, you know what I'm saying? So poverty is not a separate thing from that. Poverty is totally related to the to the two changes that we need to make in in environmental concerns.

So how do we how do we do that? How do we link those two things up?

Well, we definitely need to Have more efficient farming. So regenerative agricultural practices in this impact farming model that I mentioned at the beginning, we Shared-X, while they grow in the same way we grow, they have technology.

So they raise five times the productivity, and then they can actually sell it through our platform in the market with consumers that are engaged and concerned about the environment as well, and the social impacts that we have. So that is a reason at the end, will you have that because I mean, farmers are damaging sometimes the environment because they are poor.

So if you don't solve the poverty, you're not solving the origin of the damage to the environment. So that goes back to saying, Well, what can we do in order for them to be efficient as farmers? And that is where impact farming comes in.

So how do you roll out your programs to more and more farmers how to share it x make a wider impact or or, or companies like Shared-X.

Our idea is to catalyze this impact farming movement, it's put his how well you know, I mean, we have increased netting comes up to five times to small coffee growers. In Peru and other places, we have increased up to three times carbon sequestration in the soil, Visa vs conventional regular, I mean, farming sites in cocoa, and then coffee as well.

And so we know this works. This is not something that somebody told me or that I read in a paper, this is something I've done. So I can see that. And the farmers can see that as well. And they copy us and they sell together with us. And we have our roasting company, Philadelphia is called one village coffee and people buy our coffee in 600 stores in the US. And this is not an infomercial. I know. But I mean, we are doing that as of today.

This is not a dream I have. So those guys are engaged 1,000s of farmers can do that, that we need to get get engaged with them. And we need to have the ability to bring in those technologies to bring in that commercial platform for them to actually escape poverty and be then more consequently, prepared to fight climate change at a time.

Well, kudos to you for the work that you've done thus far and engaging with 1000s of farmers and helping them increase their income and also helping farm more efficiently so that they are sequestering more carbon, I mean, it's a win win win situation. How do you 10x or 100x or 1,000x, this effort because it's, it's great. So far, you built the model now, now you get to build it out 1000 times bigger, that's all we need.

We will need those communication skills that you have, Matt, I mean, we need to go I mean in convince other farmers to consumers to do the public sector to do that. And I think that's, that's, that's, that's a word that you won't see one or two, three years, I mean, that's going to take 10 years to do No, and that's going to take more people, young people that understand this, in order to make a change, because that formula at the end, I mean, he doesn't want to hurt the environment, he just wants to supply for his own family, you know, but if he can get at the end, higher yields and a better price and this and that.

He's he doesn't necessarily have to go and damage the forest anymore because he can stay in his farm doing the things that he was doing 10 years ago, in a much better way.

So is it a matter of your firm and other firms like you just having more capital to go out and have you know, the people to go out in the field and talk to more people and more farmers and get them to sign up with the program that you're offering? Or what what does it take to expand your business model? So you're affecting more people?

Exactly what you just said, funding funding, we need just need more capital. So I mean, you heard about some funds that are created in impact the ESG funds, and all those green washes in the banks.

And yeah, we actually, I mean, have a lot of funding for small farmers for doing environmental good and they have those KPIs or nobody understands, but at the end is more of the same. I can tell you I mean, 80 90% of the ESG funds on the things that I've read about impact are not true or just very on the surface and they're just doing the same thing that it just using ESG and impact as a nice bus will. I mean to get around and to have I mean more funding from family or versus putting money into their funds, but they're not making a difference.

So at the end, we just need more money that's committed, we need the big guys. We need whatever the Goldman Sachs we need the JP Morgan's with the merchant banks to come in. And I mean, at the end, I mean, that's going to make the difference.

Well, those guys really understand what we are doing what I mean somebody else is doing for the environment and for smallholder farmers, and for regenerative agriculture in general. They're not doing that. I mean, everything else is just BS.

Well, definitely, the bankers need to get on board and the money people need to focus on, on helping solve this problem I did hear from I think it was the last cop conference, that they were talking about how banking had really made a shift and trying to focus more of their efforts on on putting their money where their mouth was, in terms of shifting away from the most polluting companies to to less polluting companies, are you seeing that shift actually occur? Or is it still very much a small move?

I see it small. You know, why? Because bankers don't understand impact very well. And because people understand impact, like NGOs, to understand money very well. So this will happen with time when bankers are a little more conscious of what impact really is.

And what NGO guys really know. I mean, that they have to make a business out of this otherwise, I mean, it's not going to be I mean enough money for all there. You know what I'm saying?

Yes. Well, it's been a fascinating conversation. Dr. Tony Salas, CEO and co founder and co founder of Shared-X. It's great having you on the program and wish you the best going forward, everybody, check out one village coffee. Sounds like a great brand of support, and tune back in next week. We'll look forward to having you listen in.

Thank you so much, Matt.

Thank you so much for young people. Listen to us.