Introducing ‘Regenerative,’ the New Climate Buzzword – EQ Mag Pro
“Regenerative” is the new “sustainable.” Or maybe it’s the new “renewable” — whatever. It’s the latest ubiquitous catchword in climate speak. Solar companies are now tagging their business as “regenerative energy.”
The building industry is buzzing about “regenerative concrete.” Tourism offices are trumpeting “a more regenerative way of thinking.” Economists are calling for new metrics to track a wholesale transformation to a “regenerative economy.”
Perhaps the most notable attempt to commandeer this cumbersome, five-syllable term — which, until recently, was limited to the narrow domain of agronomists and cellular biologists — has come from Doug McMillon, chief executive officer of retail behemoth Walmart Inc. To an audience of investors this week, he touted his goal of building a “regenerative company,” even as he sells more than $500 billion a year of consumer goods, a great deal of which are produced with extractive petrochemicals and eventually end up in a landfill.
There are, in fact, crucial distinctions between “sustainable,” “renewable” and “regenerative,” and before the latter gets any more popular — or drained of all value — let’s be clear about its origins and meaning.
First used in theology, “regenerative” literally means “to bring forth again” (from the latin verb regenerāre — the “re-” prefix means “again” and the rest, “capable of producing or creating”). The term was used in the 15th century to describe a kind of resurrection, a spiritual rebirth, and was picked up later that century by biologists to describe the regrowth of animal tissue — the lizard tail, for example, that fully re-forms after being severed. It wasn’t until the 1880s that ecologists began to use the term to describe the regrowth of forests after a devastating storm or fire.
Recent decades have brought advances in “regenerative medicine” that use therapeutic stem cells, tissue engineering and other methods to repair or replace damaged human organs, cells and tissues. “Regenerative agriculture” describes farming and livestock grazing practices including no-till, cover-cropping and silvopasture that, among other benefits, rebuild soil organic matter, restore the biodiversity of microbes, fungi, and the beneficial creepy crawlies that vastly improve farmland fertility, moisture, drought resilience, and — crucially — its capacity to sequester carbon.
Whereas a “sustainable” agriculture refers to non-harmful agriculture — free of herbicides and other agrochemicals that degrade the quality of farmland — regenerative agriculture goes beyond that to actually repair damage already done. Either of these can include organic farming, though not necessarily. While there are many benefits to organic methods, there are also examples of organic farms that have a net-negative climate impact. Yet the regenerative farm of Will Harris in southwestern Georgia, for example, has converted thousands of acres of lifeless, chemically scorched farmland to terrain that sequesters roughly the equivalent of 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide for every pound of grass-fed beef it produces.
As for “renewable” energy, it denotes inexhaustible sources like wind and solar that are non-extractive or non-polluting, while the new “regenerative energy” companies like Silicon Ranch are trying to go beyond that — integrating solar farms with regenerative poultry and livestock programs, taking a net-zero operation a flying leap forward to make it climate-positive.
But can concrete – or for that matter, the tourism industry or a half-a-trillion dollar retail company, actually become regenerative? Concrete, yes— there is a new “self-healing” product that contains an enzyme found in human blood that enables it to fill in cracks that inevitably form overtime — but the entire tourism industry which relies heavily on carbon-intensive air travel, and certainly retail companies that prioritize low-priced consumer goods, have a much, much longer road ahead before they transition from being less-bad to becoming that essential meaning of regenerative, which is to “bring forth again.”
Environmental leader and Drawdown editor Paul Hawken believes the retail industry, and for that matter, the global economy, not only can, but must become regenerative. He’s calling for a wholesale rebranding of the climate movement: “The climate-slash-regenerative movement will be the largest movement … that we’ve ever seen on Earth,” he said at a recent GreenBiz event. Hawken’s new book, “Regeneration: Ending the Climate Crisis in One Generation,” makes this case in more detail, as does his new website Regeneration.org.
Hawken also pointed out that regeneration is essentially human: “It’s actually what we do every day, all 30 trillion cells in our body are regenerating every nanosecond, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So it’s innate to being us.”
Let’s hope so. Scientists are telling us that our atmospheric carbon levels are currently at 412 parts per million, and to actually solve climate change and stabilize planetary warming we have to bring that down to 350ppm. To achieve this, global industries have to be a whole lot more than less bad.
Once consumers and stakeholders actually understand the term “regenerative,” we need to hold all those accountable who are claiming this term. Then all of us — lawmakers, industry leaders, investors and consumers — need to get there.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Amanda Little is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She is a professor of journalism and science writing at Vanderbilt University, and the author of “The Fate of Food: What We’ll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World.”
Source: Bloomberg
