Liz Reitzig and Tim Connolly tagged me in this, and Tim suggested I might need my BS meter, so I finally sat down and read it properly, comments and all.

A couple of things really landed. In the comments Tanja Westfall-Greiter mentions Elliot Coleman’s pushback on the word “regenerative”. You only regenerate what has been degraded, so the term makes most sense in big ag contexts where the baseline is already damaged. And even then, the details matter.

Then there’s the bigger question Liz Reitzig raises, which I think is the real heart of it.

Is extractive capitalism compatible with anything truly regenerative?

These corporate deals, Microsoft buying millions of tonnes of soil carbon credits, McDonald’s backing “routes to regen”, risk hollowing out the meaning of the word, turning “regenerative” into a marketing wrapper for business as usual, and funnelling attention toward what can be measured and sold rather than what actually heals land and communities.

So I’m sharing this edition as a useful snapshot of where the regen conversation is heading, but also as a reminder to stay sharp. Ask what the baseline is, what practices are being used, who carries the risk, and most importantly who profits.

The word “regenerative” still means something, for now, and I’d like us to keep it that way.