Friday, August 16, 2019

Away with All Cars?



Away with All Cars?
Welcome once again to the Sustainable Futures Report.
This is the episode for Friday the 16th of August and I’m Anthony Day. We’re shaping up for another record month for downloads, so thank you you for listening and if you like the Sustainable Futures Report please tell your friends. If you don’t, please tell me. And if you really like it, why not become one of the growing number of patrons who help me cover my costs? Go to patreon.com/sfr for more information. You could receive a unique Sustainable Futures Report enamel badge. Apart from that there’s no advertising, sponsorship or subsidy behind the Sustainable Futures Report.
This week
I didn't buy a car this week - not even an electric. The Commonwealth research organisation suggests the age of the car is coming to an end. How will that work? I didn't eat red meat this week which is just as well because both George Monbiot and Mark Lynas say I shouldn't. But what does the IPCC tell us? Can the four-day week or the four-hour-day become a reality? And I don’t know about straws in the wind, but there are still far too many straws in landfill at the moment.
Another week.
No New Car
We had a test drive in another electric car. It was the Hyundai ioniq. It was very nice, very smooth, with all the latest safety features like lane departure warning, adaptive cruise control and the things you take for granted these days like air-con, sat-nav and digital audio. It was nearly silent, emissions-free of course and very comfortable. I wanted it. I could afford it. But did I need it? 
“What can I do now to make you buy today? asked the sales manager. “Nothing,” I replied. We'd already agreed, my wife and I, that having kept the present car for 14 years we were not going to make a snap decision. “We’ll make a decision by the end of the week,” I said. That was Wednesday and by  the following Wednesday the salesman still hadn’t bothered to follow up. I didn’t phone him. The thing is, as much as I’d like a new car, especially an electric one, like the average car in Europe it will sit unused for 95% of the time. I’ve got better things to do with £25,000 than that. We already have two cars, which dates from the time when my wife and I were both doing contract work at opposite ends of the United Kingdom. We now have the electric Smart car and my 14-year-old Toyota Prius for longer journeys. Given that the Prius runs like it did when it was new and according to the salesman it’s only worth £750 doesn’t it make sense to keep it indefinitely?
Electric Jaguar
We heard that Jaguar has announced that it's going to retool its production line to manufacture electric cars. Is this really the future? Its current electric car, the Jaguar iPace, starts at £64,000 so it's not for everyone. Are we all going to sit in electric powered traffic jams instead of petrol ones? Isn't it time to think hard about what cars are for, about why we are making journeys and whether cars are the best way of meeting our transport requirements? We need to decarbonise and to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 says the government. We're not going to achieve that by restricting the sales of fossil fuels cars from 2040. On average many of those cars will still be on the road in 2050. In fact 2050 is almost certainly far too late for zero carbon, and while electrifying the transport fleet would go a long way towards zero carbon it's not practical for a number of reasons.
32m EVs in 10 years
There are 32 million cars in the UK. If we wanted to replace the fleet with electric cars by 2030 we would have to register one new electric vehicle every 10 seconds from now on. We’d have to scrap a car every 10 seconds as well. We currently register a new car every 13 seconds, but will there be enough electric cars?
And then there are the practicalities of owning an electric car, and the main one is charging. Just assuming we can generate enough electricity to power the nation’s fleet, and that it will be green electricity, the difficulty is getting that power into the cars given that a very high proportion of them are parked in the street.
Wireless charging
It's being reported that's the British government is looking at the installation of a wireless charging system working by magnetic induction. A consortium led by Renault has developed a stretch of road to test the technology’s capability. The 100-metre test track was said to be capable of a charge up to 20 kilowatts at speeds up to, and in excess of, 62 miles per hour (100kmh). At that speed the car will pass over the charger in just 3.6 seconds, and any charge received must be negligible. Let’s suppose then that the car travels at 50kph and the charger is extended to 2.5km. The car would take 180 seconds or 3 minutes to pass over it and could pick up 1kWh from a 20kW charger, assuming perfect efficiency. Depending on the model, that would be enough to drive the car for about 8km, less the 2.5km driven during the charging process. Not much! And if 20 cars drive along this charging route and all use it at the same time the total load is going to be 400kW. In slow or stationery traffic the load will be significantly higher because more cars can fit into the charging space. I’ve heard, and please let me know if you know better, that wireless charging is only about 60% efficient. That may not be a problem when you’re just charging your phone, but if you’re charging the UK’s transport fleet that way it could involve a vast waste of energy.
On Rails
I’ve reported in the past about a system in Sweden which uses rails set in the road, and the car receives a charge through pick-ups which contact the rails directly. Apparently they retract if you swing out to overtake something. Clever! Direct contact is likely to be more efficient than wireless charging, but I wonder how it works in the wet, and whether it’s totally safe for cyclists and pedestrians.
Superchargers
BMW and other manufacturers are taking a different approach. They are developing the IONITY network, which has 100 charging stations across Europe delivering up to 350kW. At that rate a car can be recharged in under 10 minutes. If you can recharge that quickly you don’t need a charger in the street outside your house any more than you need a filling station next door for your petrol car. There are two problems with this, at least in the UK. One is that there is only one IONITY station in the UK at the moment. The other is that there are no cars currently available which are capable of receiving a charge at 350kW. When they arrive, an important question will be how well the batteries stand up to repeated high-power charging.
Infrastructure
Of course, to deliver this level of power to the charging stations will require industrial levels of electricity supply. Whether the chosen solution is induction, rails or superchargers there will be significant investment needed in infrastructure between the power station and the point of use. Events this week when a million people lost power across the UK and several London rail terminals were closed down for the rest of the day showed that the infrastructure is not as resilient as we might like, even at current levels of demand.
Shifting the Focus - Energy Demand
Shifting the focus: energy demand in a net-zero carbon UK’, was published by the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) – an organisation made up of more than 80 academics across the UK.
They say:
“UK policy with respect to energy demand tends to focus on the benefits of lower carbon emissions and lower bills for energy users, often using the latter as an argument for minimal intervention. Reduced demand, improved energy efficiency, greater flexibility and decarbonised fuels have a much wider range of benefits, notably for health and employment. Addressing energy demand is generally more likely to promote sustainable development than increasing energy supply. As importantly, recognising all the benefits is more likely to motivate action. We recommend that all the benefits of demand-side solutions are considered in developing and promoting policy.”
They continue:
“…policy instruments that were well-designed and effective have been modified, or much reduced in scale. This has significantly reduced the effectiveness of UK energy policy. We recommend greater consistency in demand side policymaking and, in particular, scaling up policies that have been shown to work.”
That’s telling you.
The authors emphasise that a transformation in the way that energy is used needs to be led by Government, but cannot be delivered by Government alone. All stakeholders need to be involved. 
Chilling News from Asda
Today’s newspaper has an article about supermarket Asda which has come to an agreement with National Grid to switch off its freezers and chillers at times of peak demand in order to reduce the load on the network. It’s headlined as a “giant battery” but of course it’s not that at all. It doesn’t feed anything into the grid, it just stops taking it out at agreed times. The difference is expected to be 13MW, and if Tesco did a similar deal that could apparently add as much as another 50MW. I’m amazed that deals like this weren’t thought of long ago.
On your (e-) bike
Going back to the CREDS report, Cycling Weekly is delighted to see that the authors recommend bicycles,  electric bicycles and e-scooters, but The Bicycle Association, backed up with research from consultancy Transport for Quality of Life, goes further. It shows that the cost of saving a kilogram of CO2 via schemes to boost e-bikes is less than half the cost of existing grants for electric cars – and at a cost per purchase of less than one tenth of the grant for electric cars.
The Bicycle Association believes that e-bikes should be a top priority for urgent Government support, saying that half of all e-bike trips replace journeys that would have otherwise been made by car.
It also points out that e-bikes don’t require infrastructure changes such as electric charging points, though it has been shown that improved provision such as segregated bicycles lanes does increase cycling volume.
CREDS is sceptical of the government’s ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards as for the moment they still favour hybrids. In fact, throughout the report CREDS is concerned with inconsistencies between government policy, ministerial strategy and Committee for Climate Change recommendations.
Do we need cars?
But do we need cars? One way to cut energy demand is to use fewer cars. In fact graphs in the report show that car use is declining in all age groups, except the over sixties. The availability of public transport and dedicated cycle-ways are essential to getting people out of their cars. Or maybe we need cars but we don’t need to own them. 
The Age of the Robotaxi….
Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, is reported as saying that he will have a fleet of one million robotaxis on the road in 2020. That’s next year. Why own a car if you can dial one up on your phone and you don’t have the cost of a driver? Sounds too good to be true. 
…Or not?
Geoffrey James writing in Inc. magazine certainly thinks it is too good to be true. He quotes rival manufacturers as saying that such autonomy is at least 10 years off. He reminds us that aircraft have been using autopilot for years, the skies are far less crowded than the average street and yet every aircraft has a human pilot. Musk’s claim is apparently based on technology. All self-driving cars use LIDAR  - Light Detection and Ranging - with cameras mounted on the car. Tesla may or may not use LIDAR, I don’t know, but the difference is big data. Cameras on every one of the cars shipped by Tesla have been feeding back data to Tesla HQ since the very first car was delivered. Tesla therefore has a data archive superior to anything any of its competitors might have on which to build its self-drive software.
So will we see a million robotaxis next year? Tesla is currently producing cars at the rate of about 350,000 per year. It’s difficult to see where that million will come from.
Changing the system
Commonwealth.co.uk is a research organisation which seems to be exploring the type of system change which XR is seeking. (I have no idea whether these organisations are connected.) Commonwealth’s new report, “Away with all cars” is pretty clear about its conclusions. 
They say:
“Unless we radically decarbonise our transport system, we cannot build a just post-carbon society. But rapid decarbonisation won't be achieved without re-imagining how we move and connect. The future will be different.”
“To get onto an emissions pathway consistent with our commitments under the Paris Agreement, it is estimated that the UK will need to see a reduction in overall traffic volumes of between 20% and 60% by 2030, depending on how fast we can switch to EVs. [18] That is a lot of traffic to lose. Yet the DfT’s Road to Zero strategy[19] for decarbonising transport contains no measures to reduce traffic growth. Instead, the government projects that traffic will increase by up to 50% by 2050[20], and plans to spend £30bn of public money between 2020-2025 on road building to facilitate this[21] Car traffic is known to expand to fill whatever space is given to it[22]; the DfT’s own assessments show that these schemes ultimately worsen traffic jams, rather than alleviating them.”[23] 
The report is strongly focused on London, although it draws conclusions for the wider UK.
It says:
“…London is [also] the only region of the UK with a long term trend of declining traffic. There are two underlying reasons for this. First, London receives far higher per capita spending on transport infrastructure than any other region. Second, London’s public transport system remains under democratic ownership and control via its transport authority, Transport for London (TfL). 
“When bus services were deregulated in the rest of England in the 1980s, London was unique in retaining its ability to strategically plan and manage bus routes and fares, deciding when, where and how frequently to run the services. Since then, bus use in the capital has risen by 52% while it has declined in other English cities by 40%. TfL mandates that a single bus fare in London today costs £1.50. In Manchester, there are 47 competing private bus companies, and a single fare in some of the most disadvantaged areas can cost £4.40.” 
The study points out that as long as private cars are permitted in London there will be congestion, with delays to buses, emergency vehicles and everybody else. At least until every vehicle is electric, air quality will remain dangerously poor. 
A view from 2030
Commonwealth paints a scenario for 2030 where cars are all but eliminated from London. People can walk or use free buses. There will be a small charge for a much extended tram network or for the underground. Taxis will be widely available, as will e-bikes and e-scooters. There will be ride-sharing buses and auto-rickshaws. School buses will take the kids to school and then take people from the suburbs into town. There will be cleaner air, safe streets for cycling and some of the 50km2 currently used for carparks - some of the most expensive real estate in the world - will be converted into leisure parks and community areas. And then it can all be rolled out to the provinces. Interesting ideas and I recommend you read the full report which is only 3 or 4 pages. Find it via the blog.
Of course whether it will ever happen depends on government action. I leave you to make up your own mind on whether the present UK government has the foresight, desire or competence to carry out such a project.
Why travel?
One question we haven’t addressed is why people travel. Quite a lot of travel is commuting, but aren’t we warned that AI is going to take our jobs away? Not everyone can work from home, of course, but some organisations are promoting a 4-day working week and a best-selling book in the US suggests a 4-hour working week is possible. (It isn’t.) Even so, car use is declining among most age groups and will decline rapidly if the public transport infrastructure described above covers the whole country.
For the moment though, the car industry seems to be relying on business as usual and the government is planning for road traffic to increase by 50% by 2050.
The Meat of the Matter
One thing that can't be ignored is the IPCC Special Report published this week on Climate Change and Land.
They say:
“Land provides the principal basis for human livelihoods and well-being including the supply of food, freshwater and multiple other ecosystem services, as well as biodiversity. Human use directly affects more than 70% (likely 69-76%) of the global, ice- free land surface (high confidence). Land also plays an important role in the climate system.” 
Diversification in the food system (e.g., implementation of integrated production systems, broad-based genetic resources, and diets) can reduce risks from climate change. Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health. 
…options include better grazing land management, improved manure management, higher-quality feed, and use of breeds and genetic improvement. Different farming and pastoral systems can achieve reductions in the emissions intensity of livestock products. 
Headlines
The report has led to a host of headlines mostly about food, although it actually covers a much wider range of issues.
“In exhorting us not to eat meat, green preachers place morality over reason” - says the Telegraph. Charles Moore correctly points out that the report does not suggest that we should all go vegetarian or vegan, so he is criticising those who say we should. 
Both the journal Nature “Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet” and Time magazine, “How Eating Less Meat Could Help Protect the Planet From Climate Change” get the point, but the Financial Express says, “Turning vegetarian could help fight global warming.”
Expert views
Two well-respected environmental writers - probably the people Charles Moore is complaining about in TheTelegraph - roundly criticise the IPCC.
“The planet is being consumed by humans,” says Mark Lynas.
“Humanity is on a collision course with nature. Already 72% of the global ice-free land surface is dedicated to supporting our species, and between a quarter and a third of the entire 'net primary production' of the planet is consumed by humans.
“Because we grab so much for ourselves, smaller and smaller amounts are left in the food chain for the rest of life on Earth.
“The majority of the world's land is used not to feed humans directly but to support livestock. Over-consumption of meat is unhealthy, and also an environmental disaster: rainforests are cleared in Brazil both to provide pasture for beef cattle, but also to grow soya crops for export to markets like Europe where they are mostly used in animal feed.
“A largely vegetarian -- or better still, vegan -- planet would be able to dramatically reduce agriculture, sparing more land for nature.
“All is not yet lost, but getting to a better future will mean letting go of some of our most cherished habits and myths. Are we ready to do this? The answer will be on the plate in front of you when you next sit down to eat.”
Further…
George Monbiot goes further. “We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops?” he asks.
He goes on,
It’s a tragic missed opportunity. The new report on land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shies away from the big issues and fails to properly represent the science. As a result, it gives us few clues about how we might survive the century. Has it been nobbled? Was the fear of taking on the farming industry – alongside the oil and coal companies whose paid shills have attacked it so fiercely – too much to bear? At the moment, I have no idea. But what the panel has produced is pathetic.”
The IPCC explains that around 23% of the planet-heating gases we currently produce comes from agriculture. But Monbiot complains that this overlooks opportunity costs. If we were not using the land for agriculture, he says, this land would be absorbing 9 tonnes of co2 per person eating a traditional Western diet per year.
“If we want to prevent both climate and ecological catastrophes, the key task is to minimise the amount of land we use to feed ourselves, while changing the way the remaining land is farmed. Instead, governments almost everywhere pour public money into planetary destruction.” 
Butter mountains and wine lakes
He’s referring there to the butter mountains and wine lakes that used to exist in the EU, and the millions of pounds promised to farmers by the British government to compensate them for disruptions caused by Brexit.
I’ve been told that the true answer is regenerative farming, a balanced mix of livestock and arable. If that’s what’s meant by “extensive farming” then George Monbiot is against it. 
I need to do more research on regenerative agriculture and will bring it to you in a future episode. If I find that both Mark Lynas and George Monbiot are against it, it could be hard to make the case.
Where’s the beef?
Meanwhile, Goldsmith College in London has announced its intention to become carbon neutral. It's putting a 10p levy on plastic bottles, installing solar panels, buying clean energy, growing plants to absorb CO2 on its allotments and making sure that the climate emergency is covered in every course. Oh, and it's banning beef. No burgers, no roast beef sandwiches, no lasagna and no meatballs in the campus cafes. I was asked about this by Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio. I get the impression that she is not only a Brexiteer but a climate sceptic as well. I'll publish the recording of the interview separately, and you can decide how I got on.

And finally…
I saw a sign in a shop window the other day: “It’s only one straw, said 7 billion people.” Then I saw a headline in the paper: “MacDonalds defends its ‘un-recyclable’ paper straws".
An industry insider comments, 
"Yes, from our experience of finding an alternative to plastic straws it feels inevitable that a story like this was going to break at some point.  Unsurprising also is that it is the biggest brand imaginable in this space who take the flak, but the truth is likely to be that McDonald's will be far from being alone.  Indeed, with the difficulty of truly measuring the impact of any given product or service, let alone that the impacts may be very different and not directly comparable (e.g. plastic in the ocean vs carbon footprint), we've not found any straw which is measurably better than the incumbent plastics.  So, our focus has been to reduce usage.
We're also waiting for the media to realise that almost all cardboard packaging in the food industry suffers from the same problem of not being recyclable anywhere other than incredibly specialist providers- from fish and chip paper and pizza boxes which are oil stained by the food, to plastic-lined and chemically-treated cardboards.”
And that’s it…
I think I’ve said before that there’s nothing simple in sustainability. All too many silver bullets seem to ricochet in unexpected if not dangerous directions. None the less, I’m not going to keep my head down. I will continue to bring you stories about what’s going wrong, what’s going right and what the future might look like.  And there are so many more stories out there as well. By the way, I came across the video of a presentation that I did only four years ago. Some of it was dead right and is very much the message that I’m promoting now. You’ll be amused to see what was dead wrong. I’ll publish it for you to enjoy over August Bank Holiday. (Well, it might be raining.)
I’m Anthony Day.
And that’s it for the latest edition of the Sustainable Futures Report. 


Sources




Tesla

Electric cars 'will not solve transport problem,' report warns






No 10 hands Jaguar Land Rover £500m loan to develop electric cars

We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops?











Notes

2.4m registered in 2018 = 1 every 13 seconds, given 31,536,000 seconds in a year

Owned for 8 years on average. 

7,800 miles pa on average = 1750kWh

56,000GWh or 56 Twh

6.5 GW 24/7

Electric cars 'will not solve transport problem,' report warns



Friday, August 09, 2019

Talking About Babies



Talking About Babies

Hello and welcome to the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday 9th August. I'm Anthony Day. 
Welcome
Welcome to all my listeners, particularly my patrons who help to support the Sustainable Futures Report. Welcome if you're a new listener. I'm trying to increase the number of people who listen and I have listed this report on a number of podcast platforms. We'll see what difference it makes. In the meantime, if you like the Sustainable Futures Report please tell your friends. If you don't like it, please tell me.
Talk Radio
I had plans and endless material for this next episode but then I was asked to appear on Talk Radio and I thought I would share the broadcast with you. !t went like this. I got a text which said, “Would you be free for a chat with Dan Wootton today about the birthdate (sic) in England and Wales at an all-time low? And then a further message: “Can I take a line on why you think it's so low? Well I'm no population expert so I sought out the origins of this story, which was a report from the Office of National Statistics, and I sent back an email which said, “Yes, the birth rate in England and Wales has reached its lowest level according to a report from the ONS, but this is part of an ongoing trend. The birthrate declined over the last six years in England & Wales and in the rest of the world.
“One reason for the decline is an ageing population. Another is personal choice: women are taking advantage of education and career opportunities and having children later. Couples are also delaying starting a family until they are able to buy a house. Family income levels and the government’s withdrawal of benefits from the third child may also play a part.
“Hope this is what you wanted. I presume Dan will be asking whether I think this decline is a good thing…”
I didn't really think I'd been briefed about the interview. In fact it turned out not to be an interview at all. Here's what happened:
 [Broadcast - sorry, no transcript this time.]
A Discussion
Well I had no idea that there was going to be a discussion. I've been on Talk Radio a number of times and it's just been me and the presenter. I clearly disagreed with Dr Gita. She appears to be an infertility expert and I would certainly support anything she can do to help childless couples. Where I disagreed with her was her suggestion that the government should take action to encourage people to have more children, and to raise the UK birthrate back up to replacement level. As I said, if we do that then we are contributing to global population growth and children born in Western nations have a much more serious impact on the world than those born elsewhere.
I’m very relaxed about a possible decline in the UK population. It would reduce the pressure on schools, on hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, on housing and on the whole range of public services. It might cut traffic jams a bit as well. If we have skill gaps, in some cases migration can provide a solution. We are warned that artificial intelligence is likely to take away jobs, so it clearly makes no sense to bring up children to unemployment. And it will be 20 years plus before children born this year will be able to fill those skill gaps.
Another Broadcast?
I got another text from Talk Radio the next day.
“Would you be free for a chat with Katie Perrior about some people opting not to have kids because they are scared for the planet?”
Actually I had very busy weekend and I didn't see the message until after the broadcast had gone out. I was sorry I missed it because my view is that everyone has a right to a family as long as they have no more than two children. And if they already have more than two children, well, every child should be loved and cherished - and brought up to be environmentally aware. 
Pressure
There has been pressure from certain reports and articles which suggest that having a child causes the greatest carbon footprint of all. In fact I commented on the work of Seth Wynes last July, and the previous April. He suggested that having a child would lead to a carbon footprint of some 60 tonnes per annum.
Apparently he has a new book out, about how to live a low carbon lifestyle. It was reviewed in the i newspaper this last weekend. The reviewer says, “Having fewer children - annual saving 58.6 tonnes each. …Although it is in his PhD thesis, Wynes left this one out of his book.” Hardly surprising when his PhD thesis attracted wide criticism for mis-interpreting previous research and drawing what many saw as totally false conclusions.
No-one should be browbeaten into not having children because of their effect on the planet. There is no doubt that children will face a challenging future, as we all do already, but that’s another issue. 
And finally…
…a few points from the news.
In Shooting the Messenger Corner we have Australian journalist Andrew Bolt who commented on Greta Thunberg’s autism, calling her “deeply disturbed”, “freakishly influential” and “strange”. "I have never seen a girl so young and with so many mental disorders treated by so many adults as a guru," he wrote.
She responded, “I am indeed ”deeply disturbed” about the fact that these hate and conspiracy campaigns are allowed to go on and on and on just because we children communicate and act on the science. Where are the adults?”
Also in Shooting the Messenger Corner we have Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil. Brazil’s National Space Research Institute (INPE) has released satellite data showing a rise in Amazon deforestation, which the far-right president has called “lies”. The director of the institute has been removed from his post.
It’s clear that the forces of denial are gathering, but however loud they shout they won’t change the science. The danger is that they might change the popular perception of the science and they will probably promote the ongoing lie that scientists are not yet sure. Our role is to tell the truth.
That’s it for another week.
Thank you again for listening. In fact more and more of you are listening and the audience reached record levels in July even though there were only four Fridays and therefore only four episodes. We’ll see how this month goes - but I am going to have the Bank Holiday weekend off.
And that’s it.
I’m Anthony Day.
That was the Sustainable Futures Report.
Until next week.

Sources


Friday, August 02, 2019

Round Table











Round Table
Here is the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday, 2 August, and I’m Anthony Day.

A few weeks ago, back when Theresa May was still Prime Minister, I had a roundtable discussion with three patrons of the Sustainable Futures Report. This turns out to be one of the longest episodes to date but I hope you find interesting. We’ll probably hold another discussion in September and if you like to take part please contact me via patreon.com/sfr .
We started off with introductions:


Anthony: So Tom, who are you?

Tom: So, I'm Tom. I live in York and I'm a web developer, so I make websites for a living. But I also work in my spare time with York Community Energy. Currently we are focusing less on generating energy and more on saving energy, so trying to insulate people's homes basically.

Anthony: OK. And your interest in the whole climate change issue is what?

Tom: Well I would like the planet to not fall apart and you know, not have food shortages and terrible droughts and floodings and things like that, really.

Anthony: Fair enough, I think we probably agree with that. Catherine, can we ask you to introduce yourself please?

Catherine: Sure. I'm Catherine Weetman. My company is Rethink Global. So there are a couple of us helping small businesses mainly, but small businesses and community groups understand the circular economy and work out how it can help strengthen their businesses, make it more profitable, resilient and sustainable.

Anthony: And Manda, Manda Scott.

Manda: Manda Scott, I used to be a veterinary surgeon and now I'm novelist, although we just moved house. So writing has taken a back seat. Two years ago I did the master's in sustainable economics at Schumacher, which completely changed my view of the world. And shortly after that I read the "Deep Adaptation" paper, which further completely rewired my view of the world.

So I am active in our local Extinction Rebellion group. I am trying very hard to get regenerative farming to take off in my area. I live in Shropshire, which is a big rural farming area because I genuinely believe that regenerative farming can be part of the solution. And I'm quite active in politics on the basis that if we don't get our politics to change we're not going to change in time. I think the timescales, we were talking about tipping points earlier, I don't think the general public has any clue of the time scales. I think there's still a sense that this is something that will happen in our children's old age. We need to change that.

Anthony: OK. Well let's start off. I'll ask this question. Are we reaching the tipping point? Have we actually got to the point where public opinion is on a roll and will that change things? Will that change behavior? Do you want to start with that Catherine?

Catherine: Sure. It feels to me as if we are reaching a tipping point. I'm certainly noticing a lot more conversation on the news, on TV, in newspapers and so on, not just about the problem, but about some of responses and solutions that people are coming up with. So I think it's starting to swing round to not a vision yet, that would be good, but more of how we could live more sustainable lives. And I think particularly the report that came out a week or so ago about the importance of planting trees and the new calculations on just how much difference that could make has started to perhaps make people feel that it doesn't require technological wizardry, it doesn't require a miracle. There are simple things that we could all get behind that would start to head us in the right direction.

I think the other thing that's encouraging is the number of businesses and pension funds and so on really starting to talk about what they need to do differently. And actually businesses canvassing the government and asking for policy changes that support the right behavior, like taxing carbon, taxing the use of virgin resources instead of labor, that kind of thing.

Anthony: What's your feeling, Manda? Are you noticing a change? Do you think we're getting to a tipping point? Do you think we're finally seeing a difference?

Manda: In some ways, yes. Certainly in my teaching I'm finding that students are coming with much bigger questions about how do we fix this, rather than how do I find a better job. I teach shamanic [. ..] so people tend to come with personal questions and now they're coming more with existential questions.

We set up a local Extinction Rebellion group last week and we had 70 people at the first meeting, which for a small town in south Shropshire was very good. But that said, I talk to people in the supermarket queue or other people in the village, kind of people who are not activists and they still look at me as if I'm talking gibberish and they really don't know. I mean they've kind of got the plastic thing, that's got through. And I suppose at least they are aware that climate change is a thing. But in terms of changing their behavior, not yet. But I think what's happened is that the commentariat, is beginning to take notice and it's becoming something that's more remarked upon in newspapers other than just The Guardian and on television. It's not just the lone voice in the wilderness and they're not so busy feeling that they have to get somebody from the denialist movement to balance out every single statement on climate change in the way that they used to.

So we're heading in the right direction, whether it's fast enough is entirely another question. And whether the incredibly slow pace of change that happens in our political structures will move fast enough to make a difference is also another question. But I hope so. Extinction Rebellion is putting a lot of pressure on. And if we can continue to ramp up the pressure then with any luck we can get the change we need in the timescale that we need.

Anthony: OK. I think we generally accept the government of course has the power and that, well, government and business has the power to do things, while the consumer and the citizen may believe that things should be done, it’s only the institutions which can actually make it happen. Now you're a lot closer to business Catherine than maybe we are, through your work with the circular economy and so on, are you seeing a change in attitude within business?

Catherine: Yeah, definitely. I think big businesses are starting to realize that it's not just about some green messages and things that will hopefully persuade people that they're doing the right thing. But I think businesses are starting to realize that their own futures are at risk. And IKEA put out a really good short video this week. I think somebody shared it on LinkedIn. Mike Berry actually shared it on LinkedIn. And they talked about reshaping their business so that they can meet the needs of future customers. I think they're starting to realize that resource security is a big issue. If we all want more stuff and population keeps growing, then we've got to find different ways to create that stuff, if you like, the resources in the first place.

So having things that last longer can help that, recycling things can help that, but it's an expensive way to do it. And starting to change people's mindsets away from owning stuff, to using it and having access to it can not only help spread resources across more people, but it can be a brilliant business model for businesses. I think even Apple is starting to realize that its planned obsolescence approach is a bit broken. So they're starting to invest more in subscription services and software. They've also committed to a circular future, though with no dates. But it's entirely feasible that Apple could develop a Fairphone type phone that's upgradable, that's more easily repairable and something that people engage with and just upgrade as new things become available, faster processor, a better camera lens, whatever, you can just swap that in. And then Apple aren't risking somebody thinking, well actually, the Samsung one does exactly the same and it's half the price, so why don't I swap?

It's better to keep your customers engaged and I think companies are really starting to see the value of that engagement, which means you can talk directly to the customer instead of having to try and attract new customers through Google Ads or whatever it is that's not very measurable and not very precise and extremely expensive.

Anthony: OK. You mentioned the Deep Adaptation paper there, I'm about a 10th of the way through it. I haven't really got...

Manda: Yeah, yeah, 36 pages.

Anthony: Yes, well alright and they're quite closely written pages. The author, Jem Bendell appears to be a fatalist or what I would call it a catastrophist, who says, alright, it's all going to go wrong, so...

Manda: No, no, no, he says it's all going to go wrong -- if we don't act now.

Anthony: Ah, well that's a much more optimistic reading than I've heard.

Manda: -- we need to act or it will all go wrong.

Anthony: OK. He talks particularly about social breakdown and I think Tom and Catherine are both talking about whether in fact consumers can recognize that things have to be done and accept the things, the changes which are going to have to be made in the relatively short term. So what's his take... What's your take on that?

Manda: Me? Well, Extinction Rebellion grew out of the Deep Adaptation paper. So they convened some gatherings in Devon in the early stages of Deep Adaptation, Extinction Rebellion grew out of that. So that would be my take on it, is that we need to follow this line of nonviolent direct action, because it's the only thing that makes governments pay attention. Because otherwise, I think we risk putting all of the emphasis on what we can do as individual consumers. We stop using plastic straws or we recycle our plastic better, or we stop taking flights, when actually what needs to happen is that the plastics industry needs to cease to exist and the planes need to cease to fly. And if we take what I would always call the Al Gore view of things which is it's down to each of us as individuals, then we're sunk. Which isn't to say that as individuals we can't make a huge amount of change, but probably for me, most of the change we can see is in our immediate social group, in our connected local areas and in really obvious big direct action that makes the government sit up take notice.

And Extinction Rebellion has worked so far. We've got a government that a year ago didn't even know what a citizens assembly was, agreeing to set one up. It doesn't mean they will do it. And it doesn't mean they'll listen to it, but at least they're thinking about it.

Anthony: Yes, yes. OK. Tom, can you envisage a world where people accept that they can no longer fly?

Tom: I don't know.

Anthony: Where are you going for your holidays?

Tom: We're going to Bristol. We're not flying to Bristol. It's a very tricky question and it's something that I've been thinking about a lot and been thinking about, how are people going to feel about not having cars and things like that. I mean the easy answer is what other choice do we have? If at the end of the day it's that or death essentially. So I think it's one of those things where as people come to realize the urgency of the situation, then they might start to reevaluate it. And the thing that I don't have the answer to is, will they realize in time?

Anthony: Yeah. OK. Catherine, can you envisage the plastics industry closing down or do you think that the circular economy will actually stop that from need to happen?

Catherine: Can I come back to plastics in a sec and just chip in on the plane thing? Because Dr. Wayne Visser, who you might've heard of, he posted something on LinkedIn a couple of weeks ago about, should we all stop flying? His view was that as it was only 2% of carbon emissions, it was a bit of a futile gesture. So it engendered did quite a bit of debate and I chipped in with my view that those of us working in sustainability should be the ones saying, we're not going to fly because if we're not prepared to do it, how do we convince other people to even think about it? So I wasn't saying nobody should fly, I was just saying, you know, this is my view, I haven't flown on holiday for over 10 years, and I've now stopped flying for business. So last week Holland, took Eurostar. I've turned down speaking invitations to Cape Town and Australia in the last couple of weeks because, I couldn't see the points of the flying, said I do a web conference.

But I think lots of people are still, you know, that's the point of having something taken away from you. So there was a lot of quite strong, the usual kind of Twitter/LinkedIn debate with people saying, you can't stop people going on holiday and all that kind of stuff.

But my view is the more of us who choose not to fly, the more pressure that puts on the airline industry to find clean fuel, if there is a clean fuel. If we all carry on and say, it's up to them to do it, but we're not signaling that with our pound vote, then why will they hurry up and do it? The more they feel a threat of losing their business, the quicker they'll do something about it.

In terms of plastics, I've written a few blog posts on this. Plastics are a fantastic invention, they're in everything around us. We're probably all surrounded by plastics. I'm looking at the furniture in some of those webcam shots and polyester fabrics and all the plastic packaging that helps keep things fresh. So if we banned plastic, that would be a retrograde step. But I don't see why any company should be allowed to put plastic into the market that isn't recyclable. I think there are enough options that everything should be able to be recycled. We don't really need laminates, crisp packets, they could just be a single film.

And if you are going to put something complicated in, you need to pay for the costs of that being recycled. In the UK, the packaging waste levy only covers 10% of the costs of local councils doing the recycling. So we're not giving anybody a fighting chance of putting good recycling systems in place. But I do think we need to rethink it and we need to put the costs where the causes of the costs are. People shouldn't be able to just make society pay for something that's an advantage to their business, but a penalty for everybody else.

Anthony: Well, I don't know whether you saw the BBC's "War on Plastic" programmes recently, but Michael Gove, who's currently the Environment Secretary was asked that very point about why does the producer pay only 10% of the cost of recycling? And he said his plan was to make it 100%. Now, whether he'll be in office long enough to actually do that is another question, but...



Manda: And banning petrol and diesel cars in 2040, because if he's planning to do it by 2040, it's not soon enough.

Anthony: Oh, absolutely, no, no. I was smiling a bit when you're talking about flying. I've just been watching the prime ministerial debate. That makes it sound far more important than it is, but anyway, and Jeremy Hunt said yes without question he would support the third runway at Heathrow. So we've got a long way to go I think to persuade our politicians. Manda, do you fly?

Manda: I haven't flown since 1996 exactly for this reason, until this year when I did a huge... This is going to be too long. My shamanic work appeared to require me to be teaching in America and I thought, there's no way because I don't fly. And two days after I had that particularly event, I was invited to go to America. So I went, with great regret and I have to say I will never do it again. Flying was such an unpleasant experience. It was quite enough to put me off. But I didn't think it was justified in the first place and I think I was right, I still don't fully understand why it was necessary for me to go. So no, I don't fly. But I have family members. One of the things that worries me a little about the whole recycling plastics, I have members of the extended family who are fanatical about recycling plastic down to the toothpicks, but still fly on holidays three times a year. It's giving people something that they can funnel their care into, but still then having the blinkers about the rest.

We need somehow to have a coherent narrative that explains why that doesn't work. And I have to say that I'm not wholly convinced that recycling plastics... Are they actually recycled still or do they get shipped out to China where they throw them in the Yangtze? I want to know what's actually happening to the recycling and whether the embodied energy, whether the carbon required to do it is useful. Because otherwise we need to stop. It's not beyond the wit of humanity to produce things that function in the way that plastics function and don't have a lifespan of 10,000 years.

Anthony: Right.

Catherine: I think the key to it though is charging the right amount for the recycling because that would then persuade producers to use less plastics, simple plastic, naked packaging, all the rest of it to avoid the penalty. But recycling is much more effective than continuing to make plastics from petrochemicals and bio-materials are not the answer either, because as you probably know, we have enough pressure on land as it is without trying to grow materials to make bio-base plastics.

So there are lots of issues, but I think it's just this thing of not allowing companies to externalize costs and that goes for food as well as for carbon and that kind of thing. We're allowing companies to get away with selling us rubbish that makes us fat, ill, have cancer, all the rest of it and society has to pick up the cost. There's a lot of broken elements to the system that we're living in.

Anthony: Right. It's interesting what you were saying about bio-plastics, because I went to a lecture on that this week, perhaps it was last week. But they were making bio-plastics out of food waste, in other words, out of sugar cane. What's left after the sugar is being taken out. Out of coffee grounds and out of other things like that. One interesting point though that the plastics they were making weren't necessarily recyclable.

Manda: But were they biodegradable?

Anthony: Well, some but not all. And of course they made the point that if you put biodegradable plastics in the waste stream with other plastics, you can contaminate it and you can foul up the reprocessing or the recycling process of those plastics. So we need to sort it all out. And I think as you were saying, Catherine we need to control the use of plastics that are being put onto the market. It's the circular economy principle, isn't it? At the design stage you've got to think of what's going to happen to the product when it's actually finished with, otherwise you end up with a massive rubbish, which is what we've got at the moment.

Tom: I think also, sorry, can I just add? I think also we've just got to generally move away from a kind of takeaway single use culture in general. Like we went to Temple Newsam this weekend and with our lunch that we bought, they threw in a load of wooden knives and forks and it's like, well, it's still waste. It's still going to be used once and then thrown away. We're just generating all this waste, whether it's plastic or not, it's the whole attitude that that needs to shift really.

Anthony: Yeah. So as well as our reusable cups, we should be taking our reusable knives and forks, shouldn't we when we'd go out perhaps?

Tom: Yeah, possibly.

Catherine: There was a Guardian study a few weeks ago, 11 billion items of packaging waste a year generated by our lunch on the go habit in the UK.

Anthony: Oh dear, oh dear. Yes. Well, how are we going to get the message forward? Tom, are you involved in any way in Extinction Rebellion? Do you approve of it? Do you support it?

Tom: I'm not actively involved in it. I did go to the Citizen's Assembly in York a couple of weeks ago, which was excellent actually. I thought they did an amazing job. And they were able to sort of conduct a democratic exercise which was reasonably represented. I think they said there was like 300 people there. They did it and managed to sort of herd cats, effectively. There were lots of people with strong opinions all trying to speak and they managed that really well. I thought the whole thing was amazing and moved at lightning speed compared to government or local government.

Yes, I approve of what they're doing. I think like we said before, they are getting the message through in a way that other people have failed to do and if they ruffle a few feathers, then so be it. At the end of the day, some feathers need ruffling because we've tried being polite for decades and it hasn't worked. The fact that they explicitly commit to being nonviolent is absolutely crucial because some people might say, oh, well, when are they going to turn around and become violent? And it's written in from the start that that is not what this is about. I think that's incredibly important. All the protests in London were so good natured and everyone looked like they were just having a big party and it was really good fun. There's a bit of positivity there and they're getting the message across and so, yeah, that's given me more hope than anything in a long time.

Anthony: Good. Well, you may know that they're planning to paralyze Leeds and several other cities next week. Let's hope everybody retains their equanimity and good spirits.

So actually they had three demands didn't they? One was to get the government to do something about it and the government has actually said that it's going to reduce the target for 2050 from 80% to 100%, if you see what I mean.

They asked about a citizens assembly and the government has said there's going to be a citizens assembly. The other thing they want is to de-carbonise by 2025. That's a challenge. But maybe if they all continue to push for that. But that is a challenge.

Manda: It's a net zero though which isn't the same as... Net zero isn't the same as stopping all output. I think that's quite important.

Anthony: You're right, you're right. And the calculations of net zero have got to be scrutinised very carefully, because you can write calculations which say that Drax Power Station is clean. I don't you think a lot of people would really believe that.

Manda: Also I think... It may be that one of your listeners can answer this. My understanding is that military output of CO2 and use of embodied energy is not in anybody's calculations in any country of the world. If it's not, then we can do all we like as the civilians and all they have to do is send a couple of hundred jets on training missions and we've blown everybody's carbon budget in a year.

Anthony: It's probably a military secret.

Manda: I think it probably is and that doesn't stop it being incredibly damaging and really important that we begin to do something...

Anthony: Yeah, that's something else to consider. So, I came across a couple of websites, which I shall mention in the podcast this week. One's called Climate Optimism and the other one is called something very similar to that. And I think we do need a bit of optimism. It's always a balance. It's a balance between scaring people to death, to the extent they think -- well, it can't be that bad, it won't happen, I don't want to know. And telling people -- well, we can do something and it's under control. And they think, well, I don't have to bother it because it's under control.

I think we tend to err on the catastrophe side, so therefore, if you can actually talk positively and optimistically about the progress to climate mitigation, then it's going to be easier to get the message across. Any thoughts on that?

Catherine: I was just reading a post on LinkedIn from, I think it was somebody who had organized a conference of investment companies, pension funds and that kind of thing. And he was talking about the curse of gradualism and doing things gradually isn't going to gets us where we need to be in 12 years time. They'd focussed the whole conference around this and trying to get people to think about what they could all do in their roles. And they'd concluded that a collective voice was much stronger than just individual companies and so on. So they'd done a a group letter. And I think that can be quite powerful from a company point of view.

But I think going back to Manda's points, people do feel hopeless and are focused on the things that they can do that are this week and more visible so that plastics recycling and cutting down on what you buying in plastic, that kind of thing. But Manda is also right that, that's not enough. So I think perhaps more awareness of what your typical carbon footprint looks like. And if we know that flying, driving and eating meats are the main causes, breaking that down a bit so that people can start to see that, well actually, in the UK say the average person takes, I don't know what it is, one long haul, one short haul flight, that might be the average. So why not do your long haul once every three years and your short haul once every other year and then do staycations. So instead of making it.... And I know that's not enough, but that would start to get people thinking differently. And once people start taking staycations and just considering different choices, then I think it becomes easier to take the next step.

Once you've had a good holiday in the UK, you might think, well let's do this again next year, let's not fly. Because actually we felt quite good about not having those, whatever it was, three tons, four tons of carbon. And the same thing with meat. How little meat do you have to have to considerably reduce the carbon footprint? And what about eating grass fed meat so you know where it's coming from, instead just buy it from the supermarket and it could've come from Brazil and been raised on the feed lots and caused deforestation because of its soy consumption and all the rest of it, than having local pasture fed meat. That kind of thing.

So giving people a bit more information and an idea of what would be a better choice instead of it just being, wear a hair shirt, you can't have anything, your life's going to be miserable -- who's going to buy that?

Anthony: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. Yes. Incidentally I read somewhere that if we actually gave up livestock and we ate all the food ourselves, we could support a population 50% greater than it is already.

Manda: No, no, no, no, no, no. We have to get on top of this. If we don't change farming methods and you decide that everyone's going to be a vegan, you're going to have a series of monocultures which will destroyer our biosphere faster than we are currently destroying it. If you think that you're going to support a bigger population. We have to move away from monocultures back to polycultures, or climate change is not going to be the biggest of the problems that we face. The crashing biodiversity is going to crash even faster than it's crashing at the moment, which is why pasture fed beef, particularly... Regenerative farming is my thing and I will endeavour not to go on about it too much. But the whole movement is moving towards sequestering carbon and increasing biodiversity. And we need pasture animals to do this. And if we all move on to veganism and we're growing carrots in great big monocultures then we can forget it. It's not the answer.

Anthony: Well that's really interesting and that's something I'd like to explore in more detail. We've got six minutes left...

Manda: --- but really...

Anthony: Want's to say something as well?

Catherine: Yeah Manda, just to clarify, so are you saying it's not so important to fixate on whether you're going to give up meat or be vegan. It's more about not having processed food and choosing things that are locally grown, regeneratively grown and so on. And then it wouldn't matter if a fair number of the population decided to go vegan, because you wouldn't be buying this kind of mass produced... How many grains is it that we.... It's like six plants, isn't it, that comprise 80% of our diet. So it's more important to have stuff that's local and a wide variety of plants, legumes, pasture fed meat, whatever it is, OK.

Manda: Yes.

Anthony: OK. OK. Well I think we're coming close to a winding up point now because it's....

Manda: Haven't heard from Tom recently, I'm aware he's gone very quiet.

Tom: Lots of interesting points being raised by the rest of you.

Anthony: Yes. Well, have you any thoughts that we haven't covered or anything you'd like to add because we have left you in the corner there because you've got a blank screen, we forget you're there.

Tom: It's such a huge topic, isn't it? I mean the area that I'm trying to focus on, I guess is energy and there's a huge task there and if we don't deal with our energy production, then it's just not going to work basically. I just despair when I hear about these oil and gas companies are continuing to explore for new resources and I just find it incredible. At a time when we just need to stop burning fossil fuels altogether and start this huge rapid transition to renewables, how can they still be talking about looking for new reserves, never mind using up the ones that they already know about?

Anthony: Yes. And there are plans to open a new coal mine in Cumbria aren't there? Is it called cognitive dissonance?

Tom: So I don't know, I just think so much of this...

Catherine: It’s all about party donations.

Manda: Yeah.

Tom: And so much of this is driven by money, obviously. And again, coming back to the flights and all that business and the fact that the companies aren't really paying for the recycling. If the price of flights reflected the true cost, let's actually make people pay the tax on the fuel for a start. And then look at the other costs associated with it. Because we talk about a free market and the free market will resolve everything, but then fossil fuels are being subsidized, left, right, and center, while the subsidies are being cut for solar and wind and things like that. So it's not a fair fight and it's not just being left to market forces. There are people intervening in the wrong direction.

Anthony: Yes, yes. Catherine, anything you'd like to sum up with?

Catherine: No. It would be great to hear more on your podcast sort of aimed at the average person, average citizen, where do you start and how do you find helpful resources that you can kind of share with your family that aren't going to naff off the people who are thinking, but I like my family holiday every year. You know, speaking as someone who has intelligent friends and who just don't get the no flying bit either, but either, it would be good to be able to point people at ways to kind of calculate what was their footprint is says and what are the main things you can do as a person to kind of cut it down? I know you featured somebody a while ago, but I think the number one thing was don't have kids and that might already be too late for lots of people.

Anthony: That's a very controversial study.

Catherine: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Anthony: A lot of double counting and things in that. You're talking about helpful resources for the average person. There's a lady on LinkedIn called Zoe Cohen. I don't know whether you've come across her, but she's done a very interesting article, I think 10 points on how to be a climately responsible, but it's a very well written article. So have a look for that. Manda, where do we go from here?

Manda: Well just to answer Catherine, I just put into our chat on the zoom, there's a book called, "There is No Planet B" by Mike Berners-Lee, who's the brother of the guy who invented the internet. And it's kind of the antidote to Uninhabitable Earth, because he goes through system by system what's wrong and what we can do personally, what we can do to ask our councils to do and what the government can do and what needs international action. It's incredibly useful and really nicely written and he's obviously got a brain the size of the planet and if we could get him on the podcast he would be really interesting.

I think that we need massive structural change in the economy. I think Tom was right that money is pushing us in the wrong direction. Capital is pushing us in the wrong direction. We need fundamental structural change, but we won't get that until enough people realize that we need it so that we can create the political change that we need. But I think the kind of modern economics and the ways... People like Kate Rawoth are looking at how we could shift the economy in a way that doesn't necessarily leave everybody destitute, or leave us in societal breakdown, but changes from a system where we have growth, whether or not people flourish to a system where people flourish and the planet flourishes, whether or not we have growth.

So I think that's immensely important. And I think something that Paul Mason said a long time ago is pick one thing and become really, really expert at it so that you can talk with authority and with intelligence and in a way that uses the kind of emotional intelligence that Extinction Rebellion is bringing. We need to kind of raise the level of our interactions to the point where we're not fighting amygdala to amygdala, midbrain to midbrain, where we're actually having some kind of open hearted, compassionate discussion amongst ourselves, away from the tribalism that has marked pretty much all of our evolution. So it will be hard, but I think we have to do it and I think if we don't do it now then I think Deep Adaptation is on its way. So I would like to believe it's still possible.

Anthony: Yes. Well let's hope the Brexiteers will see reason on the climate change if they won't be open to discussions of other political points.

Manda: This has been fun, let's do it again.

Anthony: Thank you all very much. I think that's been very useful. It's been very interesting. And as I said, I'd like to publish it as an audio tape, on an episode, very soon. I think I'd like to come back to you individually and perhaps take up some of the points that you've brought up and develop them as well.

In fact, as Tom said, it's a big area, it's very complicated. I think I've got 10 topics in this week's podcast. There was only one in last week’s, but there were 10 in the one the week before. And I'm still cutting things out and saying that'll have to go in next week. There is just so much.

But anyway, thank you for your contribution. It's so important and it's so useful. So thanks to you all.

Group: Thank you.

Manda: Thank you for hosting it, well done.

Anthony: OK. You must go and shut up the chickens now.


And there we left it. Thanks for listening and we’d really like your feedback. Please let's have your ideas either via Patreon or MAIL@ANTHONY-DAY.COM . 
That was the Sustainable Futures Report for 2 August and yes I know it's August but there'll be another one next week and I've got plans for another one the week after. There may not be one the week after that, but that'll give you time to catch up.
Have a great weekend, have a great holiday if you're having one and please don't fly too far.

I’m Anthony Day and that's it for now.