Friday, April 17, 2020

Reimagining Capitalism



Reimagining Capitalism



I’m Anthony Day 
Welcome to the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday 17th April.

Exclusive Interview with Professor Rebecca Henderson of Harvard University and Business School.




Anthony:       My guest this time is Rebecca Henderson, who is a professor at Harvard University and Harvard Business School. And among other roles, she is a Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She's author of "Leading Sustainable Change," and "Accelerating Energy Innovation." And her upcoming book, which is due for publication at the end of this month, is "Reimagining Capitalism."

                    Now, Rebecca, I think in the last very short few weeks since the pandemic has taken over the world, a lot of people are saying we really need to reimagine capitalism because it has become absolutely clear that the market cannot deal with events such as these. What's your take on it?

Rebecca:       I completely agree. I think COVID-19 has highlighted why we need to reimagine capitalism. I do believe, however, that it was fairly clear beforehand that we needed to do something. We were spectacularly failing to deal with climate change, and we were also failing to deal with accelerating inequality, particularly in the US and the UK.

                    It was clear that the system -- if we may call it that -- was not working for everyone and was not going to leave our grandchildren and their children with a liveable planet. And what I think COVID has done is really highlight those issues. It feels to me as if the central issue with capitalism and why it needs to be reimagined is that we fell into the trap of thinking the free market could fix almost all our problems. And what COVID-19 shows us, dramatically every day, is that's clearly not the case.

                    For me there are two key examples of that. The first is our total dependence on the health care system and on the courage and bravery of people who get up every morning and go to work and come back to their families and know they're putting both themselves and their children and their partners at risk. That's not something that the market can buy.

                    We cannot function as a society without individuals standing up and doing the right thing. And I think COVID is really reminding us of that, and that it's not just about me and mine, and now, but about us and later and the common good. And that's always been a tension in our society, but COVID really shows it up.

                    The second example that really captures the need to reimagine capitalism for me is the spectacle of the president of the United States telling the individual states that they should bid for vital healthcare equipment, and states bidding against each other, using the market to allocate lifesaving equipment at a moment of national emergency. The total failure of the federal government to step up early enough, or on a serious enough scale to take a coordinative role is mind blowing. But what's amazing is it's been going on for a while. It's not just COVID.

Anthony:       Okay, okay. Well, of course, free market is the philosophy of the American government. It's very much, until recently, anyway, been the philosophy of our Conservative party here in the UK.

                    Well, clearly free markets have been found wanting, as you've just described. But once we get through this and I think it's going to take a long time, and it's going to be a very gradual exit, but once we do get through this, where do you see the governments going? Do you see them taking us back to where we were before? Or is this time for more government intervention on behalf of the people at large and which, incidentally, will reduce hopefully inequality?

Rebecca:       Nobody knows. I think it's possible to paint some very dark scenarios. I'm particularly worried about the increasing concentration of business power. I think a lot of small and midsize firms will have difficulty, both this year and perhaps going forward. And it provides an opening for large firms to get even bigger.

                    I mean, one of the things that should be clear is, I'm a huge fan of the free market. In its place and at the right time it is seriously amazing. I don't think we're going to fix any of the major problems we face without enlisting it. But you're right. My hope coming out of this emergency is that governments will step up to their role as providers of public goods, public health, most obviously, but also a liveable climate, and as let's call them watchdogs or guardians or referees of business. Because without a referee, without a government setting the rules of the road, things like a minimum wage, things like perhaps mandatory sick pay, you're not in the long run going have a functional society.

                    So I really hope governments are going to step up. I think it's likely, I think there's a renewed understanding of what governments can do in these kinds of moments.

Anthony:       Right. How do you think the pressure will come on to governments to make them change towards something which is more inclusive? I mean, for example, do you have a view on Extinction Rebellion? Is that going the right way towards actually getting things changed?

Rebecca:       Can I start with something easier than Extinction Rebellion?

Anthony:       Okay, okay.

Rebecca:       Let me start with inequality and the ground swell in the US. The way I hear it phrased here is -- wait, wait, wait. We've said that some people are essential, the people keeping the lights on, running the food chain, delivering our groceries. And yet we've been paying them really not enough to live on, they have no savings. They have very patchy access to health care and no sick leave. So when they get sick, you know, I can't afford to be sick, I have to keep working, how else am I going to do to keep my family?

                    And I think that's been so highlighted that I think the kind of labor legislation that many people been arguing for in the US for the lost 20 years has a much better chance of passing. I'm very hopeful we'll see a change in administrations and that that administration will come in with a very strong, let's really address inequality, let's make this a society that works for all of us.

                    Now, you asked me about climate change and whether governments will come in strong on climate change. So, I think it's very important that we frame climate change as an issue of about people and communities. I mean, I believe it's an enormous threat to the long term health of all of our societies. And I think it's really important to communicate that, that climate change is a major driver of long term damage to human health, that burning fossil fuels is killing people right now. I'm sure you've seen the statistics, that it seems plausible that the reduction in air pollution from burning less fossil fuels has prevented more deaths than COVID. I mean, it's just amazing that we tolerate people burning these fuels that routinely attack the lungs of women and children and dump mercury into all our blood. I mean, statistically, my blood is full of mercury.

Anthony:       Well, this is the question. Are we going to go back to business as usual in the knowledge that this is the sort of damage that we causing?

Rebecca:       So I'm really hopeful that our renewed awareness of health first, common health first, will help us talk about climate change in a way that really builds political support for it. Now, I'm very sympathetic to Extinction Rebellion. Sometimes I want to go out and chain myself to railings because, like, what are we thinking?

                    The idea that we have the technology and the resources to address climate change and somehow we're busy or, we can't get it together. Now, I'm very aware that I believe at least, the costs of fixing climate change should be born by the people who have the resources to fix it. That, for example, I would advocate replacing a payroll tax with a carbon tax. So instead of giving employers an incentive not to employ people, crazy, let's give people an incentive not to use carbon. And if we have more money left over from the carbon tax, let's send it back in the form of a tax and dividend.

                    So we make burning fossil fuels expensive, which gives business the incentive to stop doing it, which lets them use all their innovation and productivity and sort of really focus on doing that, because now they have an economic reason to do so. And let's send the money back to the people who need it, the people at the bottom of the income distribution.

Anthony:       But you're talking about some really fundamental changes to some very, very large and powerful industries. Now you've spoken about how business, in your book and videos on your website, you've spoken about how business can be the key to this. But people have been making the case for sustainable business for a long time.

                    I'm sure you're familiar with Bob Willard and there are many others. And the thing is while we have people like the CEO of J.P. Morgan, saying we need suddenly to take these things seriously. While we have people like Paul Polman at Unilever, who's doing vast good things, you also have people like Bolsonaro in Brazil who is driving business into the Amazon to plunder whatever it can find. And you have people like the trader in the last couple of weeks who invested $27 million and came out with $2.4 billion. This is business at its naked profit seeking and this is not business which is going to do anything for the common wheel, and it is not going to do anything to help the world avoid climate change.

                    How can we actually change these powerful actors to act on our behalf?

Rebecca:       When I was trying to sell my book, I was with a major publishing house in New York and the editor looked at me and he said -- Rebecca, Business Saves the World, you have got to be kidding. Don't you read the papers?

                    So I'm with you. I mean, I absolutely get, but simply saying, oh, business will step forward and step up, clearly not the case. So let me very briefly summarise why I think business could nonetheless play a super important role.

                    So first we absolutely have to change the rules. Changing the rules is the only way in the long run that we will address these kinds of massive problems. And so it has to be all about, in the end, political, social, cultural change. The question is, how do we get there? It's not a done deal that we'll come out of this emergency with government saying -- okay, I understand, I need to focus on the common good, I need to set the rules for the long term, I need to address these issues. That's not a done deal. I really hope it's the case, but it's not a done deal.

                    So what my book is about, is the idea that having some significant fraction of business making the argument for change might increase the odds that government will act. That's essentially what my book's about. And as you know, because you've been polite enough to read it, I lay out four steps as to how business starting right now in their own organizations can begin to build that momentum for change. Because I think at root, this is easy to say, but I think at route we're talking about a moral shift, as well as a political shift.

                    No business person right now would say, hey, I'm going to employ more child labor because you know what, it's fabulously profitable. Nobody would say that in public. Alas, it still goes on, but everybody knows it's not okay, you wouldn't boast about it at dinner parties. You wouldn't tell your customers. And what we need to do is make sure I think, that climate change becomes just like that, that saying, well, I throw carbon dioxide out the window and of course I lobby against climate legislation because climate legislation would reduce my profits. And people do say that. It should not be okay.

                    And I think what we need to see is this major shift in business. I think you've got these pioneers moving forward, raising awareness among employees and customers and my hope is we could get a virtuous circle going, where it becomes increasingly unacceptable to move into the Amazon and take as much money as you can get.

                    I think Brazil is an example of just what we're talking about, which is before Bolsonaro, the private sector was playing an important role in the preservation of the Amazon and supporting the politics that led to that. When the politics shifted, everything fell apart, as you said.

Anthony:       Right. Do you don't think though, that once we get through this pandemic and all the turmoil which it's brought with it, people are going to say I really haven't got time to look at doing things to save the world, I've just bean driven almost to the wall, I've got to do everything I possibly can to claw my business back, to get back into operation, to re-employ my employees, I've got my mind focused on survival?

Rebecca:       So I sit on the board of two large public companies and I understand, at least a little bit of what it means to be trying to run a business at this moment, and it's super tough. I mean to a first approximation, either you're running absolutely flat out in the midst of a pandemic, trying to keep your people safe, or your revenue has dropped by 50%. I mean, I have a bunch of friends.... I have a friend who built a software company, for 30 years, he worked at building this company. Amazing job, 200 employees, worth approximately fifty-million dollars. His revenue went to zero. Why? Because he was writing software that sold tickets for live events. Zero revenue?

                    So of course as we come out of this pandemic business will be focusing on making sure they can rebuild. And I think that's understandable, and we shouldn't like yell at people who are doing that. It's not helpful. At the same time, I think there are at least three forces that work for us. One is that the knowledge that the world could suddenly change, that disasters are real, that when that happens, you would have done anything to fix it before it happened. I don't think that knowledge will all together go away.

                    So I think there'll be the kind of acknowledgment that things might shift. Maybe, maybe, maybe, who knows? But I think that could happen.

Anthony:       The thing though, just taking up that point. The pandemic has happened almost overnight. The thing about climate change is that we know it's going to happen, but it's happening so gradually it's like the boiled frog syndrome, which I'm sure you're aware of. People think well, it's just not quite bad enough for me to have to do anything about it. If we get a cataclysmic event like a tidal surge, which overwhelms New York or something, then maybe that's the sort of incentive which will make people think just as this pandemic has done. But if climate change gradually gradually, gradually gets worse, is the incentive there?

Rebecca:       So two points. First, I think we're going to see a repetition of things like the California wildfires and the Australian fires and the floods in Jakarta and the storms that hit the Carolinas twice, and the flooding in Houston and the flooding in the Midwest and the failure of the harvests in Africa. Alas, I'm afraid, I think we're going to see more of these kinds of events.

                    But I agree with you, for many people, it will still be later, later, later. But I think the good news there, is that it's increasingly clear that there's an economic case in many businesses to be made for switching to clean energy. I mean, for most businesses, it's only about 3% of costs, and many companies are finding that the declaration of, you know, we're going to do this because it's the right thing to do, we have a long term purpose to contribute to our society, to care about public health and addressing climate change is a big part of that. We're going to switch. It's going to be a marginal increase in costs. But as my research suggests, there is for many firms, the probability of a significant increase in productivity, in innovation, in creativity. So many people are not working at their full capacity. It won't work because you have to go to work.

                    And I think the research is now overwhelming, and I try and summarise some of it in my book, together with some good stories about, no, no, no, that when people believe that what they're doing makes a difference, that they're part of something larger than themselves it's not just happy talk, it really helps and it helps the bottom line.

Anthony:       Changing tack perhaps a little bit. What do you think about the concept of universal basic income as a way of perhaps smoothing the recovery and in fact also reducing inequality in due course?

Rebecca:       So I love the idea of cash transfers to those who have less income. I think there's a huge amount of evidence to suggest that, for example, the fastest way to help a homeless person is to give them cash. And they've been a number of experiments done on this, that, if you're homeless, oh we have this service and that service and this service, and if you're mentally ill, or if you have other issues, absolutely, that's appropriate. But for people who are down on their luck and sleeping rough, what they need is cash. And I think we have too many jobs which don't pay enough.

                    So I'm a huge fan of raising incomes at the bottom. I don't know enough about the policy details, I have colleagues who do, to know in which situation which policy makes the most sense. I see UBI as one potential instrument that has some strengths, has some weaknesses. I certainly think I shouldn't be getting UBI, that makes no sense. So there has to be some correction for people who are doing okay. But in general, I think re-balancing income. I think some of that could be done by straight re-distributive taxation. But because I'm such a fan of like free enterprise, I think it's also super important, to create more jobs and make sure those are really good jobs.

                    So, at least in the US employers have been able to really push their way to the bottom on wages. And some of the big firms, like, say, Walmart are going like, whoa, that was a mistake. If you're paying people so little money that they're dependent on food stamps and Medicaid on and just making their lives work is impossible, that's not good for business. That's no good for us right now. That's certainly not good for business in the long term. 50% of the Children in the US were taking our government subsidised lunches. I mean, half the population in the US is nutritionally at risk. This is a problem for business. It really is.

                    So I think finding ways to raise wages and to create more good jobs might be just as important as sending people checks, and in many cases might be more effective. Because, a good job is a source of immense dignity and pleasure and meaning. Working two jobs, riding the lousy public transportation for three or four hours to get to them, having to leave your children with strangers for far too long, not being able to feed them properly, that's not good. I mean, we have to address that problem. But I think you know, to be a moment the pointy headed academic, both supply and demand.

Anthony:       All right. There is an elephant in the room, though, isn't there, or, some would say, called Artificial Intelligence, which will dehumanise labor. Now if the values, if the profits from artificial intelligence, go to the owners of capital then a lot of people are going to be left on the sidelines with nothing. How do you think we should approach that?

Rebecca:       Oh, you know, sometimes I miss the times when my career was just -- how do I make my business more innovative? Because I sort of knew the answer to that.

                    So AI is a huge issue. And I think it's important when we talk about it to remember that used well, it could really increase the happiness and living standards of the entire human race. As you said, the question is, who gets to decide how it's deployed and who gets to reap the returns from owning the robots?

                    So I think if I were running things I would really explore diffusing the ownership of capital. This is a big topic. And I think there are a number of problems with just leaping into it with both hands. Firstly, I am not a big fan of state ownership of the means of production. I've read too much about the history of China before they turned capitalist and Russia. I'm too much a fan of capitalism.

Anthony:       Do you see a role though for the state in things like utilities, like transport, like energy and so on?

Rebecca:       I do. I do. I do see a role for the state in natural monopolies and in utilities. But I also see an immense role for the state in antitrust policy, in making sure there's not too much money in politics, so business doesn't control politics. But sort of if my vision is a strong private sector, but one where ownership of capital is widely diffused. Now partly capital is defused, it's in pension plans and places like that, and the people running the pension plans have been running the plans for short term return, short term return, short term return, since we can talk about. So one thing is the people running the money need to think about issues like AI and the long term and we could talk about ESG and the movement to think about externalities as something investors should be thinking about.

                    But the other route we could go down is to make sure that firms have more employee ownership, and I think that's potentially very interesting. It can be done badly. It can be done well, but done well, I think it could have multiple good effects. I have a colleague called Richard Freeman, who has a book called "The Citizens Share," which is all about employees owning shares in their own company. And I talk in the book about a number of firms where the employees basically own the company and have decision rights. And it's not paradise, there are all kinds of issues, but done well I think it could make a big difference.

                    I also think we should have very thoughtful government policy about how we deploy AI, about how we think about transitioning workers who are affected. We should have massive R&D support for how do we make sure that AI is augmenting human labor? That it's a compliment to human labor, not a substitute. And that's not a pipe dream. I have a great friend called Susan Helper at Case Western Reserve who is working on -- so how do we think about AI in a way that really improves the productivity of the humans we already have, rather than replaces them? And that feels to me the kind of avenue we need to go in.

                    But to the point you opened with, it's not about letting the free market rip. The free market's and unbelievable source of productivity and growth and entrepreneurship, but it needs to be in partnership with the government and in partnership with a voice for labor, and in partnership with civil society. Because AI is absolutely something we need to deal with. Otherwise, bad things are going to happen.

Anthony:       Rebecca, you've given us a vast range of really interesting ideas. I'm going to close by asking you, what should we do next? What can we as an individual do next? What should business do next? What could we do to perhaps influence business to do it?

Rebecca:       So I think it's super important that we individually start to act. I think the most important thing we can do is vote and get politically active. But I think it's also really important to use our roles as consumers and as employees, and perhaps as managers or owners, to begin to move our society in this direction. One of the things the pandemic has shown us, which I think is so striking, is how much humans care about the common good. If you ask people.... And there was a wonderful survey done, actually here in the UK just last year, do you think of yourself as more oriented to the common good or more selfish?

                    It turns out that roughly 71% of people say -- I think I'm more oriented to the common good. So I think there's something in humans that wants to focus on the long term. But at the same time, 77% of people said, well everyone else is not like me. Everyone else is selfish.

                    So I think stepping up as a consumer and saying, I will only buy from firms whose values I share. And as an employee talking to CEOs, the single biggest driver of change over the last couple of years has been their employees. CEOs have said, you know, I didn't care so much about climate change, but my employees are all over it, and so I looked into it and it turned out that I could do all kinds of things. So we tend to think CEOs run firms, I actually think the people in the firm actually ultimately have a huge amount of control.

                    So where you work, check things out, pick a project that you think would make a difference. It's these small kinds of actions that then get scaled up across the organization that really make a big difference. And I don't want to forget what we as individuals should do, because we know from social psychology that if the person across the street from me is flying less because they think it's the right thing to do, I'm much likely to fly less.

                    And one of the things that needs to happen is we all need to support each other in learning to behave in new ways for the sake of our children and our children's children. I think if we can get that ball rolling, it will be very powerful.

Anthony:       Rebecca, thank you very much. Now, as I said, to start with your book is called "Reimagining Capitalism." And I right, it's published at the end of this month, April?

Rebecca:       It is. April 28th.

Anthony:       Okay, it's published in the US. Is it published in the UK as well?

Rebecca:       Absolutely. Penguin Random House is bringing it out April 28th. It will be only an ebook and an audible edition on the 28th in the UK. The paper edition will be out in September.

Anthony:       Well, Rebecca, I'm most grateful to you for taking the time.

Rebecca:       Anthony, thank you very much. And thank you for asking me questions about inequality as well. Because I know you're mostly a climate person. I tend to think of them is intimately linked, that essentially we've lost sight of public goods and that we won't fix the climate change problem unless and until we also address the inequality problem. So I really like being able to talk about them both at the same time. So thanks very much.

Anthony:       It's been great to talk to you. Thank you.

That’s almost it for this week, but before I go I’m delighted to tell you that we have another patron, Dave Borlace. You may remember that last week I drew your attention to an excellent account of Global Dimming that he’d published. His latest video, by the way, is on climate change and the coronavirus. He too is on Patreon, so I had a look at his site and decided to subscribe. He was good enough to subscribe to the Sustainable Futures Report in return. Welcome Dave.
If you want to be a patron, go to patreon.com/sfr, or for Dave’s Patreon account search for patreon.com/JustHaveAThink . 
And that is it for this week.
I’m Anthony Day.
That was the Sustainable Futures Report.
There will be another next week.

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Onward!



Onward!

Hello I’m Anthony Day and this is the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday, the 10th of April. Yes, this is the Sustainable Futures Report which ranks 140 among Apple news podcasts, in Taiwan.
This time I'm not talking about the green deal although it's a topic which I am determined to bring to you. I'm still trying to arrange one or more interviews. 
What’s Funny?
In these very difficult times I thought I would try and inject some humour into the proceedings, so I searched online for Climate Change jokes. How depressing. Yes, there are lots of “jokes” and I've put that in inverted commas. The trouble is they are either ignorant, in bad taste, completely impossible to understand or just not funny. Mainly, all those things.
For example: 
Two planets meet. The first one asks: "How are you?"
"Not so well", the second answered "I've got the Homo Sapiens."
"Don't worry," the other replied, "I had the same. That won't last long.”
And another…
"How long do we have?" asked a comedian at a fringe event at the UN General Assembly on Climate Change last year.
"10 years," said an audience member.
"This is so scary - let's talk about my ex-girlfriend instead,”

See what I mean?
So instead I'm going to talk about COP26, the way out of this pandemic and its effect on actions against climate change; coal mining, geo-engineering and global dimming.
COP26
Not a lot to say about COP26 of course, except that it's been postponed for a year. That's hardly surprising given that governments are preoccupied with the pandemic and the conference centre in Glasgow where it was to be held is currently being converted to the hospital. It was billed as the most important UN climate conference yet, with the objective of reviewing performance and setting new targets 5 years after the 2015 Paris Accord. It appears that the slowdown in industrial activity and corresponding reduction in atmospheric pollution and emissions may have bought us some time, although not a lot. Many conferences are now being transferred online. Is this not an option for COP26?
And after the pandemic?
According to Reuters it’s a good time to issue Green bonds, government borrowing to fund projects such as renewable energy and public transport. Germany had already planned to do this before the virus and has confirmed that it will go ahead. There’s hope that Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Britain will follow suit.
What will change once all this is over? 
Camilla Watkiss of Climate Action says that the actions taken to suppress the spread of the virus have revealed what measures are possible in an emergency and that many experts are urging governments to apply the same momentum to the climate emergency. Experts, she says, believe that the pandemic exposes how we can do things differently. 
It’s quite true: where there’s an overwhelming imperative actions can be taken almost overnight. In the UK we built a hospital in a week and re-nationalised the railways over a weekend. That doesn’t mean we could build HS2 in a week or complete Hinkley C nuclear power station by Easter, nor should we,  but it does raise questions about the immense amount of time that these infrastructure projects seem to take, and are they really what we want and need? We have at least got time now to stand back and ask whether such projects are our true priority especially when we see the limitations imposed on our NHS by 10 years of austerity and under-investment and the even worse state of our social care system.
Health at the Heart
Watkiss quotes Sir Michael Marmot, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at UCL and Chair of the WHO’s Commission on Social Determinants of Health.   
We should continue to be “putting the likely impact on health equity at the heart of all policymaking.That would lead to better environmental policy, it would lead to better social policy, it would lead to better healthcare policy and better political policies,” he said. We cannot go back to ‘business as usual’,  “We must not go back to the status quo, we cannot do that.” 
“With Covid-19, everything [on austerity] went out of the window. It turns out austerity was a choice,” he said. “The government can spend anything [in the context of the coronavirus crisis], and they have socialised the economy.”
XR
Co-founder of Extinction Rebellion Dr Gail Bradbrook, agreed. “Things that needed to have been done but weren’t to prevent the pandemic, are similar to the things needed to address the climate and ecological crisis.” 
Extinction Rebellion have been urging governments to aim for net-zero emissions by 2025, Dr Bradbrook added: “We were told this was an “impossible target”, but the things happening right now are the things needed to hit a 2025 target. We can do the impossible. We have to.”
Denial
In the Guardian newspaper Jonathan Watts complains that rightwing governments have denied the problem and been slow to act. With coronavirus and the climate, this costs lives. Like global warming, but in close-up and fast-forward, the Covid-19 outbreak shows how lives are lost or saved depending on a government’s propensity to acknowledge risk, act rapidly to contain it, and share the consequences.
On these matters, competence and ideology overlap. Governments willing to intervene have been more effective at stemming the virus than laissez-faire capitalists. The further right the government, the more inclined it is to delay action and offload blame elsewhere. International comparisons suggest this could be making infection and death rates steeper.
He cites the US, Brazil and the UK as examples. He says that though not as extreme in his denial as Trump or Bolsonaro, Boris Johnson acknowledged the risk, but did little about it. In the first few weeks his government dithered.
The pandemic has proved that delays are deadly and expensive. If we are to avoid a cascade of future crises, governments must think beyond a return to business as usual. Our conception of what is “normal” will have to change. We’ll need to invest in natural life-supporting systems such as a stable climate, fresh air and clean water. In the past, those goals have been dismissed as unrealistic or expensive, but recent weeks have shown how quickly the political compass can shift.
Climate and Coronavirus
In the MIT Technical Review James Temple claims that the coronavirus outbreak is terrible news for climate change. He believes that emissions are likely to rise again as soon as the economy bounces back. In the meantime, if the virus leads to a full-blown global pandemic and economic crash, it could easily drain money and political will from climate efforts. There could be a shortage of capital for green projects, a shortage of equipment for renewables as China’s industry gets back to normal and the collapse of the oil price will make the running costs of conventional cars highly competitive with electric. 
Electric Cars
Writing for the Ethical Corporation, Amy Davidsen says, “Electric vehicles are crucial in addressing the global climate crisis. Transportation emissions represent 29% of all US global warming emissions, the largest source of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. As we begin the critical decade for climate action, where global emissions must be cut in half by 2030 to limit the worst impacts of a warming planet, transitioning away from polluting vehicles to clean electric transport will be a key part of the solution.”
Electric vehicles are cleaner than internal combustion engines, regardless of the type of electricity used to charge the vehicle because the engine is more efficient and there are no  exhaust pipe emissions.
“While great progress is being made, one of the biggest obstacles to the electric vehicle transition is a lack of vehicle supply and models from automakers, particularly in the US,” she says.
Who’s in Charge?
The US has problems because of divided responsibility between the States and Federal government. Emission standards are rolled back at the centre while New York legislates for an all-electric fleet and New Jersey adopts similar legislation to help secure its 100% clean energy goal for 2050. Meanwhile California is taking the  federal administration to law over its attempt to ease up on fuel efficiency rules. No wonder the carmakers are confused.
Coal
Away from health issues life goes on. The UK government still has to make a decision on permitting a new deep coal mine in Cumbria to go ahead. Coal pollutes, but coal mining will bring jobs to a depressed area. This is industrial coal for steel-making. If we don’t mine it in the UK we’ll have to import it from Russia or Poland - or give up making steel, which will cost jobs.
I’m glad it’s not my decision.
Clear Skies
As industrial activity declined and the Chinese closed their factories in Wuhan, NASA satellites were able to observe significant fall in airborne pollution, particularly nitrous oxide. There have been reports suggesting that improved air quality has led to the avoidance of far more premature deaths than the number caused by COVID19, but as the factories re-open the level of pollution is rising again.
“Normal” emissions include CO2 and nitrous oxide and other things like black carbon, dust and sulphates. These give rise to the global dimming paradox. Particulates and sulphates in the atmosphere reflect sunlight back into space and therefore have a global cooling effect. Unlike green house gases, which persist in the atmosphere for up to a year or more, these pollutants fall out in days. Their dimming, or cooling effect can therefore be lost very rapidly. Some researchers believe the effect could be as much as 0.5 or even 1.0℃.
Geoengineering
E&T, the house journal of the Institution of Engineering and Technology reports that “Climate change risk could be mitigated with the right dose of geoengineering”. They refer to a study by scientists at UCL and Harvard who suggest that even a crude method, like injecting sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere, could reduce many important climate hazards without making any region obviously worse off. Adding more sulphur dioxide increases global dimming and increases the cooling effect. Previous studies have suggested that injecting SO2 into the atmosphere could have a beneficial effect for some areas of the earth, but could devastate others. These scientists now say that that’s unlikely to happen. Let’s hope they’re right, because we have only one earth.
The truth of the controversy is far from clear. There’s a detailed analysis on scientistswarning.org. This includes a video by Dave Borlace of Just Hav¬e a Think, which explains the issues very clearly and analyses the principal scientific papers. It’s a 14-minute session and I strongly recommend you watch it. It’s on youTube, on Patreon and accessible via the link on the Sustainable Futures Report blog. 

And Finally…
I did say to start with that I’d been looking for some jokes. Not much here, I’m afraid. It’s trite to say that this, too, will pass, but eventually it will. I trust you’ll keep safe and healthy, and that we’ll be able to build a better future for all once all this is over.
I’m Anthony Day.
That was the Sustainable Futures Report.
And I fully intend to bring you another next week.






Sources
COP26 postponed




How governments react to disasters

Coronavirus bad news for climate change

Coal

Geoengineering and global dimming




Friday, April 03, 2020

Going Global




Going Global


Hello again and welcome. This is the Sustainable Futures Report and I’m Anthony Day. It's Friday, the 3rd of April.
Welcome 
To start with it's my pleasure to introduce my latest patron, Colin Clark from Australia. Welcome Colin, and thanks for your comments. Colin is particularly concerned about denial and he sent me a link to an edition of the Bolt Report, an Australian show, with two people complaining about the actions of extinction rebellion and the lack of balance in the media which was keeping climate deniers out. I’ve put the link on the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report and you’ll notice that the Bolt Report doesn’t have anyone putting the other side of the argument. OK - I have nobody putting the opposite view to the Sustainable Futures Report. Feel free to get in touch.
Relevant?
Last week I asked a question, is the Sustainable Futures Report  relevant in the present circumstances? I've had responses online and by email and thank you for your support. The general consensus was that I should continue so I will, albeit in the context of this coronavirus emergency.
Right then. 
This week I’m going to talk about denial and whether climate change could lead to more pandemics in future. How will COVID19 affect developing nations and what are the implications of that for the rest of us? How is climate change affecting Africa and developing nations? And in other news, fantasies in Venice, cars in the sky, carbon reporting, fiddling investors, and why the British government thinks we should give up cars.
Ready?
Relaxing the Rules
You’ll remember that Donald Trump’s appointment of Andrew Wheeler as US Environment Protection Agency administrator brought in a man with wide experience of climate change issues and environmental regulations. Much of this was gained in his former role as a lawyer acting on behalf of the coal industry. Wheeler is a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was chief counsel to the  chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. senator James Inhofe. Inhofe himself has long been a climate sceptic and among many other things he’s the author of “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future”.  
No surprise then that the EPS has announced the suspension of all environmental regulations during the coronavirus outbreak. This is a temporary suspension, although at present it is open-ended. I say ‘no surprise’ but it’s not altogether clear why the virus should justify such a moratorium, and Cynthia Giles, who headed the EPA’s Office of Enforcement during the Obama administration, called it an abdication of the agency's duty. For example, not only will the oil industry not be sanctioned for leakages which contaminate water sources, but the obligation to record emissions and pollution events will be suspended. When all this is over there could be no record of the size or nature of events which may have occurred.
Hypocrites
In the Toronto Sun correspondent Lorrie Goldstein claims that, “Rich hypocrites are the real climate deniers.” He cites a recent study by the University of Leeds in the U.K. which says that rich people are most to blame for human-induced climate change. The wealthiest 10% of people in the 86 countries surveyed consume 20 times more fossil fuel energy than the poorest 10%.
The largest disparity is in the transportation sector, where the top 10% consume 187 times more fossil fuel energy than the bottom 10%.
Goldstein says that minimum wage worker in Canada, who thinks human-induced climate change is a hoax, is doing far more to “save the planet” than all of the rich and relatively rich people who mock and denounce him, or her, as a “climate denier.” In his view poor people are the world’s greatest environmentalists because they consume less than rich people.
They live in small apartments, not mansions.
They take public transit, not cars.
They don’t go on exotic vacations.
They don’t fly.
They have few material possessions.
Since almost all goods and services consume fossil fuel energy, their carbon footprints are small because they consume less.

In response to the study, Prof. Kevin Anderson of the U.K.’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Research said, “Anyone who tells others to consume less to save the planet is a hypocrite unless and until they’re willing to consume less themselves.”
I agree with that, but the crucial thing to remember is that while you can write off many people, including me, as a hypocrite, that does not change the truth of the climate change science.
Anderson goes on, “Nor can the rich claim to reduce their carbon footprints by buying carbon offsets, because the only credible way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is not to emit fossil fuel energy in the first place.
“Carbon offsets are the modern equivalent of papal indulgences — paying for sin, without giving up the sin, hardly anything new for the rich.”
I totally agree with that!
Climate Change and Pandemics
I spoke to patron Victoria Covington last week. She was wondering whether global heating and climate change would lead to more pandemics in the future, so I said I’d look into it.
WHO
The World Health Organisation reports that there is much evidence of associations between climatic conditions and infectious diseases. Malaria is of great public health concern, and seems likely to be the vector-borne disease most sensitive to long-term climate change. Malaria varies seasonally in highly endemic areas. Excessive monsoon rainfall and high humidity was identified early on as a major influence, enhancing mosquito breeding and survival. Recent analyses have shown that the malaria epidemic risk increases around five-fold in the year after an El Niño event.
They say, “Changes in infectious disease transmission patterns are a likely major consequence of climate change. We need to learn more about the underlying complex causal relationships.” 
This seems to indicate that climate change will not generate new diseases, but it may produce conditions for diseases to arise in greater numbers and different locations than we would normally expect. The link is on the blog if you want to read the whole paper.
Paul Polman
Writing on the Ethical Corporation site, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum, argues that companies must rapidly transition to a way of doing business that does not destroy biodiversity and natural capital or there will be more Covid-19s. 
“Since the Covid-19 outbreak,” he says, “many researchers have highlighted how the destruction of our biodiversity and natural capital has in fact perpetuated many new pathogens. Deforestation and urbanisation, for example – coupled with a population explosion – has led to humans and animals coming into ever closer contact, resulting in the transmission of more diseases and viruses from wildlife to humans. Covid-19 is clearly a wake-up call that we must start living within our planetary boundaries. And I’m convinced we can do so, provided we equally value natural and human capital.”
He continues, “This is a crucial “decade of action” that requires business to step-up to help decarbonise the global economy and deliver the Sustainable Development Goals. It’s also a “super year for nature”, in which we need to integrate stewardship of the Earth’s life support services – oceans, biodiversity and climate – with a new way of doing business. Valued at $125tn a year, our natural capital and biodiversity are vital components of the wealth of nations.”
WEF
Writing for the World Economic Forum Kate Whiting says, “Coronavirus isn't an outlier, it's part of our interconnected viral age. Coronavirus COVID-19 is part of a pattern of increasingly frequent epidemics that have coincided with globalisation, urbanisation and climate change. As society becomes more connected, collaboration and cooperation will be needed to reduce the impact of future epidemics.”
Or maybe once this is all over we will re-evaluate whether we need to become more connected, physically at least. Already companies - and the NHS - are beginning to wonder whether supply chains which stretch right across the world are worth the risk. And to the extent that we successfully implement the circular economy our raw materials will be the waste we create locally.
In January 2019 the World Economic Forum, in collaboration with Harvard Global Health Institute, published a White Paper entitled: “Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact - Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy.”
Did anyone read it? You can, if you follow the link on the blog. 
Scientific American
Chelsea Harvey, writing for Scientific American, says, 
“As the Earth continues to warm, many scientists expect to see changes in the timing, geography and intensity of disease outbreaks around the world. And some experts believe climate change, along with other environmental disturbances, could help facilitate the rise of more brand-new diseases, like COVID-19.”
“There's a great deal of research about climate and vector-borne diseases — these are illnesses that are transmitted to humans by other animals, such as mosquitoes or ticks. But it's much harder to research climate impacts on human-to-human disease transmission.”
“We can put mosquitoes in a lab," said Rachel Baker, an expert on climate and infectious diseases at the Princeton Environmental Institute. "Put mosquitoes in labs, looking at everything from life length and egg-laying properties and all these different physiological life cycle characteristics and relating those back to climate drivers."
But with directly transmitted diseases, like influenza or COVID-19, it's much harder to run experiments. Some viruses — flu, for example — can be tested in animals like guinea pigs. But that's not true for every viral illness. And animals don't provide a perfect analogy for the way diseases spread in human societies.
The general conclusion seems to be that climate change will stimulate more disease. Whether these will be novel diseases is not clear, but diseases seem set to be an increasing and significant problem.
Flying Famine
And although it’s not actually a disease, a plague of locusts can have serious consequences for human survival. Carbon Brief addresses the question: “Are the 2019-20 locust swarms linked to climate change?”
This outbreak was the largest seen in 25 years in Ethiopia and Somalia – and in 70 years in Kenya. Although at least one swarm was calculated to be 60km long by 40km wide, overall the outbreak was smaller than many occurring in the 20th century.
The Arabian Peninsula – the land mass between East Africa and Asia comprising Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates – is the principal breeding ground for locusts and  was struck by several unusually severe cyclones between 2018 and 2019.
When the first storm – Cyclone Mekunu – hit the Arab peninsula in May 2018, it filled a vast desert near Yemen and Oman, known as the Empty Quarter, with freshwater lakes.
The moisture caused lush vegetation to grow in the usually barren environment, attracting desert locusts hunting for food into the area. “The first cyclone led to this emergence of optimal breeding grounds for the locusts.”
Then a second cyclone reinforced the damp, lush conditions which allowed the insects to continue to breed and increase their population some 8,000 times. They survived through a mild winter and in Summer 2019 they migrated into Africa. Here there were unusually wet and stormy conditions which allowed the numbers to grow still further, and unusually windy weather blew the insects into the interior. 
So did climate change cause this plague of locusts? At the time, António Guterres, the UN’s secretary general, said, 
“There is a link between climate change and the unprecedented locust crisis plaguing Ethiopia and East Africa. Warmer seas mean more cyclones generating the perfect breeding ground for locusts. This is getting worse by the day.”
Dr Wenju Cai, director of the Centre for Southern Hemisphere Oceans Research at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia said, 
“It’s highly likely that the event that we’ve just seen has a very strong warming component in it – but attributing individual events to long-term climate change is not a simple issue.”
I think the message is that we shouldn’t meddle with things we don’t understand. Like the planet.
Going Global
As we well know, COVID-19 is a global crisis. While there are arguments about testing, ventilators and personal protection equipment, the UK remains one of the nations best able to cope with the emergency. But this is a global crisis and affects every nation regardless of their ability to deal with it. The developing nations are particularly at risk.
Developing Problems
Twenty experts, among them four Nobel prizewinners, including Joseph Stiglitz, Lord Nicholas Stern and seven chief economists of the World Bank and other development banks, have written to G20 leaders to warn of “unimaginable health and social impacts” as coronavirus rips through the developing world, taking overburdened healthcare systems beyond breaking point, and causing economic and social devastation.
At least $8bn (£6.5bn) in emergency funding has been requested by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, but this is just a start and tiny by comparison with the $2trn pledged by the US government and the £330bn pledged by the UK government to support their own countries. 
“If efforts to control Covid-19 fail, “the virus could become endemic, producing new waves of destructive outbreaks around the world”, the letter warned, adding: “We have a rapidly closing window to ensure that we give these countries at least a fighting chance to manage the crisis and provide some light at the end of what could be a long tunnel.”
The letter concludes: 
“We are now urging you, the leaders of the G20, to urgently provide the necessary resources to reduce the losses in human life and back up those most vulnerable. The required investment is minute compared to the social and economic costs of inaction. History will judge us harshly if we do not get this right.”
This is just another disaster heaped on to the developing nations. If I were cynical, I might suggest that chronic COVID19 in the developing nations would be such a permanent threat to the wealthy West that foreign aid to eradicate it would be forthcoming. We shall see.
Climate Change and Developing Nations
It’s frequently been suggested that climate change is likely to affect poorer nations sooner and harder than the rest of the world. Much of Africa is dependent on regular and predictable rainfall to support its farmers’ crops and livestock, but things are changing.
For example, for the decades following the 1960s and peaking in 1984, there was a downturn of rainfall of some 30% across the Sahel, which led to famine and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of many millions. 
Drought is driving dust storms, and yet as we saw above, in 2019 the central eastern African states suffered a succession of cyclones and widespread floods. Crops and livestock washed away are just as dead as those killed by drought. Meanwhile as the land becomes uninhabitable refugees attempt to crowd into cities.
According to the UN, “No continent will be struck as severely by the impacts of climate change as Africa. Given its geographical position, the continent will be particularly vulnerable due to the considerably limited adaptive capacity, and exacerbated by widespread poverty. Climate change is a particular threat to continued economic growth and to livelihoods of vulnerable populations.”
“For sub-Saharan Africa, which has experienced more frequent and more intense climate extremes over the past decades, the ramifications of the world’s warming by more than 1.5° C would be profound.
“Temperature increases in the region are projected to be higher than the global mean temperature increase; regions in Africa within 15 degrees of the equator are projected to experience an increase in hot nights as well as longer and more frequent heat waves.
“The odds are long but not impossible, says the IPCC. And the benefits of limiting climate change to 1.5° C are enormous, with the  IPCC report detailing the difference in the consequences between a 1.5° C increase and a 2° C increase. Every bit of additional warming adds greater risks for Africa in the form of greater droughts, more heat waves and more potential crop failures.”
Leading Role
On the other hand, the Brookings Institution says that Africa can play a leading role in the fight against climate change. In its Foresight Africa 2020 report, author Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala says that research from the New Climate Economy shows that bold climate action could deliver at least $26 trillion in global economic benefits between now and 2030. It could also generate over 65 million new low-carbon jobs by 2030, a number equivalent to the combined workforces of the United Kingdom and Egypt today; avoid over 700,000 premature deaths from air pollution compared with business-as-usual; and generate an estimated $2.8 trillion in government revenues in 2030 through subsidy reform and carbon pricing alone.
She says,
“If fairness was the only goal, the impetus to act would lie solely with developed economies. Make no mistake, the big emitters absolutely must step up their domestic climate action, and quickly. But building the new climate economy is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that every African nation should prioritise and claim a stake in.
“This opportunity is why, despite historically negligible carbon emissions, despite only accounting for 2 percent of world coal demand, and despite the lack of leadership from some developed countries, many African countries are now making serious efforts to transition towards low-carbon technologies, low-carbon and resilient infrastructure, and low-carbon tax systems.”
She goes on to explain how Morocco has built the world’s largest concentrated solar facility to help achieve the country’s goal of 52 percent renewable energy mix by 2030; how South Africa’s Carbon Tax Act, which places specific levies on greenhouse gases from fuel combustion and industrial processes and emissions, could reduce the country’s emissions by 33 percent relative to the baseline by 2035. Nigeria has set a renewable energy target of 30 percent by 2030, and international oil company Shell, has invested in SolarNow, which sells high-quality solar solutions in Uganda and Kenya. Since its inception in 2011, SolarNow has supplanted 210,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
“African leaders cannot do this alone. And nor should they,” she says. “Whether driven by opportunism or a sense of moral justice, the world’s developed and emerging economies must take action at home and help Africa deliver the investments that will bring the goals of the Paris Agreement within reach.”
Voice of Dissent
Meanwhile a headline in the Zimbabwe Independent warns: “We must not jeopardise Africa in the name of climate change.” 
“I agree that climate change should be taken seriously, but we cannot accept knee-jerk responses,” says NJ Ayuk. “We must not rob our continent of the significant benefits it can realise from oil and gas operations, from the economic opportunities of monetised natural resources to critically important gas-to-power initiatives.”
“What about the desperation that the 600 000-plus Africans without power live with every day?”, he asks. “Is it reasonable to expect them to wait for green energy to evolve while domestic natural gas and crude oil reserves can be exploited to create electricity and heating fuel far more quickly?”
Clearly the debate goes on, all over the world.

And in other news…
Venetian Fantasy
You may have read about the swans and the dolphins which have returned to the canals of Venice now that the tourists have gone and the vaporetti are no longer cramming the waterways. Sadly, according to thehill.com that’s just an illusion. Apparently the swans never went away and National Geographic reports that the dolphins in a clip that went viral were filmed at a port in Sardinia, hundreds of miles away."
Flying Cars
Turning to technology, Hyundai and Uber are working together to develop an air taxi. “Our vision of Urban Air Mobility will transform the concept of urban transportation,” said Jaiwon Shin, Executive Vice President and Head of Hyundai’s Urban Air Mobility (UAM) Division. “We are confident that Uber Elevate is the right partner to make this innovative product readily available to as many customers as possible.” 
Hyundai’s fully electric S-A1 model is designed to take off and land vertically, cruise at speeds of up to 180mph at altitudes between 1,000 and 2,000 feet, and have a range of up to 60 miles. The air taxi concept is powered by multiple rotors and propellers to increase safety and reduce noise, has been designed with four passenger seats, and although it is intended to be piloted at first, it will become autonomous over time.
Once this coronavirus crisis is over will we need autonomous air taxis? I’m not one to stand in the way of progress, but I must ask, as I’m sure many in the developed world would ask, “Progress for whom?”
Economics and Energy
“FTSE companies urgently need to raise their game on CO2 reporting,” warns the Ethical Corporation. Alexia Perversi and Andrew Jones of Mazars say a recent study by the auditing firm casts huge doubt on the credibility and utility of carbon disclosures in year-end reports.
“Current disclosure is not fit for purpose and in many cases appears to be a box-ticking exercise that is not integral to the way management teams run their business. Disclosures by the UK’s largest companies suggest huge levels of unexplained volatility in carbon emissions. What’s more, this volatility does not appear to be linked to operations, which casts huge doubt on its credibility and utility for analysing businesses’ performance over time in carbon efficiency.
“Listed companies have been required to report on carbon emissions for some time, but a new piece of legislation will require many non-listed companies to report, too, meaning thousands of new companies will be subject to reporting under a similar regime from next year.”
Let’s hope the government will get this under control. At present most of its attention is focussed, and rightly, on COVID19, but its many other responsibilities have not gone away and we cannot afford to neglect them. While there may be a fire in the engine room, it’s still important to steer the ship away from the rocks.
Fiddling While Forests Burn
Another headline from the Ethical Corporation reads: “Investors and companies are fiddling while forests burn”
Last September, as a response to the Amazon fires, 230 institutional investors representing $16.2tn in assets called on global companies to take urgent action. “As investors, who have a fiduciary duty to act in the best long-term interests of our beneficiaries, we recognise the crucial role that tropical forests play in tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity and ensuring ecosystem services … and see the reduction of deforestation as a key solution to managing these risks and contributing to efficient and sustainable financial markets in the longer term,” ran the statement.
Fine words but also words unmatched by similar fine deeds, according to a new report from Global Canopy.
The Forest 500 annual report seeks to hold to account 350 companies that produce, trade, use or sell the largest amounts of six key commodities – palm oil, soy, beef, leather, timber, and pulp and paper – as well as the 150 biggest institutions that finance them. 
In total, the report showed that 102 (68%) of the financial institutions that were assessed had no deforestation policies, among them four of the world’s five biggest asset managers, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity Investments, with a combined $17.6tn of assets under management.
“In other words,” says the report’s author Sarah Rogerson, “most of the financial institutions that fund the Forest 500 companies don’t publicly recognise that their investments may drive deforestation and so contribute to climate change.”
And some people wonder why people like XR are angry.


And finally…
In the foreword to a report entitled Decarbonising Transport, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps says “Public transport and active travel will be the natural first choice for our daily activities. We will use our cars less and be able to rely on a convenient, cost-effective and coherent public transport network.”
This is Grant Shapps, a minister in a Conservative government. You know, the Conservative Party which supports the freedom of the individual, which frequently includes the right to drive as far as you like wherever you like. The Conservative Party whose Chancellor last month promised millions for road building and little or nothing for public transport.
It’s probably just an illusion. Was that a dolphin I saw flying past?

That’s it for this week. 
We may be locked down and working from home but the flow of climate and sustainability news never stops and I don’t even manage to bring you the half of it. I’m certainly not lounging on the sofa and bingeing on box-sets.
Next week I intend to approach the Green New Deal and I do hope to interview one of its architects.
For the moment, that’s all for this edition of the Sustainable Futures Report. All I’ve got to do now is record and publish it. Oh I suppose I must have by now if you’re listening to it. Don’t forget the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report where you’ll find the full text and links to all my sources.
Thank you for listening. Thank you to everyone who’s got in touch to share ideas. Thanks for being a patron, if you are.
I’m Anthony Day.
Till next time!






Sources

Denial
Climate Change and Pandemics
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-global-epidemics-health-pandemic-covid-19/
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF%20HGHI_Outbreak_Readiness_Business_Impact.pdf
Global Effect of COVID19
Africa


Child development in Africa
Other News 
Dreams in Venice
The Flying Car
Economy & Energy
Other articles that may be of interest:

And finally…
Shapps on cars - the i-newspaper 30th or 31st March.