1
00:00:02,950 --> 00:00:11,830
Hello, everyone. Can I welcome you to the Oxford Martin School on what is actually a rather nice day for a change.

2
00:00:11,860 --> 00:00:18,250
My name is Charles Guthrie. I'm the director here, and it's my great pleasure to introduce Hannah Richie.

3
00:00:18,490 --> 00:00:21,200
And Hannah Richie is actually local as well.

4
00:00:21,220 --> 00:00:27,070
She works in the wonderful Our World in Data team, and I see a large number of them in the front row here.

5
00:00:27,610 --> 00:00:32,760
And, uh, supports Max Rose as head of research and deputy director of.

6
00:00:32,770 --> 00:00:35,950
I've got the, the deputy, uh, editor.

7
00:00:36,670 --> 00:00:40,920
Um, and Hannah is a data scientist and, um,

8
00:00:40,930 --> 00:00:47,200
with a special interest in the environment who has written a splendid new book, book called Not the End of the world.

9
00:00:47,950 --> 00:00:51,990
Um, and it's a book that has already had some tremendous comments.

10
00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:58,370
I won't read them out, but on the back you have Bill gates, Margaret Atwood, Tim Harford, David, uh, Wallis.

11
00:00:58,420 --> 00:01:07,940
Well, says it's a, uh, book that's already having a major impact and and I can I come straight to you and sort of ask you,

12
00:01:07,960 --> 00:01:12,790
why did you write this book, and what is the main message that you want to get across in, in.

13
00:01:13,670 --> 00:01:20,740
Yeah. I mean, there's two key reasons. The first one actually comes from my own experience.

14
00:01:21,200 --> 00:01:24,500
Come on to the whole. But my background is environmental science.

15
00:01:24,890 --> 00:01:27,020
That's what I studied at university.

16
00:01:27,410 --> 00:01:34,480
Um, and, um, I think by the time I got to the end of my degree, I was feeling very, very pessimistic about the state,

17
00:01:34,610 --> 00:01:39,649
what it was like, just all of these trends were getting worse and worse and worse. And I think if you'd asked me 10 or 15 years ago,

18
00:01:39,650 --> 00:01:46,700
I was so pessimistic about the state of the world and our ability to solve these problems, I think we can go into why.

19
00:01:46,700 --> 00:01:49,700
But like I got a lot more optimistic since then,

20
00:01:49,700 --> 00:01:57,340
but I still kind of get this overall feeling and that the narrative around these problems, that they're unsolvable, we're doomed.

21
00:01:57,350 --> 00:02:01,100
There's nothing we can do about it. And I just don't believe that anymore.

22
00:02:01,100 --> 00:02:05,690
And I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about our ability to tackle them.

23
00:02:05,930 --> 00:02:11,160
I actually think this mindset of it's too late, there's nothing we can do is just not productive and moving us forward.

24
00:02:11,180 --> 00:02:17,419
So part of the motivation was to to push back a bit back a bit on that narrative and

25
00:02:17,420 --> 00:02:21,620
try to show that these are solvable problems and there's something we can do about it.

26
00:02:22,460 --> 00:02:28,970
I think the other core reason I wanted to write the book is that, and it's actually came through in the interviews I've had since then.

27
00:02:28,970 --> 00:02:39,110
But the I mean, the book tackles seven big environmental problems, from climate and air pollution to overfishing and biodiversity loss.

28
00:02:39,380 --> 00:02:43,670
I think the issue that I've had, even in the press coverage, is that everyone just focuses on climate change,

29
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:50,510
and I wanted to open that up and present like a broader view of just the suite of large environmental problems that we face,

30
00:02:50,510 --> 00:02:55,729
and also kind of get it more on people's radar, but also to put it solutions to these problems.

31
00:02:55,730 --> 00:03:01,010
Also more in the debate in the public domain. So we're not just focusing on climate change.

32
00:03:01,640 --> 00:03:06,770
So in the book you also talk about your, um, personal transition.

33
00:03:07,310 --> 00:03:17,060
And so throw yourself back 10 or 12 years to the young student Hannah, and what was making you so depressed and so teaching at the university?

34
00:03:17,210 --> 00:03:21,930
Was it the way that you were being taught? Was it the narrative in the press?

35
00:03:21,950 --> 00:03:26,090
Was it your friends? Your peer groups? What was it that was most depressing?

36
00:03:26,330 --> 00:03:29,930
Yeah. I mean, I think it even started before university.

37
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:33,380
Like, I feel like I've just kind of always grown up with climate change.

38
00:03:33,380 --> 00:03:41,240
And I've been given as a kid, I was always I was still already pretty worried and anxious about climate change and what the future might look like.

39
00:03:41,240 --> 00:03:46,940
Or even if I did have a future and see that when I went to study environmental sciences at university, that actually just got worse.

40
00:03:47,210 --> 00:03:53,510
Um, because you were then in the nitty gritty of just looking at these trends day after day, getting worse and worse.

41
00:03:53,810 --> 00:04:00,860
I think there was another dimension to that, that at the time, I think I had this impression that to be an informed citizen,

42
00:04:00,860 --> 00:04:06,260
to understand what was going on in the world, you know, it was my duty to always keep up to date for the news.

43
00:04:06,590 --> 00:04:11,659
And I think that was also around the period when the frequency of news reporting was massively increasing,

44
00:04:11,660 --> 00:04:18,590
that you could instantly get the latest report online, which previously you might have got a daily update or every few days or weekly.

45
00:04:18,770 --> 00:04:24,380
So we've seen this rise in the frequency of of media reports, and I was hyper focussed on it.

46
00:04:24,740 --> 00:04:28,100
And, and when you look at the news, all you get is the bad stuff, right?

47
00:04:28,100 --> 00:04:32,420
You just like the news is there to tell you what's the worst thing that's happened in the world today.

48
00:04:32,840 --> 00:04:38,210
So that was combined with do you do disaster after disastrous disaster kind of being thrown at me.

49
00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:42,950
I think that just led me to this situation where I felt like these environmental

50
00:04:42,950 --> 00:04:48,620
problems that we faced were unsolvable and just weren't going to get any better.

51
00:04:48,860 --> 00:04:53,689
I think that was also combined with the fact that I extrapolated the environmental

52
00:04:53,690 --> 00:04:59,230
problems getting worse with human progress metrics also getting worse.

53
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:04,010
So at the time, I was just assuming, just based on the news that poverty was going up,

54
00:05:04,010 --> 00:05:10,270
that child mortality was going up, that hunger, just every metric imaginable was getting worse and worse and worse.

55
00:05:10,280 --> 00:05:16,159
And actually, that turned out to not be true. So there's the famous, uh, hockey stick diagrams,

56
00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:25,310
which essentially has time along one axis and then carbon dioxide emissions and many other things getting bad as you get towards the present day.

57
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:30,590
Do you think one needs to sort of the inverse of that, an argument about what actually is getting better?

58
00:05:30,590 --> 00:05:34,129
And does your book part partly provide that? Yeah.

59
00:05:34,130 --> 00:05:42,200
So the I mean, yeah, the hockey stick graph is like a good summary for most environmental problems, not just the carbon dioxide.

60
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:45,499
I mean, a large part of this has been driven by the Industrial revolution.

61
00:05:45,500 --> 00:05:49,310
So it's kind of flat and then really ramps up very, very quickly.

62
00:05:49,610 --> 00:05:54,110
I mean, you can also see the inverse of that of a flat and then decrease.

63
00:05:54,110 --> 00:05:59,509
And most human progress metrics like child mortality, like extreme poverty,

64
00:05:59,510 --> 00:06:04,930
maternal mortality over the last few centuries, these problems, you know, have got much, much better.

65
00:06:04,940 --> 00:06:08,180
We're not where we want to be, and we still have a lot of progress to make.

66
00:06:08,390 --> 00:06:12,260
But on many of these metrics, the world has has largely got much, much better.

67
00:06:12,350 --> 00:06:12,970
So you how can a.

68
00:06:13,030 --> 00:06:20,939
Have this inverse relationship between human progress and environmental metrics, and kind of the message I wanted to put forward in the book,

69
00:06:20,940 --> 00:06:26,070
because I think historically, these have very much been in conflict with one another.

70
00:06:26,090 --> 00:06:30,820
Right? It has been the human progress that has come at the cost of the environment.

71
00:06:31,150 --> 00:06:37,750
And I actually think we're in a quite a unique position now, and that's why I frame it as the kind of we could be the first sustainable generation,

72
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:41,620
where sustainable is taking both sides of that equation to account,

73
00:06:41,650 --> 00:06:47,920
where I think we can continue to improve human well-being and human metrics without the environmental damage.

74
00:06:47,920 --> 00:06:55,030
And by reducing our environmental footprint, I think we tend to only look at one or the other through different lenses.

75
00:06:55,030 --> 00:07:01,600
And I think what's really important is you managed to combine them and kind of provide an overall framework of how we move forward.

76
00:07:02,110 --> 00:07:09,700
So a couple of the reviews I've read of your book has sort of linked you with, um, some of the people that have written optimistically,

77
00:07:09,910 --> 00:07:16,060
Steve Pinker, for example, um, and Hans Rosling and like you, I'm a great fan of Hans Rosling.

78
00:07:16,270 --> 00:07:20,049
Might you say a little bit about him and how he influenced you? Yeah.

79
00:07:20,050 --> 00:07:24,820
I mean, I think discovering the work of Hans Rosling was like a really key turning point for me.

80
00:07:24,820 --> 00:07:31,360
I don't know if everyone in the audience was aware of him, but he was just me, just a position previously, like a physician.

81
00:07:31,540 --> 00:07:36,880
And he gave me these amazing Ted talks where it show how the world has changed over the last few centuries,

82
00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:41,259
and it is way more charismatic than me, so I can't replicate what he did.

83
00:07:41,260 --> 00:07:45,969
But he would show that many of the conceptions we have about the world are like, often upside down.

84
00:07:45,970 --> 00:07:51,400
Right? So like if you ask people as extreme poverty in the world going up or down, they tend to see it's going up.

85
00:07:51,430 --> 00:07:55,270
And if you look over the last 200 years, it is dramatically reduced.

86
00:07:55,630 --> 00:07:59,140
So it wasn't just showing that, you know, we we tend to like,

87
00:07:59,140 --> 00:08:03,910
not really understand the world, that we actively have the wrong perceptions of the world.

88
00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:08,860
And many of the human progress metrics we assume to be getting worse are getting much, much better.

89
00:08:09,070 --> 00:08:14,440
And that was kind of how I got a bit out of this trap of thinking that everything was getting worse.

90
00:08:14,590 --> 00:08:21,070
When I discovered his work, I realised, okay, the environmental stuff is getting worse, but the human progress stuff has been going much, much better.

91
00:08:21,220 --> 00:08:25,150
So making discovering his work was like a really key turning point for me,

92
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:31,870
and also getting me into the the kind of mindset of how to understand the world through data.

93
00:08:31,900 --> 00:08:34,240
I think that just wasn't on my radar previously,

94
00:08:34,240 --> 00:08:41,200
that you could get a big picture of how the world is changing through the use of data, and you just can't get that for news headlines.

95
00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:46,030
I think he I probably if I hadn't discovered his work, I don't think I would be working at our own data today.

96
00:08:46,030 --> 00:08:55,389
He really kind of drove that passion in me. I think it's interesting that there's a number of people who sort of made the data an exciting area.

97
00:08:55,390 --> 00:08:58,600
So we have Tim Harford on the radio.

98
00:08:58,780 --> 00:09:02,500
I'm just blanking on the name of his program, more or less. More or less.

99
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:10,960
Um, and um, yeah, sort of the, uh, the data geeks ruling and things, if that's not a rude way of putting it.

100
00:09:11,620 --> 00:09:17,920
Um, look, I know that the book is not just about climate change, and we're going to talk about some of the other things,

101
00:09:18,280 --> 00:09:22,540
but can we first talk a bit about climate change and your views on that there?

102
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:28,450
The genuine narrative around climate change is pretty negative at the moment.

103
00:09:29,290 --> 00:09:36,940
Um, people point to the succession of cops where on Cop 28, I think it's, uh, it is now.

104
00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:43,090
And yet the amount of carbon dioxide going into the, uh, atmosphere is not decelerating.

105
00:09:43,810 --> 00:09:49,420
Can you give your argument about why there is reasons to be optimistic around climate change?

106
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:55,989
Yeah. And I think, I think I think what the line that was very hard to struggle in the book was,

107
00:09:55,990 --> 00:10:05,410
was put in across what I felt as a more optimistic and realistic version of, of where we could go without slipping into complacency.

108
00:10:05,410 --> 00:10:08,890
And I mean, for me, that was actually a very hard line to walk down.

109
00:10:09,160 --> 00:10:15,670
And my argument is not that we are on a good path on climate or that we're on an acceptable path on climate.

110
00:10:15,670 --> 00:10:22,000
If you look at the trajectory we're on, we're on course for two and a half to three degrees, right way above our targets.

111
00:10:22,480 --> 00:10:29,170
I think there are a couple of reasons for for why I think that could still dramatically change, and we can make dramatic progress on that.

112
00:10:29,380 --> 00:10:33,280
I think the first one being that we're talking about two and a half to three degrees,

113
00:10:33,280 --> 00:10:36,819
no, go back ten years and we're talking about three and a half to four degrees.

114
00:10:36,820 --> 00:10:40,990
Right. So we have in some sense reduced the trajectory that we were on.

115
00:10:40,990 --> 00:10:44,890
We're not in a good one, but we're on a better one than we were ten years ago.

116
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:52,060
And if we can do that over the last ten years, why can we not go from two and a half to somewhere closer to two degrees or slightly below that?

117
00:10:52,690 --> 00:11:02,200
But I think what really makes me much more optimistic than I was a decade ago is that I think year ago we did not have solutions to climate change,

118
00:11:02,200 --> 00:11:09,849
right when I've been kind of given this narrative and given this talk, you know, people push back and say, well, we've had the solutions for decades.

119
00:11:09,850 --> 00:11:14,780
No, we haven't really made any progress. Clearly, we just can't make this work.

120
00:11:14,930 --> 00:11:22,880
Just things are just not going to change. What's really fundamental about the solutions that we need to solve climate change?

121
00:11:23,060 --> 00:11:27,110
They need to be cost competitive with the current technologies that we have.

122
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:35,660
Right? Ten years ago. Solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles were way, way more expensive than coal or gas or petrol or diesel.

123
00:11:36,350 --> 00:11:44,390
It's very clear why we weren't making any progress ten years ago, because the alternatives to fossil fuels are just way, way, way too expensive.

124
00:11:45,230 --> 00:11:49,549
Over the last ten years, the prices of these technologies have plummeted such that they are no cost,

125
00:11:49,550 --> 00:11:52,730
competitive or lower than the cost of fossil fuels.

126
00:11:53,030 --> 00:11:57,290
So to me, no, we haven't been working on this problem for decades, have not made any progress.

127
00:11:57,620 --> 00:12:04,159
We're basically only just at the starting line where we can actually start to make progress, because these technologies are competitive.

128
00:12:04,160 --> 00:12:09,710
And that's like a really, really fundamental shift. I think people are not quite getting.

129
00:12:09,890 --> 00:12:16,090
I think it's wrong to extrapolate, you know, the progress we've made over the last 10 or 15 years.

130
00:12:16,100 --> 00:12:17,470
I assume that it will continue that way.

131
00:12:17,480 --> 00:12:23,270
It won't continue at that rate because we're in a fundamentally different position than we were ten years ago.

132
00:12:23,660 --> 00:12:31,070
I think will also just makes me really quite optimistic, is that if you look at the current energy system that we have,

133
00:12:31,520 --> 00:12:34,990
the amount of waste in that system is just enormous, right?

134
00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:43,129
If you just take a diagram of flows of energy from the energy we burn to like actually providing energy services for people,

135
00:12:43,130 --> 00:12:49,070
which has heating, waiting, moving in a car, you know, whatever energy service you want,

136
00:12:49,460 --> 00:12:56,120
a really tiny fraction of that is actually going towards energy services when we decarbonise.

137
00:12:56,120 --> 00:13:00,920
So when we move from fossil fuels to to solar and wind or other low carbon technologies,

138
00:13:01,100 --> 00:13:07,940
when we electrify or energy systems moving from petrol or diesel to electric cars or towards Olympic heating,

139
00:13:08,150 --> 00:13:12,620
you take away massive amounts of that, those losses in the energy system.

140
00:13:12,860 --> 00:13:16,399
So when people see the big stock of energy that we use globally,

141
00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:21,350
they assume we'll have to replace all of that with solar or wind or nuclear or other technologies.

142
00:13:21,470 --> 00:13:26,720
We'll actually have to replace a fraction of that, because the total amount of energy that we'll need is much,

143
00:13:26,720 --> 00:13:32,840
much lower, because we'll get these massive efficiency gains by just taking fossil fuels out of the energy mix.

144
00:13:33,020 --> 00:13:38,800
So it's not that I think, you know, this is going to be easy or that, you know, again, we're not on the right path,

145
00:13:38,810 --> 00:13:44,240
but I think there are reasons to be more optimistic about our ability to tackle this than there were ten years ago.

146
00:13:44,690 --> 00:13:53,060
So let me push back a little bit on that. Um, and given that we really do need to get to net zero by the middle of this century,

147
00:13:53,540 --> 00:13:57,310
um, like you, I'm just amazed by what's happened in the energy transition.

148
00:13:57,320 --> 00:14:02,420
Who would have known, for example, the price of to photovoltaics would have come down like it has.

149
00:14:02,990 --> 00:14:13,670
But, um, the energy sector is a relatively easy sector to decarbonise because it's a relatively small number of large actors.

150
00:14:13,970 --> 00:14:17,660
And it's not you and me and everyone else in this room having to make personal,

151
00:14:17,690 --> 00:14:26,360
hard decisions about paying for home insulation, paying for a much more efficient boiler, or changing our diets.

152
00:14:26,630 --> 00:14:35,870
So is there a risk of being overly optimistic because of the energy sector, compared with the challenges that we face in the other sectors?

153
00:14:36,560 --> 00:14:42,650
I think, I think, I think that applies to to energy, and I think it applies to in some sense,

154
00:14:42,650 --> 00:14:47,809
industry industries, because I actually think one industry would further behind me are on fundamental energy.

155
00:14:47,810 --> 00:14:51,980
I think those investments and things yeah, I think will come.

156
00:14:52,130 --> 00:14:59,480
They're just not there yet. I think food for me is I'm actually much more pessimistic on food than I am on energy,

157
00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:04,730
because I think it relies much more on individual behaviour change and individual choices.

158
00:15:05,090 --> 00:15:12,440
I think when you're talking about energy, most people, yeah, they might have some small preferences about where it comes from.

159
00:15:12,590 --> 00:15:18,530
Fundamentally, they just want cheap, reliable energy that they can plug when they plug a socket and they want cheap energy out.

160
00:15:18,800 --> 00:15:22,070
I think if you can provide that, most people are happy with that.

161
00:15:22,100 --> 00:15:28,420
I think food is very different, is like very tight identity is very much more politicised.

162
00:15:28,670 --> 00:15:31,910
I think food fundamentally will be much harder.

163
00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:37,219
I think I mean, I've had this comment that like there is like a little bit of a difference in the tone,

164
00:15:37,220 --> 00:15:40,670
maybe from the energy climate chapters to the food chapters.

165
00:15:40,880 --> 00:15:49,100
Actually, what I wanted to do a bit with food chapters is, let's see, here's this like really obvious solution, because I think that will be harder.

166
00:15:49,220 --> 00:15:53,620
But actually just fundamentally to communicate to people, that's a big environmental problem.

167
00:15:53,630 --> 00:15:57,020
I think when you talk about these like climate change or other problems,

168
00:15:57,260 --> 00:16:01,460
people automatically think fossil fuels, like, I don't need to really convince anyone of that.

169
00:16:01,810 --> 00:16:06,889
I think people miss the food stuff, which when you're talking about any of the other environmental problems,

170
00:16:06,890 --> 00:16:09,980
including climate, it's just like not really on people's radar.

171
00:16:09,980 --> 00:16:15,250
So I also wanted to like give food a bit more of a. Profile I've seen this is a big problem as well.

172
00:16:16,390 --> 00:16:26,200
The you talk a little bit about the idea of decoupling and the argument that we need to decouple economic growth from environmental footprint,

173
00:16:26,270 --> 00:16:34,540
essentially. Um, and you're quite optimistic if I've understood you right about that, we're actually making progress in that direction.

174
00:16:35,080 --> 00:16:39,100
And you've had some pushback from that, from people who are advocating for really,

175
00:16:39,370 --> 00:16:46,420
really quite radical decoupling and what that means to the whole economic structure with which we organise our societies.

176
00:16:46,990 --> 00:16:53,560
Um, might you give a little more, um, texture about why you're optimistic in that area?

177
00:16:54,160 --> 00:17:02,080
Yeah. So the, I mean, the, the. The clear argument there is, if you look historically CO2 emissions,

178
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:07,180
but you could use really any kind of material metric has been very tightly coupled to economic growth.

179
00:17:07,180 --> 00:17:11,739
Right. So there's been very, very strong relationship. As economies grow, people use more energy.

180
00:17:11,740 --> 00:17:15,400
Therefore you get more fossil fuels, more carbon emissions.

181
00:17:15,730 --> 00:17:21,670
And therefore you might then lead to the conclusion, the only way you get emissions and fossil fuel use down is to,

182
00:17:21,790 --> 00:17:25,240
to to to use less energy and to shrink the economy.

183
00:17:25,600 --> 00:17:37,809
I think two clear push backs on that is that that's very fundamentally not a solution for a large part of the world, where their primary concern is,

184
00:17:37,810 --> 00:17:44,200
is lifting people out of poverty, lessening people of energy poverty and economic growth is really central to that.

185
00:17:44,440 --> 00:17:48,489
So then you have the question of can rich countries actually decouple those impacts?

186
00:17:48,490 --> 00:17:55,780
How can you have a still a growing economy, well, shrinking, uh, for CO2 emissions or energy use?

187
00:17:56,050 --> 00:18:04,570
And the data suggests, yes, you can. We are starting to see absolute decoupling between these two metrics across a range of countries.

188
00:18:04,780 --> 00:18:08,739
I think the very valid argument they are and push back is that this is not happening fast enough.

189
00:18:08,740 --> 00:18:10,690
Right? It's not having anywhere near fast enough.

190
00:18:11,140 --> 00:18:16,480
Definitely not for one and a half degrees, but even for two degrees, that decoupling is not happening fast enough.

191
00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:19,959
I make my argument on that. There would be.

192
00:18:19,960 --> 00:18:25,600
Again, this decoupling has largely happened when the alternatives to fossil fuels have been expensive.

193
00:18:26,080 --> 00:18:34,930
Right. So the decoupling has happened in a, in a basically in a world where actually wasn't that economically advantageous to make that transition.

194
00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:39,399
I think that economic argument actually gets stronger and stronger every day.

195
00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:43,629
And I think there are still massive gains through electrification of transport,

196
00:18:43,630 --> 00:18:49,930
through its electrification of heating, where you can really start to push that decoupling much faster.

197
00:18:50,140 --> 00:18:55,390
So I think again, there's a balance there. I think decoupling is happening but not happening fast enough.

198
00:18:55,900 --> 00:19:01,990
To me, I just fundamentally don't see any alternative to decoupling because I think politically

199
00:19:01,990 --> 00:19:07,510
there's the been able to sell a message of of degrowth to me just doesn't seem feasible.

200
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:13,780
Can I also bring up the issue of tipping points? And I want to ask in two ways.

201
00:19:13,810 --> 00:19:19,780
Um, so is there a possibility that you're, um,

202
00:19:20,350 --> 00:19:27,820
you're quite optimistic about what might happen if we managed to get to a, a, um, trajectory to take us to two degrees?

203
00:19:28,510 --> 00:19:35,410
But is there not a worry about that? The climate system may tip over, switch over into a different domain.

204
00:19:35,650 --> 00:19:39,310
So that's a negative aspect of, uh, tipping points.

205
00:19:40,120 --> 00:19:49,720
Um, can you also see some positive tipping points, something that might happen that when you write the fifth edition of this in 25 years time,

206
00:19:50,110 --> 00:19:53,320
you say, I wasn't as optimistic as I should have been there.

207
00:19:53,980 --> 00:19:56,700
Yeah. I mean, it would start with a positive.

208
00:19:56,710 --> 00:20:05,810
I mean, I think I think many of these technologies are fundamentally like on the brink of what we make framed as positive tipping points.

209
00:20:05,830 --> 00:20:12,940
I mean, these these technologies, they follow the follow what we call learning curves, where the more you deploy them, the more the cost falls.

210
00:20:12,940 --> 00:20:17,620
The more you deploy them, the more the cost falls because reinforcing action.

211
00:20:17,950 --> 00:20:24,189
But in terms of deployment, they tend to follow what we would call s curves, where the growth at the beginning is very slow.

212
00:20:24,190 --> 00:20:28,900
And then you actually reach a kind of tipping point where you start to get very, very fast growth.

213
00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:35,830
And there are a range of, you know, estimates of what we think the tipping point is for like solar or wind or electric cars, for example.

214
00:20:36,020 --> 00:20:40,629
I think in many countries. And what we actually saw are starting to reach that tipping point.

215
00:20:40,630 --> 00:20:48,140
I mean, there's a very clear, uh, an electric vehicle market, for example, the very clear countries in Europe where, you know, started off very slow.

216
00:20:48,140 --> 00:20:52,990
And now most electric car sales are most car sales are now electric.

217
00:20:53,350 --> 00:20:57,969
So, I mean, I think there is room for optimism, more optimism on the fact that, you know,

218
00:20:57,970 --> 00:21:03,220
this stuff could happen much, much faster than we are anticipating if we had these kind of positive.

219
00:21:03,280 --> 00:21:06,970
But I was also thinking about sort of dramatic new technologies.

220
00:21:07,210 --> 00:21:13,660
Fusion is obviously something that's been talked about for a long time, but there's a lot of excitement in fusion that there wasn't a few years back.

221
00:21:13,870 --> 00:21:20,320
So for all of us, we've got a couple of five years under our mattress. What are the sectors that we should be putting our money into?

222
00:21:20,890 --> 00:21:28,180
Yeah, I mean, I think the this is I mean, I have often been framed in interviews and stuff as a techno optimist,

223
00:21:28,630 --> 00:21:32,170
and maybe it's to some extent am I going to push back on that a little bit?

224
00:21:32,170 --> 00:21:37,149
Because, I mean, I think the technologies that I'm optimistic about are the already established ones.

225
00:21:37,150 --> 00:21:43,690
Like I'm just really optimistic where it's a whirlwind of batteries. Um, and actually there's probably much more room for techno optimism,

226
00:21:43,690 --> 00:21:48,400
which is like looking at technologies that we just don't really know we have yet or aren't established.

227
00:21:48,730 --> 00:21:52,750
I mean, some of the key ones on energy, yes, fusion would be a very clear one.

228
00:21:52,870 --> 00:21:56,800
I think there's some one, top ones that we just don't really talk about, like geothermal, like we just.

229
00:21:56,950 --> 00:22:01,840
I think that's in some sense maybe geothermal was where solar and wind was ten years ago.

230
00:22:02,050 --> 00:22:06,070
A decade from now, we might be talking about that technology in a different way.

231
00:22:06,370 --> 00:22:16,000
I think actually that deal with geothermal could actually solve many of the problems we think we might encounter, um, with solar and wind.

232
00:22:16,030 --> 00:22:23,889
So, for example, the key challenge for the UK for solar and wind will be no short term storage because we have batteries for that.

233
00:22:23,890 --> 00:22:30,580
But, you know, seasonal storage and having less variable renewables like geothermal might fill a key gap there.

234
00:22:30,580 --> 00:22:35,020
So I think that's a particular technology that that could be untapped.

235
00:22:35,410 --> 00:22:40,450
I mean, the stuff like food, I mean lab grown meat, if you can produce lab grown meat,

236
00:22:40,450 --> 00:22:46,930
basically just produce meat without the animals, that would just be an actual fundamental game changer.

237
00:22:47,140 --> 00:22:50,200
So I think, yeah, maybe these technologies are coming by.

238
00:22:50,230 --> 00:22:55,630
I've I've undersold where it'll be and it'll be very happy to be under optimistic on that.

239
00:22:55,960 --> 00:22:57,280
So the pessimistic on the.

240
00:22:57,280 --> 00:23:06,219
Yeah on the pessimistic one I think I think there are maybe a couple of misconceptions about I mean boys I mean I think this is two angles.

241
00:23:06,220 --> 00:23:14,380
Some people just don't think about them at all. And then some people maybe have a misinterprets some of the issues on tipping points.

242
00:23:14,590 --> 00:23:21,730
I think fundamentally some people interpret 1.5 degrees or two degrees as like the tipping point.

243
00:23:21,970 --> 00:23:28,690
I mean, I've been asked in interviews, you know, do I not agree with scientists that there's the tipping point, there's not the tipping point?

244
00:23:29,020 --> 00:23:32,170
There are series of tipping points, all different.

245
00:23:32,380 --> 00:23:38,680
But I could be a sort of technical tipping point and sort of examples such as the North Atlantic, uh,

246
00:23:38,680 --> 00:23:45,819
currents switching off so that one gets a radically different, um, climate in this part of the world.

247
00:23:45,820 --> 00:23:49,809
And there's a paper a couple of a couple of weeks back saying that this was more

248
00:23:49,810 --> 00:23:54,459
likely to happen than previous estimates or radical degassing of the permafrost.

249
00:23:54,460 --> 00:24:00,340
So something which really does change over decades rather than a long time.

250
00:24:00,730 --> 00:24:04,570
Yeah. So there's I think those are tipping points, though.

251
00:24:04,570 --> 00:24:09,430
Not like I think people have this impression that, you know, there's just a full planetary scale tipping point that,

252
00:24:09,430 --> 00:24:13,839
you know, we're suddenly at 1.8 degrees and then we end up at five degrees.

253
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:17,950
And it is a series of tipping points. And those tipping points have very different magnitudes.

254
00:24:17,950 --> 00:24:22,330
So the ones you're talking about, there are much larger impacts than some of the others.

255
00:24:22,780 --> 00:24:26,560
Um, I think what's very clear is that that's very unknown.

256
00:24:26,890 --> 00:24:31,240
It's very unknown where these are in the system and what the potential magnitudes would be.

257
00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:38,290
But if you go or based on our best knowledge today, there are some tipping points that we expect below 1.5 and two degrees, for example.

258
00:24:38,530 --> 00:24:47,830
And that stuff like Arctic, uh, sea ice free uptick in the summer or the Amazon rainforest tipping point, for example.

259
00:24:47,980 --> 00:24:56,230
And these are all very serious. And these are especially have very, very serious localised ecosystem impacts.

260
00:24:56,680 --> 00:25:01,329
If you're looking at global scale, some of these tipping points limit the impact they would have,

261
00:25:01,330 --> 00:25:05,380
like an Arctic sea ice free summer with increased global temperatures.

262
00:25:05,710 --> 00:25:11,470
What we think between point one and .15, the Amazon rainforest, possibly the same.

263
00:25:11,470 --> 00:25:16,510
So what if we were to hit several tipping points on the way to two degrees for your for example,

264
00:25:16,510 --> 00:25:20,829
you might be talking about 0.3 or 0.4 degrees extra warming,

265
00:25:20,830 --> 00:25:28,959
which is obviously very bad and would take us, you know, if we're at 1.8, we'd be at 2.2, which is obviously very, very serious.

266
00:25:28,960 --> 00:25:35,230
But what people assume is that, you know, you go from 1.8 to, you know, five degrees within years or decades.

267
00:25:35,230 --> 00:25:44,410
And that that's not really the story of tipping points. There are also some really massive tipping points, like melting of, um, Greenland ice sheets.

268
00:25:44,890 --> 00:25:54,070
Um, and they're you're talking about, you know, seven plus metres of sea level rise, I think near the the important point is timescale,

269
00:25:54,070 --> 00:25:59,590
where I think people often imagine, you know, the collapse of an ice sheet, the imagined one designed to see collapse.

270
00:25:59,980 --> 00:26:06,940
You know, it's within a year of a couple of years. These tend to occur over centuries or millennia.

271
00:26:07,120 --> 00:26:12,249
So that's not to say that seven metres of sea level rise is fine and 2200,

272
00:26:12,250 --> 00:26:16,720
but it's a fundamentally different problem from if that's happened in the course of years.

273
00:26:17,710 --> 00:26:21,550
So having promised not to talk too much about climate, I've talked a lot about climate,

274
00:26:21,550 --> 00:26:25,930
but I want to switch to food and seeds, a particular interest of mine.

275
00:26:25,930 --> 00:26:32,110
So I thought, right, I'll be able to find lots of things to argue with Hannah on this and and complete failure,

276
00:26:32,110 --> 00:26:35,439
because I sort of violently agree with nearly everything you say.

277
00:26:35,440 --> 00:26:43,749
And, uh, so, like you, I'm not missed on food. So what do we need to do to have a healthy, sustainable and equitable food system?

278
00:26:43,750 --> 00:26:48,970
What are your sort of top three go to policy invention interventions?

279
00:26:50,110 --> 00:26:56,650
I think the really first fundamental one is, is as a real clear focus on agricultural.

280
00:26:56,890 --> 00:27:01,510
Or activity. The the big success story on food over the last 50 years.

281
00:27:01,510 --> 00:27:05,890
And if you go back 50 or so years, you predicted you would have seen massive famines.

282
00:27:06,340 --> 00:27:09,309
Uh, millions and millions of different moments. That hasn't happened.

283
00:27:09,310 --> 00:27:14,890
And that's largely not happened because of increased crop yields and agricultural productivity.

284
00:27:15,370 --> 00:27:18,380
There are still massive opportunities.

285
00:27:18,400 --> 00:27:23,620
We have an agricultural system to do that much further, and in particular, very large,

286
00:27:24,070 --> 00:27:31,930
what we call yield gaps between the yield we have today and the yields we could attain if we were using best practices,

287
00:27:31,930 --> 00:27:37,329
irrigation verses, etc. in some regions, that gap is still really, really large.

288
00:27:37,330 --> 00:27:46,389
And uh, and, and one of the regions in particular, our focus on as is sub-Saharan Africa, where yields have increased over the last few decades.

289
00:27:46,390 --> 00:27:52,000
But there where we below the global average and way, way below what we think the tenable yields could be,

290
00:27:52,240 --> 00:27:59,200
I think actually increasing agricultural productivity there was actually fundamental not just to solving environmental challenges,

291
00:27:59,470 --> 00:28:03,250
but also just fundamental to socio economic development.

292
00:28:03,580 --> 00:28:09,160
Most of the world smallholder farmers are very close to the poverty line, are currently in sub-Saharan Africa,

293
00:28:09,370 --> 00:28:15,969
and without gains in agricultural productivity, there probably will be very, very hard to tackle extreme poverty in that region.

294
00:28:15,970 --> 00:28:22,810
So there's a very fundamental, uh, human development lens that which goes hand in hand with, um,

295
00:28:22,810 --> 00:28:30,790
the environmental issue and the hard core part of increasing agro agricultural productivity as you produce more food from less land.

296
00:28:31,120 --> 00:28:34,140
So less deforestation, less habitat loss.

297
00:28:34,160 --> 00:28:40,600
We could even produce more food using less land than we currently do today if we were to really optimise that.

298
00:28:41,080 --> 00:28:44,500
Are you not a fan of vertical farming as one way of doing that? No.

299
00:28:44,500 --> 00:28:47,530
I'm quite critical of vertical farming in the book.

300
00:28:48,190 --> 00:28:51,399
Not because he couldn't work in practice,

301
00:28:51,400 --> 00:28:56,530
but I think there's just the inherent trade off between vertical farming as you're switching land for energy,

302
00:28:56,860 --> 00:29:03,580
and when you just run the costs on energy, whether it's economic costs or energy costs, the mass just doesn't really work right now.

303
00:29:03,700 --> 00:29:07,899
Maybe that will be like one of the the, the breakthrough is that I'm too pessimistic.

304
00:29:07,900 --> 00:29:13,900
So number one is closing the gap. Yeah. Number two. Number two is globally eating less meat.

305
00:29:13,930 --> 00:29:17,350
Yeah. Um, and filters for so many problems.

306
00:29:17,350 --> 00:29:23,259
And the book, the global meat production and consumption is, is, is too high and has really,

307
00:29:23,260 --> 00:29:29,540
really high, uh, environmental costs and high in the middle and high income countries in particular.

308
00:29:29,560 --> 00:29:37,690
Yeah, there's a very large gap in per capita, um, meat, uh, uh, consumption across countries in the world and tends to again,

309
00:29:37,690 --> 00:29:41,110
there's a very strong relationship between GDP and and meat consumption.

310
00:29:41,110 --> 00:29:48,010
As people get richer, they tend to eat more meat. So when I'm saying eat less, uh, like the world needs to eat less meat, I'm not saying,

311
00:29:48,250 --> 00:29:52,450
you know, the person in charge in two kilograms a year needs to eat less meat.

312
00:29:52,450 --> 00:29:56,080
That's actually probably really key to nutrition in that context,

313
00:29:56,380 --> 00:30:02,410
but especially in high income countries in the West for capital meat consumption is just really, really high.

314
00:30:02,860 --> 00:30:08,020
Um, and I think there are a range of models to do that.

315
00:30:08,410 --> 00:30:15,360
I think I've maybe in the past been too optimistic about Theory of Change for doing that.

316
00:30:15,370 --> 00:30:23,229
I think in my head I thought if we have to me, I think we just already have like pretty good meat substitutes on the market.

317
00:30:23,230 --> 00:30:26,770
And I think they're tasty. And I think, I mean, like for me, I really like them.

318
00:30:27,010 --> 00:30:34,930
I think I had this notion that they just got cheap enough, and if they just got good enough, people would just make that switch.

319
00:30:35,260 --> 00:30:41,380
I don't think we're really seeing that switch, and nowhere near the scale or speed that we would need.

320
00:30:42,070 --> 00:30:47,469
Um, I think there I, I'm actually kind of hinging on this kind of technological breakthrough of,

321
00:30:47,470 --> 00:30:53,380
of global meat because I think for some people, the only alternative to meat is me just without the animal.

322
00:30:53,770 --> 00:30:58,990
Um, so I think that, yeah, moving away from, from meat consumption is a really fundamental pillar.

323
00:31:00,250 --> 00:31:09,310
So what would you say to people whose livelihoods depend on raising cattle, this country in, uh, middle and high income countries?

324
00:31:09,520 --> 00:31:17,860
What is the what is the narrative that can persuade people that that they're part of the solution and not just going to be thrown out of a job?

325
00:31:18,490 --> 00:31:23,190
I mean, I think the the, the clear point there is that this is not going to happen overnight.

326
00:31:23,200 --> 00:31:26,889
Yeah, right. Like this is going to be a transition over decades.

327
00:31:26,890 --> 00:31:32,050
And it's not we're going to, you know, flip immediately to this completely plant based world.

328
00:31:32,500 --> 00:31:36,040
And I actually think if we are to do this smartly acknowledging the fact that we're

329
00:31:36,040 --> 00:31:41,290
not going to just stop eating meat overnight as we go on that pathway towards,

330
00:31:41,290 --> 00:31:46,779
uh, a more plant based world. We also want to do that in a more sustainable way.

331
00:31:46,780 --> 00:31:50,739
We can, which means optimising the meat production,

332
00:31:50,740 --> 00:31:56,800
the meat that we are producing and trying to optimise for less damaging and more sustainable practices.

333
00:31:57,130 --> 00:32:00,130
So I think fundamentally we also need to create this reward system.

334
00:32:00,130 --> 00:32:07,080
We are on that pathway that we are producing and consuming as as environmentally friendly as we can possibly be.

335
00:32:07,090 --> 00:32:10,590
So I think it's not one or the other. It's not like a silly me or no me.

336
00:32:10,600 --> 00:32:15,610
I think there will be this transition period where we also need to optimise the meat that we are producing.

337
00:32:15,970 --> 00:32:25,310
So closing your gap, uh, research to actually, uh, come up with new technologies, um, diet change you're talking about.

338
00:32:25,650 --> 00:32:29,559
Look at that food waste at all. So tongue in cheek. Let me add the other one.

339
00:32:29,560 --> 00:32:32,920
Clearly we need to get out of palm oil. That's surely right, Hannah.

340
00:32:34,060 --> 00:32:37,030
Uh, it's a little bit more complex. Go ahead. Yeah.

341
00:32:37,120 --> 00:32:45,920
So, like, I, um, I remember when I came to work on deforestation, our own data show just the broad, like, what's going on with deforestation.

342
00:32:45,940 --> 00:32:51,150
I think I also had on my head, you know, the evil villain here is palm oil, and just.

343
00:32:51,190 --> 00:32:57,940
We just need to boycott palm oil and get that out of the system, and we'll, we'll we'll talk about a big part of, of global deforestation.

344
00:32:58,240 --> 00:33:02,920
I think it's when I started to read reports on this and what were the experts saying?

345
00:33:02,920 --> 00:33:06,340
And that wasn't really the clear story that was coming through.

346
00:33:06,460 --> 00:33:10,510
I mean, one, fundamentally, we need to acknowledge palm oil has been environmentally destructive,

347
00:33:10,510 --> 00:33:19,240
like it has led to significant amounts of tropical deforestation, in particular in Indonesia and Malaysia, where most palm oil was produced.

348
00:33:20,190 --> 00:33:24,160
I think if you were to think about this is a yeah, we should just boycott palm oil.

349
00:33:24,340 --> 00:33:27,400
You also need to take into account what the counterfactual would be.

350
00:33:27,940 --> 00:33:35,920
And one of the maybe the benefits and also a weakness of palm oil was that such a productive crop.

351
00:33:36,160 --> 00:33:38,980
If you look at the amount of oil you can produce per hectare,

352
00:33:39,280 --> 00:33:43,780
if you compare it to some other vegetable crops, you're talking about like 5 to 10 times as much.

353
00:33:44,290 --> 00:33:49,830
So if you're global demand for vegetable oil is fixed and you can argue it should be less or.

354
00:33:49,840 --> 00:33:51,610
But let's just imagine that it's fixed.

355
00:33:51,910 --> 00:33:57,760
If you're not producing that from palm oil and you switch that to another crop, you will probably need more land.

356
00:33:58,330 --> 00:34:02,950
Now, if you're switching to other tropical crops, which many companies have done right,

357
00:34:02,980 --> 00:34:06,940
they've boycotted palm oil but went for soybean oil or coconut oil.

358
00:34:07,330 --> 00:34:12,940
You could actually result in higher tropical deforestation because you might need 5 to 10 times as much land.

359
00:34:13,510 --> 00:34:17,470
So I think the story there is not this simple. We need to boycott palm oil.

360
00:34:17,710 --> 00:34:23,050
I think it's fundamentally we need to acknowledge that it has led to environmental deforestation.

361
00:34:23,560 --> 00:34:27,220
Uh, but the focus needs to be on.

362
00:34:27,370 --> 00:34:30,699
Can we produce palm oil without deforestation?

363
00:34:30,700 --> 00:34:35,080
Can't we produce palm oil in a more sustainable way? So we get the benefits of the high yields?

364
00:34:35,560 --> 00:34:39,100
Um, but we do it without leading to to more environmental damage.

365
00:34:39,100 --> 00:34:44,590
That's more leading towards, you know, there's the pure wood, the responsible palm oil,

366
00:34:44,620 --> 00:34:50,110
um, association more leaning towards that than just this, like blanket boycott.

367
00:34:50,380 --> 00:34:55,060
And you made a good point that the that the repairs around table for sustainable palm oil,

368
00:34:55,330 --> 00:35:01,389
which has done a good job but could do a better job with it. Yes. I think, um, I'm going to come to the audience in a moment.

369
00:35:01,390 --> 00:35:04,840
There are two final questions. Well, two final things I'd like to ask you to do.

370
00:35:05,290 --> 00:35:12,190
Uh, you talk about fisheries and again, a theme throughout the book that if you look at the data, it gives you a different perspective.

371
00:35:12,640 --> 00:35:22,950
Might you just I think there's a lovely story about how what was initially, um, an argument, uh, came together to, uh, help resolve an issue.

372
00:35:22,960 --> 00:35:26,710
So worms versus Hilborn. Yeah, yeah.

373
00:35:26,710 --> 00:35:32,800
So there was two, um, scientists, one versus Hilborn.

374
00:35:32,800 --> 00:35:38,800
So one was very much, uh, kind of ecologists, like, very much focussed on, um, marine ecology.

375
00:35:39,040 --> 00:35:40,569
And the other was like a fisheries specialist.

376
00:35:40,570 --> 00:35:47,290
So, so I, you might assume that they would have like a very unified understanding of what's going on the oceans,

377
00:35:47,290 --> 00:35:51,230
but actually their desired outcome was actually quite different there.

378
00:35:51,250 --> 00:35:51,459
Right.

379
00:35:51,460 --> 00:36:00,280
If you're a fisheries scientist, your aim is like, how do I catch an as much fish as I possibly can without reducing fish stocks and fish populations?

380
00:36:00,280 --> 00:36:06,639
Right. You're looking for that like optimisation of fisheries, whereas I mean a marine ecologist might be you know,

381
00:36:06,640 --> 00:36:09,820
we want to restore the oceans back to what it was before humans came along.

382
00:36:09,820 --> 00:36:15,310
So actually like maybe quite fundamental differences in how they see the kind of sustainable fishery equation.

383
00:36:15,820 --> 00:36:17,550
But yeah, there was this kind of war.

384
00:36:17,590 --> 00:36:24,940
Was this a conflict because worms had pushed, uh, published a paper, um, on the state of fisheries across the world.

385
00:36:25,090 --> 00:36:32,200
And actually there was like a final just a kind of almost like a throwaway line in the conclusion, which they blew up into the headline.

386
00:36:32,200 --> 00:36:38,020
You might have heard The fish in the ocean will be, um, empty by 2048.

387
00:36:38,140 --> 00:36:42,880
And that claim has been repeated over and over, but actually came from the International paper,

388
00:36:43,120 --> 00:36:47,409
where he was looking at what he thought was, um, decline of fish stocks over time.

389
00:36:47,410 --> 00:36:54,650
And he said, if you just extrapolate this line, which is, you know, it's very debateable if you just extrapolate this line, it will be on 2% by 2040.

390
00:36:55,150 --> 00:36:57,280
So that's how it led to this. Headline.

391
00:36:57,310 --> 00:37:07,240
Now, Ray Hogan was a fisheries, uh, scientist, and that the data one was using just didn't tally with what he was seeing in the real world.

392
00:37:07,270 --> 00:37:11,530
He thought, you know, fundamentally, he was monitoring lots of fish stocks that were not declining.

393
00:37:11,950 --> 00:37:17,050
And therefore, you know, we couldn't really see how that was matching up with the real world.

394
00:37:17,320 --> 00:37:22,060
So they went on the radio and what their radio presenter would be like, very fierce head to head.

395
00:37:22,300 --> 00:37:28,300
They actually quite liked each other and in the end resulted in a collaboration where the two of them came together to say,

396
00:37:28,300 --> 00:37:35,410
can we actually just build a database where we try to understand what's happening to fish stocks across the world?

397
00:37:35,560 --> 00:37:39,040
And they did that and it was very successful and it got republished.

398
00:37:39,370 --> 00:37:42,040
Um, and actually what you see there was again,

399
00:37:42,040 --> 00:37:49,360
this kind of mixed trend like overall fish stocks and the stocks that they'd studied was up, not actually going up or down.

400
00:37:49,780 --> 00:37:56,530
It was increasing in some areas and it was decreasing others. But on net you actually didn't see a net decline over time.

401
00:37:56,950 --> 00:38:02,740
Um, so I think that was the cookie story where the opposing scientists ended up coming together,

402
00:38:02,830 --> 00:38:07,360
collaborating and actually developing a really key data set that's still used today.

403
00:38:07,360 --> 00:38:11,230
And we use it on our own data. It's really improved our understanding of.

404
00:38:11,620 --> 00:38:16,540
And it's a great example of how concentrating on the data can help sort of resolve some issues.

405
00:38:16,810 --> 00:38:23,440
Of course, when you go into policy and there's a lot that's above it, but we should be arguing about the values and things going into policy.

406
00:38:23,440 --> 00:38:28,420
We shouldn't be arguing about the data that that should be something that could be, uh, resolved.

407
00:38:28,990 --> 00:38:34,300
Okay. The final thing I want to ask is, so, like you, I'm generally an ultimate optimist.

408
00:38:34,660 --> 00:38:41,620
I hate what is sometimes called the pornography of doom. When you get up and you get either a lecture, right, or a, um,

409
00:38:41,800 --> 00:38:46,780
television program that is just hitting you around the, uh, hitting you around the cheeks.

410
00:38:47,470 --> 00:38:58,600
And I guess the times that I find my optimism slipping is when I look at, uh, for example, the, uh, political polarisation.

411
00:38:58,600 --> 00:39:04,930
That's one thing in the States, which really has climate change in much of the environment part of that.

412
00:39:05,350 --> 00:39:11,860
Thank you. Thankfully, and fingers crossed, we've been spared the worst of it here, but maybe not.

413
00:39:12,970 --> 00:39:18,010
Um, and as a token London recently where really smart man, a man called Youngkin Vogler,

414
00:39:18,010 --> 00:39:25,600
who is vice president for sustainability at the world Bank and coined the term climate change, climate smart agriculture.

415
00:39:26,050 --> 00:39:31,630
And he said, well, we have so many of the solutions, but we have the narrative wrong.

416
00:39:32,080 --> 00:39:38,320
And if you look at what's happening in continental Europe at the moment, the farmers protesting all over the place.

417
00:39:38,830 --> 00:39:42,219
So kind of cheer me up on that political side.

418
00:39:42,220 --> 00:39:47,290
Do you see? Are we going through a spasm at the moment of a sort of backlash?

419
00:39:47,590 --> 00:39:55,420
Do you see hope in the political narrative, the political economy that will have a better approach to climate change going ahead?

420
00:39:56,350 --> 00:39:59,499
I think, uh, there are some particular issues,

421
00:39:59,500 --> 00:40:08,800
and I think food is like a really fundamental one where there's quite strong political pushback to a specific policy proposal.

422
00:40:09,970 --> 00:40:12,459
Well, I think is much less polarised.

423
00:40:12,460 --> 00:40:21,040
And people assume it's just overall belief in climate change or belief that climate change is a problem or that people should do something about it.

424
00:40:21,130 --> 00:40:26,709
Right. If you look at surveys across the world, you're talking about 75 plus percent of people.

425
00:40:26,710 --> 00:40:29,860
And every country is saying, I think climate change is a problem.

426
00:40:29,860 --> 00:40:32,320
I want my government to do something about it.

427
00:40:32,890 --> 00:40:42,160
And I actually think that the political divide from you can see this as the go left right issue is much narrower than people assume it to be.

428
00:40:42,160 --> 00:40:43,750
And the data shows us very clearly.

429
00:40:43,750 --> 00:40:50,830
And I think the media is actually doing us all a detriment by trying to reinforce that this is a really, really debated issue.

430
00:40:50,980 --> 00:40:55,510
It's not a debated issue. I think if we keep telling ourselves a story that somebody does to,

431
00:40:56,020 --> 00:41:02,020
then actually we we talk ourselves out of these solutions that just most people and most countries one.

432
00:41:02,590 --> 00:41:11,860
I think what's also really clear from the data is that even in areas where the climate problem is politicised,

433
00:41:12,340 --> 00:41:15,430
some of the solutions are really, really not precise.

434
00:41:15,520 --> 00:41:21,340
So if you take the U.S. as an example, as the one country where the partisan gap on climate is as big, right?

435
00:41:21,400 --> 00:41:26,740
Democrats really care about climate change. Republicans you're talking about maybe half, right.

436
00:41:26,770 --> 00:41:34,060
There's a really broad gap. That gap almost completely disappears if you talk about clean energy, right.

437
00:41:34,180 --> 00:41:37,540
Everyone wants clean energy. And actually it doesn't fundamentally,

438
00:41:37,690 --> 00:41:45,819
fundamentally matter whether they believe in climate change or not of the outcome that they really want clean energy, then the outcome is the same.

439
00:41:45,820 --> 00:41:50,950
That's reduced carbon emissions, and that's more and more air pollution is and air pollution is fundamental.

440
00:41:51,220 --> 00:41:56,650
What's really key and the differences in that data in the US is that the reasons for wanting clean energy.

441
00:41:56,870 --> 00:42:00,830
Different across the aisle, right? Democrats to tackle climate change.

442
00:42:01,190 --> 00:42:04,400
For Republicans, it tends to be energy security.

443
00:42:04,640 --> 00:42:08,719
Um, incomes for landowners like for one cites, for example.

444
00:42:08,720 --> 00:42:13,730
So it's an economic argument and it's a local pollution argument, and that's what they care about.

445
00:42:13,980 --> 00:42:17,030
I think that also really matters to how we message this. Right.

446
00:42:17,540 --> 00:42:24,590
I'm not going to get anywhere if I go into the middle of Texas with my climate crisis placard or actually fundamentally my book,

447
00:42:24,950 --> 00:42:29,149
but if I just go on and talk about the other cool benefits of clean energy,

448
00:42:29,150 --> 00:42:34,670
I'm much more likely to be successful in in, in driving action and actually getting people on board.

449
00:42:35,030 --> 00:42:41,389
So, I mean, I think, I think we are overselling how politicise climate change in these problems are.

450
00:42:41,390 --> 00:42:44,710
And I think it's to our detriment. Thank you. Right.

451
00:42:44,720 --> 00:42:49,310
I'm going to go to the audience for, uh, questions. Um, we are broadcasting this.

452
00:42:49,310 --> 00:42:57,050
So do bear that in mind when you when you ask a question and also request to have the questions as brief as possible.

453
00:42:57,230 --> 00:43:02,719
So we hear from Hannah, uh, the lady of the green jersey.

454
00:43:02,720 --> 00:43:05,960
And then behind her in the white Hannah.

455
00:43:06,990 --> 00:43:12,870
And Charles as well. I put it to you both that you're thinking inside the box.

456
00:43:13,530 --> 00:43:18,930
Hannah said early on. She cannot imagine any solution other than decoupling.

457
00:43:19,350 --> 00:43:23,250
She dismissed economic growth just like that.

458
00:43:23,730 --> 00:43:27,480
No mention of maximising mitigation from the dangers ahead.

459
00:43:27,810 --> 00:43:36,480
No mention of minimising consumption per capita or even thinking about minimising our population growth.

460
00:43:39,840 --> 00:43:43,250
Uh, I will argue about answer and population growth.

461
00:43:43,260 --> 00:43:48,550
Do you want to go first? So so so on on on degrowth.

462
00:43:48,810 --> 00:43:54,930
And we're just in the economy. I mean, the fundamental challenge there is, is political feasibility, right?

463
00:43:54,930 --> 00:44:00,390
And actually what's really key is the timescales that we're talking about solving this problem on.

464
00:44:00,690 --> 00:44:08,459
If we had 40 years to fundamentally change a whole economic system, then maybe I could agree with that.

465
00:44:08,460 --> 00:44:12,330
I think was really fundamental is like, we need to get moving on this now.

466
00:44:12,810 --> 00:44:16,140
And if you're looking at the political systems we currently have,

467
00:44:16,410 --> 00:44:25,830
I cannot see a way by which a UK or even a US or any politician stands up and like advocates as this is their core policy choice,

468
00:44:25,830 --> 00:44:27,990
or that actually people vote for them.

469
00:44:28,200 --> 00:44:35,010
I mean, at the next election, like neither Ashish Tendulkar, Keir Starmer are going to promote this as a key policy choice.

470
00:44:35,130 --> 00:44:38,580
So then you're talking about, okay, then who's wasting 4 or 5 years?

471
00:44:39,000 --> 00:44:45,540
Um, again, I mean, given them 4 or 5 years I think is very, very unlikely that politician will stand up and advocate for that.

472
00:44:45,780 --> 00:44:50,020
And then also to get votes for that and voted into to politics.

473
00:44:50,100 --> 00:44:53,819
You would need to see this shift in like every country in the world.

474
00:44:53,820 --> 00:44:58,710
And I think when the timescales that we're talking about, I cannot fundamentally see that shift.

475
00:44:58,950 --> 00:45:05,400
I think there are other ways by which you can tackle what you might think of as excess consumption,

476
00:45:05,520 --> 00:45:11,520
but I think framing it around degrowth, I just don't think will get political support, I'm afraid.

477
00:45:12,000 --> 00:45:19,950
And just hijacking the question because my background is in population biology, the news about human populations is just extraordinarily good news.

478
00:45:20,250 --> 00:45:29,220
You bring people out of poverty, you educate their children, you provide access to reproductive healthcare, and natural fecundity drops.

479
00:45:29,430 --> 00:45:35,969
We've already gone through peak children. At the moment, the only reason to populate the global well, not the only reason.

480
00:45:35,970 --> 00:45:42,180
The major reason global populations are increasing at the moment that people are living longer, which is a good thing.

481
00:45:42,360 --> 00:45:52,139
So all the things we have to worry about then, um, population growth is, number one, the demographic transition in rich countries.

482
00:45:52,140 --> 00:45:57,030
As more people get old, there's some real challenges there, but that is a temporary one.

483
00:45:58,750 --> 00:46:03,129
Uh, hi. Uh, so I guess so. I guess my question is, what do you do when data isn't enough?

484
00:46:03,130 --> 00:46:07,840
So you kind of speak, I guess, like, you know, we just need to show people this information and they'll make the right decisions.

485
00:46:07,840 --> 00:46:12,820
But I don't think that's always the case. So, like, for people who make models or scientists or whatever, and they show it to,

486
00:46:13,060 --> 00:46:17,740
you know, policymakers, and that's just not enough to convince them. What would what would you say is the solution there?

487
00:46:18,490 --> 00:46:27,850
No, I agree, I agree. I think, um, I often get the question, uh, or the pushback that, you know, we'll just never make decisions based on data.

488
00:46:27,850 --> 00:46:33,549
I don't I don't think that's true. I mean, we all make decisions based on data every day, but I agree that often the data, uh,

489
00:46:33,550 --> 00:46:37,570
you know, just just presenting the data to people is just often not enough to change our mind.

490
00:46:37,570 --> 00:46:38,830
I think narrative is important.

491
00:46:38,830 --> 00:46:45,909
I think having having a narrative shaped around data is fundamental to like, get more of a personal connection of like,

492
00:46:45,910 --> 00:46:50,200
what does that what does that showing that data actually mean for someone in their life?

493
00:46:50,200 --> 00:46:54,610
Like just saying energy costs. Oh, okay. What does that actually mean for consumer electricity?

494
00:46:54,820 --> 00:47:02,890
So making that link between the data and what it fundamentally means for, for people in their lives, I think is, is really crucial.

495
00:47:03,310 --> 00:47:13,840
Um, I think the, I think I think as this links to narrative over time, I think the data then starts to, to reinforce.

496
00:47:13,840 --> 00:47:18,549
I think once you see the data start to play out in actual real life metrics,

497
00:47:18,550 --> 00:47:23,230
I think actually makes it much, much easier to continue to communicate through data.

498
00:47:23,230 --> 00:47:25,809
So one energy cost, for example, was easy to just say, yeah,

499
00:47:25,810 --> 00:47:31,900
the energy costs have fallen until it actually translates into what people can see on like macroeconomic data.

500
00:47:31,900 --> 00:47:36,610
I think that's harder. Running does start to get easier over time as it filters for it.

501
00:47:37,960 --> 00:47:44,750
Thank you. Question. They're halfway done. I thank you for the conversation, Hannah.

502
00:47:44,780 --> 00:47:49,820
I completely agree with you that these problems are solvable and that there's lots we can and need to do.

503
00:47:50,210 --> 00:47:54,260
At the same time, I check that I will take data and carbon emissions this morning.

504
00:47:54,260 --> 00:47:59,989
In the most recent year you've got 2022 is the highest carbon emissions in history.

505
00:47:59,990 --> 00:48:06,740
In the last few years have plateaued a little bit. So given your books could not the end of the world, what kind of year time frame?

506
00:48:06,740 --> 00:48:10,910
If you had to take the fibre from under the mattress, do you think we will have halved emissions?

507
00:48:10,910 --> 00:48:14,719
And when do you think we'll have reached net zero? Yeah.

508
00:48:14,720 --> 00:48:24,799
Um, so yeah. So like, we, um, I think where we are on carbon emissions is that I think we are approaching a peak.

509
00:48:24,800 --> 00:48:29,540
So if you look at carbon emissions over time, they grew really strongly in the 1990s, really strongly in 2000.

510
00:48:30,140 --> 00:48:38,600
Um, over the last five or so years or maybe five, ten years, they've kind of they're going up a little bit, mostly plateaued.

511
00:48:38,960 --> 00:48:45,170
And I think fundamentally, if you look at any of the projections from IEA or other similar organisations,

512
00:48:45,170 --> 00:48:51,739
the expectation that the peak will come in the next few years. I think the the big question mark is how fast the decline is.

513
00:48:51,740 --> 00:48:56,600
I mean, peaking is not what we're going for. We need to go for a very, very fast decline.

514
00:48:57,020 --> 00:49:01,399
Um, I can't give a specific date on when I think we'll have some emissions.

515
00:49:01,400 --> 00:49:05,959
I mean, what we will not have emissions to be, you know, in line with 1.5.

516
00:49:05,960 --> 00:49:10,280
I mean, I think for me, fundamentally, 1.5 degrees will be off the table.

517
00:49:10,490 --> 00:49:19,129
I think two degrees is still in play. I think two degrees for me is like the ambitious like this will be really ambitious, but is as possible, um,

518
00:49:19,130 --> 00:49:28,940
I think on on net zero, I think the, the question mark will be over the net, but, um, we won't be zero emissions in 2050.

519
00:49:29,270 --> 00:49:34,160
Um, we could be a net zero emissions around that 2015 to 2060 mark.

520
00:49:34,400 --> 00:49:37,340
I think what we need to think about on that very clearly is,

521
00:49:37,340 --> 00:49:44,510
is how net zero globally translates into net zero across different countries and different responsibilities.

522
00:49:44,780 --> 00:49:50,540
And we're going for net zero globally. Uh, rich countries should get net zero well before 2050.

523
00:49:50,540 --> 00:49:52,219
And the current plans are not in line with that.

524
00:49:52,220 --> 00:50:01,700
So I think that would be my fundamental criticism of rich countries, is that net zero globally 2015 needs to be net zero rich countries 2040 2045.

525
00:50:02,510 --> 00:50:05,810
And Mitchell, could we go for all a question from online.

526
00:50:06,710 --> 00:50:09,890
Yep. So a few different people online asking about climate justice.

527
00:50:10,130 --> 00:50:16,130
Um and how we can help the country's most directly affected by climate change and amplify their voices and their possible solutions.

528
00:50:17,580 --> 00:50:23,100
Yeah. I think that's, uh, like, really key is like one to highlight the large inequality in the problem,

529
00:50:23,100 --> 00:50:28,739
not just on who is responsible for it and who has the the most leverage to tackle it,

530
00:50:28,740 --> 00:50:33,330
but also how the, the inequalities in the the impacts of climate change.

531
00:50:33,720 --> 00:50:39,750
I mean, I get this question. A lot of um, the UK only, um, that's 1% of the world's emissions.

532
00:50:39,750 --> 00:50:43,319
Like, why should we really care like what we do? It doesn't make a difference.

533
00:50:43,320 --> 00:50:46,500
I think one does fundamentally make a difference.

534
00:50:46,850 --> 00:50:52,560
But I think this is, uh, an argument that extends to most rich countries in the world.

535
00:50:52,740 --> 00:51:00,240
So I know for me, the rule is not just to get their domestic emissions low or as close to zero as possible.

536
00:51:00,630 --> 00:51:08,670
I think what's really fundamental is that if they want middle and low income countries to also move to clean energy and do that in a much faster way,

537
00:51:09,060 --> 00:51:12,959
their role is to massively bring down the cost of these energy technologies.

538
00:51:12,960 --> 00:51:16,320
So middle and lower income countries are not faced with the dilemma.

539
00:51:16,530 --> 00:51:20,970
Do I left people out of energy poverty or do I keep my CO2 emissions low?

540
00:51:21,000 --> 00:51:27,389
What they what should be fundamental there is that the low carbon option is just the most cheap, the cheapest option anyway.

541
00:51:27,390 --> 00:51:30,150
Therefore they go for that and there's no one here on trade off.

542
00:51:30,270 --> 00:51:35,489
So I think that's a big part of the climate justice story is is primarily also through rich

543
00:51:35,490 --> 00:51:40,410
countries drive in innovation in these technologies such that other countries can benefit.

544
00:51:40,770 --> 00:51:49,470
And then there's the very obvious, you know, more direct transfer of how do you support, um, lower income countries who are facing these impacts?

545
00:51:49,740 --> 00:51:58,020
I think one is a kind of reactionary approach, more like loss and damage of providing funding when disaster does strike.

546
00:51:58,380 --> 00:52:02,250
But I think there's even stuff that's this less seen as is this kind of option,

547
00:52:02,250 --> 00:52:08,190
but is more related to agricultural productivity, like a key role that the richer countries can play,

548
00:52:08,520 --> 00:52:14,129
as in the development of more resilient agricultural systems, but doesn't just benefit, you know,

549
00:52:14,130 --> 00:52:20,160
in a world of a changing climate, is just fundamentally good and beneficial to do anyway, right?

550
00:52:20,160 --> 00:52:23,580
Oh, we're running out of time. So I'm going to take three questions.

551
00:52:23,880 --> 00:52:32,220
Could they be very short please. And if you take one from the back, one from the middle and one from the front, the very short please.

552
00:52:32,310 --> 00:52:37,050
Yeah. You've been talking about electrification as, uh, your reason for being optimistic,

553
00:52:37,440 --> 00:52:42,270
but I applaud all the countries that rely heavily on coal to produce electricity.

554
00:52:42,870 --> 00:52:49,199
So coal as an issue, if you come to the middle, Hanna hands up.

555
00:52:49,200 --> 00:52:54,880
Who wants to ask a question from the middle? Um, so I don't know.

556
00:52:54,910 --> 00:53:04,120
Um, you put a lot of emphasis on kind of having, um, improved crop yields, um, which is a large result of genetic modification and plants.

557
00:53:04,720 --> 00:53:11,620
Um, but many countries, such as sub-Saharan African countries, have bans against GM crops.

558
00:53:11,620 --> 00:53:17,740
So how do you believe that we get around that? Um, rich countries can't really contribute to that as much.

559
00:53:18,970 --> 00:53:24,160
Uh, so GM, although all the gains so far have largely not been GM.

560
00:53:24,160 --> 00:53:31,890
So GM has something in the future. I'm very much like your perspective on virtually everything in your opinion.

561
00:53:31,920 --> 00:53:36,690
One thing I liked was when you talked about the human health effects, the air pollution here today.

562
00:53:36,690 --> 00:53:37,980
You didn't give any numbers to it.

563
00:53:38,280 --> 00:53:45,570
But in your book you do, and you cite the numbers, you know, from Global Burden of Disease and various other sources.

564
00:53:45,960 --> 00:53:52,590
I think these numbers may be wrong, the wrong order of magnitude, really massively wrong and massively exaggerated.

565
00:53:52,690 --> 00:53:58,950
The human health effects of air pollution may be much less than you say numerically in your book.

566
00:53:59,220 --> 00:54:02,100
And of course, this is completely relevant to the question of climate change.

567
00:54:02,100 --> 00:54:09,660
Is is talking about does the human health okay, so add pollution have to you those numbers come from and could could can be considered in please.

568
00:54:10,080 --> 00:54:12,520
So coal GM and air pollution data.

569
00:54:12,540 --> 00:54:21,870
So on air pollution I mean I there know like a really broad range of estimates for for what we would classify as premature deaths from,

570
00:54:22,020 --> 00:54:25,429
from air pollution. I don't just rely on the global burden of disease.

571
00:54:25,430 --> 00:54:28,430
I know a range of studies and the old tend to be in the millions.

572
00:54:28,440 --> 00:54:31,860
Right. So the the median estimate from the W.H.O. is 7 million.

573
00:54:32,100 --> 00:54:35,670
I can range from a few million to to name list these things of the.

574
00:54:36,510 --> 00:54:44,460
Okay. I think this is a discussion for over a a soft drink outside GM cool.

575
00:54:44,730 --> 00:54:52,559
Yeah. On on on on on uh gems as as Charles said like a lot of the, the the new gap we currently have,

576
00:54:52,560 --> 00:54:58,080
if you look at some scenario for example, is not actually based on GM, that's just based on on traditional crops.

577
00:54:58,290 --> 00:55:02,790
You can argue that GM would increase that and you couldn't push that yield even higher.

578
00:55:03,150 --> 00:55:08,550
Um, I think there's still massive gains even if you don't take GM into account.

579
00:55:09,210 --> 00:55:12,460
Um, and then on the the coal and electricity. Yeah.

580
00:55:12,630 --> 00:55:17,310
I think countries will just move away from coal, from electricity. I think if you're even if you compare.

581
00:55:17,760 --> 00:55:22,979
So if you're thinking about electric related transport moving from electric car, uh,

582
00:55:22,980 --> 00:55:28,440
petrol diesel car to an electric car, even if it's running on coal, it's still better on carbon.

583
00:55:28,440 --> 00:55:31,710
It's obviously much less beneficial than if you're using solar or wind.

584
00:55:31,920 --> 00:55:36,120
But even just fundamentally using coal, uh, as carbon beneficial.

585
00:55:36,120 --> 00:55:43,560
And I think the differential there will just increase over time because countries will then start to decarbonise electricity as well.

586
00:55:43,830 --> 00:55:49,940
But obviously the fundamental is like you don't just do electrification and leave a carbon, uh, rich and just mix.

587
00:55:49,950 --> 00:55:55,650
You do both both at the same time. Okay. That's pretty. I think we can do a final round of three.

588
00:55:56,040 --> 00:56:02,580
So sorry. Thank you. So we'll do one from the I'll let you pick one from the back, one from the middle, one from the problem.

589
00:56:02,970 --> 00:56:08,670
Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh, how do you define like how do you define rich countries and other countries,

590
00:56:08,670 --> 00:56:12,240
like where do you draw the line between, uh, different sets of countries?

591
00:56:12,840 --> 00:56:16,170
Okay, nice. Uh, chat with a beard there.

592
00:56:16,320 --> 00:56:20,310
That's not a wrong thing to accuse you having.

593
00:56:20,640 --> 00:56:24,330
Okay, so you talked about, uh, behaviour change in adaptation to, for example,

594
00:56:24,330 --> 00:56:27,630
substitutes to meat, but when you were talking about agricultural productivity,

595
00:56:27,930 --> 00:56:31,430
do the farmers also need to change behaviour because people talk about, uh,

596
00:56:31,440 --> 00:56:38,310
sustainable ways of doing agriculture as opposed to the kind of intensification that you talk about, uh, especially coming from the Green Revolution.

597
00:56:39,390 --> 00:56:46,820
And, Hannah, this one right in the front here. Hi.

598
00:56:46,820 --> 00:56:53,870
Thank you. That's a fair amount of criticism of the manufacturing of electric vehicles, such as local environmental degradation from lithium mining.

599
00:56:54,110 --> 00:56:59,989
How do you think this can be improved, both in terms of the solutions to the lithium mining and other problems,

600
00:56:59,990 --> 00:57:03,890
and also in terms of the innovators regarding this. Thank you. Brilliant.

601
00:57:03,900 --> 00:57:11,270
Three very concise question. So on the on the um, minerals electric mining story.

602
00:57:11,280 --> 00:57:15,140
Yeah, there's lots of challenges there. There's lots of pushback there.

603
00:57:15,170 --> 00:57:18,950
One is you know, do we have enough minerals is we do have enough minerals overall.

604
00:57:19,310 --> 00:57:28,230
Um, there's issues of, uh, social issues like social justice issues and supply chains, environmental issues and supply chains.

605
00:57:28,280 --> 00:57:32,090
Those are all really valid criticisms, but they're not unsolvable problems, right?

606
00:57:32,130 --> 00:57:37,720
They're just problems. I think some of the kind of social justice issues, actually, I think we will, uh,

607
00:57:37,730 --> 00:57:43,670
we are actually already tackling there's always this link between being cobalt and batteries and electric cars,

608
00:57:43,670 --> 00:57:52,520
which cobalt was primarily mined in the DRC with really poor, uh, poor, uh, human, uh, working standards.

609
00:57:53,150 --> 00:57:56,040
I think in the future, bosses will probably just not use cobalt.

610
00:57:56,060 --> 00:58:01,840
We're already moving away from cobalt and batteries, and I think you actually will start to see the same story for lithium.

611
00:58:01,850 --> 00:58:07,490
There are actually probably is a viable pathway for which we also no longer use lithium ion batteries.

612
00:58:07,670 --> 00:58:12,920
But I think the question of how do we do this in a socially environmentally, um, no.

613
00:58:12,920 --> 00:58:17,210
And segregating no non degrading way is really fundamental.

614
00:58:17,480 --> 00:58:21,230
One of these questions, which I always think is really important for us to highlight,

615
00:58:21,470 --> 00:58:26,140
is that if we are looking for an absolute perfect solution, there are none, right?

616
00:58:26,150 --> 00:58:29,800
If you're looking for the solution that needs no minerals, that needs no land,

617
00:58:29,840 --> 00:58:35,870
it has zero impacts whatsoever where we will just maintain the fossil fuel system that we currently have.

618
00:58:36,080 --> 00:58:40,700
We're looking for solutions that are orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels.

619
00:58:40,700 --> 00:58:43,190
And we have some. And there's still issues that we need to work out.

620
00:58:43,520 --> 00:58:50,089
But I think we need to to pause before we, you know, take our solution completely off the table because it has some impact.

621
00:58:50,090 --> 00:58:52,490
We just need to work on reducing that impact.

622
00:58:53,720 --> 00:59:01,129
Farmer behaviour, farmer behaviour I mean I think fundamentally I think that's easier than individual consumer behaviour change.

623
00:59:01,130 --> 00:59:12,050
But I think it's because I think often there must be incentives for all line operators and enough farmers interests to have high productivity,

624
00:59:12,050 --> 00:59:19,640
to not use more fertiliser or more pesticides. And they need to know over apply water, but be able to access irrigation when they need it.

625
00:59:19,910 --> 00:59:26,600
So I think fundamentally there, I think if you provide farmers with good information on how they can make the best decisions,

626
00:59:26,600 --> 00:59:34,370
I actually think that that's much more compatible than consumer behaviour, where there's an incentives are not as strongly aligned.

627
00:59:35,030 --> 00:59:40,580
And the last one I think was an easy one. The metrics, uh, how you define different countries in different income brackets.

628
00:59:40,820 --> 00:59:44,870
Yeah. There are I'm just like typically using like world Bank income categories.

629
00:59:44,870 --> 00:59:48,829
I mean there's obviously like a line there and or we some countries just below it and just above it.

630
00:59:48,830 --> 00:59:55,340
So like a fundamental line doesn't make sense. But yeah, I'm just mainly talking about world Bank income groups okay.

631
00:59:55,340 --> 01:00:02,870
We've run out of time. Um, next door we have some books to buy if you're interested, and also some soft drinks.

632
01:00:02,870 --> 01:00:07,579
So do join us next door. Um, Hannah, this has been tremendous.

633
01:00:07,580 --> 01:00:14,690
Thank you so much. Um, the the one thing I'll say about the book is, is intellectually really stimulating.

634
01:00:14,930 --> 01:00:19,850
Uh, it's wonderfully written. You write like an angel. So, uh, it's an easy book to read.