278: Pets, Preppers and Personal Carbon Budgets

Tom: [00:00:41] I mean, the fact that we had to be 40, you know, 40% down on emissions by the end of this decade and we're still going up. I'll take all the extra time you're prepared to give me to make this change. I'm not sure it makes that much difference.

Paul: [00:00:53] But it's good to know that we're experts on counting to ten. So well done, team. This is really good.

Tom: [00:00:56] That's right. Well done. Five is roughly in the middle. My sense I don't know about yours is a lot of people who are involved in the climate and nature movement are ending the year a little bit on their knees, a little bit like we really hope to see big step ups this year. Maybe some of which have materialized but others of which haven't. So it's probably just good to acknowledge that we are going to have years like this. And that doesn't mean that we have lost the trajectory to dealing with this issue. Paul's looking like I'm mixing my metaphors or I'm doing something.

Paul: [00:01:24] No it's just it's just kind of like we're ending the year on our knees. I don't think it's quite that bad. I mean, like, you know, I think I might be sort of slightly winded by the election result, but I'm not on my knees, you know, steady on.

Christiana: [00:01:35] I'm on my knees gardening. How do you like that?

Tom: [00:01:38] You're on your knees fighting with the iguanas. You're gonna have to explain that now that I've said it.

Paul: [00:01:42] How big are the iguanas? Like, are they kind of your size smaller, bigger?

Christiana: [00:01:45] Yeah, well, I'm not a very tall person, but yes, if you hold them by their tail, they are at least as long as I am tall.

Tom: [00:01:53] Is that something you do?

Paul: [00:01:54] I would not hold it by its tail if it was as tall as you, frankly, I wouldn't do that.

Tom: [00:01:58] I do remember actually staying at your house, and it's one of the most amusing parts of being there, that you're sitting there at the breakfast bar drinking a coffee, and Christiana suddenly goes iguana! And she runs outside to chase it away from the frangipani.

Christiana: [00:02:09] Because they eat everything that I plant, that's why.

Paul: [00:02:13] What's it going to do, come and eat your breakfast, if they eat what you plant, that's okay. But not my toast anyway sorry.

Tom: [00:02:17] Okay, so we've established so far that iguanas are very dangerous, and we're not ending the year on our knees. So that's useful analysis in the first few minutes. And we are going to get into some questions. But just before we do there's been yet another COP has now finished. This feels like there's COP after COP. This one was the desertification COP. Christiana, how did it go?

Christiana: [00:02:34] Well, how wonderful to end the year on a positive note after we've had such difficult COPs in the other topics. So the desertification COP is known as the Land Conference because of course it's about the process of drying out land. And this one was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in part because Saudi Arabia has such an extensive desert that is growing. And, you know, just to remind listeners how interesting that from a strategic, diplomatic, political perspective, there was no effort to pull the Saudis into the entire COP package that happened this year. You know, they they really were quite obstreperous, to be honest, in all the other COPs. But they were hosting this one, and they did get actually very good results. This was the largest and most inclusive land conference that there has ever been. The one thing that you could say did not come out of that is the Africans especially wanted a protocol, which is a legally binding implementation instrument, which all of the other COPs have or the other systems have, and they wanted one. They did not get it, but they have now a promise that that will come out of the next time that they meet, which is in Mongolia in two years. In the meantime, the Arabic countries pledged $12 billion to tackle desertification, land degradation and drought around the world, especially in the most vulnerable countries.

Christiana: [00:04:13] Another piece of good news, there was a creation, something that they call a caucus. That's interesting word for a UN system. Never heard in in the UN context. They created a caucus for indigenous peoples, I think indigenous peoples have really won a lot of ground in the entire year throughout all of these COPs. Good on them, really good on them. Their voice is really being heard. And, Tom, you will be happy to know, because you and I worked a lot on local communities and subnational governments. A caucus for local communities also created and very interesting moving forward of the private sector under something called Business for Land Initiative. And this was the very first time that this COP had a space such as we're now used to in the climate convention, although we started it many years ago, and it's now a fait accompli and and very expected. But this is the first time that they had an action agenda space for non-state actors in the work of desertification. And that's interesting because private sector is basically now really concerned about the fact that so much of our land, at least 40% of land around the world, is under process of accelerating aridity or desertification, and that has huge consequences.

Tom: [00:05:39] Do you know who they pulled together to pull that together, the action agenda?

Christiana: [00:05:42] No, I don't, but I do know that there were more people there participating than have ever been. And quite a surprising array of ministers who turned up and who didn't turn up at either the climate or the biodiversity Convention. So very interesting that this is now attracting more, more and more attention, including from youth. How interesting. How interesting that youth is really now engaged. And now they have something called Youth engagement strategy and Action plan. So overall, I think very good news that we end up from a multilateralism, from the status of multilateralism this year that we end up with, with something that was quite positive and also very interesting, that desertification, which is also being referred to as aridity because it's when land loses its content, its moisture content and loses its capacity to hold life or produce, produce anything. Hold anything living, any plants in addition to food. Very interesting that there is more and more attention to that. Tom, when you and I were at the UN and Paul was helping us so much, I dare say there was not that much attention to the desertification process. And so maybe we should be concerned, actually, that there is so much attention now because we are in processes of very fast accelerating desertification. But the good news is that there is much more international attention to that. Finally, my last word. What an awkward situation for Saudi Arabia, because they know that they're in the process of very fast desertification, which has huge consequences for their economy because of climate change. That is why. But they managed to cocoon the topic of desertification without referring to climate change. So very, very awkward situation and one honestly that should not have happened. That's my point. All of these COPs, as we know, are interactive, interconnected, and we should have had the forethought to bring them together as a political package, as an action package, and not allowed each of them to actually stand alone. But there we are. At least we finished on a constructive note.

Paul: [00:08:26] It's kind of a bit of a coincidence, isn't it really, that there's all this desertification if it's not caused by climate change and fossil fuels, huge coincidence, you could say. But no, I mean, you describe it brilliantly, Christiana. And this UN report saying that 7.6% of global lands area, larger than Canada, in the last few decades have been pushed across the aridity threshold. So 2023 UN report saying 1.83 billion people at risk from drought, branding it a crisis we made. But look, you know, the multilateralism, we can doubt the processes, but it's a competence that constantly bodies itself forth through a set of concrete performances. There's dialogue, there's deliberation, there's listening, there's highlighting things, and these are ends in themselves we have to recognize, you know, you may not come out with a golden ticket that cures everything, but the event draws attention and that attention is and of itself good. And the final thing I'd say is our briefing pointed out that business is stepping up. You know, even if humans, citizens don't seem to be able to save themselves, business leaders and their strangely myopic way are saying that they increasingly recognize that maintaining the integrity of the world's land is crucial to the resilience of their supply chains. Now, that may sound a bit cold, but it's also practical. So, you know, let's hear it for pragmatism. I think that eventually the adaptation body may evolve a mitigation brain. That's my dream.

Christiana: [00:09:43] Say that again.

Paul: [00:09:44] The adaptation body eventually evolves a mitigation brain. You spend all this time adapting and eventually you're kind of like, I'm finding, you know, adapting is taking up so much of my time, what's actually going on here.

Tom: [00:09:55] Well that's great, thank you. And that's how good to end the year on a positive note, as you've said, thank you for taking us through that, Christiana. The point I was going to make in there is that the people to whom the action agenda was entrusted were our good friends, Nigel Topping and Gonzalo Muñoz, who have done this so well in the climate movement through their entity Ambition loop. Now we're more than ten minutes in and we promise this was a mailbag episode, but we haven't actually started answering questions yet. So let us correct that and turn to the many wonderful questions that you, our listeners provided. These are always our favorite episodes to delve into this and answer your questions. We're not going to be able to get through all of them. We had so many. But who would like to kick off in traditional format? I think each of us then picks a question one by one. Paul, why don't we start with you and you can read it to us and then give us your answer, and then we'll all weigh in. So you're up.

Paul: [00:10:40] What a privilege to start this off. I really did have answers to all the questions, but I'm going to try and think, I suppose, in my my kind of favourite answers. So I want to start off with a question through LinkedIn from Ash Penley, who says, how do you keep going? And I thought about this for a long time, and you might all have different answers, but mine is pure love of life. I love life so much. It's so incredible. It can be so brilliant. And yes, there's war and famine and torture like you can't bear it. But there's also nature and art and culture and food and love and a million pleasures and new miracles each day. And through all the horrors, I think that finding joy in life is the engine that powers everything, and the art is to have the eyes to see it. But I do want to ask either Christiana or Tom if you agree with that, because I think you have a more a Buddhist take on, on how to to maintain the sort of forward energy of, of of our work.

Christiana: [00:11:38] I have news for you, Paul, that is the Buddhist answer.

Tom: [00:11:41] That is the Buddhist answer. But I would also say, Paul, I think you are uniquely good at that. And I think actually that's an amazing sort of micro example of something that we should, that we can do that makes us realize how fortunate we are to be here. You know, the three of us relatively healthy living at a moment where we can have a positive impact on the future. And trying to remember that day by day, as Christiana said, is the Buddhist outlook. And and it kind of keeps you going as well. Anything to add, Christiana?

Christiana: [00:12:06] No, I think I think you both nailed it.

Tom: [00:12:08] All right. Over to you.

Christiana: [00:12:09] So I'm going to start with Elisa from Oslo who sent us a voice message. Let's listen to that message.

Elisa: [00:12:15] Hi to my favorite podcasters. So my name is Elisa and I'm based in Oslo, Norway. And my question is this what are your best tips for talking to people about climate change? So I really want to have more climate conversations. But I often find that people are really turned off by just bringing it up as a subject at all. And I wonder, how can I talk about it in a way that engages people and doesn't make them want to change the subject or become defensive.

Christiana: [00:12:44] It's such a good question and I really resonate with that, really resonate with that. And my way of thinking about this for years has been, first, don't tattoo climate change on your forehead. Don't, you know, walk around in your life, show up in your life with the big sign of, you know, I work on climate change or I'm concerned about climate change, actually try to turn it around. And if you're in a conversation at a dinner party in, you know, just sitting with friends, which many people will do now toward the end of the year, instead of bringing climate change up as the spear of the conversation, try to really understand what is important to the people that you're chatting with. If it's their children's future, if it's health, if it is their garden, if it is the coffee that they drink, the wine that they drink. I mean, chances are that there is going to be 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 things people are passionate about, or at least that they feel is important, that is affected by climate change. You know, let's let's just give the example wine. There you are, sitting around the table enjoying some wine instead of saying, oh, well, you know, we have to decarbonize the global economy in this critical decade.

Christiana: [00:14:13] That is a non-starter to the conversation. But a more interesting starter could be, wow, this is excellent wine. Does anybody know, has anybody heard how grapes are being affected by changes in temperature around the world? Now we have a different conversation. My sense is always to try to get into the shoes of the person that you're chatting with and approach it from that person's point of view, and the fun challenge that I give myself always in these conversations is, how long can I be in that conversation without using the term climate change and really just stay in the topic itself. And it actually helps, because it's a reminder to me that, you know, I don't have to go in with the title. We can talk about it, we can talk about the effects, we can talk about the challenges. And you don't have to accost people with climate change because many people just have this virulent reaction to the term, although they know that they're already living the consequences of it.

Tom: [00:15:20] John Marshall, our great friend who's been on this podcast before, who's so good at this communications and narrative testing, says no one wakes up and says today is a good day for some decarbonisation. It's just not central to anybody's lives, right. But I would add one thing to your excellent answer, Christiana, which is remember that because you care about the climate crisis doesn't mean that the impacts are therefore only going to affect you. One of the things I've noticed recently, particularly like going on the radio or something, I find whenever I go on the radio, I go on quite a lot of right wing radio stations. I mean, UK right wing, so they're not extreme right wing, but they're right wing enough. And there's almost this gleeful, oh, aren't you worried, you know, we're not doing enough on climate change, all the work you've done. And I make a point of, in my language talking about us and not creating a boundary. We are all going to experience the worst impacts of climate change. Those who work on the issue, those who don't work on the issue, those who work in the oil and gas industry. This is a great leveller and in all of your language, rather than saying you should do something so that we can collectively have a positive future, you can use language that says we are all facing a difficult moment. And I think alongside Christiana's very good advice to think about whether climate change has a named issue needs to be in the room, creating a sense of shared experience with people, rather than creating a division between people who care and take action and those who don't can also be quite useful.

Paul: [00:16:39] That's beautiful Tom. Let me add just one last thing, Elisa, as regards Norway, I think it's a very special, special situation because your country is actually very rich, kind of from oil and gas, but don't necessarily feel guilty about that. But what about turning that conversation around of each of the 5.5 million in the population of Norway, you've all got $330,000 each invested in the world economy. Do you know, the people of Norway own 1.5% of every single company in the world. So imagine yourselves, why not start a conversation not about climate change, but about how Norway can be a very positive force as the kind of leader of the business system, $1.8 trillion you've got tucked away in a government bank controlled by a parliament, you're a very advanced democracy. How would you like to lead the world, because you're actually one of the most coherent forces in the world and, and, and broaden the conversation and not just talk about climate change.

Tom: [00:17:35] Very nice. Okay, I'm gonna hop into one here, which I really liked. So here we go. This is from Tobi Holloway, and we have a voice note.

Tobi: [00:17:43] High Outrage + Optimism. What do you recommend for individual preparation for the impacts of climate change? What can we do now to be ready for temporary supply chain disruptions all the way to disaster related infrastructure failure? I think of prepping as bunkers and stockpiles and adaptation as protecting communities. So is there a prosocial way to prep for risks as an individual? What do you all personally do? What do you recommend and what do you discourage to minimize the personal impacts of climate change?

Tom: [00:18:19] That's such an interesting question, because I think what it speaks to is the fact that there is a rising sense of anxiety amongst people around the impacts that we're going to face, and a natural instinct alongside what I'm sure is companion instinct behind this question to address the issue, but to protect what you love and to look after your family. And any time you see risk coming, you think, how can I protect myself, how can I protect my loved ones and make them more resilient. And that instinct is a very beautiful instinct. It's something we should applaud. So I would have two parts of the answer to this question. The deeper part is you can't really do that because climate change is so far reaching in terms of its impacts on the collective fabric. You can't really have a prepping strategy to protect yourself from the impacts of climate change, because it's not like a supply chain shock or even a war that is going to go on for a defined period of time. It is the impacts of a change that is likely to have if if the worst impacts are realized, a fundamental long term impact on the way in which humans meet their needs. I would think about it quite differently. How am I going to thrive in a world that feels like it's evolving. So that's the major part of my answer. On the other side, to completely contradict myself, I would also say that I live in a rural area in Devon, and it feels really nice to be putting in solar panels and batteries and feel like I can have a sense of being to some degree self-sufficient with energy and seeing the energy come in, seeing the batteries charge up the way the household gets managed. Getting on top of your energy management, not wasting energy, having an electric car. I'm privileged to have some of those things, but I don't think that I can therefore see the world change as a result of climate impacts and be insulated from them. That's not how that's going to work.

Paul: [00:20:06] I do think that if you really believe society is going to break down, I personally don't. But if you think at some point it's going to break down, you want to try and think about how the military could coexist with the food growers. A basic separation of powers. So the food growers grow a lot of food and hide the food. And the military are sort of avoid a civil war. And there's a coexistence around a very simplified state. That's my piece of advice.

Tom: [00:20:26] Feeling you've been thinking about this quite a bit, which is an interesting insight. Christiana?

Christiana: [00:20:31] Yeah, I guess I have a really different take on it than than you, Paul. And for me, it's not about prepping for a risk, which bottom line is an avoidance or protective strategy, a defense strategy. Because as you both said, you can't defend yourself or your family or your city or your country actually from something that is global, systemic and worldwide, that just doesn't work. So for me, instead of going into the defense mode and defense mindset, it's about embracing the kind of world that you want and already today, beginning to live in that world. So in your example, Tom, solar panels, planting trees, growing your own food, that's the kind of world that we want. And so to begin to practice in the micro and the personal in the individual, what we want for the systemic change and that puts you in a different mindset so now you're not in the defence in the in a defensive mode, but rather you're in a constructive mode. I can contribute to the change that I want to see.

Tom: [00:21:42] Great. Paul, over to you.

Paul: [00:21:44] I'm ready, I'm ready. I got a wonderful question here from Phili and we can hear her question.

Phili: [00:21:48] Hi, Christiana, Tom and Paul, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to effectively build climate communications in a newer industry. My audience is primarily dog owners. I'm a dog trainer myself, and many of them might not already be tuned into sustainability, but I really want to inspire gentle, simple, meaningful change without overwhelming or alienating them. My primary aim is to create ripples across the the dog world that hopefully collectively, could start making quite a big difference to wildlife disturbance and waste and emissions. How would you recommend starting those conversations and creating messaging that resonates with people who aren't already in the eco conscious mindset?

Paul: [00:22:38] I think you've got the most brilliant question here. The BBC have said that pets are thought to eat around 20% of the world's meat and fish. Now just think about that for a minute. If we could remove meat and fish from our pets diets, it could result in hundreds of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Now, you have to be a little bit careful here, because there are things in meat and fish that animals need, but they can be substituted for. Clearly there are very, very healthy vegan and vegetarian people. So obviously these diets can be organised. We just need to make sure that there is pet food that can source everything animals need cats and dogs, without meat and fish. Now, I don't know if those products exist yet. Maybe there's a big entrepreneurial opportunity for someone to develop them, but we clearly can reduce the amount of meat and fish and pet food. And if we're thoughtful and we do what we do for humans, vegan and vegetarian humans, I just think clearly you need to think about the animal's health, but it's a really big opportunity. So thank you for such a great question.

Christiana: [00:23:42] Wow, okay, Paul, that is an answer that I, I love. My head when I read this question didn't go there, but I love that very, very practical suggestion. I really love it.

Paul: [00:23:55] Where did your head go?

Christiana: [00:23:57] Yeah, my head went completely different space, which was, if you are a pet lover, independently of what kind of pet, it already means that you have a connection with the rest of the other living beings on this planet. And so through that window, if that is already a tiny window that you have, or maybe it's a big window that you have through that window, you can actually expand that window to other forms of life on this planet, be they four legged or flying or swimming or growing as as flora, and cultivate our sensitivity for A, our interconnection with all forms of life, but also a sensitivity and a growing awareness of what impact are we having on all forms of life on this planet. So you went to the very practical and I went to the totally impractical and rather esoteric.

Paul: [00:25:00] Esoteric is good.

Christiana: [00:25:01] Maybe we do both.

Tom: [00:25:02] We do both. And just to add one more thing there, I mean, I would say, you know, the three of us on this podcast, you know, who live and breathe climate, have a certain there's a certain subset of the global population who are remotely interested in hearing from us because they already care about climate. But the brilliant thing about the question here from Phili is actually the audience that can be addressed from that point of view are people who are interested in dogs who probably would have nothing to do with the climate conversation. So doing what Christiana talked about earlier, integrating issues that might be relevant, that affect the climate that you can bring in without necessarily having to talk about it, certainly feed changes one of them, expanding love for the natural environment, other sorts of things that might affect dog welfare. That is the kind of communication I think that we really need now. We've seen it with like health and wellness influencers on Instagram are having an incredibly positive impact talking about climate, often without mentioning it, people who are on on social media, influencers focusing on food and cooking can have a, you know, talking in a similar way. So there's lots of ways into this, and I love this question because I think it provides an opening for a different kind of conversation.

Christiana: [00:26:09] Totally, totally. And for me to, you know, I mean, I happen to to love dogs more than cats. Just the opposite for for Paul, that question to pick up your point, Paul, is what am I passionate about and what is the intersection with climate change. And then who else is passionate about X, Y, Z, you know, are they passionate about birds, are they passionate about dogs, about cats, about, you know, whatever. To meet people where they're passionate, especially if you share the passion that's that's really magical. If you share a passion with someone and then you can softly bring them into awareness of the climate, context of that passion, that's a very different approach than tattooing climate on your forehead.

Tom: [00:26:55] All right. We're not making very good progress getting through all these questions. Let's pick up the pace. Christiana, over to you.

Christiana: [00:26:59] Now let's hear from Francesca in Italy who sent in a question about nuclear.

Francesca: [00:27:04] Hello guys. I'm Francesca from Italy. I work in the sustainable finance sector and I would like to get your opinion and considerations about nuclear energy and the, yeah, the dispute about nuclear power plants, because it's a very debatable topic. And I just would like to get your point of view around it.

Christiana: [00:27:26] Sadly, we could talk about it for hours. My quick answer to that is from a greenhouse gas perspective, from a very limited right, narrow perspective of greenhouse gases, it is factually true that nuclear is much, much cleaner than, for example, coal or gas for sure. Now, if we have a broader perspective about the risks and the contamination that nuclear brings, we have a very different picture for sure. So it depends on what is the angle that you're looking at. If you're only looking at greenhouse gases, yes, it is a greener source. If you're looking from a bigger environmental perspective, and also the risks to human and other life on the planet, it's a very different perspective. The thing that I really appreciate about the nuclear discussion is the fact that there is growing awareness that while nuclear can be an interesting answer for some countries, it is an interesting answer for a very limited number of countries, because nuclear is becoming more and more expensive because of the nuclear disasters that we've had in the past. The safety measures around nuclear have grown tremendously, and we're now into what is called fourth generation nuclear, which is incredibly expensive, not just for the generation of energy, but for the risk protection measures that have to go with it. So there will be a very small subset of countries that will be able to afford, frankly, safe nuclear. And if they can afford it, and if it seems to make sense to them, then that could be an answer. The costs of nuclear, let's just remember this, the cost of nuclear will only continue to escalate from now into the future. The cost of solar and wind will only continue to decrease from now into the future. So very different cost profiles, very different risk profiles. And I don't think that it is a dogmatic dispute about is it green or is it not green. It's basically if we want safe, reliable energy that is cheap, which is the answer.

Tom: [00:29:53] The only thing I would add in there, as you said, there's a lot to this is there is a new generation of nuclear reactors that are more neighbourhood scale. There's quite a few folks I know who are beginning to look at the small ones exactly that are that do promise some potential cost changes, not not moving obviously, into fusion, which is some people still think is feasible. But you're staying on fission. I'm curious about how that space is going to evolve, actually, in the next few years, I think there's some possibility it might be more cost effective in the future. But, you know, that's probably a probably a topic for a longer discussion. Anything on nuclear Paul before I go to a question?

Paul: [00:30:24] You put it very well. I've got a million views, but none that I have to share with listeners now.

Tom: [00:30:28] Okay, I'm going to answer a question from Mothers’ Rebellion UK, and they ask, what is the impact of war on climate change? And I read that question as an emissions impact, because obviously there are two different impacts. One is they're very coupled, climate change creates more scarcity. There's a pretty well established argument now that that leads to more conflict. So there's definitely a strong correlation between the impacts of climate change and an increasing conflict. But the way I read this question is, in what way is war likely to affect our ability to reduce our emissions and get on top of it. The evidence is that that conflict is incredibly bad for our emissions. Our political attention goes elsewhere. We are only concerned about winning the conflict. The direct impacts are extremely significant in terms of the energy required to actually run the conflict to all of the motorized element of that, all of the hardware that is deployed. I mean, it's an, they burn through an enormous amount of fossil fuels and energy. What's more, you have to add on top of that the indirect impact, which is all of the supply chain, plus all of the rebuilding efforts that will hopefully happen when peace is subsequently resumed afterwards. And I've read I mean, I'm not an expert on this, but I've read a couple of papers over the years from people like RUSI and others, and the evidence is that it is just devastating for our ability to deal with this and devastating for our emissions profile, which goes up inevitably in any significant conflict. Anything either of you want to add?

Paul: [00:32:02] Two things. One is RUSI is the Royal United Services Institute, which is a military think tank in the in the UK. Actually, I just want to make a tangential point, which is that we recently were actually working on a spreadsheet about things that we should cover, and I forgot to put on there the role of the military in climate change planning. And I think it is we've never really done an episode on it, there are wonderful senior figures typically often retired from the military, but who will speak about how the militaries of many countries and I know it's the UK and I know it's the US and I suspect it's many, many other countries, think long and hard about how climate change is a threat multiplier, although they don't quite know what they're supposed to do about it. But they can see in a way that our political processes don't seem to be able to, you know, we we sort of sleepwalk into some of the the real problems of climate change, the military see them. And I think one of the great opportunities for us as a climate change movement is to find a way, if you're ill, the doctor tells you you're ill and you trust the doctor. If your society is facing a security risk from climate change, it's the military that tell you that. And so I think we do need to find ways to get closer to the military, because they have the sort of authority to say, friends, we've got a problem and we've got to address it.

Christiana: [00:33:18] Yeah, thanks for that, Paul. I was also when we focused on this question, also thinking that we've been talking about this and we haven't done it. So we really do want to do an episode next year when when we can fit it in about the relationship between defence, national security, international security, climate change. And I don't know if the two of you remember that, I don't know, heaps of years ago, I can't remember when, we actually discovered that at least the US Army, and I don't know if other armies are actually investing quite a bit into mobile renewable energy generation plants because since they stage war efforts pretty far away usually from where energy is generated, the cost of transporting liquid fuel to where they need it is huge. And the risk right. Because they have to transport with big trucks all of their fuel to the places where they're staging their combat. They have moved to mobile renewable energy, mostly solar energy generation plants that they can just install wherever they need it. The whole thing between military, international security, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, all of that. There's it's a huge bundle of related issues that we should definitely dedicate at least one episode to.

Tom: [00:34:45] 100%. So we're running out of time, friends. So I think we should try and crack through a few questions. Why don't we do a couple of quickfire rounds. Paul, let's start with you, question, and then we're gonna have to do short answers.

Paul: [00:34:55] Okay. So I'm lovely question from Ian Clarke. And he says, given that probably the biggest of all CO2 emissions is air travel and that most air travel is for pleasure, short city breaks and long haul flights to the sunny beach, why shouldn't air travel be globally rationed to a certain number of miles per person per year, and business travel taxed heavily to get people to use video conferencing more. Well, here's the thing, Ian, the best questions have the answers in them. Yes, I think we all agree with your excellent question that contains the answer. Let's ration air travel and let's tax it. Next.

Tom: [00:35:26] One quick thing. Tradable energy quotas were a thing about 10, 15 years ago. This was an idea to do precisely this. It was very well thought through. It's a brilliant idea. It's politically extremely hard.

Paul: [00:35:35] Well, it's fair though. Marina Tonina also said something similar about a CO2 budget per person. It used to be called contraction and convergence, and you'll find a lot about it on the internet. I think rationing would be the fair way to go, especially if every citizen in the world had an equal ration.

Tom: [00:35:49] Christiana?

Christiana: [00:35:50] Yeah Paul, thanks for for pointing toward Marina Tonina's message, because she says maybe we should have a CO2 budget per person and you decide what to do during the year, as you say has been discussed a lot. The the one piece that stays burned into my memory and my soul is India forever arguing that we should have a cap of two tons per capita around the world, because that is, of course, India's per capita emission. And just, you know, just to have a rough sense, people who live in the United States emit more or less 20 tons per capita per year, and people who live in Europe emit more or less ten just to give rough numbers. So let's say if you're in Europe, and if we do accept a CO2 budget of what India has always said, that means you would have to cut down to one fifth of what you're doing now. It is quite a challenge and one that has attracted a lot of attention. Interestingly enough, I have the sense that the intensity of emissions per capita is one that over time is actually going to become more and more feasible because the systemic changes in our energy system and our transport system will mean that we will be less intense in, or at least in GHG emissions. So while it has been politically very difficult in the past, from a technological point of view, it is becoming more and more feasible.

Tom: [00:37:29] One other point I'd make there is what's really interesting about the per capita emissions argument is we have reached the point in history this year for the first time, where actually the old division between developed and developing countries is really changing. So both the UK and China now have exactly the same per capita emissions of 7.2. Obviously, China's emissions are much higher because the country is much bigger, but it's a really interesting change that's going on at the moment.

Paul: [00:37:51] And trading those per capita emissions, because if I'm flying and somebody isn't flying, then surely I should have to buy their allocation.

Tom: [00:37:58] And also, I mean, not to get too stuck on this, but part of the reason why China's are so high is because they're making everything for everybody else. So it's outsourced emissions.

Paul: [00:38:05] That's true. That's definitely true.

Tom: [00:38:07] Okay. So I would like to try and answer James Shorey's question, James said, listening to coverage of COP 29, it seems like the general consensus we've stood still, if not gone slightly backwards. What do you think has to be achieved at COP 30 to demonstrate meaningful progress? So you'll be glad to know James, this is going to be a topic that we cover in lots of detail early next year. I don't think it's true we've gone backwards because I think actually the technology has moved forward and we're closer than we think to real breakthroughs in almost every sector of the economy. But I take your point on the politics. The simple answer, and we don't have time to go into it in great detail here, is that COP 30 needs to get us back on track to 1.5, and do so in a way that takes account of justice. We are far off track for that at the moment in terms of our emissions trajectory, and also the finance that brings the most vulnerable with us. It's a big ask, but we need countries to step up to get us back on track.

Christiana: [00:38:59] Okay, now, I do know that we have to close this, but Tom, I cannot bear the thought of closing this mailbag conversation without you addressing the Catherine Robson question, and she asks, I would love you to do the episode on parenting, how to talk to children about climate. Tom, you're the only one who has children. I have a little grandchild, so it's becoming more and more a topic for me.

Paul: [00:39:26] You're prepping, you're prepping for your grandchild conversation.

Christiana: [00:39:28] So, Tom, what do you say?

Tom: [00:39:31] Well, I mean, I do not pretend to be an expert in this, and it's difficult. I did go into my children's school the other day and gave a talk to the whole school, which I have to say is probably the most nerve wracking speech I've ever given. My daughter, who you know well, Christiana looked me straight in the eye week before and said, you know, this has to be the speech of your life, if you embarrass me, you'll never live this down. So I was extremely nervous.

Paul: [00:39:53] She's so cool.

Tom: [00:39:54] And so I thought quite a lot about what to say in this speech. And I think there's a few things. I think one is you cannot deliberately frighten children, obviously. But neither can you pretend everything's all right. I think that there is a real ring of authenticity that children need to see when you are speaking about something as consequential as this for their lives. So you have to really acknowledge the vulnerability and the jeopardy of the moment that we're in, but also point out what we all know is true, which is actually this generation are going to have the biggest opportunity to create a positive impact on the future of the world, of any generation born in history. They've been born at the right moment to live through this enormous transition that we are now seeing unfolding before us. And and I said to these kids that if they're lucky enough to live long lives, then I firmly believe they will look back on them when they come to the end of their lives and realize they've lived through a period of change as profound, positive, and far reaching as any in human history.

Tom: [00:40:57] And I think that has to be the thing we aim for. You know, any great story has jeopardy in it. It has uncertainty. Kids can take that. I think you can say to them, we don't know. We know that it's worth fighting for. We know that it's worth moving in a positive direction and doing our best to get to the the outcome that we see in front of us. But it's going to take all of us. It's going to take courage, it's going to take risk, it's going to take determination. And actually kids want something to fight for. I think we suffer from a crisis of not having meaning and purpose and objectives. We're all slightly adrift with our devices and consumption and not knowing what we're doing. So if you can phrase it in the right way, and I'm not saying it's easy or that I get it right all the time, it's an amazing way in which you can try to communicate a sense of purpose and opportunity. And if you get that right, it tends to land.

Christiana: [00:41:43] Very nice answer Tom Rivett-Carnac. I recently heard a TED talk that was recommended to us where the speaker called this The Hope Gap. You can't allow the hope gap to continue to increase, and we have to fill that in exactly Tom, as you have as you have said. So, listeners, I'm afraid this is the wrap. This is a wrap. This is so sad.

Paul: [00:42:08] Not quite, not quite Christiana. I want to quote your TED talk about the Paris Agreement, where you said there is no way you can achieve victory without optimism. So yes, it is a wrap.

Tom: [00:42:18] It's a wrap on the episode. It's a wrap on the year. So that's it from us. Unless either of you have closing words of affection or wisdom.

Paul: [00:42:25] Well, for those of you following the Christian calendar or whatever, it is a very happy New Year.

Christiana: [00:42:28] Do take time now at the end of the year to spend time with yourselves. Take time to spend time with loved ones, family and friends. It's a special time of the year that should not be crowded out by commercialism, but rather filled in with love.

Paul: [00:42:49] Oh, that's a beautiful note to end on. Thank you Christiana.

Tom: [00:42:52] Very nice. Okay. Bye, everyone.

Christiana: [00:42:55] Bye.

Paul: [00:42:56] Bye.