Hello. Welcome back to Conversations with
Stephen Kamugasa. This is the first of three
podcasts on climate change. Today's guest
is Sir Jonathon Porritt, CBE, a distinguished
British environmentalist, broadcaster and
writer. He was born on the 5th of July 1950
in London, to a distinguished father, the
first baronet, Lord Porrit, who was the 11th
and officially the first homegrown governor
general of New Zealand, and his mother, English
mother, Catherine Mary Peck. Lord Porrit
served in the Second World War as a brigadier
in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and was
also a bronze medalist in the 1924 Olympics,
famously and most vividly portrayed in a
film, Chariots of Fire in the 100 metres
race. Jonathon was educated at Eton College
from whence he went to Oxford to read modern
languages. Graduating with a first class
degree, Jonathon qualified as a teacher in
1974 teaching at St Clement Dane's Grammar
School in Shepherd's Bush, West London. He
remained at the school for 10 years, including
serving as Head of English from 1980 to 1984.
As much as Jonathon loved teaching, it was
his childhood appreciation of wildlife that
seduced him into trying his hand and politics.
He joined and became a prominent member of
the Ecology Party, now the Green Party of
England and Wales, becoming its co-chair
in 1980. He subsequently became a full-time
chair of the party, carrying out many changes
in the process, thus making the party more
prominent in national elections. Jonathon
stood for Parliament in the general elections
of 1979 and 1983. He did not win, but received
attention from national media. He was instrumental
in growing the party membership from just
a few hundred members to around 3,000. However,
in 1984, Jonathon gave up both teaching and
the chair of the Ecology Party to become
a director of Friends of the Earth in Britain,
a position he held until 1990, a decision
which in his own words, and I quote, was
probably the best decision of my life. For
he transformed the Friends of the Earth into
the face of radical respectability by encouraging
the organization to promote practical solutions
locally, as well as thinking globally. His
tenure at the Friends of the Earth saw the
charity's membership grow from 12,700 to
226,300. Friends of the Earth is now a hefty
international powerhouse of ideas and solutions.
Jonathon's accomplishments in the course
of climate change and the environment are
too many to mention here, but one may be
cited. In 1996, Jonathon, along with Sarah
Parkin, OBE, and Professor Paul Ekins, OBE,
co-founded Forum for the Future. Forum for
the Future is a sustainable development charity
working in partnership with businesses, governments
and civil society to accelerate the shift
towards a sustainable future. The charity
specialises in addressing critical global
challenges by catalysing in key systems from
food to apparel, energy to shipping. Jonathon
is the author of many books, on environmental
issues, including presenting television series
on them. He has chaired the United Nations
Environmental and Development Committee for
the UK. His greatest work by far, however,
is his book, Hop in Hell. In this episode,
we discuss the topic, climate change, the
new apocalypse, Sir Jonathon Porritt, welcome.
Thank you Stephen, very good to be joining
you for this conversation.
In a foreword to your book, Hop in Hell,
Sir Rob Fenwick writes, and I quote, upon
reaching an age where many of us are contemplating
a gentle retirement, Jonathon is planning
a return to more radical campaigning in solidarity
with young people all around the world."
End of quotations. So Jonathon, please tell
us something about your childhood that has
had such a profound influence upon your person,
so much so that you should now, as you are
coming into your seer and yellow leaf, aspire
to a more radical form of campaigning.
I had a very happy, fortunate childhood,
Stephen, and two wonderful role models in
my parents. My father was a very dedicated
surgeon throughout his life, driven by deep
humanitarian concern, and my mother was also
a nurse, and brought with her a kind of absolute
sense of determination to get on and make
things work, come what may. So I was fortunate
in that regard, and we lived in North London,
so I spent an awful lot of my childhood wandering
around on Hampstead Heath learning a little
bit about how nature works on that patch
of urban greenery, but it wasn't really that.
I mean, neither of my parents were particularly
interested in the environment. They didn't
have any thoughts that I would end up spending
most of my working life in the environment
movement, but they were very keen to encourage
me to take on what I felt to be important
in my life. So, As you may know, Steven,
very quickly after university, I decided
that I definitely wasn't going to be a lawyer.
To begin with, I thought that I might be.
Others have gone down that path very successfully,
but not me. So I just decided that I would
do what I really wanted to do, which was
to get into teaching. And I spent 10 years
then teaching in London schools, working
with young people, beginning to understand
the critical importance of education for
all young people in terms of shaping their
future, working in parts of London that were
pretty deprived with kids that were facing
enormous difficulty. And that was the time
when I also got involved in the Green Party,
as you mentioned in your introduction. So
those two things came together. So I've had
a love of young people and education right
from the earliest times from 1973 onwards.
And right now, when I think about the prospects
that young people face in the world today
after 30, 40 years of staggering indifference
on the part of today's generation, I feel
that we need to do everything we possibly
can to work with and help young people. And
for some of those young people, that means
taking direct action. It means becoming full-on
climate justice activists. fighting their
corner in terms of their protests, their
attempts to close down the big oil facilities
in the UK, and I feel they need support.
It may irritate a lot of people that that's
going to be part of the climate movement,
direct action of that kind, but I'm sorry
to say it works on them. It's not young people
who are doing this because they think it's
the best way of spending their lives. They're
doing it because they want some kind of viable
future for them and generations that come
after Them.
In your introduction of Hope in Hell, you
write, and I quote, the climate emergency
poses an infinitely graver risk to humankind
than COVID-19, but has warranted very little
political engagement over the years. That's
the tragedy of the horizon. Today always
trumps tomorrow, end of quotations. Some
might say, Sir Jonathon, of course today
will always trump tomorrow. But with a Russo-Ukrainian
war raging in Europe, a global energy crisis,
a cost of living crisis, plus a worldwide
recession, Why should anyone care about the
climate emergency? And suppose I were a reasonable
man riding on the Clapham Omnibus, how would
you define the climate emergency to me?
The climate emergency is exactly what it
says on the tin. It's a whole set of climate
related impacts, things going wrong with
the climate. extremes of one kind or another,
whether we're talking about storms, floods,
droughts, wildfires, increases in sea level,
climate refugees, the whole host of emergency-related
phenomena that have been caused by the increase
in temperature since we began to put billions
and billions of tons of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere from the start of the
Industrial Revolution onwards. So we've been
doing this for a long time. We haven't been
mindful of the consequences of fueling our
economy in this way via fossil fuels and
the consequences of that and are playing
out. So the emergency bit of it is pretty
clear. There are no countries in the world
that haven't already felt the sting of some
kind of climate induced disaster. Globally,
the financial costs of this are increasing
every year. Last year, there was a sum to
be paid by the insurance companies of around
$120 billion as a direct consequence of climate-induced
disasters. And we have to bear in mind that
that's the insured disasters. Most people
don't have proper levels of insurance, and
some people don't have insurance at all.
So the economic damage of that was probably
closer to $500 billion last year. So I think
it's right to say that the present will always
trump the future. The future will always,
for politicians, play second fiddle to what
they have to do in the short term. But you
can no longer say that climate change is
just about the future. Climate change is
in our midst right now, damaging the lives
of hundreds of millions of people, killing
millions of people every year, causing huge
impacts to climate and the ecosystems on
which we depend. And that is now right now,
every year, and it'll go on getting worse
and worse. So the tragedy, the horizon was
one that we we could have dealt with 1020
years ago, even longer for that matter. But
now it's in our faces. So politicians don't
have to pretend that this is are nice to
do things for future generations. This is
a thing they have to do for people today.
At page 17 of your book and following you
write, and I quote, it has long been a bad
bear of mine that so many environmentalists
remain blind to the grotesque inequality
that scars our world and that so many campaigners
for social justice remain blind to the collapse
of our mutual world. Social justice and climate
justice are two sides of the same coin, always
have been and always will be, end of quotations.
So Jonathon, what exactly do you mean by
social justice and climate justice are two
sides of the same coin? And what can we do
to change this reality?
It's a really important part of the failure
of the last 30 years, Stephen. So as a Green
Party activist and director of Friends of
the Earth, it was pretty clear to us that
what we needed to do to address grotesque
inequality in our society and across the
world was pretty much the same set of issues
that we needed to address for climate emergency
and biodiversity collapse reasons. But in
those days, environmentalists didn't really
care very much about social justice. They
were concerned about protecting ecosystems
and threatened species. And social justice
campaigners, development workers, they thought
that worrying about the environment was a
nice middle class fad that people like me
could get stuck into. and those two stereotypes
were massively damaging and that's many of
your listeners may be astonished to know
that that's the way it looked when I was
at Friends of the Earth. These were two communities
and they hardly worked together at all. That's
not the case now. Now we've got a clear understanding
that every time there's a worsening of climate-related
phenomena, a worsening of the impacts on
people's lives, that is having a massive
damage a massively damaging effect on social
justice, because obviously it's the most
vulnerable in the world today, the poorest,
the least able to protect themselves, who
are on the receiving end of the most damaging
impacts of these changes in the climate or
the collapse in different ecosystems. It's
that vulnerability now that speaks very powerfully
to people. We can see how the poorest nations
in the world are suffering the worst. Everybody
is astonished by what happened recently in
Pakistan with some absolutely terrible stories
of the damage done to millions of people
when something like 30% of the total landmass
of Pakistan was flooded. And that came hot
on the heels, of course, of huge increases
in average temperatures and some really unbelievable
temperature extremes in that country. So
Pakistan is right there in the front line,
but it's not just countries like Pakistan.
I mean, closer to home for many people in
East Africa, Kenya was quick to point out
to all the delegates at the conference of
the climate conference at the end of last
year in Sharm el-Sheikh, that they're already
suffering huge economic damage as a consequence
of climate change. The figure that they quote
is that two years ago, so 2021, something
like six percent of their GDP had to be set
aside to deal with climate-induced damage.
The lives of people tragically disrupted
and their livelihoods put at risk as a consequence
of climate change. Well, just imagine, Stephen,
in a rich country like ours, if 6% of GDP
was having to be devoted to dealing with
damage caused by climate change, well, then
our politicians would be talking a very different
story indeed. So social justice, making sure
that we share this massive, unbelievable
wealth of the world more fairly than we do
today. And climate justice, which means that
we have to think about the interests of future
generations as well as people today. They're
two sides of the same coin.
Speaking of social justice and climate justice
being two sides of the same coin, you write
in your book rather persuasively at page
51 the following, and I quote, a hard-hitting
report from the Business and Human Rights
Resource Center in September 2019 revealed
the full extent of human rights violations
and destructive environmental practices from
mining operations in the Democratic Republic
of Congo, Zambia, Chile, China, India, and
Brazil." End of quotations. Now, in October
of 2022, I published an open letter to the
president of Uganda, calling on him to cancel
the controversial Uganda oil and gas project,
following an intervention from the European
Parliament. on the ground of the environment
and human rights abuses. So Jonathon, how
can we get the balance between social justice
and climate justice right? And how can we
ensure that global supply chains are completely
transparent and free from human rights abuses,
that all mining operations are based on best
environmental practices?
We all have some responsibility in that area,
Stephen. The beneficiaries of development
projects of one kind or another need to be
mindful of the often negative impact of those
developments on people in developing and
emerging countries. You mentioned that particular
fossil fuel project in Uganda in particular.
but linking right through across to the coast
of Kenya, that East Africa pipeline is a
massive new investment in fossil fuels. But
it's not just citizens who need to address
this. It's the people who provide the money
for this. It's the banks. It's the insurance
companies. And as you know, Stephen, as someone
involved in that campaign, There's been a
real drive to stop the finance for that coming
through so that the damage can be avoided.
Now that's an old world type investment,
a lethal, unnecessary investment in fossil
fuels. But if you think of the citizens of
those countries in Uganda and Kenya and surrounding
countries, they're going to say, well, look,
we need energy. We need the wealth that comes
from the use of our assets. And if we've
got hydrocarbon assets, why can't we use
them in the same way that other countries
have done elsewhere in the world? So as we
campaign to stop some of these fossil fuel
investments, we've got to campaign to accelerate
investments in alternative energy sources,
particularly renewable energy. Now, in the
last few years, study after study from consultancies,
academics, bodies have all demonstrated that
the employment benefits of investments in
renewables are much, much greater than the
employment benefits in fossil fuels. So we're
already in a really good situation where
if governments and the private sector invest
in renewable energy, in efficiency, in storage,
which is a very important technology for
the future, Not only will it be so much better
for the environment and for the climate,
but it will also be better for communities
and for poor communities. So you probably
know, Stephen, that by far the most important
technology for poor people all around the
world is solar energy. Solar energy is bringing
more benefits to people today already in
different countries around the world than
any other single source of electricity generation.
And that's because Solar power can be connected
to the grids, which is obviously important,
but solar power also brings economic and
social benefits to people who are not connected
to grids. And throughout large parts of Africa
and, of course, in India and Pakistan and
elsewhere, millions of people aren't connected
to the grid. And even if they are connected
to the grid, very often the electricity doesn't
get down the grid because of shortages, outages,
and all the rest of it. So, Renewable solar
power is already the single most important
beneficiary or the single most important
deliverer of economic benefits for poor people
across the world today. I just don't think
people think about this stuff. Forget fossil
fuels. If you're worried about poverty in
emerging and developing countries, forget
fossil fuels. The benefits for that go to
largely rich countries or dictators and their
elites in those poor countries. you want
to help poor people in poor countries, forget
the fossil fuel story, forget oil, forget
gas, forget all that, and get involved in
the efforts to create renewable electricity
options for all of those countries.
In chapter 17 of Hop in Hell, at page 238,
you write thus, and I quote, Food and Agriculture
Organization is more and more aware of this
and has shown that one of the reasons for
Asia's very high rate of soil degradation
has been continuing deforestation, particularly
in countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia,
Vietnam, and now Myanmar. But this is a global
phenomenon. How many more times will we have
to read of devastating landslides or mudslips
caused by deforestation in the surrounding
hills? Much of that deforestation is caused
by people desperate to find enough land for
themselves and their families on the edge
of existing towns and cities, end of quotations.
Sir Jonathon, In light of the just concluded
COP15 in Montreal, Canada, please talk to
us about the significance of biodiversity
in relation to the overarching issue of the
climate emergency.
I think one of the most important areas of
research that has been going on for the last
20, 30 years is all that research that shows
just how dependent we are on the natural
foundations for life on Earth. And by the
natural foundations, I mean the soil on which
we depend, the forests on which we depend,
the flora, the fauna, the biodiversity as
it's often called. I mean the oceans and
rivers and the groundwater, the aquifers
on which we depend. People who've been brought
up in largely industrialized or consumer-driven
economies, just forget that none of this
consumption-driven economic growth would
be possible without nature providing the
underpinning source of wealth for those economies.
So I was talking there about the phenomenon
that is now very well understood, which is
if you cut down trees on wooded, on very
steep slopes around big cities in South America,
in Africa, in the Far East, whatever it might
be, then the soils from those slopes are
made unstable. When the rains come, they
hammer the soil. You get these terrible floods,
which often then come crashing down into
the favelas, the shanty towns, the settlements
on the edge of these big cities. And it happens
time after time after time with the loss
of thousands of lives all the time. So it's
a very simple story. If you want to protect
people in those urban contexts, you have
to protect the forest. You have to keep the
forest intact. You have to make sure that
they provide a stabilizing effect on the
surrounding ecosystem to avoid the damage
being done to those communities. And everywhere
you look, whether it's water or soil or forests,
whatever it is, it doesn't really matter.
It's all about stability. It's all about
providing the kind of conditions in which
the human economy can continue to thrive.
So people talk a lot more about soil now
than they used to do 10 years ago. And that's
because we have depleted our soils so badly
that the productivity that we used to get
from those soils, particularly with major
cropped areas for wheat, corn, rice, soy,
et cetera, the productivity has reduced.
And it's only by virtue of continuing to
use massive amounts of fertilizers that we
can actually sustain the volumes of production
that we need to feed the work. So at long
last, people have woken up to the fact that
mining the soil, depleting the soil structures,
is a really, really stupid way of undermining
the security of humankind. If we want to
feed 8 billion people, which is where the
population of the world is today, and then
eventually to feed 10 billion people, which
is probably the point at which the human
population will peak, stabilize, and hopefully
from that point on start to decline. then
we have to protect these natural foundations.
We have to make sure that our water, that
our soils, that our forests, that our biodiversity
are protected as a critical part of protecting
opportunities to create wealth sustainably
for people today and tomorrow.
The title of our podcast is Climate Change,
the New Apocalypse. So Jonathon, in the context
of our podcast theme, does history show that
we as a society only ever react to real environmental
harms and never make law or policy which
looks forward to control the effects of growth
and technology?
Yeah, that's a pretty worrying inquiry that
you set in train there, Stephen. For what
it's worth, I think we can avoid a new apocalypse.
I don't think we've gone beyond the point
of no return when it comes to the climate
emergency or the collapse in natural systems.
I believe we can still put in place the legal
and policy mechanisms which would allow us
to meet the needs of people in the world
today without continuing to undermine the
physical foundations on which those people's
lives depend. I believe we can still do that
but you're quite right to point out that
that means we need the legal framework and
the policy framework to ensure that that
happens in a timely way because it's no good
trying to do this retrospectively. If we
go past these points of no return, then we
won't be able to pull things back. It will
then at that point be too late for the lives
of hundreds of millions of people. So for
me, the real failure of politicians today
is that they will not confront that reality.
They're not prepared to pass into law the
kind of protections and safeguards and standards
which would make it possible for our super
technological industrial economies to deliver
the goods and services that people want,
but without the damage being done to the
natural world and the damage being done to
the climate which we see today. And I'm sorry
to say the reason for those politicians not
doing that is because they are often trapped
by in the pockets of very powerful incumbent
industries today. I'm sorry to say anybody
who thinks that the big fossil fuel companies
today and the whole raft of industries that
come with the oil and gas and coal and everything
else, the idea that they're just going to
politely step aside and let the new energy
world of renewables and storage and efficiency
and new grids, et cetera, let that new world
flourish. They are not going to do that.
As someone said to me the other day, dinosaurs
didn't die politely. And the truth of it
is that the fossil fuel industries are dinosaurs.
They are the past. That past is dying in
front of our eyes. But as it dies, it's doing
a great deal of damage at the same time.
So we need laws to ensure that that doesn't
happen and that the damage they cause will
be limited. And one law in particular, Stephen,
that I'm very interested in and a big supporter
of is something called ecocide, a law to
stop the destruction, continuing destruction
to the natural world, to be brought in in
such a way that it would be the equivalent
of a human rights law, legal binding on business
and governments not to carry on with the
irreversible damage that they're inflicting
on nature at the moment. And the Stop Ecoside
campaign is gathering strength all the time.
The Rome Statute can be amended to allow
for this very important understanding of
ecocide. Ecoside simply means killing nature,
eco is nature and side means killing it as
in suicide and homicide and so on. We need
laws of that kind now if we're going to stop
the worst damage continuing as it does today.
So Jonathon, what three things would you
encourage ordinary people to do which, if
followed, would have the maximum impact on
reducing carbon emissions? and would a more
multicultural environmental movement be more
effective against climate change?
You've wrapped two questions in one there
Stephen, which is an old trick but a good
one. On the second part of that, would a
more multicultural environment movement be
more effective in changing the way we live
and thinking about what we owe each other
and other people in the world today and what
we owe future generations, I've always believed
that to be absolutely critical. If I look
at Europe and I look at America and I think
about the ways in which the environment movement
in those countries has fought their campaigns,
it's been a predominantly middle class white
social movement. Now that is changing and
it's changing fast. In America it's changing
because more and more people in America have
linked a lot of the issues to do with poverty
and oppression and racism, particularly in
southern United States, states of USA. They've
linked that story about justice for black
communities to environmental injustice We've
got a generation of brilliant campaigners
now across the whole of South America. We've
got incredibly brave, committed campaigners,
as you will know, throughout Africa, from
North Africa to West Africa to sub-Saharan
Africa. I look now at the way those campaigners
are changing the whole nations, every nation's
approach to campaigning. And I have to say
that globally now, the environment movement
looks very, very different. from the way
it looked 20 or 30 years ago. And that's
good because we know that we can't do this.
No nation can do it on its own. We've got
to do this together. But whatever country
we come from, whatever our own background
might be, we've all got personal responsibilities.
We've all got to do what we can to help accelerate
this transition to a much more sustainable
way of living. And you asked there about
the things that we can really do. It depends
slightly, which country you're living in
and what your opportunities are, the degree
to which you've actually got agency to make
a real difference in your own life. So I'm
going to say one thing here for rich world
countries, which is massively to reduce the
consumption of meat. Meat production today,
meat production and consumption is a hugely
damaging part of the overall global economy,
causing massive damage to the environment,
water, to biodiversity, emitting millions
and millions of tons of greenhouse gases
every year, causing terrible cruelty to the
billions of farmed animals in the world today.
And one of the biggest things we can do to
make a difference is to reduce average meat
consumption in rich world countries. And
that's not as impossible as it sounds. As
you probably know, Steve, large numbers of
young people are already deciding to eat
less meat for themselves. They can see it's
better for them, better for their health,
far better for farmed animals in the world
today, and better for the environment and
the climate. But even as you say, eat less
meat, you have to look around the world and
you say, well, for an awful lot of people
in the world today, an opportunity to eat
meat is still a really important part. of
improving their own standard of living. So
one needs to be culturally sensitive when
you put forward these ideas. So that matters.
That's the first one I'd mentioned. The second,
of course, is being consciously aware of
what we can do to reduce our impact through
energy, through transport, through how we
live ourselves, our lifestyles. One can often
achieve the same quality of life with a massively
reduced environmental footprint. And the
third area, and this applies whether we're
talking about rich world or poor world countries,
it doesn't really matter. The third area
is this crucial thing about working through
communities. People do talk about individual
responsibility, and they mean by that that
what do we do ourselves to try and reduce
the impact that we have on the natural world
and on other people. And that's crucial.
But we are all members of communities. We
have all got connections and bonds that tie
us into local places. And one of the most
important things that I discovered when I
was director of Friends of the Earth back
in the 1980s is that one can achieve a huge
amount by mobilizing people's collective
endeavor at the community level. So for me,
when somebody says, what do you think we
can do to make a difference here? I say,
well, do you know what's going on in your
own community? Do you know what organizations
you've got, community groups, volunteer groups,
whatever it might be, probably working really
hard on your behalf to protect the local
environment, to help raise awareness, to
educate others, to support groups, whatever
it might be. Do you know that? And if you
do, then why don't you find ways of supporting
them and helping Them?
So, Jonathon, what was the most significant
turning point in your life?
I am going to cheat here Stephen and give
you two significant turning points because
they both turned out to be really crucial
for me. The first I touched on quickly which
is when I decided that I wanted to be a teacher
rather than a lawyer. My parents thought
I was mad obviously because the law provided
a much more steady and respectable route
to the kind of life they hoped I'd have.
Joining the Green Party and teaching in a
or turned out to be a comprehensive school,
eventually wasn't exactly what they had in
mind for me. But it was through that education
role as a teacher that I learned at first
hand how crucially important access to the
natural world and a quality environment is
for all young people. The part of London
I was working in, in White City, west of
London, was a pretty deprived community.
Most kids there hadn't had any access to
nature at all. So that got me into the reality
of what the environment needs to meet in
their lives for them. And through that, I
got involved then, of course, in the Green
Party, became director of Friends of the
Earth in 1984, and then have based the rest
of my life on that kind of experience. So
that was an absolute turning point. Without
that, I, God knows, I'd be some stuck-up
lawyer somewhere in some big city telling
people how to live their lives, which would
be very unfortunate. But the second turning
point was equally crucial, although I didn't
know it at the time, was at the Earth Summit
in 1992. And this, as you know, was an enormous
gathering of world leaders and other stakeholder
groups from around the world, whether they
were businesses or farmer groups, young people's
groups, women's groups. It was just an incredible
turnout of civil society as well as of official
government delegations and world leaders.
And it all took place in Rio de Janeiro in
1992, which I attended and spent three weeks
there. Just, I suppose, understanding the
power of solutions to make things happen.
In Friends of the Earth and the Green Party,
I spent most of my time trying to stop bad
things happening. And although we all have
to go on doing that, and unfortunately I
will have to go on doing that until the day
that I die, There's the other half to that,
which is trying to make good things happen.
And I came away from the Earth Summit in
1992, realizing that we needed to put as
much energy into making good things happen
as stopping bad things happening. And that's
what led to Forum for the Future, launched
in 1996. A number of other initiatives came
out of that. I was the co-founder of the
Prince of Wales' Business and Sustainability
Programme, set up in 1994. And a whole host
of new things began to emerge in my life
as a consequence of that and for the last
30 years therefore that's sort of been the
driving force in my life is empowering people
through solutions at the same time as reminding
people of what happens if we don't stop many
of these bad things happening. The two things
have to get hand in hand and always will.
And finally Sir Jonathon, Please advise our
listeners where they may find your book,
Hope in Hell.
The best place to find Hope in Hell is from
my publishers. That's a company called Simon&
Schuster. And if you go on their website,
you can order it directly from there. The
book was written now more than three years
ago. So it's been out and about for a long
time now. I actually had to launch Hope in
Hell. during the first year of Covid, so
I had to do an online launch, which wasn't
much fun, in 2020, and since then I've revised
the book a couple of times, so the latest
paperback version of Hope in Hell has all
the latest revisions that I introduced to
it last year. It is unbelievable, though,
Stephen, just how much things have changed
in the last three years. I look now at some
of the Some of the context in which I was
writing Hope in Hell four years ago, started
writing it four years ago, and things have
changed dramatically since then. I just want
to end by reminding your listeners that things
have changed for good as well as changed
for bad. So the things that have changed
for good has been a massive acceleration
in the take up of renewable electricity and
technologies of one kind or another. Last
year, a trillion dollars was invested in
renewable energy technologies around the
world first time ever that that son has exceeded
the trillion dollar mark and that's in china
and india as much as in the usa and europe
and so on so we're seeing this accelerated
acceptance of the need now to decarbonize
our economies as fast as possible and there
are many many other really good strong upsides
to the transition that people are not talking
about but of course you can't Help but acknowledge
that there's been an acceleration in the
bad side of things as well. Climate disasters
have become more intense, more frequent.
2022 was a dreadful year for climate impacts
on people, and I fear that 2023 will be much
the same. Things just move faster all the
time, both the good things and the bad things.
We're in a race against time here. if we
can make these solutions deliver the goods
to people in a more timely and cost-effective
way, then we still have a chance of avoiding
the new apocalypse as you describe it. And
that's essentially the biggest challenge
that all of us face in our lives today.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, you cannot begin to
imagine what an honour and privilege it is
to hear you speak on such a huge subject.
Your clarity of thought and purpose is an
inspiration. Thank you so much for taking
the time to share your thoughts with us.
Thank you, Stephen. I have much enjoyed the
conversation as I thought we would. I'm glad
that this is just one of three of these conversations
that you are having now about the new apocalypse,
about climate change. Very important that
people get their heads around all of this
and begin to think for themselves what they
can help do to address the challenges. So
congratulations to you. Thank you.
This podcast was brought to you by The Kamugasa
Challenge. A special thank you goes to three
extraordinary individuals for their kind
contribution to this podcast, and they are
Dr Richard Kimblin, a King's Council at No.
5 Barristers Chambers UK, He specializes
in planning and environmental law. Dr. Julian
Agyeman, a professor of urban and environmental
policy and planning. Dr. Agyeman is also
a Fletcher professor of rhetoric and debate
at Tufts University in the USA. And finally,
Mr. Mark Bolton, an associate of Eco Church
Birmingham in the UK. Clearly, age has not
diminished his passion for the environment.
Their kind contributions have made this podcast
possible. Thank you. The second instalment
in our climate change series is entitled
How to Love Endangered and Misunderstood
Animals, an interview with Ms. Maria Diekmann,
a scientist and a conservationist. It will
go live on the 10th of April 2023. Thank
you very much for taking the time to listen
to this podcast. If you enjoy the podcast,
please follow and subscribe to us. Until
next time, goodbye.