Speaker 1: You're listening to AC N A podcast
Speaker 1: when it comes to climate change. A simple lesson is
Speaker 1: to follow the science, listen to the experts read the reports,
Speaker 1: but that can be harder than it sounds. Never has
Speaker 1: explaining climate change, its impacts and implications been more important.
Speaker 1: And now experts are starting to get on board with
Speaker 1: the idea that no amount of well researched data can
Speaker 1: make up for a lack of understanding. Today. We're learning
Speaker 1: how to keep it simple. Stupid.
Speaker 1: Hi and welcome to Climate conversations. I'm Jack Ford and
Speaker 1: hello to Li Ling Tan. Hi there, Jack. Funny. You
Speaker 1: brought up that kiss rule which of course stands for.
Speaker 1: Keep it simple stupid. It's actually the first lesson I
Speaker 1: learned in journalism school back in the day. But you
Speaker 1: and I know that it's definitely easier said than done, right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the key to the job. A lot of the time.
Speaker 1: I bet you've come across more than your fair share
Speaker 1: of climate jargon over the years. Are you fluent in
Speaker 1: that yet? I wish I'm hardly fluent. Not only is
Speaker 1: the language convoluted. It's really an assault on clarity. Jack
Speaker 1: and there are usually no glossaries or terms and concepts.
Speaker 1: You have to look at reports just to understand reports
Speaker 1: and it is mental.
Speaker 1: So I complained about it to two leading climate experts,
Speaker 1: Professor Winston Chao and associate professor Terry Van Kelt from
Speaker 1: Singapore Management University. I'm sure you're familiar with them. And
Speaker 1: I told them, I said the language is like Klingon
Speaker 1: from Star Trek. I got a bit of pushback from that.
Speaker 1: Have a listen. No, it's not Klingon. This is why,
Speaker 1: you know Klingon.
Speaker 1: Uh I prefer the other. It's more Vulcan than Klingon.
Speaker 1: I disagree that it's Klingon. It's us being more Vulcan
Speaker 1: like so when we do the live long and prosper,
Speaker 1: he's showing me the sign, show you the Vulcan sign.
Speaker 1: You can. No, that's the wrong one. I can, I can't,
Speaker 1: you can, you can. So this tells you how much
Speaker 1: of a truckie I was dear.
Speaker 1: It doesn't get dorkier than that. And we'll have more
Speaker 1: from my climate conversations with them later in the podcast, Jack.
Speaker 1: What's giving you awake these days? I've just arrived back
Speaker 1: in Bangkok. I've been in the Pacific for a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks doing stories about sea level rise and impacts
Speaker 1: on culture and community in some of the most isolated
Speaker 1: countries in the world. And then I was kind of
Speaker 1: just observing the news. I had a friend who was
Speaker 1: stuck in Dubai
Speaker 1: who I met at the airport and he was telling
Speaker 1: me about just how crazy. The situation was with the
Speaker 1: flooding that we've seen in the Middle East in Dubai,
Speaker 1: in Oman, parts of Afghanistan as well in one day,
Speaker 1: 250 millimeters of rainfall. That's 10 inches
Speaker 1: for our older listeners and my parents always speak in inches,
Speaker 1: not millimeters when it comes to rainfall and that was
Speaker 1: double the country's average annual rainfall in one day. Insane. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's turn that little factoid into our quiz of
Speaker 1: the week, Le Ling. This is a challenge for you
Speaker 1: and everyone listening.
Speaker 1: I want you to compare that 250 millimeters of rainfall
Speaker 1: in Dubai to Singapore's wettest ever day. Do you think
Speaker 1: that Singapore has ever had more or less rain on
Speaker 1: that day versus Dubai's historic flood answer at the end? Ok.
Speaker 1: Alright. Let's go to the newsroom and look at some
Speaker 1: of the most interesting stories in the sustainability space this week,
Speaker 1: Li Ling. What has caught your attention?
Speaker 1: More doom and gloom? I'm afraid Jack, a new United
Speaker 1: Nations report says Asia suffered the most disasters from climate
Speaker 1: and weather hazards last year and floods and storms were
Speaker 1: the main culprits. Now, the report also found that Asia
Speaker 1: was warming faster than the global average with the impact
Speaker 1: of heat waves in the region becoming more severe.
Speaker 1: The thing is it came just as another heat wave
Speaker 1: was hammering countries here in South and Southeast Asia schools
Speaker 1: in the Philippines and Bangladesh was suspended and and I
Speaker 1: think where you are, Thailand it's near to 40 degrees
Speaker 1: or even top 40 °C, not to hop on the weather.
Speaker 1: But here we are again, Jack, it just won't let up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think that report would really surprise anyone and
Speaker 1: landing back in Bangkok and feeling the heat out there today.
Speaker 1: It is extreme.
Speaker 1: So I'll be feeling the temperature from inside today better
Speaker 1: inside than outside. Now, the other news that's kind of
Speaker 1: a big deal is the one that you wrote about
Speaker 1: Thailand's plan to roll back laws around fishing. And it
Speaker 1: could be quite a significant reduction in penalties for activities
Speaker 1: like illegal fishing. We're talking about
Speaker 1: leniency around laws over the use of destructive trawler nets
Speaker 1: and also relaxing regulation related to catching protected species but
Speaker 1: also less protection for workers. This sounds like a major
Speaker 1: step back for the industry. No. Well, it's a kind
Speaker 1: of a surprising story that I think most people here
Speaker 1: weren't aware of that. Thailand was really proposed,
Speaker 1: these very sweeping changes to the laws that were enforced
Speaker 1: back in 2014 under the military government because of the
Speaker 1: concerns about the lax standards that existed and the really
Speaker 1: dangerous conditions that existed for migrant workers, mostly working in
Speaker 1: the fisheries industry. And now there's this big push from
Speaker 1: commercial fishers saying they want to repeal all of those
Speaker 1: laws really winded back.
Speaker 1: And activists and environmental groups are particularly concerned. So are
Speaker 1: the export markets in the eu potentially in the United States,
Speaker 1: Australia as well. And obviously, the small scale Fishers want
Speaker 1: to keep the current laws, the larger players say now
Speaker 1: it's impossible to do business and that they're no longer profitable.
Speaker 1: So I had an interview with Dominic Thompson from the
Speaker 1: Environmental Justice Foundation who's done a lot of interesting analysis
Speaker 1: about what these potential law changes might mean.
Speaker 2: But I think if you probe them and you look
Speaker 2: at these in the concept of what the implications are
Speaker 2: for the environment, for human rights and for the economic
Speaker 2: trade as well and international standing. It's basically taking away
Speaker 2: everything that's been done over the last eight years and
Speaker 2: taking the industry back almost decades in terms of its development.
Speaker 2: And so it really does do Thailand a disservice when
Speaker 2: Thailand has done such an amazing job over the last
Speaker 2: eight years of building this international credibility as almost this
Speaker 2: regional if not international leader in terms of fisheries management
Speaker 2: and human right? For within the fishing, it really does
Speaker 2: beg that question mark that lingers over this entire issue
Speaker 2: of why is Thailand doing this at this point?
Speaker 1: So political negotiations are underway on how the law might
Speaker 1: change in the future, we're expecting it could take up
Speaker 1: to a year actually for this to happen. But it
Speaker 1: seems like there is a growing political consensus that they
Speaker 1: will pass. So very interesting times for the seafood industry
Speaker 1: in Southeast Asia, for sure.
Speaker 1: All right. Let's get to our main story for this week,
Speaker 1: Li Ling. Take it away as the climate news editor
Speaker 1: at CN A Singapore desk. One of the toughest part
Speaker 1: of my job is to decipher all the complicated language
Speaker 1: and climate reports and then deliver the information in a
Speaker 1: way that normal human beings actually understand people who don't
Speaker 1: belong in the climate circuit. Case in point,
Speaker 1: the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change or IPCC itself a
Speaker 1: mouthful of a name for what's basically a UN group
Speaker 1: made up of super top level climate science experts. It's
Speaker 1: behind this super important update every few years on the
Speaker 1: state of the planet and how we're ruining it.
Speaker 1: What needs to be done. It's critical stuff, but the
Speaker 1: report can go on and on for 42 pages and
Speaker 1: it reads like this in addition to robust multidecadal warming,
Speaker 1: the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decade and inter
Speaker 1: annual variability.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that means, but we have
Speaker 1: sitting in the room with us two people who may
Speaker 1: or may not be guilty of such crimes against clear communication. Hello,
Speaker 1: Professor Winston Chow and Professor Terry Van Geld. Now, one
Speaker 1: of these two gentlemen actually sits on that IPCC panel.
Speaker 1: He is Singapore's most prominent climate scientist, Winston Winston Chao
Speaker 1: and his title at the UN panel is
Speaker 1: co-chair for working group two of the IPCC seventh Assessment
Speaker 1: Report Cycle Bureau. Yes, it's a mouthful. I apologize for that.
Speaker 1: And you are also Professor of Urban Climate and Lee
Speaker 1: Kong Xian research Fellow at Singapore Management University's College of
Speaker 1: Integrative Studies. That's also quite mouthful. Yes, it is. And
Speaker 1: of course, next to you,
Speaker 1: this is Terry Van G Velt. You are Associate professor
Speaker 1: of urban sustainability and also Lee Kun Qian fellow at
Speaker 1: SM US College of integrative Studies. So both of you
Speaker 1: are colleagues now, Terry, you are also an interdisciplinary social
Speaker 1: scientist focused on bridging the sustainability science policy divide and
Speaker 1: we'll get into that in a bit.
Speaker 1: Both gentlemen are here for this podcast as part of
Speaker 1: the inaugural Ideas Festival. It is to highlight how important
Speaker 1: the social sciences are in solving the world's toughest problems.
Speaker 1: All the details are at www dot ideas festival.edu dot SG.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 1: All the name cards on the table now. But are
Speaker 1: you scientists or social scientists? Professor Winston, you go first.
Speaker 1: I guess it depends on what time of the day
Speaker 1: or depending on who I meet in which I decide
Speaker 1: whether I'm a scientist or social scientist. So that in
Speaker 1: one sense, speaks to the heart of communication. We used
Speaker 1: to struggle with a lot with the IPCC reports.
Speaker 1: What you just mentioned in the introduction actually is supposed
Speaker 1: to be the executive summary of the report 40 over
Speaker 1: pages long filled with headline statements, key messages which are
Speaker 1: full of jargon. How many pages is the actual report very,
Speaker 1: very long we measure in terms of kilograms and it
Speaker 1: weighed I think about 29 kg. Oh my goodness. Yes.
Speaker 1: So in this cycle, my co-chair colleagues and I we
Speaker 1: are resolutely determined to try and reduce that weight substantially.
Speaker 1: But then again, it is reflective of the vast amount
Speaker 1: of very detailed scientific
Speaker 1: and social scientific research into climate change that has developed
Speaker 1: over the past seven years. So the challenge is trying
Speaker 1: to find that sweet spot between distilling the important messages,
Speaker 1: conveying it in a clear way, but yet also maintaining
Speaker 1: that level of comprehensive assessment
Speaker 1: that will bust sort of insights into climate science or
Speaker 1: climate research that the I PC C's audience demands. What
Speaker 1: about you, Terry? Unlike Winston, I'm not a trained scientist.
Speaker 1: So my background is in economics and then kind of
Speaker 1: different types of social sciences. A lot of it is
Speaker 1: very quantitative with numbers though.
Speaker 1: So I also have to grapple with this report and
Speaker 1: I never go into the the technical side of things.
Speaker 1: It's always that executive summary that I look at. So
Speaker 1: to the extent that I engage with the scientific literature,
Speaker 1: it's to understand what I need to understand, to be
Speaker 1: able to work out the impacts. So in that sense,
Speaker 1: I'm much more like the normal person than Winston. I
Speaker 1: think the implication
Speaker 1: is that I may be special in that sense, not normal, abnormal, well,
Speaker 1: not really. I mean, Winston, you're practically a household name
Speaker 1: in the climate crowd, right in a room full of
Speaker 1: non experts though. What's the biggest challenge in getting the
Speaker 1: message across about climate change in the environment? How do
Speaker 1: you read the room and adjust? There are a few challenges.
Speaker 1: One is reading the room. If you know who your
Speaker 1: audience is, it helps a lot in tailoring the specific
Speaker 1: message that's required.
Speaker 1: If you know what drives the individual, you can then
Speaker 1: see what's the best message. You can have to either
Speaker 1: persuade them to change their minds or to get an
Speaker 1: understanding as to what drives you, what is the biggest
Speaker 1: concern about climate change. And then see if that particular
Speaker 1: interest can either be reflected in that report or if
Speaker 1: you know some nuggets of information, you can tell them
Speaker 1: to help, get them to change their frame of thinking
Speaker 1: in terms of climate change. They don't want to be
Speaker 1: told that they are stupid. They don't want to be
Speaker 1: told by some lab coat in an ivory tower that
Speaker 1: climate change is happening and this is going to be bad, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: It could be downscaled using the scientific jargon
Speaker 1: into something very relevant for that person. So this person
Speaker 1: might be worried about, let's say they are going to
Speaker 1: lose out in terms of the green transition. They are
Speaker 1: in a line of employment that will go the way
Speaker 1: of the dinosaurs as we move from a non-renewable to
Speaker 1: a renewable, you know, circular zero waste economy and hearing
Speaker 1: that message then can be fed back towards the decision
Speaker 1: of what sustainable development is. Hence all these retraining reskilling
Speaker 1: initiatives that the Singapore government has put into place can
Speaker 1: help allay these concerns in some manner, shape or form.
Speaker 1: But it is important to understand that that is the
Speaker 1: key concern of that person or that constituent. It's all
Speaker 1: about connection, right, connecting with the person you're speaking to,
Speaker 1: especially since the subject matter is so heavy, so vast
Speaker 1: and and often alienates a lot of people on the ground,
Speaker 1: which brings me to Terry. Now, a lot of your
Speaker 1: work involves bridging the divide between climate science and policy.
Speaker 1: What does bridging this divide mean? And how do you
Speaker 1: narrow that gap through the way you communicate? So two
Speaker 1: questions there bridging the divide. Well, the divide is exactly
Speaker 1: what you read out earlier, that body of text
Speaker 1: and making that into something that we can actually work
Speaker 1: on that we can engage with that will help us
Speaker 1: understand what pathways we've got to go forward. And that's
Speaker 1: a complex process because the general trends are almost undisputed,
Speaker 1: but the variations of impacts the different scenarios, the risk
Speaker 1: profiles that is uncertain.
Speaker 1: So what I see as my primary role in this
Speaker 1: space is to try to make the future impacts of
Speaker 1: climate change into tangible scenarios. OK. So if we continue
Speaker 1: down this path with this set of assumptions, then we
Speaker 1: are likely to have this scenario and this scenario will
Speaker 1: mean this for our economy, for people, for infrastructure and
Speaker 1: so forth.
Speaker 1: It's taking that scientific data and turning it into something
Speaker 1: that people can understand and visualize. Yeah. And just going
Speaker 1: back to what Winston said about communicating that I find
Speaker 1: that if you give too much information, if you give
Speaker 1: too much certainty, a lot of people recoil because there
Speaker 1: is a lot of uncertainty inherent in this process. Terry,
Speaker 1: you've lived in Cambridge, you've worked there, you've lived and
Speaker 1: worked in Hong Kong now, Singapore.
Speaker 1: Do you find yourself having to adjust? And how do
Speaker 1: you do that in these different contexts? For sure there's
Speaker 1: differences in culture. But I think the same kind of
Speaker 1: difficulty goes through all of it. Most of what we
Speaker 1: see are very small changes, things like, you know, not
Speaker 1: using plastic straws, right? So that, I mean, that's my
Speaker 1: biggest gripe because
Speaker 1: I think the plastic straw is wonderful, but we basically
Speaker 1: have these small movements in all of these different places
Speaker 1: that have the right intention, but almost have an unintended
Speaker 1: effect of taking us away from the big changes that
Speaker 1: are needed. So in psychology, it's called moral licensing. I
Speaker 1: have done something good. So I don't need to do
Speaker 1: anything else. And we see that a lot with the
Speaker 1: kind of small changes that we make
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying these small changes are bad, they're
Speaker 1: good but we do need to make the big changes.
Speaker 1: And the big changes unfortunately will mean system wide changes,
Speaker 1: a lot of change to the way we live, the
Speaker 1: way we consume, the way we produce. And those are painful.
Speaker 1: So across any kind of culture, any kind of society,
Speaker 1: you have the same fundamental issue. The small changes are
Speaker 1: perhaps good as an educational sort of entry point for
Speaker 1: people to become active, to become agents of change for
Speaker 1: climate change.
Speaker 1: One other concern is that there's also a thinking that
Speaker 1: says that we must rely totally on technology to save
Speaker 1: our skins from climate change. What about when we have
Speaker 1: big solar mirrors in space or we inject sulfates into
Speaker 1: the atmosphere for geo engineering or we just rely on
Speaker 1: more efficient technology
Speaker 1: to save us from carbon emissions. That actually is also
Speaker 1: a trap that I think is preventing the much needed
Speaker 1: systemic changes that cherry and many other scientists say is
Speaker 1: required to give you an example of the kind of
Speaker 1: radical thinking that I think is needed if we had
Speaker 1: to hit the more ambitious targets that we have, you
Speaker 1: look at the car industry. So I love cars.
Speaker 1: I don't want a future without cars, but plainly speaking,
Speaker 1: transitioning to evs doesn't solve our problem, electric vehicles because
Speaker 1: EVs are still resource intensive. If you think about the
Speaker 1: data center needs of these cars as well.
Speaker 1: The real solution is to get rid of that and
Speaker 1: to have a different form of transportation as well, that's
Speaker 1: pretty radical. Get rid of evs when we're all get
Speaker 1: rid of all cars. Cars. Yes. But that's the kind
Speaker 1: of radical solution I'm saying we need to hit the
Speaker 1: very ambitious targets. But who's going to support that? I
Speaker 1: don't support that. Some sacrifices have to be made. But
Speaker 1: the question is who are making the sacrifices getting rid
Speaker 1: of evs altogether or moving to public
Speaker 1: transport that might work in some countries? It won't work in,
Speaker 1: for instance, less developed countries. It's a very difficult way
Speaker 1: to tell countries that, you know, if we are to
Speaker 1: reach a 1.5 degree sea limit, you pointing to these countries,
Speaker 1: you must also sacrifice or something along those lines. You know,
Speaker 1: at the IPCC, when you are at these meetings, what
Speaker 1: is the dynamic like? Because a lot of what we've
Speaker 1: been talking so far about is communicating to the average person.
Speaker 1: What about
Speaker 1: communicating up? You're face to face with global powers? How
Speaker 1: do you communicate to them? The divide between the crude leader,
Speaker 1: more developed, less developing divide comes into play. All these
Speaker 1: other national or regional interests come into play as well.
Speaker 1: For instance, small island states which Singapore is a part
Speaker 1: of for this group. 1.5 is non negotiable because anything
Speaker 1: above that means that all islands will lose their land
Speaker 1: and is an existing
Speaker 1: potential threat. But how do you balance these interests with
Speaker 1: other people or other nations that want to continue developing
Speaker 1: and pointing out that it's hypocritical for this block of
Speaker 1: countries to tell us not to develop because you have
Speaker 1: reaped the benefits of fossil fuels and we haven't. So
Speaker 1: we need that objectivity and that is our biggest strength
Speaker 1: to offer to these governments in these discussions about climate action.
Speaker 1: But there's one more level of complexity that we can
Speaker 1: go into here.
Speaker 1: And so the IPCC, what Winston works in, that's unique
Speaker 1: in my opinion, because you have a range of academics
Speaker 1: from different disciplines coming up with a consensus in many ways,
Speaker 1: that's not the norm.
Speaker 1: So the norm in most disciplines and across disciplines is
Speaker 1: not consensus. Often. I think that the outside world sees
Speaker 1: the academy as being unified, but it's actually very fragmented.
Speaker 1: So we still need to improve in the Academy of
Speaker 1: talking to each other, engaging with different viewpoints. So it's
Speaker 1: not just changing the view of the person you're talking to,
Speaker 1: it's trying to get other people to understand
Speaker 1: each other's perspective as well. It goes back to communication,
Speaker 1: it does. Now, I didn't want to let you guys
Speaker 1: go without asking you about your virtual reality project. This
Speaker 1: is effectively a communication tool, right? Yeah. So it's a
Speaker 1: project that Winston myself and a couple of colleagues at NTU.
Speaker 1: So Sonny Rosenthal and Adam Switzer are working on.
Speaker 1: We're basically taking the climate science data and we're trying
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 1: see the different futures that can exist with different assumptions
Speaker 1: and what that will look like for Singapore and possibly
Speaker 1: our Southeast Asian neighbors as well. Basically, we're creating a
Speaker 1: choose your own adventure book in virtual reality. It's like
Speaker 1: a game.
Speaker 1: And so we'll use the climate data map different scenarios.
Speaker 1: And at each node, the person, the participant will be
Speaker 1: able to react differently. I'm going to pick this strategy
Speaker 1: to go forward or this strategy and then we will
Speaker 1: see the different outcomes that can happen and it's all
Speaker 1: with the headset. So like rising waters that from the point,
Speaker 1: the view of the user, you have the rising sea levels,
Speaker 1: you have the rain. And yeah, we're toying with the
Speaker 1: idea of a tropical cyclone which there's some for it
Speaker 1: could happen. It did happen in Singapore in 2001. But yeah,
Speaker 1: low likelihood high impact would we be ready? We'll find
Speaker 1: out that's part of the, hopefully one of the outcomes
Speaker 1: that we have in the research
Speaker 1: and bringing the future to the present. There was Associate
Speaker 1: Professor Terry Vange Velt and Professor Winston Chao from Singapore
Speaker 1: Management University. But really, Jack, we're already getting a taste
Speaker 1: of those scenarios in real life in the present, aren't we?
Speaker 1: With the heat wave here and the rain we saw
Speaker 1: in Dubai and the region? Yeah, we don't need technology
Speaker 1: and virtual reality to understand these phenomenon. We just need
Speaker 1: to walk outside it feels like.
Speaker 1: All right. Uh I hope you've been thinking about your
Speaker 1: quiz answer. A reminder of the question who has had
Speaker 1: the wettest day on record? Is it Dubai? Now, after
Speaker 1: those incredible floods that we saw recently or is it Singapore?
Speaker 1: I think it's Dubai just going by the video and
Speaker 1: the footage we saw, I can't recall a time when
Speaker 1: I saw something like this happening in Singapore and we
Speaker 1: also know that the
Speaker 1: region that Dubai is in, they see more extreme fluctuations
Speaker 1: in weather conditions. So I'm going to guess Dubai you've
Speaker 1: locked in Dubai. The answer is Singapore in December 1978
Speaker 1: over a 24 hour period, 512 millimeters of rain,
Speaker 1: about a quarter of the annual average fell over a
Speaker 1: 24 hour period. So that's nearly double the 250 odd
Speaker 1: millimeters that fell in the UAE specifically in Al Ain,
Speaker 1: which is about an hour south of Dubai. So back then,
Speaker 1: Singapore experienced a pretty destructive flood. At the time, seven
Speaker 1: people actually died. Thousands were stranded
Speaker 1: and it goes to show the importance of coping with
Speaker 1: extreme events. Singapore today has services that can absorb water
Speaker 1: more easily and more extensive drainage networks. That's infrastructure that
Speaker 1: the Middle East may not have just now, which totally
Speaker 1: makes sense for Singapore given it's in the tropics and
Speaker 1: not in the desert.
Speaker 1: So today we're going to unpack El Nino something you've
Speaker 1: definitely felt over the past year or so. It's a
Speaker 1: natural phenomenon driven by warmer than normal waters in the
Speaker 1: eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The result is these climatic conditions
Speaker 1: that normally bring warmer temperatures and less rainfall to affected
Speaker 1: regions and most of the impacts are actually just felt
Speaker 1: in our part of the world
Speaker 1: through Asia, as well as Australia and the US. But
Speaker 1: broadly El Nino and also its counterpart, La Nina can
Speaker 1: cause havoc to rainfall and temperatures around the world. And
Speaker 1: El Nino normally comes around every 3 to 5 years.
Speaker 1: Climate change is supercharging these events. They can typically last
Speaker 1: about 12 months. The good news is that Australia's Weather
Speaker 1: Bureau has said that the El Nino weather event that
Speaker 1: we've been feeling
Speaker 1: over the past year or so has now ended so
Speaker 1: cooler weather, hopefully just around the corner.
Speaker 1: That's all we have for this week. We hope you've
Speaker 1: enjoyed this episode. As usual. We'd love you to please
Speaker 1: go and follow us, give us a rating or a
Speaker 1: review on whatever podcast platform you're using. We'd really appreciate
Speaker 1: it and we'd love for you, our listeners to share
Speaker 1: your two cents and ask us your questions from wherever
Speaker 1: you are, put them in the comments section. So we'll
Speaker 1: be looking out for them until then I am Li
Speaker 1: Ling Tan and I'm Jack Boyd. Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with climate conversations next week.