Jeff Dewing:
Hi, and welcome to doing the Opposite Business Disruptors, the podcast where you get to meet leaders who have swum against the tide, thrown out the rule book, and changed the way their sector does business. I'm Jeff Dewing, author, speaker, and founder, and CEO of Cloudfm. Before we dig into today’s episode, just a reminder that you can now watch all episodes of Doing the Opposite on YouTube. You'll find all the links in the show notes.
Earlier in this season, we discussed some of the big issues around business and climate and reveal the unprecedented challenge facing the planet today, such as the fact that in places the Amazon rainforest is now an emitter, a net emitter of carbon. Do go back and listen if you haven't already heard that discussion. This time we're gonna be talking about some of the blockers to action, namely greenwashing, and discuss the difference between nature-based and tech-based solutions.
We want businesses to be more informed to help them make the great decisions that will have a positive impact on our climate emergency. I'm thrilled to bring back my guests from the last panel to talk further about some of these solutions. Jeroen Van de Waal is co-founder of the Reef Company, an organisation which builds engineered reefs. He's a multiple winning campaigner for the oceans. Rita Carbo is from the Blue Beat Group based in Argentina. Rita is an industrial engineer with a second degree in public policy and is experienced and development of high impact environmental projects. And Katrina Christopoulos is the head of ESG at Cloudfm. Katrina has an environmental science and energy engineering background and has cross-sector experience in reducing the environmental footprint of business operations.
Welcome to all of you. I'm gonna dive straight into this discussion. So Kat, can you start by explaining what is greenwashing?
Katrina Christopoulos:
Greenwashing is ultimately an attempt for a company or a product to appear more environmentally friendly than it really is. Green labelling I think is probably the most common form or maybe the, the form of greenwashing that, that we know, you know, we're most used to. And that's when a label, a marketer will put a label on a product, maybe misleading in a way of imagery or false claims about that product, or using words like ‘organic’ or ‘biodegradable’ or ‘natural’ to make you feel like the project is maybe more sustainable than actually it is.
But there are other types of green washing. You know, there's green lighting where a company might spotlight something particularly good, a really good sustainable product that they have got while in the meantime they're hiding products that aren't maybe so good and so environmentally friendly in the background. And green lining is where a company will set a sustainability target and then never actually achieve it and always sort of quietly moving the goal post behind the scenes. So the consumer gets the impression that that company is very green and very sustainable, whereas actually they've never met any of their targets. So there's green hushing, there's green, there's other ones as well, which we, we haven't got time to go into.
Jeff Dewing:
So it's not just greenwashing, then there's green, everything going on?
Katrina Christopoulos:
There are subsets of greenwashing, yes!
Jeff Dewing:
<Laugh>. Wow. Okay.
Katrina Christopoulos:
It's a big topic.
Jeff Dewing:
Okay. Well then moving on to you Jeroen, what about, well, yeah, what, what, what would be a biggest example that you can think of, of, of greenwashing or,some of the subsets of Green Machine? What, what have you come across in recent years?
Jeroen van de Waal:
For me, one of the most shocking ones has been the diesel scandal with Volkswagen, a super reputable car brand that many, you know, people always use as a leading example of technology and German quality of liability, etc etc. And then when you find out after, you know, a decade that they have been you know, falsifying the output data of the engines, the emissions, ect etc, it's like a massive for me, you know, no-go.
The other one that is really horrendous is the label for dophin friendly tuna. There's a company in the United States selling a seal mark that people can buy and put on the cans of tuna. Stating and claiming that the tuna that you are eating is dophin friendly. There's a documentary on this topic on Netflix highlighting what's really behind this label, and it's purely financial. So these things I find really shocking.
Jeff Dewing:
And Rita, what about you? What's, what's your experiences of greenwashing or versions of?
Rita Carbo:
So I did see surprised faces when I, someone says electric vehicles are not that environmentally friendly as advertised. I think it's important that we are all aware that when we connect the battery to the electricity grid, the electricity grid itself is an powered by fossil fuels. So we are still burning fossil and fuel to power our cars. And of course, something that I would would like to highlight is when we look at the production producing electric vehicles generate much more emissions than the production of conventional cars. And something that we should be aware of is that the mining of the raw materials to produce the battery is highly unsustainable. And not only at that, one of the minerals used is cobalt that comes from Congo in Africa, and between 15 and 30% is processed in cobalt minds where they have children working and they don't have the necessary safety conditions. So it's not only unsustainable, but it's also unethical. And this is really important that we, we know it before purchasing a new car.
Jeff Dewing:
That’s Interesting because I guess the downside to this conversation is that when people have taken the big leap of faith to say, ‘ah, electric cars are the answer’, we're now saying, ‘actually no, they're not. You just bought a bad car’. So we've gotta be a little bit careful on the balance of viewpoints because obviously emissions is one element of electric car, which does bring value, but then you're quite right, it's about the powering. Having said that, I've just driven back from Lisbon to the Algarve this morning, and I stopped to charge my car about 200 kilometres away from Lisbon. And I pulled into the services where there's always a cafe and a fuel station for this fuel, and there's car chargers, but the car chargers are housed -because I've stood and counted them cause I had to wait for the car to charge - housed by 130 solar panels. The solar panels were generating the energy for the chargers. So there was no fossil fuel use whatsoever, apart from our guests. If there was a foul Safeway, it's, you know, overcast, clouded in, there're not as effective. But if we're able to use in countries like Portugal or warm countries or hot countries where we can truly use solar panels to e to energise the electricity for the charging the cars, then we do have a sustainable solution in that regard. But of course, you can't do that in England or or Iceland where you only get two hours a daylight a day or something. So it's the balance of stuff that we've got to do in, in harmony, I guess, to get to where we wanna get to.
Is there anything else that might spring to mind, Kat, on, on the greenwashing? Cause I know you, you went down a rabbit hole of subsets. Is there any particular subsets that you wanna pull out?
Katrina Christopoulos:
Well, just one that the other two haven't mentioned is carbon offsets. So Verra, which is one of the world bleeding verifier of carbon credits has just been in the news for finding that 90% of their offsets are worthless. And I think that's a really dangerous level of greenwash. I think there's absolutely a place for carbon offsets, but we need to believe in them. It's a bit like Jeroen's point around the dolphin friendly. If, if someone's putting a stamp on something, you wanna believe and know that it's true and that you're getting what you've paid for. And actually none of that carbon was removed or protected. And so companies reported that they're net zero when they're not. And that's Verra saying you've got a, a, a good offset.
And on that vein the type of offset carbon capture and storage, I think is also needs calling up for greenwash because in my opinion, carbon capture and storage, which is the mechanical removal of carbon which is emitted from fossil fuel producers, oil and gas producers, is really just a very expensive way of allowing that fossil fuel production to carry on in my opinion. It takes energy to remove the carbon and it doesn't remove all of the carbon. So we're still emitting lots of harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And so for me, you know, that that's, that's quite dangerous types of greenwashing where it's actually really inhibiting our fight against climate change.
Jeff Dewing:
Before I do move on, actually, I just want, I've just, I, I want to recite something I, I heard the other day, I listened to an article, but this particular article said that when you look at all of the emissions that are going into the atmosphere, that we are concerned about: the carbon, the CO2 going, the atmosphere we're talking about, that the UK are masses only 2% of that carbon impact. And it's obviously China, United States and the biggest countries that are clearly creating the biggest impact on that stuff.
What's your understanding of, of the amount of activity per continent, per country? You know, where the real problems lie? Cause again, I guess the reason I'm asking a question, let's assume that the UK became this, this model of perfection and we all done incredibly great things and we did everything fantastically well. To what extent is that an impact? Or is it only an impact when we become a model, potentially become a model and, and encourage everybody else?
Katrina Christopoulos:
I think in effect, we've outsourced our carbon emissions because we still buy all these products from China or from wherever. It, it's just that the emissions are being made there, but the product, you know, it's, it's like our supply chain emissions, isn't it? We're taking responsibility for that. You know, what’s the UK’s supply chain, where is everything coming from? There's a lot of carbon associated with all those products coming from abroad. So it's not, you know, I don't think it's as clean and green as it sounds.
Jeroen van de Waal:
I think that 2% sounds like nothing. But what is the percentage that the UK population has on the total, you know, population? If you have on the planet of 8 billion? Think in the UK there are 80 million or less people, so you have 1% or less than 1% of the population. But, you know, double per capita, let's say the average of carbon generation the factor that we need to look at is called human load bearing capacity. And in 1974, we were using about half of the capacity of the planet. If you look at the planet as a battery, and today the global average is about 2.5. So we have a savings account and no income, and we are taking everything that we have in the savings account without topping it up. Right? Holland I think, is using two or three times more than what the planet can handle. And the UK it's the same United States, I think is number one. But that is how you have to look at it, right?
Jeff Dewing:
Of course, and Rita do you have a view on that?
Rita Carbo:
Yes, of course we can be guided by numbers, but at the same time, I think we are all responsible, we all play an important role to fight climate change. So sometimes it's not about pointing fingers, but trying to do our best. I cannot control everything that's going on in North America, but I can control my own actions. And I think this is what we all can do. At certain point, we cannot control what others are doing.
Jeff Dewing:
I guess the reason that I brought that point up was to purposely be controversial, right? Because as much as we all believe that this is the right thing to do, you've gotta be prepared for the counter-arguments, right? And how, how do we bring people on the journey, even with the counter-arguments, which is why I, I raised it really, because at the end of the day, it isn't about the UK is it is about the planet. You know, as I, as I've said frequently before, you know, clever people are not gonna solve this problem. The population is gonna solve the problem. They're the only people who can solve the problem. So it's about how we bring everybody on that journey.
I'm really interested in, in digging into how we feel we can go on the journey of solutions. You know, let's, let's try and dig into some of what might be deemed as a solution or a journey onto a solution. We hear a lot about sort of nature-based behaviour, nature-based control, because obviously we all believe nature is an incredibly powerful thing, although it's been under attack because of occupation of the human being. But we've got the nature-based approach versus the tech solutions that we're coming up with. And of course yeah, Jeroen, you know a lot about that in terms of what you are doing with, with the ocean because it is a tech element as we are with the electric cars and so on and so on. So what do we feel about, you know, nature-based versus tech? And I'm interested in know what your thoughts are on how we accelerate the action based upon what we believe the, the relationship between us. So, well I'll start with you on this one. Jeroen,
Jeroen van de Waal:
I think we have been using technology for century and a half or two centuries, right? And we have been depleting nature based reserves for 200 years. I think at the moment we are in a situation where we should have a hybrid solution between technology and nature based. We have to protect first and foremost what we still have in its natural shape. Then we have to look at an intelligent and well thought through way of trying to re-expend nature-based capacity. And then thirdly, use sustainable, well designed technology solutions to try to accelerate it. It's not an easy question or topic, but I think in the state of where we are today with the extreme output of carbon into the atmosphere for a multitude of reasons, we have to be super creative and intelligent and, you know, innovative to attack it at as many possible ways.
This has to do also with, you know, calibrated consumption. You know, what do you use, what do you consume, how do you consume it, etc etc. You know, how do you travel? There was a short period of time where I got super positive during covid about us all changing our behaviour because people stopped travelling, etc etc, right? There were stories of dolphins getting back into Venice you know animals showing up in places where they had been gone for, you know, 50, 60, 70 years. At the moment there's a mass revenge tourism hype taking place where people are settling, travelling all over the planet. Again, people are forgetting about Zoom and, and, and, and, and Google meets and whatever platforms you have. And, you know, business meetings are exploding again, business travel, you know, corporate defence on the other side of the planet. So I think we really have to address this whole issue at as many frontiers as possible at the same time.
Jeff Dewing:
I agree. Rita. What’s your view on this?
Rita Carbo:
So, of course if we're talking about solutions, I think all solutions are welcome. And as Jeroen mentioned, I think nature and tech should work hand in hand to accelerate the action against climate change faster. Let me give you a very short example. A year ago I went to Holland and I was amazed to see all their installations they have on the ocean surface. They are building windmill and also solar panel. But at the same time, it was a little bit scary because I started to think, ‘okay, maybe the next time I go to the beach and I look from the shore to the horizon, I will start to see this manmade structures’. And I think we need also to address what visuak pollution means. At the same time, the blades of the windmill have killed already thousands of thousands of birds.
And then, now I'm afraid, we are not fully aware of the consequences the structures can have on the marine ecosystem when it comes to nature. It is proven already that nature's knows better. She has done already an amazing job at peace met better than the one we've done. And for those who that that don't know, nature-based solutions are not just about reducing our footprint, but has to do with removing carbon and also recovering and restoring ecosystem. So in this way, we are also going to recover the ecological services that nature provides. And let me give you a great example of this. That for me is the reef company. That is something we are working on together with Jerome. We are building this engineer reefs to restore the, and in this way, we want to develop a backbone for the oceans, for nature to thrive, to be able to generate the conditions so we can recover what we've lost already and what we've damaged. And of course, we want to do it hand in hand with technology because in this way we can monitor and of course evaluate the impact of our work project.
Jeff Dewing (18:09):
Well, I guess Jeroen just tapped on it there when we was going through the, the Covid period where, you know, travel stopped in all forms. And you just mentioned about dolphins, going back to Venice, there was a, a great thing that I've listened to as a documentary during Covid where there was a claim that the birds were singing louder. And of course they weren't singing louder. The background noise had dropped and air quality had increased. Air, you know, the positivity of the quality had increased by 80% because of the lack of activity. So nature knows how to recover really, really quickly. It just needs a helping hand by our own behaviours, right? Yeah.
Katrina Christopoulos:
Nature has all the answers, as we've all said. And I think technology's an enabler and, and helps nature at all. And it has to now because we've degraded it so much. But I'm a permaculture designer as well as many other things. And permaculture is set of decision making tools that uses like nature as a model, as a guide for the designer. And one thing I learned in that was that any element that you put into a system should have at least 3 functions for it to be sustainable, for it to be useful. And so, as an example, a tree will provide shade, it will provide food, it will provide a home for birds and insects. It will, it'll capture carbon and so on. So a tree actually has several functions. And that's the thing about natural solutions, is they're co-beneficial. You know, they're not just solving one thing and we haven't got just one problem. <Laugh>, you know, there's biodiversity laws, there's drought, there's floods and so on and so on. And so these natural solutions target more things than one. And therefore they're, you know, they are the way forward.
Jeff Dewing:
Yeah. But again, I found interesting what research just said there about the wind farms. Cause they are huge structures. They're not pleasant to look at. And, and of course, you know, some of the things that, that people would never have even considered is that although they sell one problem, they create another one. And it's our, it's our ability to understand, you know, and think about this in perhaps a, a deeper way on, on how we solve it.
One of the other issues, which was obviously 30 odd years ago now, where we had a problem with our ozone layer. I dunno if anyone remembers that? And it was because of hydro carbons going up into the atmosphere, which was just blowing our our protection if you like, apart. And my role in that was I was a fridge engineer and we put refrigerant gas into refrigeration in huge industrial and heart and big commercial.
And if that refrigeration plant had a leak, all of that refrigeration gas went straight to atmosphere. And I got drawn into a debate at the time – ‘right refrigeration's the enemy here, we've gotta stop all that’. And the debate then said, well, hang on a minute. They're actually using free on gas in deodorant, cants cans. And actually the refrigerant problem is only a problem when you have a leak. It's not a problem when it's not leaking, only when it leaks. Yet we are purposefully putting in billions of cans of deodorant and antiperspirant by every consumer on the planet. That's where the damage is coming from. So they replace the gas in the deodorant bottles and, and that solved or, or helped the problem.
But what they then did, because of their fear of the fact that the refrigerators had the same problem, they then changed the refrigerant gas for refrigeration so that if it escaped, it would have no impact. But they overlooked the fact that this refrigerant gas they replaced it with was, was a 10 times less efficient. So we was burning five times more fossil fuel to create the same.
And it's about everyone, you know, not knee jerking and truly understanding what, what is a more sustainable solution? So, I'm sorry it's a bit long-winded, but it was another example of how we throw wind farms up. But are we really solving the problem? And are, is the cost of solving the problem on nature worth it? So it's another sort of debate and thought process that I guess we need to go through it.
Jeroen van de Waal:
The situation obviously is quite complex. So I think the most important point here is that we have to think very carefully of what we really need, you know, and how much we need, you know because all these things, they have actions and reactions and consequences, right? Regarding consumption, the way we produce, the way we use assets. What I like a lot is when people can assimilate that we are with 8 billion people on this planet. The three biggest challenges on the planet today are no longer armed conflicts. Number one is climate change. Number two is social economic inequality. And number three is destruction of habitats with loss of ecosystems and species. And those three things impact everybody's life on this planet. And we have 8 billion citizens, half of them - 4 billion - are super poor. And these people are just scrambling to stay alive to, to find fruit, etc etc, right? So if all of us are becoming more conscious through education and information about what we do and how we do it, I think that is going to make a massive change. And that involves renewable energy, less consumption, different styles of travel, different styles of celebrating our holidays, what do we really need to be a happy human? Etc etc etc. So it's, it's, I find it very intriguing to think about this. And for me, 90% of this whole problematic has to do with education and information that people get handed.
Jeff Dewing:
And again, it is about the fact that the population will solve it, because when people truly care, because they understand and they choose to take action, they start asking themselves their own questions, right? Do I really need to go on this holiday? Will I be happy to go into this holiday? Whereas at the moment, those questions are not being asked because of lack of engagement and, and, and lack of knowledge or lack of understanding maybe. And I don't understand you know, I don't understand, like we’re assuming everybody's stupid, because clearly they're not. But it is about, there's certainly not enough information going around as to what we can or we could do you know, in individual level.
I was interested to read in recent weeks in the, in the Guardian, how the directors of Shell are being personally sued over their poor climate strategies and execution of strategies. How does that make you feel? What do you, what's your views? I'm interested to know what your views are on, on the fact that we are now creating accountability essentially for the big corporates to do the right thing. Do we think that that's a positive thing or do we think it's headlines that are gonna disappear tomorrow? What, what's your view on that Kat?
Katrina Christopoulos:
Client Earth, which are the company that are suing them, which is an interesting company in itself. You know, it's, it's a hundred odd or 200 odd lawyers that are like representing the earth. And I, I love that concept.
They say ‘it’s not good enough’. Your, your plan isn't good enough. And you are still planning to invest in oil and gas for decades to come, so you, you know, you're not, you're not to do that. And they're sort of calling them out for that. And I think that's good accountability. Absolutely. I, you know, I, I don't think it's maybe individually suing those individuals, but they're, they're asking, they're requiring the board to adopt their recommendations to actually put a proper plan in place and deliver on that. And so that's kind of what's up. And I think it's a good thing. it brings accountability and it makes maybe other board members in other companies think, ‘oh, you know, I need to take this seriously’ a bit like health and safety maybe wasn't taken so seriously years ago. But now people know that as a board member, you are the one, your neck is on the line.
Jeff Dewing:
Accountable. Yeah!
Rita Carbo:
I think the first thing that comes into my mind is that ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, and they have in their hands the opportunity to impact the, the world. They have to choose in which way they are going generally. And I think it's a great example for everybody. We're all gonna be held personally responsible for our own actions. Maybe not by a judge, but by, I don't know, our family members, our friends, ourselves in the future.
I can tell you my own experience, at the very beginning of my professional career, I decided I wanted my values to match the values of the organisations and the companies I was going to work for. I worked for the Bueno City government for five years. The impact of the project was great, and I had a great time, but at a certain point I realised I didn't agree with the rules or ways of doing things.
And since I couldn't change them, I was not that influential at the time. I had to move on. And we're all part of this huge system or big ecosystem. It doesn't matter if you are just starting or we are in a leadership position, sometimes we join things or projects or programmes to change things from within.
And it's not about pointing fingers, but when you cannot do that, it's time to change your path maybe and do things differently and create a new system. Nowadays it's easier because there are many companies out there trying to make money while doing good, if it's possible. And it's exactly what we are doing at the Blue Beat Group. We're building a group of companies, which purpose is to save the oceans, the planet, and obviously ourselves.
Jeff Dewing:
Of course. And I guess the bit I pick up on what you said there we all know for those that are in business or as leaders that are, that accountability isn't about finding out who've got it wrong so you can fire them. Accountability is about learning the journey, right? And, and understanding how we do it differently next time. But the bit you said, which I picked up on was where you mentioned as an individual, you are being held accountable by your friends and your family, right? So it's actually your community that starts to hold each other to account, which creates massive momentum. It creates massive impact. It's about people saying, well, why, why have you just put that crisp packet on the floor or wherever it may or may not be? That's when it starts to get really powerful. That's when the population starts to make the change.
What's your view Jeroen on Shell?
Jeroen van de Waal:
The question is if I would agree that the directors are being sued, and I totally disagree. My point is that Shell is one of the most advanced and modern companies when it comes to technology and the utilisation of the resources to produce oil and gas. So I'm not saying it's good, but if you look at all oil and gas companies on the planet, I dare to say that they are one of the best from a technology and efficiency point of view.
What happens at the moment is that in certain developed countries, if we can use that term, we are getting very tough, like in Holland, for example, and in other countries. So we are pushing these advanced companies out of our territories into territories where these climate change and regulation policies are taken more lightly. Two, three years ago, tens of thousands of Shell employees were fired for cost reduction reasons, and most of them are now working for Qatar Energy in Qatar, where they take these regulations very lightly, like we have seen with World Cup football, for example. So I think we have to be super careful not to destroy advanced technology companies, whether it is in oil and gas or other areas in regulated countries, and pushing the business into countries that are less regulated because that doesn't solve the problem either.
Obviously directors, executives, board members have to be held accountable. I totally agree with that, but I think at this point in time, for me, it goes a little bit too far because I don't think it will result in the right outcome. The other thing that I would like to add to the conversation is that all of us are still flying, and we don't have aeroplanes with a long electric cable. We need fuel to let these planes take off and land safely, right? Do I want Qatar energy fuel in my plane or BP or Shell, I'm not totally sure, but I think we have to look at the big picture. I find it a difficult question!
Jeff Dewing:
Yeah. And I, I guess listen, and I think, I think it's one of those questions where everybody can be right to an extent. I guess it's about the accountability is created when there is consequence. And if there is no consequence, then nothing changes.
It's another part of the education the public are now gonna be saying, I guess ‘oh my God, look what's happening over there. This really is serious’. It's another element of education and awareness, isn't it, to the cause. Unfortunately, Shelby being a very big profitable machine, unfortunately its been the one that's, that's on the pedestal, and therefore they're the first one to be attacked maybe, I don't know. But for me, it's about awareness of the seriousness of the situation.
But just before we close today, I wanna ask you, what do we think is the one thing that, that SME or small business could do today to start to make the difference? So I'm gonna go to Rita first on this one.
Rita Carbo:
Okay. I think something everybody can do is take a closer look at nature and educate ourself. Maybe Jeroen won't mention this, but I think you can read his book: ‘Together we can turn tides – A manifesto to save the Oceans, Planet and ourself’. Of course, in this book, you will find facts about the ocean and other things you can do today to make a difference. And let me mention Orca Nation that offers outdoor education for everybody. So for, there are programmes for schools and for adults. So if you want to educate yourself in this way, you can also then educate others. And we are going to generate this movement <inaudible> to be able to, to definitely turn tide.
Jeff Dewing:
I don't disagree with that Again, cuz I was, I was lucky enough, but two years ago to get Jeroen’s book, which was amazing. And it is again about education. It's the whole, the whole eco cycle of education. So, yeah, no, thank you for that. Kat.
Katrina Christopoulos:
I think mine's in the same vein, really. Climate literacy and understanding the problem. And you know, and I know you said as an SME, as a business, what can you do? But actually, if the people that are on the board or the people that are in the business really understand the problem they're gonna be more worried about it and they're gonna be, you know, more encouraged to, to help. So Jeroen's book, I haven't read your book, so I need to read that book. That will be my next step, <laugh>. But there's other brilliant out there. There's a very sobering read called Six Degrees. It is depressing. But it tells you what happens as each degree of, you know, as the planet warms each degree. And it's, and it's quite, it was quite an old book actually, but it, you know, we've already risen 1 and it, and some of that is all coming true. So I think that's a read. And, and there's a resource called the Climate Web, I think it's theclimateweb.com. And they've got lots of recommendations of climate related books and free eBooks and things like that. So go on and find, you know, learn, learn and be informed.
Jeff Dewing:
Maybe one of the things to build on is that companies, the one thing they could do is create the space for these people or their, their people, their, their, their teams, their staff, their colleagues, to have access to that information. That may be something that would be very powerful and very easy and very cheap. Jeroen, what about you?
Jeroen van de Waal:
I think it's really important that people look inside to themselves. Especially those adults that decided to to have children - start thinking about how they can help their kids and grandkids to have a better future, a sustainable future. Giving people the right and access, you know, to education and reliable information.
As consumers. We also should think, you know, ‘where do I buy my energy? Where do I fill my tank of my car? Does every family member above 18 need to have a car? Are there other means of transportation, bicycles walking that we can use to do certain activities, etc etc’, right? And all those impacting activities have to be multiplied by 8 billion people. It will have an impact, right? So I would say that's how it goes - when you talk about business. I love business and I think we need to make, make profit to be sustainable.
Jeff, Cloudfm, Kat and many other friendly companies in our network are now ambassadors for The Blue Beat group, for the reef company for oration. For me that is like incredible!
Jeff Dewing:
Well, it starts to create momentum, I guess, doesn’t it, at the end of the day. And that that's what it's all about.
Okay, listen, we're gonna wrap it up now. It's been another great conversation as, as I knew it would be. And I'd like to thank Jeroen, Kat and Rita for your contribution. It's been great. It's been great to have some controversy as well because it's, it's not just about all you know, smiles and marshmallows and rainbows, you know, we've gotta face some of the real stuff that's going on in the world. And we're gonna have to leave it near then, but it, it's been great. And I'm sure, I'm sure there's gonna be a part three because there's so much to talk about.
So thank you again everybody. It's been fantastic.
Katrina Christopoulos:
Thank you.
Jeff Dewing:
Big thanks again to Jeroen, Kat and Rita for joining me today. There were so many golden nuggets in that conversation. One of the things that Rita said was about accountability. You know when we talked about the Shell saga and the, the suing of the directors, it essentially is about accountability and consequence. And then Rita went on to talk about personal accountability when friends or family or colleagues or community are holding her to account in the things that she is doing or, or should be doing. And that's how you get momentum. That's how you get a movement because everybody then clearly wants to do the right thing.
And I guess the other thing that's really interesting that came out from today was the final question. What can businesses do today? And of course, I was expecting things like ‘buy electric vehicles’ or ‘change your electricity provider’ or ‘teach your staff to switch the lights off’. What was fascinating was that they was all in agreement that it was about education. How do we create the tools and the resource for easy education or fast education and bitesize videos of elements of climate change, which act as a hook to people that then go, ‘oh man, I'm interested in more about that’. So I thought that that final statement of education and the way in which we deliver that education was, I thought very powerful.
If you haven't heard it yet, please do listen back to our previous climate panel and to the other discussions in this season from the future of the workplace to neurodiversity.
I'm Jeff Dewing, author of the Best Selling book, Doing the Opposite, and CEO of Cloudfm. You can also find out more about the podcast and my incredible guests by heading to jeffdewing.co.uk and clicking on podcast. And you can also watch this conversation on YouTube. All links are in the notes in the episode.
A big thank you to my team, Nichola Crawshaw at Cloudfm, Thinking Hat PR and my production team, What Goes On Media.
Thanks for listening.