TFGL2021 - S4 - Ep 7 - What Matters is What Happens Next

Welcome to this episode of the Tech For Good Live podcast.

Jonny Rae-Evans has taken on the hosting duties and he is joined by Tech for Good Live podcast regular Greg Ashton.

Our special guest is Sandra Pallier, Co-organiser of ClimateAction.tech and interaction designer at Microsoft

You can find loads of great content from ClimateAction.tech and their conversations about using tech to tackle climate change on their YouTube channel.

Transcript

Jonny: Hello and welcome to yet another episode of the Tech For Good Live podcast. Much like the climate crisis, we seem to be getting worse and no one in power seems to have the appetite to stop us. But today's show, it looks like it might be an alright one, really. Above average anyway. Right now COP26 is happening in Glasgow where all the world leaders get together and decide to doom us all because well, their own profit margins. So today we're going to be talking about a lot of environmental related stories. We'll be talking about the economic impact of climate change because we're fun, cool people. We'll be talking about an international effort to stop deforestation. And we'll be talking about making green tech cheaper and we'll probably find time to laugh about that stupid Facebook ban too. All that and more coming up. Strapping on the apocalyptic outfits with me today is Greg Ashton. Greg, if the world is going to end and I mean, you wouldn't survive, if I'm honest, I don't think you've got the survival skills, but if it did, what apocalyptic movie do you think has most prepared you for the end times? 

Greg: Um, probably Shaun Of The Dad. 

Jonny: Shaun Of The Dead. Do you own a cricket bat? 

Greg: Uh no, just, you know, uh, pop to the pub and wait for it to all blow over. 

Jonny: Good strategy. I think that worked out for them as well. And there's no issues in that pub. Fake news Fay is meant to be on the podcast, but she's not shown up. Um, I don't think Fay would survive the apocalypse. I mean, it sounds like she hasn’t survived the standard Wednesday. 

Greg: [laughs] 

Jonny: Um, so yeah, she might appear at some point. And me I'm Johnny, Johnny Rae-Evans. I can't even get my own name out. I've been charged with making sure that we stay on track and that no one on this podcast commits slander or it's also transcribed so liable as well. It could be a, could be a two for one. Shaun Of The Dead is a good one.  I don’t think I have a better one than that. Waterford. Cause I quite like water. The idea of living on a boat, you know, that appeals to me a little bit. So yeah, maybe that. I mean, I can't say it hasn't helped me prepare. Anyway, we have a guest today. Sandra Pallier is with us. Sandra is Co-organiser of Climate Action Dot Tech and Interaction Designer at Microsoft

Sandra: Hello. Um, yeah, doing good. Doing good.

Jonny: Any apocalyptic new bits that you’ve seen that springs to mind that has inspired you for how you would cope?

Sandra: I think I tend to not go for apocalyptic movies because the world itself is apocalyptic enough.

Greg: [laughs] True. 

Sandra: [laughs]  In my spare time, I feel like more positive movies are usually on the list. 

Jonny: Yeah. I like that attitude as well, of you know, like everyday life has prepared us for the apocalypse, is both positive and also terrifying. Can you tell us a little bit, I mean, I'm sure it will come up in conversation throughout this podcast, you want to tell us a little bit about climate action dot tech. 

Sandra: Yeah. We’re a worldwide community with over 5,000 members, um, a slack community of tech workers, and we basically all come together to create change in our workplaces and in the larger industry. So that kind of goes from breeding your craft and changing the way you code things to employee advocacy and changing leadership direction in your company. So yeah, seeding those changes within organisations and companies and like conferences and stuff like that as well. 

Greg: 5,000 is pretty impressive. Are they, where are they like kind of generally based, is it all over or? 

Sandra: Yeah, so we have the majority of, um, and this app-based in, in Europe, um, mostly the UK, but a bunch of other European countries as well and then the US. But we have a fair amount of people in Asia as well. A few people have now joined as well from South America, which is quite exciting. And then we have a few people from like New Zealand and Australia as well in the community. 

Greg: Fab. 

Jonny: I was going to ask you that same question. So wonderful. Well, we will, uh, we will move on to the first section of the podcast, which is the start of the week. And Greg, I believe that the stats here are related, as most of the stories today, about climate change. And it is about a lack of established economic models. Is that correct? 

Greg: Well, not so much that there's a lack of them, but that those economic models don't include any empirical evidence from studies of climate change, which honestly blew my mind. I kind of, I guess I was living in a bubble where I thought it was kind of well assumed that climate change would have a negative impact on the economy. So I think one kind of figure that I heard was like a ten percent. So if we hit, I think two degrees heat increased, then we see a 10% reduction in GDP, which doesn't sound like much, but when you're talking like billions wiped off the global economy, which can have a huge impact. It would be worse than the worst financial crashes basically, but apparently, that's not the case. So there were 438 empirical studies of the impact of climate change since 2010. None of these have been included in the established economic models. There's one that is kind of very well-regarded by a guy who basically invented climate economics and he's a Nobel Laureate called William Nordhaus and he concluded, quite rightly, that climate change would impact the economy, but based on his models, he basically said that he wasn't enough of an economic impact to spend loads and loads of money on trying to prevent it. So this was originally done in 1992. So he created a model called Dice, which is the best known one. So he calculated in ‘92 that the social cost of carbon would be under $5 per ton. That's changed now. So he's continued to refine that model and in 2017, he changed it, but he hadn't changed any of the scientific modelling. He really focused on things like population GDP and kind of economic elements and he's increased it sevenfold. So quite a lot, but still only $36 per ton. And there are other estimates which kind of put it more around 46 and higher in some cases. And there's a lot of complexity to get into that, but I'll come over to you guys and see what you think before we start getting into the nitty-gritty of why these models don't work and some of the issues. 

Sandra: Where is William Nordhaus based? Do we know that? Is he based in the US?

Greg: Yes. 

Sandra: Hmm. That's an interesting one. Cause I feel like maybe a person on the front lines of the climate crisis would calculate that differently, compared to when you're based in the US. Because the social cost of the climate crisis is not going to be felt equally for a period of time. And if you are based in the US I feel like that's a bit of a...yeah. I wonder whether he's considered that at all. 

Greg: You've hit the nail right on the head. They're actually, they, um, the, some of the criticisms, of many of not just his, but many of the models is that imbalance of impacts across the globe. So more recently the Climate Impact Lab is kind of developing its own model, including empirical evidence. And one of the things that they highlighted was, it's not going to be a simple picture in some cases, countries will take action to prevent that. So there's going to be real imbalanced and those kinds of actions will change depending on the nation that you're looking at. Some will be adapted to flooding and things like that. And there's that whole question then of, well, how much money are you going to spend on those things? Are you going to spread your money across all these things? So you could have countries that are really well protected against flooding, but actually not so well against frost or fire. So those impacts are going to be really different and felt differently. So I think they've split the world into kind of like 25,000 localities and they’re building, you know, they’re adjusting the models based on that. 

Jonny: There was a speaker at COP this morning, I don’t know if it was a whole speech or a section, I can't remember who it wasn't making out today, but a speaker from Barbados, who was raising that point of we’re all here talking about ambitions and lack of ambitions, but there’s some of us who are on the frontline that we will be affected worse and won’t even be here in a few years. And the powerful people here in the room are those who are protected or feel that their nations can still thrive or at least survive. And others that can’t and it’s a really, really important point. In terms of the studies that you talked about back at that none of them have established economic models in them. Do we know what the reason for that is? Because it's a weird trend for it to be an oversight, right?

Greg: Because economists are idiots. Basically. There is a, you know, fake science has been proven to, you know, look at the last crash. I mean, yeah, we put way too much trust into economists because, you know, money is the thing that, that people listen to and the reality is that a large amount of the time they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. So, perfect example here. They've adjusted the models based on new economic factors, but then thought, yeah, we're not going to look at anything outside of those economic factors. And that's, you know, one of the big issues because they look at direct economic factors and they don't look at the kind of wider social factors to think about how those things might impact. So one thing that the Climate Lab is looking at is how premature deaths or decreased labor from productivity due to extreme heat might factor into impacting the economy. So if you’ve got more people dying, less people able to work because of extreme heat, then, of course, there's going to be economic impacts. Makes sense, really. But these are things that aren't being factored in because they're not seen as directly linked to.

Jonny: At work, you’d be dead Greg. Unless, remember that documentary, Weekend At Bernie’s? That showed that Bernie was able to work by a system of pulleys and strings but it required two people to keep him in a job, which you know, is not, I don't think is sustainable. It's a weird thing not to focus on though and you would imagine that the people most likely to help change things, you would imagine would be the wealthy people. And you would have thought if you were trying to push to get them to embrace the reality of it and to help implement change, the argument of you will be less rich if this all goes to shit. Well, I mean, you would have thought the pandemic would have had the same impact but didn’t seem to work. But you would have thought that that shouldn't be what you shouldn't have to focus on that to convince people. It should be, this will be a terrible thing for the world, but many, many people will suffer more than those and people will die. That should be enough but it won't be. If I was creating those supports, I would be pushing for those economic models, but it is odd. Like you said at the beginning, I’m really surprised by that stat, to be honest, 

Sandra: The other thing with the current economic models that we have. A lot of the impacts of the climate crisis that are very, like, you can kind of connect to them almost on a more emotional level because they have to do with human suffering and death. Those things don't really, they're not really measured; like human health isn't measured in GDP. And public services aren’t measured in GDP and all of that stuff is the stuff that, that we kind of. That's the flip we need in society to kind of get to a future that's livable for more people and better. 

Jonny: Yeah, absolutely. I would love to see around election season, that that is the focus of how successful the nation is rather than GDP, would be a stark change, I think, heading into election cycles. If that was the focus. 

Greg: There is a shift for that. So some of the sorts of more progressive economists are looking at different factors away from GDP and looking at how we quantify poverty and things like that. So from a financial poverty to a poverty of opportunities and education and health and those kinds of things. So there is progress but obviously, it's slow. 

Sandra: Yeah. There are two books that I can kind of recommend as part of that. The Ministry For The Future is a brilliant read. It's an eco-fiction book, I guess, climate fiction book about, um, the future and, um, somebody basically telling the story of how humanity has managed to curb emissions somewhat. And in there, there are different economic models that are being discussed as part of a fictional story, which is pretty cool. And then the other book, which is non-fiction is, I think it's got less is more by Jason Hickle, which goes into more detail about like, um, capitalism itself and how it started and why we kind of focused on infinite growth and how that's not sustainable and alternative models as well. 

Jonny:  Awesome. I think, uh, Paul and Christiana who will be producing this episode will put those recommendations in the podcast description, which would be wonderful. I'm going to move us along to charity news the week. So Greg, this is a bunch of countries have come together to help stop deforestation. Is that correct? 

Greg: Yeah, but more specifically. So as part of that, I don't know if people heard, a large number, I think it's like 90% of countries have pledged to end deforestation by 2030, including the likes of Brazil and China. But what is interesting for this particular story and why it's a charity news of the week story, is a starter fund. So at least this much, so 1.25 billion in funding is to be given to indigenous people in local communities as part of the aim to stop deforestation by 2030. So you've got leading the fund, the UK, the US, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. And it's really, really good. It's moving away from that kind of white savior mode and say and realising that we need to engage with local communities who are impacted by this to change things rather than saying, well, you can't do this anymore and then creating huge issues from an economic perspective. Because you say to people, you can't do that anymore but then don't give them any options. They'll just ignore you. But also, it's a really positive move. You know, it's a change of tack from all of these governments. So you had the lady of Ecuador's indigenous people who serves as general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, lots of fit in there, said ‘’we are happy with the financing announcement. We'll be watching for concrete measures that will reveal whether the intent is to transform a system that is directed less than 1% of climate funding to  indigenous and local communities, what matters is what happens next’’. And then also from Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation said, ‘‘this is a historic moment. We have a once in a generation opportunity to change the paradigm and to at last give power and a seat at the table to the people who are critical to the solution’’. So I think a lot of people are kind of re recognizing this is a real positive move, but still, you know, kind of having that pragmatism to kind of say, well, let's see where this goes.

Jonny: So it’s 1.25 billion and the aim is to stop deforestation by 2030. I guess that’s what COPs has been listening to recently is that enough money, which seems to be.I mean, it sounds like a lot of money, but in terms of the scale of the problem, is more needed in terms of the timelines? Is there a feeling that that's ambitious enough?

Greg: I think that the view is this is a starter fund. And so it's kind of like, we've got to start somewhere, let's start doing this and let's work out, you know, what worked, I think they’re kind of viewing it as, well, let's do it, see what works and then continue funding based on that.

Jonny: I think I'm skeptical because it sounds like you've put a good news story in Greg. And that doesn’t feel very common for you there? That's why I'm looking for you to say, but actually, you know, I guess, I guess,

Sandra: [laughs] I guess that's where like this quote of like what matters is what happens next. Because I think giving money is one of the ways to redistribute power but the other way and I read a paper as part of the climate in color reads group, which was around indigenous forest governance, I guess. And in there, they were also talking about the fact that there needs to be a legal structure and a legal framework for the indigenous community to do this work of taking care of the forest and illegal structure also makes it illegal to move in as a third company or like a different business that wants to use the forest. So I think while the money is a good start, I think those legal bits that need to be in place, I think that's what's going to be interesting about this. 

Jonny: Absolutely. I would agree. It doesn’t really work on audio but Greg and were nodding as you were saying that. Do we have more to say on this or shall I move this along? I said I would be keeping it out of time and I have no idea what time we started at. So, feels broadly right but should I move us along? 

Greg: Yeah. Let's move on. 

Jonny: I’m keen to come back to that though. Like you say, Sandra, is it going to work? What kind of progress is made would be a good one. And we've been doing that increasingly, haven’t we, looking back over past stories to see, oh, that thing that sounded promising did anything come of? It would have to be one to keep an eye on I think. I mean, are we all dead by 2030 might be a reasonable measure of it. 

Greg: If we're still doing this in 2030, please put me out of my misery. 

Jonny: My God, I hope we’re not still doing this in 2030. 

Greg: [laughs] 

Jonny: I don’t think would be viewed as a negative impact of the climate crisis. I think it would be viewed as a small positive, probably. Okay, now I think we should talk about making can tech cheaper but it's okay to have a little bit of a giggle as well about Facebook being renamed Meta. I mean, I don't care, it’s one part of it. I just don't care. Until they shut down. I don't really, like, I think the logo looks like balls, like literally. That's a bit weird but meh. Facebook's a stupid name. Meta's a stupid name. I don't care. You know, stupid pictures, stupid CGR. It wasn't, they got mocked a lot for it. Anything is better than when they did the VR walk through the, was it a hurricane thing that they did?

Greg: Yeah, hurricane aftermath. Yeah. 

Jonny: Yeah. It's better than that. It wasn't insulting other than to my design sensibilities. But don't care. Don't know. Anyone else have anything to say on it or shall we move on? 

Greg: I didn't actually watch the full video. I've seen little clips of him desperately still trying to make that whole kind of VR hooking up with friends thing relevant. He desperately wants that to be a thing. I felt we mentioned it just cause we were talking about, you know, what will the name be last time I was on the pod. So it's interesting to see that they came, well, it's not interesting cause they were talking about a metaverse and now they call it Meta.

Jonny: Did any of you guess that it would be called Meta when you talked about what it would be called?

Greg: Uh, I can't remember. I think, you know, people Metaverse or something along those lines. So, yeah. What I find hilarious is that being already being sued by a PC company called Meta PCs. And there was also a migraine app, which isn't called Meta, but it uses the exact same thing. 

Jonny: Yeah, I thought that was silly. There's only so many shapes and migraines aren’t in the same space. There's no way that’s a rip-off.  Cause it’s a stupid logo anyway, for anyone, so that will happen. There’s is a limited number of shapes. It’s not, like if MySpace rebranded and bought an M, that would be brilliant. That would be an issue but don’t know [laughs] 

Greg: What do you think Sandra? 

Sandra: I kind of only heard about this through periphery. I didn't actually follow the story at all because I am very disinterested in everything that Zuckerberg does. Um, so yeah, I don't really have, I don't have any positive things to say about Facebook to begin with. So I think that will probably continue to be the same for this rebrand now with Meta. 

Jonny: Yeah, it’s like, we’ll rebrand and everyone will forget all the terrible stories about us. What I do you think though Sandra, you’re in a great position to push Microsoft to redesign their logo too, so it looks just like it. 

Sandra: Yeah. Yeah. 

Jonny: Just to control Zuckerburg. That would be wonderful. You heard it. It started here first folks. The ultimate troll coming from Microsoft. Microsoft Meta, use the M, that would be glorious. Should we talk about making green tech cheaper? Have you done it? Have you made the cheaper? Have you fixed it?

Greg: I'm sorry Johny, ist’ potentially another good news story. 

Jonny: Oh my God. I was the wrong host for this.  You know, I'm at my happiest where, you know, at a funeral, or seeing someone fall down the stairs. I'm not equipped for actual joy. But go for it anyway, I'll try to put the right expression on. 

Greg: Yeah. I mean, I'm sure you could very easily pick apart this story and, you know, talk about the 11 million a second, or was it a minute given to fossil fuels last year in support from governments. But I think, you know, we need to focus on the positives and encourage them to keep doing more of this stuff. So one of the main challenges with green tech is the cost. They want people to adapt and adopt to green tech much quicker but the problem is it's too expensive currently for kinda normal people. You know, not everybody's driving a Tesla. It's kind of viewed as, a sign of wealth. So the only way to do that, which is exactly the same way that they have done with fossil fuels is to provide funding to bring those prices down. Fossil fuel is massively undervalued for what it is. So the world leaders have pledged and they're going to coordinate the global introduction of clean technologies to drive those costs down. So more than forty nations said that they would align standards and coordinate investments, speed up production and bring forward the tipping point, which is that point where things become the norm. The first five breakthroughs; so the first things they're going to focus on is: clean electricity, electric vehicles, green steel, hydrogen, and sustainable farming. And the aim is to make these affordable by 2030 and create 20 million new jobs.

So things like the global electricity projects, the UK and India. It's also endorsed by 18 nations and they’re looking at a project called Green Grids Initiative, which is aiming to mobilise the political and financial spectrums to kind of look at this idea of international super grids. So improving the way that we produce and share and store electricity. And that's just one example of the number of different projects. What do we think? Do we think it'll work? 

Sandra: I think subsidies and investment into green technologies are super, super important. So that's good. I thought the green grids example is an interesting one. Simply because sharing the green electricity across countries is obviously important but I'd argue that it might be even more important to set up local grid structures for electricity that are more around like connecting communities on a local level to get a bit more because that means that they're also then more resilient for climate disasters. So yeah, it all depends I guess, on where exactly those investments or those subsidies are applied. 

Jonny: So how does it compete with the constant tax breaks and subsidies that they give to fossil fuel companies as well? 

Sandra: Yeah. 

Jonny: Again, this sounds positive, but if it's completely dwarfed by the vested interest in fossil fuels as well, does that limit the impact to some extent, you know? Like, and as a push, is it the UK has pledged that you're not allowed to make any petrol focused cars after a certain date. Have they put that rule in place, that’s the thing, isn't it? By X date, you know, you’re not allowed to, like stuff like that is helpful. While you say that thing is no longer acceptable and we're going to move away from it, is helpful but I wonder if this is a case of us trying to genuinely shift us this way. Uh, we still trying to pour money into those companies that are actively against this. I don't know if that's the case or not. 

Sandra: There's an interesting court case actually, that is going to be a court case in the UK. It's a campaign called Paid To Pollute, and it basically was all about in the beginnings of the campaign. It was about raising awareness about the fact that there are also many subsidies for fossil fuel companies. Part of that is now an actual court case against the Government from basically younger generations and saying that these subsidies are not good and we should stop them immediately, which would be an interesting change. 

Jonny: Excited to see what happens there. My office at the moment is, um, I don't know if I'd call it green energy. The heating still hasn’t been fixed. So I’m absolutely freezing cold because they’ve not fitted the radiator yet. It's next to me, but not connected, which makes me feel colder. So I have a hot water bottle on my lap but it's not enough. It's not enough. So yeah, leading the way really, I think, innovator, in terms of reducing your household energy. Just don't connect it up and freeze to death. Sorry, Greg.

Greg: I was just going to say back to, you know, the point on the energy thing. For all of these, I think that the bigger challenge is not the technology. The bigger challenge is, you could build many different things but the real challenge is the kind of politics and the way that society is structured around these things. So a great example is those localised grids. If you get people producing more local energy, so solar panels, windmills, you know, then they're feeding that into a localised grid where you can share that energy locally. It kind of raises that question about well, what's the role of utility firms in that relationship and, you know, you move away from that provider or supplier and customer kind of model. And that's going to take, you know, some huge changes. There are people looking at EDF have been running projects in France for years, looking at how it could work, but yeah, you're looking at major societal change and it goes for all of these things that they're looking at. But also there's that risk as well with this where you think because there's certain elements which are different to the traditional model that it's going to be better. So for example, vertical farming is very en vogue at the minute. There's UK’s largest vertical farm is going to be opened in Scotland soon, but they are very, very energy-intensive if they're not done in the right way. So it's really looking at, you know, are we just shifting the problem over to a different area and making sure that we're targeting the best solutions. 

Jonny: I don’t have a segue for that, on to, or maybe I do.  Speaking of best solutions….

Sandra: [laughs] 

Greg: [laughs] 

Jonny: We move on to nice of the week. Sandra you wanted to talk to us about a climate justice event, that sounded like a great solution. 

Sandra: Yeah. 

Jonny: Was that a good segue? I think it was. 

Sandra: That was a great segue. 

Jonny: It was a bit serious, wasn’t it? I think everyone feels a bit weird about it [laughs] go on. 

Sandra: At the climate action tech, we have like a bunch of different events series that we do. We have community events where we just meet to chat with each other. We have more like discussion events. Our cat salon series. Cat is the abbreviation we always use for Climate Action Tech. But this specific event. On a dimension was kind of part of a mini-event series that we ran this year in collaboration with the work on climate community and specifically the learning group that they have on climate justice because the event series itself focused on climate justice. And we had the pleasure of having Joycelyn Longdon from the Climate In Color community, join us. And she talked about the tech industry and climate justice and how the two are kind of interrelated. And she had some really brilliant takeaways and points around the issues that currently exist within tech in general. Snd the fact that our tendency to do things really quickly and always having this pressure of deadlines that often leads to us not actually doing the work of reaching out to the communities that are going to be impacted by all solutions. And co-designing with them rather than, yeah, and we tend to not do that. We don't co-design with them because we are under time pressure or something like that. Yeah. She talked about slowing down and acknowledging as well that we don't know everything because that's one of those other tech things where we always. Well, a lot of us, I guess, a lot of companies go out into the world with the assumption that they have the right solution, and acknowledging that you don't know everything will lead you to a place where you can actually ask questions and talk to people that are going to be impacted by your work. The recording for that event is on our Climate Action page and YouTube as well, for anybody who wants to check it out. It was a really, really great conversation. 

Jonny: Awesome. Sounds great. And again, we’ll put the links and stuff in the description so people can find things. And we have a and finally just the last segment. Is this you mocking me by putting Lego back on the agenda Greg?  Something about, Greg is going to talk about a toy for rich kids.

Greg: [laughs] Yeah. It's not about the toy. I actually, I definitely did. I mean, I put it in before I knew you were going to be on this one. So yeah, it was sweet irony when you joined. But yeah, they surveyed a bunch of children to understand how children would like to tackle climate change. And they basically put those ideas together in a leaflet like you would get with your Lego kit, telling you how to build it. Step by step. 

Jonny: Your £50 Lego kit. It comes with a leaflet. Okay. Cool. And you can only make one thing out of it.

Greg: You can get those free online. You can order them that easily if you're missing any pieces. 

Sandra: [laughs] 

Greg: Anyway, they've given these to the COP26 attendees like a, this is what children think, so do it. Which I think is just, yeah, it's brilliant. It's like if children know how to do this, then surely you guys can work this out.

Jonny: Yeah, I like it. I feel it's good to hear children's voices here because they're who we’re going to have to leave behind, Which is terrifying. 

Greg: Honestly,2050,  I'm imagining Logan's Run where they've just decided we've had enough. You're all going to die. Anyone over the age of 30 is done. You've ruined everything.

So now you're all gonna be. That's what I'm picturing happens in 2050. 

Jonny: Yeah. You and I have to imagine that Greg because there's no way we're going to survive that long. 

Greg: [laughs] 

Jonny: Like every day is a gift at this stage. I reached 40 last week. I didn't think it would happen. And just every day is that update as a gift. I’ve outlived my life expectancy by about 25 years, I think. So, you know, treasure it. Treasure every moment. Um, okay. Uh, okay. [laughs] So that is all we have time for. Listerers, what did you think? We would love to hear your thoughts? You can get in touch with us on Twitter at tech for good live. Or you can email us things. Nice mail, hate mail, whatever you want. Hello at tech for good dot live. Sandra, how did you find that? How was your first Tech For Good Live podcast experience? 

Sandra: It was lovely. Such a good chat and really interesting. 

Jonny: Oh, good. And in terms of people finding out more about you and your work in climate action tech, where is the best place for them to go for that? 

Sandra:  I mean the best place is probably our website. So climate action dot tech and my Twitter and LinkedIn are a part of the community page that we have there. And joining the community is probably the easiest way to get ahold of me because I'm pretty active there. 

Greg: Who can join? 

Sandra: So anyone who's either a tech worker or interested in this intersection of tech and climate or interested in activism in the workplace. 

Jonny: Tech for good live listeners. Get on that, join that community. Which is Steve. Steve is our listener.  So a guy called Steve listens. 

Greg: [laughs] 

Jonny: Steve, are you listening? Yeah. Cool. He'll join it. Tell your mates, Steve. Tell that mate. And Steve or anyone else, we would love it if you gave us a nice review and tell them about this podcast. Thank you to Podcast.co for hosting us. And please don't forget that this podcast is run by volunteers. You can tell that by the quality and we survive on sponsorships and donations. Right now, one of the primary goals is to make sure that all of our podcast episodes are accessible and making sure every episode is transcribed. This does cost some money. We need your help to make it become an ongoing reality. If you've ever tuned in to one of our podcasts or attended one of our events, please consider chipping in for the price of a cup of coffee. If you are able to, you can do that at tech for good dot live forward slash donate. So that is all from us. Thank you for that. So we will all say a collective goodbye. Goodbye. 

Greg: Bye.
Sandra: Goodbye.