Biodiversity - Saving the Planet, One Species At A Time

On this episode of Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap, Peter Reynolds and environmental activist and professional engineer Geoff Sheffrin talk about COP 15, a UN-facilitated program which had 12,000 in attendance and is focused on protecting the planet's land, ocean, water areas and halving food waste. Jeff points out that COP 15 is more doable than COP 27, but is concerned about the lack of deliverables, timelines and accountability. He suggests solutions on how to strengthen the program, including providing a fund to help developing nations. Geoff also discusses new technology being developed to make nuclear energy safer and more efficient.

Subscribe on your favourite podcast app and don’t miss an episode!
Also available on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkTMDHlF8N8lVIWzyPl4yhw?sub_confirmation=1

Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100087081536326
Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mothernature_podcast/

Chapters

• 2:08 Protect 30% of Earth's land.
• 13:01 Reduce emissions with thorium.
• 20:48 Transition from coal to gas.
• 26:18 Reduce emissions by 2030.
• 30:37 Reduce emissions to save Earth.
• 38:09 Be a mover, not a spectator.

Transcript

Peter Reynolds  00:17

Hi, I'm Peter Reynolds and welcome to Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap with Geoff Sheffrin. And joining me as always, is our resident professional engineer, environmental activist and shouter from rooftops, Geoff Sheffrin.. Geoff, welcome to the podcast.

Geoff Sheffrin  00:34

Peter. Thank you. Shouting from rooftops. I liked that thought. 

Peter Reynolds  00:39

I think more people need to shout from rooftops.  

Geoff Sheffrin  00:41

I agree. 

Geoff Sheffrin  00:43

100% 

Peter Reynolds  00:45

So, last episode, we talked a lot about COP27.  

Geoff Sheffrin  00:50

Yes.  

Peter Reynolds  00:51

And and all the things that happened in Egypt. Since then we've had COP15, happening in Montreal? So can you tell us a little bit about what COP15 is?

Geoff Sheffrin  01:05

Well, I have to say, I like a COP15. And I'm just on my screen pulling something up. So I can have a look at what I want to talk about. But COP15, I think is in many respects, perhaps more valuable. That's probably an exaggeration. COP27 has its value, but with 40,000 people attending and you know, over 18 days, and so on, and 196 countries or whatever it was, it's a bit cumbersome. If I look at the COP15, it's less cumbersome. It only had about 12,000 people in Montreal. And I think it had potentially some better outcomes, it really serves the planet better than COP27, which really serves the energy side of the equation. They're both UN facilitated programs. But if I just give you the highlight of the COP15, the highlight from it, the outcome is 3030. And what that means is that by 2030, we need to protect 30% of the Earth's lands, oceans, coastal waters, inland waters, and reduce by $50 billion, the annual harmful government subsidies and cut food waste in half. That's what COP15 has as a mandate. So, you know, to me, that's pretty strong.

Peter Reynolds  02:32

So why do we even need this mandate Geoff?

Geoff Sheffrin  02:36

Well, I have to say I'm not impressed with either of the COPs, because there's just so many people and so much politics. And it's back to one of the earlier podcast where I talked about the leadership issues. And I think I've got to give the United Nations and Guterres absolute credit. They're doing an incredible job of trying to pull together the global picture, and the global leadership to make these things happen. And COP15 is, I think, every bit as important as 27. And I like to think it's actually more important because it looks at the planet from a green point of view. And if you go back to the 3030 concept, countries like Canada are not badly equipped. In order to say we'll find a way of making 30% of our green infrastructure, you know, a viable and preserved for 2030. It's more doable, you get to a very small country, they have more challenges. And whilst I love the program, because the COP15 came up with four goals, quite lengthy, but not overly lengthy and very clear goals. But 23 tasks attached to those goals. Nothing wrong with 23 tasks. They're all good. I've been trying to get in touch with one of United Nations people whose contact information I have through the copy of Dean because I want to ask the question, I'm not seeing the deliverables. I'm not seeing the timelines, and I'm not seeing the teeth in terms of specific accountabilities. What I'm seeing is the global generic picture, but I'm not seeing the specifics. And to my mind, COP27 is worse that than COP15 is. COP15 at least has the ability, I think to pull that together. But I haven't seen that stuff. And I'm always skeptical about what we can do. When we've seen how wonderfully adapt our world leadership is. Blah, blah, blah. 

Peter Reynolds  04:39

Well, I think teeth is the real key. I mean, it's wonderful to get people together and to make agreements which are historic. I mean, we had with the Paris accord, we had historic agreement to reduce carbon emissions during COP15, which is an it's The biodiversity conference.

Geoff Sheffrin  05:01

Yes. 

Peter Reynolds  05:03

This idea that we have this historic agreement to preserve the Earth,

Geoff Sheffrin  05:09

Yes.  

Peter Reynolds  05:10

By 3030, as you were saying,

Geoff Sheffrin  05:14

Earth and species. 

Peter Reynolds  05:17

Well, this is what's interesting is that I think maybe that's something that the general audience doesn't realize when they think about saving species or biodiversity they think of animals. And, you know, we're forgetting about plants. And I was reading  

Geoff Sheffrin  05:34

And insects.

Geoff Sheffrin  05:34

Where they talked about, 

Peter Reynolds  05:35

And Insects. Exactly. And this idea that, you know, if you want to meet the targets of COP27, of Net Zero, by 2050, you have to preserve the rainforests.  

Geoff Sheffrin  05:53

Yes. 

Peter Reynolds  05:53

You have to preserve that biodiversity.  

Geoff Sheffrin  05:56

Yes.  

Peter Reynolds  05:56

So COP15 is needed to make COP27 happen.  

Geoff Sheffrin  06:01

Absolutely.  

Peter Reynolds  06:02

It's all interrelated, 

Geoff Sheffrin  06:03

It's all interconnected, and the insects are an important piece of it. I mean, if bees die out, we don't have good ways of pollinating plants for food. It's just we haven't got that far yet. We rely on the bees. There's all sorts of little creatures, which are part of the food chain overall, which are required in order to sustain us, which is where COP15, and the biodiversity piece is so critical. 

Peter Reynolds  06:28

Here's a couple of facts that I found on on the World Wildlife website. And they were saying that since the 70s, there's been a 69% decline in the animal species around the world. And in places like Latin America and the Caribbean, that jumps to 94%.  

Peter Reynolds  06:50

And I think this also speaks to one of the failings that I've heard when it comes to COP15. And I wanted to talk to you about that, was this idea of providing a fund to help developing nations with this, because I can understand, you have a place like Brazil that has a rainforest, and Europe is coming to them and saying you can't touch your rain forests. And they're looking at European countries and saying you cut down all your forests to fund your industrial revolution, and that's something we need a way to move forward economically. Is there a possibility to have a fund to help us with places like Indonesia and the Congo. They need these funds, but people walked away from that. That was not an agreement that came out of it. What are your thoughts?

Geoff Sheffrin  06:50

Right.  

Geoff Sheffrin  07:54

That's exactly the problem. I mean, when I go back to that, that opening statement, let me just pull it up, again, from my benefit. And I go back to that opening statement. And you look at the details, you know, reduced by 500 billion US dollars, the annual harmful government subsidies. Well, you know, that's all part of what you're talking about. This is all what's being done at the moment in terms of sustaining economies. And I don't see a quick way out of this stuff. You know, so many people, the whole world leadership has got to be on board with the concepts of what we're trying to do in terms of COP15, and COP27. And that's where I see the big struggle. You know, we said in the earlier podcast, technology, we can make it happen. Money. I'll come to that another time, because I've come across some more interesting things there. But the other side of it is the leadership, technical leadership we can muster. We've got it all over the world. Right. But political leadership? I don't know. I'm not very optimistic.  

Peter Reynolds  08:58

So the next COP16, I guess is happening in Turkey in 2024. What are your hopes for that as we move forward? 

Geoff Sheffrin  09:08

Well I would love to see and obviously they'll have their agenda. But I would love to see that they build on the four goals on the 23 tasks, but actually get some deliverables attached to that some financial deliverables, some commitment from the wealthy countries, some mechanisms for getting the support to the less wealthy, the developing countries, and the mechanism for monitoring that. So corruption doesn't filter the money away, so it doesn't get applied where it needs to be applied. That's what I would love to see happening. I'd like to see that in both COPs actually. 

Peter Reynolds  09:43

Absolutely, absolutely. No, and I think really teeth is what is that sort of 

Geoff Sheffrin  09:49

To me? That's the one word teeth.

Peter Reynolds  09:53

Absolutely, absolutely. And I have another question for the UN. Why is everything called COP? It's so confusing. How does 15 happen after 27? And it's not related to the date? I've often think that the UN needs like a marketing team to say 

Geoff Sheffrin  10:14

They have a marketing team, but I don't think this is on their agenda. So you're absolutely right. I mean, 27 years ago, they started out with this thing called Conference of the Parties. That's where COP came from, Conference of the Parties. Well, all right, yeah, that sounds reasonable. For the first meeting, but after that, I would have thought there to come up with some sort of more catchy directive name.

Peter Reynolds  10:37

Absolutely. And to separate a conference that's dealing with reducing emissions to one that's looking at protecting biodiversity. And it doesn't... They're interconnected, of course, but they're also very different. And I think it gets confused. And there's so much noise out there that people are hearing COP this COP that oh, now it's in wasn't just in, in Egypt, how was it in Montreal now? And so, yeah, I think that finding ways to connect with the public, yeah. And, you know, get them to care is going to get them to vote for the people, and then run up that political issue you're talking. 

Geoff Sheffrin  11:21

But if I look at the counterpoint to that, I don't think you can realistically integrate COP15 With COP27, the two programs are justifiably separate and need to be because what we're doing to create the problem is really what COP27 is trying to solve for us. And what we're doing to keep the thing under control from the planet perspective is what the COP15 process is trying to do for us. So the two, you integrate the two. And quite frankly, you'll have we've already got a zoo. You know, what is the acronym for a double Zoo? I don't know. But that's what you'll have.

Peter Reynolds  11:58

Absolutely, no, no, for sure. But you can't have one without the other. And you need both for both to succeed. And I think that brings us on to our next topic, which is clean energy. And looking for ways to get the world off coal. Looking for new technology out there, that's going to help move us towards Net Zero. And I know you have some interesting news about a company that's doing just that.

Geoff Sheffrin  12:30

Yeah, I think you're thinking about or thinking about Lightbridge?  

Peter Reynolds  12:35

Yes, 

Geoff Sheffrin  12:35

Okay. Well, and I must preface what I'm saying, because I don't know the detail, I am putting pieces of information together by having done extensive searches on Lightbridge itself. And then what I speculate to be their process, not their process, but what I speculate to be their key resource fuel for this program. And from what I've been able to put together, I think they are working on thorium. Thorium is element number 90 in the periodic table. It is to some extent radioactive. But it can be stimulated into radioactivity by inserting I believe it's a nucleus into the material, and it becomes radioactive, but at a much more controllable way than uranium isotopes. And I don't know enough about it. So I'm speaking totally off the top of my head. But it sounds as though it's a big step forward, because the rods can be manufactured, they seem to have a greater heat generation capability at lower temperatures. They seem to have much less radiation risk. And they don't have that proliferation of risk attached to them either. Because as a material, it doesn't refine into the Ultra Rich, pure plutonium that you need for nuclear power for nuclear bombs. So there's many pluses there. I'm sure there are some minuses to it. One of the people I've talked to on the nuclear side, gave me a couple of insights into what the the non positives might be. But I don't know enough about it yet. And at some stage on a future podcast, knowing who the president of that company or the CEO of that company is, you know, they're down in the US, but they have patented technology. I'm going to see if I can find a way of engaging him in our process. 

Peter Reynolds  14:27

That would be great. I mean, I find that whole area fascinating. I mean, you know, I'm not the engineer of our dynamic duo. I'm the noob. To do some research on this topic. I found it absolutely fascinating and just learning things like, currently nuclear fuel provides 10% of the world's electricity.  

Geoff Sheffrin  14:50

Yes. 

Peter Reynolds  14:52

And as we've talked about earlier, it has virtually zero carbon emissions. And it provides that 24/7 consistent power, that sort of wind and solar can't match.  

Geoff Sheffrin  15:05

That's right.  

Peter Reynolds  15:08

So this technology, it looks like sort of the two key things are is that you can produce more power out of existing nuclear reactors. 

Geoff Sheffrin  15:18

Yep. I'd like to comment on that.  

Peter Reynolds  15:21

Yeah, yeah, no, no, go right ahead. 

Geoff Sheffrin  15:24

There's an article yesterday in Globe and Mail talking about the Canadian Nuclear piece, and what's going up in Bruce Power in terms of some risks with the uranium, the fuel rods, etc. And there are some risks attached to it. And there's, you know, they're at the end of their life, technically, and a couple of them have extended lives on the nuclear reactors in our three key Ontario Power stations. And there are issues attached to that. And the article, when I read it, I found I think it was well researched. But I found it to be a little alarmist, and a little one sided talking about the risks. And yes, there are risks, but he didn't talk about. So I know a little bit about the inside programs that are going on in terms of refurbishing. And that didn't seem to come up in this article. So I'm a little bit concerned that we shape public opinion through various things. And often we don't have a full balanced viewpoint that covers the pros and the cons of what the issue is.

Peter Reynolds  16:26

Absolutely, absolutely. I believe that's the nuclear industry calling you right now Geoff.  

Geoff Sheffrin  16:32

Yeah, right.  

Peter Reynolds  16:36

What's interesting is that you're 100%, right, that this idea of public perception when it comes to nuclear technology, and nuclear generation as a form of power. Of course, people think of things like Fukushima and Three Mile Island, and, you know, all these different disasters. And we have our I know, we've already sort of talked about that. But, you know, what can the industry sort of do to sort of put the public's mind at ease when it comes to thinking of nuclear power as green?

Geoff Sheffrin  17:18

Well, I think they're already doing a lot. And I think, I think it's very difficult to get out of the public's mind, the risk attached to the three most significant global nuclear incidents, which was Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, right? You look at that you know, people, once they get to that point, people don't look any further. Right. I've gone into the detail. And I know what the safety risks statistics are, that relate nuclear, solar and wind, and they're very comparable, right? And I array that against oil, gas, and coal. And we're miles apart, right? Those things are vastly more hazardous than the three green elements. And I would say that none of the three greens are carbon free, they are in operation. But you don't make solar panels without process. And that process emits some carbon. You don't make wind turbines without process and you're emitting carbon. You build a nuclear reactor, you're putting steel and concrete together, they both emit a lot of carbon before you've got them cured and working. But it's the same with a hydroelectric dam. The concrete is the piece that creates the carbon. Once they're all up and running, there's virtually no carbon emissions at all. They're green. totally, all of it. Nevermind. Sorry. I'm getting excited again.

Peter Reynolds  18:47

That's okay. Get on that rooftop Geoff. Okay. That's what you're here for. So talking about that? I know, this idea of getting the world off coal. And, particularly places like China. And I know you've, nuclear power seems to be one of those solutions. But I know you, you had some thoughts on a two step process. To kind of ween the world off. Cool. 

Geoff Sheffrin  19:11

Let me let me talk for a second, to put it into context. Because to be fair, to China and a lot of other countries, China is investing heavily in green, in terms of hydro, in terms of solar, in terms of wind, and in terms of nuclear, right. But they're also spending money on coal because they need to keep things going. Right. I've been doing some extensive research on coal fired power plants around the world. And I've been scratching my head on this because I keep coming up with the same numbers which I find a little unbelievable. There's not much more than about 2200 coal fired power plants around the world. Now, given that there are 62,000 power generating plants around the world, if only 2000 out of them to those 200 are from coal. I am digging more I want to find out whether or not that's real. If it's real, the stats, I've got to dig further into the 2200. China, India and the US have about 75 80% of that. China is the biggest, right? So when I go back to the power stations piece out of the 2200, I add up China, India and the US, over half the powers, the coal fired power stations are in those three countries. So I don't know, I'm scratching my head a little bit about it, because coal is certainly the problem. But I haven't looked at oil and gas because we also have those as power stations, right?  Gas more generally then oil, but they're both running. But what if we then take that a teeny bit further. And I'm looking at the prospect of coal. And this is me just throwing something out to the engineers generally. A coal fired plant requires a mechanism for generating the heat. Ultimately, a pot of CO2 goes up the stack but generates the heat. So I can boil the water, generate steam ,drive the turbines. Well, that's not a big step removed from changing those to gas. In my opinion. I have not looked at the detail, I have no idea about what it is. But I'm thinking gas is nowhere near as bad as coal in terms of environmentally being a problem. It's a problem. But gas is number three, on that pollution hierarchy lists, oil and coal is above it. So I'm thinking, is it not possible to re engineer it and you may not get gas to all of the coal stations, but is it not possible to reengineer coal fired power plants, temporarily transitionally, into gas. So that eventually, when you get nuclear and green and other options, working at the capacity you need, you can then dismantle in that particular technology. Meanwhile, you've reduced the carbon footprint for that particular power plant and you've reduced it quite significantly and got rid of it. But you've reduced it significantly. So I have no idea what I'm talking about. I've not looked into it, I'm not the engineer. But one of the things I'm trying to reach is engineers, somebody out there, you must be working on it. Tell me about it. 

Peter Reynolds  22:21

I think you're right, that there are hopefully people listening out there or watching us, you know, that have those kinds of solutions. And we encourage them to reach out to us because we'd love to have you on the podcast. This is about talking about climate activism. But it's also talking about new technology, and hopefully inspires some people out there to look for new solutions. So we've covered a lot of ground so far as we always do. I wanted to turn to your work at OSPE. And the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and maybe you can talk a little bit about that and give us an update. 

Geoff Sheffrin  23:02

Okay, well, we've had a few meetings since then, I have met with the Sustainability Head. So at the moment, I'm the Chair of that task force, and had been the Interim Chair. But I've just held my hand up to say, Guys, it works for both of us, I think. So if you're interested in having me as a full time volunteer Chair for the Climate Crisis Taskforce. I'm doing that. I've had a meeting now with the Sustainability Chair. And I'm planning another meeting with one of the others. And we're trying to coordinate the chairs to make sure that from my point of view, as I've been asked by OSPE is to keep an eye on the climate change pieces that the other committees touch on. Right. All of them have some influence. And our Climate Task Force, Climate Crisis Taskforce is the key. When I'm trying to make sure that what we do in that taskforce is complementary to what the others are doing. And then we're not overlapping each other. So that's one of my mandates from OSPE. Right? OSPE I believe is agreed to carry the podcast that we're doing. So we should have a link with OSPE for that. So I think that'd be helpful. Because the bottom line is, as we started out at the outset, I'm trying to reach everybody, but my primary focus is I want to get to the engineers. Because as I've said, time and again, at the early podcast, the engineers, we are the ones that can make the technological difference. So I'm just trying to find ways of encouraging that to happen. So that's that. So you know, it's active, and I'm having a lot of fun there. And that's great. 

Peter Reynolds  24:45

Yeah, any way that we can engage with the community with the people that can make these changes, and whether that's engineers, or politicians, or environmental activists or scientists. I mean, our goal is to continue having those conversations and often I think you talked, you touched on this earlier. These conferences are fantastic and bring people together from all over the world. But there's a lot of politics. And there's a lot of things that people can't say, And I'm hoping that through this podcast we'll be able to start those conversations and say the things that people maybe want to say, but can't?

Geoff Sheffrin  25:29

Interesting thing, Peter, I had mentioned earlier that for the next podcast. So we touched on at the end, I'm expecting to have this person in from the nuclear industry. And what's interesting is, and he and I talked about it briefly, he was at COP27. And I asked him about some of those things in terms of what were the 600 and odd delegates from the fossil fuel industry doing? So we're gonna have a conversation about that at the next podcast. 

Peter Reynolds  26:00

So I know we were always talking about hope. And we're always talking about inspiring young people, you know, with moving forward these conferences. But tell us again, your thoughts on the importance of the date of 2030. Because when it comes to when it comes to, you know, COP27, we've agreed to 45% reduction by 2030. And, you know, net zero by 2050. When it comes to COP15, we're talking about 30% by 2030. So those are a lot of numbers. And often when I hear 30 by 30, you know, it sounds cool. And all these numbers, but how realistic are those goals? And ultimately, what are your thoughts on us moving forward to meeting them? 

Geoff Sheffrin  27:02

Maybe I can answer that in just two ways. If I look at 2030, and if I go back to COP20, which was in 2015, that's the famous Paris Accord where we agreed one and a half degrees C should be our maximum by 2030. Well, we are now just over halfway through that time span between 2015 and 2030. And we're at 1.2. Excuse me, we're 80% up the curve. And we're only 50% through the time, I'm not sure I can extrapolate that to be success at 2030. So it's a concern. But the other part about 2030. And then also the Net Zero piece, I think 2030 is critical. Because if I look at the Net Zero piece, Net Zero by 2050. All that means in my opinion, is that we've locked in the status quo. And by the time we get to 2050, and we pass 2030, the status quo in terms of carbon dioxide and methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, is going to be significantly worse than where we are now. Because Net Zero, and I'll give you a nice little example of Net Zero. Here's a Canadian example I came across yesterday, and you may have heard of. There's a consortium in Alberta called Pathways, Pathways Consortium. They represent the six largest processes of fossil fuels in Alberta. They represent over 90% of that industry. They are just on the final stages of getting approval and may already have I don't know, of carbon sequestration. Right. So from their operations, they're going to be spending 16 and a half billion dollars to sequester carbon. Great. But here's my Net Zero piece. That to me is a perfect example of Net Zero. If they achieved the objective of taking all the carbon that they generate in the current operations and sequester it. Right? That in itself is a Net Zero. But what has it done? 

Peter Reynolds  29:09

For those Geoff who don't know what sequestering it means.  

Geoff Sheffrin  29:13

Bury the bloody stuff how? Does that keep it simple? Bury the frickin stuff. 

Peter Reynolds  29:18

It's very, that's very simple. It's simple enough that even I understand for Geoff, that is great. 

Geoff Sheffrin  29:25

But let me continue a little bit further. So they're doing this, which is fine. And they're getting their piece under control in terms of a Net Zero. 2050 is too late, but it doesn't matter. Let's just get into the other part of it. They're still mining a product and Canada's economy and Alberta's economy depends on us, putting it through a pipeline out to BC and other places in order to get it processed. That processing is still where our carbon problem comes from. So the Net Zero for their piece is fine. But the Net Zero from the product that is produced and then processed else  where, refined into fuels and burned etc. The Net Zero piece isn't there. So that's where I struggled with a Net Zero concept because Net Zero at the end of it, if by 2050 we're at Net Zero, then all we've got is a whole pile of pollution in the atmosphere. We won't be at one and a half degrees by 2050. If I live, I won't live that long. But I'd be delighted, delighted if we aren't no more than two degrees. Because you heard us talk about climbing tipping points in the last week, we're going to be in a shit show as far as I can see. So you know, this, this Net Zero is it's important because it's easy to get your mind around. It's another great statement to feel good about. But it's only an interim solution. And it is not the endpoint. It can't be the endpoint. We're not making enough progress. 

Peter Reynolds  30:53

Yeah, I mean, it's what you talked about. It's one step. It's one piece of the puzzle. And I think that's what we're learning. 

Geoff Sheffrin  31:01

Important. But nonetheless.

Peter Reynolds  31:04

No, absolutely. And it's one of these challenges, when you talked originally about this idea of needing, you know, $40 trillion to solve the climate. Numbers like that seem so unreachable, so impossible, that I do understand when governments and organizations have to set somewhat realistic goals, even though deep down, they might realize those goals aren't strong enough, measures aren't strong enough to solve the problem. But hopefully, the idea being is that we might not have solved the problem by 2050. But we'll be better off. And so, just hopes those tipping points you talked about aren't the end, you know, but we actually, we actually do still give ourselves a little bit more time. And Mother Nature, just a little bit more, hopefully has a little more patience with us. 

Geoff Sheffrin  32:06

Well, I think if we show enough progress to 2030, Mother Nature likely will, you know, ramp down a little bit, because I think over the next seven years now, I think we're going to see an awful lot more extreme weather. What did we had in terms of the whole of North America, you know, had this tremendous Blizzard over Christmas, right? Yet, global warming, we are getting above average temperatures right now. Right? And we had a record high in the last little while last week or two. Just this is global warming, the weather patterns are getting more extreme. The good news is we live in the banana belt of Toronto, and in spite of Buffalo had two meters of snow. My daughter had snow up to her waist in her backyard in Gravenhurst. A friend of mine who is about 50 kilometres north, he had more than seven feet of snow in his backyard. With the wind blowing my driveway over those days was constantly clear and visible because the wind was blowing the snow off. I got two centimeters. This is Mother Nature changing the weather patterns. 

Peter Reynolds  33:11

No, it is so confusing. And you're looking at the news and it seems again, as you're saying, Buffalo, Rochester you know, it's not that far away. And the two incredible extremes. I think my son for example was upset that all the rain and warmth will impact him skiing but he also on the flip side love the fact that there was no snow to shovel. So he's, he's torn. But hopefully we can use these extreme weather events or lack thereof in some cases to open up this dialogue. And speaking of dialogue, I wanted to talk a little bit about the people who are connecting with us and reacting on social media which has been really exciting. And and we just want to thank you all for your support and it's really fun you know when I look at where we're being listened to, you know, Canada, in the US of course, the United Kingdom, Sweden. Sweden, Norway, Mexico, and we even have someone in Nepal. 

Geoff Sheffrin  34:25

Love it! 

Peter Reynolds  34:27

Someone has decided hey, you know what, I want to listen to these two guys in Canada. This is super exciting.  

Peter Reynolds  34:34

This is, no kidding.  

Peter Reynolds  34:35

In terms of sort of the global reach. 

Geoff Sheffrin  34:36

I'm glad you're keeping track of this because I'm not I'm just too busy. I'm just too busy trying to get do groveling the detail.

Peter Reynolds  34:43

Listen you just you just keep up the stuff from the rooftops. 

Geoff Sheffrin  34:47

I'll get a longer ladder. 

Peter Reynolds  34:52

But it's really fun and I you know on Facebook for example, we're posting clips as well as TikTok  and Instagram. And for example, we had one person Norton, who says, when we talk about Mother Nature doesn't give a crap, and they say, she's breaking open a can of whoop ass. And we ain't seen nothing yet. I thought that was love that and, you know and people saying that,  I don't blame her, ungrateful brats acting like we don't need the earth to live. So you've got you know, you can see you got passion. And of course we would absolutely for those listening or watching we'd absolutely love to engage with you on social media. So please, on all your social media channels, Mother Nature Doesn't Give a Crap. And it's very exciting. 

Geoff Sheffrin  35:49

If a few feel as excited as we do. If you're out there, as a listener, pass it on forwarded, get more people to engage. That's what we need to do. 

Peter Reynolds  35:59

Absolutely, absolutely. You can share it, you can like, you can subscribe, but you're right, word of mouth is what is going to get, you're gonna get the message, you're gonna get the message out there. So I thought just for fun Geoff, talking about getting the word out there. SEO and improving the searchability of the podcast is always sort of critical. How kind of Google works is the more environmental related words you use in a given podcast. 

Geoff Sheffrin  36:29

Right?  

Peter Reynolds  36:29

When we do our transcripts, that makes us more searchable. 

Geoff Sheffrin  36:33

Okay.  

Peter Reynolds  36:33

So I thought as a purely promotional piece, you and I play a little game where we would name words that have to do with environmental activism, and the environmental crisis, and we'll go back and forth. And then when we when one of us misses, then the game is over. And but we've said said a few words. So I'll start her off. And I will say greenhouse gas. 

Geoff Sheffrin  36:58

CO2. 

Peter Reynolds  37:01

Net Zero. 

Geoff Sheffrin  37:02

2030 is close to 2050. Too far. 

Peter Reynolds  37:09

COP15. 

Geoff Sheffrin  37:11

Great. Green. 

Peter Reynolds  37:15

Greta Thunberg. 

Geoff Sheffrin  37:18

Activist, perfect.

Peter Reynolds  37:21

Greenwashing. 

Geoff Sheffrin  37:23

Help. No. climate disaster.

Peter Reynolds  37:29

Climate emergency. 

Geoff Sheffrin  37:32

Fix it.  

Peter Reynolds  37:35

I think that's a good way to end it.

Geoff Sheffrin  37:37

I don't think I'm counter pointing well enough with with succinct words, we should, we should try this for the next podcast. And I should come up with single words to make it more searchable. 

Peter Reynolds  37:47

I'm happy to do that, to play this game with you. Because I think there's there that maybe there are too many words out there that describe the climate crisis. And we need to solve these problems to reduce them. I just wanted to, before we go, of course, I wanted to I know you always have a message for the people out there. 

Geoff Sheffrin  38:09

Well, first of all there's plenty of positives. And I think this podcast has focused on a few more positives then the two previous ones did. But my closing message as it always is. Movers make things happen. Everyone else is a spectator. So go be a mover. 

Peter Reynolds  38:29

Thank you so much Geoff, for your insights today. And thanks everyone for watching. Again, you can find us on YouTube as well as wherever you get your podcasts. Please be sure to like, share, and subscribe. And we'll see you next time. 

Geoff Sheffrin  38:45

Thank you. Bye bye.