Podcasts about net zero

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. -------------------- 01 Introduction This is the second follow up to my 8 part series on nuclear power. In this episode I will attempt to answer a question posed by brian in ohio in a comment on HPR4583. In that comment he said: 02 -------------------- Loving this series. Maybe Whiskey Jack could give some cost comparisons between large and small reactors. He could also give us a realistic look at nuclear plant safety/accidents compared to conventional power production. Looking forward to the episode on FORTH generation reactors ;-) -------------------- 03 End of quote. The first question I answered in my previous follow up, which was HPR4628. In this episode I will attempt to answer the second question, which was about the safety of nuclear power compared to other sources of electrical power generation. One of the HPR janitors encouraged me to make this episode, so I think we can thank him for getting another HPR episode made. 04 Defining the Scope First, let's define the scope of the question. This will cover electrical power generation only. Within that scope I will consider only the following sources of energy. 05 Coal Oil Natural Gas Hydroelectric Nuclear Wind Solar I won't cover geothermal, wave, or tidal power as these are only used in very small amounts and so there simply isn't enough literature on them to base a discussion on . 06 Foreshadow Conclusion I should mention right away that I cannot provide absolute answers to this question in the form of a nice, neat ranking table based on numbers from peer reviewed scientific sources. The reasons for this will become apparent, but to put it briefly, the data on which to base such a ranking simply doesn't exist. I will however provide context within which people can think about the issue. Wherever possible, I will provide links to the references that I used in the show notes so you can read further on this yourself. -------------------- 07 Energy Catastrophism versus Energy Uniformitarianism First though I need to go off on a slight geological detour in order to explain an important analogy that I will use. 08 In the 19th century there was a great debate among geologists over what is known as catastrophism versus uniformitarianism. In seeking to explain the origins of the earth and of the landscape that we see around us, there were two points of view. 09 One was "catastrophism". This is the belief that the mountains, valleys, and plains that we see around us were formed as a result of great catastrophes which occurred relatively recently in earth's history. This explanation was necessary in order to fit geological features into an earth that was believed to be only a few thousands of years old. This view was heavily influenced by religious belief. In this view Noah's flood was the great catastrophe and the fossils of dinosaurs were the remains of animals who had not been saved on the ark and so had died in the flood. 10 The other point of view was uniformitarianism. This was the hypothesis that the landscape we see around us can be explained by the very slow accumulation of very small changes over very long periods of time. For this to be true however, the earth had to be far older than the few thousand years that a literal reading of the bible would suggest. The earth in fact had to be many, many, millions of years old. 11 Eventually, the uniformitarian view won out and people understood that while some catastrophes can take place, the shape of the landscape is overwhelmingly due to small changes over very long periods of time. 12 How is this Relevant to this Episode You Ask? How this is relevant is that I will use this analogy to explain how we need to think about energy and safety. Very small numbers of deaths and injuries multiplied over many occurrences can add up to big numbers, comparable in scale or possibly even larger than a single catastrophe or even several of them. 13 I don't know if anyone else has used this analogy before, I have just thought of this when writing the script for this podcast. None the less, I think it is a very useful way of helping to understand the issues. 14 As an example of this, think about the well known case of the safety of flying versus the safety of travelling in your car. Air crashes are catastrophes that make the headlines. Automobile crashes are seldom more than local news at best. You have probably heard many times the claim that if you making a trip somewhere, you are safer to fly than to drive yourself in your car. 15 Example - Hydro versus Solar I will now present an example of this. Hydro electric power has some notable large scale catastrophes associated with it. Roof top solar power does not have any notable catastrophes that I am aware of. However, which is safer? 16 Hydro Catastrophes Here are three examples of hydro electric catastrophes in just one country, Italy. The Vajont Dam which collapsed in1963 An estimated 1,917 to 2,500 people died. The Sella Zerbino dam which collapsed in 1935. More than 100 people died. The Gleno Dam which collapsed in 1923. An estimated 350 people died. https://damfailures.org/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4997708/ 17 I haven't tried to compile a global list of the worst hydro electric dam collapses, as this sort of information is actually very difficult to find, even on web sites dedicated to dam failures. An additional problem is that information on whether a dam was used for electric power generation or not is often not available. 18 Dam failures where contradictory or insufficient information is available on whether there was an associated hydro power plant include the 1975 Banqian Dam failure, where death estimates range up to a quarter of a million. 19 Solar Panel Slow Accumulation Contrast this with roof top solar panels. Many small accidents can add up to big numbers as well. 20 Health and safety literature discussing solar panel safety mention things such as Falls from roofs. Electric shock. Arc flash (burns from electrical arcing). Normal electrical safety procedures which are based around locking out sources of energy do not work with solar panels which makes safety more difficult. Heat stress due to working exposed in the hot sun. Warning from US government on falls by solar panel installers. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/228946 https://www.osha.gov/green-jobs/solar 21 Why We Cannot Compare the Two Hydro catastrophes are not well documented, but we can at least find records of some of the most notable ones. However, even those have very large variations in estimates of deaths. 22 Roof top solar deaths however are largely undocumented. The industry is largely unregulated. There is no central authority which accumulates many individual deaths or injuries. At best there are worker and public safety bodies who simply accumulate those statistics into general construction or household injuries. 23 Thus we have no reliable means of comparing the two energy sources on a comparable basis. We face the same problem with all other major electrical energy sources. So far as I am aware, there are no peer reviewed scientific studies which compare the relative safety of all of the major electrical energy sources we are considering here based on actual numbers. -------------------- 24 Safety Risks I will now try to list some the major hazards for each of energy sources we are considering. There is however limited data available. In many cases we just have reference to worker safety organizations as to what the hazards are. I will not attempt here to put numbers to these here. Categories 25 Coal, Oil, Natural Gas The hazards are Air pollution Mining and oil field accidents Pipeline explosions Transportation accidents. These- move a lot of material so these are significant. 26 Hydroelectric These include Dam collapse Drowning 27 Nuclear These include Radiation exposure 28 Wind These include Falls Confined space deaths (there is not much detail on this) Electric shock Ice throws (that is, throwing pieces of ice off the blades) This technology has a significant problem with people working alone which greatly increases risks associated with other dangers. 29 Solar These include Falls Electric shock Arc flash Heat stress 30 I have not tried to cover all possible risks associated with each category, just the ones which each industry considers to be the risks they concern themselves with. There does not exist any means by which risks of similar types are compared across different industries. 31 Reliability of Supply is Also Safety In a completely electrified net zero society, reliability of supply is a safety matter. People will die in very large numbers in cold climates if they do not have heat. If we have no fossil fuels, we need to also consider how reliably does a grid based on any of the options work. I have not seen anyone attempt to address this question and will not attempt to address it here. However, it must be addressed in any comprehensive attempt to rank safety. -------------------- 32 Studies or Articles on Estimates of Relative Safety Despite the difficulties of comparing the safety of different sources of energy, some people have attempted this anyway. Different estimates done at different times had different focuses, so unfortunately we do not have a nice set of studies that we can neatly use to cross check one another. I will however list the names and the authors and summarize the results. -------------------- 33 The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear By Dr. Petr Beckman Published in 1976 The author of this book tried to address the relative safety of different sources of energy in the mid 1970s. However, it is old at this point, so I won't bother digging through its pages to find his figures. 34 He mainly focused on comparing electric power generated with coal to nuclear. His conclusion was that if the goal was to prevent deaths or ill health in the process of generating electricity, then the logical conclusion was to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear. 35 The book was relatively well known at the time, as least as far as books on energy are concerned, so I thought it was still worth mentioning. I happen to have a copy of this book which I bought back in that time period It was the 8th printing of the book, so it would appear to have had relatively good sales. 36 The author did address the issue of what I have termed "catastrophism" in his comparison of different energy sources, although I don't know if he used this phrase. I don't know if he was the first to use this sort of analysis, but he certainly was very influential in terms of popularizing it. -------------------- 37 Risk of Energy Production by Herbert Inhaber Publication AECB 1119 March 1978 This study is a scientific paper from the same time period as the book "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". 38 He based his risk estimates largely on estimates of the amount of material which was used in the construction and operation of various power sources. While we could argue over whether or not this is a valid methodology, I think any such argument would be pointless as I think the age of the study alone renders it not relevant today anyway. Advancements in materials have changed the basis results significantly by now. However, as it exists I thought I would mention it to show that the idea of comparing energy sources to each other is not a new one. The author compared a wider variety of potential sources than Beckman did. 39 Here's his conclusions. He assumes equal amounts of energy produced by each method. The numbers are normalized such that the total sums to 100%. You can think of it in terms of what proportion of total deaths or injuries would result from each source if each were equally used. 40 Coal 27.5% Oil 25.6% Methanol 16.7% Wind 10.8% Solar photovoltaic 9.2% Thermal 8.1% Solar space heating 1.5% Ocean thermal 0.4% Nuclear 0.13% Natural Gas 0.08% 41 His natural gas estimate is drastically different from that of other authors. I am not going to worry about explaining it however, as the study is as I said old enough to be not very relevant anyway. I am mainly including this here out of historical interest. 42 As a footnote, the methanol he refers to would be synthesized from wood. This was a popular idea in that era as a means of providing liquid fuels for transportation. Practical battery electric cars in those days were strictly science fiction. 43 The ocean thermal category is a real blast from the past and I had forgotten all about that concept. It was a very popular idea at that time and was supposed to be *the* big and upcoming thing in renewable energy. It involved various means of attempting to extract energy from differences in water temperature at different depths in the ocean. It gradually faded away however, as despite great efforts being put into it, designs never proved to be practical. -------------------- 44 Electricity generation and health Anil Markandya, Paul Wilkinson Published in the Lancet, Vol 370, 15 September 2007 45 This is more recent than the previous one, although it is nearly 20 years old at this point. Unfortunately it doesn't cover wind or solar, just fossil fuels and nuclear. However it is still useful, and the Lancet is a very reputable peer reviewed journal. 46 I will present just the results rather than discussing the whole paper. The authors break it down into deaths among the public, occupational deaths, and air pollution related deaths, serious illness, and minor illness. 47 They break the energy sources down into lignite, coal, gas, oil, biomass, and nuclear. Lignite is a type of very low grade coal used mainly for electric power generation. In this paper biomass refers to energy crops and forest residues. 48 I will summarize the results by category rather than trying to describe a table that has 6 rows and 5 columns. All numbers are normalized in terms of deaths or cases per TWh. 49 Occupational deaths from accidents lignite 0.1 coal 0.1 gas 0.001 oil no data biomass - no data Nuclear is 0.019. 50 Deaths among the public from accidents lignite 0.02 coal 0.02 gas 0.02 oil 0.03 biomass no data Nuclear 0.003 51 Air pollution deaths lignite 32.6 coal 24.5 gas 2.8 oil 18.4 biomass 4.63 Nuclear 0.052 52 Air pollution serious illnesses lignite 298 coal 225 gas 30 oil 161 biomass 43 Nuclear 0.22 53 Air pollution minor illnesses lignite 17,676 coal 13,288 gas 703 oil 9,551 biomass 2,276 Nuclear no data 54 Natural gas edges out nuclear power slightly in terms of occupational safety, but in every other category nuclear is drastically lower in terms of ill effects than any of the alternatives. -------------------- 55 2020 Fatalities for US Roofers Increased 15% as Solar Roof Installations Increase Published in The Next Big Future July 6, 2021 by Brian Wang 56 This seems to be written by someone who has a popular science blog. I'm not familiar with it personally, but he addresses the subject so I'll list it. The title implies that it's all about rooftop solar, but he provides comparative numbers for the other energy sources of interest, so that is useful for our purposes. However, he doesn't describe his methodology, so we need to treat them with some caution. Here are his results These are deaths per thousand terawatt hours. 57 Coal - 100,000 Oil - 36,000 Natural gas - 4,000 Hydro - 1,400 Rooftop solar - 440 Wind - 150 Nuclear - 90 58 If we plot these numbers on a bar chart, coal and oil are so large that all of the others are squished to the bottom of the chart and are difficult to see at all. Let's therefore look at these in terms of orders of magnitude. Keep in mind that this is a logarithmic scale. This means that the difference between 4 and 5 is much greater in linear terms than the difference between 1 and 2. 59 Coal - 5 Oil - 4 Natural gas - 3 Hydro - 3 Rooftop solar - 2 Wind - 2 Nuclear - 1 60 Each of these numbers represents an order of magnitude, that is a power of ten. We can see that with rooftop solar, wind, and nuclear, the numbers are so close and the uncertainties are so great and their relative values so small compared to say coal that they can be seen as equivalent so far as safety is concerned. -------------------- 61 What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? by Hannah Ritchie Published in Our World in Data First published in 2017, updated in 2022 and 2024 62 The author of this study addressed both deaths and greenhouse gas emissions. Deaths from accidents and air pollution are normalized to per TWh of electricity, while greenhouse gas emissions are normalized to GWh of electricity over the life cycle of the plant. 63 Here are the death figures. Coal 24.6 Oil 18.4 Biomass 4.6 Natural Gas 2.8 Hydro power 1.3 Wind 0.04 Nuclear 0.03 Solar 0.02 64 For greenhouse gas emissions the figures are Coal 970 tons Oil 720 tons Natural gas 440 tons Biomass 78 to 230 tons Solar 53 tons Hydro power 24 tons Wind 11 tons Nuclear 6 tons 65 If we take the death figures and rank them by order of magnitude as we did with the previous article, we get the following. 66 Coal - 4 Oil - 4 Biomass - 3 Natural Gas - 3 Hydro power - 3 Wind - 1 Nuclear - 1 Solar - 1 67 Keep in mind that the previous article covered only rooftop solar and not large industrial installations, and so is not directly comparable. Also the units are different, with the previous article being in terms of thousand TWh, and this one being in TWh. If we exclude solar (as the numbers are not comparable), Brian Wang's numbers are between 1.5 to 4 times higher than Ritchie's, except for hydro which are almost identical. I think this latter is due to both sets of numbers are dominated by one exceptionally big hydro accident. 68 Overall however, the relative rankings are quite comparable. Ritchie's numbers for deaths from coal, oil, and natural gas appear to be directly from the study by Markandya and Wilkinson mentioned above. For the benefit of those who are wondering, Ritchie specifically states that her numbers for nuclear include the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents. -------------------- https://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/21-1/solar-power-more-dangerous-nuclear Direct link to file https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/07/2020-fatalities-for-us-roofers-increased-15-as-solar-roof-installations-increase.html -------------------- 69 Conclusion from Studies Remember that in engineering terms, when comparing groups of numbers which contain both both very small numbers and one or more very large numbers, the differences between the small numbers are often not significant. The differences between the small numbers may be the product of our ability to measure these things rather than any real differences. 70 For example, in the article by Ritchie wind power would appear to be twice as dangerous as nuclear. However, the difference between them is 0.02 compared to 24.6 for coal. In other words, the difference between apparently "dangerous" wind and apparently "safe" nuclear is equivalent to 0.08% of the total for coal. It's therefore meaningless and a red herring to even worry about. 71 With the above taken into consideration, generally the different sources of energy fall into two broad categories in terms of number of deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The fossil fuels and biomass fall into one group and wind, solar, and nuclear into another group. 72 Hydro power would seem to fall into the higher risk category or at least somewhere between the two, but this I suspect is mainly due to one exceptionally large dam collapse in China, the Banqian Dam failure in 1975. This is mentioned as being specifically included in the article written by Ritchie. This was a multi-purpose dam, and information on this dam is difficult to find. It is not clear to me whether it had a hydro electric generator associated with either it or another dam that was part of the same system. 73 Some people therefor may argue for its exclusion from the numbers. Of course some people may argue for its inclusion anyway, as it was a dam regardless of whether it actually had an electric generator attached. If we exclude it, then I think the numbers for hydro power would fall into the same range as for nuclear, wind, and solar. 74 Most people would consider hydro power to be safe and clean enough regardless of this and I will rank it as such in any conclusions that I come to. As you can see, even if we have numbers, it can be a matter of opinion as to how to interpret them. -------------------- -------------------- 75 Taking a Systems Approach Now let's take a look at the broader energy picture today and into the future. Many countries in many parts of the world have committed to the concept of "Net Zero", which means eliminating carbon emissions on a net basis. Net zero essentially means the complete electrification of society. We must therefore have electrical energy on demand and at low cost. We must as a result of this look at complete electrical systems rather than individual sources in isolation. 76 At one time many electrical systems were entirely coal or entirely hydroelectric. This is no longer the case. There are now major amounts of wind and solar involved in many countries. However these are inherently intermittent. This means that other sources of energy are inherently also required to have a functional system. 77 If any particular solution inherently requires fossil fuels to meet part of the demand, then the safety, pollution, and climate issues relating to those fossil fuels have to be factored in to that complete system when trying to come up with a relative ranking. Talking about Individual sources in isolation are therefore meaningless in these countries. 78 There are battery systems, but these are mainly used to stabilize and regulate the grid plus to a lesser degree to smooth out short term daily peaks in demand. They do not have the ability to store large amounts of electricity on a large scale for an entire grid for days, weeks, and months to make up for intermittency. 79 So a serious attempt to rank sources of energy would need to look at a variety of representative countries and for each one come up with a plan that involves 'x' megawatts from source 'a', 'y' megawatts from source 'b', etc., and total up the values for each. 80 I am not aware of anyone who has studied this larger issue. However, the problem has to be addressed from this perspective in order for any answer to be useful. Not taking this into account is like ordering a diet soft drink to go with with a high calorie meal and assuring yourself that your plans to diet are fine. 81 This is not to imply there is anything inherently wrong with wind or solar. It does mean that if your goal is to achieve both net zero and a clean environment, you have to look at your entire energy system as a complete system rather than focusing on what you feel are the most reassuring parts of it while ignoring the rest. This does however add to the argument that it is in fact inherently very difficult to come up with a system of ranking energy sources for safety. -------------------- 82 Nuclear, Climate, and Clean Air - Contrasting Examples To give a tangible example we will now look at two different places that followed two divergent paths at roughly around the same time frame. These are the province of Ontario in Canada, and Germany. 83 Ontario had a mix of coal, hydro electric, and nuclear generating plants. Germany had a mix of coal, nuclear and natural gas plants. Ontario shut down their coal fired plants and kept their nuclear plants. Germany however shut down their nuclear plants and kept their coal fired plants. 84 The Phase Out of Coal in Ontario In 2003 Ontario decided to close all of its coal fired generating plants, which consisted of 19 units (that is boilers and turbines) totalling 8,800 MW. This phase out was completed by 2014. 85 Here are the figures for amount of power generated by each energy source in 2003 and 2014. Nuclear went from 42% to 60% Hydro went from 23% to 24% Gas went from 11% to 9% Coal went from 25% to 0% Non-hydro renewable went from 0% to 7%. 86 As you can see, the bulk of that replacement came from increased use of nuclear power. Furthermore, this did not result in simply replacing coal with natural gas. While gas is cleaner than coal, it still has emissions and if you recall from the studies that we looked at earlier, had an estimated death rate roughly 2 orders of magnitude greater than nuclear, solar, or wind. 87 To put this in more practical terms, at one time Toronto regularly had clouds of smog obscuring it, to a large extent due to these coal fired power plants With the phase out of coal, smog days went to zero in 2015 compared to 53 a decade earlier. The 2023 figures for Ontario show carbon emissions of 53 grams per kWh of electricity generated. We can use this as a rough benchmark comparison for total emissions. 88 The Phase out of Nuclear in Germany Until March of 2011, Germany generated one quarter of its electrical power from nuclear. Starting in 2011 however, they began shutting down their nuclear power plants. These were then phased out over the next decade. However, the coal plants were to be kept to 2038. In 2026 Germany began talking about increasing use of coal in order to save gas. In the same year the German chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the phase out of nuclear was a quote “serious strategic mistake”. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it was "a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emissions power". 89 I won't go into the details of the phase out, but let's look at some emissions numbers for Germany. If we look at the official numbers from the European Environmental Agency for 2024, for Germany their emissions were 298 grams per kWh of electricity generated. Recall that we are using emissions as a very rough guide to amount of air pollution, and that this has a direct effect on the safety of the overall electrical energy system. 90 So, who actually made their people safer, Ontario who phased out their coal plants and kept their nuclear plants, or Germany who phased out their nuclear plants and kept their coal plants? 91 If you want a comparison directly within Europe, then Germany has one of the highest rates of emissions per kWh of electricity generated, whereas France, who use mainly nuclear power, have one of the lowest at 43 grams per kWh of electricity generated. Again, who is making their people safer, Germany or France? 92 I don't want to make it sound like I am picking on Germany. I am also not going to tell them how they ought to run their country. However they provide a good real world example of how we need to look at things in overall context when we are thinking about the choices that we make. https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/smog-study-shows-significant-decreases-in-pollutants-in-ontario-1.4151183 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-is-right-to-reject-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-says-iea-chief-fatih-birol/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-considers-ramping-up-coal-power-to-avert-energy-crisis/ https://www.iea.org/countries/estonia/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/malta/electricity -------------------- 93 Conclusions As we can see, there don't appear to be an abundance of peer reviewed scientific studies that we can simply point to in order to answer the question of safety of all possible major different energy sources once and for all. Collecting the data to even attempt to answer the question is inherently very difficult as we cannot readily conduct experiments to answer the question, and sources of data are not collected or consolidated in a manner which can answer this question adequately. 94 The essence of the problem is that most energy industries are not as tightly regulated and monitored to the same degree that say nuclear power or commercial airliners are, so this data is simply not being systematically recorded. However, a number of people have attempted to make estimates. 95 Their conclusions would seem to be that nuclear, wind, and solar are roughly equivalent in terms of safety. All fossil fuels are much less safe than nuclear, wind, and solar, by as much as several orders of magnitude. 96 We can however say with a reasonable degree of certainty that if a country shut down their nuclear power plants and kept their fossil fuel plants, particularly coal, then they probably made their people less safe than if they had done things the other way around. 97 I hope that I have provided some context in which to think about the issue. Thanks again to brian in ohio for providing the question upon which this episode is based. -------------------- Provide feedback on this episode.

Kicking off with 3 Word Weekend, Patsy shares that her husband Chris put his foot straight through the ceiling, while Christian and Rio compare notes on the Socceroos’ rough weekend as listeners text in their own three‑word summaries. We help Christian decide what to pack for his UK trip before diving into Goal‑A‑Thon, and a fresh batch of Misheard Lyrics. The show wraps with Monkey Movies for At Work Time Wasters.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So the ‘King of the North' has cleared the first step in his quest to be prime minister of the UK. Andy Burnham's victory in the Makerfield by-election was certainly impressive and it looks clear that Labour will be in the midst of a leadership contest very soon. Yet Burnham rarely stuck his neck out to offer any policy alternative to Keir Starmer, merely offering a change of personnel at the top. What does that mean for his party and the country? Meanwhile, the Conservatives pulled off a victory in Aberdeen South that was almost as impressive, campaigning against shutting down North Sea oil and gas production. Clearly, there is a constituency for defending jobs and livelihoods against Net Zero policies. But will it bring any wider benefit to Kemi Badenoch and co? While Reform have, for a while, realised they wouldn't win, but they will still feel deflated that it wasn't even close, especially having done so well in the local council elections in the area. What does the result mean for the party's future and what do they need to do to win hearts and minds? The AoI's Claire Fox, Alastair Donald, Geoff Kidder and Rob Lyons got together the following day to discuss all this and more.

Can Labour's prized plans to decarbonize power generation by 2050 withstand growing demands for extra defence spending – an acrimonious argument that has already claimed two senior defence ministers? Or pressure to preserve and extend welfare benefits from the party's left and the unions, many of whom see net zero as a job killer? Plus: China's colossal subsidization of green technology has created a surplus of cheap equipment for clean power. Would Britain be wise to take advantage?     Bronwen Maddox is joined by Pelin Zorlu and Chris Aylett of Chatham House's Climate and Energy team, plus special guest Archie Hall, acting economics editor of The Economist. Produced by Podmasters for Chatham House, with thanks to Stephen Farrell and Sara Seth. Explore Chatham House's latest:  Comment | Even Hormuz reopening will not resolve Europe's key energy vulnerability Comment | The next Strait of Hormuz crisis could be even worse Research paper | Why renewables and electrification hold the keys to EU energy security Magazine issue | The World Today summer issue Audio | The Climate Briefing podcast

Hier kommt die fünfte Episode der SID-Spezialreihe gemeinsam mit dem House of Energy und m3 Management Consulting. Ein Flughafen ist mehr als Start- und Landebahnen. Er ist eine kleine Stadt. Rund um die Uhr betriebsbereit, hochgradig vernetzt, energieintensiv und auf maximale Zuverlässigkeit ausgelegt. Allein der Flughafen Frankfurt verbraucht so viel Strom wie eine mittelgroße deutsche Stadt.Doch wie dekarbonisiert man ein solches System, ohne seine Stabilität zu gefährden?Darüber sprechen wir mit Dr. Stefan Schulte, Vorstandsvorsitzender der Fraport AG, und Prof. Dr.-Ing. Peter Birkner, Geschäftsführer des House of Energy.Im Mittelpunkt steht die Transformation einer kritischen Infrastruktur, die gleichzeitig funktionieren und sich verändern muss. Fraport verfolgt das Ziel, die eigenen Treibhausgasemissionen bis 2045 auf Netto-Null zu senken. Der Weg dorthin führt über Energieeffizienz, Elektrifizierung, Photovoltaik, Grünstrom und neue Formen des Energiemanagements.Gleichzeitig macht das Gespräch deutlich, dass die Verantwortung eines Flughafenbetreibers Grenzen hat. Fraport kann die Infrastruktur am Boden gestalten, Energiebedarfe absichern und Emissionen des eigenen Betriebs reduzieren. Die Dekarbonisierung des eigentlichen Flugverkehrs liegt dagegen maßgeblich bei Airlines, Herstellern, Kraftstoffanbietern und politischen Rahmenbedingungen.Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt der Diskussion ist die Frage, wie Innovation unter realen Betriebsbedingungen gelingt. Der Flughafen wird dabei zum Reallabor für neue Technologien, intelligente Ladestrukturen und sektorübergreifende Energiesysteme. Immer wieder zeigt sich dabei ein Spannungsfeld, das viele Transformationsprojekte prägt: Zwischen ambitionierten Zielen und praktischer Umsetzbarkeit liegen oft regulatorische, technische und wirtschaftliche Herausforderungen.Die Diskussion macht deutlich: Dekarbonisierung entsteht nicht durch einzelne Maßnahmen. Sie ist das Ergebnis vieler hundert Entscheidungen, die in einem laufenden System getroffen werden müssen. Der eigentliche Wandel findet dabei nicht in Visionen statt, sondern im täglichen Betrieb. Du möchtest auch Teil des SIDpodcast oder eines anderen Formats des Super Impact Day sein? Dann nutze das Feedback-Formular oder schreibe uns an hi@sid.earth Vielen Dank, dass Du uns hörst

Host: Alex Cameron, Founder & CEO, Decarb Connect Guest: Bilal Hussain, Co-founder, Artio CarbonCarbon markets have a credibility problem, and most of the proposed fixes sit on the same side of the transaction. Bilal Hussain is building on the other side. As co-founder of Artio Carbon, he's spent years assessing carbon projects from the inside, and what he found was a market where capital was circling projects it couldn't trust, and projects couldn't scale because no one would stand behind them. Insurance, done properly, solves that.In this episode, Bilal walks through what underwriting a carbon project actually looks like, from biochar machines with 24-hour test histories to abandoned well projects where the leak has been visible for decades. He explains why execution and counterparty risk are the real questions insurers should be asking, not methodology quality, and what that distinction means for how climate finance moves from promise to delivery.Key TakeawaysWhy better due diligence still isn't enough - what can insurance due diligence uncover that analysts sometimes miss?  The one question that separates a financeable project from an unfundable one. It's not about credit quality or methodology - find out what insurers are actually asking, and why that question matters more than any ratings report. How to spot a project that will fail before it does. From unproven machines to developers promising 100% of expected output, Bilal walks through the specific red flags his team uses to walk away, and what good looks like by comparison. Why the projects landing on Artio's desk right now are the most investable they've ever been. If you've had a tough 12 months in the energy transition space, this perspective is worth hearing. What carbon tax regimes in Asia mean for your pipeline. CBAM is creating a downstream effect that most people haven't fully mapped yet - find out where the financing gap opens up and where insurance fits in. The deal structures where insurance changes the outcome. Not every buyer or developer needs the same product - find out who actually carries the risk in different transaction types, which changes who should be buying cover. What a mature carbon insurance market looks like, and how far away it is. Links:  ·       Follow Alex Cameron on LinkedIn and find how to get involved with the membership and work of Decarb Connect·       Connect with Bilal Hussein, Co-Founder of Artio·       Artio at London Climate Week 2026: “Bridging the Disconnect” – connecting nature to finance  and Step into the data·       Access Artio's recently published CORSIA Market Forecast 2026·       Join Alex and a network of hardtech investors and series B+ tech disruptors at Decarb TechInvest in Boston (September 2025) Want to learn more about Decarb Connect?We provide insights and introductions that derisk decision-making and support industrial leaders in deploying decarbonization and low carbon product strategy. Our global membership platform, events and facilitated introductions support commercial decarb planning and business models around the world. Our clients include the most energy-intensive industrials from cement, metals and mining, glass, ceramics, chemicals, O&G and many more along with technology disruptors, investors and advisors.  If you enjoyed this conversation, find out about our portfolio of events in US, Canada, UK and Europe – or explore our Decarbonisation Leaders Network (DLN), and learn why more than 200 members from the energy-intensive sectors have joined to share insights, meet partners who can accelerate their net zero plans and why it's the fastest growing network of its kind. 

Get in touch - leave me a messageWhat if one of the biggest climate risks in your portfolio is hiding in plain sight — in food, land, methane, and animal-dependent industries?In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Claire Smith, founder and CEO of Beyond Investing, to unpack why climate finance cannot stop at fossil fuels. Claire has spent years building investment products that screen for animal use, climate impact, weapons, defence, human rights issues, and risks mainstream ESG too often waves through with a clean conscience and a spreadsheet.You'll hear why Claire believes animal agriculture is a broken business model, propped up by subsidies and exposed to stranded asset risk in ways that echo the fossil fuel sector. We dig into how food systems connect to methane, water use, land use, biodiversity loss, emissions reduction, and supply chain fragility — and why treating food as a side issue in the energy transition is a mistake.You might be shocked to learn that animal agriculture uses around 75% of agricultural land while producing only 18% of calories. We also explore where climate tech, policy, and capital could help scale animal-free alternatives and resilient food systems that support decarbonisation, net zero, and real-world climate action.

‘…markets, money, bitcoin & tech…' To help support this Podcast & get exclusive videos every week sign up to Neil Oliver on Patreon.comhttps://www.patreon.com/neiloliverGold Bullion Partners - for more info about buying gold & silver go to this affiliate link,https://goldbullionpartners.co.uk/download-our-complimentary-guide-neil-oliver/To Donate, go to Neil's Website:https://www.neiloliver.comTo Shop:https://neil-oliver.creator-spring.comYouTube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/@Neil-OliverRumble site – Neil Oliver Official:https://rumble.com/c/c-6293844Instagram - NeilOliverLoveLetter:https://www.instagram.com/neiloliverloveletterPodcasts:Neil Oliver: News Comment HistoryNeil Oliver: HistoryNeil Oliver: InterviewsAvailable on all the usual providershttps://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/neil-oliver-news-comment-history/id1513737418https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/neil-oliver-history/id1871225730https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/neil-oliver-interviews/id1869660872 #NeilOliver #CraigStevenWright #bitcoin #Netzero #climatehoax #15minutecities #surveillancestate #money #neiloliverGBNews #travel #culture #ancient #historyfact #explore Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

John Gilliland is a sixth-generation UK farmer and advocate for sustainable agriculture with a legacy in policy, academia, and innovation. As a leader of the ARC Zero project, his own farm is a model for "Beyond" Net Zero practices, where willow cultivation, livestock grazing, and renewable energy initiatives work together in a circular system.He has credits he could sell tomorrow and hasn't sold any. The reason cuts to the heart of the whole carbon market: on the voluntary market, he says, the same people who measure your soil also buy your credits. They are judge and jury in one. Until that changes, his clocks keep ticking and his carbon stays in the ground.We get into why his 250-year-old woodland — kept fenced off from animals for most of its life — has no earthworms, a soil pH of 4.8, and trees toppling in storms, while feeding willow leaves to his cattle has cut their methane by 28%. John walks us through the fertiliser crisis he thinks is bigger than the Ukraine war, the chicory root he uses instead of a diesel subsoiler, and a 36-hectare trial that lifted meat output 83% while cutting nitrogen 65%. More about this episode.This podcast is part of the Carbon Series supported by the OGCR project, with aims to create a trusted open source framework and make sure the benefits of carbon are shared across generations.Thoughts? Ideas? Questions? Send us a message!Find out more about our Generation-Re investment syndicate:https://gen-re.land/ Thank you to our Field Builders Circle for supporting us. Learn more hereSupport the show=======In Investing in Regenerative Agriculture and Food podcast show we talk to the pioneers in the regenerative food and agriculture space to learn more on how to put our money to work to regenerate soil, people, local communities and ecosystems while making an appropriate and fair return. Hosted by Koen van Seijen.

This week: While in New York for this year's Sustainable Apparel and Textiles USA, Innovation Forum's Niamh Campbell spoke with Jimmy Summers, vice-president for EHS and sustainability at Elevate Textiles. They talked about net zero ambitions in the apparel sector and why it's necessary to get away from the race-to-the-bottom approach that has become the norm.   Plus: World Cup emissions set to soar; SBTi's updated corporate net-zero standard; how to transform agricultural waste into carbon-negative products, in the news digest with Babette Pagès.    Host: Ian Welsh

Do you feel sorry for STARMER? The drowning, deluded loser! #JonGaunt #Starmer #UKPolitics #NetZero #ArmedForces #TroopingTheColour #NationalSecurity #TwoTierBritain #LionsLedByDonkeys  Is Keir Starmer becoming a tragic figure, or is he just a tragicomic clown? Today, we dive into the fallout from his latest statement—clinging to office while claiming he won't leave the UK in chaos. The irony? Many would argue the chaos is already here, and he's the one at the helm. In this live show, we're talking about the "lions led by donkeys." We all saw the incredible pride of our armed forces at Trooping the Colour today, yet we face the hard reality: our real defence forces are being hollowed out. How can we justify committing billions to Net Zero while we can't adequately fund the men and women who keep us safe? It's time for a reality check. Is Starmer truly deluded, or is there a more calculated "controlled demolition" of our national interests at play? JOIN THE CONVERSATION TODAY. Is Starmer a "tragicomic clown" or a genuine threat to national security? Should we be prioritising Net Zero over our armed forces? "Lions led by donkeys"—is this the most accurate description of modern Britain? What do you think? Leave a comment below or join the live chat. Is there one thing Starmer could do today to prove he isn't deluded? Support the Channel: If you value the truth and want to keep these conversations going, please like, subscribe, and share this stream. #JonGaunt #Starmer #UKPolitics #TroopingTheColour #NetZero #ArmedForces #TwoTierBritain #LionsLedByDonkeys #StarmerSpeech #LabourParty #UKGovernment #PoliticalCommentary Jon Gaunt, Keir Starmer, Starmer, UK politics, Net Zero, Armed Forces, Trooping the Colour, British Defence, National Security, Two-Tier Britain, Lions Led by Donkeys, Starmer Speech, Labour Party, UK Government, Political Commentary This is political blogging and hard-hitting social commentary from Triple Sony Gold Award-winning talk radio legend, Jon Gaunt — former host on BBC, Talk Radio, and Sky News. On Jon Gaunt TV, we cut through the noise and say what others won't. No political correctness. No censorship. Just real conversations that matter.

Ocean temps are rising in the tropical Pacific Ocean, a natural and regular phenomenon called El Niño. Climate modelers say this year's could be one of the biggest ever, and some have nicknamed it "Godzilla El Niño!" That's a fun name, but what can we expect in this El Niño cycle? The Climate Realism Show's Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Lois Perry will talk about that.  We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including: global airlines giving up on their always absurd NetZero by 2050 goal, giant fire tornadoes to clean up oil spills, Democrats backing off their pledges to stop oil and gas in the face of higher fuel costs, and will Trump's Endangerment Finding repeal soon also apply to power plants? Join us Friday at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the chat. Visit our sponsor, Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Ocean temps are rising in the tropical Pacific Ocean, a natural and regular phenomenon called El Niño. Climate modelers say this year's could be one of the biggest ever, and some have nicknamed it "Godzilla El Niño!" That's a fun name, but what can we expect in this El Niño cycle? The Climate Realism Show's Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Lois Perry will talk about that.  We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including: global airlines giving up on their always absurd NetZero by 2050 goal, giant fire tornadoes to clean up oil spills, Democrats backing off their pledges to stop oil and gas in the face of higher fuel costs, and will Trump's Endangerment Finding repeal soon also apply to power plants? Join us Friday at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the chat. Visit our sponsor, Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

With Europeans sizzling in a record-breaking heatwave in May, and lands and rivers facing severe drought conditions in April, the effects of extreme climate-related events are becoming increasingly obvious. We sit down with the EU's Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth, Dutch politician Wopke Hoekstra, to talk about the EU's carbon emissions reduction targets, the next COP summit, and, of course, the energy crisis resulting from the war in the Middle East.

Paul Hawken has spent more than fifty years asking the same question in different registers: what does it look like when human commerce rejoins the community of life rather than consuming it? He was a 19-year-old press coordinator for Martin Luther King Jr.'s march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. He cured his own lifelong asthma through food at 19, and went on to found Erewhon, one of the first natural food companies in America. He co-founded Smith & Hawken, wrote nine books translated into 30 languages across 50 countries, and co-founded Project Drawdown, which modeled the 100 most substantive solutions to reverse global warming. His most recent book, Carbon: The Book of Life, reframes carbon not as the villain of the climate story, but as the invisible thread connecting every living thing on Earth. In this rich and wide-ranging episode, Paul unpacks the ideas behind Carbon, exploring: The first breath: how a ten-day rice and tea fast at 19 cured an asthma that three doctors and a lifetime of medication never could, and what that taught him about the difference between fixing a symptom and restoring a relationship Why he now says Project Drawdown failed by his own measure, what's wrong with "Net Zero" as a target, and the difference between stabilizing the overflow and draining the tub Carbon as "the currency of abundance, the central bank of evolutionary growth, and the most socially adept entrepreneur in the pantheon of life," and what it means that this is not the language of a pollutant The naming problem: how the Enlightenment turned forests into cellulose, soil into dirt, and animals into objects, and why our climate response keeps failing because it uses the same framework that created the crisis What it means that humans are 0.01% of living biomass, and what the other 99.99% knows about running stable carbon cycles for hundreds of millions of years without summits, frameworks, or pledges The economics of a whale, valued at over two million dollars alive versus forty thousand dead, and whether pricing nature protects it or just folds it into the logic that nearly destroyed it The hidden world beneath our feet: mycorrhizal networks connecting 90% of land plants, 2,500 gigatons of carbon stored in soil, and why losing just 8% of it would dwarf current fossil fuel emissions Why cooperation, not competition, is the actual operating principle of the living world, and what that says about the economic system we've built on top of it Awe versus optimism: why Paul says he isn't optimistic, but is in awe of the people making a true difference, and what that distinction means in practice This is a deeply personal and quietly radical conversation about commerce, the body, and what it might mean to stop fighting carbon and start rejoining the community of life that has been regulating it all along. Learn more about Paul's work at paulhawken.com, and find his latest book, Carbon: The Book of Life, wherever books are sold.

Energy transition of India, like any other country in the world is currently marred with wars, energy map reset and new challenges of AI and climate financing. Every nation is back on the drawing board to plan their energy future and climate action in a warming, conflicting world. As The India Energy Hour enters the century club, informed conversations tracking the transition, especially of the Global South led by India become more important than ever. To get an overview of how far India has come in its transition journey, the lessons that have been learnt along the way and what lies ahead, we hosted a guest who has seen the inside and outside of policymaking and its real-world implementation. From working in the IT sector to the corridors of the Parliament, from India's federal ministry of finance to civil aviation and now in the global climate finance universe, Jayant Sinha has donned several hats. He is currently President, Everstone Group and Visiting Professor in Practice, London School of Economics. He is the former minister of state for finance and civil aviation, Government of India (2014 to 2019) and was also chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, Parliament of India (2019 to 2024). Sinha is also a prolific writer and his columns on green finance, transition modelling and AI have appeared in leading mainstream publications and research organisations. Full transcript of the episode is available in English. Presented by 101ReportersJayant Sinha  is on LinkedIn and Twitter. Follow TIEH podcast on Twitter, Linkedin & YouTube Our hosts, Shreya Jai on Twitter, Linkedin & Dr. Sandeep Pai on Twitter, Linkedin

Get in touch - leave me a messageNo one wants to ship water around the world. That one line says a lot about the next phase of energy storage.In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Min Tang, Director of International Business at Rongke Power, one of the world's leading vanadium flow battery companies. We get into why long-duration storage is moving from climate tech side-story to core grid infrastructure, and why that matters for decarbonisation, energy transition planning, net zero delivery, emissions reduction, and policy.You'll hear why vanadium flow batteries are not trying to replace lithium-ion batteries, and why that matters. Different problem. Different tool. Min explains how flow batteries can run for more than 20,000 cycles, retain capacity over decades, and support grid-scale black start, the kind of resilience that becomes rather important when grids are asked to absorb more renewables, power more electrification, and stay upright while demand from industry and AI data centres grows.We dig into the economics too: why storage duration changes cost, how electrolyte leasing can cut upfront CapEx, and why local supply chains could become a major strategic advantage. You might be shocked to learn that localisation is baked into this technology because the electrolyte is mostly water. Glamorous? No. Important? Absolutely.

The country feels stuck. But can Britain prosper again? On the Prospect podcast this week, Prospect editor Philip Collins is joined by Ravi Gurumurthy to discuss this question. Ravi is CEO of Nesta, which is a research foundation and “innovation agency”. He is a lead non-executive of the Department for Energy and Net Zero and sits on the board of NHS England. Writing in a personal capacity, he also penned the cover story in this month's magazine (which you can read in full here.)Phil and Ravi discuss what changes the current government could make to re-energise the country, and debate everything from housing to data. Can the UK get the energy for a transformation? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Watch the video interview here Carbon verification is quickly becoming a necessary step for many businesses, whether due to regulatory compliance, market demand or as part of a voluntary scheme. The drivers for this demand are varied, as is the approach many take for their path towards carbon verification. This can look very different depending on the industry you operate in and can be difficult to tackle for more service based industries, such as today's guest, Davies Group, who are a service provider for the insurance industry. In this episode Mel is joined by Gillie Fairbrother, Global Responsible Business Officer at Davies Group, to discuss the findings of Mel's thesis regarding the demand and drivers of GHG verification for organisations across the globe, and how Davies Groups' carbon verification journey factors into the findings. You'll learn ·      Who is Gillie Fairbrother and who are Davies Group? ·      What factor triggered the decision for independent carbon verification at Davies Group? ·      At what point did the leadership team recognise that unverified carbon data represented a credibility and governance risk that was inconsistent with that professional standard? ·      What did Davies Group's GHG inventory and reporting look like before independent verification was introduced? ·      Which specific stakeholders were asking the hardest questions about Davies Group's sustainability data, and how did those questions land internally? ·        ·      What is the gap between organisations knowing they should verify emissions and actually doing it? ·      Was competitive positioning part of the Davies Group case for carbon verification? ·      What was the most significant finding from the first carbon verification engagement? ·      How has verification changed the internal culture and engagement with the sustainability programme at Davies Group? ·      How have Davies Group supported suppliers with calculating their carbon emissions? ·      Where does Gillie see the expectations of institutional partners and large clients in insurance and professional services heading? ·      What was a specific moment where Gillie can recall that this mattered more than she had expected?   Resources ·      Davies Group ·      Davies Group LinkedIn ·      Carbonology – Carbon Verification Services   In this episode, we talk about: [00:30] Episode Summary – We introduce Gillie Fairbrother, Global Responsible Business Officer at Davies Group, to discuss their participation in Mel's thesis research into the demand for GHG emissions, exploring Davies Group's own reasoning and journey. [02:05] Who is Gillie Fairbrother and who are Davies Group? A route into sustainability as a career wasn't as readily available to Gillie when she attended university, so it has been something of a self-made path. She has previously run a wellness business in the past and has experience working with sustainable brands and has done a lot of cultural advocacy, particularly in the LGBTQ space. Taking the lead for ESG within the corporate space was a dream come true for Gillie, and she has done this for a number of US based tech firms to her current position for Davies Group. Davies Group are a service provider for the insurance industry, who operate in 22 countries. [03:40] What factor triggered the decision for independent carbon verification at Davies Group? Mel's research found that 29% of organisations cite market-driven factors as their primary reason for seeking GHG verification, compared with just 12% who cite regulatory compliance. For Davies Group, their decision was led by market demand. They looked client requests versus client contractual obligations, and carbon verification was increasingly coming up in those contractual obligations. Gillie herself has always been an advocate for working both sustainably and responsibly, promoting the revenue benefits that can be gained from doing so. However, as much as it is perceived to be the right thing to do, she doesn't want businesses to simply think of it as the 'nice thing to do'. These should be central components to how your business operates. So in part, Davies Group saw this demand not only in the market, but as simply the right way to do business. [05:30] At what point did the leadership team recognise that unverified carbon data represented a credibility and governance risk that was inconsistent with that professional standard? Davies Group already operate in a highly regulated market, and so already have very strong governance practices in place. Gillie didn't really have to worry about making too many improvements in the governance or purpose aspects of ESG compliance. They participated in TCFD on a voluntary basis to highlight a possible risk from a climate perspective that could affect things like supply chain, physical sites, or the industry in general to leadership. Thankfully, the leadership saw this as a risk worth looking into more, and were willing to quantify it properly and ensure that their data was as accurate as possible and in a place where it could be audited by a 3rd party. [07:40] What did Davies Group's GHG inventory and reporting look like before independent verification was introduced? Before Gillie joined, these aspects were managed by a 3rd party due to lack of in-house expertise to manage it. When Gillie joined, she worked closely with that 3rd party to continue the work. Davies Group is quite a complex business, it operates with 3 different divisions that have multiple service lines. At the time, they did their best with the Excel spreadsheets that they had create to track various GHG emissions, but it was not as good as it could have been. They've since grown their processes, included more in-house talent and are doing more to gain knowledge from their stakeholders, data owners and building relationships with various teams across the business. While they are still working on Excel spreadsheets, they have advanced to reasonable assurance. Gillie is now looking into external tools to help improve their data management, but this would cost a fair bit of money that could be better used currently on reducing environmental impact. [10:30] Which specific stakeholders were asking the hardest questions about Davies Group's sustainability data, and how did those questions land internally? Gillie cites employees, as they're an industry where 30% of the workforce is likely going to retire in the next 10 years, so they're trying to attract a younger group of talent who want to work for a business that has a good purpose and is a good company. Acting sustainably and responsibly is a huge part of attracting that new young talent. The second more important stakeholders are their clients. Davies Group is a private equity backed business, if they're not making money then they simply cease to exist as a business. Clients now have a keen interest in responsibly run businesses, and many now seek proof to claims. Next in the list is investors, who have an interest in the regulatory requirements that the business is subjected to. Lastly, Gillie cites suppliers as even if they aren't actively putting pressure on the business to report their emissions, without their support and cooperation, Davies Group can't meet their own goals. [12:40] What was a particularly memorable conversation with a Stakeholder that helped drive further improvement? Gillie recalls one conversation with a new employee where they asked to be more involved with their sustainability group. When she talked to them more, she discovered that one of the main reasons that employee sought them out was due to the responsible business page on their website, and that out of the 3 businesses they were applying to, Davies Group was the only one that had a page like that. [37:00] What is the gap between organisations knowing they should verify emissions and actually doing it? Mel's research found that 86% of organisations report increased stakeholder demand for transparency in GHG reporting – yet 52% remain unverified. Gillie states that there could be a lot of reasons for this, including budget, resourcing or something as simple as a piece of wording in a contract where a client might say we request versus we require. This is why Gillie is always in conversation with clients, whether that be the sales team or the sustainability teams at our clients, to understand their goals and make sure they can all align in their goals. The market is certainly the leading cause for many businesses as Government regulation tends to lag behind. [17:20] Was competitive positioning part of the Davies Group case for carbon verification? For Davies Group, it was initially a contractual requirement to complete their carbon verification. So, in their case, it was an easy decision as otherwise they could potentially lose business. However, Gillie also regularly meets with senior leadership and reports into their responsible business board committee every quarter. There they consider the growing appetite for sustainability driven demands, and how they want to leading the way in their industry. The key determining factor is whether it's relevant to them, whether that's for sustainability or for their community impact strategy. Davies Group tend to focus on education and investment in our communities, as that's where their expertise sits. It's all about materiality as businesses need to focus on what's relevant to them. [19:20] What was the most significant finding from the first carbon verification engagement? For Gillie, it was the clarity and transparency that had been game changing. Especially within their real estate portfolio. Davies Group don't own any of their offices, they're all leased. As they calculated and verified the carbon footprint, the quality of the data got better and that enabled them to have better conversations with their real estate team to understand how a building worked, whether it be a lease, including services or whether it be separate. As a result, they've been able to set a renewable energy target for all UK offices. [19:20] How has verification changed the internal culture and engagement with the sustainability programme at Davies Group? Mel's research identifies a strong correlation between verification status and organisational confidence, with 85% of verified organisations expressing pride in their sustainability progress, compared with 50% of unverified ones. Gillie's been writing the sustainability report for Davies Group for the past 6 years, and she can feel the difference after having their emissions verified as it adds an extra layer of credibility. She's also wary of stepping into bragging territory about all their sustainability achievements, without reflecting on the reality. There can be a conflict between writing what the stakeholders want to hear versus what is accurate and true. Having independent 3rd party verification gives you the confidence to back any claims made. [24:10] How have Davies Group supported suppliers with calculating their carbon emissions? Gillie is particularly proud of an industry wide collaboration project that had close to 100 SMEs go through a Net Zero training programme that was provided by a third party. Gillie joined many of the sessions and was so pleased to see sustainability champions emerge through the process where people suddenly got really invested and starting asking rather complex questions. They're still gathering feedback from those sessions, but already 80% - 90% have calculated a starting carbon footprint and put in place an action plan to help reduce their impact. This year, Davies Group have also kicked off a huge training and engagement plan with their service delivery teams who are making the decisions about their suppliers. They've also engaged with over 400 employees in their UK groups for property claims on sustainable solutions, getting their ideas, understanding the challenges and coming out with some outcomes so they can measure the carbon of their claims process and look to reduce it. Gillie teases the pending results, so keep an eye on their socials to find out more! [27:50] Key advice from Gillie: Focus your supply chain effort on your biggest emissions rather than your biggest spend, and tackle this in small groups. [29:30] Where does Gillie see the expectations of institutional partners and large clients in insurance and professional services heading – and at what point does she think verified GHG data becomes a non-negotiable baseline in your market? Many businesses have been waiting on legislation and regulations to point the way, and in a sense, they will always be waiting as these things develop with our understanding and technology available. However, businesses have done a good job of stepping up as those regulations lag behind. There's a lot of mixed press regarding sustainability, with some professionals feeling as if the topic has come off the boil as article cite the loss of dedicated sustainability officers. The reality on the ground is that these roles are now much more embedded into the business, they're not being removed, simply passed onto roles such as the Chief Operating Officer to ensure sustainability targets are being met. The bottom line is that the momentum for sustainability isn't going away, and that need to verify emissions is only going to grow. The key thing now is to move on from simple calculation into action, which is what Gillie is trying to drive right now.   [32:05] What was a specific moment where Gillie can recall that this mattered more than she had expected? Gillie is so proud of what their small and mighty team at Davies Group has done for their social impact. When initially established, they were only in 1 country, they've now expanded to 22 countries and they've really focused their resources, time and effort on impacting community education and skills development, which she anticipates will have a full circle around to attracting talent into our industry. To see more about the impacts that Davies Group are orchestrating, check out their LinkedIn page. If you'd like any assistance with your carbon verification journey, contact our partner Carbonology, they'd be happy to help! We'd love to hear your views and comments about the ISO Show, here's how: ●     Share the ISO Show on Twitter or Linkedin ●     Leave an honest review on iTunes or Soundcloud. Your ratings and reviews really help and we read each one. Subscribe to keep up-to-date with our latest episodes: Stitcher | Spotify | YouTube |iTunes | Soundcloud | Mailing List

TIME Magazine - Enertia® Homes Their Company Slogan - "Your House Should Take Care of You......... Not the Other Way Around!" My spotlight is on Green Living Because of A LOT of Talk this Year About Global Warming & the Eco-System.Enertia Homes recieved an Energy Efficiency Award from the US Department of Energy. Enertia® Homes use an ingenious design, and the science of materials, to heat and cool buildings without fuel or electricity. Fitted with Photovoltaic panels, and a metal seamed roof, homes can be self-reliant for heating, cooling, electricity, water and food. This is a modern Building System, an integrated group of innovations and a construction technique so basic, yet amazing and effective, it has been called a Modern Marvel- A Time Magazine Invention of the Year & Zayed Future Energy Prize, "Innovative Structure of the Century Award", AWPI Century's Best Award. These are not conventional “stick-frame” single-generation houses. The walls are solid wood, and the design life is hundreds of years. Comfort is by design and from a unique structural material, not from a mechanical/ electric compressor or furnace. The roof can generate electricity and capture water. The sun space harvests energy, and in it you can harvest food. Most have a built-in "biosphere" modeled after planet Earths' that draws energy from the sun, and geothermal stability from the ground, creating a temperate climate that buffers the primary living space. Your personal Greenhouse Effect warms your house in winter. Naturally-induced air currents cool it in summer. "When we started 30 years ago the terms Bio-mimicry, Green Building, Carbon Sequestration, and Life-Cycle Analysis did not exist. Enertia® homes pioneered these goals that others are still striving to achieve." ~ Enertia.com © 2026 All Rights Reserved© 2026 BuildingAbundantSuccess!!Join Me on ~ iHeart Media @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBAS 

Jeremy Kyle unpacks the latest poll as Reform UK widens its lead over Labour, as Makerfield's by-election intensifies pressure on Sir Keir Starmer's leadership. GMB leader, Gary Smith warns Labour's Net Zero and North Sea stance is pushing economically insecure union members towards Reform. David Lammy challenges JD Vance over Henry Nowak's murder, amid policing scrutiny, sentencing questions, and a kirpan law review.Wake up with Talk Breakfast in full on YouTube, DAB+ radio, Samsung TV Plus or the Talk App on your TV from 6am every morning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm chatting with Hugh Montgomery, intensive care doctor, and one of the expert speakers from the National Emergency Briefing on Climate and Nature.We dig into climate science, climate and health, and the wonderful idea of 7 acts to save the world, told to seven people.USEFUL LINKSLancet Countdown on Health and Climate ChangeUK Health Alliance on Climate ChangeReal ZeroNational Emergency Briefing-              Expert Briefings-              People's Emergency Briefing film-              Screening map-              Warminster screeningNYC Hospitals plant based mealsCost of Net Zero by 2050Climate anxiety resources:-              Turn the tide on climate anxiety-              Climate anxiety resources from Greenpeace-              Climate cafésRelated podcast episodes:-              186 – The National Emergency Briefing -              188 – Money, money, money-              154 – Leading by example – does it work?

Host: Alex Cameron, Founder & CEO, Decarb ConnectGuests: Jon Stewart, CEO and Tom Brown, Head of Business Development and Commercial Strategy, Binding SolutionsThe steel industry accounts for roughly 8% of global emissions and has made some of the loudest net zero commitments in heavy industry. But talk to the mills privately and most will tell you they are not on track. The dominant solutions, hydrogen, carbon capture, EAF transition, are either years away, eye-wateringly expensive, or both. Meanwhile, there's a supply chain vulnerability that almost nobody is talking about publicly: pellets. Every major decarb pathway for steel needs them. Producing them at scale costs a billion dollars and most of Europe buys from a handful of suppliers with almost no leverage. Today we're talking to the team at BSL about whether the industry is solving the wrong problems first, and what a lower-cost, modular alternative on something as fundamental as pellets can do for price and targets.Find out why the gap between published net zero roadmaps and what steel mills actually believe is achievable this decade is wider than most people assume. Explore why agglomeration, the pellet-making step, may offer more near-term commercial leverage than hydrogen or CCS, despite attracting a fraction of the policy attention and capital. Learn how a billion-dollar plant cost becomes a structural barrier that shapes who controls the global pellet supply chain, and why European mills are more exposed than they publicly acknowledge. Hear how a technology that works across both blast furnace and DRI pathways makes its case in an industry where most capital decisions are implicitly picking a winner. Find out about Binding Solutions strategic and financial investors as well as their path forward- and where value sits in deep-tech industrial business like this one. Links: ·       Follow Alex Cameron on LinkedIn and find how to get involved with the membership and work of Decarb Connect·       Connect with Jon Stewart, CEO·       Learn more about Tom Brown, Head of Commercial Strategy·       Check out a video about the team ‘s work with British Steel·       Read a paper by one of BSL's scientists and a British Steel expert  ·        Join Alex and a network of hardtech investors and series B+ tech disruptors at Decarb TechInvest in Boston (September 2025) Want to learn more about Decarb Connect?We provide insights and introductions that derisk decision-making and support industrial leaders in deploying decarbonization and low carbon product strategy. Our global membership platform, events and facilitated introductions support commercial decarb planning and business models around the world. Our clients include the most energy-intensive industrials from cement, metals and mining, glass, ceramics, chemicals, O&G and many more along with technology disruptors, investors and advisors.  If you enjoyed this conversation, find out about our portfolio of matchmaking events in US, Canada, UK and Europe – or explore our Decarbonisation Leaders Network (DLN), and learn why more than 80 companies the energy-intensive ecosystem have joined to meet the right partners who can accelerate their net zero plans and why it's the fastest growing network of its kind.    (19:38) - Marker 01 (33:52) - Marker 02

Get in touch - leave me a messageWhat if the biggest greenwashing risk isn't bad intent, but business-as-usual marketing?In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Helen Neal, founder of HN Communications, to dig into one of the most under-discussed risks in decarbonisation: how companies talk about sustainability when regulation is tightening, public trust is fragile, and every net zero claim is being scrutinised. This matters because the energy transition will not be carried by technology alone. Climate tech, policy, capital, supply chains, and public confidence all depend on credible communication.You'll hear why traditional corporate messaging can push companies into unintentional greenwashing, why greenhushing is not a safe escape route, and why sustainability claims increasingly need the discipline of financial reporting: clear evidence, third-party verification, and language that can survive scrutiny.We dig into how AI can help check sustainability language, but also why human judgement still has to own the beginning and end of the process. Helen also explains why supply chain data, board accountability, regulation, and executive incentives are becoming central to credible climate leadership. A vague 2050 net zero pledge without a roadmap? That is not strategy. That is a red flag wearing a nice suit.If you care about emissions reduction, business resilience, decarbonisation, and the real-world mechanics of the energy transition, this one is worth your time.

The elites running our energy system are counting on you not understanding it - here is why: In this explosive conversation, energy expert Kathryn Porter joins Andrew Gold to expose the dark reality behind Net Zero policies and the looming collapse of the Western energy grid. From the "sinister" normalization of energy blackouts to the luxury beliefs of the Davos elite, Porter breaks down why the path we are on has consequences that are genuinely scary. Support my guest: Follow Kathryn Porter's work: https://watt-logic.com  Follow her on X: https://x.com/KathrynPorter26  Watch her on Peter McCormack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h77C3iYX_bM  SPONSORS: Support our sponsor: go to https://boncharge.com  and use code HERETICS to save 15%. Go to https://boncharge.com  and use code HERETICS to save 15%. Go to https://surfshark.com/heretics for 4 extra months of Surfshark  Get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! Use code andrewgold at checkout. Download Saily app or go to https://saily.com/andrewgold   Check Plaud UK: https://bit.ly/40Gzdh1  | US: https://bit.ly/475MQKe Notepro: https://bit.ly/479tWSR Organise your life: https://akiflow.pro/Heretics  Earn up to 4 per cent on gold, paid in gold: https://www.monetary-metals.com/heretics/  Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  We dive deep into the "cultish ideology" of climate change, the scientific illiteracy being exploited by politicians like Ed Miliband, and the shocking truth about how thousands are already dying due to fuel poverty. Is Net Zero the new religion? And why is the Scottish grid on the verge of a total shutdown? If you've ever felt that something "doesn't pass the smell test" regarding global energy policy, this video is a must-watch. Key Topics Covered: - The "Spanish Inquisition" of Net Zero and the suppression of free speech. - Why renewables aren't as "cheap" as you've been told. - The catastrophic risk of regular blackouts across Europe and the UK. - How "woke" energy policies led to the economic collapse of Sri Lanka. - The case for nuclear energy as the only viable, reliable alternative. #NetZero #EnergyCrisis #AndrewGold #ClimateChange #Globalism #Blackouts #UKPolitics #NuclearEnergy #FreeSpeech #Economics Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters:  0:00 - The Scary Truth They Don't Want You to Know 2:30 - The Hidden Death Toll of Energy Policy 3:15 - Is Net Zero a New "Cultish" Religion? 5:40 - The Failed Predictions the Media Ignores 8:05 - Why Climate Policy is Harming the Poor 10:45 - The "Spanish Inquisition" of Modern Science 13:00 - The Looming Blackout Disaster in Europe 16:10 - Why the Grid is More Fragile Than Ever 25:30 - The "Luxury Belief" Destroying Nations 27:15 - The Sri Lanka Warning: Total Economic Collapse 28:00 - The Secret Link Between Oil and Your Medicine 32:45 - The Elites' Plan to Control Your Speech 46:10 - Is Ed Miliband "Deep in the Ideology"? 56:15 - Why Scotland's Grid is Set to Stop Working 1:04:20 - The Case for Nuclear: The Solution We're Ignoring 1:08:15 - A Dystopian Future or a Path to Growth? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to the top News of 30/05/2026 from Australia in Hindi.

How can Keir Starmer - or whoever leads the country next - help to turn the UK’s fortunes around? Simon French, Managing Director, Chief Economist and Head of Research at Panmure Liberum joins co-host John Stepek to discuss former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 5000-word prescription for the UK economy, the growing backlash towards Net-Zero policies and why the UK is at risk of sliding towards another “Liz Truss Moment”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Marina and Jemma wade into the internet frenzy surrounding Donald Trump's extremely strange White House pillar moment, the increasingly odd questions around his health, and why he apparently skipped his own son's wedding.Then it's over to Scotland, where the pair unpack Peter Murrell's extraordinary £400k spending spree involving luxury pens, kettles, chopsticks and enough bizarre purchases to accidentally turn the episode into a very disturbing edition of The Generation Game.Plus: Tony Blair pops up to tell everyone to calm down about net zero, Marina prepares to battle Reform on Jeremy Vine, and Gavin Williamson mourns his tarantula in what may be the most baffling BBC headline ever written.There are also live show updates, climate facts, sensory play chat absolutely nobody asked for, and a growing concern that Marina may know far too much about niche fetishes.Get your tickets for The Trawl Live from https://thetrawl.tix.to/ticketsThank you for sharing and please do follow us @MarinaPurkiss @jemmaforte @TheTrawlPodcastPatreonhttps://patreon.com/TheTrawlPodcastYoutubehttps://www.youtube.com/@TheTrawlTwitterhttps://twitter.com/TheTrawlPodcastIf you've even mildly enjoyed The Trawl, you'll love the unfiltered, no-holds-barred extras from Jemma & Marina over on Patreon, including:• Exclusive episodes of The Trawl Goss – where Jemma and Marina spill backstage gossip, dive into their personal lives, and often forget the mic is on• Early access to The Trawl Meets…• Glorious ad-free episodesPlus, there's a bell-free community of over 3,300 legends sparking brilliant chat.And it's your way to support the pod which the ladies pour their hearts, souls (and occasional anxiety) into. All for your listening pleasure and reassurance that through this geopolitical s**tstorm… you're not alone.Come join the fun:https://www.patreon.com/TheTrawlPodcast?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get in touch - leave me a messageFake people. Fake comments. Real clean energy projects killed.This is what climate delay looks like in the AI era.In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Leah Qusba, CEO of GoodPower, an organisation working at the intersection of climate tech, culture, policy, and decarbonisation. We explore a hard truth about the energy transition: solar, wind, batteries, and electrification may be ready, but public trust, local permission, and disinformation are now decisive barriers to getting projects built.You'll hear why Leah believes fossil fuel dependence is becoming harder to defend as “secure energy”, especially when oil and gas volatility keeps spilling into bills, food prices, business costs, and household budgets. We dig into why clean energy should be framed less as sacrifice and more as protection: protection from price shocks, geopolitical risk, climate impacts, and the charming little habit fossil fuels have of making everything more expensive.We also get into GoodPower's research on what actually changes minds. Their storytelling work has reached tens of millions of people and, in tested campaigns, shifted audiences from NIMBY to YIMBY by 11%. Leah explains why the right messenger can matter more than the perfect message, why rural voices can unlock rural support, and why creators in food, fashion, gaming, cars, comedy, and culture may be more effective climate communicators than traditional climate voices.And yes, we talk about AI-generated disinformation in permitting decisions, fake public pressure, and why pre-bunking false claims before they spread may become essential for emissions reduction, net zero delivery, and climate policy that survives contact with reality.

Tony Blair has dropped a political bombshell on Keir Starmer's desk. In a scathing 5,700-word essay, the former Prime Minister and three-time election winner says Labour has no coherent plan to fix Britain, is governing from a "soft left comfort zone," and will lose the next general election unless it ditches net zero, slashes the welfare bill, stops the boats, and stops pretending that swapping leaders is the same as changing course.Julia Hartley-Brewer is joined by former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who finds remarkably little to disagree with in Blair's brutal assessment, despite their different parties. He breaks down exactly where this government went wrong — arriving with a historic landslide on just 33% of the vote and then standing completely still. No plan. No direction. Just a budget that hammered small businesses with national insurance hikes, a soaring minimum wage, and crippling business rates — the very engine room of British jobs and growth.IDS also reflects on his own record reforming welfare under Universal Credit — cutting between £28 and £32 billion from the budget and delivering the lowest number of workless households since records began — and why Labour's half-hearted attempts to repeat that are doomed to fail.Also: the Makerfield by-election is descending into farce, with Reform and the newly formed Restore Britain tearing chunks out of each other while Andy Burnham eyes the prize. Is this just a parade of oversized egos? Plus, Nicola Sturgeon and the motorhome that apparently nobody saw — for two years, on her mother-in-law's driveway.Julia Hartley-Brewer broadcasts on Talk from Monday to Thursday, 10AM to 1PM.Available on YouTube and streaming platforms, along with DAB+ radio and your smart speaker Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

• It's Podmasters' 10th birthday! Last chance to get an extra 10% off a year's Patreon backing.  Setting up the stories for the next seven… sorry, six days. As Britain suffers unprecedented May heatwaves, can Ed Miliband defend Net Zero from the denialists in Reform and the oil-funded PR greenwashers? Plus, Nigel Farage's excuses for his £5m gift from a crypto baron start to catch up with him. Could Reform be outflanked in Makerfield by the even battier, Musk-funded Restore UK? The latest on social media bans for under-16s. And Richard Burgon, Labour leader? Ros Taylor and Andrew Harrison set out the week ahead.  www.patreon.com/bunkercast  Written and presented by  Andrew Harrison. Audio production by Simon Williams. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Artwork by James Parrett. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

• It's Podmasters' 10th birthday! Last chance to get an extra 10% off a year's Patreon backing. Setting up the stories for the next seven… sorry, six days. As Britain suffers unprecedented May heatwaves, can Ed Miliband defend Net Zero from the denialists in Reform and the oil-funded PR greenwashers? Plus, Nigel Farage's excuses for his £5m gift from a crypto baron start to catch up with him. Could Reform be outflanked in Makerfield by the even battier, Musk-funded Restore UK? The latest on social media bans for under-16s. And Richard Burgon, Labour leader? Ros Taylor and Andrew Harrison set out the week ahead. www.patreon.com/bunkercast Written and presented by  Andrew Harrison. Audio production by Simon Williams. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Artwork by James Parrett. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production.www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Создание Nazarbayev University и принципы управления талантами, предыстория появления nFactorial, феномен МФТИ и школа Капицы, двадцатилетний опыт работы в Курчатовском институте, разработка оборудования для ликвидации последствий аварии на Чернобыльской АЭС, физика плазмы и реальные перспективы термоядерного синтеза, развитие атомной энергетики и переход к углеродной нейтральности (Net Zero 2060), климатическая дипломатия и участие в переговорах по Киотскому протоколу, создание лаборатории энергокосмических исследований и изучение гамма-всплесков, необходимость освоения космоса, концепция «караса» Курта Воннегута и формирование правильного окружения, любимые книги и фильмы, лидерские стратегии уступки ради достижения цели, истинная мотивация в науке.

Energised Futures, Centrica's in-house research and innovation incubator, has partnered with Panasonic in a new pilot designed to advance intelligent heat-pump control. Demonstrating how collaboration across manufacturers, installers and technology innovators can accelerate the shift to smarter, more efficient low carbon heating. Heat Pump Trial The research has explored the automation and optimisation of heat pumps in Dublin homes as part of an EU funded Horizon-2020 programme – the DEDALUS project – to develop user-centered demand side response (DSR) systems. By combining technical innovation from Energised Futures with Panasonic's manufacturing expertise alongside local installer partner Mos Mechanical's on the ground installer insight, the project reflects the full lifecycle of heat pump deployment. Energised Futures is creating bespoke digital twins for all participating homes and remotely controlling each Panasonic heat pump with predictive algorithms to deliver optimum comfort and efficiency. Building on the success of its earlier MESH project, funded by the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, the team has developed advanced control algorithms to enable the Panasonic heat pumps to participate in Demand Response. The system prioritises heating the home and hot water tank when electricity is cheap and low-carbon, while preserving occupant comfort: reducing heat pump operating costs and emissions and simultaneously supporting grid balancing and integration of renewables. Insights from the Dublin trial will feed directly into complementary pilots in Austria, Denmark, Italy, Spain and Romania, helping to build a holistic understanding of how smart heating and flexibility solutions work across different climates, housing types and energy systems. The overall programme wrapped at the end of April, following which the combined results from Dublin and the other EU pilots will be analysed and shared. Ben Krikler, PhD, Head of Energised Futures and Director of Research & Innovation, Centrica, emphasised the opportunity ahead: "Heat pumps have incredible potential, but that potential isn't being fully realised" "By combining advanced controls, predictive algorithms, and real-world data, we can make heat pumps smarter, more efficient, and more rewarding for households by delivering comfort at the lowest running cost while also helping to balance the grid and reduce emissions." Underscoring the wider benefits of the project, Laurence Cox, Country Manager for Panasonic Heating & Cooling Ireland said: 'This project highlights the real-world benefits of heat pump technology, from reduced energy costs and improved comfort to lower carbon emissions. We are proud to be working alongside Centrica and MOS Mechanical to help underline the growing importance of proven, low-carbon technologies in supporting the transition to a more sustainable built environment." The pilot adopts a user-centric, co-creation approach to understand what drives or hinders participation in demand response, including factors such as comfort, data privacy, and energy literacy. Supported by a robust social science framework and drawing on behavioural science, motivation theories, and socio-economic insights, the project actively involves participants through workshops, segmentation analysis, and interface testing. MSM Renewable installed the heat pumps and worked directly with participating households, giving them practical support and helping ensure the trial reflected real-world installer and customer experience. Reflecting on the trial, Mick O'Shea, Founder & CEO of Mos Mechanical's said: "Heat pumps are evolving quickly, and projects like this make sure installers stay ahead" "Hands on experience with the latest systems gives us the confidence to show customers how efficient heat pumps really are. It also proves that when the industry works together, the technology delivers more for households — and opens new opportunities for installers." As the progra...

Geopower, Energy Realpolitik with Todd Royal – This episode argues for a new settlement: stop exaggerating climate risk with implausible scenarios; stop suppressing complexity when the evidence becomes inconvenient; stop using Net Zero as a substitute for serious industrial strategy; and stop treating nuclear power as an embarrassing exception to environmental politics...

Radio Baloney Live! Carney Net Zero Scam, EU Honours Merkel, Tulsi Resigns, CBC To Be Sued By RCMP?Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/radio-baloney-the-richie-baloney-show--4036781/support.

Dans cet épisode d'Espace Montréal Podcast, Axel Monsaingeon reçoit Ugo Cianciulli, directeur immobilier chez Loracon, pour discuter du développement du projet 40 Net Zero, un campus industriel durable de nouvelle génération dans l'est de Montréal. Depuis plusieurs années, Ugo pilote tout le volet location et stratégie immobilière du portefeuille industriel de Loracon, incluant le développement majeur du 40 Net Zero. Ensemble, ils explorent les défis du développement industriel moderne : recrutement de talents, mobilité, infrastructures durables, certifications environnementales, efficacité énergétique et évolution des besoins des locataires industriels. Ugo explique aussi pourquoi le modèle traditionnel des parcs industriels est dépassé et comment 40 Net Zero veut créer un véritable écosystème industriel axé sur l'humain, la logistique et la durabilité. Un épisode essentiel pour tous les professionnels de l'immobilier commercial, industriel et du développement urbain au Québec.   Sujets et horodatages

For nearly two decades, net zero has sat at the heart of Britain's policy agenda. Once framed as a clear moral imperative, it saw political parties promising to slash carbon emissions and ministers racing to position the UK as a leader on the international stage. But as economic pressures and global instability mount, that consensus is beginning to fray.Recent shocks – from the pandemic to war-driven energy crises – have exposed the fragility of supply chains and the risks of overreliance on external energy sources. While renewables like wind and solar can supplement carbon fuels, they also raise questions around cost, subsidy and reliability. At the same time, drilling for oil in the North Sea is penalised. So where does this leave Britain? As a relatively small contributor to global emissions, is the UK leading the way in adopting net zero – or putting its own economic resilience at risk?Listen here to a section of our recent live debate, where Lord Lilley and journalist Liam Halligan went up against Bob Ward, of the influential Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and Shahrar Ali, former deputy leader of the Green party. Chaired by The Spectator's assistant editor, Isabel Hardman. Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get in touch - leave me a messageCarbon data is no longer just something companies report. Increasingly, it may decide whether products can be sold at all.In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Stephen Jamieson, Chief Marketing Officer for SAP Sustainability, to explore why sustainability is moving from the ESG report into the systems businesses use to run supply chains, finance, product compliance, and AI-enabled decisions. We get into what this means for climate tech, decarbonisation, policy, emissions reduction, net zero, and the wider energy transition.You'll hear why product carbon footprints, digital product passports, CBAM, ESPR, and Scope 3 reporting are pushing companies towards far more granular, decision-grade climate data. Stephen explains why relying on averages will not be enough when carbon insights start shaping market access, investor confidence, supply chain resilience, and commercial competitiveness.We also dig into AI's double edge. AI agents could change the economics of sustainability by scaling product-level analysis across thousands of items, but only if carbon, water, recycled content, and other sustainability factors are embedded in core business decisions. Otherwise, AI may simply optimise the wrong things faster. Listen now to hear how Stephen Jamieson and SAP Sustainability are helping move climate data from reporting theatre into real-world business action.Sign up to Climate Confident+ for deep dive analysis of the major climate and energy stories of the day.Support the showPodcast subscribersI'd like to sincerely thank this podcast's amazing subscribers:Anita KrajncCecilia SkarupaBen GrossJerry SweeneyAndreas WernerStephen CarrollRoger ArnoldAnd remember you too can Subscribe to the Podcast  - it is really easy and hugely important as it will enable me to continue to create more excellent Climate Confident episodes like this one, as well as give you access to the entire back catalog of Climate Confident episodes.ContactIf you have any comments/suggestions or questions for the podcast - get in touch via direct message on LinkedIn. If you liked this show, please don't forget to rate and/or review it. It makes a big difference to help new people discover the show.

 Voters in this month's elections in Great Britain delivered a shocking win for Reform UK, and was a clear rebuke of the “green” Net Zero agenda of the political elites. Politicians and parties that put the environmental movement over the real-world concerns of Britons, especially energy costs, have no future. On Episode #202 of The Climate Realism Show, we will talk with special guest Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK/Europe, to break down what happened, why it happened, and what it means for the climate agenda on both sides of the Atlantic. We will also cover the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including how masculinity is supposedly bad for the Earth, Danish nursing home residents are restricted to just 2.8 ounces of meat per day as punishment being “the biggest climate sinners throughout their lives,” and an big Hollywood producer says oil companies (or climate change) were responsible for the devastating Palisades fire in LA. If you believe it was an arsonist, you've been “misinformed.”  In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

 Voters in this month's elections in Great Britain delivered a shocking win for Reform UK, and was a clear rebuke of the “green” Net Zero agenda of the political elites. Politicians and parties that put the environmental movement over the real-world concerns of Britons, especially energy costs, have no future. On Episode #202 of The Climate Realism Show, we will talk with special guest Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK/Europe, to break down what happened, why it happened, and what it means for the climate agenda on both sides of the Atlantic. We will also cover the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including how masculinity is supposedly bad for the Earth, Danish nursing home residents are restricted to just 2.8 ounces of meat per day as punishment being “the biggest climate sinners throughout their lives,” and an big Hollywood producer says oil companies (or climate change) were responsible for the devastating Palisades fire in LA. If you believe it was an arsonist, you've been “misinformed.”  In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

In this episode, we speak with Maria del Mar Whittaker, Chief Corporate Responsibility Officer at Abra Group, the holding company behind airlines like Avianca and Gol. Whittaker discusses:Aviation as an essential service: Why flying in Latin America is an essential service because the geography of the continent makes road and rail alternatives impractical for several routes.Balancing growth and sustainability: How Avianca grew by nearly 20% between 2019 and 2024 while cutting its emissions intensity by a similar margin.A cross-border compliance book-and-claim mechanism: How Abra Group has developed a novel proposal under which SAF produced in Brazil can be physically used domestically, while Japanese entities can purchase the corresponding SAF certificates, effectively subsidising the green premium for Brazilian airlines and creating bankable demand that can unlock project financing.Revenue certainty mechanisms and double-auction systems: How Abra Group is proposing a multilateral-funded revenue certainty mechanism for Brazil, modelled loosely on the UK's approach.A systems-level view of SAF sustainability: Why Whittaker insists that SAF feedstock decisions must account for water, biodiversity, and indirect land use impacts at a systemic level.If you LOVED this episode, you'll also love the conversation we had with Lahiru Ranasinghe, Director of Sustainability at easyJet, who shares what it takes to move a major low-cost carrier from a sustainability blueprint to real-world results. Check it out here.Learn more about the innovators who are navigating the industry's challenges to make sustainable aviation a reality, in our new book ‘Sustainability in the Air: Volume 2'. Click here to learn more.Feel free to reach out via email to podcast@simpliflying.com. For more content on sustainable aviation, visit our website green.simpliflying.com and join the movement. It's about time.Links & More: Avianca's growing connectivity while improving overall emission performanceAbra and Sumitomo partner to unlock industry solutions to airline decarbonisation in Brazil - Biofuels InternationalArticle 6 of the Paris Agreement - UNFCCC Japan's Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) 

Get in touch - leave me a messageStreetlights sound boring. Until the grid fails and they're the only lights left on.In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Liam Ryan, CEO of Streetleaf, a climate tech company rethinking one of the most overlooked pieces of public infrastructure: the streetlight. And yes, I know. Streetlights. Hardly the sexiest corner of the energy transition. But this conversation quickly becomes about something much bigger: resilience, decarbonisation, public safety, emissions reduction, and how we build communities that keep functioning as extreme weather puts more pressure on the grid.You'll hear why the real cost of streetlighting often isn't the electricity at all. It's trenching, wiring, maintenance, utility control, copper theft, repair delays, and infrastructure that can take far too long to fix. Liam explains how solar-plus-battery streetlights can avoid much of that mess while helping cities, developers, and communities move closer to net zero.We dig into how Streetleaf's lights performed during hurricanes, why three to five days of battery backup matters, how monitoring changes maintenance, and why policy can help but won't replace cost and performance. You might be shocked to learn that in some cases, utilities can delay streetlight repairs for months while the customer keeps paying. Delightful system design, if your goal is public frustration.This is a practical episode about climate tech that works in the real world: faster installs, fewer wires, lower emissions, better uptime, and infrastructure that earns its keep when conditions get ugly.

Stopping animal agriculture and restoring nature could slash climate costs, draw down carbon, and avert planetary tipping points. #Rewilding #NetZero #ClimateHope

Upon taking office in 2025, Donald Trump immediately got busy reversing and defunding the previous administration's radical climate and energy agenda. That sent a message to the world: You may still cast America as the “villain” in your narrative of panic, but America will no longer play the fool.Net Zero may still be official policy in several European countries, but it's clear they are decreasingly serious about implementing it. Governments are pushing once-critical deadlines to achieve Net Zero farther out into the future, or signaling the project will be wholly abandoned. Even Germany, once the poster child of Net Zero zealousness, is bringing fossil fuels back. Many private-sector titans joined the Net Zero craze with their own virtue-signaling promises. Those, too, are proving to be as reliable as a dieter who will always start tomorrow.On Episode #201 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, Sterling Burnett, and Jim Lakely will talk about all this, and more, including the Crazy Climate News of the Week. You can add getting old to the list of things that cause climate change. Did Al Gore really just say we now need to worry about a coming ice age? Bugs are off the menu again. And the newest threat to the climate is something we all do: get older.Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the chat.Visit our sponsor, Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Get in touch - leave me a messageWhat if better buildings are one of the most practical climate resilience tools we already have?In this episode of Climate Confident, I'm joined by Darren Macri, Co-CEO of Wythe Windows and rising president of the Passive House Network. We talk about why passive house is not just a building standard, but a practical climate tech pathway for decarbonisation, emissions reduction, energy security, healthier homes, and a more resilient built environment.You'll hear why buildings can cut heating loads by up to 90% through airtightness, better insulation, mechanical ventilation, thermal bridge-free design, and high-performance windows. We dig into how this shifts passive house from a niche green design idea into something far more urgent: infrastructure that helps people stay safe during outages, heatwaves, storms, and fires.You might be interested to learn how leaky buildings can make wildfire damage worse, how poor windows contribute to mould, noise, asthma, and energy poverty, and why retrofitting existing building stock may matter even more than making new builds cleaner. Darren also explains why adoption is often blocked less by technology than by training, policy, codes, business habits, and fragmented construction practices. Imagine that: the physics works, but humans still need meetings.We also cover affordability, net zero, the energy transition, local manufacturing, and why better buildings can reduce bills while improving comfort and health.

Is defence of the petrol car and liberated motoring becoming the new battleground for Europe's populist parties? Chris Bowlby visits one of the homes of German car culture and a populist stronghold, Zwickau, to see how motoring is rising up the German agenda. Is Zwickau a foretaste of something affecting all of Germany – a car-loving, car-manufacturing powerhouse in the past, now wondering anxiously what the future holds against the emergence of Chinese electric cars. And less than a hundred miles from Zwickau, just across the border in the Czech Republic, a new coalition government has recently taken power, including ministers from a populist party called Motorists for Themselves – muscular defenders of the old petrol car.This episode of The Documentary comes to you from Assignment, investigations and journeys into the heart of global events.