Podcasts about sub saharan africa

By 2030, nearly half the world's young people will be African. Yet for decades, the continent's learning crisis was treated with systems unfit for reality on the ground. Social entrepreneur Rapelang Rabana shows how homegrown leadership and technology designed for African classrooms can deliver foundational skills to millions of children — and shape a new future of education across the continent. (This ambitious idea is part of The Audacious Project, TED's initiative to inspire and fund global change.)(Following the talk, Elise Hu interviews Rabana on what makes the Imagine tablet so effective and engaging for students. Rabana also reiterates how using solar-powered tablets in a controlled setting can empower students and the limitations of applying Western standards of education to Sub-Saharan Africa.) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, Les and John sit down with Tibor Nagy, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and former Ambassador to Ethiopia and Guinea, to examine a fundamental shift in how Washington is approaching Sub-Saharan Africa. The Trump administration has broken from decades of aid-and-democracy-driven policy, positioning trade, investment, and strategic partnerships at the center of its Africa agenda — but ambitious intentions have run headlong into a hollowed-out diplomatic infrastructure, ambassador vacancies, and the chaotic dismantling of USAID.What does the collapse of the Sahel and the catastrophic conflict in Sudan reveal about the limits of drive-by diplomacy? Can the administration's business-first model deliver the jobs that Africa's exploding youth population desperately needs, or will poor implementation undermine the strategy before it takes root? With Gulf states, Turkey, and China all vying for influence across the continent, how should Washington prioritize its limited bandwidth — and where does competing with Beijing actually make sense?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.@lestermunson@johnclipsey@TiborPNagyJrLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @faultlines_pod and @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube; watch today's episode here: Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Solar power now costs a thousandth of what it did in 1976. Batteries are down more than ninety percent in a decade. By the logic of economics, the climate problem should be close to solved. It isn't. We are on track for close to three degrees of warming, and politics is sliding in the wrong direction.Few people have thought as long, or as clearly, about the economics of climate change as Lord Adair Turner, chair of the Energy Transitions Commission and first chair of the UK's Climate Change Committee. This week, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac sit down with him to work out what's going wrong. Turner doesn't soften it. The "electrotech stack" of solar, batteries and motors keeps collapsing in price in a way fossil fuels never can. Sub-Saharan Africa could leapfrog the fossil era outright. China's bet on electrification makes America's wager on cheap gas look like a costly mistake. But the movement he has spent two decades inside has also sold a story it never should have: that the transition would cost no one anything.So what closes the gap between what the technology makes possible and what our politics will allow? Who pays for the parts that aren't cheap? And if money alone can't avoid a 3°C hotter future, what can?Learn More

We’re excited to have Will Loux, senior vice president of global economic affairs for the U.S. Dairy Export Council, join us to share his presentation of the future of U.S. dairy exports. For years, the U.S. dairy export portfolio has leaned heavily on nonfat dry milk, skim milk powder, lactose and lower-protein whey products. But our exports are changing. In the latest episode of The Milk Check, host Ted Jacoby sits down with Will Loux to break down the changing U.S. export picture. In this episode, we cover: Why U.S. dairy exports are moving toward cheese, fats and higher-value proteins How domestic protein demand is pulling skim solids away from dryers Why more cheese may be produced partly to create additional whey protein How exports are absorbing a larger share of new U.S. cheese production Where Latin America offers room for additional cheese growth What it will take for U.S. butter exports to become more consistent and profitable The U.S. has the milk. It has new processing capacity. And it is capturing a growing share of international cheese demand. But growth creates new challenges. Are you ready to meet them? Listen to The Milk Check episode 104: Can the U.S. Keep Its Dairy Export Advantage? Also available on: Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. Got questions? We'd love to hear them. Submit below, and we might answer it on the show. Ask The Milk Check Transcript: Ted Jacoby III: [00:00:00] Coming up on the Milk Check. Will Loux: What I’ve heard from folks in Europe and elsewhere is how do they manage the U.S. tsunami of exports that’s coming? And I think that, at the Export Council, it makes me excited, but it does mean we need to keep our strategies current. Ted Jacoby III: Welcome to the Milk Check from T.C. Jacoby & Co., your complete guide to dairy markets, from the milking parlor to the supermarket shelf. I’m Ted Jacoby. Let’s dive in. Ted Jacoby III: Today, we are very excited to have Will Loux, Senior Vice President of Global Economic Affairs for the U.S. Dairy Export Council joining us.  A few weeks ago I saw a presentation that Will gave that talked about where the U.S. dairy industry is going, especially from an international perspective. It was an absolutely fantastic presentation, and I couldn’t help but think that just this presentation alone would be an absolutely fantastic topic for our podcast.  I have a bunch of our traders joining us, many of our usual suspects, including: Ted Jacoby III: Diego Carvallo, Joe Maixner, Miguel Aragon, Mike Brown, all from our trading team. Guys, thanks for joining us. Will, thank you so much for joining us. It’s great to see you again. Will Loux: Good to see you, Ted. Thanks for having me on. Ted Jacoby III: Excited to have all of our listeners listen to this. Will, the floor is yours. Will Loux: Perfect. Well, thank you for having me, Ted, and glad to have so many people on here and another audience for this presentation. I’ve got some slides. For those of you like me who will listen to this podcast usually while driving, feel free to go check it out on YouTube. I am also gonna do my best to reference what is in those slides as best I can remember to do so. But what is the future of U.S. dairy exports? What we’ve seen, really over the last twenty-five years, has been this tremendous, consistent growth, in aggregate U.S. dairy exports. We just got May data, and what we saw was on an annualized basis over the last twelve months, the U.S. actually set a new record again. So our exports have never been higher than they are today. But that said, our exports look fundamentally different than what they did 20 years ago. Before, when we were getting started with exports, 75, 80% of our exports were really driven by nonfat dry milk, and low-protein whey products, and lactose. That’s been the vast majority of our portfolio for much of this time, and we’ve had a few different eras where we’ve seen U.S. cheese exports picked up, especially around 2014 when the world was short of milk and we saw U.S. cheese and butter go overseas. But then we saw that stagnate for a few years. Now, what we’ve seen since COVID has been this tremendous growth of these more value-add products, these specialty products. I believe the U.S. is moving towards a portfolio in the export market that looks a lot like cheese, fats, and proteins. And that’s gonna be the core of our exports, I think, going forward because the U.S. dairy industry is really kind of, I consider it an evolution rather than, like, a true revolution. But this is one of those facets that I think is really interesting to see is the U.S. has consistently been growing its exports, unlike a [00:03:00] lot of other supply origins. But this is one that I think as we go forward I’m really excited about. But it’s gonna change how we need to think about exports over the next few years. Ted Jacoby III: Will, it sounds like what you’re saying is not only are we seeing the total volume of exports go up, but the dollar per pound value is even going up faster because we’re switching away from that low-cost carb portfolio to a much higher-value protein, fat, et cetera portfolio. Fair to say? Will Loux: I think that’s exactly right. I think there are implications for that, too.  That if the U.S. is moving out of perhaps exporting as much skim milk powder or sweet whey because we’re instead making UF milk or cottage cheese or yogurt or high-protein whey, well, there’s still demand overseas for that sweet whey and for that skim milk powder. But now, it’s actually getting supplied by a few other countries, too. So, we do have to keep all of these things in mind. But to me, I think we’re moving up the value chain as the U.S., and what I’ve heard from folks in Europe and elsewhere is how do they manage the U.S. tsunami of exports that’s coming? And I think that, at the Export Council, it makes me excited, but it does mean we need to keep our strategies current with where we’re gonna go in the future. One of the things that I’ve noticed here over the last really few months but even going back to last year has been a real shift in how the U.S. dairy market is balancing itself. I would argue that for the last really 20 years, to be frank, but at least for the last 15 years, the U.S. dairy market has largely been balanced to domestic fat demand. Yes, we did see, certainly, exports of cheese grow over this time, so I don’t want to discount that as a butterfat-heavy product, but for the most part, what we’ve seen has been the U.S. has consistently balanced with where domestic demand for butterfat has grown, and then we’ve exported the skim solids largely in the form of nonfat dry milk and sweet whey overseas. What we’ve seen here over the last several years has been the U.S. switching from a traditionally balancing to domestic milkfat demand, where we’ve seen butter consumption grow, whole milk consumption grow. U.S. milk production, U.S. dairy production grew with that. And then, we exported the additional skim solids in the form of nonfat dry milk, sweet whey, high protein whey, lactose. Those products were the ones that we were really exporting. Now, what I think is happening is the U.S. is no longer really balancing to fat anymore. We’re in this precarious balance right now. We’re not quite balanced to protein yet, and we’re not quite balanced to the beef market yet because we still have high prices for protein. We don’t have enough of it to go around. We don’t have enough beef for the beef market to go around, but we also have more milk fat than the domestic market can consume. And so we’ve seen these exports really rise. So, I think what we’re seeing right now is the U.S. being pulled in different directions, and the U.S. exports as we go forward here over the next few years is in some ways at a crossroad as to which of these routes do we go. Do we swing back to balancing to milk fat, which would mean we’re probably short of protein, or do we start balancing more to protein, which means we’re gonna need to find homes for a heck of a lot more cheese and butter in the next few years. [00:06:00] Because to me, at least, if you look at the beef market, from a dairy farmer’s perspective, you are still seeing that incentive to add additional cows just based on the returns on the beef side of things. And because of that incentive to hold the dairy cows longer to get the additional black calf, also with that breeding the best of the best in the young stock, we are just seeing the largest milking herd since the 1990s and the lowest replacement herd since the 1970s. And everything we’re seeing on the beef cattle side of things would suggest this isn’t slowing down anytime soon. But from the U.S. perspective, I think what this means is we’re gonna continue to see more milking cows around, and those cows are getting more productive than ever before. And even as we’re seeing this surge in milk production, I think on a component basis, last year in in 2025 we were up 3.8%. This year we’re up not quite at 3%, but still pretty darn close. Even as we see this growth of milk, these additional black calves coming on the market, we actually still don’t see enough protein hitting the dairy markets right now. And so, what we’re seeing is even as we see this huge surge in cottage cheese production and yogurt production, my personal opinion is yogurt doesn’t get enough credit for this protein rally. It’s like 10X the volume of cottage cheese, but what we’re seeing right now is this pull of protein. I think this pull of protein is predominantly domestic. We’re seeing UF beverages, we’re seeing yogurts, we’re seeing cottage cheese, we’re seeing everything that whey protein can go into from cereals to snacks to beverages. All of that protein pull is basically sucking protein and skim solids that had been going to the export market back into the U.S. By virtue of that, we’re also seeing U.S. cheese production need to increase, not so much for the cheese demand that we’re seeing here in the United States, but rather for the whey demand that we’re seeing here as well. The cheese has really become that co-product of the whey stream. I think even conversations that I’ve had with U.S. manufacturers of, “How can I get more whey protein without building a new cheese plant” is part of the consideration. One of the things that we’ve looked at over this time has really been where is this protein in the United States going? Because we’ve seen U.S. milk production rise, U.S. milk protein production rise in the sense of protein out of the cow, but we still have less nonfat dry milk and skim milk powder than we had a year ago. What I’ve noticed over this time has been certainly the cheese vat continues to get first dibs on most of that protein. Even in the May data that we got out of USDA, you saw cheese production was up, even when nonfat dry milk was sitting at sky-high levels north of $2.00. What we’re really seeing right now is we’re pulling milk out of the dryers and either putting it into the cheese vat or putting it into these other high-protein products and the like. What that is doing is that’s shifting our export mix. So far this year, our exports of skim milk powder, amazingly, are flat somehow. But if [00:09:00] you look at our May exports of nonfat dry milk and skim milk powder, they were down 20%, and I think that’s reflective of that, and we were down last year. What we’re seeing has been the U.S. is moving out of some of these carb-heavy, as you talked about, Ted, to these more higher value uses for these products. And even nonfat dry milk production picked up in May, but it’s not that we pulled milk out of the yogurts or out of the cottage cheese or out of the natural cheese itself, it’s that we stopped making skim milk powder and instead made nonfat dry milk. This is really where we’re seeing this pull of protein, either in the form of beef necessitating more cows or necessitating more capacity to make whey proteins, milk proteins, UF products, or just high-protein dairy products. All of that pulled together is sending a, “Let’s go make more milk.” Contrasting that, you have cheese and fats, which at this point right now, and historically this isn’t too unusual, but it is something different than we’ve really seen over the last few years, has been this export push of cheese and dairy fats in the form of predominantly butter, AMF, and to a lesser extent whole milk powder. What we’re seeing here has really been this shift where right now I think we’re growing our milk production as fast as the international market can absorb our cheese and fats. Because if you look here, since COVID, what we’ve seen is about 36%, over a third of the new cheese that’s been manufactured in the United States, has gone to export. If you think about that historically, about 5% of the new cheese in the previous decade went to exports. And now we’re at 35%. And if you look at the last two years, it’s north of 65% has gone to exports. As we’re building these new cheese plants, in part for the whey, there is that eye towards, “Okay, where are we going with this cheese?” And it’s gotta be overseas. Within that, too, the United States is actually the one capturing what is a growing global market. It’s not just that the U.S. is flooding the market with less expensive cheese, it’s that global cheese demand is growing, and the U.S. is the one capturing that. Because if you look, since COVID, the U.S. has captured about 60% of that new cheese demand that’s happening overseas, and that’s really been coming from the United States. Europe’s grown their cheese exports too, so has New Zealand. Australia’s basically flat, but the rest of the world evens up. The difference here is that the United States is really the one capturing this demand growth because we have the milk, we have the cheese, and that’s really where I think the U.S. has managed to expand its footprint, be a more consistent exporter, and really break into new markets that it hasn’t before. But we’ve been in cheese for a while. Granted, it’s at a different scale today than what it has been. We were up 20% last year in cheese exports. This year we’re up about 25% so far this year. We continue to surge in our cheese exports. The difference that is new this time around is, fundamentally, that we’re seeing this expansion come not [00:12:00] just in cheese as our primary vehicle to export the fat and casein, but also in fat-heavy products, predominantly butter, but also AMF and whole milk powder, too. That you’re seeing the United States now, for every, load of high-protein beverages, you’re gonna have a load of cream that you’re gonna need to deal with, or multiple loads of cream that you’re gonna have to deal with, and that’s now going overseas. Domestic demand for butter is still going strong. Domestic demand for whole milk continues to grow. The difference is we’ve just grown production faster than that domestic demand. And so, you pull this all together, and I really think we’re seeing an evolution in our portfolio for exports. Cheese by value is now our biggest export product, and you’ve seen fats and proteins continue to grow within that portfolio, as well, from a value perspective. While we’ve seen nonfat dry milk, low protein whey, lactose, those have really been flat to declining over this timeframe. And so, if you look at that incremental growth that we’ve seen in our U.S. dairy exports since COVID, again, what we’ve seen is our two biggest stars during this period have been cheese and fats, and I think protein in the long run is still really optimistic to me. But you pull this all together, the U.S. is still gonna be a major player in skim milk powder, sweet whey, whey permeate, lactose. But if you look at where our exports are gonna grow in the future, those are really some of the key products. What do you all think about this as kind of a argument here for where our U.S. dairy exports are going? Joe Maixner: That’s been exactly what we’ve been discussing for the past six plus months, that our supply is going to continue to outpace the domestic demand. So 100% agree with everything you said in this, Will. I think that butter will continue to become a major player in the export market. Miguel Aragón: In my case, being out there in the trenches, I see this day in, day out. The penetration of U.S. cheese and butter, especially right now. We know the soaring ingredients, but cheese and butter especially, every day you could see it more and more in the marketplace. Something really interesting that you said at the beginning: If we’re gonna produce more cheese, we’re gonna have to find a place for it. We know the numbers, we see the numbers. It’s an amazing story. But right now, as we speak, that is replicating in Central America. You guys see it at the U.S. DEC. And I just came back from Colombia. The opportunity is there for us, as long as we keep doing what we’re doing now and looking at the market, adapting to the market, adapting to what the market is asking us for, and also replacing some of the product that is coming from Europe and New Zealand. But I agree with what you’re saying here 100%. Ted Jacoby III: Will, I’m gonna turn the question around on you a little bit. Is the global demand for butterfat there for us to continue to increase how much butter we’re exporting? And is the global demand for cheese there? Will that global demand keep increasing for those two products? Will Loux: From my perspective, it’s yes. What I find interesting over the last couple years has been that [00:15:00] cheese demand held up exceptionally well even during high inflation periods. Where we saw other dairy products actually feel a lot of the pressure internationally, cheese demand kept growing pretty much right on track. What we’ve seen here on the cheese side over the last couple of years internationally has been this acceleration in cheese demand, and I think some of that has to do with, as Miguel was saying, tremendous growth from our partners in Latin America. That’s been a key engine for U.S. dairy exports here over the last couple of years and, frankly, since the Export Council was founded about 30 years ago. But when we look at the opportunities abroad, I think that we still have a lot of untapped potential on the cheese side. I remain pretty optimistic about that. The other thing I’ll say, too, here is: I don’t think European milk production’s gonna keep growing at 3% a year. I don’t think you’re seeing the same investment in new cheese capacity. I think we’re seeing investment in Europe and New Zealand in new protein capacity, and that’s maybe another conversation. But I think the U.S., one, has the opportunity to capture what is a growing global market on the cheese side, and also capture market share on the cheese side. The butter standpoint has been interesting. Butter has typically been, internationally, one of the more price-elastic products. It’s one that we’ve seen when butter prices really skyrocketed, some of that may be allocation, but when butter prices were high, we did see international demand struggle. Conversely, when butter prices were low, like they are today in many ways, we’ve seen butter demand grow. And butter demand internationally is growing, not just out of the U.S., but globally. I think the question I have here with butter is less about can the U.S. compete in this market, but more, what is our price point relative to Europe and New Zealand. Because I think if you look at our butter exports, for much of last year we were probably a buck a pound below Europe. A lot of that butter was going into Europe, where coincidentally the tariff into Europe is about a buck a pound. I think my question is more crucially than can the U.S. capture growing demand for butter, it’s where do we grow our butter exports. And I, personally, think the U.S. should never be exporting really butter to Europe unless we get additional market access. I think the U.S. should be exporting butter to its higher value markets and partners, places like Mexico, like Central America, North Asia and Korea, Australia, the Middle East, assuming we can keep the strait open for a little while. But I still remain pretty optimistic that the U.S. can keep growing in those products. Some of it will be market share, and some of it will be new demand, particularly on the cheese side. Ted Jacoby III: Will, looking at this graph where it’s talking about, U.S. dairy exports by destination, there’s a big increase into Latin America since 2021. Will Loux: Yep. Ted Jacoby III: Is that fair to say most of that is cheese? Will Loux: It’s fair to say most of it is cheese. We have seen increases also in nonfat dry milk and skim milk powder exports to Latin America over this timeframe, too, but the big driver, I think especially post-COVID in Latin America, was, [00:18:00] one, that region was the first major region, I should say, where tourism increased to levels higher than what it was before COVID, and we continue to see pretty good economic performance in the region. The other thing I don’t wanna discount here, too, has also been the full implementation of CAFTA-DR, our trade agreement with many of the Central American countries came into full effect, and you’ve seen this real surge in demand from the region and collaboration with our local partners there, that we’ve really seen this growth in Central American demand and Caribbean demand. Most of that is cheese. More recently, there are also butter and AMF and so going there too, but cheese has been the engine on the Latin American side most recently. Mike Brown: Will, I’ve got a question. Anything in particular we in the dairy industry, and of course you at U.S. DEC, are watching as far as improving opportunities, but also possible disadvantages we may gain through trade. Will Loux: Yeah. Great question, Mike. I have a mix of optimism, and then probably a couple notes of caution on this. So from my optimistic take, a lot of these new agreements on reciprocal trade that we’ve signed with key partners around the world, some of these are incredibly exciting because these are markets we’ve wanted to have agreements with for a long time. In particular, Indonesia makes me very excited. I think if we are able to see that actually be implemented here soon, I would be even more excited. I think there’s still a question on when that gets fully implemented. Taiwan is another one. We are getting access into markets that we never had access to before. We’ll see when those are fully implemented but again, I am still pretty optimistic on where those have opportunities for the U.S. to build upon and get on an equal footing with our competitors in Oceania and in Europe. However, our competitors are not staying static. We see a new agreement here between the European Union and Mexico. We have an agreement between the European Union and Mercosur that gets them additional access, particularly in proteins. I think the U.S. cannot take its customers for granted. Especially as we look at places like Mexico, that’s one where competition is not going to go away. And when we’ve seen nonfat dry milk sit 75 cents plus above Europe, you’re gonna see customers start calling Europe and New Zealand and looking for alternative sources. Or when we have high-protein whey products that are in such demand domestically, are we making sure we’re contacting our customers abroad? Because what we’re seeing now is Europe is heavily investing in additional whey protein capacity. Even as the U.S. is the largest exporter of high-protein whey in the world, I think there are other origins that are coming for that. And so, when I look optimistically, it’s like, “Great, we get more market access.” But to some of the key questions that I have around like is the U.S. ready for the future of dairy exports, one of them is gonna be: How do we actually meet this international demand on the protein side, and are we gonna have the market access that we need to be able [00:21:00] to capture sales? As I look at the world market today, I have a ton of optimism for where the U.S. can really be the supplier of choice, but it’s not gonna be a straight line from here to there, even on the fats or even on the cheese. I think the last couple years, milk production’s been up so much, it’s allowed us to capture a lot of demand, but even those I think will bounce around. Mike, I don’t know if that answered your question, but that was where my head’s at these days. Ted Jacoby III: Everybody, we will be right back after these messages. Diego Carvallo: I’m Diego Carballo with T.C. Jacoby & Co.. T.C. Jacoby & Co. specializes in international dairy markets. For new customers that haven’t done business with Jacoby, I would tell them that we can provide them with many of the powders, dairy products that they consume, not only with the physical product, but we can also help them mitigate their risk. We know dairy. We know the main players. We know the main providers for the whole value chain. We are one of the strongest players in the U.S. market because we have contact all the way from the farmer moving the liquid milk all the way to the end users that buy the end products. I am Diego Carballo with T.C. Jacoby & Co., and we bring dairy to the world. Will Loux: Ted, maybe what do you think if we go through a couple of these questions and have a little debate? Ted Jacoby III: All right. We’ll ask our team. Number one, does the U.S. have the necessary market access and global reach to capture sales opportunities in a multipolar world? Will Loux: And maybe I’ll clarify what I mean by multi-polar world. Ted Jacoby III: Great idea. Will Loux: Cause what I mean by that is if you look at global dairy trade leading up to COVID especially, from 2010 to 2020, China was the engine of that global dairy import demand growth. They accounted for 40% of that growth. These days, I’m not particularly optimistic China’s gonna be the engine. I think China will be an important import market, for sure. And I think they’re still gonna need fats, they’re still gonna need proteins, but they’re growing their own domestic supply, particularly of commodities. So, what I think the future looks like from a demand perspective is collective growth. Latin America, Southeast Asia, Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa even, I think there will be a lot of countries growing that collectively equal what China was doing before. But we’re gonna have to play in a lot of markets. So, the question to you guys then is: Do we have the reach and access to be able to compete in a lot of different places, or what does that look like for the U.S.? Because China is not gonna be the engine of global dairy demand here over the next decade, we’re gonna have to compete in a lot of different markets. In the previous decade leading up to COVID, you saw a lot of the New Zealand milk production, an increasing percentage was going to China, which opened up opportunities for us in Southeast Asia and the Middle East and others.  As we look at this next era of dairy exports, do we have the market access? Do we have the global reach and infrastructure to be able to capture sales in a lot of different markets [00:24:00] around the world? Diego Carvallo: That’s a good question. If we start with the premise that the U.S. is not gonna desperately need to export nonfat, I would say that it’s not gonna be that difficult to find new markets. The U.S. is not gonna have to fight to move additional volumes like they need to do for products like butter. Where do we take the skim milk powder that we’re currently making if China is not a huge buyer anymore? There’s plenty of demand still to be covered in other regions of Southeast Asia in other regions in Latin America, where we should have a good footprint and where we should have some advantages when it comes to freight. I would say the main markets where we have to gain market share are gonna be definitely Central America, the Caribbean and Latin America because of all of the advantages when it comes to freight and the relationship and other factors. The market where we’re gonna fight with the rest of the origins is gonna be Southeast Asia, we may need to go there and fight with price, with aggressive pricing, and we may need to compete even with China, ’cause we’re hearing that even China has been exporting product to that region in the past year. There’s gonna be some markets where we are positioned to gain market share and others where we’re gonna have to compete in price. Ted Jacoby III: Miguel, what do you think? With cheese and butter, do we have the necessary market access and global reach? Miguel Aragón: We do have the necessary market access. Our products are welcome where we are taking them. Our issue is more like, the cheeses that we produce at scale, cheddar and color cheddar, are not necessarily the cheeses that our markets are asking for. We need Gouda, we need Monterey Jack, we need Sadero, we need Manchego. We need the help of our partners, our plant partners, to adapt and to see the opportunity of the cheeses that those markets ask for. And I’m in particular about Latin America. But then again, that’s a big market.  U.S. cheeses are well-received. We do have places to go with it. We just have to get better at exporting. U.S. DEC does a really good job at helping us get into those markets, vet the customers and teach about the products. We are doing the right things. We just need to do it a little bit better. We do have places to go with that extra cheese. Ted Jacoby III: Miguel, do you think there’s a lot of underserved regions in Central and South America? In other words, are there a lot of customers who the only reason they’re not buying and importing more U.S. cheese is because they don’t know who to buy it from, they don’t have the contacts? Miguel Aragón: I do. In the last trips that I made, especially to the northern part of South America, colombia, Peru, Ecuador, there is demand. It just reminds me of Mexico 15, 20 years ago. They don’t know who to buy it from. They don’t know that we make it. They don’t know that we have the variety that we have. It’s an education. We have to work, harder at marketing our products down there. But there is a place. There is definitely a place. There is a market. Ted Jacoby III: Thanks, Miguel. All right, Joe, I got a question for you. Can the U.S. export butterfat products consistently and in a [00:27:00] profitable manner? Joe Maixner: I think we’ve started showing that we can export consistently. Numbers have been pretty consistent and have been growing throughout the year. A profitable portion probably remains to be seen. We’ll always have to be aggressive as we’re entering into new markets ‘ cause we’re gonna have to find a way to penetrate into markets that have been historically dominated by Europe or Oceania with a product that does not look like Europe or Oceania’s product. The easiest way to do that, obviously, is to, for lack of a better term, buy our way into the market to people to try the product. But once our product is in there and they realize it’s a consistent quality butter, I think that we certainly have the opportunity to be profitable long-term. Realistically, exporting butterfat consistently makes everybody more profitable in the U.S. because it pushes fat offshore, which helps our butter price, ultimately, domestically. Will Loux: When I look at exporting butterfat profitably, for us, especially at the Export Council, it’s been one of those things that the U.S. for the longest time hasn’t had butter basically to export. When we’ve gotten long, we’ve found places to clear it. I think what’s changed this time around has been that it seems like with the pull of protein, that we’re gonna have at least some butter available long-term. The question that I still have is where are the best places for us to invest? And even as an Export Council, where are the best places for us to invest our resources into trying to make sure that customers even know that the U.S. has butter available to export, while also trying to find ways of helping U.S. exporters navigate different tariffs than they’ve traditionally had to export, making sure the product specs meet it, and then also trying to get new market access in places that, for a while we’ve seen a lot of trade agreements that thankfully got the U.S. access in cheese and in milk powders, and sometimes butter was in there, sometimes it wasn’t. And so how do we get additional access into that? I look at the U.S.-Japan phase one, that we got additional cheese access, I think we could use some additional butter access into Japan. I’m pretty optimistic on this one. I don’t know if we’re there yet, but I think it’s gonna be isolating which markets are going to be the most profitable for us. I’m probably less optimistic that we’re gonna be consistent in exporting butter here in the next couple of years. But long-term, I think it’s undeniable that the U.S. is gonna have to go in this direction eventually. Ted Jacoby III: Why are you less optimistic in the short-term? Will Loux: I’m a little optimistic in the short-term because we have been exporting effectively double the butter exports we have been. We’ve seen that gap between the U.S. and international markets close quite a bit. Inventories are pretty low. The milk fat test, until May, which surprised me a little bit, had been slowing down as farmers adjusted rations. If we get to the point where butter is $1.40, $1.50, I’m not sure it always makes sense for the farmers to pay for the incremental increase in feed inputs to boost the butterfat test to the [00:30:00] extent that would boost our exports. We may find ourselves tighter in butter in the fourth quarter because we’ve exported our way back to balance. And to me, it looks like where cheese was 15 years ago: That we are on the path towards being a consistent exporter, but we’re often still going to prioritize our domestic market. From the U.S. perspective, I think our butter looks like cheese did 15 years ago, where we’re often export competitive, but not always. Joe Maixner: Will, basically, you have summed up exactly what I’ve been saying for a while, where the butter export opportunity will be cyclical because we will get super competitive, which will drive our domestic price up, which will take us out of the market, and then in turn, cause a surplus of domestic butter to show up in the market, which will then collapse the price and make us super competitive again in the export market. We’re still early enough in the phase that we’re trying to figure out those cycles. I do think it’s cyclical. Overall, though, I do think we will be a consistent exporter. There’ll be a base, and it will ebb and flow, but I do think we will be a consistent exporter moving forward because as we’ve gained market share, we are getting loyal end-use customers in export markets that will consistently pay for our product. Will Loux: I 100% agree with that. I think it’s gonna be, where do we keep our consistent customers, and where are the opportunistic sales that maybe ebb and flow? That’s gonna be a multi-year process as that all shakes out as to where are our stickiest markets within all this? Mike Brown: You want those consistent customers. Jacoby, one of our jobs is helping people with those opportunities. So, they’re both important, but you still need that core base demand and respect for the product. And so, I have a question for you on this, Will. Let’s take butter. Butter’s a great example because the world is unsalted 82, we’re salted 80. I think Joe would attest: We’re seeing suppliers trying to be more flexible in making the product that meets that demand, yet on the other hand, if you’re gonna store a commodity, you gotta make the commodity that is the market product. What are you seeing as far as our adaptability to be that flexible supplier in the world market? What else do we need to do that maybe we aren’t currently doing? Will Loux: There certainly has been a lot of progress made. From my perspective, you have a few different things. One is, of course, the salted and the fat content in the U.S. is different. It’s rare that we’re gonna be exporting from our inventories of 80 salted unless it’s just purely a price play. But what I think about when I think long-term export opportunities is really targeting the key channels that the U.S. is likely to win in first. And some of that’s food manufacturing. I think that’s where the U.S. can be really good, especially making bulk butter for export. I think it’s the first channel. But then it’s also making sure our formats meet the expectations of the customers. Because food manufacturing, I think, will only get us so far. The next phase where the U.S. can really excel in a couple markets is in the foodservice space and in the bakery space, in particular. We have next to no [00:33:00] capacity in the U.S. to make butter sheets, basically the stuff that you would use for croissants or bakery applications. Those are things we know we’ve heard from customers on how we can make products that are specifically geared towards that. In the long run, those are some of the issues. Some of it’s also from an Export Council perspective, educating customers on why U.S. butter is a different color, helping them understand how to utilize it. And even if they choose to use 80%, how to adjust their formulations to that to help understand, “Hey, this is a simple difference of 2% fat difference.” We can work in that space here, too. Long term, I think the U.S. needs to be sure, and this is something we’ve seen in all the other export products that we’ve seen over the years, is not solely trying to sell what we make here in the U.S. and say, “Hey, you should try this instead.” But instead figuring out what our customers are asking for and really making that product. And a lot of that goes down to also the formats and trying to move beyond just bulk butter for further processing into really targeted markets with those specific products. Ted Jacoby III: Joe, do you think the butter industry will invest in those things to increase our capabilities to deliver what the customer wants? Joe Maixner: I think eventually they may have to if our fat components continue the direction that they’re going. Some of the forward thinkers will be the first to adapt, and they’ll be the beneficiaries of investing in some further processing type manufacturing to be able to account for that. Cause at the end of the day, the profit’s in the value add. It’s not in selling bulk.  If there’s production capacity, and there’s space to do the addition, and somebody has the foresight to take the chance on it, I think that the payoff is there. Because if you get into that food service type packaging or laminated butter sheets or you get into a product that nobody else is making, that makes you very sticky in that market. You own that market. Will Loux: Even as we’re talking about butter here, we’ve got to think of other, fat-heavy products that could actually play really well in the international market. I tend to think whether it’s, like a UHT cream product, I know there’s always interest in like a frozen cream product. That’s a hard thing for the U.S. to make in some ways. I think UHT creams, we continue to see grow even as we see UHT milk itself actually decline globally. But we’re seeing real interest in that food service sector of, “Hey, let’s get whipping creams that are really targeted towards some of these international markets.” As much as for the U.S. it’s geared around, “Okay, what’s the most storable form of fat?” I think that’s step one, to find a way to export it. But step two is really what are these value-add fat-containing products that we can actually be targeting and competing in as well. And then I think balancing to like an AMF or a whole milk powder, but then using our butter and creams for the value add opportunities. Ted Jacoby III: I agree. Joe Maixner: Let’s not forget cream cheese, either. Cream cheese internationally has been phenomenal. That has plenty of trajectory to keep going. Miguel Aragón: I [00:36:00] must agree 100% with what Joe was saying on cream cheese. We are seeing phenomenal requests for cream cheese throughout Latin America, now in Asia. As what you were saying about channels, Will, we are now working with retailers in Central America with butter. Right now, it’s food service packaging going into retailers, but I think that’s a very interesting thing happening because once those brands of U.S. manufacturers start showing up in the retailers, I think we’re gonna have a better pool of U.S. butter. Ted Jacoby III: I agree, Miguel. Will, I think we should move on to the next couple of questions.  – I’m gonna read them both out because I think they’re very related. The first question is, can the U.S. grow cheese exports fast enough to keep up with whey protein demand. And then the second question is, will the U.S. have the protein to supply both the rising domestic and international consumption? I’ll answer the Second question first, which is, my dad, one of the things he drove into us as traders was, at the end of the day, everything’s a matter of price. Which means supply and demand will be regulated by what the price of protein is in the global market. I think it’s fair to say Europe has a much greater ability to add whey protein processing than the U.S. does because a smaller percentage of the whey offtake from cheese plants in Europe is currently being processed into whey protein. So, we will see some pushback there. But in the end of the day, that’s simply gonna self-regulate over what that global price is. My prediction is, can the U.S. grow cheese exports fast enough to keep up with that whey protein demand? I think we are reaching a point where the U.S. is consistently priced where the world market is priced for cheese, and I think that is going to change the way new cheese plants get built because we have had pushback for for 40 years. It’s exactly what Miguel has been talking about, is you don’t make the cheese that we want. Well, if we’re consistently now priced properly into the international market, my challenge for the cheese industry is someone needs to build a plant that supplies the international market with what they want, because we’ve arrived at the point where we’re gonna be consistently competitive now, and that risk becomes worth it. Miguel, do you agree? Miguel Aragón: Totally. I couldn’t have said it better. The market is there; it’s waiting for us to take more of it, but we need the right product now. Ted Jacoby III: And I think that whey protein demand may actually drive someone to do it.  What do you think? Will Loux: I agree with everything you’re saying. I think these are two inextricably linked pieces. Right now the signals are such: “Make more whey protein capacity” is clear. There’s also an element of “make more MPC capacity” or “make more capacity with the skim stream targeting proteins” as well. I think what’s holding back some of this capacity to date is probably much more the profitability on the cheese and on the fat side, and where those prices are at. From the dairy farmer perspective of if they’re investing is, the dairy farmer getting the price signals on the protein side? Because right now they’re getting the [00:39:00] price signals on the cheese side and on the fat side, and those are saying not as much to grow. These all need to be put into the spectrum of like, if we successfully grow our cheese exports and keep that international price relatively firm and grow demand abroad for cheese, and grow demand abroad for fats, it’s clear to me the protein demand seems pretty much insatiable here in the U.S. I think there’s a ton of untapped demand internationally, especially as GLP-1s start launching internationally. Like, there is a lot of international demand that I don’t think the U.S. should lose sight of, particularly with regards to whey proteins and milk proteins and all these other products. But it comes down to: can we grow our exports of cheese and butter, not just where we’re setting the global price for those products, but finding ways to make that stream profitable internationally, just as we’ve made the protein stream now incredibly profitable from a whey protein perspective. Folks are gonna come, particularly in Europe, as you said, I think they’re manufacturing over a million metric tons right now of sweet whey in Europe. Some of that’s gonna go to high-protein whey products. We’re gonna have more competition in that space. We’ll see what the price ends up being. All of these things are inextricably linked. And when I think about the mandate here at the Export Council, it’s like, how do we grow those cheese, those fat, and those protein exports, to keep that profitably moving and continue that investment? Because demand’s there for protein, and we’re seeing good demand internationally for cheese. We’re moving the fat overseas. But how do we do that in the most valuable way possible, I think is really what’s gonna be that next era of U.S. dairy exports. Joe Maixner: Will, I’m gonna ask you a question, ‘ cause I’m gonna push back a little bit. You said that farmers aren’t seeing the signals because of cheese and fat. You don’t think a $17 plus Class III and an $18 Class IV basically for the next year, plus your return on beef, plus your cheap inputs on feed is not enough to get the farmers to expand? Will Loux: Oh, I think they will continue to expand. When the nonfat dry milk price shot up, I think that was a reflection that we were short on protein. That we pulled so much out of the dryer, that was that reflection. But I think as Mike even said on one of your previous podcasts, that it was really shown in the PPD rather than necessarily in the protein price. I don’t mean necessarily they’re not getting the signal, it’s just some of it’s our pricing system is a convoluted signal. Ted Jacoby III: Will, you’re speaking to the choir. Mike Brown: I’m gonna have to quote you on that one. Ted Jacoby III: I’m gonna take this opportunity to say, Will, thank you so much for joining us today. This has been a fantastic discussion. I hope you come back soon and join us again, because we always love having you on our podcast. Will Loux: Always fun being with you guys. Thanks for having me on. Miguel Aragón: Bye, guys. [00:42:00] End Commercial: Mike Brown: For one part of the supply chain to be successful, everyone has to be. My superpower is practical application of data and analysis. I believe firmly that Jacoby’s success is because we help our suppliers and our buyers be successful. I’m Mike Brown, and I love working for T.C. Jacoby & Co. because I get to help people make their businesses more successful.

Prof. Jake Okechukwu Effoduh Assistant Professor, Lincoln Alexander School of Law of Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) Jake Effoduh has gained significant expertise in international human rights advocacy at various ranks of domestic, regional, and international legal systems. He has also informed the regulatory frameworks and policy formulation on artificial intelligence (AI) both for supranational organizations and domestic institutions in several countries including the United States, Brazil, and Nigeria. Prior to joining TMU, Effoduh served as Chief Counsel of Africa – Canada AI and Data Innovation Consortium, mobilizing AI and big data techniques to build governance strategies. He is also the project coordinator of Canada's Rights Role in Sub-Saharan Africa, a multi-year interdisciplinary SSHRC-funded partnership between Canada and several African countries. Effoduh has held multiple academic fellowships including at the Centre for Law, Technology, and Society at the University of Ottawa; the Harvard Library Innovation Lab of Harvard Law School; the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance of the University of Cape Town; and the Center for Human Rights Science of Carnegie Mellon University. AI, privacy, equality, and legal frameworks [0:02] Jake's research into AI and human rights [2:59] Broader impact of AI systems on social access, justice, and equity [6:20] Holding organizations accountable for AI decisions [7:31] Ensuring the data used to train AI systems reflect the needs and rights of diverse groups [11:24] Can AI ever truly be fair in today's world? [14:46] Kenyan perspectives of privacy; communal vs individual privacy [19:32] Including diverse voices in policy conversations [21:43] Strengthening Ontario's current AI governance framework [27:58] Resources: Principles for the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence, developed by the IPC and Ontario Human Rights Commission Joint statement by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the use of AI technologies Commissioner's blog: AI in Health: Supporting Trustworthy Innovation Info Matters podcast: Season 5, Episode 2: Using AI, data analytics and federated learning to improve patient care  AI Scribes: Key Considerations for the Healthcare Sector (guidance) AI Scribes: Checklist of Key Considerations for the Healthcare Sector GPA Resolution on artificial intelligence and employment (IPC co-sponsored) GPA Resolution on generative artificial intelligence systems (IPC co-sponsored) GPA Resolution on the collection, use and disclosure of personal data to pre-train, train and fine-tune AI models (IPC co-sponsored) GPA Resolution on meaningful human oversight of decisions involving AI systems (IPC co-sponsored) GPA Resolution on principles and expectations for the appropriate use of personal information in facial recognition technology  GPA Resolution on accountability in the development and use of artificial intelligence  FPT Resolution Principles for Responsible, Trustworthy and Privacy-Protective Generative AI Technologies  Prof. Jake Effoduh's list of publications Info Matters is a podcast about people, privacy, and access to information hosted by Patricia Kosseim, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. We dive into conversations with people from all walks of life and hear stories about the access and privacy issues that matter most to them. If you enjoyed the podcast, leave us a rating or a review. Have an access to information or privacy topic you want to learn more about? Interested in being a guest on the show? Comment on our posts on BlueSky and LinkedIn or email your ideas to podcast@ipc.on.ca. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this podcast are for general information only. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the IPC does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this podcast, and information from this podcast should not be used or reproduced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. None of the information, opinions and recommendations presented in this podcast bind the IPC's Tribunal that may be called upon to independently investigate and decide upon an individual complaint or appeal based on the specific facts and unique circumstances of a given case.

A river dries up. The soil turns salty. A harvest fails. Farmers across the developing world feel climate change constantly and personally, they rarely blame their government, or demand action.Guy Grossman (University of Pennsylvania) is one of three authors of a new review of the politics of climate change in the developing world. He tells Tim Phillips that almost all of the existing research on this topic is focused on rich countries, even though the developing world faces the worst of the damage,  and has the least capacity to absorb it, because in those countries the link between climate change and political action is more explicit.Political solutions are needed: developing country income losses could run 60% higher than losses in wealthy countries, and climate change could push between 32 and 132 million people into extreme poverty within a decade. Grossman's review turns up a paradox in the public opinion data. Concern runs high even where formal climate literacy is low, because people experience the crisis through a failed harvest or a dried up well, not a scientific chart. This disconnect isn't neutral, because vulnerability isn't simply inherited. It is produced, by decisions about who owns land, whose villages get seawalls, and whose voice counts when climate money is handed out.The research behind this episode:Grossman, Guy, Audrey Sacks, and Alice Xu. 2026. "The Politics of Climate Change in the Developing World." Annual Review of Political Science 29: 101-126.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Guy Grossman. 2026. "Climate Change Politics in Developing Countries." VoxDev Talks (podcast).About the guestGuy Grossman is the David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He founded and co-directs Penn's Development Research Initiative (PDRI-DevLab), and his research spans governance, forced displacement, political accountability, and conflict processes across the developing world, with a particular regional focus on Sub-Saharan Africa.Research cited in this episodeExtreme poverty projections. World Bank economists Bramka Arga Jafino, Stephane Hallegatte, Julie Rozenberg, and Brian Walsh estimate that climate change could push between 32 and 132 million people into extreme poverty by 2030; the wide range reflects uncertainty over which emissions and development pathway the world follows. Read the working paper.Afrobarometer. A long running, pan African survey network covering more than 30 countries. Grossman's review draws on it to show that only around four in ten respondents identify human activity as the main cause of climate change, even as concern about its effects runs far higher.The attitudinal and accountability channels. Two frameworks political scientists use to trace how climate exposure might change political behaviour. The attitudinal channel asks whether living through a flood or a drought changes what someone believes about climate change; the accountability channel asks whether it changes their vote. Grossman finds evidence for both, but little that explains when concern turns into political pressure.Maladaptation. The academic term for private adaptation that shifts harm onto someone else, such as a village embankment that protects one community by pushing floodwater into the next. Grossman uses it to illustrate why adaptation without government coordination can widen inequality rather than close it.Ecuador land titling. Mark Buntaine, Stuart Hamilton, and Marco Millones's 2015 study of a titling programme in Morona Santiago found it did almost nothing to slow deforestation, because the state never backed the new titles with enforcement. Grossman cites it as evidence that representation without power tends to fail.Indigenous managed land. Research led by Stephen Garnett finds that Indigenous peoples, roughly 6.2% of the world's population, manage more than a quarter of the planet's land surface, often protecting carbon sinks more effectively than formally designated protected areas.More VoxDev Talks episodesFinancing climate adaptation: what works, what doesn't, and can carbon credits help to bridge the gap? Namrata Kala, Rohini Pande, and Catherine Wolfram pick up where Grossman leaves off, on who pays for adaptation when governments won't.How the urban environment can adapt to climate change. Matthew Kahn and Siqi Zheng discuss how cities in the developing world can adapt their buildings and infrastructure as climate driven migration accelerates.Related reading on VoxDev.orgClimate politics: understanding political inaction on climate change. Allan Hsiao and Nicholas Kuipers show that Indonesian politicians underestimate voter concern about climate and pollution, and that correcting their misperceptions does not, on its own, produce policy action; a real world case of the accountability channel breaking down.Political representation and forest conservation? This finds that transferring formal political power, not just consultation, to India's historically marginalised Scheduled Tribes led to a measurable fall in deforestation.

Episode 231 with Daniel Yu, Founder of Africa Jobs Fund, a philanthropic venture builder focused on creating high productivity jobs across Sub Saharan Africa through export manufacturing and international labour mobility.Daniel is best known as the founder and former CEO of Wasoko, one of Africa's leading commerce and supply chain technology companies. After spending more than a decade building logistics infrastructure across multiple African markets, he has shifted his focus towards what he believes is the continent's biggest economic challenge: creating productive jobs at scale. Through the Africa Jobs Fund, he aims to mobilise 100 million dollars over the next five years to back commercially viable businesses and workforce infrastructure that connect African talent and industry to global demand.In this episode, Daniel explains why he believes Africa's next phase of economic growth will depend on creating millions of higher productivity jobs rather than simply building more technology companies. Drawing on lessons from East and South East Asia, he explores how export manufacturing and international labour mobility have consistently driven industrialisation, income growth, and poverty reduction, and why Africa is now uniquely positioned to compete in global manufacturing and workforce supply chains.What We Discuss With DanielWhy Daniel believes Africa has spent too long chasing tech startups instead of building the industries that create millions of jobs.The uncomfortable truth about why consumer technology alone will not solve Africa's employment crisis.Is Africa on the verge of becoming the world's next manufacturing and workforce powerhouse?Why export manufacturing and international labour mobility have lifted more people out of poverty than almost any other economic strategy.How the Africa Jobs Fund plans to back the businesses that could fundamentally reshape Africa's labour market.Did you miss my previous episode where I discuss Can Financing Unlock Africa's EV Revolution Faster Than Technology? Make sure to check it out!Connect with Terser:LinkedIn - Terser AdamuInstagram - unlockingafricaTwitter (X) - @TerserAdamuConnect with DanielLinkedIn - Daniel Yu and Africa Jobs FundMany of the businesses unlocking opportunities in Africa don't do it alone. If you'd like strategic support on entering or expanding across African markets, reach out to our partners ETK Group:www.etkgroup.co.ukinfo@etkgroup.co.uk

More than seven billion of us are expected to be living in urban areas by 2050. So what are the world's great cities doing about climate change? Humans are now city creatures – with more than half the world's population already living in urban environments, and huge growth expected in cities in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa during the rest of the 21st century. So mayors are on the front line of dealing with climate change – whether it's keeping people cool during heatwaves or redesigning cities to cope with floods. In this edition of The Climate Question, Host Jordan Dunbar hears about inspiring solutions from cable cars in Colombia to water parks in the Netherlands and city gardens in the Philippines. His guests are Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, the mayor of Freetown in Sierra Leone and Co-Chair of the C40 Cities Coalition, and Rogier van den Berg, an architect and urban planner who's Global Director at the WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities. Jordan, Yvonne and Rogier also discuss the crucial role that cities need to play in reducing carbon emissions by making buildings more energy-efficient and rethinking transport. Got a question or comment? You can email the team: theclimatequestion@bbc.comProducers: Jordan Dunbar, Diane Richardson, Melanie Stewart-Smith Sound Mix: Dave O'Neill and Tom Brignell Editor: Simon Watts

On the Saturday July 4, 2026 edition of The Richard Ccrouse Show we meet Darragh McGee, a University of Bath sociologist, BBC New Generation Thinker, and expert on the globalization of sports gambling—especially its digital/tech-driven explosion, normalization among young people, and public health impacts (including in the UK and Sub-Saharan Africa). His book “Imitation Games: How Gambling Hijacked Sport” is a deep dive into these issues. It's a pioneering investigation into the tech-fuelled world of online gambling—its explosive growth, and the transformational impact it is having on sports, fandom, and society. Then, we'll meet musician John Fellner. Before stepping into the spotlight as an artist, Fellner built a strong reputation as a JUNO-nominated producer and songwriter. With more than 80 million streams tied to his production work, he's now building momentum as a solo artist as well with the release of the EP “Boundaries.”

James found me online looking for fractional CTO services. That conversation eventually made me an investor. In this episode I sit down with all three co-founders of Koloso — James, Petra and Sowi — to talk about building a meaningful EdTech product in Zambia with limited capital, no technical background, and a problem that affects millions of children across Sub-Saharan Africa. **The problem:** Zambian classrooms regularly have 60 to 100 children and one teacher. Teachers have no reliable way to track who is keeping up or falling behind, and a mountain of admin on top. The slogans around leaving no child behind simply don't translate into classroom reality. **The product:** Children play a two-minute, ten-question quiz aligned to the Zambian national curriculum. Teachers get a real-time dashboard showing individual progress over time. Parents receive practical tips for reinforcing learning at home, in everyday Zambian contexts. Version two covers the entire teaching loop, from lesson planning through to compliance reporting. **The challenges:** Schools are cautious adopters. The "lazy teacher" objection was real and unexpected. Annual procurement cycles create brutal seasonal gaps. Building without technical founders nearly finished them. **AI at the right moment:** Koloso started using AI-assisted development around eight to ten months before this conversation. Problems that once required lengthy specifications now get resolved in half an hour. But if AI had arrived two years earlier they would have built the wrong product. A year later and they would have run out of money. The timing was critical. **An African solution to an African problem:** Khan Academy hasn't gained traction in Zambia because it isn't aligned to the Zambian curriculum. Koloso's questions use Zambian names, Zambian currency, and Zambian contexts. The family-centred learning philosophy reflects Zambian cultural values in a way that imported solutions don't. --- ## Timestamps | Time | Topic | |------|-------| | 00:32 | How the founders met and their backgrounds | | 04:00 | Why data is the core problem in Zambian classrooms | | 07:00 | Building the first prototype | | 11:10 | How the app works | | 13:58 | School adoption challenges | | 17:28 | African solution to an African problem | | 26:53 | AI-assisted development and why timing mattered | | 35:01 | Advice to their younger selves | | 37:21 | Where to find Koloso | --- Koloso is live in Zambia, South Africa, Nigeria and Uganda, with Malawi in progress. Available on iOS and Google Play. Pre-seed round of $250,000 currently open. Actively seeking investors and schools. **www.koloso.app** *Subscribe to the Atom CTO Podcast for more conversations with founders building things that matter.*

What does it take to move from AI experimentation to real business impact? Recording during Google Cloud Summit London 2026 at Tobacco Dock, I had the opportunity to speak with Maureen Costello, Vice President for UKI and Sub-Saharan Africa at Google Cloud, about one of the biggest shifts currently taking place across technology and business. After years of discussion around generative AI, the focus is now turning toward agentic AI and how organizations can put these capabilities to work in practical, measurable ways. Maureen offered a fascinating view from the front line of AI adoption, sharing how businesses across financial services, retail, government, and other sectors are beginning to move beyond pilots and proof-of-concept projects. We discussed how AI is helping organizations improve customer experiences, increase productivity, strengthen decision-making, and create new opportunities for growth. From helping banks tackle financial crime and deliver smarter customer services to supporting government departments in modernizing public services, the conversation is filled with examples that bring the technology to life. We also explored why the UK is so well positioned for the next chapter of AI adoption. With world-class research, exceptional talent, and ambitious investment across both the public and private sectors, Maureen believes the UK has a genuine opportunity to remain at the forefront of AI innovation. She also explained why skills development, data readiness, security, governance, and trust will play such an important role as organizations begin introducing AI agents into everyday workflows. What I particularly enjoyed was discussing the human side of this transition. As AI becomes embedded into business operations, how should leaders prepare their teams? What separates organizations that achieve meaningful outcomes from those that struggle to move beyond the early excitement? And how can businesses strike the right balance between innovation, responsibility, and long-term value? Whether you're following the announcements from Google Cloud Summit London, building your own AI strategy, or simply trying to understand where this technology is heading next, this conversation offers valuable insight into one of the most talked-about topics in business today. What role do you think agentic AI will play inside your organization over the next 12 months, and are businesses finally moving from curiosity to meaningful adoption?

Two years since the launch of the African Vaccine Manufacturing Accelerator (AVMA), a financial mechanism that invests in commercially viable manufacturing efforts on the continent, what progress has been made in the effort to produce 800 million vaccines in Africa by 2035? Where are there opportunities for strengthening access to routine immunizations for vulnerable populations, including the 6.7 million zero-dose children in the region, along with those living in fragile and conflict-affected areas? And how can the AVMA, which was developed in response to the region's challenges in securing access to Covid-19 vaccines during the global pandemic, help build countries' resilience in the face of current and future disease outbreaks? Please join the CSIS Bipartisan Alliance for Global Health Security for a broadcast conversation with Katherine E. Bliss, Director and Senior Fellow, Immunizations and Health Systems Resilience, with the CSIS Global Health Policy Center, Farrah Losper, Chief Commercial Officer at Biovac and Chairperson of the Board of the African Vaccine Manufacturing Initiative, Folake Olayinka, Director of Immunization, Africa CDC, Shanelle Hall, Principal Advisor to the Director General, Africa CDC, and David Kinder, Head of Development Finance at Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, regarding the progress of the AVMA and contributions to the immunization landscape in the Africa region. 

Bruce Nordman spent nearly 40 years at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory asking one question: what if we ran electricity the way we run the internet? His answer reframes everything. A notebook computer is already a nanogrid — it can run on battery or grid power, and it distributes electricity to every USB device plugged into it. Scale that idea up, add a price signal that machines (not people) respond to, and you have a model for the entire electricity grid — one that works the same way whether you're in California or an off-grid village in Sub-Saharan Africa. We cover the three things every grid actually needs to coordinate — energy, power, and capacity — why Bell Labs dismissed the internet before it existed, and why Bruce believes electricity technology is still trapped in the 19th century. This conversation ends on a teaser: direct current power distribution, and why your house might one day run almost entirely on it. Part 2, coming soon. Connect with Sohail Hasnie: Facebook @sohailhasnie X (Twitter) @shasnie LinkedIn @shasnie ADB Blog Sohail Hasnie YouTube @energypreneurs  

In this new episode, we explore a new way of understanding development outcomes across a lifetime: the Human Capital Index Plus (HCI+).A child born today in Sub-Saharan Africa could earn nearly 70% more over their lifetime, if health, learning, and work systems functioned differently. So what's holding that future back?Joined by Norbert Schady, Chief Economist for the People Vice Presidency at the World Bank Group and Dr. Zainab Kwaru Muhammad-Idris, President of the Medical Women Association of Nigeria, the conversation unpacks what the HCI+ measures, why Sub-Saharan Africa faces a deep human capital crisis, and how some countries and programs are already beating the odds.The People First podcast is available online, on Spotify, and on Apple Podcast. For more updates, follow us by subscribing, and don't forget to rate and comment on this episode.Sequences00:00 Introduction01:31 Africa's demographic turning point02:29 Building human capital beyond schools and clinics04:18 Human capital crisis and data gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa07:59 Home as the first classroom and community-based models11:39 ConclusionAbout People First PodcastPeople First Podcast provides a human angle to concrete development topics as they affect people in Western and Central Africa. It also features World Bank Group projects and initiatives. Join us for a sustainable and inclusive development!About World Bank GroupThe World Bank Group is one of the world's largest sources of funding and knowledge for low-income countries. Its five institutions share a commitment to reducing poverty, increasing shared prosperity, and promoting sustainable development.

In this special episode, our resident birder, composer and nature beatboxer Jason Singh heads into the Sussex woods after dark for Singing with Nightingales — a unique experience that draws guests and musicians back year after year to witness one of nature's most enchanting performances.For a brief period between mid-April and the end of May, around five thousand pairs of nightingales migrate from Sub-Saharan Africa to southern England, where males fill the night air with their remarkable courtship songs. Alongside folk singer, nature activist and founder of Singing with Nightingales, Sam Lee, Jason explores the beauty, mystery and musicality of the nightingale, while reflecting on the challenges facing this iconic bird and why its song matters now more than ever.Singing with Nightingaleshttps://www.singingwithnightingales.co.uk/Produced by Hana Walker-Brown. Executive Producer is Jane Gerber.This is a Get Birding Production.The podcast is made in collaboration with Forest Holidays, which encourages birdwatching as part of their guests' stays, with nature sensitive cabins available in 13 incredible locations across the UK. Use the code GETBIRDING26 when booking, for £40 off a 3-night break or £60 off a 4 or 7 night break. The code expires on 30 June 2026 and is for breaks bookable until 1 October 2026.To find out more, visit www.forestholidays.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Every year, the HSPA Foundation offers scholarships for Sterile Processing technicians to serve on a Mercy Ships mission, bringing their expertise and passion to those in need in Sub-Saharan Africa. In episode 152, host Casey Czarnowski speaks with Kimberly Polard and Oliver Etcu about the Mercy Ships organization and life on a medical mission ship. Polard describes the application process and her experiences onboard. Etcu reviews how Mercy Ships collaborates with local governments to select ports of call and identify the inviting country's most urgent medical and educational needs. Listen to learn about the life-changing work of Mercy Ships. Etcu also recommends watching The Mercy Ships, a reality show being filmed on board, which he says is “a very good way to experience what the ship has to offer from a volunteer's point of view.” Stream season 1 here. Our Guests Kimberly Polard, Sterile Processing Technician Kimberly Polard, CRCST, CIS, CHL, CER, is an SP technician with five years of experience, including time spent serving on Mercy Ships. Her time at sea deepened her appreciation for the power of teamwork and dedication in healthcare. She is passionate about the critical role sterile processing plays in ensuring safe, successful surgeries. Oliver Etcu, Sterile Processing Clinical Coordinator, Mercy Ships Oliver Etcu is a Medical Device Reprocessing Technician based in Canada who specializes in sterile processing and infection prevention. Through his work with Mercy Ships, he has supported surgical teams by ensuring the safety and sterility of critical medical instruments in high-impact, resource-limited settings. Passionate about patient safety and global health, Etcu brings a behind-the-scenes perspective on the essential role sterile processing plays in delivering life-changing surgeries.   Earn CE Now

Interview Transcript Kate - Welcome to the Leading Voices in Food podcast. I'm Kate Stanley, a researcher at the World Food Policy Center at Duke University. I'm joined today by my co-host, Katariina Koivusaari, a researcher at North Carolina State University. Together, we collaborate on policy research for the Bezos Center for Sustainable Proteins at NC State. Katariina - Great to have you. Greg, you have been involved in food and agriculture policy in Washington, D.C. for several decades and have worked with both Democratic and Republican administrations. Are food policy politics caught up in party differences depending on which political party is running the executive branch? A very relevant question right now. I guess it would be wrong to say that the political party in office doesn't make a big difference in the policies being carried out by the executive branch. However, in the food and agricultural space, and especially in the areas that I focus on, which is really around these new technologies in food and Ag and how do those get into the marketplace and adopted, that difference hasn't been so big. Let me give you an example or two. I'll take you back first to about 2000, and we had the Clinton administration. We have the regulation at FDA of biotech crops, and they had a voluntary consultation process and there were a number of stakeholders and others who felt that that wasn't sufficient. The Clinton administration interpreted the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to try to turn that into what they called a mandatory consultation, and they proposed a pre-market notification rule. It didn't get finished in, before the end of the administration in January of 2001. Then we had the Bush administration come in, so we went from a Democrat to a Republican. And the Bush administration looked at the same law and looked at that same proposed regulation and said, "We don't have the legal authority to do that." And they withdrew that proposal, and so we still have to this day this voluntary consultation. And I give you that example for two reasons. One, I think what we've seen when it comes to food and policy regulation by different administrations is how they interpret the law. And I can say this in very general, the Democrats have tended to be a little more expansive in how they interpreted the law to try to find more legal authority to do things that they might want to do. And the Republicans have tended to look at that language much more restrictively or look at just exactly what that language said and not try to interpret anything into it. And so, you see that difference here between what happened in the Clinton administration versus what happened in the Bush administration. I mention this example because as many of your listeners may know, right now in this administration, we have the question about voluntary GRAS and whether that's going to become mandatory or not. And some of us who have followed that know that the current FDA has submitted to OMB, to the White House, a proposed rule to make GRAS mandatory. Well, that is-- the regulatory process for those biotech crops is also a GRAS process. It's interesting now that we have a Republican administration who's finding the authority to do that, and we'll see what actually comes out and what the courts do with it. But I think this shows that sort of difference in policies between Democrats and Republicans. But overall, we haven't seen a lot of difference. In this new administration, I think one of the questions people had was what would happen with a technology like cell-cultivated meat? Where would the regulation of it go forward? There's many in the MAHA movement, I think, that felt that that wasn't consistent with what they wanted. But we've seen that those approvals continue to happen. Similarly, pesticides have been an issue in many administrations. Sometimes Democrats have argued to be much more restrictive in the use of pesticides and to make the regulations much harder. And Republicans have oftentimes said to make those easier for the agencies. But what we see is pesticides have moved forward under both administrations. People understand the need for pesticides to produce agriculture. We have some differences in policy, but on the whole, in this area, I think, whether it's Democratic or Republican, they have generally supported following the law. Kate - Greg, you shared some interesting examples of across administrations how we've seen different actions be taken. And I'm curious. Under this administration, for some of these areas you work in, like these novel technologies, what do you see as driving the new federal legislative actions in food policy? The legislative area has generally always been more partisan than the executive branch to some extent. I mean, the executive branch is interpreting laws from Congress; the Congress is setting those. But I think again, in the area of food policy, we've seen many good laws come out that have been bipartisan. And when I look at how did those laws come to be, I sort of see a couple different scenarios. One, and I don't think this is unique to food policy or ag policy, we tend to see legislation when some crisis has occurred. The example I would give in the food space was the establishment of the Food Safety Modernization Act more than a dozen years ago. And to a large extent, that was reaction to a number of outbreaks: spinach outbreaks, peanut butter outbreaks, egg outbreaks. And people getting sick, and some people even dying from those outbreaks. And so that brought a bipartisan coalition together to say, "We need to give more authority to FDA to address our food supply and ensure it's as safe as it could be." So that's one way we've seen that. A second way we see policy change is when a policy is old or that is no longer in favor. And the example I give there is most recently, in this Congress passed the whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, and that is a definite change in policy from the Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This changes what milks, whether they're flavored, and how much fat they can have and be in the school programs. And I think in both cases, those bills were relatively partisan at the time, and yet they do opposite things. So that would be another reason that we see changes in laws. But the third way, and I wanted to focus a little more on this, is one way the federal government gets involved and Congress gets involved is when states start regulating an area, and we start getting different standards. And then there's a push at the national level to have some sort of uniformity, some sort of have national standard for markets to work properly, for efficiency's sake and so forth. And I can give several different examples. We can go all the way back to the National Organic Law that was passed back in 1990. You had a number of states who had defined organic; they had different organic labels. Congress came together and said, "Hey, let's set up a national organic standard." We had the same thing happen with the National Bioengineered Disclosure Law, that I think happened around 2017 or 2016. In which case you had a number of states proposing legislation. You had Vermont that had passed legislation requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients. And in fact, the law that was passed by Congress was passed, I think, within a week or two of when the Vermont law was about to go into effect. And people felt it was better to come together and have a national standard than have different states doing different things. Because the reality is, consumers and manufacturers don't just purchase things in one state or produce things for one state. They produce it for the nation. We're a nationwide market. And then we see even those kinds of things happening today, and I go back to the pesticide area as another example. We've had different states having pesticide laws or regulations that have been different than the federal situation. We have a Supreme Court case now that the Supreme Court is going to hear in April of this year about whether that's those state regulations are preempted by the federal law. But Congress and the Farm Bill has also put in language that would ensure that the federal standard is the standard that is applied, not having multiple different state standards. So that's been a way that we've seen a lot of things happen in this food and Ag space. Kate - We've seen a lot of food policy action at the state level in the past few years. Katariina and I were on this podcast not long ago talking about state legislation aiming to restrict how cell-cultivated meat products are labeled or even banning those products altogether. We've seen action in a variety of other areas as well. Are there issues that states have started regulating where you think we could see federal action in the near future? I do. I think that the MAHA movement in particular has really set up a situation where we see states taking the lead on a number of issues, and we'll see whether the federal government decides to come in, and particularly Congress, to address those at a national level. For example, in the area of synthetic dyes and food additives, I think there's some 30 states that have introduced bills. And a number of which have passed, either restricting those use at all in any foods, restricting their use in school lunches, having different labeling associated with many of those ingredients. And we've seen some of those laws pass, and we've already seen some court cases. A court case in West Virginia which said that those laws are preempted by federal law. One could envision either something at FDA or in Congress that would set some uniform standard for how this moves forward federally. You mentioned cell-cultivated meat and the three of us were involved in a paper that looked at the state regulation in that area, especially around labeling. And again, if we don't have a lot of those products on the market yet, but as those products get closer and get on the market, I could definitely see a push again to have some uniform labeling. Either again from the federal executive branch or from the legislative branch. And also, in areas like ultra-processed foods is another one. California has passed a law defining how they're going to define ultra-processed foods. We've heard that FDA may issue a definition about ultra-processed foods, but I could also see Congress getting involved eventually and setting a standard. Katariina - I'm sure that in working with US regulatory agencies for so long, you've seen trends develop and persist over time. What would you highlight right now for our listeners? Well, as I said, I've worked very much in this space where we talk about new science, new technology, new kinds of products coming into the marketplace and how do we regulate that? What are the policies and regulations to ensure that that's safe for humans and safe for the environment, and that there's information and access that's necessary for those safe products to, to thrive in the marketplace. And when you look at that, I think I have some observations, I guess, about the US regulatory agencies and what they've done in this area. The first one is that the science tends to move faster in the private sector and in the research community, like you're both in, than it does in the federal government. And so generally, the people in the federal government, who I have the utmost respect for, the career people, tend to always be playing catch up on the science. That the science is moving faster and they're not there. An example I would give is cloned animals. When the industry went to FDA and said, "Hey, can we put these cloned animals into the m- into the marketplace?" FDA sort of said, "Well, wait. We need to look and see whether we need to do a risk assessment to see if there's any risks out there." And they spent a couple years doing that, and they asked for a voluntary moratorium while they were figuring that out. In the end, they figured out that for many cloned animals, there was no risk and there didn't need to be regulation, but they had to catch up. They had to catch up on the science. And I think that's the first thing. It's important for industry and public sector scientists like yourselves to make as much information about new technologies and new products available in the public realm so that those experts in the federal government can stay as close as possible to what is happening. Second is, anytime you have a first-of-a-kind product. You talked about cell-cultured meat, Kate, a little while ago. We can talk about biotech crops. We can talk about a number of genetically engineered salmon. We can talk about a number of different new products of methane-reducing feed additives. The first-of-its-kind is always going to take a little longer to figure out what is that regulatory pathway. It's great to be the first into the marketplace. You get a lot of advantages, but I guess one of the disadvantages is that you probably have a little slower regulatory timeframe. That again bodes for that transparency for that additional information. The third thing I'd mention, and you would think, oh, this is something that is sort of a given and expected, and that is the level of transparency that we have in our federal government. But that's not true. I've traveled around the world, and many governments don't have that. But interestingly, most of our regulations are, you know, they're all publicly available. There's lots of guidance documents out there. We can go online today and see GRAS applications and decisions made at FDA. We can see what information was submitted for cell-cultivated meat crop, meat, meat products, and what decision the agency made on those. We can do that for genetically engineered animals and for genetically engineered plants. And so, we do have a fair amount of transparency, and I impress upon people to use that to their advantage. I think that builds trust for consumers, but also for people in the industry. It helps them learn so they can be as efficient as possible when they go through the regulatory process. And the final thing I might mention is it may look like from the outside the government moves slow all the time. But I think having been inside the government and in the role, I played as the Chief Regulatory Officer at USDA, that slowness, in part, is to make sure that the government speaks as a single voice. We've been talking a lot about FDA, and we talk about USDA, but there are actually some 18 or 20 different agencies that actually regulate different parts of the food supply, for example. A decision made in one agency may have some indirect impact on a decision or a regulatory process in another agency. And so, it's important before major decisions are made or major regulations are promulgated, that we have an interagency review of those things to make sure that the government is speaking consistently with one voice about how they interpret laws; about how they apply risk assessments; about how they look at safety and so forth within the context of their laws. And that sometimes takes some time. It is a big bureaucracy, a big government, and again, that could be looked at upon negatively. But at the same time you can look at upon that positively as an opportunity to make sure that the decisions that are made in one place are consistent with other decisions and other statutes in another place. Katariina - Thank you for sharing that. It's really helpful to get more insight into the policy process. Let me ask you one final question. For organizations seeking to navigate through state and federal regulations in order to bring a food product to market, what are the key, what are key takeaways you would highlight? Well, there are a number of them. First, I would tell companies or public researchers, whoever is bringing a product to market, to be as transparent as possible. Put as much information about your product and your technology in the public record, especially if it's in peer-reviewed journals that are accessible to everybody. That is only going to come to your benefit. That's going to help the regulators. They know that information is out there. They know that other people have that information. They can utilize that to help make decisions about whether there is a food safety or a risk to the environment, and then how maybe to address those risks. So that would be my first response. The second one is, and I think, again, this is something that I thought was going to be universal when it came to interactions between the regulated community and the regulators, but it's not around the world, and that is to consult. All the agencies that I've worked for have open door policies where they say, if you have a question, as you're thinking of bringing a product to market, come in and consult with us. Come in and talk to us. Let us help you figure out what the regulatory pathway is going to be, what the data you are going to need is, why we need that data, and go through all of that. And, in my consulting business, that's one of the things I do. I help facilitate those conversations between one of the agencies and a client. And I think that just the earlier you do that and the more often you do that, the more efficient you will be, the less money you will spend, the quicker your review process will be. And while I have clients who don't always agree with the decisions by the agencies of what information they might need or what regulatory process they have, it's still better to know that upfront and earlier in the process than later in the process. The third thing I'd mention is to be a little creative. The regulators, you know, they're trying to ensure they're representing the public, and they're trying to make sure that a product is safe for human consumption, for animal consumption, for the environment. They don't always have all the answers, and sometimes they are fitting square pegs into round holes because new technologies come along that aren't exactly a perfect fit. But be creative. Try to help them. I think, you know, sometimes working with people like me or others to help think about what a good regulatory pathway would be, what are the potential risks that really need to be addressed here that can be really helpful. The fourth thing is, you know, that the devil is always in the details. The details and the science matter, and that is something that is very important. And so, we want to look for analogies of your product or your technology to other ones that have happened in the past, and that's always good. But also understand the differences. And so, really, I think, sometimes people think, "Oh, they don't need to engage with the regulators as much about exactly what I'm doing," or "They don't need to know all those details." Those details actually do matter, and I do think those are important. And then I would finally say that, you know, it does take time, especially when we're talking about new technologies and new products, to figure out what that regulatory process will be. And we don't have neat situations. Our laws are written a long time ago. We don't want to write a new law for every new kind of product or every new kind of technology. I'm not sure that's the most efficient way to do it. But by not doing that, we're sometimes, as I mentioned earlier, fitting square pegs into round holes. We have a law, for example, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, dealt with food, but it never envisioned genetically engineered crops. It doesn't talk about biotechnology. We have a meat law that regulates meat at USDA. Didn't think about cell-cultivated meat. And we have to think about how those fit together. And sometimes we can do that without the new laws, and sometimes you need new laws. When I was at USDA, we worked on methane-reducing feed additives. FDA regulates them, but they really don't fit very well. They're not a drug, but they're also not a feed because they don't have a nutritional benefit. And so how do we fit those into the regulatory system? FDA's come up with a temporary regulatory pathway, but there's also a bill in Congress to set up a more definitive regulatory pathway. And we see that for some of these new technologies that we might see some legislation. And then the final point I would just make is to temper everybody's view that a compromise is essential in this area. No one company or no one stakeholder gets everything they want. Governing and the government's job is to, you know, figure out what's the appropriate balance. They want to ensure safety, but they also want to make sure that safe products can get to market and that consumers can get to take advantage of those products, and we can get the benefits from those products. And so all of this is always a balancing. There will always have to be some sort of compromise. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just pointing it out as something that people should be conscious of. BIO   Gregory Jaffe is President of Jaffe Policy Consulting, which provides strategic advice on national and international policies involving agriculture and food, with specific expertise in sustainability, climate, bioeconomy, biotechnology, PFAS, pesticides, food safety, and food loss and waste. He recently worked as the Senior Advisor for Regulatory Affairs in USDA's Office of the Secretary and the USDA's Chief Regulatory Officer. He managed a broad portfolio of policy issues, including bioeconomy, biotechnology, biofuels, pesticides, PFAS, food safety, sustainability, and scientific research and development. Before joining USDA, Greg worked for at the Center for Science in Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit consumer organization working on food and nutrition issues. While at CSPI worked extensively in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia on projects funded by USAID and the Gates Foundation. He worked with government officials and stakeholders helping them develop laws, policies and regulations that allow for the adoption of agricultural technologies, including biotechnology. He advised on agricultural policy, sustainability, and trade issues, conducted capacity building, and worked on international treaty implementation.

Introduction Across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, two-wheeled vehicles are the backbone of everyday transportation. With roughly one billion two-wheelers on the road globally, their collective carbon footprint is enormous. Briz, a brand developed by Hong Kong-based One Energy (HK) Limited, is tackling this head-on with affordable electric two-wheelers paired with a rapid battery-swapping service that makes going electric cheaper than filling a tank. Background Two-wheelers dominate personal mobility across the Global South for one simple reason: cost. Cars remain out of reach for hundreds of millions of people, making motorcycles and scooters the primary mode of getting to work, school, and the market. They also power much of the last-mile delivery economy such as food, parcels, and pharmaceuticals in dense urban environments across Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South America. Since most of these vehicles run on gasoline, they collectively represent a significant and often overlooked source of global CO₂ emissions. Briz electric two-wheelers are designed to be price-competitive with their gas-powered equivalents from the outset. Rather than relying on home charging, which requires a stable power supply, time, and upfront infrastructure, Briz customers subscribe to a battery-swapping service. When the battery runs low, riders visit a nearby swap station, slide out the depleted battery, and click in a fully charged one. The company says the swap takes under a minute. Critically, the monthly cost of the swapping service is designed to be lower than what a rider would typically spend on gasoline, lowering the financial barrier to switching. One of the most persistent obstacles to electric vehicle adoption in emerging markets is charging time. Early Briz models required up to five hours to recharge, a dealbreaker for riders who depend on their vehicles for daily income, but the battery-swap model sidesteps this entirely. It also removes battery degradation. Since customers are subscribing to a service rather than owning a battery outright, the often steep cost of battery replacement falls on the operator, not the individual rider. Advantages By targeting a vehicle category that has historically been overlooked in the electrification conversation, Briz has the potential to generate outsized climate impact. Electrifying even a fraction of the world's one billion two-wheelers, especially in regions where electricity grids are increasingly powered by renewables, could deliver meaningful reductions in transport emissions. The business model is also structured to work for people with lower and irregular incomes: the subscription pricing removes large upfront costs, and the swap infrastructure means riders aren't dependent on owning or accessing home charging equipment. Drawbacks and Critiques The battery-swap model works well in cities and dense corridors with swap station coverage, however it creates real limitations for long-distance travel. Riders venturing beyond the swap network face the same range anxiety that affects all battery electric vehicles. Expanding station infrastructure into rural and peri-urban areas will be essential and expensive if the model is to reach its full potential. Safety is another concern. Battery swap stations concentrate large numbers of lithium-ion cells in a single location, creating a fire risk. One Energy says its stations are equipped with automatic fire-extinguishing systems designed to respond to any battery fire before it can spread, but the risk is worth monitoring as the network scales. Kevin To's Perspective Kevin To, CEO of One Energy (HK) Limited, brings the operator's view to the challenge of electrifying the world's most common vehicle. His company's approach of supplying affordable hardware, subscription-based battery access, and a focus on markets where two-wheelers are a necessity rather than a lifestyle choice reflects a pragmatic bet that climate solutions need to make economic sense for the people adopting them, not just for investors or policymakers. About Kevin To Kevin To is the CEO of One Energy (HK) Limited, the parent company behind the Briz brand of light electric vehicles. Based in Hong Kong, he leads the company's efforts to bring affordable, battery-swappable electric two-wheelers to mass markets across Asia and beyond. Further Reading Briz LEV — Official website IEA: Global EV Outlook — Two- and Three-Wheelers Bloomberg NEF: Electric Vehicle Outlook For a transcript, please visit climatebreak.org/electric-two-wheelers-with-kevin-to/

In this episode of Stanford Medcast, Dr. Geoffrey Tabin discusses the global burden of avoidable blindness and the systems-level barriers that continue to limit access to high-quality eye care worldwide. Drawing on decades of experience building scalable eye care programs in Nepal and Sub-Saharan Africa, Dr. Tabin explores how cost, workforce design, infrastructure, mentorship, and innovation shape the delivery of ophthalmologic care in low-resource settings. The conversation also examines lessons applicable to high-resource healthcare systems, including opportunities to rethink efficiency, sustainability, and equitable access to care. This activity is designed for clinicians and healthcare professionals interested in global health, healthcare delivery, systems innovation, and ophthalmology. Read Transcript: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/4m3dcruszi9hcvbc/medcast_episode119.pdf  CME Information: https://stanford.cloud-cme.com/medcastepisode119 Claim CE: https://stanford.cloud-cme.com/Form.aspx?FormID=3955

A decision was made to flood the Western world with people from foreign countries who have incompatible attitudes, cultures, and behavior. Concepts such as the Kalergi Plan have been floating around for decades, but now the theoretical has become the actual. Sub-Saharan Africa will see the largest population growth over the next 25 years, as some countries are set to almost double their populations. East Asia is facing the opposite problem, as the population rates of Japan, China, and South Korea are among the lowest in the world. Population rates and average IQ are linked together, but mention that in the U.K. on social media, and the authorities will show up at the door with handcuffs.---Video Channels - Rumble | YouTube | BrighteonActivist Post - Newsletter Sign UpAudiobooks - Hypocrazy | The Octopus of Global Controlwww.Macroaggressions.ioMerch StoreLink TreeSupport Our SponsorsReplace Your Mortgage: www.WipeOutYourMortgageNow.comGround Luxe Grounding MatsC60 Power | Promo Code: MACROChemical Free Body | Promo Code: MACROWise Wolf Gold & SilverLegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.comEMP Shield | Promo Code: MACROChristian Yordanov's Health ProgramAbove PhoneVan ManThe Dollar VigilanteNesa's Hemp | Promo Code: MACROAugason Farms

Ever wondered what it looks like to serve the persecuted and strengthen the Church? How do we find the most persecuted? What does it look like to balance addressing immediate needs with longterm ones? How could suffering lead to victory? Join Anna and special guest, Jo Newhouse, from our Sub-Saharan Africa team as they unpack these questions and more on this episode of The Whole Story. If you've been moved by today's episode, please sign our global petition to stop violence against Christians: https://www.opendoors.org.au/make-your-voice-heard/

Mike Day:- This House Pt.14: The Kingdom and the Church https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Wtp2ezTZWv_QdUgvgItIx-pmYk5mvYb/view?usp=drive_link Explores the relationship between God's kingdom and the church, outlining its historical context and divine purpose: Kingdom vs. Church: The kingdom is defined as God's rule, while the church is the community of people created by that rule to proclaim and demonstrate it.1 Global Christianity: It tracks the movement of Christianity's "center of gravity" from the Middle East to Europe, and currently to Sub-Saharan Africa, noting distinctives of major traditions like Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Pentecostalism.2 Church Identity: Described as the "Ekklesia" (those called out), the church is a "new creation community" with a new identity.3 Metaphors: The church is likened to a household (family), hospital (healing), army (peace corps), body (multi-gifted), and school (learning).4 Divine Purpose: God's intent is for the church to be unified in Christ, matured through teaching, servant-hearted by following Jesus' example, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Lorraine Landon, Head of Advertising Solutions for Google in Sub-Saharan Africa, about how YouTube transformed South Africa’s creator economy over the past two decades, from a simple video-sharing platform into a global media powerhouse reshaping entertainment, advertising, and digital entrepreneurship. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 to 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Right now, high-protein diets are hot and cheese is still the biggest user of U.S. dairy. But will it last? In this episode of The Milk Check, we pull out our crystal balls and try to see into the future of U.S. dairy. Why GLP-1 may be a catalyst, not the whole protein story How health and wellness trends are reshaping dairy demand How exports could change the future of cheese demand The consensus? Find out in The Milk Check episode 100: Is Protein a Fad, and Is Cheese Still King? Got questions? We'd love to hear them. Submit below, and we might answer it on the show. Ask The Milk Check Transcript: Ted Jacoby III: [00:00:00] Coming up on the Milk Check. The debate is: have GLP-1s changed dairy forever? Our second debate is will cheese remain king? Welcome to the Milk Check from T.C. Jacoby & Co., your complete guide to dairy markets, from the milking parlor to the supermarket shelf. I’m Ted Jacoby. Let’s dive in. Ted Jacoby III: Excited for our topic today. We are going to have a debate. The debate is: have GLP-1s changed dairy forever? The demand for protein right now is clearly extremely strong. It’s really a question of whether we think this demand for protein is a fad, or we think it’s a fundamental shift in demand that’s gonna be with us for a long time. And so I’m gonna actually put Mike Brown on the spot first. Mike, has GLP-1s changed dairy forever? Mike Brown: It certainly changed me forever. And I’m a big eater dairy for a long time. I’ve had good success with GLP’s getting my weight to where it needs to be, and one thing you do discover is that you do need to really watch your protein intake. You need to make sure you’re getting adequate amounts because you will lose muscle. I think diets in general, we’re becoming less carb-focused. We’re becoming more protein-focused. So, I don’t see it going away. Does that mean we’ll have the record-high prices we have now forever? Probably not the markets will stay strong, and I think it’s a shift in consumer demand . You just need to go into any Costco or Sam’s Club, and the amount of protein beverages they offer now versus three years ago, they’ve tripled in some cases. So, it’s definitely a market of strength. And despite the high price of proteins, people still seem to be buying it. I’ll see limits when there’s sales in different stores, which tells you that demand is still extremely strong. Ted Jacoby III: Josh, I’ll ask you next. Are we changing demand forever, or is this a fad? Josh White: I don’t know that GLP-1s are necessarily what’s changing demand forever, but they definitely are a catalyst and a disruptor right now. We were listening to a HighGround Monthly Update earlier today. I’ll echo something that was said during that update: A health and wellness trend [00:02:00] is absolutely happening, is global. They noted and cited in that, that over the last two years, gym memberships have been up in the U.S. If you go to other parts of the world that we export products to that GLP-1s haven’t yet reached, we’re seeing incredible health and wellness movements and protein consumption uptake. So, what I think the GLP-1 aspect of it is doing is that it served as a bit of a catalyst and ignited this market and forced us all to recognize this shift that we’re seeing from just calories taken in to quality of calories taken in, and that is driving a lot of incremental protein demand that the dairy space is a benefactor of to date. So, I don’t know if I really answered it, Ted. I think GLP-1 is a catalyst in forcing us to recognize a bigger trend that we’re seeing, not only in the U.S., but globally. Jacob Menge: I do think it’s pretty important to talk about the time horizon that we’re discussing because there’s a really big difference in both availability and dietary preference of protein sources globally, right? Like India, Sub-Saharan Africa, even China up until very recently was very plant protein-based. And so, even though protein consumption as a whole has certainly been growing where you are looking at depends on how much that’s actually impacting animal proteins. And so, I think that time horizon is important, right? Because we know where population growth is occurring worldwide. Population growth worldwide is actually in areas that are plant protein consumers not animal protein consumers . And you’re getting some animal protein consumers actually trending lower on population, right? You look at the population outlook for a lot of Europe. Korea was in the middle. I think they’re, like, 50/50, if I recall, on plant versus animal proteins. But I think that time horizon is a pretty important piece of the discussion. Ted Jacoby III: So Jake, I’ll ask you the [00:04:00] question. So, five years from now, are we gonna be looking back on 2025 and 2026 and talk about the whey protein fad, or do we think that we will have seen a fundamental shift in where people have invested their investment dollars in terms of what kind of dairy production facilities, processing facilities have been built in the U.S. and around the world? Jacob Menge: Five years is way too short of a timeline to see what I would call a freight train changing its course. And so, I think that’s pretty clear. We know what’s gonna be happening with U.S. exports, right? We are just set up to be the export powerhouse in the short term, and I would call five years short term for trends like this. Even though this has happened very fast, knowing again what is happening with the U.S. export picture, I don’t think there’s any way we see a material change in what’s happening in the protein space in a five-year period. Mike Brown: I think there’s one point of difference in milk proteins versus whey proteins. I think we see, because of cost difference, I think, more interest in finding, how can I use milk proteins in a product versus whey? I noticed this weekend, again, looking at a sports beverage that 30 gram protein, number one ingredient’s milk, and it’s not a fairlife(R) product. It’s an amalgamated product. Jacob Menge: Couldn’t agree more. I was certainly one level higher in just saying any dairy protein or animal protein for that matter. But yeah, when you drill down, do I think there could be shifts within that makeup? Absolutely. Mike Brown: The other thing is with whey proteins is that you gotta sell the cheese or you gotta sell the casein. And as we look at that spread in price, what’s that value of that whey protein worth versus what you get for the remaining part of the product? As we know, right now, Class IV, which is even dry milk powders and fat are worth way, way more than milk for cheese, even when you adjust for the higher protein revenues. We have a $5 spread right now between Class III and Class IV. And that always takes care of itself, but exactly how it will, I think we all know there’s interest in do I add casein-producing capacity so I [00:06:00] can get to my whey proteins rather than just cheese? If I make those caseins, where’s the market for those products? Where am I gonna be able to use them? So I think there’s lots of questions that we don’t know yet. ‘Cause if I’m a processor, one very high-value product, whether if it’s a half a pound or three-quarter of a pound yield per 100 pounds of milk, it’s not gonna drive all your decisions. It’s gonna be a factor. Ted Jacoby III: Gus, I’m gonna ask you the question: Has GLP-1 changed dairy forever? Or do you think it’s a trend? Gus Jacoby: I’m of the impression that we are certainly following the trends within Western culture to evaluate more and more the health benefits of eating better nutrition. And certainly, as time moves on, the protein component in your meal is going to be more and more important. So, I’m not going to take away from that. I think that will continue to evolve, but I also think that as we continue to evolve in that setting, other pieces of that nutrition will come to light and become the fad for a period of time. At the moment, protein is hot, and I don’t think we can get away from that. For me, just looking at U.S. milk production and how much of that milk production goes into cheese ,the ever-increasing demand in cheese, I don’t see that going away either. I think that’s an entrenched part of our society, and I think cheese is a pretty important part of the daily food consumption here in our culture as well.  I think there’s a place for both of them, and it’s hard for me to distinguish one from the other as being where we go as an industry. Mike Brown: One thing we may see is more of these protein-based dairy beverages that aren’t Class I milk take more and more of that consumer stomach. And so, we’re gonna see more of those UF-based products, which aren’t necessarily what we think of traditionally as fluid milk. And that’s where a lot of the growth has been: in the high-protein milks. Is that where the substitution will take place as much as in some other ways? Gus Jacoby: I don’t think there’s any doubt, Mike, but I would also argue that we’re probably going to eat into that Class I consumption a bit by more of this dairy protein shake, which tends to be in the [00:08:00] Class II area. Mike Brown: Yeah, that’s, and that’s what I, that’s what I meant. Yeah. Okay. If you’re gonna drink it as a Class II product, it all gets down to how regulation basically makes those products more competitive- Yeah … because of the regulated minimum price. Gus Jacoby: That would be a very Interesting discussion probably for another day relative to- what we wanna cover in our debate today. Mike Brown: Yeah. It’s a bit of a nerd fest, But we look at consumption trends, it isn’t hurting the high-protein products because they are priced differently. Gus Jacoby: Yep. Ted Jacoby III: Diego, what are your thoughts? This demand for protein: fad or a long-term trend? Diego Carvallo: I think the trend is clear, and it still has a lot of room to grow. So, I think in a five-year period, it’s very easy to say that they’re gonna continue to grow. Ted Jacoby III: You see the international space a lot more clearly than most of the rest of us. What’s happening here in the U.S., is it happening internationally as well? Diego Carvallo: Yes, and that’s why I said that there’s gonna be growth ’cause I still see areas of Latin America where that trend is just getting started . You still do not see any of the products that you’re seeing in the U.S. at the supermarket showcasing and showing marketing that much the protein content on the end product. So I think that growth is still getting started. Ted Jacoby III: Joe, last but not least, fad, long-term trend? Joe Maixner: I think that the consumer shift is a long-term trend. I don’t know if necessarily the GLP-1 is the long-term trend because technology will continue to advance, and there’ll be something that comes out at some point that makes this old news. I think that the health and wellness trend is certainly here for the foreseeable future. estimating 40 million people within the next five years are going to be on GLP-1s. That’s a big number. The one thing we’ve seen the effect on selfishly for my market is the amount of cream and fat that it’s spun off because of all the demand for the protein. We did not expect to have this fundamental shift in the fat market domestically this quickly. Unless the farmers decide that they’re gonna change how they feed their cows and produce less fat, we’re gonna see that for a while too, and we’re gonna be surplus fat. And that [00:10:00] product is also affected by this GLP-1 because people tend to eat less sweets and snacks and fat-heavy products, so consumption’s been down on that side as well. Ted Jacoby III: It’s gonna be interesting. And I’ll just give my two cents. I do think the demand for protein is a long-term trend. I think it’s a trend both within certain segments of the population and I think it’s a trend in that I think, just comparing my generation and how I ate and drank in my 20s compared to how my children eat and drink in their 20s, they sure do live a healthier life than I did when I was that age. I think I’m speaking for a good portion of that generation and not just my kids. So, we’ll see. It sounds to me that the consensus is pretty clear on this one. Whether it’s GLP-1s or not, this protein trend is a long-term trend, and it is fundamentally changing the dairy industry. And we’re all curious to see how it’ll play out. All right, now I’m gonna switch to our second debate. This debate is will cheese remain king? So in my lifetime, milk production, when I was born, milk production was roughly 20% of milk was made into cheese. Today, it’s 55%. It is very clear that the driver in dairy consumption in the United States is a per capita increase in cheese that is part of a long-term trend. My question for everybody today is: Have we started to reach the point where that trend is starting to plateau? Is cheese still king? Will it continue to be the driver of increases in per capita dairy consumption, or have we reached a point where we’re not going to see cheese driving the bus anymore? It’s 55% of milk production goes into cheese today. Is it gonna be 65% in 10 years, or is it still gonna be in the 50s? Gus, I’m gonna throw you out there first. What are your thoughts? Gus Jacoby: I think it’s hard to say that it isn’t still king considering the large amount of milk in U.S. milk production that goes into cheese. And even with respect to the protein segment that we just talked about, you can’t make whey [00:12:00] without making cheese, so you’re not gonna get whey protein without cheese. I don’t think the American consumer is going to lose their appetite for cheese anytime soon. I understand that certainly with the GLP-1s we’re gonna eat a bit healthier. But I find it hard to believe that while maybe the growth might become less than it has been over the last number of years I do believe that cheese is gonna be with us as the majority taker of milk at least for the foreseeable future. Ted Jacoby III: Do you think the trend is strong enough that 15 years from now 65% or 70% of all milk goes into cheese? Or do you think maybe we’re gonna plateau right around here at 55%? Gus Jacoby: I think it still has room to go a little bit higher. I think there’s a possibility of plateauing, though maybe at some point north of 60. But at the end of the day I just don’t see how it can be removed from the diet. If people wanna start playing with what type of cheeses are in their diet for better health benefits, I guess that may happen. Ted Jacoby III: All right. Gus Jacoby: Not in the near term. Ted Jacoby III: Jake, what are your thoughts? Jacob Menge: I would imagine that the percent of milk that is turned into cheese goes lower. That’s my gut feel. We’re gonna be export-dominated. We maybe can capture some markets that we haven’t historically gotten into before with more shelf-stable products. We’re just gonna have to export a lot of product. And cheese is exportable obviously, but it just feels, with the new markets we’re gonna be moving into, the amount of product as a percent that we’re gonna be exporting, dietary shifts, it all points to me that, as a percent, it’s hard for me to make the case that cheese goes higher. And so by default , I’ll argue it goes lower. Ted Jacoby III: Joe, what are your thoughts? Joe Maixner: I think that what happens with cheese moving forward depends on how well the dairy industry markets cheese moving forward. If we do a better job of [00:14:00] marketing the protein benefits, the fact that it’s the cheapest protein per gram and playing into those strengths that would help keep it as king and increase consumption. If we continue to sit on our laurels and not really do any additional marketing, I think that we have a chance to lose capacity. Jacob Menge: So what’s your gut? Do we do a good job marketing it or not? Joe Maixner: Okay. I don’t think we do. But we could. The potential is there. We just, we’re not doing it. Ted Jacoby III: I think dairy has struggled for a long time just to market itself as how healthy it is, and some of that I think is because we sit in a position of strength in the marketplace, and so everybody’s always coming after dairy to say they’re better than dairy and dairy’s got issues. So all the plant guys can grow their plant-based products. All of those food products that don’t come from dairy tend to attack dairy in order to grow their own market share. And I think that’s why dairy struggles. I think your point about how the value of a gram of protein in cheese is a lot less than the same cost of that protein, let’s say, in whey powder or in other things. I’m curious to see how that plays out, because I think it’s a really good point. Mike Brown: I’d make a point on the competition. Where we’ve seen shrinkage in the refrigerator dairy case is the non-dairy beverages. They are losing market share. Milks are doing better, particularly the protein milks, are doing so much better. I think there’s still potential, so we can’t assume that. I also think there’s two questions on cheese to me: market share and total market. I think total market still has a little room to grow. I think market share will not grow, maybe decline modestly, and that’s more because of the Class II demand for proteins now with yogurt, Greek yogurts, and cottage cheese, and all the Class II-based liquid beverages. So, it’s more of an issue perhaps of market share, and that takes time to build capacity. We all know that. But the demand is there. Cheese is gonna continue. We [00:16:00] look at the supermarket sales data, it’s still growing modestly, as is butter, and that’s just total sales. I think the other factor we gotta think about here is population growth because our growth’s gonna be much slower. With current immigration policies, I don’t see a quick turnaround in growth of population like we’ve experienced in the past. A lot of that from folks who are big users of dairy in their diet. In the benefit of cheese, as we get older, we drink less, and we eat more milk proteins, and that’s part of our growth, of course, with cheese. The other one is food service. It’s huge, particularly the mozzarella side of the business, and it’s looking pretty tepid right now. That tends to go with health of the economy. I expect it’ll rebound again when people have more money to spend. I think that’s part of it, too. So, cheese is gonna remain strong. Jake made a very good point, though, as did Joe. It’s kinda sold itself, and we’ve had no trouble selling it. We are now the export market, kinda like we did with non-fat dry milk, what, 20 years ago, Josh? We’re, and we’re dependent on that export market. So, it makes us more vulnerable to world price, term, but it also means it’s a chance to grow if our industry adapts to meet those demands. And as we see, everything from powders to butter to cheese, the industry is working on that. But it’s a slow process, ’cause it’s always been that market when we have a little extra it was an opportunistic market, now it’s becoming part of sales strategy, and that’s a very different way to look at your business. Ted Jacoby III: Yeah. It means It’s really matured. Mike Brown: Yes, a lot. Ted Jacoby III: Diego, what are your thoughts? I know you’re not the cheese guy, you’re more of the ingredient guy, but internationally, cheese is definitely growing. Cheese gonna remain king? Or is the other protein sources gonna take over and pull milk away from cheese? Diego Carvallo: So I have contradicting thoughts here. I think that everybody here agrees that the demand for WPCs and WPIs is gonna continue growing, and that’s definitely been making cheese plants very profitable . But at the same time, I’m seeing that many cheese plants being built in the past few years that I think that [00:18:00] the competition is gonna get fierce in that aspect. I would say in the coming years, I see more probabilities of people who build, and companies who build dryers, for example, for non-fat and skim , to have an advantage and definitely a good incentive. Ted Jacoby III: So my two cents is this: I think we are underestimating how much the export demand for cheese is gonna keep driving it. There’s a lot of proof that cheese consumption in developing countries tends to follow a generation or two after milk powder consumption. It starts with infant formula, then tends to stay in the diet as they get older, and eventually manifests itself in cheese, mostly as an ingredient in something like pizzas or burgers, et cetera. And so, I do think cheese demand for cheese out of the U.S. will continue to grow. I do think the curve will flatten a little bit. I also think that you are going to get a continued pressure to build more cheese plants just so you have access to the whey protein, because I think the whey protein is gonna maintain its value. But I’m a little bit like Diego, ’cause on the other side, one of my thoughts is I hear a lot of conversations lately about instead of making cheese, what if we make micellar casein and we pull the native whey, and then we dry the native whey separately? So, I can also see technology continuing to evolve where maybe you don’t actually need to make cheese in order to have access to the whey proteins, and I think we have to keep our eye on that. But I do think cheese is the dominant use for milk in the United States. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, but I do think the trend is probably gonna start to slow down a bit. Josh? What are your thoughts? Josh White: I’m gonna step back a bit and start with one belief, and that belief is that United States dairy economies of scale have now reached a point where we’re gonna grow in our market share for the global dairy consumption. We’re gonna continue to grow in our participation in that business, and we will capture more market share. And if you believe that, at its core, cheese is maybe one of the… If not, it’s the most calorie-dense product that we have. [00:20:00] And there’s an argument that it goes into products as both ingredients and as the primary food service or retail product, which accesses a lot of different demand potential. If you think about the cheese factory, maybe not how they’re run today, but if you think about it, I’ve made the mistake multiple times of saying that we’re gonna start balancing to cheese, and there’s been a big argument about that, internally. And I can understand why there’s an argument on the surface level. But in the bigger picture, it’s what may be the most versatile way to process milk and balance out whether we have extra protein, extra fat, or we’re short of either of those product or whatnot. You can spin off more cream. You can bring in more solids. You really optimize that recipe, and I feel like that makes it foundational. And if it’s foundational, you’re gonna continue to see investment in these large cheese plants. If whey protein’s hot, great, whey protein benefits, and cream prices are poor it’s offsetting . If cheese demand globally is growing or fat demand’s growing, great we’ll maneuver our recipe a bit to take advantage of that. It feels very… Optimized maybe is not the right word. Someone help me with a word for it. But it feels like it’s a natural hedge, and it just seems if we’re gonna continue to grow in the commodity foundation of dairy products and then optimize all the ingredients and all the special opportunities around it, the cheese processing facility is maybe going to be the best to build around. And so with that in mind, I don’t know if that necessarily takes a greater market share, but it’s gonna be the foundation for our growing volume of milk solids out of the U.S. over the next several years. Ted Jacoby III: Josh it’s funny, you mentioned, are we gonna start balancing into cheese versus balancing into a powder plant? And my initial reaction when you first mentioned it a year or so ago was to say, “A cheese plant is just way too expensive.” It’s two, three times the cost to build a cheese plant as it is to build a plant that [00:22:00] dries non-fat. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to realize this: Already today we’ve seen a fundamental shift, and it will continue. I think cheese will always get enough milk to run the plant, but the competition for that marginal next pound of milk that could go to any of those plants, I think the competition for that last pound of milk has been ratcheted up a notch or two, and I don’t think cheese is gonna win that battle at all costs, like it historically has. And so I think there are times when your UF milk plants, when your ESL plants, and even when your non-fat butter plants are gonna win that competition from time to time. And so, the balancing function for a milk supply is gonna start getting spread over the course of multiple plants rather than the way we’ve been over the last 50 years, where everything was balanced in and out of a milk drying plant. All right. So have we decided? Have we come to a conclusion? Is cheese king? Let’s just go around. Is cheese gonna stay king? Mike, is cheese gonna stay king? Mike Brown: Cheese will stay king, but the strength of its kingdom will be a little weaker, ’cause it’s gonna have some strong competition from other proteins. Ted Jacoby III: Perfect. Jake? Jacob Menge: Couldn’t have said it better. Agree completely. Yep. Ted Jacoby III: Gus? Gus Jacoby: I would agree with how Mike said it. Yeah. Ted Jacoby III: Awesome. Joe? Joe Maixner: Yeah. No, no argument here. Ted Jacoby III: Diego? Diego Carvallo: I’ll have to say no. It’s because of the high competition and the amount of plants that are being built right now. Joe Maixner: Yeah. Ted Jacoby III: So are you saying you agree or disagree? Diego Carvallo: I disagree. Mike Brown: It’s the degree that cheese is ahead; it’s gonna take a lot of time for that to shift. Ted Jacoby III: A little bit like the Roman Empire in the year 200 AD, it’s still got 250 years to go, but it’s no longer gonna be the powerhouse it was 50 years previous. Josh, what do you think? Josh White: Yeah cheese is the king, and we’re gonna build a bigger kingdom around it. Ted Jacoby III: All right. And I agree with the general consensus that the cheese stays king, but the trend of an ever-increasing percentage of the supply is starting to slow down a bit. All right, everybody. Hey, this was a great [00:24:00] conversation. Thanks for joining us today. To all of our very valued listeners, we thank you for taking the time to listen to us. And if anybody ever has any questions about some of the topics we talk about, don’t ever be afraid to reach out and contact T.C. Jacoby & Company. We’re always happy to help. Take care, everybody.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Finance Ghost, retail analyst about the dramatic reversal in fortunes between TFG and Truworths after Truworths overtook TFG in market capitalisation for the first time in more than a decade, why investors have aggressively sold down TFG which has wiped nearly R20 billion off the retailer’s value since August last year. In other interviews, Managing Director of Spotify in Sub-Saharan Africa, Jocelyne Muhutu Remy talks about Spotify generating over R500 million for South African artists, unpacking how rising global demand, increased international streams, and the growing dominance of independent local talent are reshaping the country’s music industry earnings. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Managing Director of Spotify in Sub-Saharan Africa, Jocelyne Muhutu Remy about Spotify generating over R500 million for South African artists, unpacking how rising global demand, increased international streams, and the growing dominance of independent local talent are reshaping the country’s music industry earnings. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For today's episode, Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor Daniel Byman sits down with Holly Berkley Fletcher, former CIA Africa analyst, and Alexander Palmer, fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to discuss the growth of terrorism and instability in East and West Africa, the fragility of regional governments, and how the United States and other outside powers are shaping the region. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's Wednesday, May 13th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Timothy Reed Mexican cartel violence forces families to flee The Mexican state of Guerrero is seeing major drug cartel violence from the group Los Ardillos, forcing families and local citizens to flee. Mexican national forces are almost nowhere to be seen in the region, and according to Marina Velascho, representative of the People's Indigenous Council of Guerrero, “These have been days of terror. They've been bombing communities with drones, and how can one defend themselves from a drone, with bombs falling from the sky.”  Elderly Protestant missionary kidnapped by Mexican drug thugs The recent violence in the Mexican state of Guerrero is also affecting Christians. Benito Guevara Arcos, a 79-year-old Protestant missionary, disappeared from the area in recent weeks. An organized criminal group had kidnapped the missionary after taking exception to his preaching. Sadly, disappearances in Mexico have surged over 200 percent in the last decade. Anna Stangl with Christian Solidarity Worldwide said, “We urge the Mexican government, at all levels, to increase efforts to arrest the influence of organized criminal groups in the country, recognizing the specific threat that these groups pose to religious leaders.” In John 10:10, Jesus said, “The thief comes to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”  Trump lumps in radical transgenders with Islamic terrorists In the United States, the Trump administration is cracking down on transgender ideology and the radical left. Transgenderism is identified as a major threat in the United States' newly released Counterterrorism Strategy for 2026. Far left groups have been placed on a watch list. The document stated, “In addition to cartels and Islamist terror groups, our national count terrorism activities will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”  Marty Makary, who oversaw generic Abortion Kill Pill, out at FDA Dr. Marty Makary is out as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, reports The Western Journal. He announced his resignation Tuesday, May 12th, amid policy differences with President Donald Trump and prominent Republican senators, reports Politico. Kyle Diamantas, who previously worked as the top food official at the agency, will lead the FDA in an acting capacity. Makary has received backlash for his handling of the Abortion Kill Pill and vaccines. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, had called for Makary to be ousted. She wrote, “This is a five-alarm crisis for the pro-life movement and for the GOP. The GOP cannot win without its base and simply will not get the enthusiasm that drives turnout without leadership from the top.” Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri tweeted, “This is welcome news. Dr. Makary was uniquely destructive to the pro-life movement. He attempted to place pro-abortion lawyers in key positions. He slow-walked a vitally necessary review of the abortion drug mifepristone. He used his discretion to approve a new abortion drug when the data shows it sends 1 in 10 women to the emergency room. He froze out prolife leaders and repeatedly stonewalled Congress. His resignation is an opportunity for the FDA to reset.” Southwest Airlines paid $1 million to fired pro-life stewardess Life News reports that Southwest Airlines paid nearly one million dollars to a pro-life stewardess last week. Charlene Carter had worked as a flight attendant for over 20 years. In 2017, she sent a message to the Transport Workers Union, protesting its support for abortion. She sued after the union and Southwest Airlines fired her for her pro-life speech. The recent settlement ends a nine-year legal battle. The National Right to Work Foundation represented Carter in the lawsuit. Listen to comments from Mark Mix, the president of National Right to Work Foundation. MIX: “What ended up as a long battle ended up well for Charlene Carter, and hopefully spreads the word to other employees that want to speak up on issues related to their beliefs and their ideas. The union can't thwart that. And that's what this case is all about.” Prices continue to skyrocket The prices of goods and services in the U.S. continued to rise last month.  The Labor Department reported inflation was up 3.8 percent in April compared to a year earlier. It's the biggest annual increase since 2023. Meanwhile, wages only grew 3.6 percent from April last year. This means inflation outpaced wage growth for the first time since 2023. Since the Iran war, Americans are seeing higher prices particularly for gasoline, electricity, and food.  50% of 18 to 24-year-old Christians are reading Bible weekly And finally, a new report found young Christians are engaging with the Bible more than older generations. The Patmos Youth Report surveyed nearly 30,000 young respondents around the world.  The report found half of Christians aged 18-24 read the Bible on a weekly basis. That level of Bible engagement is higher than older generations. Bible engagement was particularly high in the regions of Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.   Psalm 144:12 and 15 says, “May our sons in their youth be like plants full grown, our daughters like corner pillars cut for the structure of a palace . . . Blessed are the people to whom such blessings fall! Blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, May 13th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this episode of Positive Impact Philanthropy, Lori Kranczer speaks with Irene Pritzker, chair and co-founder of the IDP Foundation, about her groundbreaking work expanding access to education in developing countries through innovative financing models. Irene shares how a trip to Ghana transformed her philanthropic focus from medical research to education after discovering that low-fee private schools serving some of the poorest families had no access to credit or financial support. What began as a single partnership with a microfinance institution has since grown into a sustainable model reaching hundreds of thousands of students across Sub-Saharan Africa.   You'll hear about: How a visit to a market school in Ghana inspired Irene's education financing model Why do low-fee private schools in developing countries often lack access to capital The role financial institutions can play in improving education outcomes How the IDP Foundation created a sustainable and scalable lending model for schools Why catalytic philanthropy and strategic partnerships are essential for long-term impact The importance of working closely with governments and local communities How innovative financing and program-related investments can unlock opportunity across Africa   Irene's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/irene-pritzker-65bb0195/ Irene's Book The School in the Market: https://www.idpfplus.org/the-school-in-the-market/ IDP Foundation Website: https://www.idpfoundation.org/ IDP Foundation Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/idpfoundation/ IDP Foundation Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IDPFoundation IDP Foundation LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idp-foundation-inc-/   Connect with Lori Kranczer! Website: https://linkphilanthropic.com Email: info@linkphilanthropic.com   

Currency risk (often referred to as FX risk) is one of the most under appreciated barriers to sub-Saharan Africa's energy transition. In many contexts it is not just a financing headache. It shapes which projects get built, which companies survive, and which communities remain without power.The Energy Talk partnered with Dr. Churchill Agutu from the Collegium Helveticum to explore this issue through the voices of the practitioners navigating it every day — developers, advisers, investors, and institutions working at the heart of the challenge. We are doing a 2 episode mini-series on the topic. In Episode 1, we zoom into the off-grid electricity sector.We speak with Daniel Komolafe, CEO and Founder of First Electric, Nigeria, and Bodunde Akinola at CrossBoundary.Daniel takes us back to First Electric's early days deploying mesh grids in rural Nigeria. He describes how the Naira moved from 300 to the dollar to 1,500 to the dollar, a fivefold depreciation, pushing his company to the verge of insolvency on a $50,000 blended debt facility. As he puts it: if they had taken a more significant loan, the company would have been totally bankrupt. It is a story many energy entrepreneurs across the continent will recognise.Bodunde brings a different lens. Drawing on his experience advising companies across frontier markets, he walks through the core solutions:  hedging, tariff indexing, blended financing, and local currency financing, and is candid about where the real difficulty lies: scaling local currency financing remains the hard problem that the sector has not yet solved.Learn more about:⁠Publication on financing costs for off-grid electrification in sub-Saharan Africa⁠Collegium HelveticumFirst Electric CrossBoundary Advisory Connect on LinkedIn with:Churchill Agutu Bounde AkinolaDaniel Komolafe

Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rate of entrepreneurship in the world, according to the World Bank, and most founders there are women. Why, then, do so many of those startups fail to grow? We look at why many female entrepreneurs struggle to access investment and ask three business leaders what might change that.If you'd like to get in touch with the team, our email address is businessdaily@bbc.co.ukPresenter: Will Bain Producer: Ahmed Adan(Picture: Worker and partner with data analytics, charts and graphs paperwork. Credit: Getty Images)

In this episode of the Mr Barton Maths podcast, Craig sits down with Bibi Groot, behavioural scientist at Eedi, to unpack the rigorous research behind their ed-tech work. Bibi traces her journey from the UK's Behavioural Insights Team — where she applied frameworks like EAST (Easy, Attractive, Social, Timely) to public policy — to becoming Eedi's first behavioural scientist after a stint completing a PhD at UCL and having twins. The conversation builds methodically from the fundamentals of randomised control trials (and why they're so notoriously difficult to run well in schools) through the headline results of Eedi's two-year, 20-school RCT showing that students using the platform gained the equivalent of two to four extra months of progress, before diving into the much-publicised Google DeepMind collaboration. That study, run with LearnLM and a human-in-the-loop safety net, found that an AI tutor matched a human tutor on immediate question success and actually outperformed humans on short-term transfer questions — likely because the AI was relentlessly Socratic where time-pressured human tutors tended to short-circuit students' metacognition. Bibi closes by previewing Eedi's much larger four-arm follow-up trial (running until July 2026) testing whether deep student context beats strong pedagogy alone, plus exciting new pilots bringing DQR and WhatsApp-delivered AI tutoring to learners in Guyana, India, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Visit the show notes here: podcast.mrbartonmaths.com/221-building-an-ai-tutor-with-google-deepmind-with-bibi-groot-eedis-chief-impact-officer

This week we talk about industrialization, antibiotics, and child mortality rates.We also discuss corruption, instability, and progress.Recommended Book: Empire of Silence by Christopher RuocchioTranscriptDemographic transition is a social sciences theory that posits, based on all sorts of modern historical data, that societies tend to change, demographically, as they transition from a largely agrarian, low-industrial society, to that of a less-agrarian, high-industrial society.Most modern, post-hunter-gatherer societies have started out plowing the vast majority of their labor into bare subsistence, human beings spending their days, throughout their whole lives, working the land in order to produce enough food to live. All sorts of social and economic systems arose around this base-level fact, including those that tied laborers to the land, allowing for the rise of a leadership or ruling class, regional militaries, and other sorts of specialists. But until relatively recent history, the majority of people in a given society labored to produce raw essentials, and that was just the shape of things.This began to change with the dawn of the industrial revolution, and in some areas a bit before that, as precursor technologies allowed societies to produce more food and other essentials with less manual labor and using fewer foundational resources, like land. These technologies, as they became more widely distributed, more effective and efficient, and cheaper to deploy and operate, allowed more people to do more sorts of things, leading to a ballooning of industry and commerce in industrializing regions, and that allowed said regions to invest in other things, including medical knowledge, education, and so on.Life wasn't exactly a cakewalk in these industrializing areas, and all sorts of new abuses and issues, including long hours at factories and problems related to pollution, arose and became common. But because these sorts of societies required professionals with new types of knowledge and know-how, and because they were able to sustain an increasing number of specialities beyond working the land to generate food and other bare necessities, keeping people alive, longer, and ensuring more people had the specialized knowledge required to do all those things, became more of a priority, and one that could actually be addressed because of the concomitant ability to feed and clothe and house and address more of the needs of more people.There were gobs of other spiraling forces in the mix, of course, including religion, politics, and so on, but that general tendency to shift away from raw subsistence into more complex and diverse economic systems was a driving factor behind a lot of what happened from around 1800 until, well, now.What I'd like to talk about today is a specific data point, or collection of data points, that arguably, more than any other such data points, show the benefits of the industrialized, modern society we're living in, today, despite all the accompanying downsides.—So most societies, at this point, have undergone significant changes as a result of our widespread application of technologies that allow human beings to get more done with the same amount of effort.We're able to generate more value, of all kinds, than our ancestors, and though it's possible to criticize the change in priorities and focus on all the negative knock-on effects of these changes—and there are many such negative knock-on effects, like large-scale military conflicts and rampant pollution and climate change—it would be difficult to argue that there haven't been some fairly significant upsides for humanity, as well.One key upside is related to that demographic transition I mentioned. As societies shift and it becomes better for everyone if more people know how to do more things, and it thus becomes a priority for more people to live long enough to use the knowledge and know-how they acquire, it has increasingly made more sense for governments to invest in our overall longevity and survivability.We can't just say, I'd like everyone to live longer, and then snap our fingers and make that happen. But we can, and have, invested in technologies and systems that make longer lives more likely, and from 1800 onward that's generally been the trend, with a huge upswing arriving in the mid-20th century, when a bunch of new tools and technologies, including things like modern antiseptics and early antibiotics, first arrived on the scene, dramatically reducing the mortality rate associated with all kinds of medical procedures.Arguably the most significant social gain during this period, though, has been the bogglingly large reduction in child mortality rates.Child mortality refers to the death of children under the age of five, and this figure is, today, usually expressed as the likelihood of a child under five dying, per 1000 children in an area. So you might say in India, the child death rate is 92 in 1000, which means 92 of every 1000 children resulting from live births in India die before they reach the age of five. And that was actually the real child mortality rate in India back in the year 2000.And the story of overall global child mortality rates is actually pretty well exemplified in India's rates, as the country has seen a dramatic drop in all-cause child deaths in recent decades.In the year 2000, as I mentioned, it was expected that 92 out of every 1000 children would die before the age of 5 in India. As of 2024, though, that number has dropped to just 32 out of every 1000; a 68% drop. If you go back as far as 1990, the progress is even more impressive, those 2024 numbers representing a 76% drop in child mortality.This progress has largely been the consequence of intentional, targeted health interventions by the Indian government, including institutionalized child delivery services and widespread, well-funded immunization efforts that ensured more children got vaccines and other sorts of care that was previously lacking, or which was not widely disseminated beyond wealthy families. They've also invested in newborn care and neonatal units at hospitals, which has increased child survival outcomes in a large radius around these facilities.Southeast Asian nations still account for about 25% of all under-five deaths, globally, but improvements in India mirror those in China, which made rapid and sustained progress on this issue beginning in the 1950s, but really hitting their stride in the 1970s, when their child mortality rate was 143 per 1000 children; that rate dropped to just 12 per 1000 by 2020.Globally, right now, the average child mortality rate is just under 40 per 1000, which is down from 93 per 1000 in 1990.That's a staggering amount of progress, but it does mean that nearly 5 million children still die each year before their 5th birthday, which adds up to something like 15,000 of such deaths per day.At the moment, the vast majority of these deaths, about 80% of them, occur in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The cause of these deaths varies a bit based on location, and there's a time component to this, too, as some areas have seen much higher rates due to epidemics, but most of the causes of child death before the age of 5 are consistent, with premature birth and pneumonia, birth asphyxia or trauma, malaria, diarrhea, congenital abnormalities, and sepsis representing about 60-70% of such deaths, globally.Almost all of these issues are preventable, and the major barrier to reducing these numbers further is access to resources and expertise that are more widely available and accessible in the wealthier world; there are huge disparities in child mortality between rich countries and poor countries, in other words, and while the number of child deaths has decreased everywhere, including in the world's poorest countries, over the past 100 years, countries like Finland see about 2 in every 1000 children die before they reach the age of five, while countries like Niger see nearly 115 in every 1000 children die before the age of five.This figure was previously around 500 in every 1000, globally, so about half of all children would die before the age of five, even in relatively recent history, even in the wealthiest regions, just a few hundred years ago—so again, stunning progress in this area; and looking back, in addition to families needing more hands to work the fields, before everyone started industrializing, families would tend to have as many kids as they could because it was generally just assumed that about half of them would die within the first couple of years; some cultures still have traditions of not naming their children until they've lived for a few years because of that earlier child mortality trend.There's still plenty to be done in this space, though, and the changes necessary to dramatically drop this mortality rate even further, regionally and globally, are not revolutionary in nature, it's just a matter of more widely and equitably disseminating tools and technologies and cultural and economic infrastructure that already exists across much of the world, to the places where it doesn't exist yet.That's a tall order in some locations, though, as part of why some high child mortality rate regions still have those high rates is that they've also had persistent government instability, which has in turn led to persistent internal conflicts and government overthrows and long histories of grift and corruption at the top-most levels of society.In other words, it's extremely difficult to improve these sorts of numbers when those who are in charge of a high-mortality-rate region are seemingly incapable of keeping things stable, and always seem to be enriching themselves at the expense the the country they're meant to be governing.That's a much larger systemic issue, of course, made up of numerous fractal issues that each have their own distinct causes and potential solutions.But the main takeaway here is that child mortality is already an immense success story of modernity, and even more progress is possible, but in order to achieve that kind of progress, a bunch of other problems will probably need to be solved in these still-highly-afflicted areas, first. And solving these problems will likely be a truly heavy lift, for anyone who tries to tackle them, until and unless something fundamental changes about governing norms and corruption, and the many forces that enable that kind of high-level corruption, globally.Show Noteshttps://data.unicef.org/resources/levels-and-trends-in-child-mortality-2025/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/un-report-highlights-indias-79-decline-in-child-mortality-rates-a-major-contributor-to-global-child-health-advancements/articleshow/129660557.cmshttps://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-pasthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_mortalityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transitionhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1041851/china-all-time-child-mortality-rate/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7138028/https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/child-mortality-and-causes-of-deathhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

What if the real problem with small business lending isn't the banks, but that nobody's actually built the system around the business owner?In this conversation, David sits down with Charles Kollo, Head of Innovation at BBIF, a Florida-based CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution), for a candid conversation about why the $200 billion community lending ecosystem is ripe for disruption, why CDFIs have been slow to modernize, and what it will actually take to put capital access back in the hands of business owners.Charles brings a rare global lens to the conversation: he's built a digital bank in Sub-Saharan Africa, worked with major banking groups across Côte d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and beyond, and now applies those lessons to the U.S. CDFI space.In this episode:Why CDFIs were created (and why they've been slow to innovate)The outdated 1970s credit scoring system that's still running the showWhy high interest rates from alternative lenders are essentially a "laziness fee" (and what accurate risk prediction could change)The real victim in the lending ecosystem: the small business ownerWhat mobile money in Africa can teach us about capital deployment in the U.S.The three ingredients needed to actually solve this problem: clarity of thought, tools, and distributionWhy EIC may be positioned to bridge the gapLinks & Resources:Rethinking Capital Access for Small Businesses with Charles KolloLearn more about CDFIs: cdfi.orgLearn more about BBIF: bbif.com

Is the "ladder of success" you've been climbing actually leaning against the wrong wall? Discover how to shift your mindset from trading time for money to building a legacy through innovation and blockchain. In this episode, host George Wright III sits down with Bob Stead, a multi-billion-dollar nutritional company co-founder and early Bitcoin pioneer. They dive deep into the entrepreneurial journey, from selling Kool-Aid as a child to building global infrastructures. You'll learn why traditional career advice is increasingly outdated and how emerging technologies like blockchain and AI are creating new opportunities for ownership. Bob shares his philosophy on success, philanthropy, and why the way you think is more important than the specifics of what you do. Key Takeaways:Challenge the traditional "ladder of success" to find a more fulfilling and effective career path. Shift your focus from simply earning a salary to creating value and ownership. Understand blockchain as a digital ledger that provides transparency and permanent records. Recognize that your mindset and way of thinking are the primary drivers of long-term success. Learn how curiosity and solving problems can lead to multi-billion dollar business opportunities. Explore the importance of finding a "reason to get out of bed" that goes beyond financial achievement. Timestamps:00:00 – Reevaluating the traditional ladder of success 01:00 – Introducing Bob Stead: Global entrepreneur and blockchain pioneer 02:00 – Early entrepreneurial sparks and the "Freezes" business 08:00 – Lessons from the grocery store: Trading time vs. creating value 12:00 – Disrupting industries through chemical composition and consumer choice 18:00 – Demystifying blockchain and the future of digital ownership 24:00 – The intersection of AI, technology, and human innovation 28:00 – Lessons from the wild: Clarity, grit, and hunting grizzly bears 31:00 – Philanthropy and finding purpose after "making it." Thanks for listening, and Please Share this Episode with someone. It would really help us to grow our show and share these valuable tips and strategies with others. Have a great day.George Wright III“It's Never Too Late to Start Living the Life You Were Meant to Live”FREE Daily Mastermind Resources:CONNECT with George & Access Tons of ResourcesGet access to Proven Strategies and Time-Test Principles for Success. Plus, download and access tons of FREE resources and online events by joining our Exclusive Community of Entrepreneurs, Business Owners, and High Achievers like YOU.Join FREE at DailyMastermind.comFollow me on social media Facebook | Instagram | Linkedin | TikTok | YoutubeGrow Your Authority and Personal Brand with a FREE Interview in a Top Global Magazine HERE.About the Guest:Bob Stead is the co-founder of a multi-billion dollar nutritional company operating in 50 countries and a former CEO across healthcare and product development sectors. He is an early Bitcoin miner and blockchain infrastructure builder, as well as an author, philanthropist, and world-record-holding outdoorsman. His diverse background spans from high-tech digital assets to boots-on-the-ground charity work in Sub-Saharan Africa. Guest Resource:Website: https://cirrusnetworks.io/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-l-2149aaa/

A huge thanks to this episode's sponsor: Hire Overseas: Exceptional Talent for Less - https://www.hireoverseas.com/value Navattic: Interactive Product Demo Software - https://navattic.com/value---In this episode, Barron Ernst, a seasoned product and growth leader, shares how his diverse career led him to navigate success in environments where his tried-and-true playbooks didn't apply.Barron discusses a pivotal moment at Showmax, a Netflix competitor in Sub-Saharan Africa, when he had to adapt his growth strategy to the unique market challenges. He reflects on early leadership struggles, from relying too much on his expertise to learning the value of trust and collaboration with his team, and how these experiences reshaped his approach to leadership and problem-solving.Things to listen for:(00:00) Intro(06:11) Early job lessons shaping leadership style(09:02) Thank you to our sponsors, Hire Overseas and Navattic(11:46) Pivoting from law to tech career(13:00) Debate skills that helped Barron lead(15:54) Why sharing mistakes leads to growth(24:31) Delegating tasks and building trust in teams(32:09) Making yourself redundant as a leader(34:56) Choosing between being right and effective(35:50) Copying growth playbooks in unfamiliar markets(37:21) Meeting the movie guy who disrupted streaming(43:29) Safari offsite as a leadership reset(46:46) From expert to problem solver mindset(50:46) Radical Candor clash between leadership styles(57:33) Balancing values and company culture differences(01:00:43) Grounding career decisions with personal values(01:05:10) The value of range over specializationResources:Connect with Barron:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/barronernst/Website: https://www.barronernst.com/Connect with Andrew:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewcapland/ Substack: https://media.deliveringvalue.coHire Andrew as your coach: https://deliveringvalue.co/coaching

In episode 251 of America Adapts, host Doug Parsons speaks with Jamil Wyne, founder of Hazelwood Network, to explore whether climate adaptation is finally moving into the mainstream—or if we're seeing familiar signals that never quite add up. From growing attention in finance, consulting, and platforms like LinkedIn to real-world action in places like Singapore and across emerging markets, adaptation is gaining traction. But that momentum remains fragmented—spread across investors, governments, and innovators without clear coordination. At the same time, a major bottleneck persists: we still don't know how to clearly communicate adaptation, often relying on abstract climate metrics that fail to resonate. Drawing on his work across Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East, Wyne highlights how adaptation is already happening on the ground—often ahead of the U.S.—while the private sector cautiously begins to engage. The conversation also touches on the role of AI as both a tool and a source of new complexity. Ultimately, this episode asks a central question: if adaptation is having a moment, are we actually ready to capitalize on it? Transcript of episode here. Links in this episode:  Founder: Hazelwood Network Lead author: The Climate Tech Opportunity (Oxford Saïd School of Business) LinkedIn Learning Instructor:  Climate Technology for Business Resilience and Adaptation Articles: Forbes, SSIR, TechCrunch, WEF, World Bank, CSIS Key Themes Covered in This Episode: Is adaptation really having a moment—or just more noise?  A fragmented field that still isn't coming together  Why we still don't know how to talk about adaptation What adaptation looks like on the ground in emerging markets New voices and leaders shaping the space Are we actually ready for this moment? For Educators & Students Explore how climate adaptation is evolving across regions and sectors Examine the gap between adaptation in theory and on-the-ground reality Understand why adaptation is difficult to communicate effectively Analyze how emerging markets are shaping adaptation practice Discuss the role of new leaders entering the adaptation space Consider what it would take for adaptation to truly become mainstream Who Should Listen to This Episode Climate adaptation and resilience professionals Policymakers and public sector leaders Researchers and students studying climate or sustainability Private sector professionals exploring climate risk Funders, investors, and philanthropies in climate Anyone trying to understand where adaptation is headed Support for America Adapts helps make episodes like this possible, including more international conversations on how adaptation is unfolding globally. All donations are now tax deductible! Check out the America Adapts Media Kit here! Subscribe to the America Adapts newsletter here. Listen to America Adapts on your favorite app here! Facebook, Linkedin and Bluesky: https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/ https://bsky.app/profile/americaadapts.bsky.social https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-parsons-america-adapts/ Doug Parsons and Speaking Opportunities: If you are interested in having Doug speak at corporate and conference events, sharing his unique, expert perspective on adaptation in an entertaining and informative way, Now on Spotify! List of Previous Guests on America Adapts Follow/listen to podcast on Apple Podcasts. The 10 Best Sustainability Podcasts for Environmental Business Leadershttps://us.anteagroup.com/news-events/blog/10-best-sustainability-podcasts-environmental-business-leaders For more information on this podcast, visit the website at http://www.americaadapts.org and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts.   Podcast Music produce by Richard Haitz Productions Write a review on Apple Podcasts ! America Adapts on Facebook!   Join the America Adapts Facebook Community Group. Check us out, we're also on YouTube! Subscribe to America Adapts on Apple Podcasts Doug can be contacted at americaadapts @ g mail . com

“If God died in the nineteenth century, ideology died in the twenty-first. Could you actually imagine people dying for communism or for liberal democracy? That actually happened. Now you would be considered an idiot or a fool to do that.” — Daniel Bessner Co-host of the American Prestige podcast Daniel Bessner is a bit of a bomb thrower. Which is why he's a regular on the show. Today, he has a bomb in each hand. As the co-editor of Cold War Liberalism: Power in a Time of Emergency, Bessner has taken a scythe to America's two most cherished assumptions about the Cold War. The first is that rather than an inevitable clash of civilisations, the Cold War was an American choice. Stalin, Bessner argues, would have made a deal with FDR. It was the insecure, anti-communist Truman who triggered the Cold War by defining the Soviet Union as an illegitimate (what today we would call a “terrorist”) state. Bessner's second bomb is that the people who shaped Cold War liberalism and sustained it for decades — from Truman's attorney general to McNamara to the Isaiah Berlin-Hannah Arendt intellectual elite — weren't really defenders of democracy. Bessner traces liberalism's fear of the masses back to French liberals like Benjamin Constant and Germaine de Staël who charted a path between revolutionary terror and monarchical reaction. From the beginning, Bessner argues, liberals thought it was necessary for elites to tame the masses and govern in their name. The Cold War liberals institutionalised that skepticism — and in doing so built the military-industrial American state. They also destroyed the left, purging communists from government and unions years before McCarthy finished the job. The result is a world in which the only available ideologies are capitalism and a top-down liberalism that has long since stopped delivering on its promises. So how to chart an American foreign policy between MAGA and Cold War liberalism? Bessner reminds us of John Quincy Adams's advice of not going abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” The United States should reduce its global basing posture, slash military spending, stop meddling in other people's affairs, and allow regions to develop without outside interference. The United States should stop throwing bombs overseas, the bomb-throwing Bessner suggests. That would be the most American thing to do. Five Takeaways •       The Cold War Was an American Choice: The historian Sergei Radchenko has shown, from Soviet archival documents, that Stalin thought he could reach an agreement with the United States after World War Two. He'd gotten along well with FDR, who envisioned a world divided among four policemen: the UK, the USSR, the US, and China. It was only when the inexperienced, insecure Truman replaced FDR that the US adopted a universalistic anti-communist framework and decided the Soviet Union was an illegitimate power with which no deal was possible. The Cold War wasn't inevitable. It was chosen. And it killed an estimated twenty million people in Asia, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa while being pretty good for Western Europe. •       Liberalism Has Always Feared the Masses: Bessner traces the anxiety back to its origins: Benjamin Constant and Germaine de Staël trying to chart a path between the Terror and monarchical reaction in post-revolutionary France. From the beginning, liberals believed elites needed to tame the masses and govern in their name. The Cold War liberals institutionalised that skepticism — their fear understandable, given that many were Jewish exiles who had experienced Nazism firsthand. But understandable doesn't mean right. They built the modern American state around elite governance, purged the left from unions and government years before McCarthy finished the job, and normalized a political center that defined itself as rational and everyone else as extreme. •       Ideology Died in the Twenty-First Century: Fukuyama was right that liberalism would be the last ideology — but wrong that everywhere would become liberal. What actually happened: when every country is capitalist, you no longer need the liberalism. Biden talked about democracy versus authoritarianism for about five minutes before reverting to the language of interests and security. Trump never used the language of ideology at all. Bessner's formulation: if God died in the nineteenth century, ideology died in the twenty-first. Could you imagine people dying for communism or liberal democracy now? It happened. Now you'd be considered an idiot. Cold War liberalism is a zombie ideology — it sells books to wealthy anti-Trump readers, but it has no mass constituency. •       Goes Not Abroad in Search of Monsters to Destroy: John Quincy Adams, secretary of state and president, offered the restrainers' founding principle: the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Bessner's alternative foreign policy: eliminate the global basing posture, slash military spending, stop meddling in other people's affairs, allow regions to develop as they would. The United States hasn't faced an existential threat since 1812. It has a nuclear deterrent. There is no good argument for the rest. Trump's Iran war is not Cold War liberalism — no ideological language, just pure power extraction — but it's not an improvement. It's just violence without even the pretence of principle. •       Mutual Ruin: Bessner ends with Marx's first page of the Communist Manifesto: either a dialectical transcendence of the old economic system, or the mutual ruin of the contending classes. Capitalism, he argues, has reached a point where there are no real profits to be made — hence financialisation, hence AI as an attempt to deindustrialise white-collar workers. There is no political-economic alternative in sight. No institutional base. The Democratic Party is corrupt, managerial, and blinkered. The only way it wins elections is because Trump is even more horrible. Something exogenous — war, climate, something else — will have to break the impasse. Until then, mutual ruin. He knows which one it feels like. About the Guest Daniel Bessner is the Anne H. H. and Kenneth B. Pyle Associate Professor in American Foreign Policy at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. He is the co-editor, with Michael Brenes, of Cold War Liberalism: Power in a Time of Emergency (Cambridge University Press, 2026), and co-host of the American Prestige podcast. References: •       Cold War Liberalism: Power in a Time of Emergency, ed. Daniel Bessner and Michael Brenes (Cambridge University Press, 2026). •       Sergei Radchenko, To Run the World: The Kremlin's Cold War Bid for Global Power — the archival revisionist case that Stalin wanted a deal. •       John Quincy Ad...

As a board-certified OBGYN, I'm the first to admit: while I'm an expert in hormones and menopause, I am not a dermatologist. Yet, my patients come to me every day with skin concerns that feel like "cruel and unusual punishment." You're already dealing with hot flashes and night sweats—why are the cystic acne and chin hairs back too?To give you the answers you deserve, here is a "15-minute consultation" with my go-to expert and dear friend, Dr. Melissa Mauskar.Dr. Mauskar is a double-threat: a Dermatologist and Associate Professor in both the Departments of Dermatology and OBGYN at UT Southwestern. She is the Director of Genital Dermatology and Women's Health and a leading expert in vulvar dermatoses.In this episode, we dive into the "Big Three" of menopausal skin:1. The Return of the Adult AcneWhy are we getting "teenager" pimples in our 50s? Dr. Mauskar explains the "hormonal dance" of perimenopause—specifically the relative androgen excess that happens when estrogen dips. The Gold Standard: Why retinoids (like Tazarotene) are the "heavy hitters" for both acne and aging. The Spironolactone Debate: We discuss why this anti-androgen is a first-line treatment for skin, but why I, as a sexual health expert, have some serious reservations about its impact on libido.2. The "Wisdom" Hairs (Chin Beards & Upper Lips)Dr. Mauskar breaks down why terminal hairs start popping up on the chin and why you need to act before they turn white if you want laser hair removal to work. (Plus, I share a quick story about why chin hairs are actually a sign of wisdom in Sub-Saharan Africa!)3. The Widening Part: Hair ThinningIt is incredibly frustrating to see your hair density drop just as your hormones shift. We discuss: Topical vs. Oral Minoxidil: Which one is right for your hair-washing routine? The 6-Month Rule: Why patience is the most important ingredient in any hair growth protocol. Red Light Caps: Are they worth the investment, or should you stick to the basics?Connect with Dr. Melissa Mauskar Professional Profile: UT Southwestern Medical Center - Dr. Melissa Mauskar Specialty: Genital Dermatology, Lichen Sclerosis, and Women's Health.Key Resources Mentioned Tazarotene: A potent retinoid Dr. Mauskar prefers over traditional Tretinoin for better tolerance.Spironolactone: A common oral medication for hormonal acne (use with caution regarding sexual side effects!).

In this powerful episode of Public Health Epidemiology Conversations, Dr. Huntley speaks with Chicago's first Black woman health commissioner, Dr. Olusimbo "Simbo" Ige, about tackling one of the nation's most alarming health disparities. When Black residents in Chicago were dying 15 years earlier than their neighbors, Dr. Ige stepped into leadership determined to change the trajectory. Drawing on decades of experience across Nigeria, Sub-Saharan Africa, and New York City, she shares how global public health lessons are shaping bold, community-centered strategies in Chicago today. From a 38% reduction in opioid deaths to early signs that the city's life expectancy gap is finally narrowing, Dr. Ige offers a candid look at what it takes to drive meaningful change in complex systems. She also speaks openly about the deeper barrier to progress. Not a lack of data, but a divide in values around who deserves public investment. Along the way, she and Dr. Huntley explore the importance of plain language, trusted community messengers, and storytelling as essential tools for effective public health leadership. This conversation is both inspiring and grounding for anyone committed to improving health equity.   Resources ▶️ Join the PHEC Podcast Community ▶️ Visit the PHEC Podcast Show Notes ▶️ DrCHHuntley, Public Health & Epidemiology Consulting

CGD's Clemence Landers, Liliana Rojas-Suarez, and Catherine Pattillo look at how the Iran war compares to recent shocks like COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, how governments are responding—from fuel subsidies to rationing and currency interventions—and where the pressure is most acute, including in import-dependent economies in Southeast Asia and across Sub-Saharan Africa.

While the podcast team is taking a Radical Sabbatical, Kim is interviewing authors of the books that have had a big impact on her in the past two years. Wealth concentration in the United States is top of mind these days. While it's tempting to see this as a recent trend, it is instructive to look at what was happening in American politics decades ago and see how many of these forces were set in motion in the 1970's.  Kim talks with Prof. David Gibbs about his book, Revolt of the Rich, How the Politics of the 1970s Widened America's Class Divide. Prof. Gibbs reviews decisions that were made during the Nixon and Carter administrations that continue to reverberate in our world today.  For example, during the first oil shock in the early 1970s, President Nixon actively worked to keep oil prices high to support the Shah of Iran and to prop up the dollar.  The result was financialization and deindustrialization. Later in the decade, President Carter was central to the trend of deregulation.  The net effect of these decisions was an erosion of the foundations of the American middle class.  Technical note: we had an issue with one of the microphones on this interview that affected the sound quality.  Sorry if this affects your enjoyment of this episode. Background on David Gibbs: David N. Gibbs is professor of history at the University of Arizona, whose past research has emphasized political conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan. He has published extensively in academic journals as well as the London Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Le Monde Diplomatique, Salon, and Jacobin. His third and most recent book is entitled: Revolt of the Rich: How the Politics of the 1970s Widened America's Class Divide. His detailed personal website is at: https://dgibbs.arizona.edu/ Resources: Buy Revolt of the Rich on Bookshop.org  (00:00) Introduction to the Radical Sabbatical Podcast (01:33) The Oil Crisis of the 1970s (04:46) Nixon's Role in the Oil Price Increase (09:59) Petrodollars and U.S. Economic Power (12:37) Financialization and Deindustrialization (15:05) Impact on Ordinary Americans (18:28) The Revolt of the Rich (21:34) The Shift in Economic Power (24:41) Political and Economic Alternatives (26:01) The Evolution of Taxation and Economic Policies (27:48) The Shift in Political Ideologies (30:18) Coalitions and the Rise of the Christian Right (32:30) Economic Conservatism and Social Issues (36:00 )Navigating Economic Uncertainty (40:43) Building Inclusive Economies (46:30) The Consequences of Inequality and Austerity Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Battery storage in Africa is one of the most misunderstood opportunities in global energy. Only 8% of the continent's hydro power has been tapped. In Malawi, just 14% of the population is connected to the grid. Africa needs to add an estimated 100 GW of capacity in the next decade and the fastest way is with renewables and storage. Michael Cupit develops BESS projects in Malawi and Kenya, and he's spent years working inside the gap between how these markets look from the outside and how they actually operate on the ground.In this episode of Transmission, Ed Porter sits down with Michael to break down the real risk picture in Sub-Saharan Africa: why mid-to-high-teen IRRs are the reality, how 20-year capacity payment contracts compare to merchant BESS in Europe, and what it actually takes to get a project from bare earth to operational - a journey that took eight years in Malawi.They cover:The two biggest misconceptions about doing business in AfricaHow South Africa, Malawi, and Kenya's grids differ and where batteries fit in eachThe role of DFIs, MIGA guarantees, and multilateral risk wrappers in making projects bankableChina's declining role in African infrastructure and what's replacing itThe O&M challenge: building operational capability from scratch in frontier marketsWhy winning the argument for renewables means making the commercial case - not just the climate oneWant to track battery storage capacity and market trends across Africa and beyond? Ko, Modo Energy's AI analyst, is built for exactly these questions. Free sign up: https://modoenergy.com/sign-up?utm_source=podcast_apps&utm_medium=podcast&utm_id=michael_cupitSubscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@modoenergy────────────────────────────⏱ CHAPTERS0:00 Introduction1:08 The two biggest misconceptions about Africa4:30 IRRs, risk and contracted vs merchant returns8:00 Why Africa is skipping the fossil fuel grid model9:40 South Africa: load shedding, rooftop solar and grid constraints13:00 Battery use cases: the transmission line problem17:00 Malawi's grid: run-of-river hydro and the diesel spread19:00 Kenya: geothermal, 10 GW buildout and hyperscaler demand22:30 Rare earth mining and the electrification push in Malawi26:30 Financing: DFIs, MIGA, project finance and currency risk31:45 How long does it really take? The 8-year development journey33:10 China's role in African infrastructure - myth vs reality33:45 Engineering talent, local capacity and the O&M challenge36:55 What success looks like in 5 years────────────────────────────You can watch or listen to new episodes every Tuesday.Transmission is a Modo Energy production. Your host is Ed Porter - Director EMEA & APAC at Modo Energy.

Battery storage in Africa is one of the most misunderstood opportunities in global energy. Only 8% of the continent's hydro power has been tapped. In Malawi, just 14% of the population is connected to the grid. Africa needs to add an estimated 100 GW of capacity in the next decade and the fastest way is with renewables and storage. Michael Cupit develops BESS projects in Malawi and Kenya, and he's spent years working inside the gap between how these markets look from the outside and how they actually operate on the ground.In this episode of Transmission, Ed Porter sits down with Michael to break down the real risk picture in Sub-Saharan Africa: why mid-to-high-teen IRRs are the reality, how 20-year capacity payment contracts compare to merchant BESS in Europe, and what it actually takes to get a project from bare earth to operational - a journey that took eight years in Malawi.They cover:The two biggest misconceptions about doing business in AfricaHow South Africa, Malawi, and Kenya's grids differ and where batteries fit in eachThe role of DFIs, MIGA guarantees, and multilateral risk wrappers in making projects bankableChina's declining role in African infrastructure and what's replacing itThe O&M challenge: building operational capability from scratch in frontier marketsWhy winning the argument for renewables means making the commercial case - not just the climate oneWant to track battery storage capacity and market trends across Africa and beyond? Ko, Modo Energy's AI analyst, is built for exactly these questions. Free sign up: https://modoenergy.com/sign-up?utm_source=podcast_apps&utm_medium=podcast&utm_id=michael_cupitSubscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@modoenergy────────────────────────────⏱ CHAPTERS0:00 Introduction1:08 The two biggest misconceptions about Africa4:30 IRRs, risk and contracted vs merchant returns8:00 Why Africa is skipping the fossil fuel grid model9:40 South Africa: load shedding, rooftop solar and grid constraints13:00 Battery use cases: the transmission line problem17:00 Malawi's grid: run-of-river hydro and the diesel spread19:00 Kenya: geothermal, 10 GW buildout and hyperscaler demand22:30 Rare earth mining and the electrification push in Malawi26:30 Financing: DFIs, MIGA, project finance and currency risk31:45 How long does it really take? The 8-year development journey33:10 China's role in African infrastructure - myth vs reality33:45 Engineering talent, local capacity and the O&M challenge36:55 What success looks like in 5 years────────────────────────────You can watch or listen to new episodes every Tuesday.Transmission is a Modo Energy production. Your host is Ed Porter - Director EMEA & APAC at Modo Energy.

This week's show drills down into the reality that conservation is driven by sustainability, and the undeniable role hunting plays in that equation. We kick things off by sitting down with Mpho Tiajne (SCI's African Liaison) to get a South African's perspective on the role international hunting plays in Sub-Saharan Africa's thriving wildlife herds. Mpho [...]

As the war in the Middle East continues, other regions adjust. The price of oil dropped after President Trump said discussions with Iran had taken place. Meanwhile, the Philippines, which gets most of its fuel from the Persian Gulf, has declared a four-day work week to reduce energy demand; Suranjana Tewari is in Manila with the latest. We also look at the drive towards solar energy across Sub-Saharan Africa and how this conflict could accelerate trends in the renewable energy sector. In Cuba, more than 10 million people lost power to their homes after their national grid collapsed. Will Bain looks at the future of the Caribbean island. And Leonid Radvinsky, who founded OnlyFans has died. We discuss how this platform provides much more than just adult content.

Nature-based solutions decrease the effects of climate change by using nature to help nature. Mangrove forests helping to preserve shorelines or planting cover crops to rejuvenate the soil are strong examples. According to research from the Nature Conservancy, nature-based solutions can provide up to 37 percent of the carbon emissions reductions needed by 2030.  In this episode of the Hidden Economics of Remarkable Women, we focus on nature-based solutions' enormous environmental potential. First, we head to Bolivia, where a small, indigenous group of women is making a big splash. Host Zainab Salbi speaks with Dayana Blanco Quiroga, who co-founded the Uru Uru Team. It is a grassroots initiative dedicated to restoring Lake Uru Uru, which has been heavily degraded from nearby mining and pollution. The Uru Uru Team is just one example of women's leadership in transforming water security, as Foreign Policy research notes.   Then, we talk to two investors in nature-based solutions about how they approach this work financially, which can be challenging. First, we hear from Nela Duke Ekpenyong, founding partner at Obudu Capital, a venture capital firm investing in climate tech, energy, and sustainability across Sub-Saharan Africa. And then, we talk to Alexa Firmenich, who founded an ecocentric investment firm called Naia Trust, based in Switzerland. She also hosts a podcast called Lifeworlds.  The Hidden Economics of Remarkable Women is a podcast from Foreign Policy, supported this season by Daughters for Earth. Guests interviewed: Dayana Blanco Quiroga, Co-Founder of the Uru Uru Team Nela Duke Ekpenyong, Founding partner of Obudu Capital Alexa Firmenich, Founder of Naia Trust Recommended Reading: Foreign Policy Analytics: Transforming Water Security Through Women's Leadership Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Two Bees in a Podcast, Amy Vu and Dr. Jamie Ellis are joined by Dr. Beatrice Nganso, a Research Scientist in commercial insects at the International Center of Insect Physiology & Ecology in Nairobi, Kenya to discuss her research on honey bee colony losses in Sub-Saharan Africa. This episode ends with a Q&A segment. Check out our website: www.ufhoneybee.com for additional resources from today's episode.  

OA1227 - Come play the worst ever round of the Connections game and figure out what on earth Tuskegee Alabama, the CDC, Southern Denmark University, and the West African country of Guinea-Bissau all have in common, as RFK Jr. continues his campaign of “just asking questions” that we already have the answer to. Black men untreated in Tuskegee syphilis study. Heller, J. (July 25, 1972; republished May 10, 2017). Associated Press. The untreated syphilis study at Tuskegee timeline. Centers for Disease Control. (September 4, 2024). 45 CFR 46 Protection of Human Subjects. (Department of Health and Human Services regulations to implement the National Research Act and create Institutional Review Board policies). Hepatitis B. World Health Organization (July 23, 2025). Should the U.S. model its vaccine policy on Denmark's? Experts say we're nothing alike. Godoy, M. (December 26, 2025). NPR. RFK Jr. overhauls childhood vaccine schedule to resemble Denmark's in unprecedented move. Lovelace Jr., B., Edwards, E., Fattah, M., & Bendix, A. (January 5, 2026). NBC News. What is actually the emerging evidence about non-specific vaccine effects in randomized trials from the Bandim Health Project? Støvring, H., Ekstrøm, C.T., Schneider, J.W., & Strøm, C. (2025). Vaccine, 68, 1-4. Notice of award of a single source unsolicited grant to fund University of Southern Denmark (SDU). Department of Health and Human Services. (December 15, 2025). U.S. plan for $1.6m hepatitis B vaccine study in Africa called ‘highly unethical'. Schreiber, M. & Lay, K. (December 19, 2025). The Guardian. CDC awards $1.6 million for hepatitis B vaccine study by controversial Danish researchers. Szabo, L. (December 18, 2025). Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. CDC funds controversial hepatitis B vaccine trial in African newborns. Offord, C. (December 18, 2025). Science Insider. Research ethics and compliance support. Southern Denmark University. Further reading: Qiao, H. (2018). A brief introduction to institutional review boards in the United States. Pediatric Investigation, 2, 46-51. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. International compilation of human research standards. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/compilation-human-research-standards/index.html University of North Carolina. Nuremberg Code. https://research.unc.edu/human-research-ethics/resources/ccm3_019064/ Torrance, R.J., Mormina, M., Sayeed, S., Kessel, A., Yoon, C.H., & Cislaghi, B. (2024). Is the U.N. receiving ethical approval for its research with human participants? Journal of Medical Ethics, 51, 1-4. Barchi, F. & Little, M.T. (2016). National ethics guidance in Sub-Saharan Africa on the collection and use of human biological specimens: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 17, 1-25. Salhia, B. & Olaiya, V. (2020). Historical perspectives on ethical and regulatory aspects of human participants research: Implications for oncology clinical trials in Africa. JCO Global Oncology, 6, 959-965. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

In this episode of The Grant Williams Podcast, I'm joined by Dr. John Bosetti, MD, an eye surgeon who has dedicated his career to tackling one of the most devastating—and most solvable—health crises in the developing world: preventable blindness. Dr. Bosetti recounts how a life running a successful ophthalmology practice in Napa, California gave way to a mission in Sub-Saharan Africa after witnessing first-hand the scale of untreated cataracts and the limits of short-term medical missions. What followed was a bold plan to build local capacity through Eye Surgeons International—creating world-class training, infrastructure, and sustainability to restore sight, dignity, and economic vitality to millions of people who have been left behind by global healthcare systems. What better way to start the new year than with a profoundly moving conversation that offers hope to thousands and provides an opportunity for us to give back? Happy New Year everyone! Every episode of the Grant Williams podcast, including This Week In Doom, The End Game, The Super Terrific Happy Hour, The Narrative Game, Kaos Theory, Shifts Happen and The Hundred Year Pivot, is available to Copper and Silver Tier subscribers at my website www.Grant-Williams.com.  Copper Tier subscribers get access to all podcasts, while members of the Silver Tier get both the podcasts and my monthly newsletter, Things That Make You Go Hmmm…