Podcast: Download (Duration: 1:00:00 — 55.0MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Android | RSS | More
The Sustainable Hour no. 528 | Transcript | Podcast notes
Our guests in The Sustainable Hour no. 528 are Alex Mungall and Terry Leahy from the Melbourne chapter of the Degrowth Network.
Both Terry and Alex are long-time environmental and social justice advocates. They are strong believers that our post-carbon world can’t focus on economic growth and ‘techno-hopium’ like we currently do, with our focus on profit which has morphed too often into “profit at all costs”. This to a large extent has led us into the mess we are in today.
Terry and Alex invite us to this year’s Degrowth Festival in Melbourne on 30 November 2024. It will showcase the amazing diversity of the degrowth ecosystem, celebrate degrowth actions, and foster cross-group connections to organise and build the movements together – and have fun while doing it.
The festival takes place at the Radicle Roots Community Garden, next to De Chene Reserve in Coburg from 11am to 6:30pm on Saturday 30 November.
Here is the poster for the festival on Instagram:
. . .
This 528th episode of The Sustainable Hour explores the pressing climate crisis and the ongoing battle of narratives in climate policy – in particular in the light of a climate denier now becoming president of the United States. The program highlights the impact of private jets on emissions, and explores the principles of the degrowth movement.
A special segment about climate solutions outlines strategies for addressing the climate emergency through public awareness, political action, and grassroots movements. It delves into the societal challenges posed by climate breakdown. These include including the rise of authoritarianism and misinformation, emphasising the importance of education, community resilience, and cultural shifts to combat these issues.
The guests critique the limitations of renewable energy and consumerism while advocating for grassroots activism and political engagement to foster a safe climate.
Towards the end, we listen to an Instagram video posted by Climate 200. We round the Hour off with Michael Franti’s song ‘Brighter Day’ and an excerpt from Kamala Harris’ concession speech.
. . .
That’s it for episode 528. What a thought-provoking discussion we have with Alex and Terry! A discussion firmly based on reality. The system in which we currently exist isn’t serving the vast majority of people, so why continue with it? In fact, if we want any sort of liveable planet, we must come up with an alternative.
This is where the degrowth movement comes in, firmly based in truth-telling: Yes there will have to be ‘sacrifices’ as we transition, but will they be sacrifices in the true sense of that word when what comes out the other end is a safer, more just, inclusive, happier, satisfied, peaceful and healthy world? Would it be so bad if these ‘sacrifices’ involve letting go of so many of the things we currently do which are causing the current ‘poly crisis’? Something we will ponder until we return next week.
In two week’s time, we’ll have our 530th episode. Twenty weeks after that, it will be our 550th. Another milestone for us. We are starting to plan for it and would appreciate suggestions for people to invite to come on for a chat on that day. These can be sent to Tony at: tee.gee2@yahoo.com.au
“The consumer affluence of the wealthy countries is not sustainable. In a sense, so far as people are weighted to that kind of consumer affluence, then we are asking for a sacrifice. We expect people to sacrifice some of the things that they think are now necessary – for the sake of a future on Earth, for human civilisation. That’s one thing, but what we’d also be saying is that we want to create a kind of society in which there’s more social justice and there aren’t people losing out at the bottom end – whether we’re talking globally and internationally or locally within Australia.”
~ Terry Leahy, retired sociologist and degrowth advocate.
→ Subscribe to The Sustainable Hour podcast via Apple Podcasts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We at The Sustainable Hour would like to pay our respect to the traditional custodians of the land on which we
are broadcasting, the Wathaurong People, and pay our respect to their elders, past, present and future.
The traditional owners lived in harmony with the land. They nurtured it and thrived in often harsh conditions for millennia before they were invaded. Their land was then stolen from them – it wasn’t ceded. It is becoming more and more obvious that, if we are to survive the climate emergency we are facing, we have much to learn from their land management practices.
Our battle for climate justice won’t be won until our First Nations brothers and sisters have their true justice. When we talk about the future, it means extending our respect to those children not yet born, the generations of the future – remembering the old saying that, “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.”
The decisions currently being made around Australia to ignore the climate emergency are being made by those who won’t be around by the time the worst effects hit home. How disrespectful and unfair is that?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We need a better way
By Alex Mungall
We feel it is very timely that we’ve been writing and discussing the way the world is tackling – or not tackling – the climate crisis in our Degrowth Network groups, and this political earthquake illustrates the problems we already indentified with them. The Trump era will pass, like it did before, and yes, it will make the climate crisis a hell of a lot worse, but it is only one example of the many problems with the trajectory we have been on, and we think it’s time for a much bigger change to kick off.
We are a group that meet regularly because we see degrowth as the solution to climate, and other massive problems we have.
In essence, degrowth is a political and economic theory which emphasises changing priorities of society from economic growth and production to a society based on sustainability, well-being, concern for environment and co-operation.
But the plans that came out of the Paris Agreement, and the innovative technology that is being rolled out, or discussed, as a response to climate change are something different. Some call it eco-modernism, or “green growth”, but we’re less polite: we call it techno-hopium.
So simple: we love technology and we love hope, but the combination is proving pretty disastrous, because we don’t see emissions come down, and we don’t see a rational basis for that hope. So we see this concept – which some call eco-modernism – as a bit delusional. We need a better way.
And we think degrowth is the better way, and because eco-modernism will fail, a simpler way is coming: by disaster or by design.
We are calling for radical change and let me begin by explaining why, before we go on to what.
But, we are being sold – by engineers, NGOs, governments – a technology change transition, not a human, social or economic response to the scientists warnings.
Renewables are necessary but also problematic!
Minerals problem
To make this program work we would need every country in the world to get on board. With that, we would quickly run out of the minerals we would need. We MIGHT have enough for one generation of tech, but not for the next. The projects required to extract minerals for this renewables transition destroys farmland used for centuries. The biodiversity problems are manifest.
Difficult tasks for renewables
Some things that we rely on to run an affluent high-tech economy are hard to power with electricity and batteries. Air travel, steel making, concrete production, long distance haulage, earth moving, big industrial agriculture would destroy marginal land and natural carbon sinks rather than give up land for local production of food.
Economics
Starting from now, if we have an economy growing at 3% per year, we end up with an economy twice as big in 23 years. No decoupling is being shown on a big scale, and we have an urgent crash against the limits of carbon: the atmosphere is full.
Adding more energy
The history of civilisations has been that new technology adds to the amount of energy being used, rather than reducing energy use. At the present time, we see renewables being built, but at the same time new coal fired power stations are added to the global mix, along with increases in our use of gas. We see biodiesel being refined, but no reduction in oil being burnt. At no time has there been a reduction in fossil fuel emissions: we have added to our energy consumption instead.
We need to face up to the scale of the problem, And that this is stuff, not technology can solve.
Some examples:
Other problems with techno-hopium
Social inequality
Class, privilege and inequality are huge problems in their own right, and they are also a huge problem for proposed techno solutions. How can the worlds poor afford to drive EVs, when they cannot even afford paved roads? Will the rich reduce their emissions for the sake of the environment? We see them in their private jets instead. Will they fund a renewable transition in other regions? Altruism like that seems unlikely for people who produce massive emissions “living like emperors”, while the poor starve.
Different countries responses
Most countries are not doing their bit, or even what they said they would do at the COPs. Beyond replacing electricity sources, we need to begin to work together, and we are not seeing that. cooperation Rather we see some countries from the global South who rightly want to grow, and they haven’t caused much of the warming yet, but they are arguing for increased coal use to develop their economy, but rather than going straight to renewables. And now Trump wants to drill baby drill.
War and peace
While many of the techno-hopium strategies were written in more peaceful decades, currently we see major wars. Militaries are not figured in any emissions plans, yet they massively contribute to warming. A safe climate implies human unity around a common purpose – drawing down the carbon already in the atmosphere. The failure of one major nation, like Russia, can mean the failure of all and currently most are failing.
Industry distractions
Vested interests are constantly trying to distract the public with unworkable solutions intended to delay the transition to sustainability. From nuclear power to e-fuels, to gas power, to delayed corporate transitions, industry sees no wealth in less production.
Time scales
Any just and safe climate response requires a 7% reduction in emissions every year to 2030. Yet we have seen no reductions, no drawdown of the carbon causing current problems until we stop adding more than we reduce. All plans rely on unproven technology: Carbon capture and storage, which has not worked at scale anywhere. And yet the cognoscenti claim, “we have the technology we require, we just need to implement it”.
Ambition and a hopeless landing place
What do we hope to achieve? Looking at what is likely by 2050, we are facing the destruction of all the glaciers, the end of snow sports, the end of all reefs and the sea life that goes with them, massive biodiversity loss. And yet this is seen as a feasible path forward and therefore acceptable. This implies the “civilization” we hope to save is one without all this. We already live in a world where only 4% of animal life by weight is wildlife – the rest being human or our domesticated livestock and pets. And we have ongoing unprecedented loss in this tiny sliver of our inheritance. Where is the hope in this techno-hopium legacy?
Where is action on the demand for power, our overconsumption, waste?
We know that 10% of our emissions are created by the fashion industry, at a time when we have massive waste and over-production of clothing. We have enough clothing for six generations. Australians purchase 56 clothing items a year on average. Reducing our consumption massively could end much of the fossil oil use from shipping and production, but we see no move in this direction.
The food sector causes 1/3 of climate change, but none of the plans deal with land use for agriculture, the privileged few eat lamb and beef, taking up huge hectares of farming land for feed stocks and grazing, and emitting methane, while the bottom twenty per cent go hungry.
Likewise, 50% of aviation emissions are created by 1% of the human population. Yet their privilege is taken as given and they show no inclination to change. Instead, they seek to influence others to join them in a bucket list party in the sky.
Economic policy of government
Governments still subsidise fossil fuels! A glaring sign of our inability to take climate change seriously. Treating the monetary economy as something that is beyond our control we are locked into growth and trade. Maybe that will change with Trump and his protectionism, but that could involve a depression and that is quite different to degrowth.
Culture of greenwash
The public are sold a lie that the system will correct itself or someone else is taking care of it – and we see new lies like nuclear and biofuels – so that growth will go on. The conclusion is drawn — no action required, that we do not need to change our lifestyles or rise up to demand effective political action.
We need to be talking about degrowth every hour of every day of every week.
About a big transformation.
And other voices will say we need to talk about “adaptation”. Some famous figures. But if we are heading in the way we think we are heading – we cant adapt. We cant adapt to metres of sea level rise and abandoning the tropics and a billion refugees by the end of the century. And even if we do spend a lot of money on “adaption”, we ned to spend a lot less if we degrow to reduce the warming.
And we aren’t going to solve problems of the world in an hour. But we need to change the way the ship is going and only by changing the aims of society – which is firmly around growth, growth, growth, are we going to see a liveable future come about.
But in essence it involves a recognition that we need less energy use to get what we all need, as humans.
So its “a planned downscaling of energy and resource use to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a safe, just and equitable way”.
What’s the other choice, this Degrowth?
We need right now to be putting in the infrastructure we need to drastically reduce our energy use, especially in the rich countries.
We need to localise food growing and manufacturing. So, we are not using a lot of energy to transport food and industrial goods. We need to recycle and re-use all scarce minerals.
We need to consume fewer industrial goods and to repair and recycle the ones we do have. We need to start this program now and to shut down the fossil fuel industry asap.
The reality (that we like to forget) is that we are in the middle of a poly-crisis.
We need a joint human effort that requires commitment.
We need to develop a willingness to give up daily routines and current expectations for a liveable future.
We need real hope, not every year worse and new extremes of heatwaves, floods, bushfires, hurricanes and droughts, pushing us further and further from a liveable planet.
Degrowth is the elephant in the room, that engineers don’t understand so can’t build on. It is not “doomism” to say that we, in the rich world:
– need to learn to focus on survival, avoiding climate tipping points, and not on growing the economy.
– need to stop the false hope of ever-increasing wealth and luxury for some, and give space to enjoy sufficiency – “Radical abundance” and some kind of sustainability.
– need less false and futuristic technological solutions promises, because in sum they no longer add up to climate safety.
Tackling Inequality world wide is essential to climate justice. We don’t really have a poverty problem, we have a distribution problem. The richest are the biggest source of emissions.
Maybe we need a Universal Basic Income (UBI)? Can we get to “radical abundance” without austerity / scarcity?
Industry support and transition is vital to cutting emissions.
Maybe we need to not just cut fossil fuel subsidies but also Scale down ecologically destructive industries.
Start with stopping advertising, cut out waste in the finance industry for the privileged but meantime protecting health and food production for instance.
Overconsumption:
As soon as the fundamental material demands of the population have been met, the economy can only grow by convincing people to buy things they do not need.
So we need to focus on the problem of reducing consumption and refocus on producing what we need. How is a different thing, but lets ask the right questions!
Over production and waste:
We are looking at the need to localise production and a circular economy. Jason Hinkel says we need to End planned obsolescence.
In the Degrowth Network we are trying to explore how we can grow more food locally, we use repair cafes, op shops, and we buy less from elsewhere, and we are generally holidaying locally.
Overwork, loneliness, caring difficulties, isolation
We need more conviviality, joy, the simple things and a better world without the destruction. How can we be in a situation now where both parents have to work to pay for the mortgage, and we seldom see our children or spend quality time with them – don’t it mean that capitalism has failed and we haven’t been getting richer over time? How can we rather, convince people to focus on working less and consuming less in order to make change. Can this make society change?
What we are actually doing in Melbourne:
This is what we are doing, and we think we need more! Talks, activism, meetups, bike rides, guerilla garden, Scottish dancing, disability support, new work patterns, dumpster diving, sharing food, chapters across the state, national zooms, degrowth library, discussion sessions, conflict mediation sessions, housing help, no-money economy , mutual aid, swap markets.”
How to find out more:
- Join our email list and you can join in our monthly fae to face meetings, our monthly zooms
- Come to our Spring Festival if you are in Melbourne, on 30th November, see our social media.
- Read! We have our own Degrowth Library or listen to podcasts. A good starter is “Less is More” by Jason Hickel.
- Join our discussions eg. On The Future is Rural. Most of us believe that we will live in the countryside close to and involved in our food production. Yet urbanisation and expansion are unquestioned! Mass urban housing expansions make no sense strategically in a carbon constrained world. So on 27 November we are hosting a discussion of all of this.
See also:
→ Green Agenda – 21 June 2024:
Renewable energy: Are optimistic scenarios feasible?
By Terry Leahy
→ Medium / The New Climate – 15 November 2024:
We Need To Talk About Degrowth: Part I – On the need for Degrowth, Post-Growth, and a New Economic Model.
“What if growth is just what governments need to fund their tax base and what their donors need to increase their investment portfolios — but it’s not what you or I need? And it’s not what a healthy planet needs? Many are starting to question growth.”
In eight engaging minutes, the video: “To Be Alive and Well; It’s Easier Than You Think” explores a nurturing and satisfying way forward that does not stress our life-giving planet.
A new paper in Nature offers yet more evidence of the immense #inequality in who contributes to climate change and breaching planetary boundaries. It's time we direct our societal and political attention to those who disproportionately cause ecological breakdown! 🌱⚖️ www.nature.com/articles/s41…
— Kristian Steensen Nielsen (@kristiansn89.bsky.social) November 14, 2024 at 7:10 PM
[image or embed]
→ The Guardian – 7 November 2024:
‘Used like taxis’: Soaring private jet flights drive up climate-heating emissions
“Analysis of 19m flights between 2019 and 2023 reveals 50% rise in emissions, condemned as ‘gratuitous waste’”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transcript of The Sustainable Hour no. 528
Antonio Guterres:
The climate time bomb is ticking. It’s time to wake up and step up.
Jingle:
The Sustainable Hour. For a green, clean, sustainable Geelong. The Sustainable Hour.
Tony:
Welcome to The Sustainable Hour. As always, we’d like to acknowledge that we’re broadcasting from the land of the Wadawurrung people. We pay tribute to their elders – past, present and those that earn that great honour in the future. We’re on stolen land, land that was never ceded, always was and always will be First Nations land. And out of the ancient wisdom that they’ve honed from nurturing both their land and their communities for millennia before their land was stolen, lies many of the answers to the climate crisis, climate and ecological crisis that we are currently facing. And we just hope that we acquire some of that wisdom because it’s never been so badly needed.
Mik:
That’s right, Tony. ‘Drill, Australia, drill! We need to join this ride! To hell with the scolds and the wimps, the haters and the losers. Drill, Australia drill!’ That’s Tim Blair, opinion editor from the Daily Telegraph, urging us here in Australia to join the Americans in drilling for more oil and gas.
Matt Canavan, who is a senator and was a former chief of staff for Senator Barnaby Joyce, wrote on social media, ‘The re-election of Trump means that we can all say what we think again. Net zero is dead.’
The genie is back out of the bottle. The genie being that there is a battle about the narrative in this country, around the world as well. And we have a federal election coming in a few months. So you watch this space, there’s a real battle about the narrative, about climate policy once again being turned into climate wars among all the candidates in politics and so on.
Sky News isn’t late to declare that Australia’s climate targets are questioned amid speculation of Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord. And the argument of Trump and his fans here in Australia is that ‘coal and gas is vital for Australia’s economic prosperity and energy security’ and so on.
And they say this at a time when we’ve just been watching Spain come out of three days of mourning after more than 200 people died in this horrendous flooding just a couple of weeks ago. But does Canavan and Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt and Trump – do they even think about the connection between the flooding events and the droughts that are happening and all the extreme weather events, tornadoes and so on, and the burning of fossil fuels? No, they don’t. They have one specific interest and that is to sell us more of their products, more of their coal and gas and so on.
But you know what? They’re going to lose out this battle, the battle about the narrative, because there’s something that has changed since Trump was president of the United States four years ago and that is that renewables are now cheaper than coal and oil and gas. Economy is going to have the last word in this battle about narratives. Trump, he is riding the wrong horse.
The green transition is happening. It’s inevitable. And it’s only a question of time before we will be laughing about Trump and the Trumpians here in Australia who are trying to hold back what’s happening, which is that the renewables are coming in strong. They’re cheaper. They’re better. They are better for our health.
And yeah, there’s just so much going on – with China now coming in. China used to be called the biggest polluter on the planet, but now they have become the undisputed global clean energy leader. I’ll round off with a quote from Christiana Figueroa, who said, ‘Clean energy technologies will continue to outcompete fossil fuels, not just because they’re healthier and faster and cleaner and more abundant, but because they undercut fossil fuels where they are at their weakest, their unsolvable volatility and inefficiency.’
And can I just say there’s one thing that you can do right now, which we should all be doing in my opinion, which is get out of Twitter. If you are on the so-called X – renamed as X by Elon Musk – get out of there. Don’t buy into supporting this Trumpian narrative by feeding this huge news machine of manipulation and lies because there is a new Twitter and it’s called Bluesky. It’s been created by one of Twitter’s original founders and it works just like Twitter, just as good. And it’s just like in the good old days without all the hatred and the bots and the trolls and misinformation. And Bluesky even has a newsfeed called GreenSky, which will help you keep up with all the news coming in the field of clean energy, climate, sustainability, and so on. So it’s out with X and in with the Bluesky. Just head off to bsky.app.
And now it’s time for some global news with Colin Mockett OAM. We are always curious to hear what you have sniffed up from around the world for us.
COLIN MOCKETT’S GLOBAL OUTLOOK:
Well, to be really honest, Mik, it’s not that different to your little rants just now. But here I go. My roundup this week begins with the Trump election in America. Considering the history of US climate policy, not many Americans now headed for the UN COP 29 climate talks in Azerbaijan would be surprised that their new president is likely to once again pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement and instead pursue policies that will further warm the planet.
The U.S. climate policy has lurched to and fro in ideological winds since 2001, when the then president, USW Bush, announced early on in his administration that the U.S. would not honour the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. That was the first global pact to cut emissions. It was partly crafted by Al Gore and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998. So in their early assessments, many international climate experts said that Trump’s election will slow, but not stop international efforts to halt global warming because most other countries recognise that it’s in their own self-interest to cut emissions.
Add to that, there’s a momentum that’s going worldwide and you don’t want to cut across that and be the outliers. If Trump follows through with his threat to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the biggest loser will be the United States. That’s a quote from Bill Hare, who’s the CEO of Climate Analytics – an international think tank. We’ve been there before. The U.S. withdrawal in the first Trump presidency did not cause the agreement to collapse, as some pundits predicted at the time.
By some estimates, Trump’s plans to promote fossil fuels could add about four billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2030. That’s about equal to the amount produced annually by the world’s 140th lowest emitting countries. said that those emissions would make it harder, but not impossible, to limit long-term global warming close to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That’s above the pre-industrial level. That’s the target of the Paris Agreement, a goal that was already in doubt before the election.
The outcome will ultimately hinge on the level of action taken by all the other countries in the next few years, and also on what the US does following the Trump presidency conclusion, he said. Even if the results at first seem a major blow to global climate action, it can’t halt the changes that are underway to decarbonise the economy and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. That’s the same person that you quoted, Christiana Figueres, former executive director of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Standing with oil and gas is the same as falling behind in a fast moving world, she said. Clean energy technologies will continue to outcompete fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the vital work happening in communities everywhere to regenerate our planet and societies will continue imbued with a new, even more determined spirit today. That’s Christiana again.
Meanwhile, in news that surprises absolutely no one, a new study this week found that carbon emissions from private jets has jumped almost 50 per cent in the last four years, with Australians ranking as one of the highest users of private jets in the world. A Communications, Earth and Environment study compiled data on 25,993 private aircraft and 18.7 million flights between 2019 and 2023, they found nearly half used for routes shorter than 500 kilometres, where train travel would have done just as well. Australia was found to be the eighth largest operator of private jets with 317 aircraft. That’s 1.22 for every 100,000 residents.
The Communications, Earth and Environment study compiled data from 25,993 aircraft and 18.7 million flights taken between 2019 and 2023. Prominent users in Australia were billionaires Anthony Pratt, Kerry Stokes, Gina Reinhart and Andrew Forrest.
Now the US was the largest user of private jets with 18,163 aircraft, followed by Brazil, Canada, Germany, Mexico and the UK. It’s something which is just, well, the Trump election really clarifies the fact that the rich have got richer and the poor are getting poorer and these little bits of data just sort of signify it.
But finally, I have a piece of better, if not good news. It happened last week in the federal court in Sydney where oil giant Santos was brought to court accused of greenwashing. The case before Justice Bridget Markovich was brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, which alleged the company engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law and Corporations Act. At the heart of the case was Santos’ plan to produce clean hydrogen that would rely heavily on carbon capture and storage technology and offsets that aren’t even available at the moment. The shareholder group said that Santos’ chief executive, Kevin Gallagher, had directed staff to produce misleading emissions figures in public documents presented to shareholders. The case is ongoing and we will continue to keep an eye on it and letting people know just what’s happening there.
We’ve also had the election results in our local elections in Geelong published. They were published on Monday of this week and they’re not good. No Greens got in anywhere in our region. We’ve taken a swing to the right with Liberals or proclaimed liberals in lead in most councils. And the stale males have won several seats from women. And finally, not just for Tony, but for all of the other people who are interested in the world’s greenest sports club, Forest Green Rovers played Maidenhead in Maidenhead at the weekend. And the result was Maidenhead won. Forest Green Rovers, four. Meaning that they remain one point behind York at the top of the English National League with Barnsley in third place. That’s three points behind the two leaders. And that is our roundup for the week.
Tony:
Today’s guests, Terry Leahy and Alex Mungle, both retired gentlemen, gentlemen of leisure – amongst many things, they’re both part of the Degrowth Network of Australia. It’s Melbourne or Naarm chapter. So Terry and Alex, welcome. Thanks for coming on today.
Alex and Terry:
Thank you for having us. Thank you.
What’s happening in the degrowth network?
Alex:
Well, we have a spring festival coming up in Coburg on the 30th of November. We have a discussion group in a couple of weeks and yesterday we ran an offers and needs market to try and cut out the money in the economy and just go straight from one person to the next person.
That’s a sample of some of the things we do. Yeah, we have this Wednesday night between six and eight, we have a national meeting of Degrowth Australia, Degrowth Network Australia. So if you look at that up on the web, you can get access to that and come along to our Zoom. New people are always welcome. So that’d be great. Yeah, we’ll put a link to those events on in the show notes.
Tony
Let’s get down to the the guts of Degrowth Australia. What’s driving that?
Alex:
Well, basically, in Degrowth Australia, we think that a growth economy is incompatible with environmental sustainability. We don’t think we can keep growing the economy. And in fact, we think in the rich countries at any rate, what we need is a massive degrowth in consumption and the use of raw materials and resources. That’s our general position. And we have different ideas about, we think that the growth economy is an intrinsic part of aspect of capitalism, that capitalism necessarily produces growth or at least attempts growth.
Terry:
And we think that some kind of post-capitalist alternative is necessary to achieve degrowth. And then in terms of what that might be, I think there are a range of opinions within the degrowth movement where a fairly unsectarian kind of easy as it goes in terms of our kind of political positions? not very, you know, cult-like at all. One way to put it is I don’t think we have a manifesto. We certainly don’t have a of, you know, commitment to any particular type of post-capitalist society, but we basically think capitalism can’t be compatible with sustainability.
Mik:
Last week we played a little clip where we tried to outline what the problem is when we talk about climate and why people aren’t getting motivated and so on. And one of the big obstacles is that a lot of people fear that getting too deep into all this stuff with renewables and with climate action and so on would be uncomfortable and expensive. So there’s that direct fear that becoming green means losing out. What’s your response to that?
Terry:
The reason we wanted to come on today was because we really wanted to talk about hope and not in a religious sense. Obviously there’s a lot of hopeless people out there after the election and thinking that’s a wrong turn. But we think the Trump era will pass like it did before.
And yes, it will make the climate crisis a hell of a lot worse, but it’s only one of many of the problems with the basic trajectory that we’ve been on for so many years. And there’s much more to it than technology will solve all problems. I’m not sure we agree with Trump, but we also don’t really agree with, was it Christina Fugueres who said clean energy tech will continue to outcompete oil and gas and that this amounts to a solution to the problems that we face and a safe landing for the climate. I mean, I think in a sort of direct response to Mik’s comment just then, we basically think that the consumer affluence of the wealthy countries is not sustainable, in a sense, so far as people are weighted to that kind of consumer affluence, then we are asking for a sacrifice. We expect people to sacrifice some of the things that they think are now necessary for the sake of a future on Earth, for human civilisation. But that’s one thing, but what we’d also be saying is that we want to create a kind of society in which there’s more social justice and there aren’t sort of people losing out at the bottom end, whether we’re talking globally and internationally or locally within Australia.
And we also think that various kinds of non-consumer pleasures, social life, entertainment, local dramatic festivals, artworks, and so there are lot of things that people can enjoy if they’re not working a ridiculous number of hours and if they’re secure in their housing and their food and where they’re living and so on that can substitute for the sort of consumer pleasures that people are forced into now as the only kind of way they can see to be happy. I’m with you all the way there Terry but what I have to say is that we have developed over the course of the last, I don’t know, 70 years maybe more, maybe 90 years since the Second World War we have developed a society that has fractured. We now have a huge gap between rich and poor, whereas it used to be a smaller gap. Now it’s acknowledged to be unbridgeable. Now how on Earth do we get from that situation to your utopian situation where that gap has to sort of disappear to get what you’re asking for? I mean I think that there’s a number of ways of looking at that.
I think that we need to do various kinds of grassroots action, like the needs and wants festivals that Alex is talking about, like community gardens, permaculture, and various sort of grassroots sort of activism of that kind to try and look after people more directly, NGO action by middle-class people donating money to deal with problems in the global South. And all of these things are necessary.
But ultimately, I mean, my own view, I think this would be shared by a lot of people in Degrowth, is we actually need an anti-capitalist revolution. We need to take the means of production, as Marxists have always called them, off that super-rich elite. I mean, they’re basically incapable of running a planet in the way that’s going to sustain human life on the planet. mean, nothing could be more disastrous than the way things are going at the moment.
And you look around you and you see people voting for Trump, da-da-da-da-da. These are kind of false solutions. We think that ultimately within the next few decades, what we’ll see is that people are more and more going, no, this is not working. We really need something more radically different from this. And we’re hopeful, if you like, that these kind of false far-right solutions are not going to get purchased in the long term. People will see that something much more drastic is required.
Mik:
So Terry and Alex, we would love to discuss with you this sort of solution plan that we started talking about last week and we’ll play the second half right now for you, which outlines, you could say, a bit of a vision for what needs to get done. And it’s a big one. It’s not an easy one either. The big question being, why is humanity not acting faster on solving the climate emergency? And then today what we’ll talk about more importantly is how do we change the situation and what is it going to require?
Orpheus:
Now, let’s look into the big hows, how we actually solve the problem, and how we move forward. Addressing the climate emergency in a democracy requires building public support, which then translates into political will and policy reform. To make meaningful progress, each step must follow a sequence that builds on the previous one, creating a shift that can ultimately drive systemic change.
Here’s how this can roll out.
1) Public awareness and education. Rebuilding trust, raising awareness, and educating the public about the reality of climate change, its causes and solutions is foundational.
How? Effective climate education should be accessible at all levels through media, schools, community programs, and workplaces. Public broadcasters play a key role in this effort. Clear, honest communication about both the risks of climate change and the real benefits of action can help counter misinformation and build a culture of responsibility. Working with trusted sources like scientists, educators, and community leaders can strengthen this message and reach a wider audience. Government-backed public awareness campaigns, along with efforts from climate NGOs and media, are essential to create a well-informed society.
In a world facing urgent environmental challenges, language is a powerful tool for shaping our response and guiding action. Words frame our perceptions and influence our decisions, making it essential to adopt a new narrative that will inspire and mobilise Australians toward a sustainable future. Australia needs a unified, positive language that shifts perspectives, fosters collective responsibility, and encourages a future-focused mindset. Through clear, constructive language, we can elevate climate awareness and empower Australians to see the transition towards climate safety as both necessary, achievable, and inevitable.
How? Changing the conversation requires a clear, inclusive, and solutions-focused approach to climate language. Media, public broadcasters, educators, and community leaders all help shape and spread this message. Media, for example, can highlight local climate solutions and make terms like the green transition part of daily life. Schools can help young Australians see their role in climate solutions while government campaigns and trusted partnerships can strengthen the message. By adopting a unified narrative like Denmark’s ‘Den Grønne Omstilling’, the green transition, we can inspire action across communities, governments and industries.
Thirdly, psychological framing. To motivate people to act, it’s crucial to reduce the psychological distance between individuals and climate breakdown. Instead of seeing it as a distant or abstract problem, people need to feel its relevance to their lives.
How? By focusing on how climate change affects people locally and personally, we can make the issue more relatable. Highlighting impacts like extreme weather, rising food costs, and health risks from pollution makes climate change relevant to jobs, homes, and futures showing the local benefits of action, such as job creation and renewable energy or health improvements from cleaner air, can help people see that climate action is both achievable and beneficial.
And fourth, building a groundswell of public demand. Once awareness and a personal sense of relevance are established, the next step is to harness public opinion to demand change. In a democracy, the voices of citizens directly influence political agendas and decisions.
How? Grassroots movements, advocacy groups, and community organisations are vital for mobilising public pressure on politicians to act on climate. Actions like petitions, demonstrations, social media campaigns, and direct outreach to lawmakers make public demand for climate policies visible. Encouraging people to join campaigns that hold political candidates accountable for their climate positions creates a powerful force that politicians cannot ignore, especially when seeking re-election.
Five, electing climate forward leaders. With public support and demand at a high, the next essential step is electing leaders who are committed to addressing the climate emergency.
How? Educating and mobilising voters during elections is crucial. Civic organisations, NGOs, and community leaders can inform voters about candidates’ climate stances and promote transparency in their commitments. Climate-focused debates and scorecards that rate candidates’ positions help ensure climate action remains a priority. In Australia, the Community Independent Movement provides strong momentum for change, pushing for integrity and truth-telling on climate action. This movement champions transparency and accountability, reflecting public demand for leaders who will genuinely address the climate crisis.
Once the right leaders are in place, the government can address climate action as a priority by creating policies that support a shift towards sustainability.
How? Elected leaders can introduce policies to phase out fossil fuels, support renewable energy, and promote green infrastructure. Policies like carbon pricing, clean technology subsidies, and stricter emissions regulations help steer the economy towards sustainability.
Government support for green technology research and partnerships with private companies can further accelerate the transition, aligning economic incentives with climate goals, and making it easier for people and businesses to go green. Seven, making sustainable alternatives accessible and affordable. For systemic change to succeed, clean alternatives must be available and affordable to all.
Governments can make green technology more accessible for low and middle income communities by providing funding and subsidies for solar power, electric vehicles, and energy efficient housing. Investing in infrastructure like expanded public transit and community solar projects supports the shift from fossil fuels. Policies like tax credits for sustainable choices and community energy co-ops make it easier for everyone to choose sustainability, fostering global cooperation.
Finally, climate change is a global issue that requires international collaboration. As countries make internal changes, they must also work together to share technology, offer financial support to developing nations, and align on emissions goals.
How? Governments can work together globally through agreements like the Paris Agreement to set climate targets. Wealthier countries can support developing nations by providing funding for clean energy and resilience measures. Programs like technology transfers and international climate funds create a global effort where every country can contribute to and benefit from the shift toward climate safety.
Those were the eight steps. By following these steps, and in this sequence, democracies can build the foundation for climate safety and sustainable change. From educating and engaging the public to enacting meaningful policies. Through a process that respects public opinion, addresses social and psychological barriers, and ultimately shifts political priorities. We can move toward a future where climate action becomes an integral part of governance and society.
No doubt it can be done. But there’s a huge challenge. Because will we have enough time?
As studies have shown, climate breakdown leads to disruptions and tensions within society that can, in turn, fuel a dangerous political shift toward authoritarianism, misinformation and conspiracy theories. This is what we are increasingly up against and also why the issue must be dealt with at emergency speed. When communities face repeated crises, whether from extreme weather events, resource shortages or economic instability,
Fear and frustration can grow, creating fertile ground for populist leaders who promise quick fixes without democratic checks and balances. These leaders exploit uncertainty, offering security through strong-handed rule while sidelining climate action or even reversing environmental protections in the name of economic stability. The risk of misinformation grows in these contexts as rapid changes and visible disasters create confusion and anxiety. Unfounded theories that deny climate science or blame disasters on scapegoats can spread easily, especially on social media. This environment erodes trust in scientific and governmental institutions and makes unified, informed action harder to achieve. If left unchecked, this misinformation can shift public opinion away from real solutions, fueling division and derailing climate policies.
This is why, along with climate action, we need a focus on building societal resilience and maintaining democratic values. Education and clear communication are essential to equip citizens with the understanding they need to interpret climate-related events accurately. task is monumental. Rescuers believe there are still bodies trapped in these cars. Governments too must stay transparent and responsive, fostering trust through open dialogues and evidence-based policies. Communities play a powerful role here, supporting initiatives that enhance local adaptation to climate impacts and promoting mutual aid. Ordinary members of the community must step up and become community leaders, leading the way. It is possible to avert a slide toward authoritarianism and misinformation, but it requires commitment from both political leaders, business leaders, and the public.
Democratic societies can withstand the pressures of climate disruption if enough of us recognise these risks and work proactively to counter them. Only by reinforcing democratic values and principles of openness, truth, trust and collaboration, and by assisting and supporting a well-informed, engaged public, will we be able to respond to the escalating climate crisis and build a resilient, climate-safe future.
Alex:
There was a critical point there which we picked up, which was the need for systemic change and how difficult that is in the context of the piece from Colin about the greenwashing by major oil and gas producers that’s going through the court at the moment. What we really need to see is a planned downscaling of energy and resource use to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a safe, just and equitable way. And that’s what degrowth is about. where we differ a little bit is that what we perceive as we’re being sold is something we call ‘techno-hopium’. So some people call it green growth, some people call it eco-modernism, but we kind of reject that as the basis for the hope that, you know, we agree is required. We all need to have hope and we need to have a culture where everyone can buy into a change that we all believe in. But, you know, when our governments are fundamentally subsidising fossil fuels to the tune of billions of dollars every year, you know, how can we really buy into that? And I think we need a cultural change.
And only then will we get the leaders to drive a technological change. So do you think it could happen the way it was described? We’re starting with the education and saying, sorry, but we need to get back to square one. Education is key. I agree that it’s cultural. You know, we’re only going to get the leaders when we change the culture. And we’re all responsible for the culture in a sense. We co-create culture.
I think I see all of this quite differently. I basically think the problems that have been identified in this are fairly intrinsic to the capitalist economy as it works in rich countries. Basically, since the middle of the 19th century, the working class has pushed for increased wage rise and rising consumption as a sort of compensation for the stress of going to work and being ordered around by a boss and everything like that. what we get is that dynamic is still playing out. So people are buying huge four-wheel drives to give themselves a sense of power and choice and freedom in a context where their daily work situation and their housing situation and all of that is massively insecure.
And part of the problem with the kind of program that you’ve been outlining is that what a large part of the community feels when they are faced with this kind of program is that this is the sort of nanny state of moralising middle class intervention to cut back on the choices that they have in their lives. And I’m inclined to think that from my research people are very divided about things so that you will get people who expect daily life to continue and their children will get a house and a car and maybe go to Europe for a holiday and then when they graduate from uni. And this is one track of thinking. The other track of thinking is like apocalyptic nightmares that we’re going to have the collapse of society due to environmental and other problems. I think we need to trade on those apocalyptic nightmares in a sense and kind of ramp them up to the point where people say we cannot trust the capitalist class anymore, we need to do something a lot more drastic.
I think we’re being let down by the leaders that we’ve got at the moment. We just see this constant movement from the climate NGOs and so forth to really not face up to the size of the problem that we’ve got and deliberately talk about the hope of you know, we’ll all drive an EV and we’ll live with a heat pump keeping us cool and warm and everything will go on fine. But meanwhile, the rest of the world is not going to be able to afford this and the real problem is affluenza that the rich are consuming vastly more in their private jets and with 1 per cent of the world’s population creating 50 per cent of aviation emissions. And that’s you, me, and everyone else on this call. But that’s not sustainable. this green growth idea doesn’t really add up to something. And Terry, you can talk about the problems with that. I think from our point of view in the degrowth movement, we have some problems with the idea of moving to 100 per cent renewable energy to replace the services, energy services we have in fossil fuels. Basically, I don’t believe that renewable energy is as cheap as fossil fuels. And I think those figures are based upon electrical energy and they’re based upon a three-day storage limit.
I think when you get a situation like in Europe where most of the winter is cloudy and overcast and there isn’t necessarily a wind blowing, you need much more serious storage than that. And that’s expensive. I mean, you can do it two ways. You can pump water up to a dam where you have to construct the dam in the first place. That’s expensive. Or you can produce hydrogen and storage as hydrogen. That’s also expensive. That’s a storage problem. And then the other problem that I’d talk about would be the minerals problem. I mean, Simon Michaud is a geologist working with the Finland government. And basically he shows that even if we were to have one generation of replacement of fossil fuel energy in electricity and in transport, we would not be able to actually get enough minerals out of the ground to do that. We’re looking at stuff like half of the mineral storage.
See, known reserves are between half and a quarter the size of requirements for zinc, lithium and graphite. So with copper, we’ve got about a 35 year supply at current rates. If we start doing electrification of everything to provide the same services we now have with fossil fuels, then we’re in a situation where we’d run out of copper smart quick. I mean, these things are all impossible.
And the problem is that we’ve been sold this alternative, which is not a real alternative. In a sense, think that the capitalist class and certainly the politicians know this is not a goer. And not only that, as they move towards this, they find that what they’re doing is actually taxing the working class and the middle class and so on to pay for these changes. We have a situation, for example, in 2000, there was 80 per cent of fossil fuel energy and then we grew the economy and in 2019, like 20 years later, we’re still using 80 per cent of fossil fuels. Why is that? It’s because for countries like China and so on that are manufacturing for the world, it’s cheaper for them to use fossil fuels than to provide renewables to kind of supply that manufacturing industry. In India, where people are starting to get cars, it’s cheaper for them to buy petrol cars and to buy EVs. This is no accident.
Mik:
Terry, you need to update your knowledge here because what you knew and what happened 20 years ago and even five years ago is not what’s happening now.
Terry:
I do not need to update my knowledge. I’ve read the latest book by Diesendorf on this stuff and it’s full of holes. There are a lot of difficult tasks for renewables where people like Diesendorf think that hydrogen is the answer, but then they admit on another page that we actually don’t know how much it costs, and it’s massively expensive.
The other problem is the extractivism which is implied by this, which is getting kicked back all around the world, like in Poland and various places.
And the other thing that relates to all this is if we continue to have a capitalist economy growing at 3 per cent of the year, in 23 years time, we double the size of the economy. None of this is remotely possible.
The danger I see of the kind of program that you’re setting out in this talk is that you can end up with a huge sense of betrayal – as this program starts to roll out and some of the consequences of it become more obvious, people feel betrayed. And what do they do then? They vote for stupid far-right parties.
Mik:
However, if I can just elaborate what I said before: In the 20 years that you talked about from 2000 till 2019, the prices of solar energy dropped 95 per cent. So solar is now costing 5 per cent of what it used to cost when we started that period, right? And that transformation keeps happening. It’s actually a reality in places in Europe to have free energy from wind energy, from solar energy, and so on. So there’s a massive drop in prices and this is happening year by year. So what we say today, it will be even cheaper in a year from here.
Alex:
I agree. I’ve got the solar panels and the battery and the EV myself. I’m not anti-technology, but the reality is that all of these technologies have added to the amount of energy use. But we have this carbon pulse going through our economy for the last generation or two, and fossil fuel use has not come down, and emissions have not come down.
And this is the year when we’re going to hit 1.5C degrees of warming. This is a serious business. We’re talking about civilisation ending, societal collapse, a billion refugees from the tropics and starvation by the end of the century. And we can’t really continue to increase our renewables use without cutting fossil fuel use.
Tony:
So where does that leave us?
Terry:
See, I mean, I basically think that the problem with consumerism is related to alienated labor. mean, labor in a market economy. The people want to compensate themselves and feel they have an entitlement to compensate themselves with consumer goods for the sacrifices they make by going to work.
And like, I like to see an economy where people where there’s no money and where people make choices to join voluntary groups and do work and give things to other people. And that would change the dynamic so that it’s not the consumers who are deciding that I want to buy a huge, you know, vast four wheel drive. It’s actually workers who are deciding whether or not that that kind of thing makes sense in the environmental terms. And if that a gift they want to be giving to the world.
Colin:
If you take the big picture, the pork eating big picture, the reason they’re driving around in vast four-wheel drives is because the fossil fuel lobbyists in federal government talk the government into cutting the taxes on large vehicles and putting a new tax on EVs, which they did and therefore it’s a
And they also then talked about, you can’t tax great big utes in any way because you need the tradies voting for you. And then they finished up by saying, by the way, if you want to win the next election, how many millions do you want? Because we’d like to donate to your party. So they get their own way. And we as consumers and voters are saying, ‘Well, look, I’m looking at all the different prices. I think I’ll buy one of these big cars because I can afford it, and it doesn’t matter that I’ve got to put lots of fuel in it because that’s in the future.’
But we know that in Australia we’ve got probably the best economy in the world for renewables. We’ve got limitless sunshine and wind and we don’t really need hydrogen. Where can you go and buy hydrogen? Every time somebody talks about hydrogen as a solution for the climate crisis, it rings alarm bells to me because I think greenwashing. Here we go, this is greenwashing.
Alex:
Yeah. Look, there will be a certain place for that, but there’s also a place for actually limiting growth. We live in a finite planet, and we need to bring down the level of overconsumption. But we’re supporting industries, like you say, with the auto industry, SUVs, and we allow people to advertise these fossil-using machines and we allow people to advertise gas, we allow people to advertise airlines, and these are all engines that destroy our climate and the livability of our future.
Once smoking was in all the movies and all the advertising, but degrowth would say, we really have to stop advertising polluting fossil fuel machines and we need to stop subsidising fossil fuel industries, and we need to scale down things like this, so that we can actually afford healthcare and supporting the poor and the disadvantaged – and support the rest of the world to survive the crash that’s coming.
Colin:
How do you do that without a revolution?
Alex:
Well, we don’t have all the answers, but we’re calling out the problems because we want to have some hope, some sense of belief in what we’re being sold. And once we lost that, we’ve lost everything.
Terry:
So we think a combination of working for the smaller environmentalist parties and doing grassroots activism… We think things like faith in suburbs and going along and spreading the degrowth message. As I said before, things like community gardens and various kinds of community activism are really important. You won’t get a political change unless you get, you know, a massive change in understanding. And that part of, you know, the program that’s been suggested is absolutely correct.
I’d just like to say something about the ALP at the moment. I mean, basically the ALP is supporting the fossil fuel industry to a degree while their climate policies are certainly better than the National Liberal Coalition.
They’re still building new coal mines and why are they doing this? Basically, they’ve had two nasty electoral shocks which are related to climate change policy. The first was the Julia Gillard shock after the climate tax debacle and then Abbott gets in. And then the second one was over the Adani mine when the Labour Party didn’t seem sufficiently strongly in favor of the Adani mine. They were just a bit ambivalent about it. That was bad enough. And what I think is important in both these cases is that the people who were voting against the Labour Party on these environmental issues, the important thing for ordinary people is to have a job and employment. And they were sold on the argument that the Adani mine was part of that job opportunity, even though obviously it was only about 300 possible jobs in it. But nevertheless, the working class voted in solidarity with the workers they thought might be deprived of a job by middle class do-gooders. And it’s very hard for the ALP to get around this. Environmentalists often tend to suggest that the problem is the ALP is being kind of pushed by big funding and big corporations and they’ve sold out and so on. I think for a party that’s trying to maintain votes and get into power, it’s really understandable why they’re doing this, much as I think it’s just suicidal and atrocious and how can they possibly do this? But I also think we need to understand why this is happening.
I think the structures of a capitalist economy make it really hard. There’s all this class antagonism between the working class and the professional class, and obviously, the capitalist class is pushed into making a profit. Any individual firm which doesn’t actually try to maximise a profit goes out of business. These are very structural problems, and they impact on the way people make political choices.
Tony:
Terry and Alex, it’s fair to say that there’s a whole lot of assumptions that we kind of mindlessly wander through that’s caused the problems and maybe if we examine more of those assumptions, like: why do we have everyone have to have full-time jobs? Why does everyone have to do this? Why does everyone have to do that? Why do we have to consume as much as we do? Why do we have to use as much energy as we do? That’s bringing it back to individual decisions and then group decisions that come out of that. Is that part-way to getting where we need to be?
Alex:
Yeah, absolutely. How can we be in a situation now where both parents have to work to pay for the mortgage and not see their children or spend quality time with them? What kind of world have we created? And if that keeps on going in the same direction, what’s going to happen? But neither of us want to be part of a future that doesn’t involve dancing and singing. A bit more joy and the simple things in life is central to degrowth.
Climate200 Instagram video:
Imagine you’re an American today. You’d be wondering, could I have done more? With the federal election as close as March next year, and Peter Dutton already importing Trump-style tactics into Australian politics, let’s not be left wondering here.
Climate 200 supported community independence did something hopeful and historic at the last federal election in Australia. We saw the biggest revival of democratic participation in modern Australian history impel seven new climate-focused independents into our parliament.
Since then we’ve seen some big steps forward on climate integrity and gender equity. But everything that’s been achieved could easily be wiped out. On the trajectory of national polling, Peter Dutton is on track to be PM. Like Trump, he’s supported by the fossil fuel industry, led by coal billionaire Gina Reinhart. Gina’s also a big supporter of Donald Trump. She was at his election night party in the US.
More independents can be elected to our parliament. We’ll have a race to the top on climate integrity and gender equity policy. Together we can forge a new path. One where truth and facts matter and where people actually participate in their democracy.
But we have to fight for it. We have to stand up and do something. Now is the time to act. If there’s a community independent group near you, now’s the time to get involved and volunteer. Now’s the time to donate, either to Climate 200 or directly to your local community independent campaign. Don’t be in a position on election day in 2025 where you wake up and ask yourself, ‘Could I have done more?’
Mik: (54:08)
That’s all we could fit in one Sustainable Hour, the first of its kind after the Trump era, once again, is back. Terry and Alex, a good note to take us out of the hour?
Alex:
Well, come along to the Spring Festival. There’ll be a lot more of that singing and dancing and merriment and like-minded people in Coburg. At the end of the number 1 tram line, check our socials for more details or join us online for a discussion.
Terry: The 30th of November.
Alex:
That’s right. Put that date in your diary.
Tony:
And lots of suggestions, real suggestions as to the way forward will come up and lots of connections and people talking about the sort of world that we want to see, rather than the one that’s been foisted on us at the moment.
Alex:
That’s right. If you can’t make it, just email degrowthnetwork@proton.me and you can get into our email lists and we’ll spread the joy.
Mik:
Be joyous and be connected.
Alex:
Yes! Love it!
Terry:
Yeah. Terrific. Thank you so much for having us on your show.
SONG:
Michael Franti: ‘Brighter Day’
Kamela Harris: (58:30)
It is a fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny. And anyone who seeks the public trust must honour it.
To the young people who are watching, it is okay to feel sad and disappointed, but please know it’s going to be okay. On the campaign, I would often say, when we fight, we win. But here’s the thing, here’s the thing. Sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn’t mean we won’t win. That doesn’t mean we won’t win. The important thing is don’t ever give up. Don’t ever give up. Don’t ever stop trying to make the world a better place. You have power. You have power. And don’t you ever listen when anyone tells you something is impossible because it has never been done before.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Events we have talked about in The Sustainable Hour
Events in Victoria
The following is a collation of Victorian climate change events, activities, seminars, exhibitions, meetings and protests. Most are free, many ask for RSVP (which lets the organising group know how many to expect), some ask for donations to cover expenses, and a few require registration and fees. This calendar is provided as a free service by volunteers of the Victorian Climate Action Network. Information is as accurate as possible, but changes may occur.
Petitions
→ List of running petitions where we encourage you to add your name
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Live-streaming on Wednesdays
The Sustainable Hour is streamed live on the Internet and broadcasted on FM airwaves in the Geelong region every Wednesday from 11am to 12pm (Melbourne time).
→ To listen to the program on your computer or phone, click here – or go to www.947thepulse.com where you then click on ‘Listen Live’ on the right.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Podcast archive
Over 500 hours of sustainable podcasts.
Listen to all of The Sustainable Hour radio shows as well as special Regenerative Hours and Climate Revolution episodes in full length.
→ Archive on climatesafety.info – with additional links
→ Archive on podcasts.apple.com – phone friendly archive
Receive our podcast newsletter in your mailbox
We send a newsletter out approximately six times a year. Email address and surname is mandatory – all other fields are optional. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Find and follow The Sustainable Hour in social media
Facebook: www.facebook.com/TheSustainableHour → All podcast front covers
Instagram: www.instagram.com/TheSustainableHour
Twitter/X: www.twitter.com/SustainableHour
NB: we have stopped using X/Twitter after it was acquired (hijacked) by climate deniers. Instead, we have moved to BlueSky: www.bsky.app/profile/thesustainablehour.bsky.social
YouTube: www.youtube.com/c/thesustainablehour
Great if you’ll share the news about this podcast in social media:
→ Facebook – BlueSky – Instagram – LinkedIn
→ Podcasts and posts on this website about the climate emergency and the climate revolution
→ The latest on BBC News about climate change
Sharing solutions that make the climate safer and our cities more liveable