The People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast

A slightly surreal episode, not the first, won’t be the last, as co-hosts Stuart and William tackle today's listener question, which is from George, in Upton, Oxfordshire, England. “Actress Kate Winslet has stated she feels the government should tighten up  the online bill in the UK, to protect vulnerable users. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver ran a campaign to improve school dinners. Then there was the Blackpool Football Club player who came out and announced he was gay last year. Should those with influence use their voice to raise issues, or stay quiet? Those that dislike them, rarely seem to listen to anything they say anyway. Maybe even turning away from issues because of who has raised them?!” William raises, right off the bat, how he and Stuart know someone who detests Jamie Oliver. Stuart tells the story that the person referred to was quite happy to accept bad school dinners for his kids, just so he didn’t have to say that Jamie Oliver was right about the appalling state of them. William points out that you often see a person’s true motivation by presenting them with silence, as they are often expecting a reaction to what they’re saying if its slightly controversial. Stuart discusses that if you are going to use your voice to influence others, you need to choose your battles wisely. It also needs to be at the right time. Those that dislike certain celebrities rarely listen to what they have got to say, which needs to be dismissed, you just need the critical mass to absorb the message. It’s not about speaking up, it’s not about staying quiet, it’s about speaking up and staying quiet at the right time. Sometimes silence says more than speaking. Stuart further raises that different audiences need different role models, different messages, different language, different vocabulary, different approaches. There isn’t anybody who shouldn’t speak up. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

During this episode Stuart and William talk about the WOW Effect / ⁠Wildman On Wheels⁠ where we are raising £24,000 to help fund two wheelchairs enabling Stuart to continue bringing nature into the daily lives of others, sharing a lifetime of outdoor wisdom. Here is a link to that fundraiser: ⁠https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/wildmanonwheels⁠ Through the Wow Effect (Wildman On Wheels) we aim to show that even if you have a green space you can enjoy within 15 minutes of where you live, is that space really accessible if you are in a wheelchair or have another disability and can't get in when you arrive? We want to reframe the understanding of accessible countryside. So on to today's listener question sent in by Francis, in Blewbury, Oxfordshire, England, and Stuart and William set about answering it. “The inner voice that we all have, is what it says fact?” Stuart raises right off the bat that the inner voice says isn’t fact, and that opinions are just passing momentary consciousness. It’s not fact, it is just your opinion at that point in time. So, if the inner voice is a series of thoughts, and a set of electrical impulses, can there ever be a time when what we think can ever be interpreted as fact? He further raises that we get confused with when our brain is processing stuff, and then assuming that that it is a good barometer of what we think, and we feel at any given point. In the long run little of that really means anything. It is however the actions that come from these thoughts and processes that can be damaging or positive, it's up to us. William goes on to say that at all times of the day, he believes, your brain is trying to make sense of the world around you, and it tries this by thought, so he agrees with Stuart that the inner voice isn’t fact. William always tries to take his inner thoughts as another person talking to him. He can then choose whether he engages with it, or not. Sometimes it is a good idea to allow these thoughts to flow through you, as they can be irrelevant, they can be harmful. Stuart concludes by asking are we stuffed because we’re trying to bring meaning to something that isn’t really there? So maybe there is no meaning to the inner voice? He does go on to say that the inner voice should not be totally ignored. It comes back to the balance we should seek in our lives. Balance and measure. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Todays listener question for Stuart and William to explore has been set by Cedric, in East Hagbourne, Oxfordshire, England “Who is in charge of the internet, or is it multiple players?” William believes that nobody is in charge of the internet, and that the internet is a mesh of networks, with gatekeepers, for example the internet providers.  William marvels though at the fact the internet allows seamless communication. Stuart on the other hand believes that someone invented it, people own aspects of it, certain people manipulate it in certain ways, but questions who’s in charge? Hasn’t it gone beyond ownership now?  Stuart asks where the internet is, and what exactly is it? What freaks him out is there are massive cables under the ocean, but with the internet becoming more and more wireless, will all those cables currently in use be dumped, and just left to litter the ocean floor? It’s the same disposal habits over and over again. William’s action for the episode is to think about how you use the internet, and Stuart’s is to take your rubbish home with you. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Yet another question for co-hosts Stuart and William to explore today, sent in by regular listener Molly, from Oxford, England “Now King Charles 3rd has to talk, behave and guide from a non-political place, will all his good work dealing with the climate and ecological crisis be lost? Or were plans put in place for Charles’s work to continue once he became King? Maybe though you feel that although King Charles has to step away from some of the good causes he was involved with during his time as Prince Of Wales, he may now be able to provide a new space for people to come together and discuss the big issues, which could be how he makes the role as King his own, and differentiates his reign from his mothers?”   Stuart raises that King Charles, now he’s monarch, has to in theory, guide in a non-political way, which maybe he didn’t do before. He seems like a person who thinks about things on a pretty deep level. Stuart feels it's perhaps a shame for him to come to the throne so late in his life. There’s a concern for some people that all his work and influence dealing with the climate and ecological crisis could be lost? Stuart points out that though he’s stepping away from good causes, he’s 75 years old, so was most likely already stepping away anyway. Stuart feels that with Charles being king, he can potentially take these subjects to places maybe other monarchs haven’t? For example he recently spoke about the Windrush generation and had a celebration about that. You wouldn’t necessarily have seen this during Elizabeth’s time. Or would you? William points out the obvious aspect that he’s a very different monarch to his Mother because we know him better than we did Elizabeth. We’ve heard a lot more about what he’s thinking, so William asks how much will be diluted because Charles is now monarch? William mentions that it’s going to be a long time till we have a young monarch again. An action Stuart comes up with is that everything, whatever it is, should be bigger than just one person. It is a weak point if it isn’t. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Trigger Warning: The topic suicide is discussed in this episode. If this is a subject that you find difficult to listen to, then this might not be the episode for you right now. The second part of this particular episode will be released exclusively on our Patreon page for our Earth Hero and Beyond Stereotype backers. On 5th of October 2022 we released Leons Law [TW] followed by Taking His Life [TW] on February 14th 2023. In the February episode Stuart and William discussed the following question from Alex in Poland: “Not listened to your podcast in a long long time, but nice to see you are still going. I see I’ve got a lot of listening to catch up on. Could you discuss the serious subject of male suicide and its potential hidden threat?” That followup episode prompted a listener of the podcast to contact us as they expressed concerns about the handling of the sensitive topic of male suicide. The listener felt that the episode lacked sensitivity and could be harmful to those dealing with the discussed issues.  In this bonus episode, Stuart and William, with the listener’s feedback in mind, reexamine the Taking His Life episode. As they always say in every episode, they’re not experts, but two people who aren’t afraid to express their opinions, and also to have those opinions challenged and changed. For this episode Stuart and William were also joined by Oxford University Crankstart student intern Suzi Darrington, who shares her thoughts on the original episodes, and how Stuart and William handled the subject. If you like to find out more information about this subject, here is a list of online resources that you may find helpful: Calm ⁠https://www.thecalmzone.net/⁠ David Kessler ⁠https://grief.com/⁠ Global Retreat Centre ⁠https://www.globalretreatcentre.org/⁠ The Oxford Mindfulness Foundation ⁠https://www.oxfordmindfulness.org/⁠ Mind ⁠https://www.mind.org.uk/⁠ Rethink ⁠https://www.rethink.org/⁠ Self-Compassion ⁠https://self-compassion.org/⁠ Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide ⁠https://uksobs.org/⁠ Zero Suicide Alliance ⁠https://www.zerosuicidealliance.com/ What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

In the context of large organisations like the FA and major event organisers, how can we differentiate between genuine environmentally responsible actions, and the selective use of data to create a facade of carbon neutrality? Co-hosts, Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, along with a special guest who's gracing the ‘listeners' chair for the last time (for now), Oxford University Crankstart student, Suzi Darrington. To get in touch with Suzi you can find her on LinkedIn. The inspiration for today's discussion comes from the following question, posed by Mary in Gorse Hill, Swindon, Wiltshire: “The Football World Cup in 2022 held in Qatar, was said by the FA to be the most carbon neutral championship ever. Running on solar power and having electrified transport in the area seems to have been the foundation of their calculation. What about all the wider businesses servicing this event? Were they carbon neutral or was this pushed under the carpet? For example, were the hotels used by fans run on sustainable grounds? What about all the flights getting fans there across the world?  I’ve heard though they didn’t factor in all the elements involved in running the event, rather they cherry picked the data to falsely make it look like we were moving in the right direction. I also heard one pundit say the reality was this was the most carbon impactful event ever run by humanity, outside of wars. Are we having the wool pulled over our eyes in the pursuit of carbon neutrality?” The discussion pivots to the façade of carbon neutrality maintained by large entities like the FA. Stuart questions how we can truly discern whether their actions are environmentally responsible amidst fierce competition. William chimes in, questioning whether the carbon footprint of constructing stadiums for events like the Qatar World Cup was even considered. Drawing from personal experiences, William and Suzi shine a light on how these organisations often cherry-pick data to paint a greener picture than reality. Stuart, ever the sceptic, wonders if we're all falling prey to deception in the pursuit of carbon neutrality. During this episode Stuart and William talk about the WOW Effect / ⁠Wildman On Wheels⁠ where we are raising £24,000 to help fund two wheelchairs enabling Stuart to continue bringing nature into the daily lives of others, sharing a lifetime of outdoor wisdom. Here is a link to that fundraiser: ⁠https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/wildmanonwheels⁠ Through the Wow Effect (Wildman On Wheels) we aim to show that even if you have a green space you can enjoy within 15 minutes of where you live, is that space really accessible if you are in a wheelchair or have another disability and can't get in when you arrive? We want to reframe the understanding of accessible countryside. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Join hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, along with Oxford University Crankstart student Suzi Darrington, in her penultimate appearance in the listener’s chair, in a thought-provoking episode that dips heavily into philosophy. The trio delve into the following question posed by listener Jon from Cowley, Oxford England: “Too many people seem to be focusing on growth as the pathway out of the downturn in many of the world economies, but that seems to have its limits. All solutions do though don’t they?  For example the UK government has been offering sections of the community financial support to help with increasing heating and cost of living bills, but this is short termism and just plugging the gap with a sticking plaster losing its adhesion. Surely it's better to insulate peoples homes so they don’t need as much energy to heat them in the first place, instead of the population using more and more energy unchecked, and then trying to sustain that? Societal aspirations alongside need to be simpler though, and instead of us feeling it's our right to own a house, have a posh car, have expensive holidays, and live more and more in a disposable way if we so wish.  We need to stop the self talk of having and consuming less being considered a retrograde step. We need to change our collective value set and just strive for what we really need, the rest is a distraction. To keep striving, unchecked, means our lives need more capital to sustain it, so if we had more sustainable aspirations instead we’d all be more resilient to the ups and downs of the economy, and be able to support the most vulnerable better. Perpetual growth isn’t the holy grail, and one isn’t part of the Anti Growth Coalition just by looking at alternatives.  I’m not saying we should go back to living in trees or becoming fully nomadic again, but by mixing how the indigenous cultures of the world live, and our own culture, I’m sure we can find the best of both worlds, without losing any of the cultures. By living smarter might bring about growth and higher profits but we reject that for perpetual growth, but it would be more likely to be sustainable growth and profits”. Stuart and William approach the topic with their signature candidness, discussing the limitations of growth on a planet with finite resources. As Suzi points out though, the pursuit of growth has led to both improved living standards and increased inequality. Suggests that perhaps growth has run its course, that potentially we’re done with what growth has offered us. The discussion touches on diverse perspectives, from the aspiration culture to the potential for a more equitable society. The conversation evolves into a debate about the viability of equalising society when those in power are invested in maintaining their status. Can long-term solutions thrive in a world of short-term political cycles? The hosts reflect on actionable steps for change, emphasising the importance of valuing experiences over possessions, and asking critical questions before making purchases. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Join hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, as they dive into a mind-bending discussion with guest Suzi Darrington, an Oxford University Crankstart student, who takes a seat in the listener's chair for this intriguing episode. The trio delve deep into the surreal world of conspiracy theories, triggered by a thought-provoking question from listener Molly in Oxford, England, who’s question is as follows: “Do you think the fashion for conspiracy theories is getting out of hand and what drives that? I see there is a conspiracy campaign stating that the Manchester Arena bombings were staged. With no-one killed and all the injured actually acting. I see one guy who was paralysed in the attack is being targeted on Twitter, with someone even filming him to try and prove it's all make believe. This led to victims being targeted by trolls and stalkers who buy into the conspiracy bollocks, and it could easily escalate with peoples lives being threatened. Maybe this whole existence thing is a scam though, maybe Twitter is all an illusion, maybe this podcast is a figment of our imagination, maybe the world is flat and we are being ruled by Aliens, and maybe those idiots who believe in conspiracy theories are just computer generated players in a childish computer game being played by aliens who live at the centre of the Sun? Sorry, feeling sarcastic!!! People have access to alternative media now and want something away from the mainstream. Does that open the vulnerable up to weird conspiracy suggestions, even if they think they are strong minded. I think this conspiracy fashion reveals that biologically humanity hasn’t evolved much at all for thousands of years. We might be evolving technology wise, but intellectually I despair”. In this episode, the hosts examine the ever-growing influence of conspiracy theories in today's world. Suzi kicks things off by noting how these theories are finding a foothold in mainstream discourse. She explores the correlation between the rise of conspiracy theories and the pay-for-privileges trend on Twitter. This, she suggests, amplifies these ideas, creating a deceptive illusion of widespread belief. William contributes by highlighting the role of YouTube's algorithm in perpetuating the popularity of topics like flat earth theory. Stuart shares his personal YouTube experience, puzzling over the algorithm's mysterious connections—or lack thereof—between recommended content and his interests. Suzi draws parallels to the past, recounting the Gamergate phenomenon where gaming content led young boys into misogynistic content. The episode unpacks how such content acts as a gateway to more extremist ideologies, often fueled by the 'manosphere' and the cult of alpha males. Stuart raises a critical point: can the entire blame be placed on algorithms? William concurs, highlighting the longstanding existence of conspiracy theories. As the hosts navigate these complex topics, they analyse how these theories can drive wedges in societies, and prey on the susceptible. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Step into the latest episode of the podcast as co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow are once again joined by Oxford University Crankstart student Suzi Darrington. They unpack the intricacies of sustainable practices and distribution in the context of a fascinating listener question from Trevor at Wood Farm, Oxford, England. Trevor’s question is: “I see a company has popped up in The Cotswolds that recycles fishermen's nets etc. Would it be more sustainable if this popped up on the coast somewhere?” Stuart kickstarts the debate by spotlighting the complex web of sustainability. He highlights how the carbon footprint is associated with transporting products inland, and challenges the notion of solely focusing on the company's location. William chimes in, expanding on Stuart's observation, suggesting that for sustainability to thrive, these recycling facilities would need to be present in every coastal port. He introduces the concept of carbon-neutral distribution and explores how controlling the movement of goods could revolutionise sustainability efforts. Suzi lends her voice to the discourse, advocating a balanced view of sustainability. She praises the positive impact of any recycling initiative and highlights the significant volume of waste that isn't currently being recycled. Stuart turns his attention to the mathematical side of sustainability, suggesting that as time passes, if this can’t be done at every fishing port, an inland location might lead to reduced transportation emissions due to its equidistant centralised nature. William Mankelow draws parallels between sustainable distribution in this context and the carbon emissions associated with the last leg of supermarket shopping. Suzi urges listeners not to overstate transportation's carbon impact in the grand scheme of things. She highlights that while transportation does play a role, other industries have far more damaging consequences.  William raises that this company should  be applauded for existing in the first place, which on the whole Suzi and Stuart agree with.  What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Oxford University Crankstart Intern Suzi Darrington, is once again in the Listeners Chair. This is the fourth of eight episodes where she’ll reside in that seat. Many say we bounce around subjects on this podcast, but you listeners guide us in the direction you want us to take the conversations, with the questions you send. Most come back to the environment, although it's not always obvious. The podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Steve in Bredbury, Stockport, Greater Manchester, England, is back with another question: “How can we find a solid economic future without destroying the ecosystems on which we rely? Hospitals are really struggling with the current model that just isn’t working. I heard one trust that runs hospitals in Bournemouth and Poole has seen their energy costs rise from 4m last year to a projected 14 million next year. Should bodies like hospitals be supported outside of the economic systems we rely on, or is it impossible to do that, with the outside still actually being within the system?” Suzi believes we should have an economy designed with people and environment in mind, rather than for just profit. This should be the foremost purpose of the economy. A donut style economy is designed to make us happy rather than to make profit. It’s designed within the planet’s boundaries. She feels that for real change to happen, people’s attitudes need to change, as many are living the neo liberal lie, believing that problems will sort themselves out. Suzi brings up inelastic goods, which are items people need to live, such as water, or fuel for their vehicles. Then wonders if there’s a split between the younger and older generations, where the former are more sympathetic to the cause, whereas the older generation cling to the idea that the free market’s hand will sort everything out? She isn’t trying to make a blanket statement here though that young people get it and older people don’t. Suzi says most people think the NHS is a great thing, even though it’s currently struggling, and wouldn’t want a private solution. Though it isn’t unimaginable that the whole system could change completely. William raises how a hospital is a vital service that everyone should have universal access to, that should be funded more centrally. Certain services, like the NHS and railways, should be run outside of these systems, as they are an amenity for everyone. Stuart mentioned we discussed the donut economy in a past episode. Here’s a link to that concept https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ A donut economy is a very good idea, however, it doesn’t give an agreed clear and defined pathway yet to where we want to end up. There’s a meeting in Oxford in September 2023 by the Oxfordshire Donut Economy Collective, aiming to address that though. More details here https://www.oxfordshiredoughnut.org.uk/ Is it a dream to think hospitals can be funded outside of the usual systems? Is there an alternative just for the medical profession? He mentions his grandfather always said that none of the essential services should be privately owned as you’re then just held to ransom. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like discussed? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠, support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Crankstart Intern Suzi Darrington from Oxford University, who's with us for six weeks, is in the Listeners Chair. This is the third of eight episodes where she will reside in that seat. Listener Heather in Ablington, Wiltshire, England, sent in the following question for discussion today: “Some companies are suggesting climate protesters should actually go and work for them and help them be more sustainable, which is what many companies say they want to be. Is this an honest attempt at bringing in fresh energy and ideas to improve internal sustainability, or a cynical attempt at silencing protest?” Suzi believes it's a cynical effort to stifle protest. For instance, if someone opposes the fossil fuel industry and is invited by someone within that sector to collaborate for improvement, it undermines the initial stance that the industry should cease to exist. Moreover, suggesting that protestors' actions have minimal impact, and that joining the protested company would be more effective, often comes across as insincere. Companies frequently don't follow through on such offers, merely creating noise. Hiring individuals capable of creating real change, who are likely more skilled than protesters, would be more meaningful. Suzi also delves into how protesters lobby governments for regulations on these companies, as opposed to relying on the free market. The free market, driven solely by profit, won't address social and environmental concerns. Suzi questions if a global agreement on regulations is necessary, as shifting a company to another country due to regulatory disagreements isn't always straightforward. She introduces an action: reevaluating our perception and dialogue about protestors. Is the inconvenience they cause comparable to the existential threat of climate change? William notes protesters' varied backgrounds and the risk of internal disruption if they infiltrate organizations. He discusses legislative vulnerabilities. Companies seek lax regulations abroad if local ones are restrictive. Suzi agrees. William questions global legislation. Stuart states that in some industries it is a cynical attempt, but can’t a polluting industry be allowed to become sustainable? If so, why wouldn’t it do that by employing people that were formally protesters? Stuart is playing devil’s advocate in this episode. He suggests there’s room to bring in fresh blood to make all these industries sustainable, and shouldn’t the most polluting companies be allowed to adapt, or should we be getting rid of them? There are protesters out there that are calling for the fossil fuel industries to end now, when some of those companies could alter what they sell, as well as already having the infrastructure and staff we need to make the mass transitions we need. Stuart, William and Suzi all agree when it comes to the fossil fuel industry, there needs to be a serious reduction. Will we ever reach a point where we won’t have a fossil fuel industry though? What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Do you enjoy photography? Did you know that today, the 19th August, is World Photography day? The primary objective of the day is to spark positive transformations globally, fostering connections among individuals and promoting awareness through the powerful medium of photography. You can find out more, and how to get involved yourself through the following website: https://www.worldphotographyday.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Crankstart Intern Suzi Darrington from Oxford University, with us for 6 weeks, is in the Listeners Chair. This is the second of 8 episodes where she'll reside in that seat. Today's listener question from Ash in Icomb, Gloucestershire, England reads, “I read that the clothing industry produces 10% of the world's carbon emissions, and some say this is more than the combined totals of the shipping and aviation industries. Which industry should we be focusing on to combat man's impact on the climate?” William raises the question of who controls the switches behind processes propping up all industries? He feels having read this question and explored it through the conversation here, an action we can all take is to consume less throughout all aspects of life. Suzi brings up that there are higher polluting industries, such as fossil fuel industries. She raises that the area in our lives we can all make what at least feels like a tangible difference is the clothing industry, because we have control over the clothes we buy, and the things we consume in general. She feels fast fashion is really bad for the environment, and discusses that the younger generations have partial responsibility when it comes to fashion, as they’re the group that consume most, as it’s part of who they are, and it’s also a time of figuring out who they are. Stuart, on the other hand, thinks we all need to get our houses into order and brings the conversation back to the question by stating that we need to focus on all industries, but the effort in certain industries needs to be higher. The key industries include fashion, energy production, the aviation industry, and maybe you can think of more. Stuart talks about an article about the “right to drive” which he contests as it isn’t exactly a right if we are tested and given permission to do it. He also wonders why people want the right to do it when there's so much congestion and legislation around it.  Stuart, William and Suzi then get into a conversation about the idiosyncrasies of the aviation industry, including empty flights and private planes. During this episode Stuart and William talk about the WOW Effect / Wildman On Wheels where we are raising £24,000 to help fund two wheelchairs enabling Stuart to continue bringing nature into the daily lives of others, sharing a lifetime of outdoor wisdom. Here is a link to that fundraiser: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/wildmanonwheels Through the Wow Effect (Wildman On Wheels) we aim to show that even if you have a green space you can enjoy within 15 minutes of where you live, is that space really accessible if you are in a wheelchair or have another disability and can't get in when you arrive? We want to reframe the understanding of accessible countryside. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Crankstart Intern Suzi Darrington from Oxford University, who's with us for 6 weeks, is in the Listeners Chair. This is the first of 8 episodes where she will reside in that seat. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. We don’t talk about the countryside as much as we used to as listener questions take us off into all sorts of different areas that are all worth considering. Today's listener's question, from Peter in Ostergotland, Sweden, led to a conversation around what is it to be Russian as it is a very vast country, with a lot of different ethnicities? Behind it all though isn’t it true that ultimately we’re all the same? Peter’s question runs as follows: “Putin, the President of Russia drafted loads of male reservists to help in the Ukrainian war, yet it seems large amounts were targeted through this process amongst the minority groups in some far flung parts of Russia. Is this a hidden technique and a hidden form of ethnic cleansing within his own country, with the aim to assimilate everyone to look, sound and behave like he wants, who won’t rebel. Or is this a valid recruitment process?” William feels that Putin was recruiting people from further away as they are more remote from the Ukrainians. This idea came from what he’d read about how the fighting during the 1st World War became less intense after the Christmas truce, with both sides meeting each other and realising they were similar. If you know who your enemy is, you’re less likely to want to fight them. William feels we should all investigate the whole idea of what far flung means, as the phrase has been brought up a few times in this episode. He also raises that the conflict in Ukraine is still seen as a special military operation in Putin’s eyes, it is not seen as a war. Suzi thinks that any kind of conflict does pick out minority groups. People with more power can find ways to avoid being drafted, whereas those with less power, and minority groups fall into this category, find it harder to avoid being sent into conflict. She raises the question of whether the Russians in the east are less likely to assimilate than western Russians, and that maybe it is easier for Putin to commit people to conflict that are so far away from him? Stuart points out that maybe we’re assuming that Putin has an agenda, maybe it is more that Russia is a vast country, and he needs to recruit from these far flung areas of the country? Stuart mentions that Russia is such a vast country that you are always going to get rebels, because it is uncontrollable. He also raises a potential void in connection between the Russian and Ukrainian people. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Should the UK monarchy consider promoting women within its ranks for a more consensual and relatable image? Is the slimming down of the monarchy just an illusion, or a genuine effort towards a more inclusive future? In this off the cuff episode, co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow dive headfirst into a thought-provoking listener question sent in by Mia from Western Australia. Mia’s question is:  “Great podcast guys. Even though I don’t listen to often, when I do, I slip straight back in and get where you are coming from. Your podcast is like an old pair of comfortable slippers. Having a Queen seems more consensual than having a King, so the predicted slimming down of the UK monarchy needs to potentially factor in having some strong powerful women within its ranks, so as to be relatable and maintain wider relevance.  It seems like old and middle aged men are going to have the role of monarch, unless young Prince George has a female heir. It's strange not having a female monarch as since 1837 we’ve only had a male monarch for 52 years as the other 134 we had a Queen. We’ve lost a Motherly figure, that happened to be a Queen, and that makes a transition to a male monarch harder for some, so the female influence needs factoring into Charles’s reign in my view”. The discussion between Stuart and William centres around the future of the UK monarchy, and the potential benefits of having strong and powerful women within its ranks. With the recent transition to King Charles,your co-hosts explore the concept of a female monarch being more consensual and relatable. They also ponder whether having a female monarch is the only way to introduce a positive female influence within the monarchy. They consider the possibility of having female presence around the leader, which could be equally significant in shaping the institution's image. During this episode Stuart and William talk about the WOW Effect / Wildman On Wheels where we are raising £24,000 to help fund two wheelchairs enabling Stuart to continue bringing nature into the daily lives of others, sharing a lifetime of outdoor wisdom. Here is a link to that fundraiser: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/wildmanonwheels Through the Wow Effect (Wildman On Wheels) we aim to show that even if you have a green space you can enjoy within 15 minutes of where you live, is that space really accessible if you are in a wheelchair or have another disability and can't get in when you arrive? We want to reframe the understanding of accessible countryside. What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com We like to give you an ad free experience, so be assured, that will never happen. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends ⁠https://podfollow.com/the-peoples-countryside-environmental-debate-podcast/view⁠ , support our work through Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠ or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message