The People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast

Stuart and William are taking a break over Christmas and New Year and are offering an opportunity to relisten to an important episode in the back catalogue of this podcast.  Stuart picked this episode as he feels it’s good to listen back to this particular one with fresh ears, and that is also our second most listened to episode ever. 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. 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. 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

Stuart and William are taking a break over Christmas and New Year and are offering an opportunity to relisten to an important episode in the back catalogue of this podcast. William chose this particular classic as he felt that the subject of E Waste is important, and he likes how it demonstrates the format of this podcast. Him and Stuart can begin discussing one subject, and end up somewhere completely different by allowing the conversation to meander and breath. 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. 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. 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

Co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow explore thought-provoking questions sent in by listeners on a wide variety of subjects, which they discuss, chew over, analyse, break down, and sometimes even debate. We like to give you an ad-free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. In this episode, Alivia from Ridgway, Illinois, USA, sparks a fascinating discussion, with her question: "What do you think could be the next dominant species after humans, or is it impossible to tell?" Stuart and William take a balanced view between ethics and knowledge, delving into the complexities of predicting the next dominant species. William argues that it's impossible to determine the future, drawing parallels with the unpredictability of human emergence after the dinosaur extinction event. Stuart, on the other hand, posits that insects, particularly ants, could be the contenders for the next dominant species. Your hosts explore the distinction between dominance and impact, considering the environmental influence of both humans and insects. They grapple with the "what if" scenario of humanity disappearing overnight and contemplate the unpredictable evolution of life on Earth. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 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 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. 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

Welcome to The People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast, where co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow delve into the pressing questions sent in by listeners. In this special episode, we join forces with The LOAF Podcast, hosted by Lukas Seifert and Oliver Walsh, to tackle the following crucial question sent in by Rory from Darwin, Australia: “The world has an opportunity to reverse human caused climate change, so why doesn't it?” Stuart and William kick off the discussion by questioning the feasibility of reversing human-caused climate change, highlighting the historical carbon impact spanning over 150 years. Stuart reflects on the psychological and biological aspects of our species, emphasising the need for intergenerational thinking. The conversation pivots to the importance of unity among humans, as William argues against the prevalent "us and them" mentality. Stuart proposes that a shift in mindset among business leaders and politicians towards long-term thinking could reshape policies and priorities. On the other side, Lukas and Oliver from the LOAF Podcast, explore the deceptive comfort provided by greenwashing and superficial environmental efforts. They shed light on the socio-political challenges hindering global environmental initiatives, including the fossil fuel industry's influence on political narratives. 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. 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. 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

Welcome to another episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. Co-hosts, Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, delve into a thought-provoking question, sent in by Gavin from Grove,Oxfordshire, England. Gavin raises concerns about the environmental impact of artificial turf, quoting conflicting statements about its effects on the environment. His question is as follows: “I’ve heard one commentator say "Fibres from artificial grass make up 15 percent of plastic pieces found in samples of seawater near Barcelona". I heard another commentator say “In the desert many homeowners have switched to artificial turf as a “green” alternative to real grass. Artificial turf has helped to conserve millions of gallons of water in the desert”. Should it be banned? That is debatable, as there are two sides to every coin. I’m just playing the devil's advocate here. We have to be careful not to demonise things that do not fit our agenda. Others could argue that artificial turf is good for the environment. I think people need to weigh the facts and come to their own conclusions. Is artificial turf the right choice for me? Is it environmentally responsible for my needs? The answer is very different for different people in different regions. Food for thought folks. Wondered what you guys thought?” William initiates the conversation by questioning if the key to artificial grass is effective management. The co-hosts both go on to explore the versatility of artificial turf, with William sharing his positive experience of playing football on improved artificial pitches. Stuart introduces the issue of regular turf replacement due to wear and tear, prompting William to ponder on the ecological responsibility of maintaining and disposing of artificial turf. Reflecting on Gavin's points, Stuart emphasises the need for the judicious use of artificial turf. The hosts then shift gears to discuss the personal use of artificial grass, critiquing its aesthetics and questioning the motivation behind its adoption. Does replacing real turf with plastic turf really balance the need for using less water to keep grass alive? Or are we still strangling ourselves as a species, just in a different way, that may not be any better, if not worse? 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. 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. 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

“After the Coutts Bank/Nigel Farage scandal, do you think banks have the right to close accounts of people that hold political views they don’t agree with? Ok they were wrong to discuss Mr Farage details with a journalist, but should they be allowed to decide who they do and don’t do business with?” That’s the listener question, this time sent in by Elaine, in Telford, Shropshire, England, which co-hosts Stuart and William will try to unpick. William understands that the whole issue was that Nigel Farage didn’t have enough money to be able to have a Coutts bank account. He hadn’t heard of it being made political, other than those trying to make it so, because of it being Nigel Farage. William doe’s explore though whether we’re collectively giving the banks too much power, and that surely the bottom line for a bank is, how much money an individual has? Stuart isn’t sure that this issue was purely a political thing, it’s just that Coutts may have wrongly revealed that he didn’t have enough money to bank with them. Because he’s on the edge, it’s easy to believe that someone made the decision purely based on who he is and what he represents. Stuart raises the point that shouldn’t all businesses have the right to dictate who they do business with and who they don’t? Are we saying that not all businesses are the same? If a bank is more powerful and corrupt, are, and should the internal ethics and processes be the same as other businesses, or should they be monitored differently? William raises that maybe it’s all a difference between ethical and legal. He asks the question: how do you balance allowing businesses choices about who they serve and don’t? He himself couldn’t get a Coutts bank account, and asks is this discrimination, or is it just a business choice? William feels that it was a bad move business wise for Coutts to talk publicly about the situation to a journalist. These types of conversations should be held behind closed doors. He gives the example of the football manager Sir Alex Ferguson, always keeping a lot of the criticism of his players behind closed doors. A difficult discussion would be better done privately and ideally face to face. 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. 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. 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

We need to listen twice as much as we talk, that’s the big takeaway from today's episode. Which is the thinking inspired by today’s listener question, sent in by Gavin, in Grove, Oxfordshire, England. ”In life, and whatever culture you are from, should we pause more, and take more moments of reflection, and ask others what their perception is of any given situation, or are we already doing that, and what we should be doing more of is taking action?” Co-host of this podcast, William, believes it’s always good to pause for reflection, and tries to live by the idea of having two ears and one mouth, so you listen twice as much as you talk. He further raises the point that you need to allow the person you’re speaking to the opportunity to say what they need to say, as you never know what you’ll learn from their words. Lessons come in many forms, and recognizing that is a key life skill. Your other co-host, Stuart, agrees. He feels we need to pause more, reflect more, appreciate more. We don’t need to change our lives too much though, as many of us already have those foundations in place. They just need solidifying. He goes on to say it’s not what we do, it’s how we do it. Asking other people’s perception of any given situation, and setting it against your own, is a useful reviewing tool, particularly in dangerous situations. Action comes in many different forms. 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.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. 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

Welcome to another thought-provoking episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast, where Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow delve into the following question from Ramona from Paraguay: “Some Pacific islands are doing deals with mineral and metal extraction companies that could have negative impacts on their indigenous societies, as well as good, as there are financial profits to be made for them, and the companies. Developed countries did this so why shouldn’t these smaller societies? These same societies are likely to be impacted worst by climate change, potentially caused by other countries in the past, in the form of rising seas levels, flooding, crop failures and forced climate migration of their peoples. Isn’t it a good thing for these extraction companies to be part of the mosaic of solutions needed to combat climate change, as many of the metals they extract, can be reused when products containing them come to the end of their lives, and then made part of the other new items? Recycling surely! Or maybe you think there’s enough resources in circulation already for us to survive on, and the decision to extract fresh materials as they become needed should be made by a body outside of the extraction companies themselves? Extraction companies left to their own devices could well decide to extract their substances whether or not there's enough already in circulation, before moving on to their next target, so should they really be steering the ship? Further, is there still a place for the oil industry in the mosaic of solutions to combat climate change, or should they be removed from existence entirely?” Stuart, right from the start, questions why developing countries shouldn't be allowed to extract minerals, emphasising that the challenge lies in our failure to provide them with a better system. William spotlights a potential future dilemma for smaller countries, wondering if they might be playing catch-up with the world that has already transitioned to greener alternatives. Stuart acknowledges the extractive industry's role in the mosaic of climate change solutions, while William suggests reevaluating the oil industry, by focusing on the valuable skills of its workforce. As the conversation unfolds, Stuart emphasises the importance of improved recycling practices, and raises critical questions about managing already extracted materials in a rapidly evolving world. The co-hosts discuss the challenges of relying on independent bodies, and acknowledge the difficulty of steering the environmental ship toward a more sustainable future. 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. 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. 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

Co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow dive into the controversial realm of repatriating cultural artefacts. Prompted by a question from listener Debs from Didcot, Oxfordshire, England. Debs’ question is as follows: “There’s lots of talk that artefacts in British museums gained through colonialism centuries ago should be relocated back to their countries of origin. The downside with that is leaving them where they are means more people will see them. Returning them ‘home’ could mean less people see them. What do you think?” William argues for a straightforward solution: send the artefacts back. His stance is rooted in the belief that these items lack resonance for those without a genuine direct connection to them. Stuart introduces the recent tour in Kenya by King Charles III, where he apologised for British atrocities, prompting a reflection on whether apologies for colonial links can ever truly end. The conversation deepens as William draws a direct link between the prosperity of the UK and the historical slavery in Jamaica. A connection that fueled the industrial revolution. Stuart advocates for a reimagining of museums and challenges listeners to consider the impact of colonialism on their lives, actions, attitudes, and opportunities. William recommends you to watch a routine by James Acaster, providing a unique perspective on the subject. Watch the routine here. Stuart leaves listeners with a compelling call to action, urging them to reflect on colonialism's tendrils in their lives and encouraging open conversations, especially for those directly impacted.  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 This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  We like to give you an ad free experience. 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. 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 co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow as they delve into a fascinating question, posed by our listener Alivia, from Ridgway, Illinois, USA. Alivia challenges us to consider whether the world is but an illusion, financially bankrupt, and propped up by artificial structures. Alivia's question: “The world is largely an illusion and bankrupt, because it spends more money than ever exists at any given moment in time. With that knowledge, when one looks at any high street and its parade of shops, it's all artificially propped up. With that knowledge, insurance seems pointless and we’re insuring something that's already dead. Just because a shop's open, it really doesn’t mean it's a viable business. With that knowledge, what do you guys think about the world we live in?” As Stuart and William unpack Alivia's question, they explore the complexities of the modern economic landscape, the sustainability of businesses, and the perceived illusions that shape our world. Drawing from their unique perspectives, the co-hosts engage in a candid conversation, that challenges conventional wisdom. 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. 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. 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 co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, as they embark on the kind of conversation you’d overhear at the pub. This discussion was prompted by a thought-provoking question sent in from listener Alvaro in Spain, which is as follows: "Do you feel the use of captive trained birds of prey is a good way of dispersing other birds like pigeons and gulls?" Stuart shares a poignant tale of clashes at a local rubbish tip, revealing the complexities of labelling creatures like gulls and pigeons as vermin The discussion extends to the root causes — our burgeoning rubbish piles. William questions the true efficacy of using trained birds, while Stuart introduces a compelling analogy: these birds are like brooms, clearing the immediate surroundings. The debate explores whether using these birds is a practical solution, or, just a PR gesture. The discussion extends to the root causes — our burgeoning rubbish piles. William questions the true efficacy of using trained birds, while Stuart introduces a compelling analogy: these birds are like brooms, clearing the immediate surroundings. The debate explores whether using these birds is a practical solution, or, just a PR gesture. 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. 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. 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

“As podcast makers do you feel any kind of responsibility toward your listenership?” That’s the listener question that's been sent in for discussion in today's episode by Ramona, Paraguay. William kicks off the conversation by saying that turning up AND being reliably present for the listeners is one way of showing responsibility to the audience. He goes on to talk about how it's important to communicate any changes made in the podcast, for example our new release schedule for 2024. Also you’d find as a listener if you met co-hosts Stuart and William, that they’re pretty much the people they are on the podcast. They are in some respects caricatures of themselves, as podcast hosting is a performative work. William hopes they strike a balance between having you, the listener, in the forefront of their minds during recordings, but at the same time challenging themselves, which in turn challenges you as a listener. So then William feels the responsibility as a podcaster is two fold. One that he and Stuart are careful in what they say, and two, that they still challenge you as a listener by talking honestly. Stuart raises he and William have a responsibility for what they say, but not how a listener responds. William carries on this point by asking that if anything he and Stuart says triggers a response, get in touch with them, tell them what that response is, and get that conversation going. Stuart brings up an action: it’s not what you say, it is how you say it. 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. 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. 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 think Prince Harry spending a reported billion pounds taking the UK press to court is doing society any kind of favours?” That’s the listener question that’s been sent in by Russ in Harcourt Hill, Oxford, England, for co-hosts Stuart and William to discuss. William and Stuart start off by talking about what exactly Prince Harry is taking the UK press to court for. William goes onto say that Prince Harry isn’t the only person taking the UK press to court. Stuart raises how the world of law is expensive and goes on to to talk about how Prince Harry uses the media to help him, but it goes too far the other way. There is some bad journalism out there. He asks whether we drive what journalists produce, or do they drive us? Stuart finds the question leaves him a bit cold, so the court proceedings might not be relevant to the rest of us. He feels that there’s all kinds of psychology involved in what is motivating Prince Harry to pursue this, and an action for us to take is to maybe explore options outside the court of law. Is that a last resort, and what are the measures before that? William feels that this case is highlighting that the behaviour of the press needs to be monitored. He sees that would make the press fairer. He further raises that the press know how to create antagonistic headlines to generate an emotional response, to get people to click or buy. William asks if Russ is asking where the money is coming from? Is it private or public? 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. 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. 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

“We have eaten meat for thousands of years, so why is it now so wrong to still eat it?” That's the listener question that's come in for discussion on this podcast from Debs in Didcot, Oxfordshire, England. William kicks off the episode saying that to him what makes it wrong to eat meat is the exploitation and the industrialisation of the meat production process, together with the devaluing of those animals we consume. He understands why someone would be against using beeswax, as it's taking something from the bees that they actually use. Though he feels using fish in aquaponics doesn't exploit them in the same way as they are there to fertilise the plants whilst being looked after, and usually go to good homes afterwards. William raises the point of how meat is often seen as needing to be the centre of the dish, but this doesn’t need to be the case. Also it's not always understood how to properly cook certain vegetables either. He concludes by saying that we can feel very threatened by change, and by someone who is different. He encourages us all to engage with that person, and ask them why they do what they do, and be open yourself up to listening. Stuart asks the questions: how far do we take the idea of not consuming animal products? He raises that even with high welfare in meat production, there can still be exploitation. He concludes with a good point about your food. Make it as local as it can be whatever you consume, and as good as it can be, and then start to consider the wider ethics. Announcement Time: This podcast release schedule is altering in 2024 to once a week on a Sunday at 10am UK time. That means Stuart and William will be discussing two questions per episode, instead of one, so the episodes will become longer. This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  What do you make of this discussion today? 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. 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. 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

“A report produced in the US claimed that if every country went net zero now it would be 250 years before the climate reacted positively. So, should we be doing more than aiming for net zero?” That’s the listener question sent in by Billy, Saugus, Massachusetts, USA. Co-host William kicks off the conversation by stating that we’ve been putting out a large volume of carbon for decades, and agrees that we should be doing more, or do less, consume less for example. He brings up again that we have been piping out pollution for a very long time, going right back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. He raises the question of what a positive reaction by the climate would actually look like? Stuart, your other co-host, believes we should always be doing more, but maybe we’ve striven in the wrong areas. He goes on to say it may be too late, and that the world's population will be affected in ways we haven’t even considered yet, and asks that if it is going to take 250 years for the climate to react positively, then it won’t be stable for a number of years. Stuart throws in there that if we’re going to have to adapt, is that adaptation going to take our eye off the ball for changing? Are we going to keep doing what we’re doing and then adapt to the consequences, or are we going to change? During this episode it’s mentioned the Wildlife In Everyday Garden Talk Stuart and William are giving for The Flore Gardening Society in Northamptonshire on November 8th at 7.45pm in the Chapel Schoolroom at the Flore United Reformed Church. Details here https://www.floreurc.org.uk/community/garden-society/ This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.  We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers. 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 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. 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