Is It Ever OK to Promote Fossil Fuels? Ep186: Rory Sutherland

[@CleaningUpPod]

Thanks to Rory Sutherland for joining us on Cleaning Up. You can find Rory's book, Alchemy, published via Penguin in the UK: www.penguin.co.uk/books/430379/alchemy-by-rory-sutherland/9780753556528. Sign up to the Cleaning Up Newsletter for all the latest from the show at cleaninguppod.substack.com.

[@MarkShapiro-m8r]

The story of Churchill and the stolen pepper pot (at 30 minutes) is a gem. "If you portray yourself not as an accuser, but as a fellow offender, you change the dynamic." I imagine admitting: "I've burned coal, oil, and gas every day of my life. I'd like to slow down." Thank you, sirs!

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

We are all on the same side in many significant ways. It's getting people to realise it that's the problem, and advertising is part of the problem and hopefully part of the solution.

[@guringai]

It is timely Rory that you all come up with an advertising campaign to reduce (the unnecessary) range anxiety! Please do that.

[@mjcamp01]

Yes please! But he wants £30m to do it

[@shrimpanzee001]

Think the host talked over Rory too much here. He was 2 steps behind Rory the whole time and there was never enough of a value adding thing he had to say to really justify interrupting him.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Funnily enough, I thought the exact opposite. Michael was very patient when being lectured on energy policy! He asked important questions which never got a satisfactory, self-consistent answer.

[@AdamCiernicki]

Engaging in conversation is one thing. Hostile PR campaigns, aggressive lobbying with millions spent each year to convince politicians to spend billions of government subsidies (fossil fuel handouts) and proven track of LYING for decades and obfuscation and hiding records countering their own statements- is another think entirely. So yes, let’s “engage in conversation”

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Do you mean engage in conversation openly, honestly and without money changing hands? A revolutionary idea!

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Absolutely. Robert Brulle and Geoffrey Supran are both well worth reading.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Rory Sutherland uses his self-confidence as a raconteur such that the question is deferred until 43:00. The answer should be a categorical 'no'. Given the tight carbon budgets to meet international agreements and desperate CDR and SRM proposals to be considered to avoid biogeophysical tipping points, it is never acceptable to promote fossil fuels. Encouraging tobacco addiction only harms the individual, yet it is banned. From these answers, it seems we need a ban on fossil fuel advertising, as promoted by Chris Packam's petition. Besides questioning whether climate change is a fact, and the UK has a responsibility to reach zero pollution, his argument seems to involve the Streisand effect of unintended consequences. The implication of the latter would presumably be either that banning advertising would cause people to seek out (nonexistent) advertising... No, that can't be right. Was he saying that his behavioural interventions would backfire, and so advertising is worse than ineffective?

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Why does he mention landlines? There's nothing ethically wrong with promoting longer-established technology per se. The reason EVs might be considered superior is not mainly their acceleration and driving experience, not on this podcast anyway. It's not a sensible analogy. He hasn't considered whether he would work on a landlines campaign. The question is whether he would work on a campaign like BP's 'and not or' to promote drilling. I wonder if he didn't understand the question, or just doesn't want to face up to it.

[@pete_dl1585]

Rory really didn't want to condemn anti heat pump propaganda, but was worth pushing him on the subject. He does have clarity of thought on many areas.

[@AdamCiernicki]

@@antonyjh1234 No. This kind of boomer nonsense has been debunked so many times... why don't you people stick to anti vaccer tinfoil stuff? I was a big fan, and hoped natural selection would solve our political problems. If you ever bothered to google things before commenting you would have learned that a typical gas boiler emits around 2,500 kg of CO2 per year, while a heat pump emits around 850 kg.

[@tonycorke4240]

FWIW For mine, he’s the quintessential knockabout bloke who relates great anecdotes over a pint down the pub, but has never felt troubled by the need to engage with the real world and all its inconvenient rough edges when the time comes to implement. He clearly hates lawyers, economists, and engineers because all of them deal with nuance everyday, and he hates to be challenged and asked to think deeply about his opinions. In short, fun to listen to, but dangerous to fully align with

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

For more info on anti-heat-pump propaganda, see 'Media Blitz Against Heat Pumps Funded by Gas Lobby Group' by Desmog.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

There's a good article on this. Media blitz against heat pumps funded by gas lobby group.

[@winfriedtheis5767]

Rory makes a really important point about Psychology and Marketing. I pointed this out already in other discussions that there are organisations and people fighting the FUD against new technologies like EVs and heat pumps, but there seems not to be an organisation that is really trying to persuade people by selling the benefits of changes and innovations to the general public! If someone knows of such (an) organisation(s), please answer to this comment and let me know!

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

No, I can't think of one. There are trade bodies like RenewablesUK, but promoting EVs and heat pumps is left to academics like Auke Hoekstra and central and local government, whose idea of promotion is an information leaflet. If you're lucky.

[@Biggest-dh1vr]

Great to see that Rory exists in more than just TikTok clips!

[@husarz]

People who owned electric cars nowadays more and more often choose combustion engine vehicles or plug-in hybrids as their next cars. Norway serves as a good example, where there was initially a massive boom for electric vehicles, primarily due to low fees. However, when regulations changed regarding road tolls, annual taxes, and when the costs of servicing and issues with batteries were considered, many people transitioned to plug-in hybrids or even returned to diesel cars...

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

This is not actually true. Check all the stats for car purchases and ownership in Norway. There may be isolated examples, but that's all they are.

[@husarz]

@SofGdggd-xt9lw it does not include imported cars. And since Norwegian government put such limitations on companies that's the only way around. Worth mentioning is fact that few years back that's how Norway was importing ev cars from US 🤣 Norway is forcing ev cars...

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

What do you mean 'does not include imported cars'? There's only one extant car maker in Norway, and that's Fjord. Thank you. Personally, I've never heard of anyone reverting from an EV and lots of people saying they'd never go back.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

'There are now more electric cars than gas cars on Norway’s roads' - headline from September.

[@markgemmell3769]

It was getting more interesting as time went on. Shame it was only an hour long. Can you do anither with Rory with a few hours available please?

[@tommclean7410]

Rory Sutherland certainly made some interesting point about human psychology but I got the impression that he's not even convinced climate change is even real. His idea about the UK not worrying about reducing its own emissions is laughable. 40% of global emissions come from the countries which each produce less than 2% of the total. Should they all get a free pass too?

[@johnsmith-cn5yv]

I don't think he was suggesting a free pass. But if everyone in the UK dropped dead tomorrow- co2 emissions would drop by less than 1%. Massively destroying the british economy to drop emissions by a fraction of 1% seems stupid. I think he actually made a good point- but the interviewer found it far too awkward a question to answer and hastily moved on 😆

[@tommclean7410]

@@johnsmith-cn5yv That's a false dichotomy. The British economy can be grown while reducing emissions AND contributing to the success of others. Of course, that means accepting change which can be inconvenient, especially for people who have done well in the current energy system(s).

[@strathyreinn8124]

His point was one of efficacy. He was suggesting there will be a point where a rush to net zero comes at a cost to uk economy [and/or uk living standards]. The money (taxes) saved by not “tanking economy” should be invested into reducing other countries emissions so as to reduce any harmful impact on uk residents and have a net higher reduction in global carbon emissions . I.e. get uk to net 0.01% of global carbon emissions, then rather than spending more on uk net zero, spend lower amount as investment in other countries where the £ has more purchasing power and can achieve 0.02% reduction in global emissions. This might not be possible but it is a legitimate line of enquiry/ debate. \

[@tommclean7410]

@@strathyreinn8124 Actually, the UK and the rest of the developed world are already supposed to be helping other countries while reducing their own emissions. Based on the results of COP29, that's not going so well. The assumption that we need to "tank" the economy to reduce emission to net zero feels like a excuse to stop reducing emissions as soon as the economy tanks for any reason. I hope I'm wrong.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Certainly helping other countries to develop a clean economy is worthwhile: at the moment British banks and companies are rather doing the reverse. Partly this should be through unconditional debt relief, allowing those countries to free themselves from need to extract raw materials, often coal or oil. If you try the Carbon Equity Reference Calculator, it tends to suggest that to be fair the UK but reach zero carbon much sooner than 2050 and hello reduce other countries' emissions. Offsetting is not just an abdication of responsibility, it's also usually ineffective, partly because of the 'additionality' problem and partly because schemes are related to biogenic sources and sinks that don't deal with the fossil problem. To think anyone is 'rushing' to zero pollution is a result propaganda. As Kevin Anderson says, if we're not cutting fast enough, we're going backwards, making things so much harder in future. There are still companies exploring for fossil fuels that will push us beyond 3 °C, and their ignorant politicians excusing and encouraging them. If you look look at likely tipping points and physical remaining carbon budgets, it looks like the world should have banned new boilers and combustion engines ten years ago. We're now relying on a wing and a prayer that things aren't too bad.

[@johnparker4366]

I love it when a podcast host loses control of the interview with Rory and attempts to regain control. It's hilarious because Rory is far more interesting than their agenda and Rory will fufill his part of the pact of being entertaining and informative without their direction.

[@jimbo4375]

Yes, and you would never accept something without scepticism when they have reasons to gain from it. When those reasons are billions of £££ then it makes it all the more relevant

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

What does 'their agenda' mean? Is it asking questions and how decisions are made in advertising about which campaigns to take on?

[@johnparker4366]

@SofGdggd-xt9lw Every Interviewer has talking points and the Podcast is called Cleaning up. Their agenda would be net zero I would imagine. The podcast says they are "a conversation with a leader in clean energy, mobility, climate finance or sustainable development." It would be a dry old conversation if it began and ended on everybody nodding furiously in agreement that we stop fossil fuel now.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Not really. Zero fossil carbon emissions are a physical requirement for continued biospheric stability. We've only been sure of that since about 2010. So there are many new interesting conversations to be had about how to achieve it, and what each profession can contribute. For another podcast on that subject, see the Energy Transitions Show, I find conversations with people who don't know what they are talking about are only interesting from a psychological or pedagogical point of view. It therefore makes sense to ask the 'how' questions.

[@WMCheerman]

Who was Rory talking about regarding investing at 26:33, I would love to read more?

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Think he might have meant Ashvin Chhabra. There are a lot of psychological studies showing people make supposedly irrational financial decisions, even if you don't assume their goals are to maximise expected profit.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

12:30 'drives 30 km a week so shouldn't have an electric car' - actually this is the perfect use case for a battery vehicle - it can have a tiny battery that costs very little and recharges for free on the farm solar system. (ie the town car)

[@AdamCiernicki]

Yep, plenty of those, check Mazda MX30 or Mini electric

[@MLiebreich]

Indeed. One of the hardest things about these conversations is knowing when to jump on comments that are obviously wrong and when to let it go. I am constantly having to make judgement calls on the fly. Very occasionally (Marco Alverá, Yorgo Chatzimarkakis, Yanis Varoufakis) I have had to do a post-episode write-up because so much stuff was said that just shouldn't go unchallenged. Nothing in this episode was nearly as bad, IMHO.

[@MichaelJohnField]

I thought the same thing at that remark. Let's face it, if you had solar & battery on the roof then you might never need to go to the Petrol station ever again. Some new cheaper range EV's this year (Dacia Spring, Citroen e-C3). I wondered if he was talking about himself and creating a ready made excuse!!

[@antonyjh1234]

Compared to an ice car that will last your lifetime producing a new vehicle does not make any sense, being the Uk where there is public transport...I would say he is entirely correct. If we were to electrify the grid for renewables if would mean 6 new copper mines opened per year for the next 3 decades. Compared to what is what you are leaving out, a brand new vehicle that in 30 years would have travelled less than 50,000 k, how is the production value of any new vehicle and better option than a second hand one? Buying solar to then buy a battery along with inverters etc the total cost and energy would be more than what 3 litres a week would cost in emissions. He is absolutely correct in my opinion.

[@winfriedtheis5767]

@@antonyjh1234 well to be able to buy a second hand car, someone has to have bought a new one... Which is why the zero emissions mandate on new vehicles makes total sense, because by the time this comes into force emissions from battery production will have fallen massively, because renewable energy is so much cheaper than fossil. And the mandate is unfortunately needed, because automakers did not want to invest in EV, while they could still sell ICE cars. And no brilliant persuasion would have changed that...

[@danshillabeer9523]

I love this podcast, I have learned so much. However, I think Michael missed an open goal this time. Wasn't it Ogilvy & Mather who came up with the carbon footprint for BP as part of their rebranding to 'Beyond Petroleum'? A deliberate strategy to get the public to think they are to blame for climate change. Sutherland was a senior executive at the company during that period. He has much to answer for. I'd much rather him answer for that rather than having his book promoted. I can't imagine Michael didn't know that.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

You're right, it was.

[@rory.sutherland]

@SofGdggd-xt9lw I have heard this said of Ogilvy many times, but I cannot find any evidence of it. To be honest, had we done this, we would probably have told everyone about it. Noone I know has claimed credit for this.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Oh, cough, hello Mr Sutherland. Well, the campaign was over 20 years ago, so maybe people moved on. I see a piece in the NYT dated Aug. 14, 2006 by Jason Kenney who claims to be involved in the relaunch. What did Ogilvy win the 2007(?) Effie for? What exactly was the brief? The story is repeated with a few details that should help trace it in 'The carbon footprint sham' by Mark Kaufman and 'How Big Oil Hijacked and Weaponised the Individual Carbon Calculator' by Victoria Clayton. One cites Dr Ben Franta, who I expect has dug into it further.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Oh hello Rory. Well, the campaign was over 20 years ago, so maybe people moved on. I see a piece in the NYT dated Aug14, 2006 by John Kenney who claims to be involved in the relaunch.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

What did Ogilvy win that Effie for? What exactly was the brief? The story is repeated with a few details that should help trace it in 'The carbon footprint sham' by Mark Kaufman and 'How Big Oil Hijacked and Weaponised the Individual Carbon Calculator' by Victoria Clayton. One cites Dr Ben Franta, who I expect has dug into it further.

[@mjcamp01]

He maybe right about Octopus branding, so many companies with names like Good energy have come and gone.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

He may be. On the other hand, it may be less branding and more pricing, technical innovation, and buying up smaller providers.

[@davidbuderim2395]

scrap the rapid fire round - let him speak

[@catherineiselin]

The problem faced by the man on the left is that he seems to react, not to respond.

[@robjones8950]

Exaggeration of climate change impacts may be true of some scientists. The reverse is more dangerous. Climate change communication emphasises averages, not possibilities with quite high likelihoods. Governments often approach flood defence projects using once in 100 year likelihood scenarios. While it’s not a direct analogy, climate risk isn’t being communicated in this way, perhaps because it’s too scary and therefore unpalatable to policy makers.

[@hugor1338]

It's been communicated with scare stories for forty years now, none of which have come to pass. That boy who cried wolf they mentioned.

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

I think that's more true of journalism than science. Science kind of plods along, discovering interesting things and occasionally shifting framework. News media like the occasional scare headline, but can't do it so often it turns news into an aversive experience, so has been downplaying slow burner stories for decades.

[@tomdyson9475]

The prominence of alcohol free or low alcohol drinks is as much down to the restrictions on advertising alcohol so Diageo can plaster Guinness all over things as long as it's followed by 0% but the brand is there for all to see. It's not nearly as prominent at the bar though.

[@davebennett7550]

Other than vacuum cleaners, I bought one of the last Gaggia Classic coffee machines before they were forced by EU regulations to reduce the size of the element from 1300W to 1050W.

[@rjScubaSki]

How come there are loads of other espresso machines available in the EU at higher wattages?

[@WHGM74]

Too much about "beliefs", and too little about your excellent point of morality. Lovely behavioral insights though. Book on reading list.

[@nyhammer1]

The way to get rid of fossil fuels is already here: Solar and offshore wind is already cheaper than hydrocarbons for energy generation. It is just a question of producing and installing enough solar panels with battery storage. China is leading the way.

[@MLiebreich]

And don't mention the Dunkelflaute!

[@jimbo4375]

Generation has to match demand at the time though, wind is chaotic and solar is fairly predictable but obviously is cyclic. Something needs to bridge the gap, at the moment there is nuclear and fossil fuels to do that. Storage of some form could be an option in the future

[@antonyjh1234]

Eating less meat is a great example of lies being perpetuated by marketeers. Eat less than the recommended amount or don't over consume? All the emissions pushed onto the meat of the edible and inedible and then compared to kilo of crop that actually make it to market is not a fair measurement. I go to bottle and can returns to get the money back i paid extra that they were increased in price by.

[@MLiebreich]

There are some very robust Life Cycle Assessments for meat that take into account all the emissions througout the value chain, and you can compare it with getting the same nutrients directly from other meats and non-meat diets. They are unequivocal - eating farmed meat is bad for the climate and bad for land use. However, what they can't cover is the complexity of land use, in particular for extensive meat farming, where the animals are performing multiple functions in the eco-system and society, so loading their entire carbon footprint onto the food output is inappropriate.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@MLiebreich And this is the problem, the issue is not to replace the food, it is to replace the whole animal and all their products. In no way is it about trying to replace food calories of meat and say case closed. We currently feed more crop waste to animals than food we grow for them, going crop based directly subsidises caged animals the most, I don't eat caged but under no circumstances can you say all eggs, feather meal, meat can be more polluting if everything needs a grown replacement. The 14% of ALL animals diet if in USA is corn, that is one crop and they take a third of that, 350 million ton is grown and I think 5.9 Billion ton of crops is grown for humans, caged animals take 15% of corn and beef dairy the other 15%, roughly, all seed oils have waste and this goes to caged. I eat grass fed beef from non arable land, that we do not irrigate, fertilise or plough, anything to replace this is going to need a polluting grown replacement and with a basically carnivore diet now after being v many years ago, I eat less kg's overall. The life cycle of transport trucks plus tractors should have been used in all studies previous to a few years ago, not just fuel used. The current overconsumption levels of meat is a direct result of so much crop waste, if this was composted, it would still emit to the atmosphere, crop based that depends on oil is not the way forward.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@MLiebreich "Bad for land use" is a moot point if other animals like deer take a cows place, the area of land that we don't do anything to and get a return from means something to consumption of sprays and fertilisers. Guy Mcpherson said on one of his videos if cattle numbers haven't increased in I think he said 80 years, let's use 100, if the herd size, like in a lot of western countries, has not increased and methane from cattle is gone after 100 years then no further warming has occurred from cattle. No raising of the amount so if cattle raised it 0.6c and no increase in numbers and the methane is gone after 100 years then they are carbon neutral. No point saying cows have 86 times over 30 years or 28 times over 100 if we don't extrapolate that to 200 years etc Crops versus meat are measured on a per kg basis, of only crops that make it to market, per kg, not nutrition, are measured per kg of meat or dairy etc as I say with all the emissions pushed onto the edible. To replace all the inedible is what the metric should be. If you used toilet paper collagen held it together, if you have water or sugar filtered, activated carbon, bones, did that, if you are using plastic like in the device I'm using, fat went into it, same as asphalt, pet food in the hundreds of thousands of tons along with wool and leather, all needing grown replacements. Saying that the emissions of bones and the water usage etc should be put onto the meat and then compared per kg only against crops that make it to market seems a poor way of measuring things to me. A full life cycle of meat under these circumstances means nothing. I f cattle are carbon neutral and CO2 is going to be in the atmosphere 10,000 years and all crops need trucks, tractors, synthetic fertilisers and eating the recommended amount of meat being around 12=15 cows over a 60 year span, how would 60 years of crop replacement of even the meat be better environmentally? It won't, there is nothing cleaner for the land than basically the same as wild animals and we have been lied to by food companies to sell product. It's like the soy lie, where animals eat the majority of soy, humans eat 6% whole bean, animals 7%, the rest is processed into oil which is why it's in everything, animals tale around 1% of this and humans the rest, humans take 92% of the human usable part of soy, animals take 99% of the waste, like all seed oils there is seed cake, humans don't eat it, by final weight animals take the majority, of stuff we can't eat, 86% of what animals eat is indigestible by humans, using a total tonnage of what animals eat is a misleading metric.

[@Greenammonianews]

If we used green ammonia for fertilizer and fuel for tractors, dryers, etc. then can we eat all the meat we want? We constantly co-mingle 'conservation' with 'ghg'. There is nearly infinite green energy, if we harness this properly there is zero need to be frugal. If your jet travel runs on green fuel travel as much as you want, no harm done.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@Greenammonianews Tractors have not much to do with cows or sheep really, tractors are usually used for crops. Nothing of your words about green travel etc can happen without rubber coated wires, mining, tryes, all oil based. There is no green fuel that wouldn't have production emissions, it would still need to have a grown substrate like bio diesel. Bio diesle is made using synthetic fertiliser from oil, harvested with oil based and fossil fule produced. If talking USA all agriculture is 10% of emissions, all animals half that and beef and lamb 65% of that so around 3.25% of emissions, considering meat is around half that all this talk around cows killing the planet is around 1.6% of emissions for the edible. All the dairy, eggs, wool, leather, meat etc has to be able to be replaced and lower 3.25% of emissions, while we ignore using a tank of diesel that has the same amount of energy as 3 months of my total electrical energy with the air con going 24-7 over summer. The misdirection of food instead of just everyday driving is where the conversation should always have been around.

[@Xorisonmedia]

I think he talks a lot without saying anything. I feel like ultimately his opinion is that nothing actually matters, we need disruption but we shouldn't change anything in our lives. And no one else needs to change either

[@tonycorke4240]

He also seems uninterested in genuinely engaging with debate and questions about his own behaviour. He's a great example of many of the cognitive biases he talks about or that underpin his anecdotes

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Rory understandably dismisses economic theory at the expense of findings from psychology. However, that is used in a defence of his profession from 3:00 rather illogically. Advertising is not necessarily misleading or causing someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't because that assumes economic agents have perfect information? The latter belief is a long way from the real world, but there's little connection between it and whether advertising wants to induce or change behaviour, which of course it does. The questions are if and how that influence should be used. Making decisions is influenced in complicated ways but social factors, but if that is influenced by money, should it just be for trivial choices of brand, or can it validly be towards more consequential environmental or personal damage?

[@blek1987]

Love it! Rory is uninterviewable!! Michael is about to lose it at 38:12 and then Rory goes on with the Swedish word 😂

[@jimbo4375]

Better that way around than the interviewer doing all that talking! I'd like to see Rory interviewed by Piers Morgan 😂

[@guyhargreaves6591]

An expert greenwasher, so good as to wash himself almost undetectably. Once seen it can't be unseen. More part of the problem than the solution, despite efforts to appear the opposite.

[@JonathanFrost]

I wanted to ask Rory about this topic so thank you so much! It all makes sense.

[@MarkBanister]

I understand my own failing even better now... where the only viable conclusion must be, I am a virtue signalling narcissist.... Things are worse than I thought!

[@corradoalamanni179]

The SMUG is coming!! Cfr South park

[@antonyjh1234]

Before it was just other people who thought that of you but now you know it for yourself, the only way is up.

[@Delchursing]

We don't need fossil fuel marketing in the same way we don't need food marketing. They are used when required.

[@hugor1338]

Ministry of food knows best, as Comrade Stalin always used to say..

[@alexannal]

At the beginning of this video. You started that you had to eat less meat. But the emissions from meat are only 6 % of emissions total uk emissions. Why did you mean it. There are many more effective ways of taking climate change. In addition, the carbon sequestration from animal farming has not been calculated. It may be a carbon sink.

[@hugor1338]

Growing a tree in Brazil shipping it to England and burning it at Drax is carbon neutral. Growing a cow in County Mayo and eating her is global warming - go figure.

[@johnsmedley8843]

Not many engineers in this debate. There is no technical reason to keep digging up dinosaur fuels for anything. Any arguments against that?

[@MLiebreich]

I'm an engineer.

[@secret.mission]

Profits.

[@hugor1338]

How you going to power your aeroplanes? But seriously, engineering is only half of it, it's the economics that matters.

[@alexanderbaines-buffery7563]

My wife is a sustainability consultant. We looked into a heat pump and did not get one because the company handling could not answer some pretty basic questions. Basically the people selling the tech had never lived with it. In the end the solution we have come to is much simpler and closer to Roy suggests: we kept your very efficient gas boiler and put an electric blanket on the couch. cost £15.

[@MLiebreich]

I'll bet your "efficient" gas boiler isn't. What is the flow temperature - is it even condensing? And of course it's still burning "natural" gas ie fossil methane, so it's probably the biggest part of you climate footprint (unless you fly a lot and eat stale every day). My suggestion: find a good heating engineer (check with Heatgeek or Warmur) and be ready to switch to electric when that so-called efficient boiler of yours claps out because it's cycling on and off at too high a temperature.

[@alexanderbaines-buffery7563]

@@MLiebreich I checked. It is an Ideal Logic Boiler and the Central heating is set to 72 degrees. Which I think was set by my builder. It is condensing who moved it recently. And our thermostat is normally set to 16C. But do think my wife boost it a bit before the kids go to bed. And yes we do use it for heating water. And given when don’t eat much meat, and we use a Tern GSD and a non electric tandem for transport etc etc, it could well be the biggest part of our GHG emissions. Points accepted. Absolutely. It will be the last gas boiler we own. And we did remove our gas oven and get an induction hob. Which i’m getting the hang of now. I have no issue with EV cars or Heat pumps. I may end up owning both of these things. My point is that to quote Henry Ford, both of those are a faster horse solution, that accept the existing frame of the problem. Namely transport means moving in a big steal box and thermal comfort means heating a big concrete box. Where as transport can mean Zoom, micro mobility, or PT all planned on a mobile phone (mobile PC). I guess my point is, leaving your ICE car parked on the drive, your gas heating turned off and buying an eScooter and USB powered electrically heated gilet is a perfectly acceptable option. It is also an option that carries far less risk for many people. e.g. don’t let go of the branch you are swinging from until you have a firm grip on the next one.

[@jonb5493]

The key here is "the company handling could not answer some pretty basic questions". Until we have a quorum of suppliers with an acceptable minimum of knowledge and competence, and a will to actually source the latest and best models rather than the junk that has been around for a while, there will continue to be discouraged potential customers. You and your wife did the right thing - at least, you didn't buy anything from a bunch of clowns who don't know what they're talking about. Hopefully your gas boiler will stay up for a couple more years until you can actually find a decent supplier for a heat pump. BTW I am in the same boat.

[@antonyjh1234]

I find it hard to believe your wife is a sustainability consultant and she doesn't have installers of heat pumps at her fingertips, that she doesn't know the efficiency of heat pumps being 3-600% efficient, nor do I believe an expert would be dissuaded because the installer hadn't lived with the product. Some can be 1000% efficient, your wife being a sustainability consultant would know this. Your wife being the expert would know that for every unit of electrical energy consumed, because of the gas exchange they can produce 3-6 units of cooling or heating energy, she would also know your gas boiler will never reach this efficiency. She might also know heating for homes done by gas has more emissions than all electricity in the UK, so ripping out a boiler would of course be a silly option but adding a heat pump to take over from some of the heating that is 90% efficient is where the difference lies. Electricity being mainly gas fired also has transmission losses though at generation so the 400% efficient metric is then lost but as I say there are heat pumps 1000% efficient, your wife being the consultant would know this and wouldn't this have been the reason why you got installers around?

[@alexanderbaines-buffery7563]

@@antonyjh1234 TBF heat pumps are not her particular expertise. :-) But yes she is knowledgeable on many topics. And basically we ran the numbers and worked out a heat pump was going to cost us about £30 a year more to run, but this was before the Ukraine war and the current gas prices. We were accepted onto a pilot scheme and could have got the heat pump installed for free I think. But we declined because, of where our utility room was located and uncertainty about where the pipes would run and the noise of the machine would make. It also wasn’t clear, if they would restore the house to its original state, if there was a problem. So in the end it seem like we might end up spending more on building works than the system would cost. But I do expect that our current gas boiler is the last one we will own. But i’m ok with paying for the heat pump and allowing other people to have tested the systems before us :-)

[@davidbuderim2395]

54:00 Sparking outrage - e.g. against nuclear power

[@MLiebreich]

That too.

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

I see a huge issue of nit profitable solutions not being researched and implemented. Like; there is a nice chance mass vitamin D adoption would be better, than mass vaccination. But nobody checked for it.

[@MLiebreich]

You're on a climate change and energy channel. There are plenty of other channels for the conspiracy theory community.

[@davidwicks9835]

Great episode Michael, there was plenty to think about but i though you could have corrected Rory's statement that if you charge at night its off mostly nuclear power. Nuclear has never provided the lions share of UK energy. Im sure he meant to say wind energy, which would be accurate.

[@hugor1338]

Remember electricity is just 20% of UK energy consumption. The whole debate is utterly peripheral to reality.

[@garethyoung6067]

Wonderful

[@Greenammonianews]

Rory’s focus is on ‘creating value’, value is absolutely critical to change. Interestingly, value has very little to do with costs. You create value with - Signaling, Subconscious hacking, Satisficing and Psychophysics. I made a video the other week discussing the marketing of green fuels. If anyone cares to check it out I would love to hear your thoughts. kzbin.info/www/bejne/apTMZmqQl8Z2mcksi=gY0nGNZkywVkut6R (Green ammonia, use green power to crack water and get hydrogen, combine hydrogen with air/nitrogen to get ammonia, an energy-dense liquid fuel that works as a gasoline/diesel substitute in all those hard-to-abate applications. But what about N20? We have catalytic converters that eliminate this issue.)

[@MLiebreich]

What you miss in your video is how expensive green ammonia is going to be as a fuel, whether compared to fossil fuel or direct use of electricity wherever possible. Also the fact that you *really* don't want ammonia stored all over the place and moving around in vehicles. It's very nasty stuff.

[@Greenammonianews]

@@MLiebreich I discuss costs in other videos but as I said, costs and value are not the same. another Rory saying - “are you debating to win an argument or trying to find a solution?” Electrify where it works but otherwise explore other green solutions. More than 50% percent of US oil consumption is heavy and light-duty trucks. What’s the solution? Give me the ‘real option’, what truck can I purchase that can drive a load across the US or Canada? Volvo is offering 275m range and 90min charge, that means spending 30% of your time charging, that doesn’t work. Further, show me how I can source 100% green electricity the whole way. Neither the truck nor green power is available. Converting an engine to run on green ammonia is like 10k. You could install ammonia infrastructure to existing fueling stations for ~200k/location. Sourcing the ammonia - happy to debate the cost, could be $750/t, could be $1100/t, that’s equivalent to diesel at $5.30-$7.80/gallon. But this is a REAL option. Amazon, Walmart, etc. could just do this, no lobby, no policy, just business. They could go green in 5 years. Is $7.80 too much? That is a marketing question. “Value” and cost have little to do with each other. I for one am a buyer who values a real, certified green option that works for the task. There are lots of tasks, there will be a basket of solutions that work for different applications. Race fuel starts at $25 and there are lots of racing buyers. Task example - the Toronto surgeon, the educated guy who wants a green option where they can tow their boat up to the cottage. He values green and family time with the kids. The marginal difference in fuel cost is totally irrelevant to this guy. Interesting to pivot to the marketing - 'nasty' What's the real safety vs perception? Engineering vs marketing. Ammonia has a real track record, it is safer than gasoline by the statistics (type of failure vs probability of that failure happening.) Ammonia is used in vast quantities all across the mid-west US, so we have tons of history. The shipping class societies are all coming to this conclusion and they have the financial and legal liability.

[@mahon257]

Enjoyed this very much. However, re the "Quick fire round": It's a bit unfair to ask questions on very complex subjects, to be answered in a short form, not really fair to your guest!

[@toddflach7725]

This was one of the best podcast conversations - EVER ! What incredibly useful knowledge of human behaviour that is mostly science-based. The utility of understanding why humans are deeply subjective and do not apply objective utility analysis should be applied much more widely to solve our urgent problems.

[@MLiebreich]

Thanks!!!

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

Did Oli Smith's stunt at Ogilvy partly prompt this interview? kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3OulpJsh72modE

[@thepictureofdorianyates4840]

Discussing using marketing to change the behavior of the public, in a conversation about climate change, as if individual action plays a large role in the issue, is so fundamentally misguided. Where is the talk about an advertising campaign targeting ExxonMobil executives and politicians? Tackle the issue but don't pretend to - and leave normal people alone.

[@secret.mission]

This guy on the left doesnt seem to understand capitalism.

[@MLiebreich]

That's genuinely funny, given that I'm a Brexit-voting conservative with an MBA from Harvard Business School who has been a loud proponent of capitalism all his life. Because, you see, what I also understand it's that the planet and its atmosphere have physical limits to what you can do to them. And if your political theory can't cope with that, is your theory that has to be scrapped, not the planet. I also understand the difference between regulated capitalism - after all it's public actors who create market rules and safety regulations - and the crony capitalism which is what so many self-identified capitalists really want.

[@secret.mission]

​@@MLiebreichThen what are you after when you ask if it's genuinely acceptable to promote fossil fuels? Is your expectation that the fossil fuel industry is going to cease advertising? Or do you just want people to agree with you that promoting fossil fuels is unacceptable? If the former, you dont seem to understand capitalism. But thank you for sharing your CV.

[@hugor1338]

@@secret.mission ML already said he wants regulated capitalism. He's an expert and he wants what he says to be the law without that depending on persuading the people first.

[@dac545j]

A very interesting talk. I've sent to a tech friend in the advertising industry.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Rory is trivialising serious issues.

[@MLiebreich]

I agree. Smashing bottles at the bottle-bank should not be taken lightly.

[@mikeharrington5593]

​@@MLiebreich Very good !

[@RjDollen]

Like?

[@hugor1338]

Or are you catastrophising trivial issues?

[@SofGdggd-xt9lw]

I'm sure his supposed psychological insight into why people there was wrong, just judging by the bags of unbroken bottles left near an empty bottle bank, not to mention relative kerbside recycling rates. It's much more about social expectation and feeling like doing the right thing. Whether Rory was joking though, I wasn't sure.

[@Mechanb]

Let the man talk. Dont change subjects after one sentence. Its a podcast. Youve got hours to chat

[@dc4343]

Rory is right on the need for discussion. If you can't even consider you are wrong, then you are delusional and alienate a lot of people. Michael comes across as very hubristic. Also hilarious he is sponsored by KKR and acts like he is some sort of paragon of moral virtue

[@jimbo4375]

A lot of people mandating behaviours that have anything to do with carbon emissions are certain that what they think is almost 100% correct and also that their proposed solutions are 100% the correct course if action. That's more than a little bit dangerous

[@MLiebreich]

There are many things I have been wrong about. The absorption spectrum of CO2 and the implications for radiative forcing is not one of them. That's not hubris, that's physics.

[@hugor1338]

@@MLiebreich The concern is firstly the magnitude of that effect - can we adapt? secondly how does it weigh against other climate changing phenomena? But above all, this question has nothing to do with us in the West in a world where global CO2 emissions are determined by China and India. All we can do is to follow their lead.

[@CheeseLovingGuy]

I was unsure about listening to this one because it was going to be less sciency but it was an incredible treat. So different. Absolutely fascinating with great real workd stories and ideas.

[@Greenammonianews]

Behavioral science is real science :) It is absolutely critical to have people like Rory debunking the gospel of economics. Economics is sometimes helpful but it hides behind a cloak of 'rationality', answers that sound good on paper.

[@RjDollen]

His goal was to put guardrails on Rory. Failed. I have to say that it felt a lot like an attempt to debunk Rory.

[@MikeGorman-nb4hm]

Great branding works amazingly well when the product is awesome. Octopus filled the gap in making the energy market work. Now sluggish energy companies pretty much have to use Kraken to move forward.

[@thelongame]

“Quick fire round”: one question, 10-minute answer. 😂 Classic RS.

[@AlistairHughes]

Rory was artfully disingenuous, and someone who I'll not pay any more attention to in the future. Also, someone who can't go an hour without vaping - which is a bit sad.

[@secret.mission]

That's very open minded of you.

[@hugor1338]

I can't believe that yet another true believer only wants to close his ears to dissent. Interesting to mention the vaping, though, what about the eating/drinking? Always a bit of an admission of defeat on the argument when people turn to personal abuse instead.

[@glennjgroves]

I wish more people understood this overall topic. It even relates to the driving force behind what drives people to become right wing or left wing. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

[@BradleyKieser]

Fabulous discussion.

[@catherineiselin]

Good brain, Sir Sutherland, good brain. Clear and inspired. At 55 min..

[@ianlighting100]

I’ve had to try hard with this one. But I’m afraid I prefer less bluff and bluster and more expertise. Still a huge fan of the series, but largely not convinced by Rory in this one.

[@MLiebreich]

I hear you.

[@hugor1338]

Disappointed not to find your interviews with either Alex Epstein or Bjorn Lomborg, Michael. You not prepared to talk to them or they not prepared to talk to you?

[@LogicalMayhem00]

Imagine bankrupting yourself to try and solve 1% of a problem 🤡 Optimising the carbon output in the west is like trying to make the overnight mail delivery faster. Every effort should be focused on the countries with the highest output.

[@charlesmarsh9608]

Starbucks is that what what they call coffee???

[@JetskiDex]

Guy on the left made it very hard to watch.

[@hugor1338]

It was a bit like watching a monk praying on his knees being decapitated by a viking.

[@johndinsdale1707]

Good luck getting the marketing industry to not sell and avoid travelling. You end up with the disastrous Jaguar rebrand.

[@JonathanFrost]

At about 1:00:00 The "absurd estimations" for mineral use for batteries are based on the documented green energy plans of the EU. The calculation of the implication on resource demand is made by Michaux.

[@MLiebreich]

No, Michaux's figures are based on his own estimates for how much storage is needed within a clean energy system, and how much mineral content is going to be needed per unit of energy storage. Those are his estimates, and they are grossly exaggerated, for reasons you would have to ask him about.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The main point that advertising could be good or bad, is possibly true, but will we ever know or need to know.

[@mosfet354]

Yes

[@fjoo]

What's up with this interviewer? Manages to be negative in areas there is no need for it

[@ExitStrategy82]

''And yet they do not do it'' What a stupid way to start an argument... And it did not get any better after that.

[@MLiebreich]

I'm glad you listened to the whole episode though, just to make sure. Good for our engagement figures :-)

[@saba340]

I like. CO2 !

[@percurious]

Great guest. So right.

[@paulb9453]

Your solutions in the first few minutes are interesting, EV and heat pumps are not enough actions to hit net zero; same for solar and wind as being he cause of the energy crisis, not just Russian gas problems. In a net zero future, households cannot use any personal transport, or consume energy to the degree that a heat pump consumes. Whatever you do, it’s not enough, and throwing money at it means not being able to afford heating your home in the next 5-6 winters or more, or not going on holiday, or not affording higher education. Most people know that as the data supports it. Reluctance should be translated as realisation and affordability.

[@MLiebreich]

Wrong. A well-installed heat pump costs no more than a gas boiler to run, is healthier, and can help provide the grid flexibility to ride through daily variations in electricity availability and cost. Same with EVs. They are not the whole answer, but they are a large part of the future. Held back, it must be noted, by clever campaigns funded by fossil fuel companies and executed by the advertising industry.

[@Acemeistre]

Writes for the Spectator - this guy is full of empty remarks. Urgh. Better guest next time hopefully 😑

[@jimbo4375]

He always makes at least one great point, I think he made several.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Coal is abundant & burning it could perhaps become acceptable if it was accompanied by 100% carbon capture & storage (CCS), inclusive of particulate filtering & its capture from sophisticated smokestacks. Driver take-up of electrification of road transport is hampered by immature EV battery technology which is is not sufficiently robust, & inherently unstable. This severely shortens the operating life of EVs because the very high cost of battery replacement (necessitated by even minor/trivial damage) soon exceeds the depreciating value of the vehicle itself. This impacts on insurance premiums & overall is not good economics for the ordinary working person. Ignoring the foregoing, wishful thinking (greenwash) Govts continue forcing (inadequately engineered) EV replacement of ICE vehicles. This despite the short life of EVs indicating that they have a much larger "construction" carbon footprint over their lifetime than comparably sized ICE vehicles. For full EV uptake to succeed in the way foreseen by green advocates, the battery engineering flaws & associated potential fire hazards must be eliminated to gain widespread consumer confidence. Instead EVs are being sold like smartphones - disposable for throw away after ~3 years which further depletes global resources.

[@ianlighting100]

The battery in an EV is designed to outlast the life of the vehicle in most cases. Early Nissan Leafs with no thermal management might fit your description, but that tech is 13 years old now. Things have moved on substantially.

[@antonyjh1234]

Roughly a 1000% increase in the amounts of plants globally are needed to reach IIEA predictions by 2030. Uk emits 324 million tonnes and these plants will do roughly 2 million each, predicted. Global emissions are 37 Billion tonnes. Current carbon capture is 0.13% of emissions, if IIEA wild fantasies come true it would be 1.17% of current emissions if they stay at this level, so possibly under 1% if all carbon capture worked in the future so ccs is an absolute waste of time because we haven't factored in the energy to produce the plants. EV uptake should never be allowed to happen, to electrify "Around 45 commercial carbon capture and storage facilities are in operation worldwide, together capturing more than 50 million tonnes of CO2 each year, according to the International Energy Agency" "The International Energy Agency expects carbon capture to grow substantially over the next few years - potentially to around 435 million tonnes per year globally by 2030, based on announced projects." There should never be full ev uptake, there should never be the goal to replace private vehicles. "To meet the copper needs of electrifying the global vehicle fleet, as many as six new large copper mines must be brought online annually over the next several decades"" "The study found that renewable energy’s copper needs would outstrip what copper mines can produce at the current rate. Between 2018 and 2050, the world will need to mine 115% more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018 just to meet current copper needs without considering the green energy transition."

[@mikeharrington5593]

Yes copper is a crucial component of electrification with, for example, the average wind turbine requiring 9 tons of copper. Simon Michaux has done the math, more extensively than most commentators, on the mining & processing of mineral/ore resources to meet NetZero requirements. He concludes from a mining perspective that NetZero is physically impossible to achieve. So, until someone else comes up with a different verifiable analysis, then his detailed conclusions appear to be the most robust.

[@ianlighting100]

@@antonyjh1234 mining recyclable copper makes a lot more sense than mining / extracting millions of barrels of oil every day and then burning them, then doing exactly the same the next day. Running an economy that way which destroys our own habitat is clearly insane.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@ianlighting100 We don't get copper without oil, we don't have asphalt without oil, rubber coated wires, plastic in EV's where half the car is plastic, without oil. If we want any plastic that comes from the same barrel we refined diesel from, petrol and propane from we are still going to have to use the 100 million barrels we do each day, 15% of each barrel is where we get plastic, pray tell what we will do with 85 million barrels a day after it has been pumped out of the ground, 15% of the energy i used to refine it, so where will these 85 million a day go until we have fully changed over. I think the concept of having the power off 4-500 horses under the hood to go for a sunday drive when a walk might be better is where the insanity might lie, we are trying to replicate a system that should never have happened and are in denial by thinking it can be replaced when change and possible back to horses is more likely on the cards.

[@okkomp]

Ironically, a word was bleeped out in the talk about the Streisand effect. I won't what he said? 💩🤎

[@MLiebreich]

Rory swears a bit. We are a family show!

[@EcoKiwiMagazine]

@@MLiebreich Thank you for your open critique of Micheaux and Lomborg. Can you find a guest who can thoroughly and resoundingly debunk their icky schtick? Auke Hoekstra is good and would do again in a pinch; it's four years since you had him on last, according to KZbin. Someone with the same cred and background but a more accessible accent might rock even more, but, Micheaux sure been doing the rounds over the last few years. It'd be grand to get the ball rolling back down the hill towards him!

[@aryaman05]

@@MLiebreich Might as well do episodes with both Lomborg and Simon. Any plan ?