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

How do misconceptions about the meat and dairy industries, like the one Suzi shared about cows producing milk because they are pregnant, contribute to the way we view and treat animals in our society? Listen in to this episode, as your regular hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, joined by Suzi Darrington who once again takes her seat in the listener's chair, as they take a deep but relatable dive into this compelling listener question posed by Nigel in Blackbird Leys, Oxford, England:  "What have Vegans got against eating butter and eggs, or drinking milk? How do those things hurt animals?" Throughout the episode, Stuart, William, and Suzi explore the complexities of veganism, ethical consumption, and the importance of raising awareness, without alienating individuals.  Among other things they discuss the ethical implications of consuming products meant for other animals' babies, the environmental aspects of different diets, and the ethics surrounding the treatment of animals in the meat industry. At one point Stuart plays the role of the devil's advocate, prompting a question: should vegans dictate to meat eaters when the production processes of vegan food are not entirely sustainable either?  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

In this engaging episode, co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow discuss the following question sent in by Ronny from Denchworth, Oxfordshire, England: “I saw parts of Charles's and Camila’s coronation, and when they stood on the balcony at Buckingham Palace afterward, both wearing crowns, Camila especially seemed to be waving to the gathered crowds in a very stilted and mechanical way. Is this reflecting how their reign is going to be?” Stuart takes us on an exploration of consistency, longevity, and reliability as key attributes of a successful monarch, setting the stage for a deep dive into the ever-evolving societal hierarchy. Is there a fundamental human need for a leader, even in isolated cultures? William poses a profound question: Have we forgotten that, despite our technological advancements, we are still fundamentally animals, driven by instincts and desires? Stuart wonders about the underlying motivation behind Ronny's question, believing there's a story concealed within. In conclusion, the co-hosts challenge us to contemplate the value of our daily actions. Is what we do today any significance in the grand scheme of things? With a reflective lens, they ponder the essence of our existence, urging us to unearth the meaning in the mundane. Is it all worth 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

Join us for an insightful and engaging exploration of maps, time zones, and their connections to our shared history. Is the centre of the world map a reflection of colonial legacies, or is it a matter of practicality and tradition? Listen in to find out! This is the podcast where we explore thought-provoking questions from our listeners. In this episode, Debs from Didcot, Oxfordshire, England, sparks a captivating discussion with her question: "Most world maps have the UK at the centre. Is this because of the time zones or a subtle link back to our colonial pasts?" Your co-hosts, Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow, embark on a journey to uncover the complexities of map representation, time zones, and their historical connections. William kicks off the conversation by highlighting how maybe the centre of a map depends on where you buy it, and how it can vary between an atlas and a map. Stuart directs the focus to world maps, and the relationship between their layout and time zones, suggesting a connection to colonial history. The discussion delves into the concept of perspective, William speculates on how our perspective could change if viewed from an extraterrestrial standpoint, alluding to common sci-fi and alien invasion depictions. To add an interactive element, William recommends a practical experiment: turning your phone's map so that south becomes the top. It's a thought-provoking exercise that challenges preconceived notions about map orientation.. 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

In this compelling episode, co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow embark on another journey of self-discovery, sparked by a question sent in by listener Derrick from West Hendred, Oxfordshire, England. Derrick’s question is as follows: “We hear we should live life to the full. What exactly is that? How do we know if we are doing that, or wasting and frittering our lives away?” Stuart kicks off the conversation by exploring the societal tendency to pass judgement on how others choose to live their lives. This judgement, he notes, often reflects our own internal insecurities and judgements about ourselves. William chimes in with a personal anecdote, sharing how he's been questioned about his pursuit of learning the Finnish language, despite having no immediate plans to relocate to Finland. He suggests that such pursuits serve as an exercise for the brain, forging new neural connections and pathways, and expanding horizons. The co-hosts contemplate the idea of a "full life," with William emphasising that it can encompass a myriad of meanings and activities. Stuart delves into the psychology behind our judgments, and the ways they connect to our own self-perceptions. In conclusion, Stuart underscores the elusiveness of definitive answers, and encourages listeners to reflect on the concept of a full life, and draw their own conclusions. William's parting advice is to strive to live the best life possible, and to be kind to yourself along the way. During this episode Stuart mentions the Wildman On Wheel fundraiser, here a link to that fundraiser: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/wildmanonwheels 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. 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 short bonus episode this one. Having listened to a previous episode, listener and collaborator Tommy Serafinski has been in touch.  Tommy and William also collaborated on another podcast series too, Have You Ever Considered? Have You Ever Considered? “Hey guys, I'm writing as a listener after listening to your recent episode ‘Climate Contradictions’. Indeed the planet can be cooled by dispersing into the atmosphere sulphur dioxide. Of course, there would be some slide effects (for example the sky would be red - seriously, like in the movies) but overall it's quite easy to do. The number of flights required to achieve noticeable cooling of the planet (1 degree, etc) is actually a tiny fraction of what any old commercial airline operates. So the danger is actually that it's too easy to do and some rich nations (Saudis anyone) could decide on their own for the rest of the world to cool down the planet. Apparently, calcium carbonate also could be used for that purpose but I didn't read any deeper analysis about that. You can read about this (and much much more) in this excellent book. https://tommysoutdoors.com/2022/01/11/the-wizard-and-the-prophet-by-charles-c-mann-a-book-review/ If you'd like to buy it - of course use my affiliate link - see, ended up not being entirely disinterested! Cheers, Tommy”. Stuart raises as an action, that we should read the book which Tommy has recommended. William suggests that the idea of cooling the climate down, according to conspiracy theorists, is already happening, with the use of what they call chemtrails creating more cloud cover to reflect more of the Sun’s energy back into space. He raises how we’re in a time where feelings trump facts, and even that some people still wonder if we can really be impacting the climate negatively? Then goes on to talk about the effect of grounding all the flights in the US when 9/11 happened, when the average temperature went up by a degree. 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. 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 this bonus episode, co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow dive deep again into the world of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), addressing a question from long-time listener Hedley Thorne. They were once again joined by Suzi Darrington in the listener’s chair. Hedley’s question is as follows: "LTNs, I believe, are a relatively recent invention, and so what has brought about the requirement for them, and what are their positive and negative effects on the local community and businesses?" Low Traffic Neighbourhoods or LTNs have become a hot topic, polarising communities and sparking protests, particularly in the picturesque city of Oxford. Right from the start, Stuart and William tackle the basics of what LTNs are, and why they evoke strong reactions. Special guest Suzi Darrington, a familiar voice in the Listener Chair, joins the conversation once again. The trio discusses the historical use of roadblocks in Oxford, with William shedding light on the fact that LTNs are not a new concept. Suzi is quick to highlight the positive aspects of life with LTNs, seeing them as a crucial step toward building better public transport links. She also delves into the recent anti-LTN protests in Oxford, and how they are tied to the idea of the 15-minute neighbourhoods. Stuart raises the question of whether this is merely about reinstating local communities. William explores the role of media, and the impact of ingrained habits when it comes to LTNs. Stuart makes a key point: LTNs aren't banning cars; they're just gently nudging traffic in different directions. Suzi shares her experiences using public transport and cycling around Oxford, highlighting the advantages of reducing car dependency. William mentions businesses that claim LTNs have caused their closure, but Suzi points out that these neighbourhoods emerged during the COVID pandemic, and there are other factors at play. Stuart calls for transparency, requesting to see the businesses' financial records to gauge the direct impact of LTNs. William argues that many businesses, not just recently, but for years, have failed to adapt to changing circumstances. Stuart emphasises the significance of location for businesses and suggests that they might need extra assistance in relocating and adapting. The episode concludes with a discussion about what the council should do. The consensus is to persevere with LTNs, with Suzi highlighting the enthusiasm of the younger generation for addressing the climate crisis and their willingness to embrace change without ingrained habits. 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. 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’re brainwashed into thinking we as individuals can save the world, when I’ve heard 7 companies are responsible for most of the carbon humans have ever emitted. Is getting out on the streets and protesting the only answer?” That’s the listener question sent in by Eve, in Haslam, Nottingham, England for co-hosts Stuart and William to explore. Stuarts states right off the bat that there is never just one singular answer to anything. We’re distracted at times by the big corporations, it's true, and we can feel pressured into doing things as individuals, which can take the onus away from the big companies to do anything themselves. The big quandary we have is that there really needs to be a big change in how we all live, but how on earth do we go about that? Stuart’s conclusion is that street protests are one but not the only answer. We need to do our best to transition in as many ways as possible, because it’s very hard to change the wind of change when they’re coming at it from many different routes. William is amazed by who owns and influences what, and what one company owns when you drill down. For example, Goodreads is run by Amazon, and how many breakfast cereals does Pepsi have a stake in? It’s very difficult to avoid the 7 companies that Eve has alluded to, as their tentrills are everywhere, so is protest the only answer William inquires? Yes, in a way, but there are many ways to protest. Stuart elaborates on this point, for example abstaining from using a particular product is an act of protest. You can protest by just talking about it, and by keeping it in the public eye and not letting it get buried. An action your co-hosts came up with for this particular episode is to try to seek balance, but also not sticking with the status quo either. 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 or just 'follow' to avoid missing any public posts. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: ⁠https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside 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 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thepeoplescountryside/message

Suzi Darrington is once again sat in the ‘Listener’s Chair’ alongside Stuart and William for this listener question from Ronny, in Denchworth, Oxfordshire, England. “Are young people's perception of reality distorted by the cultural influences of their preferred social media platforms?” Suzi talks about the different phones she had when younger, saying her first smartphone was at the age of 12. Her generation grew up with social media, and has always had it as a big part of her life. She’s never had a phone that didn’t have social media on it. In the past you’d have to dedicate time to social media, she now carries it around in her back pocket. This makes her feel a bit trapped, but acknowledges she puts it on herself. The conclusion is social media is an addiction, it taps into addictive behaviours, similar to how fruit machines entice people. The next generation are getting much shorter form content, that’s more addictive, and Suzi can see how this kind of content could shape views. There's a growing community of men who hate women, with the social media world reshaping reality. Suzi delves into the reality of how these men hate women, and how they look up to individuals who perpetuate those thoughts. Her conclusion is that she’d need to be really self aware to fully understand the impact Instagram has had on her, with the content being so clean and saturated. She feels Instagram has placed a pressure on how she looks and gives her an unrealistic expectation of reality. Even the content that’s supposed to show reality, itself has been curated and selected. Social media has a bigger influence on her when she isn’t busy. When she’s got things to do, she uses it less. After re-reading the question Suzi talks about how each social media platform has a different feeling, and in fact over her lifetime these platforms have changed. Material that is against what you believe is pushed to you just to get a reaction, as it keeps engagement on that platform’ It engenders arguments, which in turn distorts people’s perception of reality. Suzi feels that social media is heading towards more short form content, more outrage, trying to keep people on the platforms as much as possible. Consuming, commenting, reacting. Tik Tok has been accused of causing frenzies of activity, and yes, social media can be a great place to connect, but a bad place to feel you truly belong. William raises an action we can all consider is to do nothing, and feel comfortable with being bored, and to change the word to want rather than to need. We need to stop filling our time with ‘stuff’ and activity, and spend time actively just sitting and being. Stuart asks where this kind of thinking and behaviour is going? Both he and William lived before the advent of social media, which prompts Suzi to ask what they actually did with their time. They just got on with life! During this episode this fundraiser is mentioned, check it out https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/wildmanonwheels 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. 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

Regular co-hosts Stuart and William are joined by Suzi Darrington. an Oxford University Crankstart Intern with them in the summer, who returns to the ‘Listener’s Chair’ to give her two pennies worth and because this question really resonated with her. She will be back again in future episodes. The following question came from listener Derrick, in West Hendred, Oxfordshire, England. “Should landlords be demonised as they are after all providing homes. Even if they put the prices of rents up too much though and no one can afford them, the homes are still there though, and could be turned into AirB&B’s?” Is the core of this issue how we look at renting and home ownership? Stuart compares the property ladder to a pyramid scheme: people jump on this ladder believing they’ll make money but that horse has bolted. He says people don’t like moving and mentions the north/south divide as well as the unfair distribution of property in the UK. The North East has a lot of empty houses because the population has moved out. How can we get people to move to places that have a surplus of housing, and make it fair? Also, the social housing that building companies should create often falls short of the target. How can we change that?  William feels a home is a sanctuary where you feel safe, not a transient place you just exist in. He mentions how the major UK supermarkets were pulled up by the government for potentially profiteering from the cost of living crisis. Are landlords profiteering too? He says we need more equality and a wide variety of properties, particularly affordable rental places. The social housing stock is low, and the bar to be eligible for a home is high. William compares going up the property ladder with going up in society. He asks where the drive for homeownership in the UK comes from. He and Stuart conclude that it goes way back. We live on a crowded island and are protective of our property. William cites the episode with guest Heli Paulasto where the discussion was framed around the different attitudes around the right to roam between Finland and the UK. He points out that in the past large housing estates were built, e.g. in Glasgow, with no amenities, and that it still happens with housing projects today. He goes on to raise the idea of the 15-minute city. Suzi looks at the sinister side of all of this. We appear to be shifting in attitude towards a more privatised service industry in every aspect. She believes we have an obsession with ownership, an unachievable dream particularly for the younger generation. She asks is the desire to own our own home a reflection of sovereignty and is this baked into the British character?  They conclude with a conversation around why people move or stay, the mistrust of immigration, and the impact of air b&bs. 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 seem to be cycling less since Covid. Councils really encouraged us to cycle more during the lockdowns, but it seems to be they too easily undo the pro-cycling measures when anti-cycling issues are raised by motorists and others?”. That’s today's listener question up for discussion, sent in by Rob from East Lockinge, Oxfordshire, England. We always give an ad free experience on this podcast. 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.  As someone who cycles himself, co-host William believes that the Oxford City Council are at least trying to be more cycle friendly. He doesn’t label himself as a cyclist but more as someone who cycles. Using a bike is just one method he uses to get around the city.  William feels that the Oxford City Council are more pro cycling. He wonders if the perspective of this question sent in by Rob, in a rural area, shows the trend in the countryside, where again more people were potentially cycling during the lockdown and have gone back to driving more now that we are back to more “normal times”. As far as William is aware, bus usage levels haven’t recovered since COVID, and he believes that overall, COVID has had a major effect on all our lives, particularly how we travel around. Maybe more people are now opting for the car, which can feel like a safer environment than going back to public transport. Co-host Stuart raises that during COVID he became aware that more sections of the road were being given to cyclists, and maybe those are now being removed in some areas. He goes on to suggest that potentially more people are now taking the bus or driving, rather than cycling, but also that he knows people who picked up the cycling habit during COVID which they’ve kept up. He feels that to explore this topic more, we need maybe a local councillor, as this debate is bigger than he and William. William wonders though whether a councillor would want to be a guest on the podcast, as their words are always picked apart by people. Stuart suggests that what has changed is that many people’s lives are busy again, so it could just appear that people are cycling less. This whole idea needs to be monitored fully to really find out the answer to this question. 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.comHelp 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 another thought-provoking episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast, your co-hosts Stuart 'The Wildman' Mabbutt and William Mankelow dive deep into another discussion, prompted by a question from listener Gavin, from Grove, Oxfordshire, England. The question Gavin poses is: ”In the UK there are governmental subcommittees reviewing the benefits and costs of decisions made around the Covid-19 science during the pandemic in the UK. Its hard to do this when using hindsight as the decisions our government and other world governments made were done in real time, with less information. If decisions had been made with the benefit of the hindsight we’d have now, would the experience have been any better? Is this review an impossible task?” Stuart kicks off the conversation by reflecting on the Scottish government's response to the pandemic, pointing out that criticisms have emerged, suggesting a need for a more people-focused approach, rather than just infection rate-focused decisions. He highlights the inherent challenge governments face in real-time assessments of the impact of their choices on the public and emphasises the importance of proactive support measures. However, William provides a fresh perspective, shifting the conversation from what should have been done to, what we can and should do in the future. He acknowledges the value of hindsight, but also its limitations, arguing that the review is a vital tool for shaping responses to future pandemics. 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