(00:02): 

Well, I'm in over my head. No one told me trying to keep my footprints small was harder than I thought it could be. I'm in over my head. What do I really need? Trying to save the planet oh will someone please save me? Trying to save the planet oh will someone please save me? 

(00:26): 

Welcome to In Over My Head. I'm Michael Bartz. My guest today is Chris Bryant. Chris is a researcher and social scientist who uses the principles of effective altruism to reduce animal suffering. His work utilizes a variety of methods to accelerate reduction in animal product consumption. Chris earned a PhD in psychology from the University of Bath specializing in consumer acceptance of cultivated meat. He's an honorary research associate in the University of Baths, department of Psychology and a research consultant through Bryant Research Limited. His work has been featured in Wired, Daily Mail, ABC Australia and more. Welcome to In Over My Head Chris. 

(01:00): 

Thanks very much for having me Michael. 

(01:02): 

So when talking about changing minds, I was thinking about culture. Our norms and customs have a huge influence on our behavior and changing them as far from easy. One thing that every culture revolves around is food customs and celebrations all involve eating something and it's usually meat. Your work focuses on the psychology of accepting cultured meat, which has direct implications for the climate crisis. But I think there's some lessons here that we can use more broadly. So I'm excited to discuss your work. So just off the top, I think it might be helpful to explain what cultured meat is for those who might be unfamiliar with it. 

(01:29): 

Yeah, absolutely. Well cultured meat or cultivated meat as it's widely known now is meat grown from animal cells. So it differs from plant-based meat that you can find things like beyond and impossible meat. Rather than being made from plant ingredients, it's actually made from animal cells and cultured outside of an animal body into edible pieces of real meat. 

(01:54): 

Okay. And so like currently as things are right now, how common is cultured meat? 

(01:59): 

So right now, today there's only a couple of places in the world that you can get it. There's only one place in the world where you can buy it, which is in Singapore. You can buy cell cultivated chicken nuggets essentially. And the other is in Israel where they are not yet allowed to sell it. But there is one sort of regulatory sandbox restaurant in which it can be made for testing. So they're not allowed to sell it, but they can give it away. 

(02:24): 

Oh, it's really interesting. So obviously it's very new and it's not really out in the public per se, but generally how do people feel about cultivated meat? 

(02:32): 

Well, it depends on the person. There's a wide range of perceptions and preferences. At this stage it seems to be mostly that you'll have about one in three people generally who are quite enthusiastic about the concept and say that they'll be willing to eat it with little other information or prompting. And then on the other end you have maybe one in five who are very, very hesitant about the concept and generally opposed to food moving in that direction. And you have a bunch of people in the middle at the moment still the majority of people haven't heard of cultivated meat. And so yeah, those are people whose minds are yet to be made up and they could go either way. 

(03:12): 

Okay. And so for the people who aren't accepting it right now, what are some of the reasons that that might be happening? 

(03:18): 

Yeah, well the people who are very hesitant about cultivated meat tend to be hesitant about new foods in general. There's something called food neophobia where people are very wary of any foods that they're not used to. Some people very much like to stick with what they know in terms of any kinds of food. And in particular in the area of food technology. Some people have the intuition that natural means healthy, which of course is not necessarily the case. There are a bunch of examples of foods which occur in nature but are very bad for you. And equally there are very processed things which you know like multivitamins for example, which are far from anything that you can find in nature. But in many cases doctors are gonna recommend that you actually take these. So yeah, there's a bit of that what we call the naturalistic fallacy going on for some of these folks. And yeah, I think that neophobia is playing a role in there as well. 

(04:09): 

Yeah. And there's also some social issues which one of your paper talks about. What are some of those social barriers that would prevent someone from accepting something like cultivated meat? 

(04:18): 

Yeah, well certainly there's a social component to it. I think that people will tend to do what's kind of socially normal. And so for anything which is not normal, people are more inclined to reject it. But there are some kind of social institutions which kind of dictate what we ought to be eating as well. A lot of people follow religions which have prescriptions about the kinds of meat that we should be eating and the ways in which animals are killed and so on. So for example, you'll have kosher and halal meat. They have particular prescriptions about how animals should be killed and they also have particular prescriptions about the kinds of animals that the adherence of those religions are supposed to eat. Which is kind of an interesting thing when it comes to cultivated meat because, well of course you don't necessarily have to kill the animal to get cultivated meat. 

(05:07): 

You can take cells from an animal that stays alive, grow those cells into meat and then eat that. So the prescriptions about how to kill the animal kind of arguably become irrelevant on some interpretations of those religious texts. They'll still require the animal to be killed, which is a kind of interesting feature of those interpretations. And also there's the question then as to could you have for example, cultivated pork which would normally not be allowed in those religions, but if produced in soul cultivation could be. So it's an interesting example of how religions, of course, were not able to anticipate this technology existing. And so the rules become a bit blurry when we talk about these new technologies. 

(05:47): 

Oh, absolutely. And and one thing I found interesting about your research on religion and cultivated meat was that a lot of people who follow certain religions that have rules around food sometimes eat those foods anyways, right, like pork and things like that. So I found that very interesting. 

(06:03): 

Absolutely. Yeah, a lot of people are nominally Jewish or Muslim, but they don't necessarily adhere to it very strictly. So people who identify with those religions might still be eating pork, for example. Another one is Hinduism, where a lot of people shun meat completely as part of the principle of nonviolence. And again, that's kind of subverted in the case of cultivated meat. Cause again, we don't need to kill the animals. So it's an interesting interaction with that kind of prescription also. 

(06:28): 

Yeah, and I guess when I think about that, I just think about you have the certain image of someone who follows a religion or let's go to an example of environmentalism, someone who's an environmentalist, but maybe they don't adhere a hundred percent to maybe the ideal of what that looks like. So I find that interesting from a psychological perspective. 

(06:45): 

Yeah, for sure. I mean, arguably with a lot of these things I'm sure that you have, I've been reading about your tiny house journey and all of the environmental things that you are involved in. And arguably it's impossible to be a hundred percent with any of these things. I'm sure that you've taken that to its limits in many ways when we talk about things like environmentalism or meat avoidance, you know, it's easy to get kind of distracted by this idea that we can't be perfect. But really I think that, you know, just because you can't do everything doesn't mean that you shouldn't do anything. And usually the 99% that we can do is far more important than the 1% that we can't do. And you know, more broadly than that, if everybody would try to do 20 or 30%, we'd be much better off than we are now. 

(07:28): 

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. And I just go back to that again, the psychology and changing that culture cuz meat is just so much a part of people's culture and they love it so much. What are some psychological barriers that might stop someone from eating cultivated meat? 

(07:41): 

In terms of meat reducing and giving up meat? I think that it's difficult to overstate sort of how much is at stake for the average meat eater. If you are somebody who eats meat and likes eating meat and doesn't wanna give it up, you know, there's a lot at stake when you come to thinking about cutting back or cutting out meat. And so that leads to a situation where people, when they think about going vegetarian for example, it's very easy to get into a zone of sort of motivated reasoning where you already have the conclusion that therefore it's okay to eat meat and then you kind of work backwards to come up with premises to support that. And that might include some kind of eyebrow raising things like animals not conscious for example. This is probably not something people would ever subscribe to in the absence of a conversation about vegetarianism. 

(08:24): 

But I think the purpose of cultivated meat and other animal product alternatives really is to provide for the ultimate goal that people want to be able to eat meats and animal products and basically take away the motivation from that motivated reasoning process. So, you know, if we were to have the conversation about should you be eating animals and you know that if the answer is no, you shouldn't, you'll still be able to eat meat, then the way that you engage with that question is gonna be very, very different. So I think that's a a big thing. That said, yeah, there are still some barriers for some people in terms of eating cultivated meat and one thing that we see is what's called the diffusion of innovations, where pretty much with any new innovation you'll have really a minority of people at the start to a very enthusiastic about it and willing to pay more when these products first come out. 

(09:14): 

And then equally you'll have people on the other side who, what they call laggards, who you know, are very slow to adopt any new innovation basically. But in the middle you'll have the majority. And so over time the adoption of the product will be very much a case of a slow start, then a quick middle and then a slow you know, the last people will also be kind of slow to come on board, but it will move quite quickly in that middle stage where the majority kind of come online, they see that some people have been eating it, it's something that people do now and you know, those who are more inclined in that direction will go and yeah, will speed up like that. 

(09:48): 

Yeah. So that kind of goes to the status quo, which you talk about in one of your papers. 

(09:52): 

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, people generally have a preference for the status quo, even when some alternative choices could be better. And there's a really great example about of this from a town in Germany, which many years ago had to be moved for a mining project. They said, we're gonna mine this area, we need to move the whole town. And the German governments who wanted the mining project to go ahead to foot the build for this. And so they moved the, the whole town sort of 10 kilometers over. And when they proposed to the residents of the town a few different designs that they could make their new town, you know, many of them are improved transport efficiency, you know, better design in other ways. The town overwhelmingly voted in favor of keeping the existing design, which had just kind of come to be over a number of years and wasn't particularly good. But people, even though the alternatives could be shown to be better, preferred the status quo. And you know, that's gonna be the same for food as well. Largely people get into habits, they like things the way they are. They, they might be risk averse in terms of trying new things. So yeah, there's a lot needed to break the kind of inertia that people have with, with any behavior really. 

(10:55): 

And I guess with the example of traditional meat, the one thing that comes to mind is that cognitive dissonance, right? Where you kind of disassociate what's happening with the food you're eating, right? 

(11:06): 

Yeah, absolutely. A lot of people will experience this cognitive dissonance with respects to conventional meat. Generally people like to avoid thinking about the animal origins of meat too much. And you can see this where you have studies that use for example, different terminology on menus. There can be sort of two groups of participants using between meat options and vegetarian options. And in one condition the meat options are labeled as beef or pork and in another condition they'll be labeled as cow and pig. Right. And just using the name of the animal obviously makes it a little bit harder to dissociate the animals from the food. And in that second instance, people are much more likely to choose a vegetarian option as a result. So yeah, people experience dissonance when they do think about this, which is that kind of uncomfortable feeling you get when you have some incongruent beliefs or your beliefs don't line up with your behavior in some way. And that's what's driving a lot of the motivated reasoning around meat consumption in general. 

(12:00): 

And is there a way to kind of get over that cognitive dissonance and look at it for what it actually is? 

(12:06): 

? Yeah, that's the million dollar question. In many ways it is very difficult to do. People are very committed to both carrying on the behaviors that they want to do and to not seeing themselves in a negative light cause of that. There does seem to be some things that we can do in the case of meat consumption. One is pretty much just a repeated and vivid collision with the reality of meat production. People will avoid the truth of the matter wherever possible, but if we keep on putting it in front of them, it becomes harder and harder to do. And so over time that is something that people will kind of take on board even if they don't do that immediately. And then another is kind of a technique of framing it where you can show people how meat reduction is congruent with some values that they already have. 

(12:54): 

So for example, asking people if they care about animals kind of invites them to go through the thought process seemingly independently and feel like they arrived at their own conclusion in terms of this behavior might be a little bit more aligned with my values. But it is very difficult to do and you know, it's very normal basically to, as I say, come up with reasons to justify the thing that you wanted to do anyway. And as long as you can get that story to be believable to yourself, then that's what most people will tend to do. I'm sure that you come across this a lot with environmental behaviours. 

(13:25): 

Oh yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah. And I think that idea of framing is so powerful cuz it's, you know, how you're looking at an issue. Yeah. Let's talk a bit more about that. 

(13:34): 

It's an interesting concept, this idea of framing really you can present the same information in a number of different ways and it involves bringing to the foreground some of the realities of a situation and dropping others. And the interesting thing is that any way you talk about an issue does this in some way. There's no truly neutral frame often. So it is true that cultivated meat is a scientific innovation and has been developed in labs, but it's also true that cultivated meat is an exciting food product and can be very tasty and helpful. And so, you know, if you have the space of billboard or a news article or an interview to frame it one way or the other, there are always decisions to be made. 

(14:16): 

Yeah. And I guess that, is that more of the role of the media then, as far as who's framing that story? 

(14:22): 

Yeah, I think that the media plays a couple of roles. One is framing in terms of what aspects of any issue they choose to focus on. And the other is really a gender setting. So which issues they choose to talk about at all. So in the case of animal farming for example, it's not necessarily that media will be largely sympathetic to factory farming, but rather they just won't talk about factory farming. So yeah, I think it's, the media plays a couple of important roles with these things. One is how they talk about it and the other is whether they talk about it at all. 

(14:59): 

Yeah, or even like in one of your papers you talked about frame fragments within social media, right? And I think a lot of social media is very divisive and they're wanting to get the clicks so they may not be covering the most truth, but whatever gets the most attention, right? 

(15:12): 

Yeah, absolutely. I think social media definitely changes this or or rather fragments it as you said. And there are a couple of ways that that can happen. It's driven to increase our engagement with it and in many cases that will be playing to our confirmation bias. So we're more likely to engage with things which reinforce beliefs that we want to have. So you know, if you were to publish two news articles and one of them says factory farming is terrible and the other says actually eating meat is fine. After all the people who want to believe eating meat is fine after all are much more likely to engage with the second than the first. So that's one part of it. And then the other is almost the opposite of that where people seem to interact on social media with things that they disagree with. They're likely to go comment on something that they disagree with and the algorithm realizes this is person's engaging with this more so, and then they'll go and do that. But yeah, in either case I think it's, it's framing and it's, you know, either playing to confirmation bias, showing people what they want to see or the opposite, showing people something that they disagree with and will engage with. 

(16:14): 

Mm-Hmm . Yeah, and, and I, I mean I don't remember your research talking about this specifically, but I think about tribes or groups that people are involved with and how that kind of influences the sorts of beliefs and things they adopt. 

(16:24): 

Yeah, definitely. I mean in the case of any kind of moral issues, people largely take their cues about what is right and wrong from what people around them seem to be doing, what everyone else seems to think is right and wrong. Probably if they thought about it, they wouldn't think that that's a good way to arrive at moral conclusions. But just intuitively that's how we go about it. And that applies more so for people closer into your group. So you know, if you get into vegetarian and vegan groups for example, you'll probably find those types of beliefs reinforced. Whereas if you are not friends with any vegetarians or vegans, it won't be very apparent that anybody's following these diets and so you won't be inclined to move in that direction at all. So yeah, we're, we're definitely influenced socially by the apparent norms that we, you can see around us and that's kind of contingent on the groups that we're in as well. 

(17:10): 

And I also wonder about, like in one of your papers you talked about one of the barriers being regulation and in so many of my conversations around climate and how we make a change, it's talking about getting involved politically and getting the government involved and getting legislation put forward or emotions put forward. Yeah kind of the role of regulation in changing those norms. 

(17:30): 

I've kind of an interesting view on regulation or like institutional change more broadly. And I'm sure this is something that you'll have come across in a lot of your conversations that oftentimes it can appear that people are pointing towards regulatory change or some kind of institutional change almost as a way of sidestepping personal responsibility, right? It's like saying it doesn't really matter if I eat meat or not, the government needs to do something about it, we need to taxi it or something else. And there is some truth to that. Of course government regulation is gonna be more important than what any one individual does. But the thing is that institutions are ultimately made up of individuals and the government can't just tomorrow ban factory farming if all of the voters want to have cheap meat because they'll just vote for the other guy, right? Or the other person I should say. 

(18:13): 

And equally, if you think about companies take a supermarket for example, they just can't stop selling factory farmed meat because if people want cheap meat they'll just go to the other supermarket. So institutions certainly do play a role and there's a lot that can be done through institutions even within that parameters of what individuals are demanding. But it's important to remember that both governments and companies are ultimately beholden to voters and consumers respectively. And so as individuals we really are steering the ship. There is a lot that you can do within government policy to try and move in the direction of less animal heavy diets in general. Some of those include options which will require some buy-in from a lot of the public. For example, things like meat tax is discussed in this area, if there's a tax on meat, it becomes more expensive for consumers, people less likely to buy meat, more likely to buy alternatives. 

(19:03): 

But things like that might not be so politically popular and again might lead to voting for the other person. So there are some other things which you can bring in which are more kind of like nudges in the right direction that don't actually restrict people's choices necessarily. And that might include in public institutions for example, in schools and hospitals and prisons having the vegetarian meal be the default or you can still have a meat meal but you have to request it or it's presented as option number two in some way. Now again, that situation, people's choices aren't restricted and so the people who are very committed to still eating meat can still do that if they want to. But for the people who are somewhat indifferent and tend to go with the flow, you're gonna see a big chunk of people moving over to the plant-based options. 

(19:46): 

In that case, there's a number of things that you can do as well in terms of information about diets. You're in Canada, which recently changed its dietary guidelines to stop recommending so much meat and dairy intake and and overcame a lot of lobbying in order to do that from those industries. So you know, well done , well done Canada and now explicitly includes some plant-based alternatives in those categories. Those kind of things make a difference as well. It's not that people are very committed to following national dietary guidelines necessarily. There's a lot of evidence that suggests people don't, but they are important in informing what doctors recommend, what taught in schools and so on. So yeah, I think there's a lot that you can do from a government's perspective to move in the direction of plant-based diets without tripping that line of politically unacceptable just banning meats for example. 

(20:37): 

Well for sure I think it kind of goes back to that status quo that you talked about earlier. If the government is doing it, if, if it's the main message that people are putting forward that kind of eventually it, it seems like people would go along with that. For myself for example, you know, living in a tiny house, it is kind of that counterculture, I'm kind of going against the grain, it's not the typical thing and that does take a lot more effort, right? A lot more mental effort to kind of be the outlier. 

(21:00): 

Yeah, definitely. And you know, it's connected to the point about social norms as well. I'm very optimistic about the long term of protein supply because one thing that we're up against at the moment but is dynamic and changing and hopefully we'll move in our direction, is the social norms. So you know, it's a very different proposal to be a meat to in a world of 15% vegetarians than a world of 50% vegetarians or 90% vegetarians, right? And eventually nobody wants to be the last person at the table who still insists on having a dead animal on their plate when everybody else is content with the alternatives which are by now very good. So you know, I think there's kind of two forces at play here and one of them is the alternatives getting better and cheaper. There's a lot of evidence that that's happening. 

(21:43): 

In the case of plant-based meat we see big improvements year on year rising consumer liking of these products and also the cost coming down as they get more economies of scale and more efficiently produced. So that's one of the forces is the alternatives getting better effectively reducing the cost of giving up meats from an individual's perspective. And then over time as more people move towards plant-based diets, you'll see the social norms shifting in the other direction and that will be the second force is a rising social expectation that everybody is at least reducing their meat consumption and eventually that, well none of us are eating factory farmmed meat. It's not really cool that you're doing that right. So I think that yeah, that social force and social norm which is currently kind of against us, will eventually shift to be with us and yeah, hopefully that will be the case for a lot of these environmental initiatives as well. 

(22:31): 

Oh absolutely, for sure. And I remember Jason Dion mentioned the neighborhood effect about how if you see your neighbors adopting a certain action and maybe that's having solar panels on the roof or taking the bus or riding their bike or something, if you see them adopting that, then you are more likely to also mirror that behavior. 

(22:46): 

Yeah, absolutely. There's a really cool study with the solar panels, I guess they use Google maps and you can pretty much just see from the satellite view which houses have solar panels and which don't and there's a very clear clustering effect where people are copying the people that live near them. Your neighbor gets solar panels and now you are gonna get solar panels. So yeah, definitely. I mean we're such social creatures, we're definitely influenced by what others around us are doing. And yeah, the cool thing about that is that it's dynamic, it changes and the social norms hopefully are getting better over time. But certainly it takes, you know, innovators and people who are committed to doing the right thing, people like yourself. 

(23:21): 

One thing that I'm curious about, I'm not sure if you can speak to this, but kind of like how people behave in public versus in private. Cuz you know we talk about yeah some of those social changes. If you see solar panels on your roof, you put solar panels on your roof, great. But do people act differently in private and does that kind of affect some of these changes? 

(23:39): 

Yeah, that's a really good question. I think there's definitely more visible changes are more likely to be socially contagious, right? So I think this was something that's been spoken about with recycling because it is very visible, you know, whether or not your neighbor put out their recycling bins last week, it becomes, you know, an arena for social congratulations or shame and you know, you know that your no neighbors know whether you are doing it right. So yeah these more socially visible changes tend to be quicker to catch on. Hopefully that is something that environmental innovators can try to use to their advantage and have the environmentally friendly option be visible and proud to be embraced. You know, I think that this is also something that I've heard with respect to a charitable giving. People will say, you know, acts of charity, you shouldn't kind of shoutout it on your social media or whatever else because it's very, you know, self-aggrandizing. It kinda takes away from the altruistic aspect of it. But I think on the other side of that, you've gotta consider the effect that it might have on other people. If you declare that you are giving to charity or doing this or that that's, you know, good for the planet or whatever it is, you are gonna encourage some number of other people to do that. So there are ways for individuals to also increase the visibility of the good things that they're doing with the hope of encouraging other people. 

(24:53): 

One thing I was curious about just generally was the perceptions of people working in this industry. You know, you talk a bit about lobbying and how there was some resistance of changing diet. Is that a factor of people who are working in farming? 

(25:06): 

Yeah, certainly is. I mean interestingly there's, we had one paper called the Farmer's Dilemma where we look at people who are working in livestock production and meat processing in terms of what do they think of these kind of new types of meat alternatives and meat reduction more broadly. And the really interesting thing that we found there is that the people who are working in those industries are actually more likely to be meat reducers, including flexitarians and a lot of pescatarians compared to the general population, which is really, really surprising if you think about it's people who are animal farmers or working in meat processing facilities are more likely to not be using meat themselves. And I think there's definitely a proximity effect going on there where you know it's more difficult to discount the animal origins of meat if you have to be the guy sticking the knife in, right? 

(25:52): 

And so I think there's definitely part of that going on. And in terms of the direction of the industry, it seems that a lot of farmers and other people working in these industries are quite open to change if they feel that it's feasible. So they're not necessarily opposed to cultivated meat or plant-based meat or any of these other new innovations if they feel that they can be a part of it. And I think that the onus is on us to create ways for them to be a part of it. Whether that's growing ingredients for plant-based meat or cultivation ingredients for cultivated meat or creating government incentives for these people to repurpose their land, which used to be used for grazing animals and now can be used for renewable energy production for example. Yeah, they're not necessarily opposed to doing that, but like everybody else, they're responding to economic incentives and if they have an option where they know they'll be able to make a living, they'll be willing to be part of the protein transition. 

(26:46): 

So I mean we've covered some of the kind of psychological ways we can change that culture, but this show is about empowering citizens to take action on the climate crisis. And so what can people do today to make sure that culture shift happens? 

(27:00): 

Great question. That's something that I've been thinking about a lot. What can normal everyday people do, including people who don't like us have work in this kind of field? Right? There's definitely a number of things that you can do. There are a number of very effective charities that you can give to. And again, this is something that a lot of people, the intuition is to say something like, well it's just throwing money at the problem. It's not really helping. But you know, people who work at these organizations need to pay their bills as well and their funding needs to come from somewhere. So really giving to charities is one of the biggest things that individuals can do In terms of the outcomes, there's an organization called Animal Charity Evaluators, which does what it says on the tin. It evaluates animal charities and there's a massive difference between the most effective animal charities and sort of averagely effective animal charities. 

(27:48): 

So by following the advice of animal charity evaluators and giving to the most effective animal charities, it's amazing the number of animals that you can save from slaughter and the associated carbon emissions and other environmental impacts that go along with that that you can avert. So that's one thing is giving to charities. Another thing is volunteering for those charities. If there are jobs which those charities need to be done and they would be paying somebody to do it, your time is as good as the hourly wedge that they would be giving to somebody else to do it. Which again, is a a fantastic way to contribute. And on the animal charity side, a lot of these charities, including the Humane League and Mercy for Animals and others have email campaigns that you can be a part of. And that is one of the most effective ways to shift the culture in this direction by effectively getting together and email lobbying organizations to change in this direction. So those are two things, donating and volunteering. And then I think the third thing I would recommend is just influencing others as much as you possibly can for everything that you are doing to move the world in this direction. There are other people who want to see the world, we've made a better place, but dunno where to start. And so you can help them to know where to start and help to get other people involved and empower other people as well to help be the change they want to see in the world. 

(29:04): 

Great. Yeah, I got some great advice. This has been a very informative conversation, so thanks so much for coming on the show, Chris. 

(29:10): 

Thanks so much for having me, Michael. Really enjoyed it. 

(29:14): 

Well that was my conversation with Chris. For me it just seemed like the biggest thing was changing that social norm, showing people that this is how we want to act and being public about it and slowly shifting that meter. Well that's all for me. I'm Michael Bartz. Here's a feeling a little less in over our heads when it comes to saving the planet. We'll see you again soon. In Over My Head was produced and hosted by Michael Bartz original theme song by Gabriel Thaine. If you would like to get in touch with us, email info@inovermyheadpodcast.com. Special thanks to Telus STORYHIVE for making this show possible.  

(29:47): 

I'm trying to save the planet, oh will someone please save me?