Speaker 1 (00:01):
Well I'm in over my head. No one told me trying to keep my footprint smile harder than I thought it could be. I'm in over my head. What do I really need? Trying to save the planet over someone, please save me trying to save the planet over someone. Please save me.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Welcome Dana. Over my head. I'm Michael Bartz. Just a quick note that all our transportation interviews were conducted over the phone. So the audio quality isn't at a studio level. Hopefully your ear can get accustomed to it and you'll still enjoy the great conversations. My guest today is Dr. Werner Antweiler. Werner is an associate professor in the Saunder school of business at the university of British Columbia. He chairs the strategy and business economics division, as well as being an associate editor for the resource and energy economics journal. His areas of research include environmental economics and management, as well as energy and electricity economics. Well, welcome to Andover my head, Dr. Antweiler.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Well thank you for having
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Me, Michael. So I brought you on to talk a bit about the economics of sustainable transportation, because it's one thing to say that we need more electric cars on the road or increase public transportation to lower emissions. But my hunch is that implementing these changes is not that simple. So from an economic perspective, what factors do we need to consider when looking at cutting emissions from urban transportation? Well,
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Transportation's always the system. Basically, once you start changing things in one place, you have to start changing things in other places as well. When it comes to electric vehicles, we are basically looking at a transition from well gasoline driven systems to electric system. That means we have to get infrastructure in place that people can actually go and chart the cars today. They go and drive their internal combustion engine vehicles to stations, but when it comes to electricity that model may not be really ideal because it takes some longer time to charge electric vehicle than it takes to refu a car. So we need different infrastructure, ideally charging stations at home or near people, 11
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Work. Okay. yeah, we could talk a bit about that. So what sort of changes would have to take place to, to get, get more of that infrastructure? Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Of course, in addition to the infrastructure, there's one overarching theme too, about the electricity that we use to power our electric vehicles. And this transition of course, really is predicated on the assumption that we have clean electricity. If you don't have clean electricity, then we, we are not, if we getting these environmental gain that we're hoping where it makes sense. There's places like British Columbia and Quebec and Manitoba, where we have a clean hydro. And of course it's much more problematic in jurisdiction, especially in the United States where the electricity still relies heavily on coal. So the transition basically has to go hand in hand this not only changing our, our vehicle fleet, but also changing our generator that exactly having sources of electricity that are reliably clean.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Okay. And, and so would you say that of maybe the two things, the infrastructure and how we get our electricity, which would have the biggest impact on lowering our greenhouse gas emissions?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, actually both. So when you look at the current carbon dioxide emissions, you see that there are two major contributors. One is power generation and all the countries in the world that still rely on coal, they are contributing hugely to our CO2 problem. So cleaning our electricity generation is really a number one priority, getting rid of coal, replacing it to this renewable energy, ideally, or at least with cleaner, natural gas as a stepping stone toward fully clean technologies. So this is really the number one change we need to make. And that is a bigger task in jurisdictions like the United States and China than it is in Canada, where we already have
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Relatively clean supply of electricity. But when you look at the other major sources of automations, transportation is really one of the other really major contributors. And that means we kind of have to look carefully at where this in transportation, decarbonization is easy and where it's hard. There is easy is when it comes to light duty vehicles, passenger vehicles, where it's hard is when it concerns trucks or even trains, ships and planes. And they are really hard to change because they need a lot of power. And currently batteries are just not ideal for these applications, but they are ideal for light duty vehicles. Let's go with the, with the difficult one first, how would you recommend that we improve the, the trucks and other transport systems to have them have lower emissions.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Now, the, the long run of this requires innovation, there is major discussion about hydrogen as a possible solution, especially in aviation. When it comes to shipping, we'll probably see natural gas as a, as an easiest stepping stone towards cleaner solutions also because it gets rid of sulf dioxide emissions from dirty bunker fuel. So look, get all the options over time, but it's basically the market that needs to decide which option is the right one. Well, today, maybe hydrogen sounds good, but it really has to be driven by the prices in the market. Once you put a price on carbon emissions, then the technology that will emerge will be the one that offers the most efficient, the cheapest solution to our technological needs that will correspond to that carbon price. So really what we need at this point is a lot of innovation. We're not there yet to really look at the decarbonization, say of aviation, because these technologies aren't really there. We don't have a clean supply of hydrogen. For example, if you haven't got the hydrogen turbines that planes would need to fly using hydrogen, that is all 15, 20 years down the road. So when we are looking at the electrification of mobility in the short term, it really just means passenger vehicles and light trucks.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Okay. Let's talk about policy, cuz I, I feel like that's another area that also has an impact on making these changes happen. Because if you look at say Ontario with them phasing out their coal plants, that was a policy thing. It wasn't just by. So can you maybe speak to some of the policy implications when we're looking at reducing our emissions from transportation?
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Yeah. So there are on, on several sites, you mentioned essentially the cleaning up of the electricity grid in Ontario. Of course there is a price for this and when the government's changed policies changed, we don't see currently any new development of renewable portfolio in Ontario about what is really remarkable is that policy really needs to be driven by the market in terms of the technological choices. And the governments have to just set the overall parameters, right? Which is putting up price on carbon. When governments start picking technologies and saying, okay, we wanna have this amount of thin. We wanna have this amount of solar and we wanna have this amount of something else. Then it gets problematic because it's not a market driven outcome, but it's exactly driven by political choices. And they all subject to all kinds of interference, lobbying, and there are less efficient than when we just leave it to the market to figure out where the clean energy will come from.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
So policy that is essentially the most suitable is one that really puts the price on the pollution and lets then all the companies figure out that can provide solutions on what is the best and the cheapest option to deliver that clean supply of electricity. So when it comes to subsidies, I always put a big rational mark behind many of them because they're really hard to target, right? It's much easier to actually start basically with what economists would call the first best policy, which is putting the price on the pollution and then letting the market figure out which technology emerges as a
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Winner. Yeah. And that makes sense because then they're gonna be incentivized to make the changes that work best for them in order to maximize their efficiency. And so you talked about making these changes in different countries. Let's say the us is more difficult. Where does the international side of things come into the equation? Because some countries might be polluting more. So Canada might be less incentivized to make these changes because another country is alluding. So can you comment on that?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Yeah. This is one of the thot issues. When it comes to climate change policy, we have some countries that are leaders and innovators and others that are lagging and are following and are way behind where they need to go. All the countries that still rely on coal are a part of the, the problem. And so in those cases, for example, if you look at the United States, we have a division between the Western inter, which is relatively clean and the Eastern interconnection, which is relatively dirty because it still relies heavily on coal. So it makes a lot of sense to adopt the electric vehicles in the restaurant part of the country. And it makes much less sense in the eastbound part and will actually take some time to change and means really that we have to lower the dependence on coal. And when I look internationally at places like China, of course, they have been increasing their utilization of coal tremendously over the last 20 years. And so they have become the, the largest in the world as a result. So they have a long way to go to less their independence on coal. In fact, they're using basically introducing electric vehicles, well generate 60% of the electricity from coal. You're not really solving the problem with the electrification. And so what really has to come first is cleaning up the electricity supply. That is the pre-condition for a successful electrification of mobility.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Okay. So yeah, we could talk a bit more about that. So in that regard, what are some barriers to getting off of coal?
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Yeah, of course it all comes down to what are the alternatives that can be integrated into the electricity grid. Essentially when you look at China, they are also massively rolling out renews. They're also massively looking at nuclear, which is you basically something that most other countries do not look at because nuclear has been particularly expensive and been particularly problematic in many different ways. So, but China essentially is at a turning point. If they want to reduce their dependence on coal, they need what becomes we call base load. That is power that is on 24 7 and can be relied onto power. Most of the needs the same way they called us today. And nuclear is a part of the mix in China and they will need to scale it up significantly if they actually want to reduce their dependence on coal. Because the problem with renewals is that they are not close to where the demand is.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
And so they have to build a very significant amount of transmission lines, bring renewable energy from the Western part of the country, to the coast. And that is phenomenally expensive. So that is simply one of the constraints we're we're facing with the cleaning up of electricity. When you're looking at to renewable energy there not necessarily close to where the energy is needed in the big cities. So building the infrastructure that brings the electricity from where it can be produced to where it is consumed. That is one of the major challenges. And that is the reason why China is also looking at nuclear as answer towards lessening the dependence on coal. And of course the other major stepping stone in moving towards a lower carbon footprint is the use of natural gas. That means countries that we do not have a abundant supply of natural gas.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
They have to import it mostly through pipelines or through liquified natural gas. And that is part of what we have been seeing as a trend in recent years, a significant scaling up of production and distribution of liquified natural gas because countries that are shifting towards renewables also need backup power. And that may having fasting peak generators that rely on natural gas. So there's a complementary in terms of moving towards renewables and requiring actually natural gas to support it at least for some time, until we have maybe grid scale, electricity storage through different battery systems. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (11:14):
No, it's clearly a very complex issue. That's very helpful. Thank you. Let's quick talk about the infrastructure. Maybe not so much about getting the energy that we need, but perhaps just the infrastructure, like you talk about charging stations. Is there anything that you could see improving the situation as far as how our cities are designed, how our roads are designed, how people get around specifically with transportation?
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Yes, actually this is part of my ongoing research. In fact, how I've been looking at the difficulties that municipalities have providing infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. Most people likely prefer charging their vehicles at home and not having intermediary actually put an extra price on the electricity. The cheapest place to charge and most instances will be the EV owner's home because then they can tap into the electricity at their own cost and not actually have to pay a charging network for providing the service. But that means having a charging station. And that is where it gets difficult. There are several groups of EV owners that will face challenges. First among them are people have their detached homes, but only have on street parking. So they don't have a dedicated parking space or garage in which you could install a charging station. So when you have on street parking where you don't have a fixed parking spot, how actually do you get electricity to your car?
Speaker 3 (12:27):
And that is where municipalities need to get on the plan, whether they have to actually develop charging solutions and a partnership with companies that can provide those that actually put a lot of charging stations at the curb site of where people park their vehicles and also then actually providing a way to actually keep the cost of intermediation low. Because again, when you make it too expensive, it reduces the incentive to actually switch to electric vehicles. So that's the first group. The second group is people who in rental buildings. So where your landlord decides what infrastructure goes into the building and landlords don't necessarily have any incentives to do that. And even though EV owners would like to charge their vehicles, but they can't force a landlord to put into infrastructure. So here, the problem is really the building code that for new buildings, we can mandate that charging stations.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
And so solutions are put into these new buildings. Of course, then the difficult part is how do we retrofit the existing buildings? And that is often very costly because the buildings weren't designed to deliver electricity to parking stalls, very similar group are people who live in strata buildings like myself. And it took significant effort actually to bring charging solutions into my own building. I happened to be on the strata council of my, my, so I was able to help bring about that process, but it's really difficult. It requires a lot of expertise. And again, if you're looking at an older building, it means retrofiting which actually very quickly adds to the cost of bringing a charging station to an individual parking stall in a parkade, but it's doable, but it's not cheap. And that means governments need to help in two significant waste is they need to overcome legal obstacles.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
For example, strata corporation, shouldn't be able to turn down requests for individuals to put in charging stations at their own costs. And so these obstacles need to be removed at the same time. Governments do provide often quite generous incentives to put in charging stations here in bridge Columbia, they have a program they're similar programs and other jurisdictions settle, federal level, and they will help buildings actually reduce their own cost. And basically bootstrap the process of bringing electric vehicles to current owners of internal combustion engine vehicles. People will not buy EVs if they can charts them reliably and conveniently. And that is the crus of the matter. The whole transition to electric vehicles is predicated on the assumption that and go and charge them. And if people find it difficult, they will not change over to electric vehicles. So it's even more important that we help bring about charging solutions than subsidizing EV purchases. Because again, you won't buy an EV unless you can charge it. And no amount of EV subsidy is gonna make you buy an EV if you cannot charge it. And so the first auto problem we have to solve is on the charging side and not of the side of incentivizing EV purchases.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Yeah. And that makes a lot of sense cuz when I think of, you know, you just go buy an electric car and you guys plug it in. And most people where I live, they have a garage, they have lots of power. So yeah, I never thought about people in apartments or places where you would have to install extra electrical outlets. That makes a lot of sense. But to me it sounds like implementing those changes is, is probably overall in the grand scheme of things, an easier win. Would you say like it's easier to implement.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
I mean it's doable. It requires a lot of technological solutions. And one issue that I haven't mentioned is that many buildings also have to pass city constraints, buildings weren't designed for delivering a lot of electricity for charging electric vehicles. So they were designed for delivering electricity for, you know, the appliances people run in their homes and, and the lighting and the heating, but they were not designed to deliver the extra electricity for charging cars. So a lot needs to change on the infrastructure side. Also what I would call upstream now outside the individual home. And that means the utilities actually have to put in infrastructure that manages us charging effectively. For example, if now we are all driving EVs and they're we coming home in the afternoon, we are all plug in our cars and we charge all at the same time. That's gonna put a lot of strain on the electricity grids.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
So we need actually solutions from the utilities said actually incentivize, maybe stretching out the charging over the entire night if possible, and basically reducing the load on our grid at peak times. So we have to see that new pricing systems need to be put into place such as time of use pricing or other mechanisms that will allow utilities to manage the load that we will be putting on the grid. And we are not actually ending in a situation where we're putting huge demands on a short time periods onto the grid that the grid can deliver. Whereas if you were to spread out, the charging of cars would make it much easier on the grid to accommodate the electricity needs for EVs.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
So what would you imagine the solution to that is, is that a regulation where you charge your car at a certain time? Or is it like you talked about the market where you're incentivizing people to charge at work or they have stations that they can go to at a coffee shop or something?
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Yeah, the right solutions always to use the market and here the pricing system would be ideal. And so EV owners will probably be offered a choice that they can get over a lower rate if they are willing to subscribe to a time of use pricing for the EV charging so that they can put the EV charging into the night when the demand on the electricity grid is lower than during the day and especially the afternoon and early evening. So these mechanisms will be put into place will essentially incentivize people to make informed choices and they will be able to program the chargers to do exactly that. And basically to prices many chargers are already smart chargers that have built in software that can recognize the prices in the electricity grid and respond with their charging accordingly. So these smart solutions, they will come with the changes that we need, especially time of use pricing or there other mechanisms such as critical peak pricing that electric utilities also look at to manage excess demand at certain times.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Are there any places that you know of countries or cities that are doing really well in this regard, as far as implementing that infrastructure for charging,
Speaker 3 (18:06):
You know, there's some that are experimenting. Folks that example, the city of London in the United Kingdom has been working together with a company called electricity, which is now owned by shell to deploy charging solutions using the lamppost street lighting lamppost. So basically there is an electricity grid that's already built into our street space. And the idea is to essentially put PL into the lining that people can go and charge their cars, not necessarily very fast, but there's enough power to charge quite a number of cars that otherwise wouldn't have an option. So how can we take our existing infrastructure and adapt it to the future charging needs? And this is where I think a lot of cities will have to look at buildings as infrastructure. Because again, in many cities on the world, people do not have their own parking spaces. They only have public parking that they can access on street parking that is not dedicated to an individual owner.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
And that means that the cities really have to be major player in bringing about the infrastructure that is needed for this EV transition because especially in urban places, the ownership issue is the critical problem to address because most people in particular in Europe don't own their own homes, but they rent. And that comes back to the earlier problem. I mentioned, if you are renting a building and you don't have a dedicated parking space, or you have only on street parking, you are always ending up in the spot that getting a V is not the smart choice, unless you have a reliable way convey way of charging it. And that is the fundamental obstacle we need to address because without it, they're gonna get stuck with EB transition. There's basically the low hanging fruit, the early adopters that can do it because they have dedicated parking spaces that they own, that they can put charges in. And then we are running against that wall and they cannot move further unless we are building that infrastructure, that's public, the infrastructure that is needed.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
So do you see that change of getting all these charging stations? Do you see that happening in time when everyone should be driving EVs?
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Well, under current political constellations, I don't see it happening yet. The decisions haven't been made that would point in that direction because it exactly it comes money. And basically then you have, have to go and ask, who's gonna pay for it. Can you actually attribute the cost to individual EV owners? Basically, if you own a car, it should be the cost of the infrastructure as opposed to if you're walking or cycling or taking public transit and you should not. So this actually comes back to a question about it. Should it be the average sex payer who pays for everything? Should it be the users of the motor vehicles or the electric vehicles who pay for the infrastructure? And I would make a strong case that yes, we should actually put the cost on the owners of EVs because on the other hand, we also want to incentivize people actually moving away from individualized transportation.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
And ideally, especially in dense, urban areas rely a lot more on public transit and when they need a car and as we all do at times, there are other options from networks of rental vehicles or fleets of like here in, in Vancouver, we have evil and that used to be car to go and other, such networks that allow people to actually get a car when they need it in urban spaces, but not own a car and have to park it and use space and have all the other implications of car ownership. So they see a lot of younger people actually not buying cars and say, well, I use a combination of transportation using public transit and cycling. And when I car, I can go and hop into an evil or, or another pay as yougo car. And that is maybe the new future of mobility, especially in urban areas.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
We also have already too many cars in our cities. If you look at the congestion, we have many cities have been thinking about congestion pricing and basically putting a higher price on using individualized mobility and all that points to, we need a solution that isn't just looking at EVs as a, to fix all for our environmental problems, but it needs to be part of a systemwide solution. And that systemwide solution must involve building out our network of public transit, making it more rapid it's needed as a more rapid form of transportation, but also building our bike lanes and building infrastructure that allows people to access other modes of transportation.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Are those changes perhaps easier to implement than let's say opening everyone with
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Evs? Yes, that is a big, big political question. On one hand, we have a lot of people who feel very invested in individualized mobility. It, it has been the the dominant political theme from the fifties and sixties on that individual mobility was regarded as a high political goal, very similar to owning homes and moving away from this and moving to a model that involves more public transportation is hard and the face of political opposition. If you look around the world, it's a lot easier in places that never really moved away from public transportation. Many European cities have much better built out infrastructure when it comes to public transportation than we have here in Northern America. The love of the car was basically the dominant theme for many decades in the 20th century. And now we're facing the reality of climate change and we are facing the reality of denser cities and the problem that we're away from the the low density structures of many places that where, especially in places like Vancouver, where, you know, we cannot basically accommodate more houses because there is no space to build them on.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
So urban sprawl basically went along with the extended use of individual mobility, and that is not the sustainable model because as cities are sprawling to people are driving longer and longer distances between home and work and all that has contributed to our problem that we're facing today, which is a very high carbon dioxide footprint from individual mobility. It's in the end comes down to one key question. When we look at the use of cars, what is the true cost of driving cars? What's the social cost of driving a car. And we actually see that the, the cost of using cars is not just the pollution they cost, but it's also the congestion. The time it takes, it's also the road accidents and the injuries and fatal that go along this individual car use. So these are all costs that we need to look at.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
I haven't mentioned parking and the high cost of the free parking we have in cities and the land use that goes along with this parking, all of that actually has repercussions throughout our economy. And what we need to do is putting in the right price on driving, which is basically as economies will put it internalizing all the externalities, all the the negative effects from driving. And so motorists whether or fueling internal combustion engines should pay the full price of their activity. And once you have the right price on this, that includes all these social costs and people make better informed choices. When you compare alternative modes of transportation like public transit or cycling or walking to driving a car. And so what cities need to do is really look their at where there are currently active subsidizing the use of cars, whether it's through a parking space, whether it's by not putting a price on congestion and all the emissions that come with congestion, there are options that economists have been advocating for a long time, like congestions pricing or proper fees on parking that reflect the scarcity of parking. A lot of places, all the, and be done by using the right economic instruments. And unfortunately they're not an easy political sell in many instances.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
And then that's a good point because if something is wonderfully fantastic, like the expression is perfect as the enemy of good, if something is amazing, but there's no way you're gonna get it put through. Then there's almost no point in even trying that. So what are some, maybe some easier implementations that we could get through?
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Yeah. Various regulations can be put into place that sort of mimic what economists will otherwise call the first best solution. We're just putting the price on the negative externality, but if that's not possible, well, we actually should do two things. First is can we make it possible on the first best policy, but making it fair often the key concern is that say if you introduce congest pricing or a carbon tax, is it fair? You got to recycle the revenue and give it back to people rather than actually using it as revenue for governments. So when you actually put these prices on these activities, make sure that it isn't actually going into some anonymous government Coff, but instead recycle the money and give it back to people as the federal government has it done with their carbon price and the federal backstop where the money is fully given back to households on a per capita basis.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
That is a way to go to make sure that people aren't worse off from these policies. So first address a fairness issue when it comes to these ideal policies. But if you can do those, then the second best policies, mostly regulation need to be very target effective. For example, when it comes to urban space, now we kind of need to regulate the land use, which is parking space. And now here, there are many very smart ways to actually improve things. For example, in the building code, we still have requirements to have parking spaces in each building. It makes a lot more sense to actually get rid of some of these requirements. And instead let the market decide if there is parking in the building or not. Now if a developer figures out, well, you only need like a parking space for every second unit because other people that they wanna use transit and they don't want own a car, then why do we make them pay for having a parking spot in their new building, then that actually adds extra cost.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
So let the market again work and actually remove some of the unhelpful mandates that are currently still in the building code. And on the other hand, to make it more expensive, to use things that shouldn't be free. For example, parking in most instances, parking is using up space and that space could be used for, you know, building new homes. So we should be putting a fair price on parking. It should not be free whenever there's something free, it's getting overused. And so when it comes to where governments normally or lonely subsidize activities like parking, we have to rethink how we do it and basically make sure that these activities actually face a full social cost of what is involves by this activity like parking cars in a public space.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
So lastly this show is about empowering citizens to take informed action on climate change, in your opinion, what can citizens do now to ensure that these appropriate changes we've been talking about are made to urban transportation? So that it's part of the climate solution.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Yeah. We need to, the policies that make it happen. There is no free lunch here when it comes to infrastructure, somebody has to pay for it. And governments have to decide who to pay for these investments. In many instances, it's a jurisdictional issue. Municipalities, for example, struggle with putting in infrastructure because they don't have budgets for that. They don't have the tax base to do it right. And they have to struggle funding revenues to kind of very odd instruments. As we have seen here in Vancouver, you can't just use property, Texas for this, and it needs to have other instruments as well. That means we have to get the corporation from the provincial and federal level to make it happen. Essentially, all the jurisdictions have to come together to have a plan that they work together rather than each jurisdiction doing their thing and not really caring about what the other jurisdiction is doing. So this corporation is really essential to have essentially a master plan of the electrification of mobility that looks at all the infrastructure needs that we have from the municipal level to where governments need to get involved. Say building, for example, rapid transit and subways that's needed here at C Vancouver. And so a variety of other things be based to look at where all these policies have to come together. And that means the different jurisdictions have to come to sit at the same table and discuss how that do that.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
So for individuals wanting to make a change, is it just about electing the right people in power or the right politicians to make those changes?
Speaker 3 (29:22):
Well, in many instances it is no change will happen unless there is political mandate to enact those changes and especially where it means significant investments, governments have to be willing to raise the money for it.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
All right. I think we will end it there. So that's been very helpful. Thank you so much for your time Warner. It's
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Been my pleasure talking to you.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Well, that was my talk with professor Antweiler. Clearly sustainable transportation is a very complex issue and I appreciate his market driven approach to solutions. I also found his work on barriers to EV charging fascinating, but we've also learned that driving just one part of the solution and we still need to prioritize public and active transportation. Well, that's all for me. I'm Michael Bartz. Here's the feeling a little less can over our head when it comes to saving the planet. We'll see 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, please email info at, in over my head podcast.com special. Thanks to Telus STORYHIVEi for making in this show possible.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
I'm trying to save the planet or will someone please.