Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
"Net Zero will impoverish you, help China & won't save the planet" - Ross Clark
1k Plays2 years ago
Update: Australiana is now Fire at Will - your safe space for dangerous conversations.
Australia and the UK have adopted a legally-binding commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. In this provocative conversation with host Will Kingston, author and Spectator journalist Ross Clark lays out a searing case for why this commitment is not only environmentally futile, but economically and geopolitically dangerous. Ross’ new book is titled ‘Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China (and Won't Even Save the Planet).’
Follow Will Kingston and Fire at Will on social media here.
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia here.
Buy ‘Not Zero’ here.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction and Podcast Overview
00:00:00
Speaker
The Spectator Australia magazine combines incisive political analysis with books and arts reviews of unrivalled authority. Subscribe today at spectator.com.au forward slash subscription.
00:00:27
Speaker
G'day and welcome to Australiana from The Spectator, a series of conversations on Australian politics and life. I'm Will Kingston.
Climate Change Statistics: A Misinterpretation?
00:00:36
Speaker
I read a startling statistic in preparation for this interview. Over the first 20 years of this century, changes in the temperature, most probably as a result of man-made climate change, resulted in just over 555,000 deaths in England and Wales.
00:00:53
Speaker
I should clarify, that's just over 555,000 fewer deaths in England and Wales. Yes, because of the upward trend in temperatures, England and Wales observed a net decrease of half a million deaths, or a touch under 30,000 less deaths a year. An underreported but indisputable fact is that the cold kills multitudes more people around the world each year than hot weather.
00:01:17
Speaker
But it's the deaths that will follow more extreme weather events that really matter, I hear you say. Well, not really. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters around the world was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, the average was a tad over 18,000 or 96% lower.
00:01:35
Speaker
I don't bring up these two miraculous statistics, and they are miraculous statistics, because I'm a climate denier, a term by the way that was concocted to subtly associate people who don't follow the mainstream climate narrative with Holocaust deniers. I think it's beyond doubt that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased since the mass burning of fossil fuels, and I think that most probably has caused global temperatures to rise.
00:01:58
Speaker
I bring them up because they are two shades of grey in a debate that has been painted black and white by too many people that approach this issue with ideological zealotry rather than reason and pragmatism.
Critique of Net Zero Policies
00:02:09
Speaker
Ross Clark is not one of those people. Ross is a British journalist and author whose work has appeared in The Spectator, the producer of this podcast, The Times and The Daily Mail, among others. He's written several books, the most recent of which was released earlier this month and is titled Not Zero, How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China, and Won't Even Save the Planet. Ross, welcome to Australiana. Hello.
00:02:33
Speaker
The title of your book actually makes for a very handy structure for a podcast. We'll cover each of the three claims inherent within it. But first, I want to talk about the broader discourse around climate change. You may or may not be surprised to hear that a few people actually warned against me taking this interview. They said that even being perceived to support a book that is critical of the climate crusade could potentially harm what is my day job in the corporate world.
00:03:01
Speaker
Are you surprised by that? And what do you think it says about how we talk about this issue? No, it doesn't surprise me at all what you said, because there's this sort of idea in Britain and I'm sure in Australia too that, you know, anything on climate change is all settled. The policy of net zero, it's beyond debate. You can't discuss it anymore. You're right. And the way that you frame that is correct in that it's a very pragmatic question. It's a question of policy.
00:03:28
Speaker
And yet these types of issues have taken on a quasi-religious dimension in recent years.
Fear Narratives in Climate and COVID
00:03:35
Speaker
Climate change is one, COVID is obviously another. Why do you think this is the case?
00:03:39
Speaker
I think it's very easy to scare people when it comes down. As you said, we saw it with COVID. COVID was a very serious pandemic, but we got ourselves into corners, which the sort of risks didn't quite justify closing down society for weeks on end. And a similar thing with the climate. The climate is changing. The earth is warming in some ways. That is very negative. There are also, as you alluded to at the beginning,
00:04:06
Speaker
some positive things come out in like a reduction of deaths from from the cold. The manner in which it's discussing fear laden atmosphere that's been created and you tell people that Earth's going to become unlivable or billions of people
00:04:23
Speaker
gonna die you know it sticks in the back of the head well that could that be true and someone comes down to fear really and we used to have sort of government the role of government used to be to sort of try and allay people's fears of nuclear war and so on when i was a kid
00:04:40
Speaker
during the Cold War, we downplayed the risks of nuclear annihilation, but the government seemed to switch in the past 20 years and now it plays up every conceivable fear. I don't know why they do it. I was also interested to read about how
00:04:58
Speaker
particular organizations influence the media into spinning a particularly fear-led narrative, one that you cover in your book is Covering Climate Now, which I hadn't heard of.
Media Influence on Climate Perception
00:05:10
Speaker
Tell us a bit more about them specifically, and more importantly, why an institution like them can influence the media who at one point were an institution that valued their independence fiercely.
00:05:22
Speaker
Well, this is an organisation that's sponsored by a Canadian university and a number of left-leaning political institutions in the US and also the Guardian newspaper in Britain. There's always a red flag.
00:05:40
Speaker
try to influence the way that reporters cover climate change. And the sort of thing they'll say is, if you're covering the report of a hurricane, then you should. And indeed, you must sort of link it to climate change. Just chuck in a sentence to say that climate change is making these kind of weather events much more common.
00:06:02
Speaker
Well, there's two things objectionable about that. Firstly, you shouldn't be telling reporters or news organizations should not be telling their reporters in such a sort of way. They should be stimulating them to inquire into these issues themselves. But secondly, it's simply not true that the number of hurricanes has increased.
Debunking Climate Change and Hurricanes
00:06:23
Speaker
In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has studied hurricanes more than anyone else in
00:06:30
Speaker
in the world. They state that there has been no increase in landfalling hurricanes in the US in the past two centuries. There are some changes that the hurricanes, when they get to the land, they're slowing down and dumping a bit more rain in
00:06:45
Speaker
one particular area, but they're not increased. Sometimes you see charts of showing an apparent increase in North Atlantic hurricanes going back 200 years, but that's most increasing trend, as the NOAA says, is mainly due to the fact that 200 years ago we didn't have satellites and storms which started at sea and stayed at sea were never recorded.
00:07:08
Speaker
In other parts of the world, there are some places seen increasing cyclones in the Pacific. Australia, interestingly, the incidence of cyclones is at its lowest in the past 1,500 years. So it's a very sort of mixed bag, but that's not what sort of an organization like Covering Climate now wants to report, is to say. It just wants to sort of blame climate change for every adverse weather event, as if we never had wind
00:07:38
Speaker
storms, floods, heat waves, droughts before manmade climate change, which is ridiculous. Yes, there's two problems there. The first problem is playing up the impact of climate change in events where it may not be a factor, but also to the point you've just made, there aren't news events for things that don't happen. So you're not going to read an article saying that there's been less tropical cyclones in Australia over the last however many years, but it doesn't make it any less of a fact.
00:08:07
Speaker
And it's a nice segue actually into the impact of a net zero policy by a country like the UK or Australia, both countries that are relatively small emitters in the greater scheme
Economic Impact of Net Zero Policies
00:08:17
Speaker
of things. The impact that will or indeed won't have on the environment. Do you think net zero is possible without a dramatic reduction in our current living standards?
00:08:27
Speaker
Yeah, well, there's two schools of thought on net zero. There's the hair shirt school, which says that to reach net zero, we all got to do less. We've got to fly less, eat less meat and drive less and all this sort of things. And then there's the sort of panglossian school. It says, oh, it can be achieved without any
00:08:49
Speaker
impact on our living standards, or technology will ride to our rescue. And I think both those positions are sort of off their respective trolleys because the hair shirt mob in the sense that people ultimately are not going to agree to become poorer in
00:09:11
Speaker
in the cause of meeting some arbitrary target on carbon emissions. I mean, you know, it's okay for wealthy or well-off middle-class people to say, oh, wouldn't it be fun to go on holiday by train rather than plane? But, you know, if you're struggling to heat your home, struggling to put food on the table, you are not going to agree to
00:09:29
Speaker
things which are going to make you poorer. But the Panglossian school, I think it's also off the trolley in the sense that in order to reach net zero, it requires multiple areas of technology either to be invented or to be scaled up on a commercial basis.
00:09:47
Speaker
and you know we're just not even nearly there or even deciding how we we can possibly get there and the government in Britain passed this net zero target legally binding net zero target in 2019 but it had no idea of
00:10:03
Speaker
what it meant. It still has no idea of what it would take. The Treasury was asked two years ago to come up with a figure, how much it would cost. It couldn't do so because there's too many unknowns, too many technologies. It's not just about energy, it's about things like steelmaking, cement making, plastics, you name it. There's all kinds of industries, there are process emissions which
00:10:28
Speaker
Agriculture again, it's very, very difficult. There are multi layers of technical problems that have to be solved before we can get anywhere near net zero. There's probably two categories of technology there. There's the category of technology that we currently have available to us, but it's not at the moment cost effective compared to traditional sources of energy.
00:10:50
Speaker
And then there's technologies we haven't even considered yet, or haven't even aware of yet. On that first category, because it's a bit more tangible to get our heads around, let's start with green technology, wind and solar. Can you envisage a world in which they will be used in a way which is cost-effective and practical? Because they certainly aren't at scale at the moment.
00:11:10
Speaker
Yeah. I mean, at the moment, the cost of generating wind and solar energy have fallen quite dramatically in the past decade or had done. I mean, they were very much linked to the commodities prices and heavy metal, rare metals and prices steel was coming down. So was the cost of solar and wind.
00:11:31
Speaker
That's reversed in the past couple of years as commodity prices have gone up. And I've read generator wind power saying it costs 40% more to build a wind turbine now than it did a couple of years ago. So the cost of wind is going to go up. But generally, on the generation alone, wind and solar are quite competitive now. But the problem is that if you can have a national grid based on wind and solar, you need a huge amount of backup or storage to
00:11:59
Speaker
in order to make that practical and that's where the real problems come from. In Britain we potentially have enough, theoretically have enough wind and solar capacity to meet our average electricity demand at the moment.
00:12:16
Speaker
But on a windy sunny day, we can supply over 50%. Renewables can. On a bad day, that falls below 2%. And, you know, that's more, that's a huge deficit to make up. Just, you know, on the cost of potential cost of, you know, say battery. I mean, I know in Australia that there have been battery installations, have been married with solar farms to try and smooth out the peaks and troughs. But, um,
00:12:42
Speaker
If it costs about US$50 to generate a megawatt hour of electricity by solar, it costs about US$300 to store a megawatt of energy in a battery. You've got to pay twice, of course. If you have any energy that's stored, you've got to pay twice.
00:13:05
Speaker
The technology at the moment is simply not even nearly there to make it practical to have a grid that runs on wind and solar alone. When you have excess generation of energy, then you can store it in a battery. Very expensive, as you just mentioned. There was a second possibility to deal with the problem intimacy in your book, which I found intriguing, if a tad fanciful. And that was the idea of a global green electricity grid. Tell us a bit about how that would work.
00:13:31
Speaker
Well, there are countries which already connect their grids by undersea connector, international connector in Britain. We have connectors with France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and Ireland. And sometimes we sell them electricity. Sometimes we import electricity depending on the price, how the market works. And this is all based on the assumption that it's always sunny or always windy somewhere in the world or at least somewhere in the region.
00:14:01
Speaker
Yes, well, and that's not why the connectors were put in in the first place. It was just simply to make the market, energy market work a bit better. But if you could scale up that idea and say, well, let's not just have a European grid, let's have a worldwide grid and transatlantic
00:14:18
Speaker
connectors, connectors across the Pacific. And then it would always, as always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere. Could we move electricity around the world this way to make up for that? But of course, you know, it comes down to the enormous expense of it. And the losses as well, you know, if you put an undersea connector between Britain and Norway, as we did a couple of years ago, you lose about 5% of the energy on the way.
00:14:44
Speaker
If you put it across the Atlantic, well, it's going to be more like 20% of the energy or something a bit more than that, even. So that's a potentially very expensive solution. So the other possible solution that intrigued me was funnily enough from Russia. Now let's leave the sincerity of Russia's policies to one side and deal with it theoretically.
00:15:06
Speaker
Russia has said that they're going to dramatically increase their amount of managed forests. So they will actually be absorbing more carbon dioxide rather than necessarily taking the route that we've just mentioned of eliminating emissions from power generation. The reason that piqued my curiosity because for two reasons. Firstly, like Russia, Australia has a vast landmass that they could potentially utilize with such a policy. And secondly, a similar idea was floated by former prime minister Tony Abbott as a potential solution.
00:15:35
Speaker
give or take ten years ago. Is this a viable alternative approach or is it fanciful? Well, the thing is, if you plant a tree and it grows, it sucks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In that sense, it's helping you reduce the level of CO2, but probably the trees don't live forever. They fall down, rot and die, and then they release the carbon dioxide. You know, that's in a hundred years time. I mean, if you create
00:16:03
Speaker
new forest and its permanent forest so that any trees that die are replaced by new trees then you could sort of theoretically you know lead to a permanent reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but you need vast areas of land to do that. Certainly in Britain we've been trying to we have a program of planting
00:16:25
Speaker
more forestry in order to help reach net zero. But you could cover the entire Britain in trees and you still wouldn't pull out carbon emissions. But what you would do, of course, is you would force all food production abroad and just shift carbon emissions to another part of the world.
00:16:43
Speaker
Can I follow up on the comment you just made? Because one of the most infuriating parts of your book for me is in the way that you described how various European governments effectively tried to wash away their climate sins by curtailing their own carbon production, particularly in gas.
00:17:02
Speaker
whilst consuming increased quantities that they're importing from elsewhere. So in the end, it doesn't make one iota of difference to the environment overall. In fact, you may actually be net behind. Can you talk us through how that warped process works?
00:17:15
Speaker
Yeah, when it comes to Britain's net zero target and other countries as well, it's always defined in terms of what are called territorial emissions. And these are emissions which are physically spewed out within Britain or whatever other country. It excludes aviation shippings of international
00:17:34
Speaker
things and also rather crucially emissions spewed out elsewhere in the world in the name of creating food and goods for UK consumers and so what what it what it means is that well here's a figure between 1996 and 2019 Britain reduced its territorial carbon emissions by about 43 percent but you look at its consumption based emissions these are
00:18:03
Speaker
emissions, where you count emissions all around the world in the name of creating food goods for US, UK consumers, we've only reduced our consumption based emissions by 13%. So basically what we've done is offshored our emissions and how have we done that basically by allowing UK industry to decline and be replaced by industry in South Asia and with it we shunt our emissions off our
00:18:30
Speaker
national balance sheet and put it on China would have helped the planet. In fact, it's been negative on the planet because a factory in Britain will be mostly powered by gas, nuclear and renewable energy, whereas a factory in China is mostly powered by coal energy. So if you displace a factory to China, well, you're actually increasing global
00:18:54
Speaker
Carbon emissions which is not exactly what you know the time when you're claiming to reduce its absolutely Bonkers in essence a global problem needs a global solution which brings us on to the broader considerations around geopolitics which you also Cover very well in your book. Let's start with China
00:19:15
Speaker
I get the feeling there was a period in maybe the 2000s, the early 2010s where China was actually revered in some circles as a global leader on climate policy. And I think fortunately, more people are realistic now in assessing China's geopolitical strategy. What is the Communist Party's philosophy on climate change?
00:19:36
Speaker
You know, we'll start off with the writer that you can't really trust much of what comes out of the Chinese government. But in as much as we might try, China, you know, admits climate change and it has a target for reaching net zero by 2060. It's not a legally binding target. It's an aspiration. But it has made it absolutely clear that it will not compromise economic growth.
00:20:01
Speaker
So if it can't reach that target by 2060 without growing its economy, it won't do it. Now, China is the, you know, it sets an example in sort of manufacturing wind plants and solar plants. It's the world's biggest investor in those forms of energy, but it's also the world's biggest investor in new coal plants. China's rapidly growing economy.
00:20:26
Speaker
or at least it was until Covid, it wants energy from all fronts. And of course, a lot of the solar panels and wind turbines that are making China are being exported to the rest of the world.
00:20:41
Speaker
You know, I think China sort of stated policy is actually far more sensible than the stated policies of Britain and many other countries in that. So, yeah, climate change is a problem. We're trying to sort out, we'll reduce our carbon emissions, but we're not going to do it at the price of economic growth. And I think that should be our policy too.
China's Role in Global Emissions and Net Zero
00:21:01
Speaker
And from memory, China is responsible for around 30% of global emissions. Is that right? 43% is the latest figure. And then the UK is about 1%. Australia is a decimal point, basically.
00:21:16
Speaker
So the bottom line is, no matter what the UK or Australia does, if China is going in one direction, that's what's really going to influence global emissions. China and India and the US, the UK and Australia can't have a material impact. And this is where I really struggle with the climate activist logic, because when they respond to a statement like that, you'll either hear something like, well, we all need to chip in and do our bit.
00:21:41
Speaker
or potentially our action can encourage others to follow suit, both of which seem to me to be insufficient, particularly when you have to sell that to families who are struggling to pay their energy bills. Is there something I'm missing here? Is there another good argument for a country like the UK or Australia to go it alone in absence of collective global action? No, basically.
00:22:07
Speaker
I think if you add up all the emissions of the countries which have put themselves under a legal obligation to reach net zero, it's about 10% of global emissions. 90% of global emissions come from countries which have not put themselves under
00:22:23
Speaker
any legally binding target and don't look like doing it either. I mean, the US was, you know, Joe Biden is in the sort of goody-goody on climate because he's not Donald Trump. But I mean, he has come nowhere near to tying America's hands behind its back by saying we'll reach net zero emissions by any particular date. So, you know, on its own, Britain or Australia and many other countries can't do anything.
00:22:51
Speaker
any measurable impact on global emissions by themselves and when this was passed in Britain in 2019 the legally binding target was with the idea it was going to influence others to follow suit but they haven't done and have shown no intention of doing so.
00:23:08
Speaker
Can I follow up on that because the distinction between an aspirational target and a legally binding piece of legislation is something I think the consequences of that I hadn't really considered until reading your book. Can you explain what the practical consequences are or the differences are if you have a legally binding target in places as opposed to an aspiration?
00:23:29
Speaker
Yes, you get sued by environmental groups, and that's what's already happening in Britain. Heathrow Airport, the government wanted to put a third runway there. They were taken to court by a couple of environmental groups, said this is not compatible with your net zero target.
00:23:47
Speaker
for 2050 and they won. Well, initially they won, but it was then later overturned at the Supreme Court. Another case last summer, a group of environmentalists took the government to court and said, your net zero strategy
00:24:02
Speaker
is not good enough for getting to net zero by 2050 and of course it's not so they won the case and governments have had to produce another strategy which it's sort of done in the past couple of weeks but that's not going to get anywhere near net zero either but the closer we get to 2050
00:24:20
Speaker
The harder it is going to become to build any infrastructure in Britain or to pursue any policy of economic growth because if the government's not on the path to meeting net zero, environmentalists are going to take it to court and they're going to win increasingly.
00:24:35
Speaker
Yes, that's right. And you're trying to do that in the next couple of decades, which potentially will be geopolitically very uncertain. In your book, you say that for too long when it comes to energy policy, it's been driven by environmental concerns rather than geopolitical ones. Putin has momentarily caused us to glance at that geopolitical side of the calculus.
00:24:57
Speaker
Do you think it will only be a momentary glance? Well, I think the energy security argument has finally entered the debate or re-entered the debate in the past few months. And in Britain here, we just had a cabinet reshuffle and
00:25:12
Speaker
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has created a department for energy security and net zero, so it's admitting that energy security is rather important after all. But yeah, for years. And of course, when in doubt, just create another government department, I suppose.
00:25:28
Speaker
Well, yes, it's great business for those companies which make signs for Whitehall departments who do headed note paper and so they're always at work. For years, North Sea gas production or production was allowed to sort of run down because we said all these are declining industries going to be replaced by renewables. There's no point in sort of encouraging them. We
00:25:54
Speaker
turned down the chance to establish a UK shale gas industry. Again, you know, part of environmental protest, but partly because some government sort of thought, oh, it's just a twilight industry, don't need to encourage it. But then in the past year, of course, we've discovered how
00:26:12
Speaker
reliant with still are on fossil fuels and will be for decades to come. And there has been a sort of change in opinion with, you know, more North Sea licenses now being issued, although the fracking ban remains. But, you know, energy security is hugely important and it has not been served well. It is in deep conflict with net zero aims.
00:26:36
Speaker
Sometimes when we talk about energy security, it can become very theoretical, but there is an end consumer there, and the end consumer there are working Australian and British families that are trying to warm their homes, potentially cool their homes if it's Australia, and put food on the table. In the conversations you've had researching the book, in the thinking you've done on the topic, how does all of this impact everyday people?
00:27:02
Speaker
it's going to come to impact them hugely. It's only really just beginning, but I mean, for example, in Britain, government has announced that from 2025 it won't allow new gas boilers in houses. We'll have to install electric heat pumps instead. Trouble is they cost sort of three, five times as much as a gas boiler to install
00:27:24
Speaker
You also have to insulate your house much more in order to make it work. Huge bills going to land on the doormats of people who own the older properties. A lot of those people tend to be people with limited means have struggled to buy a house in Britain's huge
00:27:45
Speaker
an overinflated housing market and now they're going to be whacked by even more bills. Cars, it's very difficult to see how we can switch to electric cars while it's still making it affordable for ordinary people to own cars. It seems that on current figures electric cars have as much to buy again. They only seem to cost
00:28:10
Speaker
save money in the running costs because the tax differential, in fact, the electricity is very lightly taxed and petrol and diesel are heavily taxed. From what I can see, and this is some big breakthrough in technology, that motoring will go back to being a sort of privilege for the wealthy few rather than a sort of everyday means of transport.
00:28:30
Speaker
If you don't something really interesting there, which is the issue of privilege and this is where the issue of class comes into this discussion because it seems like so often the people putting forward these initiatives are generally the people who can afford to cover the cost of these initiatives. But they're speaking for everyday people who may not have you reflected on how class enters into this discussion.
00:28:52
Speaker
Well, so normally, regressive taxation is seen as absolute no-no. But when it comes to climate, the other rules seem to apply. And when it comes to the wealthy, we load them with regressive taxes on fuel and other stuff.
00:29:10
Speaker
Where comes the wealthy? We chuck grants at them. You're wealthy enough to afford electric car, we'll give you £4,000 off it in grant money. We have things called biomass boiler renewable heat incentives. That's what it's called in Britain, but basically encourages people by handing them thousands of pounds to replace their gas or oil boiler
00:29:34
Speaker
with a one that burns wood chips, which is very polluting by the way, but those are only practical for large rural properties essentially. It's a handout of landed gentry, where it's paid for by the energy bills of the poor.
00:29:50
Speaker
Yes, that's very interesting, particularly as a lot of those types of people will make the spurious comment that it will be climate change that hits the poor hardest, but really these interventions right now are having really material impacts on the people that they claim to be protecting.
Revisiting Net Zero Targets: Pragmatism vs. Panic
00:30:07
Speaker
To pull this together, the final chapter of your book is titled, So What Should We Do? I don't want you to give away all of it because I want people to go out and buy the book, but in brief, what should we do?
00:30:20
Speaker
Well, firstly, stop panicking. The single best thing we could do is to downgrade that 2050 target in Britain to an aspiration rather than a legally binding target. Do you think there's any chance that will happen? Not in the near future. I think it would be politically difficult, but the closer we get to 2050, I think the more obvious it will become what a middle stone it is around our neck.
00:30:47
Speaker
Yeah, so technology is breakable. What we don't want is to do all this with a gun at our head saying we've got to do it by 2050 because that's going to force us to make bad decisions, go for bad technological solutions rather than let the good ones develop.
00:31:03
Speaker
Well, I hope that Australian politicians will read your book Ross and will listen to this because I just have an awful feeling that Australia may be following the path of the UK and you have laid out a very, very compelling argument for that is a really bad idea. The book more generally is the most thorough and considered book on climate policy I've read. I cannot recommend it highly enough to all of our listeners. Separately, you could also continue to read Ross's work
00:31:32
Speaker
in the spectator. So go out, treat yourself to a subscription. Ross, thank you for I think what is a really important addition to a debate that has been oversimplified. So keep up the fantastic work. Thanks, Will. Thank you very much for listening to this episode of Australiana. If you enjoyed it, please subscribe. And if you really enjoyed it, please leave us a rating and a review.