Building a Just Climate Future with Sandhya Sabapathy
Watch the episode
Summary
In this episode of The No Nonsense Sustainability Podcast, host Ildiko Almasi Simsic welcomes Sandhya Sabapathy, founder of Kaleidoscope and author of Burn Bright, Build Slow. The discussion centers around the effectiveness of corporate net-zero pledges and the real impact of sustainability efforts.
The conversation delves into the operational realities of sustainability, examining the pitfalls of corporate philanthropy and the myths surrounding climate transition in boardrooms. Sabapathy shares insights from her experience as a sustainability leader, highlighting the need for authentic action over performative gestures.
Sabapathy emphasizes the importance of transparency and honesty in corporate sustainability efforts. She argues for a shift from compliance-based reporting to genuine action plans, urging companies to acknowledge their failures and learn from them. The episode concludes with a call for a systemic change in how sustainability is approached, focusing on building resilient systems.
Highlights
Sandhya Sabapathy discusses the concept of a just climate future.
Corporate sustainability is often more about appearance than real change.
The teenage years of sustainability require moving from talk to tangible action.
Philanthropy should not be a substitute for systemic change.
The convenience economy impacts human connection and community.
Public sentiment on climate change is high, but solutions remain elusive.
Transparency in sustainability reports is crucial for building trust.
Key takeaways
1. A just climate future requires equitable transition to clean energy, balancing human, planet, and business needs.
2. Corporate sustainability often falls into performative empathy, lacking genuine pathways for improvement.
3. Philanthropy can support research but should not replace systemic solutions for basic human needs.
4. Transparency and honesty in sustainability reporting can foster trust and drive real progress.
Timestamped breakdown
[0:09] — Introduction to the Podcast: Ildiko Almasi Simsic introduces the episode and its focus on corporate sustainability.
[1:33] — Guest Introduction: Sandhya Sabapathy is introduced as a sustainability leader and author.
[2:14] — Defining a Just Climate Future: Sabapathy explains what a just climate future means and its core components.
[4:02] — Sustainability's Teenage Years: Discussion on the evolution of sustainability and its current challenges.
[6:31] — Critique of Corporate Sustainability: Sabapathy critiques the performative nature of corporate sustainability efforts.
[9:18] — Impact of Geopolitical Changes: The conversation shifts to how geopolitical changes affect sustainability.
[11:03] — Sticks and Carrots in Reporting: Exploration of compliance-based sustainability reporting and its limitations.
[15:35] — Philanthropy and Systemic Change: Discussion on the role of philanthropy in sustainability and systemic change.
[23:48] — Convenience Economy and Community: Sabapathy discusses the impact of the convenience economy on human connection.
[32:18] — Public Sentiment and Climate Solutions: Exploration of public sentiment on climate change and the gap in solutions.
[34:07] — Red Flags in Sustainability Reports: Identifying issues in corporate sustainability reports and the need for transparency.
Edited transcript
Hi everyone, welcome back to the No Nonsense Sustainability Podcast. I'm Ildiko Almasi Simsic. This show isn't about saving the planet with corporate slogans or glossy brochures. Here we're talking about real communities, real infrastructure, and the future we're building together with the people shaping that future and the critics testing it. No jargon, just real talk. Today, we're talking about corporate sustainability. It's easy to get lost in a world where it seems like companies talk more about climate change and net zero than ever before. But do they actually deliver? Joining me today is Sandhya Sabapathy, a sustainability leader, former FTSE 100 sustainability director, government policy designer, scientist, corporate foundation leader. She has spoken at the World Economic Forum, COP, SXS. She's also named amongst FT's women of the future 50 ESG stars, Institute of Directors, Director of the Year, Sustainability X Global 50 Sustainability Leader, and Enterprise World's Most Impactful Leader of the Year 2026. What's most interesting for me is that she's also the founder of Kaleidoscope technology company that helps high growth companies turn their corporate sustainability into a source of profit and purpose. She's also the author of the international bestseller Burn Bright Build Slow. Welcome to the show Sandhya.
Thank you so much for having me and that was such a kind introduction. Yes, you have a lot of accomplishments. That's very kind. You do too. So in the show we have both the buzzer that buzzes for the buzzwords. And I think we should start with a 60-second explanation of what a just climate future means for you. Are you ready? Sounds great. Yes. Okay, let's go. So I think you got that idea because it's actually the subtitle of my book, How to Build a Just Climate Future. And a just climate future is essentially the world transitioning into a clean energy setup but in a way that's equitable or fair for everyone involved. And the book is structured around those themes of human planet and business which essentially are the core components of how to build a just climate future. Okay. So it's a very very complex topic right? Yeah. of years and years of research probably thousands of scientists but yes so where to even begin I think in your book you talk about the history of sustainability and uh you state that now it's in its teenage years which I completely agree with we've had conversations where we talked about that so what's the what's the origin for sustainability for you and where we are right now.
Yeah I think all of us as sustainability leaders have gone through different phases. Some of us had the privilege of entering it via school because we were maybe on the latter half of the movement and plenty of other people came into it as a result of a myriad of other reasons, right? And for me personally, it was a mix. I studied premed. I was someone who was massively interested in STEM. And when I moved into the business world, the impact that business can have on society in general, but also on driving real change was the reason why I moved into corporate sustainability, philanthropy, and now kind of also moving towards more of a public private sector partnership setup. And for sustainability in general. The reason why I call it the teenage years and the first chapter of the book says coming of age loudly and very specifically kind of focusing on the word loudly is that sustainability has always been a topic that's mainstream. It's discussed. Everyone has an opinion about it. So it now needs to mature beyond what I call just kind of vocabulary or performative empathy into tangible action. And I think that's the phase and it's growing pains which is which is why the teenage years and it really began in the '70s where it was pretty much as a result of legal action. So sustainability always had compliance kind of bound into it but it has gone through different waves of the role of responsible business. Is it from an impact standpoint and how much a business affects society or is it from a risk standpoint to make sure that a business can be sustainable themselves over a period of time. So it goes through these peaks and troughs and over the past five years has been quite politically charged because there are different there are different people across the world who have got a very strong view on terms like ESG and sustainability. So the beauty of being in the teenage years is that it's no longer in the child phase. A lot of it has been tried and tested. There's a good business case for it. there are plenty of talented global leaders who are working in this space. So the teenage years essentially is figuring out a direction towards moving into what young adulthood where it moves past the if or the why to this is how we do it. It's the standard and then can focus on improvement as opposed to should we do it in the first place. So that's that's why I call it teenagers.
Yeah. And I think in the book your one criticism about like corporate sustainability is that it's focusing a lot more on showing what's been done than actually improving the practices. Yeah. And keep in mind I am I wrote this book after being an insider and I still consider myself an insider. Right. I think corporate sustainability leaders are some of the most competent, well-read, well-intentioned people I know. But the system is perhaps not supporting what they really want to do from an agenda standpoint. So the whole performative empathy bit I see a general movement per sector into reporting in a very isomorphic way. So reporting based off of what they think the industry does what they think the regulations might need as opposed to showing genuine pathways or action plans towards improvement. And that's going to look very different with every company, right? And that's where I think the performative bit needs to needs to drop because the best the best way of getting better at something is being critical and being honest and being transparent. So on the flip side, I would say from a media perspective or for people who are maybe hyper judgmental of corporate, they also need to maybe give them space to talk about where they failed.
Yeah. And I think we've seen that a lot. I think Patagonia was the only company that came out saying that all these sustainability commitments are actually very hard to deliver on because it's not just the resources, it's also the time, the external pressure, the scrutiny. So how do you see that change in your career, you know, when you started working as a corporate sustainability officer compared to your last job? Yeah. No, it's a it's a really good question and I think that there was a boom a couple of years back and probably 8 to 10 years back was when that there was a genuine boom in in sustainability and there's some great reports done by Futera and a couple of other media media associated platforms on on the boom of sustainability where you know you could look at media mentions the word sustainability was an all-time high everyone was talking about it But I think the the the key issue during that time was everyone was talking about it and setting the frame and making commitments which is a great place to be right and these commitments an average net zero commitment is 10 to 15 and for if you include scope 3 which is you know the wider supply chain as well it can be up to 20 to 30 years right so these are long-term commitments so that age of everyone announcing was very exciting and and companies were rushing to say that they wanted to do it. It felt it felt possible and there was there was a lot of positivity. Then the world shifted as well, right? You had co there was a lot of geopolitical tensions. We still kind of maybe are in that phase where the world feels a bit more fragile. And then sustainability had to mature because year on year there were big changes that the sector had had to deal with the main emissions tied to AI for example. And I don't think that any of this is a bad thing because that is how you grow up and how you figure out that sometimes certain things are really difficult to do. what I want the movement towards because we probably maybe are maybe on the down side of it right now and it always moves on cycles. It's it's it's just how the nature of this space works in my opinion. Is to move past the greenwashing or trying to stick to just talking about commitments and being much more honest about we didn't get this right, we got this right. Can we all figure out how we can get the first one right cuz we got it wrong. And unfortunately it's not really publicly accepted to do that and especially when you've got large companies and you've got a sustainability report comes out and everyone's worried if their share prices would drop, right?
Yeah. So the there needs to be a better architecture for communication because the intent is there. If you look at London climate action week, it was the busiest ever. There are more climate action weeks popping up across the world. The intent is there. They're qualified people. They're amazing people like yourself hosting podcasts and and spreading the good word. But now that needs to that anger needs to translate into tangible action and I still think the climate movement is a bit desperate and fragmented. Yeah. And it also doesn't help that we have sticks and carrots, right? like the reporting it's very much compliance based commitments based like instead of focusing on the often imperfect process we just try and show an outcome that we think is polished and that will please the shareholders and the public. So how do you see that sticks and carrots compliance-based regulatory reporting based sustainability in the corporate changing? I think it's all I think it is slowly already changing and I think it it is led by you know the few companies that have been doing it for longer. So they were maybe more proactive about reporting in the first place. Those were the organizations that help guide government regulation around it and and and are now on the other side. So I I so I think it's happening the the problem with the climate movement is not if it's happening fast enough right that which which is which is the problem there's too much consensus building but what I would say is that the the flip that I see at least in the UK and Europe which is like starting to trickle down globally in some cases also in a Australia for example they're picking up speed is that investors are actually asking for details on action plans. They're asking for details beyond compliance. They're asking for how do you stress test things? And organizations can can approach that in two ways, right? One they get scared, right? And they they they realize they haven't thought it through or they realize that there needs to be more resources or this is much more complicated. So then they do the exercise of trying to roll back things or trying to reshape their original plan. And then there's the other set of organizations that go quite gung-ho and say you know what yeah that was not right. So let's have this open dialogue with you guys to think about this long term and see how we can shape it. And the response is better for the latter obviously, right? But I I think I'm still accepting of the former provided it's temporary and will lead into the latter. So it's more regroup as opposed to a retract, right?
Yeah. So that's that's my stance on things and you do amazing work in the assessment space, right? which is ever evolving and you were saying the the photograph versus the video because I feel like what we do we come in and we look at the process we look at the things that are not publicly disclosed and that is one of the the critical discussions in my industry how much disclosure is too much disclosure because obviously we're looking at supply chain management plans down to the detail but that's not necessarily in the interest of the business to disclose that public so that anyone could see who's in your supply chain and maybe assess your business vulnerability etc. But then when we're looking at you know the process we see the question is not if there will be a problem but what do you do when you have a problem versus these reports that just take a snapshot in time and then if that snapshot is is great everyone's happy and if not everyone is sad. It's all black and white. Yeah. You either have it all or you don't have any of it. No, and I fully agree with it and that's why professionals like yourself are super important because you are responsible for creating the photographs and the snapshots but you understand the video and people should be listening to the the people who are making the video just as much as you know the ISO certification or whatever that an organization is looking for that is the that is a snapshot. So I I totally fully on board with with your approach.
Yeah. Because even if we're stepping away from okay, what does it mean for a corporation? What are the policies? What are the reports? At the end of the day, the end beneficiary or the affected people are people in the community, people down the supply chain, the consumers, people living nearby, the manufacturing facilities. And in your book, you talk a lot about the the foundations and philanthropy and how some of the organizations or companies try to compensate by setting up philanthropic initiatives. I really like your your framing of philanthropy as a group of people that bring in their ideas without consulting anybody or being appointed by anybody. Yeah, it's it's a tricky game, right? because in some cases I'm a fan of philanthropy for for doing research and for doing things that wouldn't ordinarily be funded but it should not be a basis of any form of the core architecture when it comes to basic human needs right Elon Musk uh well unfortunately was doing a long podcast with the with the economist and it it went live yesterday I the editor of The Economist is amazing and she always pushes back on on the people that she interviews. But when when she brought up US aid and the cuts his response was yeah, but the money ended up being there in the end, right? It was one of Bezos's funds or it was the Gates Foundation's funds. Like the money ended up moving anyway, so why are we having this conversation? That's not how that's not how any of this works, right? And that's not how you especially for things like when organizations like us a which again focus on fundamental human basics get cut or get rerouted. It is not the responsibility of private foundations to come in and and and to to plug the gap. So that's why I called the chapter the charity buffer. Right? I'm I'm in no way saying that philanthropy is not needed. I am however saying that relying on it as a stop gap is going to just expose expose hold or create dependencies that shouldn't have existed in the first place. So that's that's my take with philanthropy. And I wanted to read a small ex excerpt. Now, this because I know you read the book, which I'm a big fan of. Thank you so much for reading the book. So, I thought I'd just read this because it it it summarizes exactly what you said. It's the charity buffer chapter called Philanthropy, Guilt, and Systems Change.
She was the same age as me. I did not remember her name. I was too young to carry it properly. the way young children sometimes lose the names of people who stay with them longest. What I remember is her face which had been on the marketing materials, her eyes which were brilliant and the fact that when I held her hand I could feel the particular quality of a life that had already learned not to expect too much from the people who came to look at it. This was India. I was volunteering at volunteering at CRY child rights and you she lived in the slums and I did not and at the end of the day I got in a car and drove away and she stayed. That was the arrangement. Nobody had designed it to be cruel. It was simply the shape of the world we had both been born into and I was on the side of it that got to leave. I have thought about that moment many times since across many rooms and many years and many conversations about what it would take to close the kind of distance that existed between her life and mine. I have watched the establishment of foundations, the creation of pledges, the attendance of summits, and the announcement of funds. I've worked inside the architecture of good intentions. I've helped run a foundation. I've sat at the gap between what the language promises and the structure delivers. The distance between the two lives was not an accident of birth. It was a product of systems and some of those systems had by the time this book was written raised more money than many governments and remained accountable to almost none of the people they were meant to serve. And then I I'll stop there because I would love for you guys to actually read it because again this this is not about pointing bad actors. It's about the fact that the system isn't built the way it's supposed to be built, right? And that's why it's it's not about saying philanthropy needs to not exist or it doesn't have a place. It 100% does. But you shouldn't have to depend on the rights of these massive foundations to come and plug gaps.
Yeah. And we've seen that in our work. Like sometimes you walk into an African village and everyone has like glasses because the foundation was focusing on like testing their eyes and giving them glasses but they don't have portable water or they don't have electricity. So we've seen like versions of this but you know bringing in your personal experience where you meet these people like that can really shift your perspective especially when you meet people who are in very similar situation to you like the same girls the same age just living a life that's completely different. Yeah. So what what other personal experience do you have connecting with people who are at the end of either corporate foundation type philanthropy or in the supply chain of these like corporates? It's um it's a great question and if I take the maybe the supply chain side first there was this big piece of regulation that that finally got approved which people only see the headline right that the the new EU act about destroying inventory before it gets sold is not is not allowed. So about like 9% of global fashion inventory gets burnt and incinerated because it is cheaper to burn rather than rather than either throw it in a location which is terrible but also to recycle or reuse or refurbish. Now that's just lazy, right? That's just it's not true. It's just that they've not found the sector has not found a solution to it. And at the tail end of most of the supply chain, the reason why I find this the this act interesting because it took probably more than a decade to get past is the people who were manufacturing these garments in a lot of these locations which were then being shipped back from a supply chain standpoint to sell to a location. were the ones actually at the end of the day because that supply chain map from a transport standpoint had been mapped. That's where the waste was going to which was which in in in so essentially you've got people who've got the skill who are making your clothes. They don't wear your clothes. the clothes disappear and when the clothes don't get sold they get dumped back into the shores of the of the location of the people who made them who are in very little cases even on living wage right and and it you know kept happening again and again and again so I think that this is it's a small it's one of the very public instances because fashion is public and everyone can relate to it but this is happening at scale across every single industry So growth growth is great but circularity with growth is absolutely fundamental otherwise growth will stop because growth will be finite if you don't have resources to actually produce the things that you need. So that's how I see it and maybe from the philanthropic standpoint again you know that I think the argument is not that dissimilar about the band-aid or the buffer because their role would be to understand the communities and help the communities but are they actively actively been able to influence change across the entire supply chain when a lot of these private foundations are actually a result of said corporate foundations to begin with or high net worth individuals. So their hands are tied right in in many cases. And it does it does make sense why and it's it's just a pity. So that's again it comes back to my systems design design argument and the architecture change argument. And it's I think that there there has to be an awareness of this because there are brand new industries are getting stood up. Right. with AI and we're only seeing the tail end of the supply chain which is maybe the data center production and the data center locations and what it's causing from an impact standpoint to communities. Organizations need to really have a proper think about how they design new technology, right? and design keeping the margins in mind because in many cases if they do keep margins in mind, they actually will have a product that will last much longer to begin with, right? It's just because the the way the quarterly setup of how organizations need to grow and then the peaks and troughs need to be super high and super low, which is just not sustainable just in general from a financial model standpoint. So it's very strange how we've again rewarded the wrong things and created the infrastructure for the wrong things.
Yeah. But it's quite eye opening how that co made us all realize just how much we depend on supply chains like random people in India and Bangladesh and the Chinese manufacturing for car parts just to name a few that everyone can identify with. In the book you talk about the convenience economy. Is this equivalent to the gig economy? If yes, how so? If no, why? There are bits and pieces from a correlation standpoint to the gig economy. So maybe let me start there. It's the so the gig economy is when you've got contracted work or contingent work with in some cases in some countries like mature countries like Europe and the UK there is a general social contract but in other in other countries that doesn't exist. So the the safety and the infrastructure behind behind kind of being employed is is not there and in in some cases that could be great cuz you you have flexibility but again that works in a mature market. It may not work in the global south sometimes and not even in the mature market because there were the zero hour contracts here that was very flexible a little too flexible without the adequate social safeguards. Exactly. So, you know, when you when you think about these issues, it's not just the developing country. It's not just some far away location. It's happening right here in London. Everywhere. Exactly. And I totally agree with you that social contract was something probably we had to redesign all over again during co right the convenience economy. I call it that because I think we have created products and services and and you know everything else in between to enable convenience, right? So, instead of going and and shopping for grocery, we've got a way to get that to come to our house. instead of writing a paper, we've found a way to to use AI to essentially use our skills to put something together, right? And I'm not I'm not at a hold saying that building convenience is bad. It it isn't. But it is taking us away from being human, being communal and is is getting us more isolated. it. I mean, loneliness across the board, especially male loneliness, is the highest it has ever been. And I touch on this in the book as well when it comes to Gen Z and their social anxiety and and how they move across how they move through a job market these days. And we've not made it easy on them. And we're always optimizing for efficiency, always optimizing for perfection. But you don't need every single aspect of your life to be efficient or perfect. Because if that happens, you actually eliminate the cross-pollination, the serendipity, the like running into someone when you are going to a bookstore and having an actual person who's read 500 books recommend you a book as opposed to an algorithm that thinks that it knows you, right? Even if it probably does. So I think it probably know knows it better than most people. It probably does, right? But at the at the end of the day, it's the that like do we need everything to be convenient all the time? So that is kind of the my argument. And it maybe also ties the whole fast fashion and the ban, right? I mean, we don't need a new outfit every single day. However, the marketing and the neuroscience behind how we've been wired to think that we do has taken what decades of lobbying and and work. So I think I I I think that there there has to be a reframe in how we think about things tied to the convenience economy. Like I'm not saying I want people's life to be harder. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I however am saying that we need to think about what does making this particular aspect of our life easier mean for us in the long term and mean for communities in the long term right so be a little bit more aware about that and then automatically I think you know consumption and all these other issues that we're facing will will decline right.
Yeah and how do you think this public awareness around sustainability and consumerism shifted or or changed the perspective from from the corporate? It's a really good question. I think from a behavioral standpoint at least in the UK and EU because a lot of there are a lot of regulations around ad advertising as well as government movements around very specific solving for specific things like healthy eating or ensuring that people understand the basics tied to sustainability. you. So there is there is much more builtin public understanding I think and this has been as a result of years and years of work like for example I think a couple of months back Netherlands banned advertising for fossil fuels and meat so they can't publicly advertise it at least outdoors advertising so that I think these these things are a step in in the positive direction because it's the Green transition will still require some element of fossil fuel usage until we completely transition, of course. But there is no need for brand new brand new locations of of fossil fuel drilling or mining in any way, shape, or form to happen. Right? So, it's kind of like that is the whole point of a transition. So, I think public sentiment is at an all-time high in this and there's some really really good really good data on it. The Guardian has covered it. Like it's it's in the '9s when it comes to people thinking that climate change is a real problem. And I'm sure if they run a couple of those surveys again after the one of the hottest summers that we've had here, we've had quite a few heat waves already. Exactly. So, I think that it it would be higher even. So, I don't think public sentiment is the problem. However, I think what the public maybe doesn't understand yet is why it's not getting solved, right? Yeah. I think that's the missing piece. That's the missing PE piece and that's the next step. And I think that's why this architecture conversation needs to be talked about. And there was a time where, you know, people would actually look forward to stuff like, you know, the sustainability report or campaign of a company maybe 5 years back, right? But now they're just jaded because if they're only going to be talking about things that is positive, then they know things are not working. It's very obvious things are are not working. What six of the nine planetary boundaries have been have been exceeded, right? So that's where the trust gets eroded because if they're only if if an organization is only going to be talking about the positives the public doesn't have the trust that they will be honest with them. Yeah. So then that's the shift. You can have the best again campaign in the world and there might be some things that you're doing brilliantly right in in some of these organizations but they're not getting the same level of belief because they feel like they've been left down.
Yeah. because a lot of it is very aspirational. Yeah. So if you read these reports especially you mentioned about carbon accounting how is just moving a couple numbers on a page not investing in anything that would limit or stop emissions or mitigate impacts. Yeah. What are some of the key red flags we should be looking out for when we're reviewing corporate sustainability reports? Oo that's that's a good question and it's I think it's it's um it's definitely a sectorbased question as well but let me take it in a more generic standpoint. So I think so carbon accounting is matured I think it is matured in a way that it is created jobs and there are very clear ways of measuring things now. So I don't like you know in the grand scheme of things I think that is a is a net positive. And if you can convince your CFO that everything is tracked you're more likely to get a budget. You're more likely to have positive allocation capital allocation for asset management over a period of time. So none of that is bad. But the but the problem with with how corporate sustainability reports and you'll see this across the board is when you if you compare three or four reports back to back there are elements that just get conveniently not talked about the next year. Maybe the harder target, right? which if you dig into the numbers, they probably still find a way of reporting it because they have to from a regulatory standpoint. But when it comes to framing or the messaging if it's a hard plastic target, they drop it. Or if it or if it is a renewable energy target that they initially felt that they could do, they frame it slightly differently. They don't actually address it. So that that's kind of where I think is is it's problematic, right? So if there is anyone who's kind of studying sustainability and I think it's it's an important note for educators as well is that reporting is great, compliance is great and it's still going it's it's still a ba good baseline to study sustainability because it helps you understand how a company operates and its materiality. But now the responsibility I think of of future leaders who are going into this space is about implementation is about is about understanding why those gaps exist and being very honest about it and I and I think more investors will welcome that and I think the public would welcome that as well. So I'm waiting for more companies to be a bit bit more bold about this because I actually think it would help not hurt them. and and not to not to drop targets when year on year if it if it is a target that they don't feel like they can hit, explain why as opposed to it just disappearing in next year's report. So that's that's I think the the transparency thing, right? which is why the regulation came into place because you were comparing apples to oranges like you know it wasn't like financial accounting where you could compare different companies and and and see and track and and have that financial language across across the board globally. So that's we're not quite that for sustainability, right? There's there's still there's still areas that you could let you could not talk about or conveniently not report or forget year on year and not touch on and you don't really get penalized for it. And that needs to change and I and I think I don't think I it's a controversial thing for sustainability leaders. I think they want it too. I just feel like again architecture hands are tied don't want wider repercussions for what they say.
Yeah. No, thank you for this summary. So if you had to point out three key takeaways from the book for our audience, what would those three key things be? Yes. So it is a non-fiction book, right? predominantly three there are three key themes which is human business and planet and I encourage you guys to read it however you want it gify pick the chapter that you want and I think that it's really important which chapter you pick first because that kind of tells you you I find that the average person goes to the chapter that they feel they understand the most first and then they go to the ones that they don't understand later. So, I'm always curious about how you started. I the favorite part of writing my favorite part of actually writing this book was was something I I added that was different is actually the fiction part. So, the start and the end of the book are two chapters which are fictional chapters and they follow the journey of this woman called Annayia. And I would I would really encourage people if some of the content of the book is is difficult to follow maybe in the climate side or it it requires more research, definitely definitely read the fiction, the first and the last chapters because it will make you feel more comfortable to delve into the more harder aspects of the book. but also is it is the heart of the book. It is kind of what I want people to take away from a narrative perspective. So and a fiction fiction is is easier to read in my in my opinion for someone who is an expert like you in this space. So, my key takeaway is that yeah, start off with the fiction. And also, map out how you read the book because that will tell you what what areas you're comfortable with and what areas you're not. And that's always interesting when you're, you know, finding new things to read.
Yeah, thank you. I really enjoyed reading the fiction part because it brought it closer to home like it humanized the whole issue and it brought it back to the individual level. Thank you for being here with me today. Thank you so much for having me. You're so easy to talk to. And thank you for being here with us today. Remember to read the book and share your thoughts with us in the comments. I'll see you next time. Heat. Heat.
Comments