 Everyone here, we're going to have a second Irish response to the greenhouse paper from Orla Kelly. Orla is assistant professor in social policy at the Department of Social Work and Social Justice at UCD. And our research areas include social dimensions of climate change, sustainable human wellbeing and eco-social policies. Orla. Okay, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me to be here, such a great report. So a couple of things. I'm just going to pick up on a couple of things in the report and relate them to some of the policy and research agenda that I'm involved in here in Ireland and that are happening more generally. So firstly, in terms of the tone of the report, and I think this is reflective of how things are moving on the whole in terms of both national and international policy briefs and policy making and that there's a real urgency, there's a shift in tone to be reflective, to acknowledge the appropriate urgency of our current situation. As Antonio Gutierrez said just this year, delay is death and that is really where we are now. That is where the time for delay and incremental change is really passed and summarized at the end of your report. The other kind of tone shift in the report that I think is also reflective and we see it in the IPCC report is it's this reappropriation of the notion that we need to also change demand side policies. So there was right partly in response to the kind of appropriation of individual action by fossil fuel interests, you know, it was all about measuring our individual carbon footprint so that structural change wouldn't be necessary or happen. Even as a green movement or an environmental movement, there has been kind of a reluctance to take that back for fear of kind of playing into that narrative of incremental and individual change. But as was mentioned earlier, we see the shift in the latest IPCC report and we see it in reports like this and others that actually individual action collective and be it as a person, a community or as a constituent demanding of our policymakers must be coupled with this kind of policymaking to have an opportunity structure that allows people to make decisions in relation to energy demand or others, the so-called provisioning systems that we need to allow agency in terms of energy use and other things. So that's the first thing. The second, the kind of three teams of the report governance. First of all, in terms of addressing vested interests, again, this is something that we're seeing much more, much more open and honest acknowledgement that where we are, where we are not by accident, but because people who are benefiting from capital accumulation have stalled and progress have stalled policymaking and have sold seeds of division within our society, thereby limiting the political mandate of those parties that would make progress and make change. So this kind of acknowledgement of vested interest I really like and thought was great. In terms of just a research project that we're doing here in Ireland at the moment, colleagues and I at Northeastern are looking at lobbying over the last 10 years by interest groups here and what narratives they've used to really delay climate action by sowing seeds of division and doubt and how those have fed inadvertently or otherwise into Irish media coverage, be it the Farmers Journal or more mainstream coverage. So I'm just kind of getting into these nitty gritty a little bit to kind of give you examples of how it is, how we can move forward from a research and policymaking agenda to taking these big ideas of degrowth into actual actions. The second part in terms of narrative or policy and this picking up on this movement towards sufficiency and I think I really like side points of this well-being for all is true and you know it's what we need to focus on, but what is that? You know it's such a huge concept. We do have a lot of work to do and I think there's a lot of there is a lot of research happening in terms of demand side, what it is, the numbers that I was talking about, what it is that is a good life, what is a decent provisioning system, what changes that the government need to do, where's the baseline, you know we're all familiar with this donut economics of this safe operating space for humanity. How do we reach a social floor where everybody has an equitable standard of living, but we're also not transgressing these planetary boundaries and we're starting and a research agenda to get more into the nitty gritty in terms of numbers and policies that facilitate this change. There's also a redistribution piece, how do we redistribute energy and carbon throughout the world and within society, but there's a bigger question here too. So I just finished research on a trial, a six-month trial of reduced work times of starting companies in Ireland. Results to come, another report launched next month, but the idea here is looking at you know how if we if we frame the environmental question as an individual environmental loss and we allow the narrative to be positioned that environmental needs and meeting social needs are somehow oppositional as opposed to mutually constitutive, that's an issue and reducing work time is one of those policies that has within this kind of broader post-growth policies and agenda that has the propensity to allow people to have this better standard of living in ways that isn't so ecologically intensive. Now to get to another point of the report, this needs to be part of a unified social and ecological framework. If everybody is taking working four days a week and we're allowing Ryan there to offer flights for 10 euro, you know we're going to have some problems, but it gets to the point that you know this needs to be a unified social and ecological. So that's my final point because I know everybody's probably dying for their break by now, I'm enjoying being the last speaker, but is to be conscious of our framing and I think that this certainly we need overarching changes to how we frame narratives and how people need to understand the urgency and the danger. Like what Saib was saying you know we were bombarded with messages about how you know the danger to our well-being that COVID was offering, but where is the equal urgency and consistent messaging when it comes to the climate crisis and where we are. So we absolutely need that but we also need to be to kind of put out there that there are many double-dividend wins out there be it four-day week or something else where we can experience gains in human well-being in ways that are not ecologically intensive. And finally part of that kind of engagement and messaging is just like Saib and the authors of this report have laid out in detail that there's an engagement piece. So we've got a research project in UCD now at the moment with students to ask that we know that their levels of eco-anxiety and grief are going higher. Like all of us know I don't think anybody who works in this sphere and you know has two eyes in their head can really feel okay about our trajectory. But in addition to asking them you know what it is how are they feeling, what is the level of anxiety, how concerned are we about climate change? We know we're concerned, but it's also this kind of notion of well what can the university be doing to how can we reform our provisioning systems be it in education or policymaking or whatever it is to allow people to act to have the agency to act in you know less energy demanding ways. This kind of reforming of our social institutions in ways that allow for individual agency to act in our self-interest while also kind of laying out this bigger structural role for policymakers be it in government or institutions like universities to provide an opportunity system to bridge this gap between behavior and this gap between how people want to act in less eco-intensive ways and being facilitated to do so. So thank you for the report. It was great. Thank you for listening.