Great. Thanks to everyone for coming. It's really nice that you could all make it, and especially there's a lot of people in the room, Richard, so you know that work on energy issues and energy transition, so that's a really nice complement to what I think you're going to talk about. It's a great privilege to welcome Richard Dennis, who's the Chief Economist at the Australia Institute, formerly the Executive Director of the Australia and demoted himself to Chief Economist so that he could concentrate on the kinds of work that he's going to talk about today. I won't spoil the surprise of what Richard's going to talk about, and you can maybe explain also why you're on your European tour as well since it links in. We'll probably have 15-20 minutes of a presentation and then open the floor up for an interesting discussion with all of your expertise, so welcome Richard. Thank you very much for having me today and for coming along and sacrificing your lunch hour. As Aaron said, my name is Richard Dennis. I'm the Executive Director. I've been introducing myself that way for a long time, Chief Economist of the Australia Institute, and we're a think tank based in Canberra in Australia. Most of the staff of the Australia Institute are economists or policy researchers, but unlike most think tanks in Australia at least, we take our media and political engagement work very seriously. I'll talk about that a bit if you want at the end, but to put it simply, I'm an escapist from academia. I like academic research. If I just wanted to write things people didn't read, I'd have stayed in academia. The reason that I like think tanks is I think they're a great way to bring people and ideas together, and in Australia at least, and in some countries I've noticed that often think tanks think about politics after they've finished doing their research. I'll do this in the Q&A if you're interested, but we always think about politics before we do our research. And by that I don't mean our research is done for purely political purposes. We think, well, if we were going to change people's minds about this, whose minds need changing? Which level of government, which people in those governments, which departments need to change their minds? And of all the arguments that we could mount, which one would be more likely to change their minds? Usually people do research and then say to someone, now I'd like to change someone's minds. What should I have done? We asked that question at the beginning. Anyway, what I'm here to talk to you guys about today is the no-new coal mines campaign, but supply-side policy responses to climate change and environmental issues more generally. But this is why I'm in Europe. I'm here for a couple of months. I've been based in London about to spend a bit of time travelling around. But I'm over here talking to people about this. And I met some of your colleagues at a conference in Oxford recently and we certainly shared an interest in the need to focus on supply-side approaches to tackling environmental problems. So again, I'll try and do a bit of both. I don't just want to tell you about our campaign, but I do think it's an interesting way to highlight the political opportunities as well as the policy opportunities that come with looking at the supply side. And I've got to admit for a brown bag lunch, you guys have bought some pretty good looking lunch and I'm getting hungry just looking at it. So let me start with the big picture. Australia has a bigger share of the world-traded coal market than Saudi Arabia has of the world oil market. Has anyone here heard of Saudi Arabia? Yeah, okay, they're big in oil. Yeah, we're bigger in traded coal than they are in oil. We plan to double our coal exports. That is what we are currently working on.  You're so shocked that's good. We're not actually at the moment the biggest player in the traded coal market. We kind of take turns with Indonesia depending on whose mines come on. Indonesia is bigger than us at the moment and they too are planning to double their coal exports. So let's clear this up. In the lead up to Paris, when the world is apparently planning to make commitments to tackle climate change, the two largest coal exporters in the world are planning to double their coal exports. Put simply, if Australia and Indonesia, I'm focusing on Australia today, if Australia achieves its objectives of doubling its coal exports, the world will fail to tackle climate change. There is no scenario in which we get to double our coal exports and you get to tackle climate change. Someone is going to lose. But of course the Paris talk specifically preclude this conversation from taking place. Nothing at Paris will talk about the fact that Australia is about to double its coal exports. Nothing at Paris will talk about Australia is subsidizing the expansion of coal. Because for historical reasons that we can go into, Paris is designed around focusing on the countries that buy and consume coal, not the countries that produce it in huge quantities. Now just to give you a sense of huge, and I've got some other pictures I can send you if this one isn't clear enough for you, but has anyone heard of London? The Adani Carmichael mine, the pits, just the pits, are 40 kilometers long. The mine site itself is more like 60. They're 10 kilometers wide. I think, oh no, it's not there. I never use PowerPoint. I think power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. I've actually got a Stockholm picture which I'm going to have to email you when I saw the London one. I got excited. Someone in the office put this together for me. 40 kilometers long. If you went to the top of the tallest building you could find. If you went to the top of the Berlin communications tower, if you went to the top of the London Eye, what's the tallest building in Stockholm? I only got here last night. I guarantee you, it's not that high. You could go to the top of the tallest building in Europe and if you look to the horizon, if this coal mine started at your feet, if you look to the horizon you wouldn't see the end of it. People talk about geoengineering, the tackle climate change. It takes geoengineering to cause climate change. We're doing it right now. This mine just got approved by the Australian federal government last week. Can I point out that this mine, in its smallest iteration, will produce 2 billion tons of coal, which would make a pile of coal a meter deep, 10 meters wide, a bit wider than this room, 200,000 kilometers long. You could get around the world five times on a road of coal a meter deep with the coal from this mine. But fear not, we've got three mines this big currently being proposed in Australia and 50 new coal mine proposals in Australia and again Indonesia is doing stuff at the same scale. Now you might have heard that the low coal price is knocking the coal market around. You're right, there used to be 90 new coal mines proposed for Australia. The low coal price is working, 40 mines are not going ahead, 50 are still seeking approval. Now I'll come back to why people would still be building these mines even when the coal price is low, but I'll give you a hint now. It starts with a word that rhymes with subsidy. Okay, so Paris and carbon pricing do nothing.  All of that stuff that we've talked about for 20 years has not stopped coal production rising 50% since in 1991 we first said we're going to tackle climate change. Coal productions increased 50% in the last 20 years and Australia and Indonesia are planning mines this big. It's not working. How come it's not working? Well, what if it was designed to not work? What if you wanted to just sort of drag out talking about climate change for decades so that you could keep selling your coal? Maybe some people, like you can criticise the process all you want, but what if the process is actually delivering for the people who designed it? And I assure you coal exporting countries like Australia paid a lot more attention to the rules and the process of the cop process early on. So big picture, step one, despite or perhaps I'll come to this in a second because of all of the talk about Paris, people are actually planning to invest billions of dollars to do the exact opposite. Now there's a couple of reasons that might happen. As I said, one is the subsidies. Australia subsidised every major coal mine that Australia's ever built. This is true in most countries. The real trick is if you can get taxpayers to build the upfront costs, pay for the upfront costs, the railway lines, the ports, if you can get someone else to cover the fixed costs, then you're only exposed to the marginal cost, the cost of pulling the coal out of the ground. And the good thing there is that that takes most of the risk out of the deal. Because if the coal price is higher than the cost of pulling the coal out, you pull the coal out. And if the coal price falls, you just shut down. You sack your workers for a year or two. It's not the end of the world. But if you've poured $10 billion into the port and rail infrastructure and you're not selling coal, then that's a very risky venture. So getting taxpayers to build the upfront fixed capital is essential to the economics of getting these mines built. Because don't get me wrong, every financial analyst that's looked at this mine and all the similar ones say this is a crazy idea. It shouldn't be built and won't be built. They leave something very important out, brackets, unless it's subsidized. So unfortunately, my biggest problem in Europe is people say, yeah, Richard, that's okay. But I've read all this good analysis that said the mine won't go ahead because it doesn't make economic sense. And I have to say, well, have you heard that the UK is building a nuclear power station? Have you heard they're paying five times as much for the electricity?   All right? The fact that it, quote, doesn't stack up doesn't mean we won't do it. All right? And again, we can talk about the politics of that. How am I going for time? Halfway? Perfect. I always say perfect because I don't really use PowerPoint and I was always going to finish when he tells me to. So here's a green paradox and then I'll move on to the politics of this. I don't know if this metaphor works very well in Sweden, but in Australia we spend a lot of time at the beach and in summertime there are these ice cream trucks that pull up and sell ice cream at the beach.  Do you have that in Sweden? Yeah? All right.   Think like an economist. Lower your prices and sell it. What would you do if you owned a trillion tons of coal and you thought that in 30 years time you couldn't sell it? Would you build a mine bigger than London, Paris and Berlin combined? You bet you would. Now the economics of this isn't hard. There's a little thing called hotelings rule that kind of tells us what the optimal rate to pull coal out of the ground is. And the optimal rate to pull coal out of the ground changes fundamentally when you think there's a deadline. All right, because if you don't think you can actually sell this coal in 20 or 30 years time, then in 20 or 30 years time it's not an asset. So if you can pull it out of the ground and sell it now, you will. So let's be clear. The demand side stuff we're doing to tackle climate change is probably part of the cause of the flood of new coal mines coming onto the market. For the economists in the room, we always like to do our modeling, ceteris paribus. Anyone know what ceteris paribus means? All our things being equal. Why do we say it in Latin?  Exactly. No one else can understand. Imagine if the world knew that economic modeling was based on the assumption that nothing else would ever change. So we've convinced ourselves that if you put a small price on pollution or if you introduce binding emission targets, comma and nothing else in the world changes, then we'll be slightly better off than if we hadn't done it. That's true. But if you do something small on the demand side and it causes a flood on the supply side, then you might actually be making it worse, which would be my contention. I think we're making it worse. So step one, Australia is building enormous amounts of coal mines, so are Indonesia. Step two, why are we doing this? Because subsidies really make it worthwhile, even when the coal price is low. Step three, it makes sense for coal mining companies.  These are rich people that are winning. It makes sense for them to hurry up and dig it up now because they actually realize they might not be able to sell it in the future. Step four, we get to the moratorium. So anyone heard of Paris? I wish I had my Stockholm one here for you. I promise I'll send it tonight. So that's metropolitan Paris there. All right, this goes, there's Versailles, there's Paris. Keep going. You couldn't see the end of it. That's just one mind. So President Tong of Kiribati, a tiny little South Pacific island country. You ever want to hear an emotional speech about climate change? Listen to President Tong. Nothing abstract about climate change for Kiribati, because for Kiribati, under a best case scenario, not all of their islands will be sunk this century. Really what President Tong is aiming for is that some of his islands will still exist at the end of the century. There is no scenario being discussed at Paris that stops his country losing islands. The best case scenario is if we're really ambitious, his country still exists. So it's quite the existential threat for Kiribati and in turn, he doesn't get caught up in pragmatic issues like who might be upset by saying what if we didn't build any new coal mines. So President Tong has called for a moratorium on all new coal mines. He has written to all world leaders, including your prime minister, saying, dear rest of the world, I hear you care about climate change. If you don't act soon, I'll sink. By the way, Australia wants to build coal mines that are bigger than my country. Please join me in helping to stop them. Your prime minister will hopefully write back to President Tong. I'd like to think your prime minister would say yes, we'll support a moratorium on coal mines, but we can talk about the likelihood of that later. But it's not an accident this is happening pre-Paris because all the back slapping coming up at Paris is not going to stop the coal mines that will sink Kiribati from being built. And President Tong pre-Paris is obviously keen to attract people's attention to the fact that we need real action. We need real change if we're going to tackle climate change. Now I'll move on to the politics of the moratorium. So we've now got a whole bunch of South Pacific island states that signed up, 11 extra ones, Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein, Nicholas Stern put out a very powerful statement supporting the moratorium and the economics of it. Let me just shock you a little bit. If we had a moratorium on coal tomorrow, the main beneficiary would be the owners of coal companies. Okay, we're about to pour a flood of new supply into a flat market for coal. By restricting supply, the main beneficiaries are the coal companies. I think this is good because if we don't stop a flood of new supply, the price of coal will even lower. And some coal companies will go bankrupt. And what do the liquidators of a bankrupt coal company do? Say Peabody goes broke. Say Glencore goes broke. What is liquidator the term that you'd use? What's their job? What do they do? They sell off the assets. All right, now this is obviously quite contentious in Sweden at the moment. But someone is going to buy Peabody's coal assets. And when they buy them for a price that was even lower than Peabody bought them for, they'll be willing to accept an even lower coal price because they don't have to cover such big costs. So a moratorium on new coal actually puts a flaw underneath the coal price. The major beneficiary in the short term is the owners of coal. The other beneficiaries include the banks that link to them. The other beneficiaries include oil and gas. The other beneficiaries include the renewable energy industry and the other beneficiaries, people who want to tackle climate change. Sounds like an unusually powerful alliance. Really what a moratorium on coal does is divide the people that want to build new coal mines from the people who own existing ones. What a carbon price does, what restrictions on global demand for coal does is divide the environment movement from all of the coal industry. What a moratorium does is split the coal industry into two groups, the owners of incumbent coal and the people that would like to build new ones. Now the CEO of Glencore hasn't supported our moratorium call yet, but he's quite clear that the world has too many coal mines and needs less. Glencore has reduced coal output by 15% in the last year and Glencore, what's his name, Glassenberg, the CEO of Glencore is regularly out saying the rest of the coal industry needs to do the same thing. The Australian head of Glencore, a guy called Fryberg recently attacked the Australian government for subsidising the Carmichael mine. So not surprisingly, Glencore don't want this mine built. Glencore are the first mining company to ever say in Australia, don't subsidise new mines. Because what's happened is, now that the demand for coal is flat, maybe it'll decline, probably will, but will work on flat to be conservative, every new coal company that opens up reduces the market share of everybody else and pushes the price down. This mine getting built will destroy Peabody in America. This mine being built in Queensland will cost American coal miners their jobs. The problem is this mine will produce a lot more coal than the ones that Peabody mines that will displace. So I know this gets tricky for some environmentalists, but I'd rather keep Peabody open and keep this mine off than let this go ahead so that I can have some shard and Freud when Peabody goes broke. So moving on to the politics now, I'm rushing through this because I want to leave plenty of time for questions, but the politics of moratoria, the politics of supply side policies, I just think are much more attractive and a lot easier than the optimal policy responses generated by economists like my profession. What do I mean by that? In Australia, we had a huge fight about our carbon price. We had a huge fight to put one in. We had a huge fight to rip one out. Australian policy debate has basically revolved around carbon pricing for 10 years. We've lost three prime ministers over it. It's been a nightmare and our emissions are still going up. The carbon price was never going to stop this mine getting built. In fact, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, the former labor prime ministers, supported this mine being built. They supported carbon pricing and they supported building the world's largest export coal mines. So if Cedars Paribas would I rather have a carbon price than not, of course they would. Carbon pricing is fine, but in Australia at least and I think around the world, rather than being a magic bullet, I'd suggest it's been a nightmare because to put it into context, the total revenue collected by the Australian carbon price was about half of the total annual subsidies to coal mining. Can I just say that again? The total revenue from our carbon price was about half of the total amount of the subsidies we give to coal mining. So if we think price signals matter, if we think markets matter, if we think money changes things, then surely going after subsidies first would have made more sense.   But when you say I'd like to stop subsidizing foreign-owned mining companies and spend more money on schools and hospitals, people like you. So again, sure, optimal policy, carbon pricing, but it's only optimal in an optimal environment that didn't have sub-optimal subsidies. So how did we convince ourselves that the most sensible first step was one of the hardest political steps? I don't know, I wasn't in the room, but it happened. Similarly, regulation. I mean, America's done more with regulation on its coal-fired power stations than Australia's carbon price was ever going to do. I mean, Australia's carbon price was kind of optimally bad in that it actually was displacing gas and increasing the supply from coal. Because the kind of carbon price that you need to be big enough in Australia to bump you all the way from coal to renewables was far bigger than the politicians had an appetite for. So we came up with a carbon price that where it worked at the margin was the margin between coal and gas, not at the margin between fossil fuels and renewable energy. Again, I'm not philosophically opposed to carbon pricing per se, I'm just saying that first we ignored subsidies and then we introduced a carbon price that actually knocked out a lower intensity fossil fuel and increased the supply from coal. And then third, we spent in Australia a fortune subsidizing the polluters for the introduction of a carbon price. Then a new government got in and did what? Ripped up the carbon price. You know what happened? The other kids got to hang on to the subsidy, to the compensation. Remarkable. So yeah, I'm an economist, but I'm very interested in policy. I'm very interested in politics. And I think that when we look to solve environmental problems, there are some history suggests that moratorium type campaigns have been quite effective. History suggests that regulation historically has been quite effective, yet for 20 years when it comes to climate change, we've kind of, and certainly in Australia and I certainly think in the English speaking world at least, been obsessed with this sort of silver bullet in the form of emissions trading or carbon pricing. And I think it's been a political and policy disaster. And to come back to where I started at the beginning, if coal was your second biggest export, like in Australia, an iron ore was your biggest export and you can't turn iron ore into steel without coal. So if your country's exports revolved around exporting fossil fuels or things that needed fossil fuels to transform them, then you might team up with other like-minded countries and work really hard to make sure that people don't do anything about climate change. Because for us, for Australia, Paris is our best customers getting together to potentially promise to buy less of our best exports. Now here's the sick cynical irony of this. People criticise Australia rightly for lacking in ambition in our targets. Our mission reduction targets are, by world standards, pathetically low. People think criticising us for having low targets is useful. Let me just sort of suggest the opposite. What if we wanted to be attacked for having low targets? What if smart people had spent 20 years thinking about how to win this game, where win means not lose because we just have to drag it out? Because every day we don't do anything is a profitable day. What if we want to be attacked for having low targets? Why would we want to be attacked for having low targets? One, it makes you take your eye off the board, doesn't it? Oh, Australia has got, you know, its targets are lacking ambition. The fact that it wants to build a coal mine bigger than the city hosting the talks, oh, that's not even on the agenda. So please keep attacking us for our targets, it's funny. And secondly, what if we wanted to show to all the other countries in Southeast Asia that we want to build coal-fired power stations so we can sell coal to them? What if we wanted to show those countries that it's okay to get criticised for having low targets? We'll take the pain for you. We'll be the umbrella. We'll be the lightning rod. Everyone will single us out for being bad guys. You'll be off the hook. And you'll see that getting called names, getting called recalcitrant, getting called, you know, whatever it is that diplomats call you, doesn't matter. We'll do it for you. So it's in Australia's diplomatic interests for people to ignore what we're doing. So criticising is for having low targets. Yeah, we can take that.   So you'll be off the hook.  It's shameful. It's immoral. It's inconsistent with the science. And it's not even good for the coal companies. Bizarrely, this is better for the people that build coal mines than it is for the people who sell coal. This is better for politicians that think they get local job effects from construction, not long-term economic benefits from coal mining, because again, it's going to push the price of coal down. Aaron's on his feet, so I think I'll shut up now. So thank you very much. I just know there's a lot of inquisitive minds in the room that want to ask some questions. And while you guys think quickly of a question, I had a couple of things that I wanted to clarify a little bit about the economics and the politics of how a moratorium works. One is to do with coverage. So since it's a global coal market, does it make any difference if one country imposes a moratorium, if Australia imposes a moratorium, and they take their coal out of the market, doesn't the rest of the market just respond? And the second question is about the permanence. So I mean, presumably the way the economics works is you restrict supply, prices for coal go up, which is the sort of carbon price signal effect. But doesn't that then change the political economy of the decision to leave the fossil fuels in the ground to begin with and therefore countries that agree to a moratorium at the beginning now no longer think it makes as much sense. No, thank you. Look, think of it this way. To some extent, the moratorium call is the diplomatic equivalent of keep it in the ground. All right, it's actually asking nation states to make a clear statement about the kind of world they think we need, whether the country itself has coal is actually irrelevant. All right, in fact, that's part of the strategy is to get, you know, there's 190 or so countries in the world depending on your definition, and the vast majority of them have no coal export ambitions. But in Australia, our prime ministers and our resources ministers say things like we have, quote, a moral obligation to export our coal, right? I'm not joking, am I? This is what Australian, we have a moral obligation, moral obligation to export our coal.  Praise the lord. Praise the lord. We're here to help. We might be cutting our foreign aid budget right now, but we're so concerned with poor people that we need to give them more coal. Of course, when rich people wanted to buy coal office, we sold it to rich people at high prices. Now that rich people don't want to buy coal office, we've found a moral obligation to sell it at low prices to poor people. So my point is that a lot of the moratorium is about actually changing the global debate about the supply of cider coal. And the only way to enforce a moratorium is with tanks. Let's be clear, if some country wants to build coal, then no matter what agreements have been signed, unless another country wants to roll tanks in, then they'll be doing that. But that's not the way the world works. And similarly, the political case for subsidising mines like this in Australia, the political case of building these mines in Indonesia, will be devastated by hundreds or more countries saying, we have to move on from this. And the same way that the problem is people saying, they think that's what Paris is. People think Paris is everyone saying we have to move on from this. The opposite is happening. Paris is the cover story for this. So it's the legal implementation issues of a moratorium are significant, but the political turbulence that countries admitting this is what they need is in the short term the main game. Can I throw it out then to you guys? I saw one hand up the back before, or has that covered your question, Rob? So first of all, thanks for a very interesting and inspiring talk here. One question around the moratorium and the politics around it, and to get it actually going and signed, hopefully. Of course, politicians react to populations. That's what they need to do. And they also react to influence for big corporations, call among them. But of course, corporations are also in other businesses and other sectors. So the question is quite broad. You're saying, how is this perceived in the wider corporation group? And of course, there is a small, you can outline the fossil fuel oil and gas sector, which is also always shaking hands or trying to fight, depending a bit on the decade. The coal industry. So just an open question to that. I'll test your memory by collecting a couple. Okay. Marcus. Yeah, thanks. Interesting to hear this piece of strategy. My question is whether you know where the overall discussion about eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels sits right now and whether there's any sort of a move to split off coal from oil that would take them one at a time, rather than trying to get the whole package at once. Because it seems like part of what you're the moratorium would be achieved in some sense if you could actually get people to stop subsidizing. Let me throw one more to Rob and then I'll give it back to Richard. Hi, Richard. My name is Rob and the director of communications here at SCI. I had one short observation and any question? The observation was you said you weren't sure why it was that people chose to focus on politically the focus was placed on trying to get a carbon price instead of dealing with subsidies. And I think that the answer may be in some of the examples you gave, which is that it's this political obsessional priority placed on competitiveness. And that, you know, if you can put a subsidy in which increases the national competitiveness, either that's in terms of securing local jobs or by meaning that the coal mine from Carmichael is cheaper per tonne than the stuff coming out of the US, then that's competitiveness. And that's what drives I think those sorts of choices. The question I've got is what's your thoughts about how a moratorium might stand with the more grassroots campaigns around divestment? And if they're grassroots or not, what you might call a sort of financial moratorium? Couldn't the fossil fuel subsidies be sort of a WTO issue? I hear I'm about the first person. Yeah. Okay. Look, thank you. I'll take them in the order they came, but they overlap quite nicely. To some extent, to answer your question, this is, you know, there's a lot of moving parts to this campaign, but it's also only at the very beginning.  It's also a problem because people are obsessed with the Paris process. It's very hard, not impossible, it's very hard to get environment groups and environment ministers to say, oh, I'd like to distract you. I've got something else I'd like to talk to you about, you know, this whole Paris thing, you've kind of forgot the main game. So it's an opportunity, it's also a problem. But the strategy in part is to use Paris as a kind of proof of concept process. You know, step one, could we get ahead of state to call for it? Yeah, Kiribati has been very strong on this. Step two, would other countries sign up? Yeah, we've got 11 South Pacific island countries now. You might think that's easier or obvious, but understand Australia's aid budget is a major proportion of the budgets of these countries and it is non-trivial for these countries to say to Australia, we don't want you to build those comets. So step one, we've got a champion country, step two, we've got a whole bunch of other countries already signed on. Step three, we've got people like Nicholas Stern and there'll be a whole bunch of public letters coming out, which will also be sent to all heads of state pre-Paris, basically saying, I hear you've got a letter from Tong, we don't think he's crazy, and those ads will be in prominent newspapers as well. So if you've got good ideas for who might sign up, let me know.  Post-Paris is the great communications opportunity to some extent because when everyone's, we know it's going to be a success. Have you heard it's going to be a success? I hear it's going to be a success. We've all got the memo, it's going to be a success. The funders won't be happy if it's not a success. So it'll be a success. So while everyone's patting themselves on the back saying, hey, we've made a big step forward, what better reality check to put to those people than well given that we've all agreed to tackle climate change, surely it's non-controversial to support a moratorium on new coal mines. Because if we've all just agreed that we're going to do this, we're all going to tackle climate change, everything's good, then how could your country not support a moratorium on new coal? I mean, actually it's kind of almost banal to support a moratorium on new coal mines, because what you've already achieved is so ambitious and so important. So really what we're trying to do is set up a post-Paris conversation about coal using the hypocrisy, really, of the whole Paris process. Or alternatively, if Paris is a failure, then we need to try something new, so want to do something simple like a moratorium. So step one, we're really at the very beginning of this, we're trying to get people to see that the economics and the politics and the campaigning opportunities of a moratorium make sense. Post-Paris is really the time to try and roll that out. Look, subsidies, yeah, look it is all about subsidies, and I have actually been talking to some people about strategic litigation in the World Trade Organization or elsewhere. It's very expensive and slow, but the good thing about court cases is that it brings a lot of information to the table. Blowing out on Trumpet, we won quite a big court case against Rio Tinto in Australia. They'd claimed that a mine would create 44,000 jobs in the Hunter Valley. It's only half a million people in the Hunter Valley. I was an expert witness in the case and I argued that I wasn't quite sure how many jobs it would create. They actually said like 43,728 or something. It's always precise. And I said, I can't be as precise as them, but I think it will create about zero jobs. And we won. We won that case. And the economists in the room, zero was actually a good number to pick. It was an extension of a coal mine in a mining region in the middle of a coal boom. How many unemployed miners do you reckon were around just hoping a new project would go ahead? It's crowding out.  Point being that court case and the admissions that the company had to make under oath have been very valuable from a communications point of view. And now whenever I'm debating someone on TV or radio and they make ridiculous claims about jobs, so that's funny because you don't say they're under oath. That's really odd because lying to a journalist is funny and lying to a judge is a crime. How come when we're in court, your experts don't say these? And they back away quite quickly. So I do think WTO type strategic litigation would be important. The G7 and G20 are committed to getting rid of quote, inefficient subsidies. It was Australia that pushed hard to get the word inefficient in. It was. Sounds good. But it's actually a fantastic riggle room because when you ping us for a subsidy, you know what we say? It's not inefficient. If the language had to just be no subsidies, that would be a lot better. But some people fell for a rhetorical flourish, which was actually a strategic excuse. So the G20 are already there on subsidies, allegedly. But to give you an example, when the G20 agreed to get rid of subsidies, step two was that each country had to write to the G20 and list the subsidies they already had that they were going to phase out. We got our homework in straight away. Dear G20, we have no subsidies. So there's nothing to phase out. No, we just lie. We're good at it. Competition with subsidies. Yeah, but interestingly, Australia, conservative governments for 20 years in Australia have said we shouldn't subsidize manufacturing. Every other industry has kind of had the kind of boot on their heel, the boot on their neck, saying we have to get rid of subsidies. And no one's ever said, and we should subsidize mining. They're more powerful than that. They've just denied that they got them. So you're right. But in Australia at least, they never won a fight that they were good.  Grassroots and divestment, sorry, my answers are a bit long. What we're trying to do all around the world, there are individual campaigns to stop individual mines. And there's no reason for the Swedish government to care about Shenhua wanting to build a mine in the Liverpool Plains in Australia. There's no reason for the Swedish government to care about a coal mine being built in the Transvaal in South Africa. But there is a reason for the Swedish government to support a global moratorium on all new coal mines.  And no one's using their diplomatic way. Now, Sweden's a bit mixed because you've got some exposure to coal. But you see my point, just because there's a whole bunch of countries out there who can be incredibly powerful diplomatically, but they can't divest if they don't own. They can't leave it in the ground if they don't have any. But they can call for other countries to stop doing it. So yeah, that's the link to the grassroots. There's a couple of questions from the online viewers. Actually, two of our colleagues in the York office who are watching. One is about how does this discussion pan out in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? So in this recently agreed trade deal, how are coal subsidies and carbon prices affected by the provisions of that deal? Should we be focusing more on post-trans-Pacific partnership than post-Paris? And the second one is about what's been the reception of governments outside Australia to this call. Tim Slyada. Very similar kind of question, but I'm just wondering who are the main opponents to this? Obviously, Australia is a key one. You talked about Indonesia. But Indonesia is an interesting case because it's a fast-growing sort of lower middle-income country. I've been working in Vietnam, which is a very fast-growing middle-income country that is planning to put to build a lot of coal plants. So exactly. And Julie Bishop, their foreign minister, has been over there saying we're open for business, and that's driving a lot of the development aid in that region. But so I'm just interested, could Vietnam stand up and say no, because if we agree to a moratorium, the price, as you say, will go up. And therefore, the whole energy planning that their development is pinned on is under threat. So who else is involved? And maybe another one just tying back to the subsidies thing. Indonesia recently agreed to reduce subsidies, but I think that's only demand side. So this demand and supply side is the confusion possibly. To the Americans, if I were Bernie Sanders, and I said I wanted to transition out of coal, a moratorium would be a great way to protect US coal jobs from Australia's planned expansion. Like, US will be in the firing line when the price falls. So I would think it's great domestic politics for Hillary or Bernie to support a moratorium, because it will actually help protect the US coal industry from the new expansion. They'll still phase out over time. They won't phase out quite as quick, but we avoid a flood of Australian and Indonesian coal, and they get to do something big and symbolic and actually helpful, I think from an environmental point of view. As for TPP, look, we'll have to see. I mean, I haven't seen the full text yet. I've only read scary bits of what other people have said. The Australian Institute, where I work, had been very actively involved in free trade agreement negotiations and the politics and policy of them, including the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, which tried for the same sorts of things. Look, in a nutshell, international law is a nice idea, and I've never seen any evidence of it, like the people with the tanks win. World Trade Organization and TPP create new forums where debates can be had. I see that as an unexplored opportunity for environmentalists to some extent. I'd rather not have these secretive deals, but we shouldn't just panic about them. There is plenty of distortions in plenty of markets, and I think there might be some opportunities there, but it wasn't designed to make our lives easier, and I doubt it will. I've forgotten the second bit of the question, though, from the Americans. TPP and... Just the receptiveness of different governments and their ideas. Yeah, look, I mean, it's only really started. I've been in Europe now for eight weeks. I've been talking to people at the government level for four. I've got some meetings with parliamentarians here in Sweden tomorrow, but it doesn't help for me to tell everybody who I've spoken to and what they think, because they all are delegates on behalf of other people. Look, to be honest, a lot of people have suggested to me that Sweden, or certainly Scandinavian countries, but Sweden in particular, would be one of the more likely countries to sign up for moratorium. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but pretty much every country I've spoken to, and I've spoken to quite a lot now, leaving aside Australia, which I'll come back to, pretty much everyone has said, that's a good idea. I didn't realise it was as bad as it is. That would be a provocative thing for us to do, but it's not a crazy idea. No one wants to show leadership. They just want to be called leaders. Being the first European country to do this will be hard. Once the first one does it, a bunch will say, I was just about to do that too. All the meetings I've had have been positive, supportive, and encouraging me to talk someone else into doing it first. We'll keep playing that game for a while. I have been talking via intermediaries to representatives of coal and oil and gas. They get it. Again, just read what the CEO of Glencore is saying. We need less coal. There's a reason for that. We need less coal. I think that's the thing, and I've been talking to a lot of investors and finance sector types in London. The trick is to explain to people that when the market was growing, the coal companies didn't see each other as rivals. They thought their threat was environmentalists. Now that the market is flat, they see each other as rivals. They see the environmentalists as an ally, because keeping it in the ground is good for people who currently have the right to get it out. Once you explain that to people, that the politics shifted when the demand flattened.  We've got time maybe for one, possibly two if there are short questions before we wrap up. Calle. Hi, thanks for an interesting presentation. We've been looking at another side of the story. It's the growing demand in China, which has explained a lot of the rising exports of coal from Australia. It's a very particular story that starts six, seven years ago, with rapidly rising imports in China. Those imports, it shows when we look at the numbers from China, shows to have been driven by supply-side politics in China as well, and very, very big subsidies into heavy manufacturing, for example. You say that none of this is really driven by market or by demand, right? So the end user here, China, they have actually subsidized it over supply in heavy manufacturing. It's actually roughly a third of the total capacity. So it's massive. Arguably, this would also add a lot of argument here. Where is the new demand going to be for the coal? Because it's not likely to come from China anymore. How are you discussing that in Australia? Because if you want to deliver coal somewhere, you have to also make sure there is someone building the coal power plants. So are you having discussions, or are your government having discussions, for example, with coal power plant manufacturers in China, to induce new wave of new cheap coal power? Call it environmentally friendly coal power? Look, I flicked this slide up before. Non-Australians won't get the significance, but the Sydney Morning Herald is kind of the best-selling broadsheet newspaper. The guy who's picked you at the top, Ross Gittens, is by far Australia's most well-respected economics commentator. Ross Gittens wrote a column last week in the Sydney Morning Herald, his big column for the week, basically supporting a moratorium on coal. It was covered pretty much everywhere. A move away from coal, a move away from more mines adds up was the headline, his final sentence. When you think it through, the case from moratorium on new coal mines has a lot going for it. Five years ago, if you'd suggested in Australia that a significant economic commentator, let alone Ross Gittens, would say there's an upside to a moratorium, you'd have been laughed out of the room. Like it really, the debate has changed so much, and it's because China's not buying it. Again, when the demand, well it was on demand curve, when the demand forecasts were looking like that, then we were happy to chase them. And what's happened now is there's this lag, the demand for coal has done that, but the political debate is still actually assuming that. So we're in this kind of bizarro land where there are politicians in Australia that want to build coal mines to help the coal industry, while Glencore's saying, don't you dare, and you can't subsidise it. So the debate has really shifted, but there are long lags in politicians and indeed in environmental advocacy that haven't caught up with the new circumstances yet. Look, as for China, I just never underestimate the Chinese. I've said you shouldn't underestimate Australia's negotiating strategy on climate. We've played a hard game for 20 years, and we've won, by the way. We've got everything we wanted. We're still selling a lot more coal. We're winning. I think the Chinese are even better at it than us. And what the Chinese have done, and I haven't spoken to the Chinese government about this, but I think it's pretty obvious, I think they brought 30 years' worth of emissions forward on purpose. We laugh at them for building empty cities that no one's in. They'll fill them up. They brought 30 years' worth of emissions forward to massively improve their negotiating position in the climate and the baits. Right? And it's worked. So I think economists have got nothing to say about geopolitical strategy, and people keep asking economists, and it's terrifying. Look at who's winning. They're the ones that are good at it. I think it's just about right out of time. So thank you very much, Richard, for taking the time to come visit us. Really a pleasure.


What's up guys EvilD here and today I'm going to be playing a little bit of Perfect Dark just because I'm always speaking about this game it's a game from my childhood it's actually an N64 game and I figured that what I'm going to start doing now on with series rather than teaching Esperanto in a linear fashion I'm actually going to be teaching just aspects of the language so say particular verbs or particular sentence constructions or whatever now in this particular lesson I'm going to be teaching just in the case related to time now it's not going to be a very long lesson it probably only like five maybe eight minutes but it should help you a little bit with understanding time now I am playing with a keyboard at the moment so I will probably suck massively now the first thing you have to understand is when you're speaking about time most beginners to Esperanto they'd say for instance I stand for two hours they use the word because it can mean for while or during okay so I stand for two hours they would say but what you can what you need to understand is with the accusative case yes it's used for the object of a transitive verb but it's also used for measurements and as we know time is a measurement so what you can then say is me start us do hodling okay so I stand for two hours now you notice that hodling has become hodling what we've done there is we've dropped the doom and we've simply said that well do hodling is a measurement so we can put that in the accusative case so me start us doom do hodling and me start us do hodling actually means the exact same thing in Esperanto so based on that let's okay I just oh I've just opened the door showed her my gun and then closed the door I need to punch her and just take her card for memory yes and I remember that I don't have to punch her but I always did as a child for some reason so I'll continue doing that and I'll punch that window because that's something else I did okay so how would you say then using what I just taught you I traveled for two hours traveled past tense here um and don't use doom me that to this do hodling me that to this do hodling and how would you say I stood for two hours again it's past tense me start this do hodling me start this do hodling oh my god this is really hard to aim with a keyboard but it's awesome at the same time okay and how would you say um I will run for two hours okay now I'm hoping you've basically got that down pat basically what you're doing is you're just replacing doom for the accusative case when reflecting or when talking about time however there is other points where you will use it and it's not so intrinsically obvious now another one of those is for instance you'll hear a lot of s minus when they're in a conversation they'll say uno momentum and it's basically just a way of saying afk okay but what that there you'll notice that momentum is actually in the accusative case from and okay open this oh hello if you're shooting me um and why that is is because it's actually a shortened sentence plus it's talking about a duration of time so the duration of a time is the momentum so you're saying uno momentum so one moment so it's in the accusative case but it's also a shortened phrase for atendo uno momentum okay now the reason as you know in Esperanto you can drop parts of sentences that aren't needed and that's obviously one of those points where it's understood so you don't need to mention the atendo part now just so you know atendo just means it's a command or a um a request to wait okay so atendo uno momentum is another point where you'll see um the accusative case being used to reflect time now there is another point now this one's even more hard of what english speakers to understand and basically what i say is don't try to understand it too much except just remember that the accusative case can be used for measurement and time is a measurement so if you're talking about a measurement of time you use an accusative but here's a point where it will get a little bit like hard to understand you'll see and this it's almost always exactly like this whenever you use poste or antaue after a measurement of time the measurement time is always in the accusative case okay so for instance you'd say um uno tagon antaue mi fardis tion so one day ago i did this okay come here elevator and it will always be in the accusative case so if you use antaue or poste directly after a measurement of time just remember to put that time in the accusative case so you could say for instance um uh do tagging poste mi fardis tion so two days later um i will do that okay or you could say um uno tagon antaue mi mangis tion so one day ago i ate this so remember the tagon or whatever you are using for measurement has to be in the accusative case um it's just easier to remember that if it's going to go before antaue or poste and i mean directly before and it's a measurement of time then just use it um in the accusative case now as you get better at these you'll start to just realize oh yeah that's a measurement of time so you'll slap that in the accusative case but yeah it's usually anytime you can use doom you can use the accusative regarding time okay now take that shot you in the arm my friend how awesome is this game for like its age man i was playing this when i was a kid like it's still good now i i love this game i love it anyway so yeah that's the main moments where you would use the accusative of time so we'll just practice a tiny little bit before we reach the end of this so how would you say wait one moment uno momento or you could say attendu uno momento but no one does that just uno momento and how would you say um i walked uh for three days walked his past tense awesome and whoop how would you say um i am standing for three hours or i know it sounds weird in english but to say i'm standing for three hours okay so i've reached the end of this random little lesson if you've liked it give it a like share it around with your friends who are learning Esperanto subscribe to my channel if you haven't already and i'll see you in the next video in the next video video i forgot to tell you i'm going to kill you


On Friday, DCUSU gathered outside the Department of Justice to protest events the deportation of DCU University of Sanctuary student, Shepard Micaiah. A 40 minute silent vigil was held in the peaceful protest, it was attended by students from across Ireland's universities. Shepard is a member of the student community throughout Ireland and I think when one member of our community is under attack, we stand up, we fight back. If there is any scintilla of humanity, compassion or justice in the Department of Justice, they will immediately revoke this deportation order and allow Shepard to do so. Boyd Barrett brought the case up in the doll on Tuesday but Flanagan refused to speak on individual cases in the doll. Shepard's future in Ireland is still uncertain. This has been E for Horley for DCUTB News.


provision, champagne, party, catering, poppupkin, non-s gloering poppupkin, pwadges spect Maori resolution 4 for queen. Four valory choose yes or no? Only goes one one. Really why am I not personally interested in these coaches? Well, however, we have to appreciate the performance of these coaches. But by giving is MCNU


Law perm cat vs Persian cat. What are the differences between these two cat breeds? The Persian has a distinctive appearance, a large, round head, large, round eyes, a short nose, full cheeks, and small ears with rounded tips. The head is supported by a short, thick neck and a deceptively sturdy, muscular body, a type known as Kavi. A Persian's legs are short, thick and strong with large, round, firm paws. The tail is short but proportional to the length of the cat's body. A long, thick, shiny coat with a fine texture completes the Persian's look. It's long all over the body and includes an immense rough around the neck, a deep frill between the front legs, long ear and toe tufts, and a full brush or tail. Persians can come in different looks. Some, known as peak face persians, have an extremely flat face. Think twice about the breathing problems such a cat might have before deciding to get one. Doll face persians are said to have a more old-fashioned appearance, with a face that is not as flat as the show Persian or the peak face Persian. Persians of all stripes stand out for their infinite variety of coat colors and patterns. Imagine, if you will, seven solid color divisions, white, blue, black, red, cream, chocolate, and lilac, plus silver and golden division colors of chinchilla and shaded silver. Then there are the shaded, smoked, tabby, calico, particolor and bicolor divisions. For instance, white persians have deep blue or brilliant copper eyes, other solid colored persians have brilliant copper eyes, silver and golden persians have green or blue green eyes, and so on. The lot perms outstanding feature, of course, is his coat which has loose, bouncy curls, making it light and airy to the touch. Tighter, longer curls around the neck, forming a rough and clustering at the base of the ears. The whiskers are also long and curly. The coat comes in two lengths, short and long, and any color or pattern. Tabbies, tortoiseshells, and red cats are most common. Long-haired law perms have a plume tail. The coat's length and fullness may vary seasonally. It sometimes parts naturally down the middle of the back. The short-haired law perm does not necessarily have a rough, ringlets or earmuffs, and the texture of the coat may be harder than that of the long-haired law perm. He has a tail with fur that looks wavy, more like a bottle brush than a plume. The short coat may also part down the middle of the back. Whatever the length, the law perm coat manifests in different ways. Kittens may be born hairless, with straight hair or with curly hair. Both long-haired and short-haired kittens can be born in the same litter. You may notice that the name on your kitten's pedigree includes the letters B.C., B.S. or B.B. Those initials indicate whether the kitten was born curly, born straight, or born bald and helps breeders study how the gene is expressed. The law perm's head is a modified wedge shape, meaning it is slightly rounded. The medium size to large ears are slightly flared. Long-haired law perms have full furnishings, hair inside the ears, and a covering of fur on and around the outer ears that resemble earmuffs. Expressive eyes can be any color. Hello. This video is sponsored by Beemix Pets. Are you looking for high-quality cat collars at an affordable cost? Check out BeemixPets.com. Use coupon code KittenLife to get 20% off. The clever law perm has a sense of humor. Often described as clownish, he is something of a mischief maker who makes talented use of his paws to open doors, swipe things he wants or tap you on the shoulder for attention. He's not clingy, but he likes to be with you and will follow you around, sit on your shoulder or the top of your computer, or sit in your lap, whichever option is most convenient for him. He is moderately active and enjoys retrieving items that are thrown at him. Despite his reputation for getting into things, the law perm is pleasant to live with. He rarely uses his voice, and he is affectionate, gentle, and patient with his people. Most are also welcoming to visitors as long as they were well-socialized as kittens. The dignified and docile Persian is known for being quiet and sweet. She is an ornament to any home where she can enjoy sitting in a lap, surely her rightful place, being petted by those who are discerning enough to recognize her superior qualities, and playing house with kind children, will gently comb her hair, will her around in a baby buggy, then serve her tea at their parties. Persians are affectionate but discriminating. They reserve their attention for family members and those few guests whom they feel they can trust. Loud environments aren't a Persian style. They are sedate cats who prefer a serene home where little changes from day to day. With large, expressive eyes and a voice that has been described as soft, pleasant, and musical, Persians let their simple needs be known, regular meals, a little playtime with a catnip mouse or feather teaser, and lots of love, which they return tenfold. This is one cat who is unlikely to climb up your curtains, jump on your kitchen counters, or perch on top of your refrigerator. She is perfectly happy to rule her domain from the floor or more accessible pieces of furniture. When you are at work or are busy around the house, the Persian is content to adorn a chair, sofa, or bed until you are free to admire her and give her the attention she willingly receives but never demands. The law perms unusual coat is easy to care for and usually doesn't mad or tangle if it is combed or brushed one to three times a week. Longer coats should be groomed more frequently. Use a comb with revolving teeth for best results. It will go through the coat easily without straightening the curls. To keep the cat looking is curly best, miss the coat with a little water or fluff it with damp hands to set the curls. The coat sheds little, and shedding is further reduced with regular brushing. If small mats develop, brush them out gently with a slicker brush or greyhound comb, stainless steel with narrow teeth at one end and wider teeth at the other end. If you give the law perm a bath, press a towel against the coat to soak up moisture, and then let him air dry in a warm, draft-free spot. Using a blow dryer will give him a bad case of frizzies. The most important thing to understand about caring for a Persian is the need for daily grooming. That long, beautiful coat doesn't stay clean and tangle free on its own. It must be gently but thoroughly combed and brushed every day, and regular bathing, at least once a month, is a good idea. Excessive tearing can be a problem in this breed, so wipe the corners of the eyes clean daily to prevent under-eye stains from forming. Brush the teeth to prevent periodontal disease. Daily dental hygiene is best, but weekly brushing is better than nothing. Trim the nails weekly. Wipe the corners of the eyes with a soft, damp cloth to remove any discharge. Use a separate area of the cloth for each eye so you don't run the risk of spreading any infection. Check the ears weekly. If they look dirty, wipe them out with a cotton ball or soft damp cloth moistened with a 50-50 mixture of cider vinegar and warm water. Avoid using cotton swabs, which can damage the interior of the ear. Keep the litter box spotlessly clean. Cats are very particular about bathroom hygiene. It's a good idea to keep them as indoor only cats to protect them from diseases spread by other cats, attacks by dogs or coyotes, and the other dangers that face cats who go outdoors, such as being hit by a car. Cats who go outdoors also run the risk of being stolen by someone who would like to have such an unusual cat without paying for it. The easygoing but playful law perm is well suited to life with families with children and cat-friendly dogs. He can learn tricks, enjoys interactive toys, and loves the attention he receives from children who treat him politely and with respect. Supervise young children and show them how to pet the cat nicely. Instead of holding or carrying the cat, have them sit on the floor and pet him. Always introduce any pets, even other cats, slowly and in a controlled setting. Persians aren't the best choice for a house full of boisterous children and dogs, but they have no objection to being the object of a gentle child's attention or it rubbing along with a friendly dog who doesn't chase them or otherwise cause them anxiety. If you enjoyed this video, kindly press the like button. Also don't forget to subscribe with notifications on, so that you don't miss out on videos like this. Thank you for watching.


I could try to find the perfect love, but there's no one I'd rather be here right where you are. Never this, never far. How could I be close to you? Because in your presence there is peace, an everlasting kind of peace. Where else could I run to then to say? Because if one falls down, the other can help them pick them up. That's true with our relationship with God. And you were joining us on this Friday. I am here with Matt and Angela. And we just heard you moments ago leading us into a time of worship, which was so beautiful. Yeah, thanks so much. Yeah, I'm just thinking about today's episode. And that song is all about just a relationship with the love of God. You know, and so talking about being an episode, Angela, what you're going to explain here in a minute about relationships. You know, ultimately we just need the relationship with God first and foremost. Absolutely. Relationship with the father is our primary concern.  One of the most significant relationships in our life, our marriages, can also be one of the most frustrating. How many times have you wondered of your spouse? Why doesn't he see things like I do? Today, founder of Reflections Counseling Center and host of the popular podcast, Marriage and Enneagram, Krista Harden is going to help us bridge the gap in our understanding of our spouses and how we ourselves show up in our most intimate relationship, marriage. I say, bring on the frustration reduction. Today's show, I am so excited to talk with Krista and understanding how my personality and my husbands may be different, but that we're created to shine together. Yeah. I love that so much as we're created to shine together and it's just like coming together as one and coming against all the tactics and the scheme of the enemy that is trying to come against covenants. And speaking of coming together this weekend, we just want to let you know that there is a gathering, a call for prayer for what's going on in Israel, just to stand a prayer. So it's this weekend through November 17th through 19th. So the Jewish and Christian communities are coming together. Churches are banding together. So we just wanted to let you know of that. And here at Cornerstone, our hearts are standing for Israel. You know, the situation that's going on right now, there's a ground offensive that's going on in Gaza. There's more than 240 hostages that we're just praying for the release of them. And also we want to share with you too here at Cornerstone Intelligence Network, which produces hope today is that because of your giving, you know, your support, we have been, you know, dedicated to giving 10% of our ties to help Jewish ministries like Larry Hux ministry. There's Eagle Wings, also Jeff Zito. We've been reaching out to others. And also we want to just say a shout out to the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh that is here in our area. And we just encourage you to support local ministries, local nonprofits and charities that are really helping what's going on in Israel because, you know, truly right now, Matt, I know all eyes are on that situation, but it's a beautiful thing when we're able to link arms, join together, band together with our brothers and sisters. Absolutely. Joining together. This is a big thing. Okay, this is fine. I got to admit something. God works in the funniest ways. Me and my wife were just getting into those intense conversation the other day about our differences. And I'm like, okay, we are so different. We got to find some common ground right now, you know, so I'm seriously, I'm super excited about today. And hopefully, well, I should say hopefully, I know I'm probably going to gain a lot, but I think that's the fun thing about marriage, right? Or the differences, but her and I have strong personalities, you know, so we butt heads kind of quite a bit. So Angela, I mean, hopefully you asked the right questions here today because I need some help right now. It's so true. Like God has made each and every one of us unique, but celebrating those differences instead of getting frustrated by them can be quite challenging, especially within our marriages. Podcast host, counseling center, founder and author of the Enneagram in Marriage. Christa Hardin joins us today with some great insight and knowledge to help us better see and understand ourselves as well as our spouses and how we can shine brighter together. Christa, welcome to hope today. Thank you guys so much for having me, Matt, we've got you covered. Well, Christa, let's not waste any time. Let's hop right into the heart of what you're talking about and your beautiful book that you just created and that people can grab a hold of. How did you come to the realization and connect the personality differences with relationship and how they intermingle? Oh, that's such a great question. Thank you, Angela. I really started noticing this in my work with couples about eight years back. So I've been doing this work for about two decades and about eight years back, somebody gave me the Enneagram personality inventory and it was just one of many. I'd been using assessments for years, but they had been bogging me down because they were so laborious and then they offered me this sort of sleek, elegant, quick test that's only got nine types and I did give it just this quick look and my good friend, a therapist from Wheaton College, she said, you might want to give this a deeper dive. There's a lot here to unpack for couples. I'm so glad she did because I haven't looked back, Angela. It is just so good of a tool and then my husband, Wes, and I started using it as did my couples and it just got us the deeper layers of understanding our differences. I love that you mentioned use a variety of marriage tools and this being one of them. Could you explain to our listeners a little bit more about what exactly the Enneagram is? Absolutely. So it's like we said, one of many tools, but instead of just being general marriage info, which there's sort of several really big marriage researchers out there that we love to use and incorporate as well as, for me, as a Christian, my faith. But the Enneagram nuances the gifts and in 1 Corinthians 12, we hear about how we all have varied gifts and what I love about the Enneagram is we get to name those gifts and notice them about us and our spouses and say, oh, wow, you have the gift of joy or you have the gift of peace and really celebrate those in one another. So it's a great inventory for that and Enneagram just means nine and so it's nine types. And it means nine varieties of humans and of course we all have even more nuance than that. Throughout your book, you talk about the many layers and how even cultures and upbringing and trauma can inform how we relate with the world around us. But could you help us to unpack and understand how better knowing about our Enneagram or our tendencies, our personality traits can help us to better support our partners in marriage? Yes, I can because when we're at our best in each of our personality types, we're using those gifts I mentioned just we're thriving together.  But when we have trauma as an overlay or differing cultures, we can also, if our window of tolerance is down and we're like not sleeping well, not eating well, not getting fitness, we start to go down the lower levels of our type exuding the virtues together and the gifts. We start showing up with the vices or sins or passions, and that can just be such a rub together. It's really awkward. It's not the pretty dance anymore and we get caught and lost in cycles. So when couples come in for counseling, what a lot of people don't know is sometimes they only come for one session. You have so much to unpack in one session. So to have this awareness of what's your gift and what's your main core struggle, although, like I said, we have nuance, it just gets us moving a lot faster and we can start lifting up and giving hope. Would you mind taking just a minute or two to break down just one of the types so that our viewers can understand what this actually looks like? They may have a number in mind, oh yes, somebody said I was a seven, but can you help them to understand what that exactly means and looks like? I would love to. I'm going to use the type nine peacemaker because I think that there's a lot of nines out there in the research I've seen and so the type nine at their best, they're such a great diplomat. They're able to use their God-given power. We're not given a spirit of fear but of power and truly hear every voice at the table and help people to make agreements. But unfortunately, sometimes people don't hear the nine because they're so thoughtful and considerate and they can get walked over. And so this type at their worst can become slothful and feel like I don't matter, nobody ever listens to me. Forget about diplomacy, it's all about comfort. I'm just going to lay back and do my own thing and we really miss out on the gifts in marriage or in the world of that nine. So I love to help when I'm with a nine for their spouse to give them a platform to be heard in the world and I love for that nine to bring that peace and thoughtfulness to their spouse. I love how you break down the different types, personality types or the numbers and even when you just shared that example of the nine there are these strengths and what you call shadows in each of the types. Could you explain to us a little bit more about how those shadows of our spouse can actually influence us in our own personality? Yeah, and that is so fascinating about marriage because we rub off on each other, right? So if we had that for example, nine spouse over time you're going to have a lot more peace in your life. You just are. That's a gift your spouse brings to you.  But sometimes if your nine is very sarcastic and has not felt heard and has not learned to use their power then you might together bring that shadow and say, forget it, we're not even going to share anymore in the world. Nobody ever hears us, nobody ever cares and so they can negatively influence you and now you guys are just watching TV every day all day. You know, I love this conversation, Chris. So I just have a question. So we're talking about the nine as the peacemaker. What is the one on the opposite end of the spectrum and how did those shadows disrupt sometimes the functionality of a union? I love that. You're like, okay, tell us about somebody else. The type one is often, I call them the improver because we cannot live in a world without any of these types. God was so intentional when he made each of us for the common good it says in 1 Corinthians 12. And so these gifts are great. The type one gift improves, but they're looking and scanning for what's wrong all the time. And that's their gift. And my husband, Wes, is medical and he's a one and he does a beautiful job of finding disease and he can save lives with that gift. But what can be hard about the one is they can bring that shadow of finding fault in everything. And so it's been so powerful to do our enneagram work together so that he can use that gift for God's glory and also understand that we are also, you know, God uses our weakness. So it's okay that we're not perfect. From the nine to the one, have you found, Christa, that there are any numbers that you're like, don't get married. It ain't gonna work. I love his question. I have not seen that. The joy of it is that when we're healthy and we're using our gifts, I love to see the ways that we blend, that we merge and we share the gifts and we're also unique. And one fact that a lot of people don't know about marriage is that the healthiest couples, the marriage masters we call them, actually really know how to expedite their gifts, use them together, and narrate an inner script that says, this is our unique gift together. So we're this eight, nine couple. This is our power together. They're this three, five. And so every pairing has the gifts. But like we said, every pairing can bring each other their shadows too. And we can bring those shadows to our world and our kids. So we want to bring out generational peace. We want to break generational toxicity and using our gifts together does that and we get to share our life for Christ together. So someone who's watching today and they're like, I have no idea what you're talking about with this enneagram. No idea what you're talking about these numbers. I'm just out here. Maybe I'm not even on the scale. Could you give us one or two practical tips to help reduce the frustration we often face over and over again, the same frustration within our marriages? Yes, I think that's a great question because you don't have to do any enneagram work in order to be a great spouse. Just notice your spouse's gifts and call them out more frequently. The healthiest couples do this in a ratio of 20 positives to one negative in the daily interactions. And that's a lot, but that's great if you can just start managing that. And even when you're in conflict, healthy couples do this in a ratio of five to one. So you're allowing yourself to say, oh, I love the way you are so good at exploring what's wrong because you helped us in this way to find this missing piece in our finances. I love the way that you showed up for our kids in this way to help their work to be better. And then you might even just say, I'm so curious about that. And then just one small complaint is allowed and okay. So what we don't want couples to do is not share their hearts. We do want you to be able to share your truest feelings together. Just make sure you are surrounding that with a lot of love. Chris, if you could just go a little bit deeper into that because you were saying like managing that, because how does that look like if somebody's like, you know what, I am at an absolute standstill? Like I'm even thinking of Matt, right? Like when he was just saying, everybody's his wife. Matt this absolute standstill or just something, how do you begin to look and say, okay, this is a gift that I see. What are some things that we can do? And then how to really practically implement them? I think that it's our brains are sort of negatively wired to look out for, you know, corruption and issues just as humans surviving. So we have to like look on the sidewalk out of us to make sure we don't fall. So it's an intentional act of putting Christ on in Philippians 4-8 and thinking about things that are good and really speaking those out in your marriage because the narrative we tell is what we believe. And so when we speak out good things about our spouse, we're much more likely to enjoy them. And it's so beautiful to see their gifts enlivened. I've noticed with so many couples over two decades that let's say that they start doing a behavior that you like but it wasn't done perfectly. Just encourage that behavior because you're going to shape it.  Think them like, oh my gosh, thank you. I saw you try to do that. That was awesome. And you guys can be playful about that. And that will just bring them more and more trying. Whereas if we're like, I asked you to shut that cupboard door. They're like, forget it. Not even going to try next time. Sticking with that same theme, I know that your book focuses on the enneagram in marriage. But would you help us? We're about to enter the holiday seasons. And I know some of us can get real overwhelmed and stressed out with all the personality types. Could you help us to stay in a place of peace? What is something a tip focusing on that good but beyond that that could keep us around that Thanksgiving table in a peaceful, thankful state? That is the best question. And I think that Matt's song earlier really brought our hearts to the right place because when we give our allegiance to God first and we remember he's the true bridegroom of all of us because let's face it, we all still do have those weaknesses and shadows that come sometimes. It's so important that we don't give up on that quiet time with God, that we just allow ourselves to get on our knees and say, Lord, fill me up, refresh me and get into the word. I also want to remind people that our relationship window of tolerance, of stress is so much lower when we don't get three things in that sleep, fitness and nutrition. And these holidays are exactly when we think we can skimp on that, but we need it most then. So let's, for example, you're in the car with your kids and they're loud when you're not, you know, sleeping well, when you are eating poorly and you haven't had any kind of energetic exercise, you're going to snap so much harder at them. Your spouse is then going to snap at you. So it's the cycle. And if you just take care of yourself and allow the Lord's refreshment in your life and to have a bit of margin, you're going to fly so beautifully through these holidays. Also, I would just add a little date night as well. Don't give up on a little time just for the two of you. Krista, thank you so much for being a guest today and thank you for your amazing book that will be a tool in many marriages. Thank you so much. Don't You Leave Us will be right back for a time of personal ministry just for you. In this month of Thanksgiving, we're excited to send you the special Daily Gratitude Journal with your best gift. This easy to use journal will encourage you to bookend each day with short personal reflections that bring insight and intentionality to your busy and always-changing life. How can six simple questions help you better navigate life's uncertainty? Best-selling author Tish Oxenwriter invites you to lean into the rhythms that each morning and evening offers with a twice-daily thought exercise focusing on gratitude, truth, grace, and more. As you reflect on three key questions near the beginning and end of your day, you will be more poised and prepared for whatever God has for you in the hours between. Request your gratitude journal today when you give. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> or donate online at ctvn.org slash donate. Thank you for giving to Cornerstone Television. What a great conversation, and I'm sure all of you and everybody here in the set was like, Matt, are you going to ask anything or say anything? And I think I've learned after like 12 years of marriage because if my wife is watching, I don't want to ask the wrong question, her be like, call up the hotlines but he's talking about me right now.  But one thing that Chris has said at the end, which I feel is key, is balance, right? I mean, because obviously we know everything is spiritually, but it is also physical. So I look at it as like, yeah, we want to cater to our spouses or our loved ones or our relationships. But what good am I if I don't have balance personally first? You know, and so I don't know, what do you guys think? Like what is important to you guys when it comes to like balance and likes it? Well, I'm like the same way, Matt, because I think it's about the person. We're responsible for our personal outcomes. And I know it's like we talk about like two becoming one, but you are a person. And I love what she brought up about the sleep, the fitness, and eating. Because if you don't have those things, there are certain things that chemically just naturally go off in your body that you're, and I love what she brought up early about the window of tolerance. Because I know that something that you talk about in therapy is like, if you have trauma or something's going in that window. So it's like, here's, this is here, and if you have something on in like, so here's everything your life is going on.  Like everything is making me mad. I'm popping off. I'm not okay. I think we've all been there, but it's just because I'm not dealing with things that are going within. So I love that tip that she was just sharing because I think, Angel, we all have had those moments when you're like, I am a crab. Apple, I'm snapping. You made me mad. I want to talk to you. Leave me alone. Yes. That balance and true self-awareness is so critical. And that's why I love these marriage tools and the marriage tool that Krista brought today, her own book, is that it helps us to examine ourselves and see where I am. What are some of those tendencies I have when I get stressed out? Am I snappy or do I retreat? Am I showing up as my best self in my marriage or does he push the right buttons to get me in another space and why do those exist in me? So I love this conversation and I agree with you, Sydney, and Matt. It does. We must find balance within ourselves first and foremost with Christ and then examine how we show up in our marriage so that we can have a balanced, joyful experience. Yeah, that's good. I think thank God for the help of the Holy Spirit, right? Because without the help of the Holy Spirit, we'd all be out there just lost. Let's be honest, like, prideful.  But maybe you're at home watching or by something, something is going on. I love the Bible tells us to just be still, right? Be still and know. I think it's sometimes in those moments when we're quiet, we can then begin to self-reflect and investigate, okay, what's going on in me? Where is this coming from? And so we can quiet ourselves, quiet our mind, quiet the noise, whatever that might look like for you. Hear from the Holy Spirit. Take some time to say, okay, I got to humble myself in this moment. Holy Spirit, help to reveal unto me what it is that I need to see. I can't have my own way all the time, and that's okay. I need to operate in the love of God. But first and foremost, Holy Spirit said, help me to reveal what's going on inside here. This conversation is great. And one thing I've been watching on TikTok, just different marriage videos that have been popping up. And the one thing that I've heard different pastors say and something that I think we forget at times, marriage is supernatural. It's something that God created. It's a covenant. It operates so differently than other relationships. So when God created marriage, you cannot have marriage apart from God. And so it is essential that we first are in him and our relationships in him, and that we speak to him. And I like Matt, what you were just saying is like examining our hearts and what we're going through. That's what marriage is about. It's first birth out of God. And it's literally a supernatural thing. And I also heard recently like love, you need the Holy Spirit, the way to forgive, the way to have grace, the way to let go of faults and just certain things that happen. And also marriage is the ultimate picture. It's like when we have our marriages, it's a reflection of Christ's love for the church. So I think it's important that during this time that we seek the Father's face, that we seek the Holy Spirit, and we trust in Jesus to really be the one, to be the one in the middle, to repair, to strengthen our marriages because it is all about glorifying him. And we're so grateful that you have joined us today for Hope Today. We love you and we hope you have a wonderful weekend.


Man, mind me heat. What a let down, man. You know what's funny? I was actually thinking about going to that game. I'm like, it's Eastern Conference finals. It's at the crib. It's game seven, so it's all or nothing. So it's gonna be crazy hype there. I know the energy was gonna be wild. But then I looked at those ticket prices and I was like, ah, okay. This is why it remained just that, a thought. So we watch it from home. It was a good game. I just felt like the heat, they just needed somebody else other than Jimmy Butler. I felt like Jimmy Butler was doing this thing. Struz was, ah, Larry was, ah. But yeah, man. Hey, and it kind of reminded me of a different team that we like to talk about. But anyway, Team Keep It Clean. What's going on? It's St. Graven here with another video and some great, great, great news. Let's just hear it directly from the man himself. He gave you the conversation we were just having. He said you were telling him. On Tuesday, and I'm spending facts, T.O. ready to play ball. This one right here, or that one, was never one. T.O. ready to play ball, baby. He got the passion. He got the leadership assured. And he got the skills, baby. So, all 32, man, take a shot on T.O. Wow. Okay, now Marcus Peters is out. He said he got the passion and he could play ball. It sounded like he was talking about himself. And the leadership as well. But Marcus Peters, he confirmed that he will be back tomorrow. He'll be at OTA's back with the Ravens tomorrow. That's great news. I think Marlon Humphrey, he said something about it last week in his presser. But that's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful thing because y'all know how much we missed Marcus Peters badly last year.  I think on the defense, he was probably the person that the Ravens missed the most. Now, real quick, that was a clip from Fan Control Football. So, one of the things that I appreciated the most is two things. One thing I appreciated and one thing I did not appreciate about that clip. The thing I appreciated is Marcus Peters. And you know Marcus Peters when he talks, he just talks, he does this thing, and he be letting it fly. But Fan Control Football, they be letting it fly on there. They be doing some stuff on there like that quarterback that do, score the touchdown and then he just starts smoking right after that. I'm like, what, really? And they be doing all kind of stuff on there. But so with Marcus Peters, the fact that he kept it clean and I was like, okay, well, at least in that clip, I didn't see the whole interview, but the fact that he kept it clean in that clip, I'm like, I am fee. I can actually play a full Marcus Peters clip on the chat. Oh, I appreciate it. And I ain't got to add to nothing now. Oh yeah, let's go. But the thing that I did not appreciate that actually has me a little worried is that Marcus Peters was lobbying for Tyrell Owens to get signed. And I think is Charlie Kess, I know, I forget what her name is. I know it's Charlie something, but she called John Hubbaugh, Jim Hubbaugh. It happens all the time. It ain't a big deal. But with Marcus Peters saying that, I just hope the Ravens didn't hit it. I hope that doesn't end up being the veteran receiver that they signed it being T.O. Cause you know Ray Ravens would be like, oh, oh, T.O. wanna play? Oh yeah. Let's see if we can get some good years out of them. Anyway, Marcus Peters being back. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. I think, and I'm sure a lot of y'all will agree, Marcus Peters easily, easily. Ever since he's been on the Baltimore Ravens, he has been one of my favorite players on the team. Easily. Marcus Peters, and this is before he even steps on the football field, will be getting me. Because his passion, his energy, just his vibe, man. He is just, and he's somebody that they just keep it, they keep it so real all the time. And I appreciate that about his character, his personality and that dude. And then of course on the field, oh yeah, he brings it too. Marcus Peters, he's known as a hothead. Which is really passion, man. He's very passionate. And he takes what he does seriously with Marcus Peters. It's one thing about him. If he's having a good game, then y'all know Marcus Peters will be all in your face. He'll be doing all the clapping and all that stuff. And he'll be talking his trash. If he's having a bad game, that passion, it could backfire a little bit because he will just, you can tell that he is frustrated and it'll get to him. But that's just his personality. That's part of it. So you obviously hope that he has more good games than bad ones and he usually does. But yeah, man Ravens, they missed him really bad last year. Last season, yeah. Again, I think out of all the defensive players that Ravens lost, I mean, they lost really the whole team. But out of all the defensive players that they lost, I think Marcus Peters was certainly the biggest one and the one that impacted them on defense the most. Marcus Peters, he makes Marlon Humphrey's job a lot easier. He makes really a lot of people's job a lot easier. But him and Marlon Humphrey, they're like a nice one, two punch. They compliment each other because Marlon Humphrey, he plays the receiver. Marcus Peters, he plays the ball. So they got completely different styles, but it works. It works. And now you throw Kyle Fuller in there. And Kyle Fuller, he ain't gotta be the greatest. Ain't nobody asking him to do that. They just, hey, when your number's called, just be solid, be ready. Stay ready so you ain't gotta get ready. Brandon Stevens, physical guy. So it's gonna be, I just, I really hope that they just stay healthy. That's the biggest thing, man.  I hope that the whole team could stay healthy because this roster, again, this roster, you look around at this roster, it's like, oh, oh, wow. Oh my, yeah. Like all around, well, except in one position. But, and you know what? Raven's messing around, they probably will add Teal. They probably will. But I'm joking, by the way, because I know it's gonna be somebody who Ravens aren't gonna add Teal. What are you talking about, man? Relax, please. But yeah, Marcus Peters, I just always remember last year, right before his, the day before his injury. He, and timing is just, it's everything. It could be so frustrating, it could be great, it could be sad, it could be a lot of things, but it is everything. But he had a presser. And I talked to y'all about this presser. We did a video about the presser, and when he spoke, it was just, it was my favorite presser from him, because it was just really, it was just real, man. That's the best word to describe it, it was just real. He spoke about growing up, he spoke about kids, children and stuff. He spoke about, he spoke about football, but it was more about off-the-field stuff. And you could just feel it. I remember listening to it, watching it. I'm like, man, my eyes start getting watery and stuff. I'm like, man, this dude, he's saying some stuff, man. And then that's what made his injury that much worse, because literally the very next day, the very next day, I remember getting the notification. And it was like, oh, hearing that Marcus Peters and Gus Edwards tore their ACLs on the same day. That's what people were hearing, we heard it, we heard it, we heard it, possible. Fearing that Marcus Peters and Gus Edwards both tore their ACLs, I was like, no. No, I was like, man, no, say this ain't so, man. Say it ain't so, man. And then about maybe 30 minutes later after that, that report came out, the one that confirmed it did. And I was like, man. Again, both at the same time, I mean, the whole season was like a punch in the gut with the injuries, but those that both happened at the same time, mm, mm, mm. And then I think it was late on in training camp or something or in the practice, Justice Hill, just randomly, boom. Oh, he tore his ACL or his Achilles, whichever one it was. And then of course, in preseason, the third game of the preseason, first drive, first drive on that screenplay. And maybe that's why Ravens, they didn't run screens like that. Cause they were like, man, Bradley Bozeman, you missing blocks on screen like this. Bozeman missed that block. And it's not Bozeman fault that JK knee got. Like, I mean, his ACL got popped, but man, it's just, it was, it was ugly, man. It was ugly. But yeah, that's probably, that's probably why Ravens, like, he ain't running those screenplays after that. They got scarred, man, scarred, scarred, scarred, scarred. Wow. Sorry, man, I just was going down memory lane with all the injuries last year, specifically to the running backs, but Marcus Peters, man, but him being back, it just brings so much life to this team, man. It brings so much life to the defense. I am, the Ravens could use somebody like that on offense. They could really use somebody like that on offense. Somebody who gonna talk that talk, but is ready to back it up too. Somebody who's a leader, cause they got, they obviously got leaders, Rashad Bateman looking like he getting ready to step up, Lamar Jackson, but they different kind of leaders. And we'll, we'll actually see what Rashad Bateman does, cause this will really be his year to show like, all right, I'm with it. Lamar Jackson, he's more of a quiet leader. He's more of a quiet guy, but I feel like Ravens need that guy that's going to run his mouth on offense. There's going to be a hype man on, sort of like Mark Ingram was. Mark Ingram was that guy, that leader who, but he could still play too. At first he could still play, but he could still play. Once he got that, once he got the injury at the end of the season, that was it for him, man. It just, everything just like slowed down. But at the same time, I don't know man, because remember he got the injury. So he was injured for the playoffs. And they was like, you know what, Mark Ingram's injury, we're not using the same words, forget that guy. But anyway, the following year, so it looked like he was still dealing with the injury. But then, and some people thought he was dealing with the injury like, oh yeah, then he went to the Texans and he looked refreshed. He went to the Texans and he looked refreshed. It was like, oh, okay, well, whatever. It ain't like, he is what it is. But yeah, man, it is what it is. So anyway, walking speed is his back. So yeah, man, Raven's defense, they need it. But yeah, they still need that guy like that, in my opinion. I feel like having that guy like that on offense, it could take them a long way. Cause you see what happened when they missed that guy on defense, it brought them down a lot. And I mean, there was a lot of other things, too a lot of other factors and whatnot. But having him back here, it just, it means the world to this team because Marcus Peters is a dog. He is a dog. And Ravens, they could use all the dogs that they could possibly get.


Using common database filters to refine your search. Library databases and discovery layers typically include tools called filters that help you refine your search so you can retrieve results that are more accurate and relevant to what you're looking for. In this video, you'll learn about some common filters. These filters appear in many databases, so you'll be prepared to search no matter what tool you use. When you select a filter, all search results that do not match that filter's criteria will be removed from your search results. Using filters can help you narrow your search results to the ones that are most relevant to your topic. Let's look at some commonly used filters and what they do. Full text. This can also be called things like available online or in your library. Select this filter to narrow your results to sources that you can view in their entirety, meaning the full text of the article. Pure reviewed. Select this filter to ensure that all your results are from pure reviewed journals. Date range slash publication date. This filter limits your search to material published within a particular timeframe, which can be useful if you need to make sure to find current information. This filter limits your search results to materials written in one or more languages. You can select all the languages that you can read. Age. This is a less general filter, but it is common in health sciences databases. This filter limits your search to articles about specific age-based populations, so infants, children, adolescents, etc. You now know some common filters that you can use to refine your search. Explore your library's discovery layer and databases to try these filters for yourself and see what other filters are available. Thanks for watching.