Flavonoids are widely found in plants and diets, have various bioactive effects, and their basic structures consist of C6 and hashtag X2713, and hashtag X2713, and hashtag X2713 rings with different substitution patterns. However, their poor bioavailability limits information about associations between structure and biological fate, which this review aims to address by bringing order into relationships between structure, activity, and pharmacokinetics of bioactive flavonoids. This article was authored by Tianyang Wang, Qingli, and Kaishan Bai.


There are a few special verbs we use with the transitive verb pattern when we talk about banks. Two of the verbs are opposites. Deposit and withdrawal. That's right. A deposit is when you put money into an account. A withdrawal is when you take money out of an account.


Let's think a little bit about the notion of atomic size or atomic radius in this video. And at first thought, you might think, well, this might be a fairly straightforward thing. If I'm trying to calculate the radius of some type of circular object, I'm just thinking about, well, what's the distance between the center of that circular object and the edge of it? So the length of this line right over here, that would be the radius. And so a lot of people, when they conceptualize an atom, they imagine a positive nucleus with the protons in the center right over here. And then they imagine the electrons on these fixed orbits around that nucleus. So they might imagine some electrons in this orbit right over here, just kind of orbiting around. And then there might be a few more on this orbit out here orbiting around, orbiting around out here. And you might say, OK, well, that's easy to figure out the atomic radius. I just figure out the distance between the nucleus and the outermost electron. And we could call that the radius. And that would work except for the fact that this is not the right way to conceptualize how electrons, or how they move, or how they are distributed around a nucleus. Electrons are not in orbits the way that planets are in orbit around the sun. And we've talked about this in previous videos. They are in orbitoles, which are really just probability distributions of where the electrons can be. But they're not that well-defined. So you might have an orbitole. And I'm just showing you in two dimensions. It would actually be in three dimensions. Or maybe there's a high probability that the electrons where I'm drawing it in kind of this more shaded in green. But there's some probability that the electrons are in this area right over here. And some probability that the electrons are in this area over here. And let's say even a lower probability that the electrons are over here, like this over here. And so you might say, well, OK, at a moment, the electron's there. The outermost electron, let's say, is there. You might say, well, that's the radius. But in the next moment, there's some probability. It might be more likely that it ends up here. But there's some probability that it's going to be over there. And then the radius could be there. And so electrons, these orbitals, these diffuse probability distributions, they don't have a hard edge. So how can you say what the size of an atom actually is? And there's several techniques for thinking about this. One technique for thinking about this is saying, OK, if you have two of the same atoms of the same element that are not connected to each other, that are not bonded to each other, that are not part of the same molecule, and you were able to determine somehow the closest that you could get them to each other. So without them bonding. So you were kind of seeing, what's the closest that they can kind of get to each other? So let's say that's one of them, and then this is the other one right over here. And if you could figure out that distance, that closest, that minimum distance, without some type of really strong influence happening here, but just the minimum distance that you might see between these two, and then you could take half of that. So that's one notion, and that's actually called the van der Waals radius. Another way is, well, what about if you have two atoms of the same element that are bonded to each other? They're bonded to each other through a covalent bond. So a covalent bond, we've seen this in the past. The most famous of covalent bonds is a covalent bond. You essentially have two atoms. So that's the nucleus of one. That's the nucleus of the other. And they're sharing electrons. So their electron clouds actually overlap with each other. So in a covalent bond, the electrons in that bond can spend some of their time on this atom and some of their time on this atom right over here. And so when you have a covalent bond like this, you can then find the distance between the two nuclei and take half of that and call that the atomic radius. So these are all different ways of thinking about it. With that out of the way, let's think about what the trends for atomic size or atomic radii would be in the periodic table. So the first thing to think about is what you think will be the trend for atomic radii as we move through a period. So let's say we're in the fourth period and we were to go from potassium to to krypton. What do you think is going to be the trend here? And if you want to think about the extremes, how do you think potassium is going to compare to krypton in terms of atomic radius? I encourage you to pause this video and think about that on your own. Well, when you're in the fourth period, the outermost electrons are going to be in your fourth shell. Now, what's going on there? Well, when you're at potassium, you have 19 electrons, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. You have 19 protons, and you have 19 electrons. I'll just do it as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. But you only have one electron in that outermost in that fourth shell. So let's just say that's that electron at a moment, just for visual. It doesn't necessarily have to be there, but just to visualize that. So that one electron right over there, you have 19 protons. So you have some, as you could say, Coulomb force that is attracting it, that is keeping it to there. But if you go to krypton, all of a sudden you have much more positive charge in the nucleus. So you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I don't have to do them all. You have 36. You have a positive charge of 36. Let me write that. Plus 36. Here you had plus 19. And you have 36 electrons, and I've lost track of them. But in your outermost shell, in your fourth, you're going to have the 2s, and then you're going to have the 6p. So you have 8 in your outermost shell. So let me 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. So one way to think about it, you have more positive charge in the center, and you have more negative charge on that outer shell. So that's going to bring that outer shell inward. It's going to have more, I guess you could imagine, one way, more Coulomb attraction right over there. And because of that, that outermost shell is going to be drawn in. Krypton is going to be smaller. It's going to have a smaller atomic radius than potassium. And so the trend, as you go to the right, is that you are getting, and the general trend, I would say, is that you are getting smaller as you go to the right in a period. And that's the reason why the smallest atom, the element with the smallest atom, is not hydrogen. It's helium. Helium is actually smaller than hydrogen, depending on what technique you use to measure it. And that's because, if we take the simplest case, hydrogen, you have one proton in the nucleus, and then you have one electron in that 1s shell. And in helium, you have two protons in the nucleus. And I'm not drawing the neutrons, and obviously there's different isotopes, different numbers of neutrons. But you have two electrons now in your outer most shell. And so you have more, I guess you could say, you could have more Coulomb attraction here. This is plus 2. And then these two combined are negative 2. They are going to be drawn inward. So that's the trend. As we go to the right, as we go from the left, to the right of the periodic table, we're getting smaller. Now what do you think is going to happen as we go down the periodic table? As we go down the periodic table in a given group? Well, as we go down a group, each new element down the group, we're in a new period. We're adding a new shell. So you're adding more and more and more shells. Here you have just the first shell, now the second shell. And each shell is getting further and further and further away. So as you go down in the periodic table, you are getting larger. You're having a larger atomic radius depending on how you are measuring it. So what's the general trend?   So what's going to be the smallest ones? Well, we've already said helium is the smallest. So what are going to be some of the largest atoms? What's going to be the atoms down here in the bottom left? So these are going to be large. These are going to be small. So large over here, small over here. And the general trend is you go from the bottom left to the top right, you are getting smaller.


A little while ago on this channel, we spoke about Husqa.  Well today, we're gonna be going back to the Czech Republic to a location that's only about an hour and a half away from Husqa Castle. Now this location is not a castle. From the outside, it just looks like a strange church. However, if anything these last few years have taught us, is that sometimes things aren't always as they seem. And this peculiar church might have some symbolism that points to something pretty nefarious. But before we go any further, you know what to do, hit that subscribe button and give us a like. Now, as most of you know, the mockingbird media and the powers that be behind all these media companies have been coming down pretty hard on those of us who are trying to deliver some sort of truth in our work. This channel has been eligible for monetization for a while now, and we did put our application in to be monetized. We were approved by AdSense, but for the past couple of months, YouTube has remained processing it. Now here's the thing, if we were to have opened up a drama channel where all we did was talk crap about other people, we would have definitely been monetized. But the fact that we are trying to breach on French topics to get to the truth of what's happening, YouTube has been pretty slow to give us the ads. And as you guys can probably assume, running a channel like Esoteric Atlanta does take a very long time. It takes a long time to research, to film, and to edit. We do try to get two to three videos out a week, and we will continue to do that regardless of whether YouTube monetizes us or not. However, if you would like to support the channel and help us out, there is a Patreon page down below. If that's not something you can do right now, we totally understand the world is going topsy-turvy, we are in the middle of a war, so we totally understand and we thank you for your support nonetheless. Alright, let's get started. Welcome to Esoteric Atlanta, my name is Bryce, and today we're going to be talking about the Church of Bones. Our Sedelec Oshuary is a small Roman Catholic church in the Czech Republic. The chapel is beneath the cemetery that's known as the All-Sates Cemetery, and the cemetery is what gave fame originally to this church. In 1278, there was an abbot there who was named Henry, Henry the Abbott. He lived at the monastery, and King Atacar II sent Henry the Abbott to the Holy Land. Now, we remember Atacar II from our video on Huska Castle, and again, I will place a link to that video down below. Atacar II was responsible for building Huska Castle as a way to try to keep the demons from the pit of hell contained. Well, the story goes that while Henry the Abbott was in the Holy Lands, he picked up some dirt or some earth from Calvary. Calvary, of course, is a very, very, very important place for Christians. This is where Jesus Christ was crucified. Well, when Henry the Abbott returned back to his monastery, he took some of the dirt from Calvary, and he spread the dirt around the cemetery. This was almost like a blessing, not with holy water, but with holy earth. So, you can imagine this cemetery became prime real estate for death in all of this area of Europe. And then if we move forward in history, around the 14th century, Europe experienced the Black Death. Now, the Black Plague was an actual plague. You could see people dying everywhere, not this craziness that we have going on now, but like a legitimate plague. And so, of course, this upped the body count for this cemetery. And this is when they built the Gothic Church that has an upper and a lower level. The lower level became like an osuary that could take in massive amounts of bodies. This is a lot like we saw in the Catacombs in Italy, because at this point, from what I have now learned, Catholics didn't really or still don't really believe in burning bodies. So, they got to have a place to put these bodies. And so, during this time, around 1511, they got a monk to start to go through the bones, to clean the bones, to organize the bones. Now, it is said that this monk was half-blind. I don't really know what the significance of that is, except for maybe the bodies were so grotesque that they wanted a monk that couldn't really see. So, maybe he wouldn't be traumatized by all these plague-ridden bodies? Now, the Schwarzenberg family is an aristocratic, elitist family that has members in both the Czech Republic and in Germany. Now, in my opinion, this is when the story of the Church of Bones gets really, really fascinating. We know that all the Illuminati families, well, most of them anyway, are from Germanic descent. We also know that these Illuminati, Cabal, or Deep State families have been around for a very long time and have not only infiltrated our political systems globally, but have also infiltrated our religious churches. We have a deep church. Now, the Catholic Church was infiltrated a long, long, long time ago. We know that Vatican, as in the Vatican City, means the head of the serpent. We also know that our current Pope and many Popes of the past have not actually been Christian, but Luciferian. We also know from the Act of 1871 here in the United States that the three stars on DC's flag represent the military of America, the city of London, and the Vatican, the Vatican being the worship of Lucifer and the coming of the New World Order under Lucifer. Yes, the thing that Trump is fighting right now for humanity. We know that this New World Order is also called the Death Cult because they do partake in human sacrifice. We know this is not just conspiracy. We know from Epstein's Island, all the temples and the chapels that they had on the island that weren't Christian and all the bones and skulls that have been found on the island that were possibly from missing children and humans that had been trafficked. Trafficked to be their sacrifices. We know that the Clinton Foundation is now under heavy scrutiny because of its involvement in Haiti. They weren't there in Haiti helping out. They have been using Haiti as a resource for children for a very long time. So keeping all of that in mind, let's get back to the Church of Bones and the Schwarzenberg family. It was in 1870 that the Schwarzenberg family got involved. They hired an artist to come into this chapel and design the bones into art pieces. These art installations with all these bones is now what drives tourism to this Church of Bones. In fact, this church gets about 200,000 tourists a year. Now, two of the most famous pieces in the Church of Bones is the chandelier, which is said to hold every part of the human body and the coat of arms, that is the Schwarzenberg's coat of arms. Appropriately enough, this Church of Bones was also the inspiration for Dr. Satan's office in the movie The House of a Thousand Corpse. I mean, they tell us everything in the movies. The entertainment industry is part of their machine to indoctrinate us. Now, another thing about the church is there are gold skull and crossbones on the chapel as well as the fence. Now, this struck me as odd. The skull and crossbones are a huge Illuminati symbol. We see them as meaning death or poison, but the Illuminati has been using this symbolism and this sorcery for a very, very long time. In a previous video, we spoke about Himmler in the Nazi in the Third Reich and his obsession with the occult. Now, in Weevilburg Castle, again, we have a video on this and I will link it below. Himmler set up what he wanted to become basically the Mecca of the New World Order. Now, I won't go into too much detail because, again, you can watch that video, which will be linked below. But Himmler created these special rings that he would send out to his SS members and these rings had the skull and crossbones on them. The skull and crossbones are also very famously used by Yale University in their secret society called skull and bones. This is also called the Order or Order 322 or the Brotherhood of Death. Members of the skull and bone society are called bones, just bones, or they're also called members of the order. This order was founded in 1832 by a man named Russell Taft with 12 other accomplices. Now, Russell Taft, that name might sound familiar because he is the father of the 27th President, William Taft. You see, there's a lot of people in our government today who are part of the deep state that were a part of this skull and bones society. Like the Bushes and John Kerry and many, many, many others.  Here's the thing, the Illuminati, the deep state are extremely racist. They believe that the pure Aryan bloodline is the superior bloodline. And if you look on the rules of the secret society, most of the members have to be of European or specifically German descent. Now, the place where skull and bones meet is called the tomb. I mean, they're the Brotherhood of Death, right? So I guess it's appropriate that their meeting room, their assembly hall, be called the tomb. Now, the interesting thing about this building is it has no windows. Obviously, it has no windows for a reason. They don't want anybody looking in to see what it is they're doing. There's also a helicopter landing pad on the roof specifically for private helicopters. Again, we're talking about the global elite. Now, something I found quite interesting and comical too is that the skull and bones members in the society set their clocks off by five minutes. It's because they don't want to be on the same time as the barbarians, meaning us. I mean, that's really what they think of us. You think Nancy Pelosi actually cares about humanity? If she did, we would have got another stimulus check, but it's because of Nancy Pelosi and her little minions that the people have been left high and dry. Whereas Trump and most of the Republican Party have tried to give more stimulus to the people. Guys, the deep state people are not for us. They think we're sheep. They laugh at us behind our backs. Biden and Harris laugh at us behind our backs.  Another interesting thing about the skull and bone society is that it's said to still control the CIA. I can totally believe that. Now, skull and cross bones, as we see on the Church of Bones in the Czech Republic as well as the skull and bones society here in Yale and with Hemmler's men and all these secret societies, they're symbolic of a symbolism used by sorcerers. And these sorcerers use the skull and bones to gain more power. We're starting to understand that more now, again, with Epstein's Island. The using of these children in terrible ways, in their faith, they believe that they're taking that child's life force. Children in the regular world or in the Christian world or in the good side of humanity, we see children as pure. Most people want to protect children. Well, the negative, the bad can't create on its own. It has to pervert the good. And so they also see children as valuable. But instead of being there to protect children, they use them to take their life force. In fact, it is said that if you join the Satanic group of people, your loyalty to the organization trumps your loyalty to your own family. And a lot of people in the Satanic cult pledge allegiance to the Satanic cult by offering up their first born child. Now the cross and bone symbols also remind us of our own mortality. We do know that the elites like to try to prolong their mortality. But one of the rules of Satanism or Luciferianism is do what thou wilt. In the Christian faith, we treat others as we would have them treat us. We honor the 10 commandments to be better people. But in the Satanic practice, it's all about perversion. This is why they drink the blood of children. And as we now know, eat them. It's called a pedivore. Look it up. And this idea of cannibalism is what brought people like Somerset Belanov to our attention. You see her daughter, Karina, as we said in one of our videos, which again I'll link below. Allegedly owns a restaurant called Hollydale in Los Angeles, which is a cannibal club. Some of your favorite movie stars like Merrill Street and Tom Hanks have been to this. Cannibal Club. So all in all, it appears that this church of bones in the Czech Republic that is on the outside, just a tourist spot of crazy art installation with the interesting history, in my opinion, has something else going on. I'm very curious about the Schwarzenberg family. We know that with these 13 different bloodlines that a lot of times they carry different last names than the actual bloodline name. For example, we know, or at least those of us who have done our homework and our research, know that people like Bill Gates is a Rockefeller. Mark Zuckerberg is a Rockefeller, but they have different last names because you have to follow the women sometimes, the mothers, and see exactly where it reverts back to. And we have to acknowledge that when the Schwarzenbergs came into this church, things started to change. There became a morbid beauty to death and the skull and the crossbones showed up. Now we do know that this group of people likes to mock Jesus, likes to spit in the face of God. So the fact that there was earth that was scattered from Calgary on this property is interesting to me. Did the deep state take over this property because they knew it had been touched by the Christ? Are there tunnels under this property? Do they use this property as a portal and has this property like Huska Castle become another gateway to hell? All right, guys, give me your opinions in the comment below. I would actually like to go to this church just to see it for myself. I really would love to go to the Czech Republic anyway. That's somewhere I've never been. I'd love to go to Prague. I hear the Czech Republic is beautiful and fun. I just love to see everything there from Huska Castle to the Church of Bones. So let me know if you've been there. Did you find it weird? Do you think there's something nefarious going on? Do you know of the Schwarzenberg family? Have you heard of the Skull and Bones Club? Give me your opinions down below. All right. Thank you again to Josh McKay for doing our music and to Todd Roderick for helping me produce this video. And I will talk to you all soon. Bye.


So nice to have Robin Reed. Robin Reed and I are both vestiges of Illrad. Robin came in to put some environmental impacts side to some of our disease control stuff going back so Robin it is great to be talking to you. We're talking about the long shadow of livestock and I guess one is the bigger picture of livestock's environmental image and that's been very much brought to our notice by this book and I see you've got a copy and you've got a real copy and I've got a... how many trees have suffered as a result of this report being produced? I noticed from Carlos's earlier point Carlos acknowledged this report and he made this quote, some of us participated. Did you participate? No I didn't but first I want to get dressed if you don't mind. I've always been impressed with Brian and his dressing at these hard talks and so I want to put on my tie. Okay, stop time wasting Robin. That was effective, another 30 seconds gone. Did you participate? No I did not. Why not? Because I wasn't asked to participate. Why weren't you asked? I mean should this not have been an ill-re-study? Absolutely. Ah okay well if you say absolutely why wasn't it? Why wasn't an ill-re-study? I don't think we saw it in our mandate to do this study at the time this was done. I think that in the future we will see it as in our mandate. So when you say it wasn't in our mandate I mean it was already done before we sort of knew and was it or? Well okay for one thing the report covers the developing and the developed world.  Yeah well I'm gonna use it if we talk about gender issues I can do this. This is my foil. And so it's broader than ill-re's mandate that's one thing so this exact report I don't think ill-re would have ever produced because of the broadness of its scope. But you think it was very appropriate for ill-re to have been involved? Yes. Okay well we might have to come back to that one but. Just because I wasn't involved doesn't mean others weren't. There were others in this room that absolutely were involved and then I've seen the comments of there are several people and so there was quite a bit of comments that went back and forth. Oh so there are comments because I an FAO quote I heard the other day from a reliable source who told me that ill-re is not supportive but doesn't agree with this this report has major problems with it. Is that true? I think we'll find out in the great debate that's coming up on Thursday. Is it true that we don't like the report? I think there's some parts of the report that some people agree with and some that others don't like about this report and so I think it's a bit of a balance view about this report. Okay well maybe we should possibly go through some of those. The report sort of outlines the positive side of livestock and the minus side. So the positive side the economic importance of livestock, the social importance, nutrition and health and food security and on the negative side the land and land use change, the gaseous emissions, water use and pollution and biodiversity. Do you feel that that is fair? Does that capture all these different positive and negative issues? Is that something they've particularly missed there? I think that the balance in the report between positive and negative environmental impacts is skewed toward the negative. I think that the livelihood issues that we would care a lot about are missing. Although I'm not so sure it should have been in this report but I think those issues are missing about livelihood. What expand on that? I mean what particular because they talk about the social importance, the one billion poor and for livestock no education is needed, no capital is needed, no land is necessarily needed but it's all there in the report. It is all there, it's just the it's just the matter of how much it was focused on. In other words most of the report goes in depth into the direct and indirect connections of livestock to the environment alone even though there is some preamble on the livelihood issues and then it goes into the mitigation. So it's a report that is from an environmental point of view and can I can I make a point about this? Would you do mine? I'll give you an opinion in a minute. I don't know if folks remember the green books that Leigh put out about three or four years ago. That I think was taken from a human centric point of view and our point of view, a more of a livelihood point of view. These books are taken from an environmental centric point of view and I think that's we have basic values at Illry that a human centric point of view is is really our most important point of view and so that's where we differ with this report but I think one of the things that that from our perspective we have to appreciate that there is an environmental centric point of view and I think the place that we can take the debate and move it out into a new place is to try to bring down together this human and environmental centric point of view together and take a balanced view of both of those areas rather than just going off on a human centric point of view. It's a very difficult argument to explain to to the Western world though isn't it? It's all right I think many people here will be sympathetic to that but when you're putting that over to the West who are totally obsessed with with climate change isn't that rather difficult? How would you do it? Well I think we've started and we've I mean for years we've done it we just I don't think we've gone up to a high enough level in talking about the nutrition issues in relation to livestock and the safety net issues in relation to livestock all the livelihood issues I don't think that we have made that a big enough issue high enough on the agenda of the world and communicated that in a way you know even higher level. Well that nutritional issue is is very important you say it is mentioned about 33% of protein going to the diet five and this range of consumption but when you look at consumption in the US at 123 kilograms per head isn't that we're not making enough mileage of maybe pressurizing the West from our point of view to decrease some of that meat consumption. Can we play a role in that or is that out of our totally out of our field? It does seem to be a bit out of our field but actually if you talk to Michael Blumell he will argue that we actually need to decrease the consumption of meat in the developing world that would be one of his arguments from the perspective of some of the resource impact. But in India he certainly won't have a problem with five kilograms per head per year. I mean there's not a great consumer. I've misquoted Michael too and so I'm sorry about that worries. Okay let's come into some of these let's come into some of these these negative I mean 26 of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet has got livestock on it much of this area unsuitable for crops. I mean it's a huge amount. Gaseous emissions 18% of the global warming effect much more than gases out of cars comes from livestock according to this report. Do you agree with these figures? Some people don't agree with all the figures in the report. I mean are these accurate? I'm not an expert on how these things are calculated especially from the climate change perspective and I've heard and I've read that they didn't follow the standard protocol from the IPCC and how you do that but let's not focus on the problems with the calculation because it's probably close to being right even if it were half that only 10% it's still a worry and so I think that the value of this report is rather not so much if it's 18 or 10% but that what they did is they took it beyond the animal and we focused a lot on how the what the animal does but it's gone to deforestation and said yeah livestock are actually responsible for that actually people responsible for that but that and a number of very indirect connections in the water issues and the biodiversity issues that I think we haven't focused on are very important and it's one of the things that if you have a little bit of an environment-centric point of view I feel like I've kind of both you worry about a lot it is these indirect effects of livestock and the environment that they talk a lot about in this report can I just a second that we do the deforestation is largely South America isn't it's largely South America and it's the driven by livestock and soya we are basically saying we're not we're not going to do with South America so is this something that we should worry about well I think it's as you know I I don't think that we're going to work on this issue directly but as has been said in a previous presentation boy we better know about it Ian mentioned that we better better be at least knowledgeable about these issues and to be able to suggest a way forward in a sort of general way and be part of the debate if we missed the debate and we don't talk about it then we're gonna have all sorts of folks coming in and saying well why aren't you dealing with that and and so we need to be much more educated and have a more high profile message on a number of these things one one thing that worries me a little bit and you probably will share this these that which worry which I don't really want you to share my opinions but the and that is that on some of the the small print for example the gaseous emissions very little actually paid in in respiration of animals so burping plays actually a very tiny role compared to these these terrible figures of 37% of methane 67% of nitrous dioxide coming from from livestock and the other one on the water of although 8% of global human water use is associated with livestock in fact only 1% is drinking do you think that those those different contributions are adequately portrayed in in the report I guess I would go back and say that I think the value of it is pointing out the connections and trying to put some number numbers on those issues and raising the debate and being provocative I mean look at us we're talking about it right now we're going to talk about it again and so it's I think it's very important that those issues be raised and that's why I wish that we had not done this report but rather that that we would we would do reports at this level on these issues because I think that we have a lot to say that's very very different from this report and that I'd like to see us get out there okay I'd like to talk a little bit about what people can do first of all about what the the world as a whole can do and then come back to what we can do relating to livestock the world as a whole we've got this this concept of carbon credits so in the environment so you can I mean good old Al Gore who gives this is wonderful Oscar-winning film and then we suddenly learnt that he spends goodness has how many more times expenditure on electricity in his own house than the whole of the American population of something in a year just extraordinary but he gets peak but he says no worries because I've got by that with my carbon credits I've given money to one of these companies that is going to there's going to do something about it is that is that valid I'm sorry carbon offsets carbon offsets so Al Gore buying his green credits again he calculates these green credits on your carbon dioxide debt valid I think that there are places where that's valid yes would you like me to expand this piece okay okay first of all expand and then I'll yeah in other words I think that that yes we want to try to mitigate in other words take some of the carbon out of the atmosphere it's a question of what for example trying to sequester carbon in the global range lens is going to be really hard to do it's a vast area it seems like it would be a useful thing to do but actually might make more progress in growing trees in higher potential areas for example but and so there's a range of different things that are you know more feasible and less feasible to actually carry out but I think that it's a I think it's important thing to do and I'd love to see Ilri become carbon neutral I know there's been some talk about that and that would be great oh really I was going to come on to that I mean Ilri can go they do book their flights on lastminute.com I notice you they've also got a little space where you can buy your buy some credits at the same time there is a there is an organization called clean air cool planet do you are you familiar with that they've said it doesn't work carbon credits doesn't work planting trees installing solar panels whatever they there's a quote in nature saying that the calculations are tantamount to guesswork they did a calculation on the CO2 per person traveling from London to Bangkok and several companies one calculated at 2.1 tons per person another one at 9.9 tons so is it how do we improve that or is it necessary to improve that well I don't think we improve that in the first place meaning us in this room but I mean I'm sorry I'm still focusing on the global response rather than the response I'm sorry how do we include car improved carbon sequestration or how do we improve the the response to that such as this this carbon credit scheme how do we make it more effective how do we get the numbers right yeah well I think if we get into that area and I would question whether we would get into that area I'm not sure we should but there's a number of organizations that have are thinking very very hard about this and then in our sister CG centers for example a craft and I bet you see for us thinking about a lot so I would go to you know the folks that are really thinking about this hard and thinking about the ways forward rather than sort of starting an initiative brand new formulary but I think that because of the role of livestock in these issues we need to engage with that community at least from the perspective of knowing the issues and raising raising awareness absolutely quote from friends of the earth on this carbon credit saying you might as well try stopping sea levels are rising by drinking a glass of water one of the things that worries us what worries me and you were talking about flowers that we're talking about flowers earlier on and that is many of the the supermarkets now are going to start to introduce this issue of of flown so you'll have a little flown so the the the never a month before the Kenya flyer is that a good thing isn't that a terrible thing for how do you balance that you as an ecologist and and our market people are looking to create in those markets what's the balance and how does it respond so what you're referring to is the is the fact that that when food has a lot of miles on it often will come hopefully from some of the small holders going to value and markets yeah exactly but it'll have that little sticker with an airplane saying flown so dear old auntie Ethel going into Sainsbury's we'll say oh I can't buy that one I guess I in the first instance I want to know if there's actually into the poor that actually have any their food flown anywhere you know so in other words is that really an avenue out of poverty and if it is then why don't we put poverty miles on the food or something like that in other words good social you know put the social part onto these food miles I think the idea of eating locally all of us would agree that it would be a good idea to reduce environmental impacts and and support the people in Ethiopia we let's eat locally here but if it's going to have these other consequences then let's try to think about those and think about the poverty miles or whatever that that we might know but that was a good point this on the way to do in this report they have that they want to do in climate change and there's a whole lot of technical issues conservation tillage organic farming what to do in water which is basically water use efficiency and Sullivan your man by a diversity doesn't say much do you are you satisfied with these technical responses there's not much on the policy side in the in the document do you feel the technical responses are all good sensible messages and if they are is there something that you can pick up to use in there I think there's a number of technical responses that look like they're reasonable and but there's all chapter on policy I'm not sure you got to it I did get to it yeah I just barely got to this morning so I read it freshly yeah and and so I think there are the policy issues I guess one of my things about this report is how much of it is applicable to the smallholder you know to the people that are our clients and so that's a question of how much of the manure management type of issues really apply to the smallholder are they already recycling most of their nutrients anyway you know I mean pastoralists aren't going to go out there and recycle the dung from their animals or the urine or something like that it's more in these industrial high intensity systems so around out of Saba there might be issues that relate to smallholders so there be particular places in our mandate where these would be useful but other places where we'll be useful at all so we have to really think those through and then obviously in the policy side there may be some okay well it's come to those policy ones the policy the two main areas that they they say about market failures and policy failures and the and the ways of of adjusting those are one through regulatory approaches in other words telling people to do things because they make them more environmentally very and the other one is the economic instruments in other words things like removing subsidies and pricing water when we're talking about the environments here and the smallholders and all those people are those realistic they're basically putting them out of business if we're going to what is the balance with these sort of the the weights of those types of measures well I think they're missing some of the approaches and in the first instance so I don't think it's all about economic incentives and and regulatory although I think they all have they'll have a you know apart so from let's let's take the economic incentives the payment for ecosystem services so that people can you know from the the lower watershed pay for the services of good clean water from an upper watershed those sorts of approaches have problems but they might be one way to go forward certainly to look at these issues but then what about the you know sort of social and cultural issues and community institutions and all those sorts of things that can look at some of these issues we certainly this is an area that we though that many of us work in quite a bit and so I think it's it's well beyond you know economic incentives and command and control regulatory type of approaches Robin do sort of at the end of this little chat do you feel that you're a bit out on a limb here in the Institute in terms of these environmental issues but here we've been talking this morning about about competitiveness and about markets and and about improving productivity and improving efficiency and many of those processes are in the environments that we're in are going to have inevitably negative effects on the environment how is it really added has a really got an adequate balance well of course from my point of view no but but actually let me back off and say and point out one of the words you use efficiency I mean I think you know the whole idea is to produce more meat milk etc etc you know with fewer inputs and that's less water and that's less you know nutrient fewer nutrients and and feed and things like that that is a fabulous way to in decrease the impacts on the environment so you know moving in that direction which and you don't even have to use the e-word you don't even have to say the environment but that's what that that's where we'll go there also are some trade-offs and then there will inevitably be trade-offs but I think that one of the things that we don't do well yet and we've been talking about this in theme five over the weekend and I'm looking again at Michael and Jean and Don and Tom was sort of about how can we raise those issues particularly in relation to these efficiency issues and sort of kind of make a big deal about it in other words what if what will efficiency gains get us I mean if the livestock revolution is going to is is going to double demand in X number of years then we have to double our efficiency over the same time just to stay in the same place you know it's in other words we're sprinting in trying to keep the environmental impacts just where they are today much less improving environments and so I would I guess I would say I would love to see that come together and we've talked about that in a sort of more synthetic rate way in a high-profile way in not as one way to respond to these kinds of issues raised by the long-term so it's the importance is the interpretation of this efficiency absolutely okay last you mentioned Illry becoming carbon neutral by a certain period of time very interesting that do you think we should be actually going out and I mean I saw in the same way of Al Gore the commissioner from the EU who was absolutely hammered because he drives a some Volkswagen Tuareg or something one of these as they call them in UK Chelsea tractors do you think we should be asking asking Carlos to be driving a riding a bicycle around how do we how we should we be putting over the the image more effectively that we take efficiency of the environmental natural resource use seriously I think we could take a lead I think we could take a leadership role and I and Carlos is probably the first one to get on a bicycle and then we'll be following him you know he'll be out there in front we have to worry about Carlos doing that right on the bicycle but I mean here's an example we seem to have all these water bottles the plastic water bottles that we're drinking out of and throwing away is there another way that we could actually do that so that we didn't actually you know create that kind of waste it's huge it's really awful and and you know in other words there's a number of things and if we got to be with a small group together at illry that just had an idea of what are as Phil would say the low-hanging fruit or the low-hanging mangoes on these environmental things so that we can sort of say not only do we study environmental issues and and and try to come with solutions for small holders but as the we're pretty elite in a lot of ways as as sort of that sector of society that we're actually paying attention to it in our own home and cleaning up our own acts a little bit thank you even in this report they do suggest that you know the use of plastic instead of getting polyester shirts from from other sources but you get them from plastic bottles now that's