Season 2, Episode 5: On the Birth of Climate Therapy with Rosemary Randall

Climate Change and Happiness

image credit | Jasmin Sessler

Season 2, Episode 5: On the Birth of Climate Therapy with Rosemary Randall

Thomas and Panu were honored to host Rosemary Randall, pioneering British psychotherapist whose 2005 paper “A New Climate for Psychotherapy” and Carbon Conversations group anticipated the current Climate Conscious Therapy movement. Thomas and Ro reflected on the significance of Ro’s adaptation of psychological grief models to help support and empower members of the public who were experiencing distress as they confronted their own carbon footprints. Panu focused on Ro’s current sense of the emotional impacts of the climate crisis on young people and her new program on Living with the Climate Crisis with the UK Climate Psychology Alliance. As Ro has noted, “It’s a cliché that the antidote to climate despair is action. Far less attention is paid to the process of moving from a state of acute distress, anxiety and grief into a form of action that feels commensurate, practically possible and sustainable over time. This is the process which Living with the Climate Crisis groups aim to address.” Join us for a consoling and thought provoking conversation.

Links:

• Climate Psychology Alliance-UK

• Carbon Conversations

• Cambridge Climate Therapists

• Rosemary Randall, 2005 A new climate for psychotherapy

• Rosemary Randall, 2009 Loss and Climate Change: The Cost of Parallel Narratives

• Ecological Footprint

• Sally Weintrobe (Ed.) 2012 Engaging with Climate Change

• Ncazelo Ncube The Tree of Life Project

• What is Public Narrative and How Can we Use it?

• Panu’s essay on climate grief (BBC Climate Emotions series, 2020)

• Thomas on Climate Change and Grief: A Dual Process Approach

• Ezra Klein (2022, Sept 20). The Single Best Guide to Decarbonization I've Heard

Transcript

Transcript edited for clarity and brevity.

Thomas Doherty: Please support the Climate Change and Happiness Podcast. See the donate page at climatechangeandhappiness.com.

[music: “CC&H theme music”]

Introduction voice: Welcome to Climate Change and Happiness, an international podcast that explores the personal side of climate change. Your feelings, what the crisis means to you, and how to cope and thrive. And now, your hosts, Thomas Doherty and Panu Pihkala.

Doherty: Well hello. I am Thomas Doherty.

Panu Pihkala: And I am Panu Pihkala.

Doherty: And welcome to Climate Change and Happiness. Our podcast. The show for people around the globe who are thinking and feeling deeply about what we call climate change. The climate crisis. Global warming. Our carbon footprints. Our collective and personal carbon footprints. But in this show we focus on the emotional aspects of climate. And today we’re really honored to have a guest that I’ve known of and followed for many years.

Rosemary Randall: I’m Rosemary Randall, but most people call me Ro. Which is a name I’ve had since childhood.

Doherty: And Ro, welcome. Ro is coming in from Cambridge in the UK. And, again, as you know with our podcast this is Thomas and I’m in Portland, Oregon, USA. So I’m just starting my day. Getting my daughter off to school and sitting down to chat. And Panu is toward the end of his evening in Finland. And Ro is toward the end of her day. Late afternoon in the UK.

I became familiar with Ro around 2008 when I was working on the Ecopsychology journal. We were helping to get this academic journal off the ground and she was one of the people that we approached to publish a paper. And she wrote a very influential paper on climate change and grief. One of the first papers to really address people’s grief about their carbon footprint. And their grief about their own involvement in climate change. And that kind of set a tone for a lot of what we know as “climate psychology” and climate therapy now.

So I’m really honored to have Ro here. And to just kind of chat about what she’s doing now. And some of her insights. And I know Panu has also followed Ro’s work. Panu do you want to get us started with a discussion today?

Pihkala: Warmly welcome Ro. Very good to see you. And we’ve been talking over the years. And your work has been an inspiration for me since 2013. So not as long as for Thomas, but still for many years. But, would you like to start Ro by going back a bit? We’ve talked in detail about how you got involved with climate psychology and climate emotions in the first place. Would you like to share something about that background?

Randall: Well, I’m a psychotherapist. And so that’s where the interest in psychology and emotion comes from. Along with all the things that took me into that career in the first place. But when I think about what first made me concerned about the environment, I think back to a conversation with a cousin of mine from when I was about 19 or 20. And he was visiting from the states. His family had emigrated. My father’s brother had emigrated to the states just after the second world war. And he said to me “do you know what ecology is?” And I said, “well kind of.” But I didn’t know what he knew. And I hadn't read Rachel Carson. And he had. And he was part of the burgeoning environmental movement in the United States. And that was when I began to think and I began to connect. And I began to value in a different way a lot of the childhood experiences that I had with my parents growing up. Being in wild places. Camping. Being outside. Being connected to the natural world that supports us.

And for me that was the beginning of joining to other concerns I had which also have strong roots in my family background. But values to do with socialism. Values to do with feminism. And I think that it was that conversation with Michael, my cousin, which brought into my life something which hadn't been there before. The idea that our relationship to the natural world was also political. And culture. And a source for great concern. Back then. So it’s something that has run through my adult life. Sometimes more strongly. Sometimes more weakly.

Pihkala: Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. And often in this podcast we talk about environmental identity. And people’s life paths and trajectories. And that’s, of course, something which is studied in environmental education research. And the connections between psychology and education are very close. And awakenings. And epiphanies. Something which may happen for many people. And I hear you sharing a story of one kind of those.

Later on know that you also did some research on climate activists yourself. And thought about various phases that people may go through in this journey. But, how did it then go with combining the official work that you are doing with psychology and therapy and with environmental and climate concerns? When do you consider that that kind of work started for you?

Randall: I think for a long time they were quite separate. I practiced in private practice as a psychotherapist. I worked as a counselor in the university. And I lived a—I suppose—low impact kind of life. And for many years I think that was about it. I had lots of friends from the early days of the environmental movement. From a time when I was on the editorial collective of a magazine called undercurrents in the 1970s. And I retained some of those connections. But I think those two strands of my life were actually quite separate until the 2000s when the news about climate began to hit me much more. And I began to think about it. And I began to write about it. And I began to wonder why when other professions seemed to be waking up to the climate crisis, psychotherapy wasn't. And I wrote a paper which was published in 2005 which I called “A New Climate for Psychotherapy” because I wanted psychotherapists to wake up. I wanted to say come on guys we should be concerned too. There are groups with names like Historians for Climate, where are the therapists?!

But the curious thing was that my colleagues didn't really respond very well in my immediate environment. Or even particularly more widely. But I went to a conference at the Center for Alternative Technology that year in 2005. I’ve got back in touch with some of my old friends from the environmental movement. And I presented a version of this paper which was very brief but in which I described the process of disavowal. Where people know with one part of themselves exactly what’s going on and with another part of themselves they just carry on as usual. That splitting of the mind that allows that was a revelation to many of the people I was speaking to.

And so I discovered that the people who were really interested weren't my therapeutic colleagues, but they were the people in the burgeoning climate movement in the UK that I was now meeting. And that set me on a different path. Along with another of those epiphany moments that Panu was talking about. Because my son who at that point was [age] 20, 21 had fetched up working at the Center for Alternative Technology. And we went out on a walk. And I’ve told this story many times. But we went out on a walk and he was lecturing me about carbon emissions and carbon footprints. And I was like what? Who are you talking to? I know all this. But of course I didn't. And he knew much more than I did.

And that was the point at which I realized the enormous difference between an average UK footprint. Which was then thought to be a 10 ton footprint. And the sustainable footprint which was 1, 2 tons. And I didn’t want to believe it. I found myself in the process of disavowal. Temporarily. But there I was. And it was another of those epiphanies where you think what I’m doing is not enough. I have to take this more seriously. I have to change direction. And that was when I brought climate and psychotherapy together both in my own mind and in my own life.

Doherty: That’s really great, Ro. And just tracking along with this. And I think for the listeners, as we’ve talked about before, there’s sort of a timeline of climate change. If we lined up all the listeners in a row from the elders to the young people. The elders can find these moments where climate entered into their life. Or their awareness of climate change changed. Ro is giving some great examples of that. For young people, they’ve always known about climate change. It’s always been a spector in the back of their minds from birth. But there’s a lot of people—some of the listeners—who have been doing this work for a while. And their environmental journey is long. And it does go back to sort of “pre-Inconvenient Truth” times. “Pre” when climate change was a pressing issue. When it was more of a general ecological awakening that Ro talked about. So it’s just really helpful.

And then of course the other piece that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is this idea of a carbon footprint calculator. Which is a thing that was created inadvertently by… Well it was sort of a construct in research in sustainability, but it was popularized as most people now know from British Petroleum and their “Beyond Petroleum” advertising campaign. So they kind of inadvertently brought this into the public. I think partly, as we know, to distract from their own role in the climate crisis. And to put it on people. So there’s this whole dilemma of us taking responsibility, but also being blamed personally for things that are well beyond our control.

And then that, of course, I think is where the grief comes in. I mean I’ve been thinking, you know, which came first, the calculator or the grief. Right? But it seems to me, Ro, when you started. And I can really see you going around. You know, who are these far out people going around to these meetings with carbon calculators and having people talk about them. But as soon as people did, it seemed to me that they opened up to the feelings. And to the grief. And to the powerlessness. And the climate hostage situation that people are in. And is that how you got into the grief work then? Because the calculators brought people’s grief out?

Randall: Yes. It was. What my son was working on at that time with his colleagues was a carbon calculator. And I think the recent publicity about BP’s role in this I think has sometimes been slightly confusing because I think for me the carbon footprinting really goes back into the work of Mathis Wackernagel. The ecological footprint. I think that this whole debate takes you into the question of how we look at this. On the need to adopt a systems understanding. We need to look at this from a psychosocial perspective. Where we don’t give up personal responsibility, but we do also take account of the complex systems that make us complicit in it.

And where I began was with the carbon footprint calculator. We used to go around in Cambridge where I live to all kinds of public events with a calculator. We would often calculate people’s carbon footprints. And what I did was I tried to train people in the use of this so that we weren’t just asking people about the numbers. We were asking people how they felt. Because when you ask people about the areas of carbon footprint. Your home energy. Your travel. The food that you eat. And the money that you spend. You’re delving intimately into people’s experience. And when people look at the impact of what feels like an ordinary life, it’s a very upsetting experience. And that took me very rapidly into the need to support people in talking about how serious climate change was. And how much it meant that life had to change because however you chop it up if you want to live in a world that has any form of equity and justice and how the lives of those in what I call the overdeveloped countries have to change. And I think that’s a very hard thing to take on. And there’s been quite a lot of pushback against that in some courses. And that technology will always save us. That life doesn't have to change because the planes are magically going to fly on vegetable oil regardless of how many hectares of land that might take. So I think it’s a difficult and complex problem. Because of course the moment you ask someone to think about reducing their emissions, you’re into systemic issues. Which means that that’s difficult.

Doherty: Yeah into the ecological issues, you know, “when you pull on one thing in the universe it is hitched to everything else” as John Muir said. Let me add one more point and then turn it over to Panu. We don’t have time to get deeply into grief and loss work, but I think for the listeners it seems to me that what was really helpful Ro that you did was bring in the work of William Worden who was one of the researchers who studied grief. Grief that happens when something we value is lost. Not necessarily grief about our own death, but grief if a parent loses a child. And the stages of grief that happen for people regarding that. And this whole journey of grief where we kind of are broken from life and have to eventually kind of reinvest our energy back into life after we process and work through the loss. And then all the detours that people can get into as that happens. We idealize what was lost. We get stuck and don’t want to move forward. Or we have severe emotional blocks. Or etcetera etcetera.

But it seems to me that bringing in that particular therapeutic inside to the carbon area was really helpful because previously people were thinking about their own death. And kind of Kubler Ross kind of—denial, anger, bargaining. But the Warden stuff I thought was more accurate. That’s a summary but that’s a fair statement I think about the grief process.

Randall: I think that’s right. And I think that the kinds of climate grief that I’ve encountered since I wrote that paper have changed. Because at that time I was thinking a lot about people’s grief in letting go of the kind of life they’d become used to. Because when you look at any plans for how life might be. Whether it’s the UK Government’s one. They all involve changes in the way that we live. But what I encounter amongst young people particularly now is a very, very acute sense of disorientation. A very acute sense of the world coming apart. [It] feels to me much more like the experience of a child losing a parent. It’s that same sense of being completely unmoored from life. Of feeling that this can’t have happened. This is impossible. This can’t be true. At the same time at which you know that this is true. You know that mum or dad is not coming back. But what you feel is the loss of everything around you that makes life safe. That makes it feel as if life has got some chance of going on being. That you have some chance of going on being.

And I think that kind of sense of being completely poleaxed is something that has arrived in my experience in the last five years or so. I think earlier people were certainly overthrown by what was happening. But it was a much more rapid return to that sense of well I need to reorient. I need to do something. I need to think about it. I need to find a way through this. I do think that it’s harder now for people.

Pihkala: Yeah. Thanks for sharing that. And I’ve noticed similar things. Especially in my work in Finland. And it’s a kind of existential crisis. It goes to the level of people’s systems of meaning. You know, the sort of foundations of who they feel and think that they are. And how they related with the world. And some of the very fundamental basic assumptions and beliefs become challenged. And that’s, of course, a great chance for traumatic grief. And a complex combination of existential issues. Grappling with various meanings in life. And then experiencing various kinds of changes and losses and having to function in your everyday life at the same time.

This is very closely related to some of the recent work I’ve been doing in relation to various theories of grief and bereavement. But I’m not going into details now. But that’s something that I very much valued in your work, Ro. That you have always kept both this knowledge of where people are and then awareness of the great complexity of what is happening. And I think that’s one part of the appeal of the work of you and colleagues to also the environmental activist people. Because then they start to think that hmm this might offer solutions to those dilemmas [such as] why are people not giving up driving with their own vehicles, for example. To use an example from our 2009 article.

And also that granularity about emotions which is something we have often talked about at this podcast. And which is very close to using both. Or us three I would dare to say. And I remember reading your 2013 article from this great book Engaging with Climate Change. And that led me forward in thinking about shame and guilt also in relation to ecological issues. So I just wanted to bring those links to one of our previous episodes where we discuss guilt. Not so much shame. How do you feel about the reception of your work now in the 2010’s and early 2020’s? Have you seen more advances or new, you know, obstacles arising? I know that life is a complex mix of different kinds of developments but just wanting to ask about it? How’s it been lately about the reception?

Randall: I think the whole field of climate psychology has developed hugely in the period since I was first so disappointed in my colleagues. I mean I have since acquired many, many wonderful colleagues and coworkers. Like yourselves who are thinking and working on these issues. Who are making all kinds of wonderful advances in understanding in complex ways these interrelationships between these wicked systems and our personal experiences of them. That’s been a huge change. There’s so many more people writing, working and talking about these things now.

Doherty: Yeah so you’re less alone, I guess we could say. More like minded people. And I think that’s one of the consolations of this time. Ro you said five years ago or so, you know, I think there was—we’ll probably have to invent a name for it—a societal tipping point here a few years ago. I think most places around the world where climate went from a special interest kind of environmental issue to a public issue. I know in the Pacific Northwest in the US where I live it was with the fires and the smoke and the droughts. So generally the natural disasters have brought that into people. So there is a whole new audience clamoring for this kind of help.

One of the terms you used Ro that I liked in the article—which we’ll link in our show notes. When I’m training therapists I’m actively training therapists who are, you know, trying to get schooled up into all this work. And, you know, talking about the special place that therapy holds for people. It’s a place, to use a military metaphor, where we can kind of, or a sports metaphor, get off the playing field. Or get off the battlefield and take our armor off for a little bit. And sort of see what we’re doing and collect ourselves. And you call that “the hinterland.” So it sounds like that’s a concept that you’re all aware of in your group as well. And I think that’s helpful for people to find their place to take off the armor and sort of be with this. Do you want to say anything more about what you think about what that space is? Or what makes a good space like that?

Randall: For me, personally that space has come with the group I’m part of here in Cambridge. We call ourselves Cambridge Climate Therapists. And in our early conversations one of the things we talked about was this idea of the hinterland. Which was the place back from the action where it was possible to sink. And to reflect. And so it’s a place where you could feel it slowly. And you can feel it with the assistance of sort. Rather than being in action where your actions are instant. You do what seems intuitively for the moment. But being able to be in that space. When we’re in the hinterland I feel that as people with psychological skills we’re better placed to be useful to those who are taking off in very difficult actions. Getting burnt out. Suffering traumas ... And maybe generally not being able to stop enough. To examine what’s going on. And often finding that within the organizations they’re part of that the distress is being projected in very difficult and painful ways. But I think in order to be able to help people with that you do have to take this step back. You have to be in the hinterland. Where you are acting much more slowly. Reflectively. Carefully.

Pihkala: Yes. Thanks for sharing all that. And raising up this importance is also a kind of rhythm, you know. Rhythm of engagement and withdrawal. I’ve been working with some people who organize periods of silence as a way of withdrawal. So that’s one way related to that.

But I know that you’ve been developing this new method based on the influential old work around so-called carbon conversations. We’ll again put links on the podcast website. And there were some very good facilitators guides also for those conversations. But would you like to say something about this new development? It seems to connect with many of the themes you were describing.

Randall: Well just a sentence about the old carbon conversations project. This was something which I started back in 2006, 2007. And we ran small groups for people who were concerned about climate issues. And who wanted to look at how to reduce their impact. And this to our surprise took off and became very popular in all kinds of places. There were some volunteers who we gave some very rudimentary training to. And this project ran for quite a long time. It was a psychologically-based project. And to me to the point where I thought it had run its course. And I wanted to move on from it. And then about three years ago. No. A year ago. Rebecca Nester who was part of the Climate Psychology Alliance here in the UK and an old facilitator of carbon conversations got in touch with me. And we had this conversation about what a group-based activity for the 2020's would look like. What would it be?

And that was the beginning of a new project where both of us felt strongly that people need to be located collectively when they respond to the climate crisis. They need to be working with others. This could be in their own community. This could be politically. This could be at work. We need connection. And what we were seeing was that some of the people who were getting involved in climate work were moving very rapidly into action. And were not really being able to process what was happening to them. We were also seeing people of my own generation and people of the generations in between suffering from burn out. Suffering from feelings of despair and disappointment. Feelings of exhaustion. That they had been involved in these issues for so long. And so much of it seemed like you were trying to hold back a tide that you couldn't stop. So we felt that there were these huge emotional issues which were impeding and affecting people’s ability to engage in fruitful action.

And so we began to plan for a kind of new carbon conversation. And these groups are now coming to fruition. We’ve run a pilot group and we’re going to publish the materials we hope within the next two or three months. So that other people who are skilled in facilitation can use them and adapt them to their own purposes. But in the actual framework for this work, it’s very much psychosocial. It’s very much systemic in the way that we look at things. But there are basically three chunks of material in the ten meetings. Or the ten sessions that make up living with the climate crisis.

The first part is given over to talking about the experience of living with the climate crisis. Waking up to it. Having lived with it for decades. Being consumed by it. Whatever that happens to be. And it that we’ve looked at and will be using a method which you may be familiar with which is David Denborough and Ncazelo Ncube’s Tree of Life. Which they developed for working with trauma. But which we are using in a much more general sense. It’s a storytelling method. And it’s a method which builds strength. It doesn't focus on the trauma, it focuses on what you have within you that you can bring into a collective situation. And it has very much binded the idea of the need to look at the collective origins of distress. In the political and social systems. And to become able to speak richly and deeply with a thick narrative about them. So we’ve drawn on that in our approach to helping people understand what’s happening to them. And that makes up about a third of what we do.

We then look at communication. Which is often something which campaigns struggle with. And we use partly therapeutic understandings of what happens when you get into really difficult conversations with your family and your friends and your colleagues. And partly we draw on Marshall Ganz’s public narrative work in that. And finally we look at the systems that people are part of and where they want to take action. How to move towards action. We look at the skills that people have. We look at how to reflect on what you’re doing. So again we’re drawing from a lot of different areas of psychological understanding in creating this. But overarching is this kind of metaphor that we have. We use the climate movement as an ecosystem. And an ecosystem where you need to find your place. The idea that there’s a place for everybody in that. But you have to find it. And at the moment you may be living in a desert. You know, there may be nothing which surrounds you. Or you may find yourself in a monoculture. Or you may be one of the old trees that just needs to kind of keel over and nourish the new growth. That’s how I feel at the moment.

Doherty: Yes. You know, well this is beautiful, Ro. We’ll take about five more minutes and wrap up our talk today. There’s so many things. I mean again bringing in the listeners. You know, I’ve been involved in this for a long time. Panu has. But I learn new things everyday with this. That’s another important thing to keep in mind is that we’re always learning. Some of the things that Ro said today touch me deeply. I mean this idea of just a place to “feel slowly” is such a great term. Now I know Panu would get that because that kind of comes really out of I think Panu’s style. But for me that’s something. I’m pretty concrete so I get these things in my head. Oh, feel slowly. That’s helpful for me. Because most of us are feeling fast.

And then I think obviously one of the changes from the carbon conversations. I almost said “carbon confrontations” right? A little freudian slip. So, you know, it was like we were being confronted, but now, you know, we really need to bolster people more. Ro when you said like a child losing a parent. That gave me chills. Really hit me emotionally. Because that really is how people are feeling. And a situation like that is just a different emotional game. So I really do appreciate this. So anyways I’m learning and I think listeners, you know, we’re always learning through this. But Panu what are you thinking of here as we wrap up such a great conversation?

Pihkala: Yeah I’m very grateful that we’ve had a chance to engage in this. And this new revised method of living with the climate crisis sounds very good to me. And, of course, we’ve talked about this with Ro over zoom some time. And there’s many shared interests, but I haven't heard about it at this length so I’m very glad to hear this. And I think that for the listeners this metaphor of the ecosystem also in relation to climate and environmental matters is very important. And I think that’s a message that we’ve been trying to deliver also with Thomas. That there is a place for everyone here. And it may feel sometimes that what’s the use of anything that I do. And people’s circumstances can be very different. We have various amounts of resources and possibilities and so on. But there’s something for everyone even if it’s close circles and advancing caring in this increasingly chaotic world. That’s a very fundamental and important task. So I’ve been very grateful for this conversation.

And, as Thomas said, we regretfully have to wrap up quite soon. It would be interesting to continue this for a long time. But could I ask you? Ro still you’ve already mentioned some of these, but what are some things that give you resources and strength in these times? You mentioned the companionship of Cambridge Therapists and some. Do you want to dwell a bit on that?

Randall: As far as thinking I do with my colleagues in Cambridge Climate Therapists. I have a tendency to rush. To burn out. To respond instantly. So that group slows me down. And that’s very important to me. I also rely on my husband. Who’s also been my partner on a lot of this journey for over 40 years now. And the rest of my family. Some of whom are in Wales where we go quite often. To the little town where they live. The rural town where they live. Where climate change feels a little bit further away sometimes. Particularly this summer when in East England it was drought. Constant drought. And it's the connection to people that really sustains me. Love. Perhaps at the end of it it’s love.

Doherty: Yeah. It is true. So much of this work. So much of what I’ve found in my therapeutic work is isolation is really the toxic piece in this. We can bear things when we’re bearing it together. So the isolation piece for all of us to keep in mind. Yeah so we’re going to wrap up today. We, again, got into the emotional side and the deep slow feeling and slow thinking. So this is good for our listeners to hear.

And then to bring back to reality at the very end. Even though it feels like the parent is being lost, we have to remember that there are a lot of parents out there doing good work. We’ll put a link into A Guide to Decarbonization that American journalist Ezra Klein put out recently. There’s so many people doing so many interesting, positive, very smart things regarding decarbonization in the real sense, not the personal carbon footprint. But in societal change. A whole structural societal change. So we don’t want to lose those people. It does them a disservice. Our imagination makes us think that there are no adults and parents out there. But that’s not true. We know that we are adults ourselves and also there are very gifted people working in the UK and the US so we want to just shout out to them as well.

Thank you so much Ro. It’s been really a pleasure to chat with you.

Randall: May I say one last word which is just that I think when we think about grief, we have to remember that there is a place, the other side of it. And I think that’s what you were talking about here. Is the place. The other side of grief. You never forget the person you lost. Your life is forever changed, but there’s a place on the other side where life has meaning. And where life is worth living. And that’s where we want people to get to. Through connection and love.

Pihkala: Exactly. Relearning the world.

Doherty: Yeah. Relearning the world. The other side of grief. Our loss and our reconnecting with life and so we’re playing on that knife edge today here with this episode. But thanks again. Ro, what are you going to do with the rest of your evening?

Randall: I’m going to make food. And I’m going to chat with my husband. And I’m going to chill.

Doherty: Very good.

Pihkala: Sounds excellent. My sons will finish their choir rehearsal quite soon. Luckily they still like to do that. They sometimes are tired of going to practice, but they still like the thing. So I’m going to take them home from the center of the town amidst the darkening evening in Helsinki. But warm thanks especially to you, Ro. And to Thomas and all the listeners. Do take care.

Doherty: Yes. And I need to get my day started here. After this great start and do work on all the things we’ve talked about today. I’m going to be focusing on including checking in with my therapy group. My therapists out there in the world so we’ll definitely talk about my insights today with the therapists and spread this love around. Alright you all take care.

Randall: Thank you very much for having me on your show. It’s been a pleasure.

Doherty: The Climate Change and Happiness Podcast is a self-funded, volunteer effort. Please support us so we can keep bringing you messages of coping and thriving. See the donate page at climatechangeandhappiness.com.