← New Books Network
New Books Network
Susannah Fisher, "Sink Or Swim: How the World Needs to Adapt to a Changing Climate" (Bloomsbury, 2025)
00:34:05
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
Spanish Advertiser
Jago Prime Big Deal Days para que con cigas grande sofertes para un nuevo espa De piece te transformara en la reina de la relaxion de porciento menos in Prime Big Deal Days.
- [00:18]
Liberty Mutual Narrator
And Doug, here we have the Limu imu in its natural habitat, helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug.
- [00:33]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Limu is that guy with the binoculars watching us.
- [00:36]
Liberty Mutual Narrator
Cut the camera. They see us.
- [00:37]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Only pay for what you need@liberty mutual.com.
- [00:40]
Liberty Mutual Narrator
Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Savings Very unwritten.
- [00:43]
Jack Daniels Advertiser
By Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Affiliates excludes Massachusetts.
- [00:45]
Marshall Poe
Hello, everybody. This is Marshall Poe. I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network. And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world. We reach a worldwide audience of 2 million people. You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting. Starting a podcast. As you probably know, there are challenges basically of two kinds. One is technical. There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed. And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience. Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today. With this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions. What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast. Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience. We've done this many times, times with many academic podcasts, and we would like to help you. If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us. Just go to the front page of the New Books Network and you will see a link to NBN Productions. Click that, fill out the form, and we can talk. Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:53]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Hello, and welcome to another episode on the New Books Network. I'm one of your hosts, Dr. Miranda Melcher, and I'm very pleased today to be speaking with Dr. Susannah Fisher about her book titled Sink or Swim how the World Needs to Adapt to a Changing Climate, published by Bloomsbury in 2025. Now, this book takes as a starting point that climate change is in the process of happening. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement at this point, perhaps. Unfortunately, it's very real for pretty much all of us now. And so mitigation is a key part. How can we make it not as bad? But we also need to be thinking about adapting. How do we live in a world where climate change is very much a reality? We right now? How can we identify where the key problems are and how to think about dealing with them? That's a pretty big set of questions and it can be quite hard to wrap our head around, which is why books like this can be really helpful, because this is exactly the thing that this book helps us understand. What are these key problems? How can we go about thinking about how to tackle them? What are some of the key decisions that need to be thought about and made? So we obviously have a lot to discuss. Susanna, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast.
- [03:03]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Hi Miranda, thanks for having me.
- [03:06]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Could you please start us off by introducing yourself a little bit and tell us why you decided to write this book?
- [03:12]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Sure. Thanks. So I'm currently a researcher at University College London, and I've worked over the past decade or so on many different aspects of adapting to climate change. So both working with local and national governments and international organizations, and also now more on the academic side conducting research about how we can best adapt. And through all of my work, I've really started to feel that we're just not going far or fast enough on adaptation, but also that there are really big questions that adaptation and climate impact pose for how we live our lives that just aren't really on the public consciousness. So I wanted to take the knowledge that I'd gained through my professional experiences and all through my through my research to make that more accessible to a wider audience and to ask what are the really big questions and hard choices about how we can adapt to climate change?
- [04:03]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
That's definitely a helpful foundation. And I'm glad you mentioned already the combination of practical experience you have as well as academic research, because that definitely helps make these things more accessible. But of course, part of making a topic like this accessible is figuring out how to deal with the scale and scope of information here. Climate change is absolutely massive. So can you give us a brief overview, overview of the aspects of climate change that you focus on and to what extent we can even kind of make that kind of list given how many unknowns there are.
- [04:34]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Yeah. So I'm dealing with the broad impacts of climate change. So when we think about that, that will be the extreme heat that we are already experiencing. In the UK we had a record breaking summer this year and that's happening globally, but also increased frequency and severity of storms that we see. And we're going to be seeing more droughts and more floods and rising sea levels as the temperature increases. And as you kind of indicate, all of those direct changes in the climate will have many indirect and further changes across the systems in which we live. So they'll have implications for how and where we can grow our food, how disease travels, how nature and biodiversity can survive. So the implications and the interconnections about how climate change is going to run through our system are really kind of enormous and very difficult to get your head around. So the way I tried to come to that into the book was to think about the systems that underpin the way we experience climate impact. So once we know that these things are going to happen, I was interested to think about where and how will risk travel across systems and so identify in the book mobility as a system. So how people are able to move within their own countries and within across other countries. I look at nature, biodiversity and ecosystems and the relationships of climate impacts and adaptation with the intersection of nature. I look at food, which is a really critical one in terms of how we grow food and the impacts that climate change will have, not only on growing food, but transporting food and storing food and trading food. And then lastly, I look at the relationships between countries and within people. So conflict, but also lesser levels of conflict and disagreement. And there were obviously many ways to cut the scope of this book because it is so huge. But I thought those four topic areas were really some of the areas where I saw the biggest political and most challenging and fractious questions. And it was those really nitty gritty political questions that I wanted to open up through the book.
- [06:43]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Okay, that's definitely helpful to have identified, especially given what you said earlier about not doing enough, not moving fast enough. So how can we know whether or not we're doing that? Like, how do we know if a particular adaptation is enough or will be enough?
- [06:59]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Yeah, so it's a super difficult question, and a lot of my academic day job deals with this. So it's a question that donors and governments have been asking themselves for the past two decades, really. And I think the only way you can do it is to look at the scale of expected impacts and then look at the expected response and see if those things match up. So there are lots of things that we do for adaptation that we hope will help. So, for example, we might support people to buy flood insurance, because if they do experience floods, at least they will have financial protection. We might regulate against building in flood zones. We might change building controls so people have to have better mechanisms to manage heat within their homes. But all of those are mechanisms which will allow People to live the way they live now in their, in their homes, which is great for now and is going to be fine for some places. But when we look at the science of the impacts, it's quite clear that not all places will be able to manage that way. And we'll get to what's called the limits, where it just won't be safe to live somewhere. However much you invest in adaptation or just the cost of investing will be much, much too high. So it's really hard to know if we're doing enough. And there's lots of academic work and research trying to calculate this. And this is also a big focus, focus of the UN negotiations in Brazil this year. But overall the evidence is that we're not quite getting there fast enough.
- [08:24]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
And what are some of those barriers that are stopping adaptations from being fully effective?
- [08:30]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Well, the first barrier is there's just not enough money on the table. So it really requires very high levels of investment to do some of these things that we're talking about. And some of this money is flowing through the international system. So countries in the global north, the developed countries, as they've been known, have committed to passing funds to the global south because it was part of their historical responsibility for having caused climate change to help other countries to deal with it. But those financial flows are way beyond what is needed. So a recent UNET report, for example, put the needed flows at somewhere between 100 and 350 US billion a year. And the reality of the flows is way below that. But not just talking about international finance. Also, if we think about national governments, they're just not investing the kind of scale investment that we need to make the changes that we need. But so saying, it's actually, in my opinion, not all about the money. The money is very key part of it, but it's also about how we approach adaptation within our current planning system. So often there aren't many incentives to adapt. And often the incentives to do things like manage flood risk or not build in the flood zone go against more powerful economic incentives. Of course, there's a really big push to build housing and we need affordable housing. And there's a push to build in new areas and to help the private sector get access to those areas. So some of the powerful incentives of government actually really push against the incentives of adapting. And so far, adaptation has often been quite a small scale issue within national politics. So it might be within the Environment Department or the Planning department, and usually these departments have very limited power compared to something like the treasury, where the Kind of real crux of economic decisions are made. So it's partly about that, but it's also about how we engage people in these conversations. So some of these kind of long term planning conversations can seem really distant from people's lives. And although there have been a variety of attempts to try and engage people, it can be really hard to make people take the time. And of course, you know, we're all busy and it's all difficult to make extra time on an evening to think about what's going to happen in your local community over time. But without engagement with the people who are going to be affected, the decisions can often also end up being quite disconnected from how people live their lives. And so people might respond by resisting the plans, for example, or just really not engaging with them, not kind of facing up to what's happening. And also they're not able to design the systems then in a way that would be most effective for them because it's just so difficult for to find the time to engage in it. So there are a variety of barriers within our current political systems and the way that we've structured our economies. And so it's not just about getting more money, but it's also about thinking how can we turn those incentives and make it really visible to everyone that the longer term economic benefit is going to come from adapting to climate change.
- [11:32]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
And if those barriers weren't enough, and those are some pretty complicated and big ones, let's throw some other aspects in. So, for example, in the section of the book where you focus on migration and relocation, what are some of the big political and legal questions that climate change adaptation raises?
- [11:51]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Yeah, so obviously climate related mobility, as we say, all types of movement, is really controversial. And migration is a topic that regardless of the climate element, has really been obviously highly political in many countries in the past few years. So the difficulty around this with climate related movement is it's often very hard to tell what's climate related movement and what isn't. People move for many different reasons and that might be because they've, you know, they want to go for a new job or, or they their family's moving or they want to move somewhere where people speak their language. So often climate change will be one part of a decision making process about why people move. Of course, some people do need to move very suddenly from an extreme event, for example, which we might call displacement. And other people might be moved by their government in more of a planned movement called relocation. And what we see at the moment is that there is no legal provision for people to move across national borders because of climate change. So in fact, most of the flows around climate related movement and displacement happen within countries right now. So it's a bit of a misnomer from the media portrayal that we have these big international flows, but that might be something that people want to do or need to do in the future. But at the moment, we don't have any legal provision for how people could move, citing climate change as a potential reason. So that means that anybody wanting to or needing to move for those reasons is facing a very different, difficult uphill challenge to get their legal status and access to social protection and things that they might need in new places.
- [13:32]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Yeah, those are definitely some very tricky legal questions that have real, very practical implications, as you've outlined for us there. What about adding another very tricky problem onto our discussion, food systems? Is this something that governments can do to adapt or how can companies and governments maybe work together on this front?
- [13:54]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
So food systems are super tricky because firstly, it's not just about the impacts of climate change on food production. So it's likely that climate change will have different impacts on different crops around the world. But the general trend is we will see less food being produced. At the same time, we need to produce more food for a growing population and we also need to use land to sequester carbon and help support biodiversity. So issues of food production really cut across so many of the tricky issues around climate change. But also it's not just about production, it's also about how people can access food, how food is traded, those trading relationships that allow countries to still access what they need in times of scarcity, and also even things like how food is stored. And what if, for example, in informal settlements you're storing food in a place that might get flooded out or get spoiled quickly because of extreme heat. So there's so many ways that climate impacts are going to ricochet and are already cutting across the food system. And the food system is a really tricky multi stakeholder setup where governments of course, have some power to shape things. They're there setting national policy, taking part in the international fora and international policy around these issues. But a big part of food production and food distribution also sticks with big corporations. And there's just a few corporations who manage many of the flows of some of the staple crops around the world and they're connecting, for example, with farmers in different locations. So there's just so many stakeholders and distribution companies and shipping companies. So the whole system is very complex and there isn't Necessarily just one lever that we can pull to make the change that we need. So I think around the food system, it's really a question of trying to find new ways for public and private actors to work together. And that might be partly about regulation, it might be partly about incentives, might be partly about shifting some of the trading rules. So so much of the system already is built around the most efficient way of transporting food from A to B and really making sure that there's very limited wastage and redundancy. And that obviously makes sense in the current system because it's just as efficient and economic as possible. But when we think about building resilience to climate change, actually we might need to think more about diversity in the system. So how can we grow different crops across the system, bring in different regions, so that if, for example, a particular disease or a storm hits or something that we might see more in the future called multi bread basket failure, when multiple areas of the world experience drought at the same time, would have more flexibility within the system to manage that change. Now, obviously a change like that, it's against current incentives. So we would need to have a real systemic approach to thinking about how do we change those incentives, how can we put in some regulation here, how can we change trading relationships there to build a system that would be able to be more responsive and resilient to those, to those changes.
- [17:02]
Jack Daniels Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels and music are made for each other. They share a rhythm in the craft of making something timeless while being a part of legendary nights. From backyard jams to sold out arenas. There's a song in every toast. Please drink responsibly. Responsibility.org, jack Daniels and Old no. 7 are registered trademarks. Tennessee whiskey, 40% alcohol by volume. Jack Daniel Distillery, Lynchburg, Tennessee.
- [17:27]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Yeah, that's not just changing specific pieces of it. That's like changing how the reasons it's all set up and the ways in which we think about how it's all set up. So that's in and of itself also a really big change. What about ways in which nature can be moved? I mean, in some ways that seems so counterintuitive because climate change is so obviously caused by humans trying to change climates to suit them more. So are there ways that that can be done that will help with adaptation now, or is that not something we kind of even want to touch?
- [18:02]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Well, the issue of moving species is a really tricky one. So see many species around the world. They live in a particular climate that's comfortable for Them, it's where they're their food is, it's where they're kind of used to the ecosystem. And normally they're part of a very critical web of ecosystem relationships and network. So it's pretty challenging to imagine the idea of moving species because of climate change. But on the other hand, the kind of projected extinction rate due partly to climate change, but also due to habitation loss and a series of other factors is really massive. And so I think we really have to look seriously at the question of how can we move some species or how can we support some to move so that we don't see this incredible drop off in the natural world. And there are a variety of things that we can do and that actually are being done already in some places. So part of it is about providing safe passageways for, for animals to move through, for example, cooling spaces, kind of cooling refuge spaces in case there's extreme heat. Similar for animals as for humans that they need a space to kind of cool down in those extreme times. But there have also been some examples of deliberately moving species from one location to another, to another environment that conservationists hope will be more appropriate for them. But it is fraught with difficulty because you're moving something, one species into an ecosystem that already exists and you might upset a very delicate web of relationships. It might become invasive, which means it kind of, you know, gets ahead of the other species and has kind of knock on effects that weren't intended. So it's a really difficult one. And one of the questions I pose in the book is also how would we, because it would obviously be really resource intensive to do this, be quite difficult in terms of public acceptance. It would have to be done quite selectively. So, you know, how would those decisions come about? You might think, oh well, everyone would want to save the very kind of photogenic species like the polar bears, but it might be others that are most important to, to an ecosystem. So I think it's a really tricky and thorny issue around nature.
- [20:11]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Yeah, definitely a very tricky issue indeed. And as you said, fraught with really hard decisions and lots of ways in which conflict could manifest from how those decisions shake out. And in fact, links between climate change and conflict you discuss in the book are possible in that aspect, but could be discussed in other ways too. So can we talk a little bit more about how we might think about and approach links between, between climate change and conflict?
- [20:39]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Yeah, so I think that climate impacts are going to really shape how people relate to each other and how countries relate to each other. And that is going to result in some forms of conflict. Some lead to violent conflict, some may be just very intense political disagreements, some might just be between communities trying to decide what to do next and just picking back up on the nature example. I think what's often been done in the uk, for example, has been a rewilding approach, also been quite significant in Europe. And that shows us some of the challenges that these approaches bring, because there's often been quite heavy resistance from farmers, for example, who find that the new. For example, in the uk we've reintroduced beavers in a number of environments and they're thought to be quite good for the environment, quite helpful for adaptation. But actually farmers find them really challenging on their land. So we're really seeing examples of local conflict where what might be seen to be quite good for adapting on one hand is really challenging for different groups on the other. So I think the question of conflict is really about how can we build an adaptation agenda that brings kind of everyone along on the cause. So when we think about mitigation and moving away from fossil fuels, for example, we've often thought about the just transition, which has been how do we bring people, for example, who've lived all their lives, worked all their lives on coal power stations. How can we make the just transition and the energy transition kind of palatable for them? And that's often involved big social protection programs, reskilling pensions, you know, just allowing people to move their lives away from one centered on working in coal mines. And we might need to think the same about some of these issues on climate change adaptation. So if we're thinking to adapt, we need to move away from certain industries or certain ways of doing things, or ask farmers to do things in different ways. You know, how can we make that palatable for those communities? But I think other ways that conflict might show up is in transboundary resources. So I think water is a big one. You know, water scarcity is going to be a major impact of climate change and I think will have kind of major implications for how countries relate to each other, because water is so such a difficult and political issue already. So, for example, between India and Pakistan, they have the Indus river system. You know, there's a series of shared rivers, and they have a treaty in place to manage that. And until recently, that treaty had held quite well, but it hasn't yet got provisions in it to manage the impacts of climate change. So you can imagine that as climate starts to slightly change the flows coming down the rivers, it might benefit one country over Another that's going to be a potential real source of geopolitical tension. And so I think the important thing about climate, climate and conflict is thinking what agreements and relationships can we put in place to manage those changes before they happen? So transboundary agreements normally have quite good success rates. I think the important thing is putting agreements in place that have the flexibility to manage climate change. Some of the other issues on conflict is also conflict within countries. So there's some evidence that climate impacts might lead to some increase in armed groups, for example, to instability. And so for me, in those contexts, climate impacts is part of a very complex political scenario, pre existing structural inequalities. But it's just adding an extra angle, an extra lens to those relationships and something that could tip it over, for example, into becoming more of a, of a violent conflict. So I think climate change and the conflict angle really pushes us to put in place the agreements and the mechanisms and in some ways the multilateral system that will allow disagreements to be managed and to be thought through without leading down to violent conflict and war.
- [24:33]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Well, if things do lead to violent conflict and war, obviously one key type of actor there that we should probably discuss for a moment are militaries. What role could they play in all of this, for better or worse?
- [24:46]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
So I think the role of the military is a really interesting one. And actually it was one I got really excited about when I was researching the book because I just felt it was such a fascinating topic and hasn't really been discussed much as far as I've seen in the literature on adaptation, although there are some really great scholars working on it, who I spoke to for the book, because the military is actually becoming quite a default responder on adaptation. So when we see disasters, for example, the military in some ways is a capacity that is sitting there waiting to respond, so they can be sent to help out with floods. We sometimes see militaries sent between countries after there's been a major extreme event. So they're playing a civil defense role and a disaster relief role increasingly. But that does pose questions for their form and their function. You know, are we financing militaries to do that role? Do they have the equipment that they need? Are they trained to do this kind of work? And what does it mean for the other aspects of their work? So I think it poses some really interesting questions. And as you're alluding to, there's also a risk that if the military is overused or used in contexts that are incredibly politically sensitive, that they can actually make things worse. I mean, One country sending their military, for example, to secure shipping lanes through the Arctic would be quite an escalation of relationships and carries quite a big threat with it. So whilst the military has been in some ways a very useful resource, I think increasingly we're seeing countries ask if it will be possible to keep going with this, because actually, for example, in places that are experiencing wildfires or consistent flooding, and they're always calling out the military, the military is also saying, we just won't have the capacity to do the rest of our work if we continue to pay this role. So others have suggested, should we have more permanent disaster management forces available in these countries? But of course, that also requires a huge amount of resource. So I think it's a big question in the future for what role would the military play in responding to climate change? And therefore, will we kind of change their funding and their form to make.
- [26:49]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Them fit that if the military is not the silver bullet, then for all things. Not that I thought coming into this conversation it would be, but worth discussing, what kinds of organizing or mobilization then could be most helpful in meeting these challenges?
- [27:05]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Well, I think as I talk about in the book, I think there are really many different solutions that we're going to need to put in place across the systems that I talk about. And there is no one silver bullet policy that's going to solve all of our issues. It's going to be a response to coastal relocation in the US and the uk, a response to wildfires in Greece and Spain. So there's going to be different approaches that we're going to need in different places, and all of those approaches are going to need to be locally specific to the context that we have and how people are experiencing those climate risks. But I think what we can say across all of those cases is that we're going to need to shift the system in some way. So we're going to need to make political change to make the solutions and adaptation at the scale and urgency that we need politically feasible. So, for me, there are a number of entry points for that. Partly it is about opening up the political discourse, and so that might be through, for example, social movements or activism kind of making these issues more visible. I think adaptation has often not been a primary area for social movements to engage with. And I think that's maybe partly because it feels like giving in. And there's been much more of a focus on stopping fossil fuels, which is still absolutely key. But I think increasingly it might be that some of these local issues and the inequity that they bring could become more part of social organizing. So, you know, communities that have experienced really bad flooding, for example, communities that have had very bad experiences with extreme heat over the summer or the wildfires, if they start to organize around those issues and push for political change, I think that will be one of the really key ways that we might see the change that we need on adaptation. I think another potential leverage point for change is the legal system that you mentioned earlier. So there have been some really interesting court cases and litigation brought against corporates and countries and cities to say that they're not doing enough on climate change, or that they've allowed people to suffer the effects of climate change and trying to bring a legal argument to enforce that. And this is really proliferating around the world in terms of the tool of litigation, and that's had varying success so far. But I think the important thing is that it might be shifting the norms, because if governments and corporates start to feel that there is a threat of liability in the future, then that might well help incentivise them to move along this pathway. I mean, I think another thing that we need to work on is the more direct policy responses. You know, if what we're doing now is not working, what would really good look like? And we have some work on that. But I think that we need to open up these policy questions a bit more to really probe at those questions. If we created more of a space to think about what an adapted food system would look like, then what is the exact policy proposal that we would put through that would really be resilient to the future climate risk, to potential tipping points to the scale of the challenge? So I think there are many different ways that we can move adaptation forward and it's probably going to be about looking at every part of the pathway, from changing economic theory, to thinking about social movements, to bringing communities along in citizens assemblies to see to change different points of the system and to get the change that we need across the systems, systems of systems.
- [30:39]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Given all of that, then, what do you most hope readers take away from the book?
- [30:44]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
I hope that readers take away an understanding of, of the challenges and the urgency of what we're facing, but I hope that they don't feel overwhelmed by it. So my aim with the book was to lay out the the reality of the science, because I think we can't hide our heads in the sand about the reality of what we're facing. And I hope for readers that both creates an urgency to push for stopping burning fossil fuels and mitigation which is the kind of primary agenda which will mean that we will no longer need to adapt as much. But I hope it will also open up for them the questions that climate risks will pose in their own lives and encourage them to get involved in some of those. Because all of us will face these things in different ways, not only in our personal lives, but we're all enmeshed in networks of food, of how we relate to forests across the world. We're so embedded in supply chains that all of us are engaging in these decisions on a daily basis, even if we're not fully conscious of it. So I really hope that people take it as a call to arms, to action, but that they don't feel overwhelmed by the scale of the challenge that they can see. There are things that we can all do, there are ways to start, and that was really my intent to say that there's quite big change needed here, but we can start from where we are. We can take the next steps today and we can build on those steps and that's the way that we can work together to address these challenges.
- [32:06]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Well, so on that theme then of next steps and going forward, what might you be up to now that this book is out in the world? Anything you want to give us a sneak preview of?
- [32:15]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Well, I think what this book really brought home to me, and also it was echoed in my academic work that I'm working on at UCL right now, is that we don't have many spaces to deliberate on these longer term questions of adaptation. And I discovered so much by researching the book that I thought was really fascinating and important and I'm seeing that also in my academic work that a lot of the adaptation projects we're doing right now aren't able to took that longer term. So I'm really thinking now about how do we design deliberative processes in specific places that allow people to consider these questions for themselves around, for example, when might they wish to relocate? What would a good food system look like? So it's early stages, but I'm looking to find ways to address some of these challenges that I've identified.
- [33:03]
Dr. Miranda Melcher
Well, that definitely sounds intriguing. And for any listeners who want to learn more, of course you can read the book we've been discussing titled Sink or How the World Needs to Adapt to a Changing Climate, published by Bloomsbury in 2025. Susannah, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast.
- [33:19]
Dr. Susannah Fisher
Thanks Mirand.