94 David Peck transcript

Interview Transcript

Provided by AI – add 3:25 mins for the finished episode

Catherine Weetman  00:02

David, welcome to the circular economy podcast.

David Peck  00:05

Thank you. It’s a pleasure being here with you.

Catherine Weetman  00:08

Yeah, it’s great to see you again. And I’m conscious, we touched briefly on critical raw materials back in episode 78, with Colin Church, and I’m really looking forward to digging deeper into them today. Sorry for that pun!

David Peck  00:22

Yeah,

Catherine Weetman  00:24

I bet you get it all the time. So perhaps we could start by asking you to explain what critical raw materials are. There’s the EU context, but other countries have similar or slightly different lists as well.

David Peck  00:37

Yeah. And it might help to start with some more, should I say generic societal terms, which get bandied around, and this is where people will rapidly get confused. And so let me just see if I can De-confuse the situation. But I’ll probably fail completely. But let me try. So people will talk and you’ll read in media, popular media articles, for example. And they’ll talk about material scarcity. So scarcity is a hot topic. Another one is Rarity. And then you’ll hear Rare Earths. And so then, there’s a sort of this popular myths almost about sort of what exactly are we talking about? I think I know what that is. The reason I start with that, because when I’m talking to somebody about material criticality, who has in most cases of people that I talked to, don’t understand or don’t know, or never even heard of it, I sometimes to create a bridge, I start with that. So I use these terms, which they may have seen in popular media or in other forums. So why don’t I use those terms? Well, one of the problems with a word like scarcity is it is hard to define. And there are many words in language, which are lovely, and we use them all the time, like the word lovely. And then you go, sorry, could you give me a scientific definition of that? Well, of course, that’s impossible. And it’s the same with scarcity. So there’s a dictionary definition. And that’s about where it ends. And in terms of science, trying to measure things, because obviously, the sort of definition of sciences you have to have some kind of measurement to understand that you can’t so let’s just explore for a second, the measurement, what method do we use? Generally, generally, across the world, there is a generally accepted viewpoint of doing defining material criticality through a two axis graph. So if you picture in your mind to access graph, vertical horizontal axis, on the vertical axis, for example, if I use the example from the European Union, you mentioned, you would have supply risk. So the chances of you not getting something when you want it now is I didn’t say running out. And I didn’t say scarcity, I just said when you want something, you don’t get it. And actually, there are a range of dimensions, which I won’t go through now, but a lot of different dimensions, which you can measure to some degree, to come up with a number on a scale of supply risk. So you put that on and you you, you draw a line, which you define as your threshold above that line is critical in terms of supply risk, and below it is not. Then you have a horizontal axis that says economic importance. And again, there’s a range of factors which you look at in terms of the importance of a given material to specific economy, a country normally. And again, you draw a line vertically, that says, beyond that. Line is critical below that it’s not. And then of course, you’ve now got a two by two matrix on the graph. And of course, the usual thing, anything in the top right hand corner box is a critical material. And that’s generally how we define so I’ve gone through the methodology if you like, examples of this and then this is where the popular thing so for example, some generally across the world, the most recognised and accepted critical materials of the highest criticality is the rare earths so rare earth elements, the heavy like rare earths, for example. So strange materials like neodymium and dysprosium, and terbium, all these strange names that we vaguely remember from the chemistry class at school and a range of other materials and there’s quite a long list sort of the EU for example, as a list of 41 materials so it’s quite a long mix extensive list. but that’s generally how we define material criticality, supply risk versus economic importance.

Catherine Weetman  05:09

And just to come back to that EU list is the 40 Odd the list that they assess every few years.

David Peck  05:17

Yes.

Catherine Weetman  05:17

And then I think the latest iteration there were 27, deemed to be critical to the EU. Is that right?

David Peck  05:26

It’s a bit more. And so first of all, the first part of your question was, do they do this every few years? Yes, they do. And the next one will come out next year 2023. The next assessment with the lists, it’s a bit more than just a list. They have a range of extensive publications with all sorts of analysis. And it’s conducted by what’s known as an ad hoc working group. So it’s a bunch of scientists and other stakeholders and industry and policy makers and all sorts of people in the commission themselves coming together for quite an extensive period of time, it’s not an easy thing to do. It costs a lot of money, and there’s a lot of work. And therefore, it’s only done periodically. Now, we come into some of the critics criticisms of the criticality lists, you know, is it done often? Often enough? Is it up to date enough? Does it move with current affairs now? Probably not. And then, and then you said, you know, numbers? Well, one of the things we do know, because the methodology has been more or less similar, over a number of assessments now, but done for assessment. So, since 2010, we see more materials becoming more critical, on average, some go less, some drop out of criticality, some new ones come in. But on average, the trend line is to put it simply the problems getting worse.

Catherine Weetman  07:01

Yes, I’ve noticed that when I’ve looked at them, and not all the materials are minerals, or metals that we might consider to be used in in products like tech and so on, there’s sand, there’s even natural rubber on the list. But maybe you could talk us through the kind of products that are relying on those critical raw materials.

David Peck  07:29

Yeah, that when I started researching this, a long time ago, I started off with, what I need to do is get together a lot of products that use critical materials, I’ll do a list. Well, I go, I’ve been going about six months, and I stopped, I remember sitting with a colleague, and they said, I’m going about this the wrong way, it’s going to be a lot easier to have a list of products that don’t use critical materials, that’s going to be a lot easier, because that’d be quite a short list. So I generally found a lot of things do. One of the things the US has done and the UK Government has done this as well now as well is a range of technologies, which are deemed bottleneck technologies and highly important in relation to material criticality. And it’s no surprise that a lot of those revolve around low carbon transition or climate transition technologies. So for example, wind power, for example. The drive motors in electric mobility, for example, large traction, batteries for vehicles, for example, or for energy storage in buildings, solar panels on the roof. heat, heat pumps, and also tech that we use to help us manage energy and control the generation of energy better. So like data, data storage data transmission networks, I see the forefront of concern. One of the reasons why they’re at the forefront of concern is that we need and must ramp up their deployment at scale really fast. So because we need to do that, the demand of these materials is just ramping up. so fast, that the ability of systems to supply remember I said about supply risk are really challenged. And so So those types, there is I should add now coming into the mix, a range of other technologies which are deemed important and they’re to do with defence and military equipment. So that’s another dimension that is part of the challenge of critical materials. But, you know, it’s a different dimension as well.

Catherine Weetman  10:11

And I guess, thinking about the supply risk and the factors that can influence that – and I’m guessing we’re not going to have time to dig into this. But I’m wondering what the impact of, you know, middlemen, commodities brokers, and so on. And then also, you know, geopolitical tensions and protectionist policies and things like that, I’d been reading a bit about some of the strategies that China uses to kind of secure its access to raw materials that aren’t within its within its borders. But certainly, I’ve been getting worried. And we, you know, we can see the effects can’t we have middlemen and brokers and commodities trading, hedge funds, and all the rest of it with what’s been happening with the war in Ukraine, and the, you know, the price spikes there? So I guess that adds a whole new layer of complexity to the whole problem?

David Peck 11:14

Well, yes, it does. And it sounds all tech and all new, because you name the materials, you name the technologies, and it’s all very 21st century. But then we just have to pause for a moment and just roll back over the sometimes certain salary history of the 20th century. And go, sorry, didn’t resources play a key role in both the evolution and development of geopolitical tensions as we now turn them, and conflict? And who won the conflicts? And it was all around materials? And by the way, I include in that broad definition or resources, should I say we could include oil? So you know, oh, did we have some conflicts over oil in the 20th century in the year? And then the 21st century? It goes on? Yes. So it’s not new, but discount, you mentioned about supply risk. So in the again, in the methodology, you’ll get things like global supply and EU sourcing, you’ll get a calculation done called the Hirschman-Herfindahl index, and you sort of go So what does that mean? It’s market concentration. So is there just one country or two countries supplying everybody you’ll get? Like the world governments performed, then you’ll get important, reliable.

David Peck 12:57

Trade Agreements and restrictions you were touching the rate is one of the things they look at it, how much can be recycled something. And one of the key things in both economic importance of supply risk is substitution. Can you use something else? In its place? And of course, the more challenging all that list is in terms of supply, the more difficult it is, one of the things we don’t see in this assessment is sorry, what are we doing with demand? So isn’t the problem over demand rather than lack of supply? And that’s a good, that’s a good question in itself. And because I know both of us would say, yes, one of the core problems has been again, we’re back to the 20th century. In the 21st century, we are just demanding too much stuff. We the planetary boundaries cannot supply this amount of stuff in the way that we want. It can’t be done. So that’s an another dimension. But perhaps we’ll come onto that.

Catherine Weetman  13:56

Yes, I’d definitely like to touch on that. Good. So David, I can I can see that, you know, you’re really deeply fascinated about this. And I’m curious to know how you became interested and involved in it in the in the first place?

David Peck 14:19

That’s a really great question. And, and I know the answer to this, where How did I end up in the weird and wonderful world and critical materials? I am not a material scientist. I’m not a chemist. I’m not a mining engineer. I, you know, how did I end up in this world? It’s, for me, it’s quite simple. So I was working with lots of product design students. And I used to go into lectures and I’d say, Hey, guys, there’s there’s a massive problem. We’ve got some colourless, odourless gas at some unknown concentration in the upper atmosphere. At some future scenario climate events, which I need you to design a product for. Which Of course, these these folks are people that work with materials and design and make interesting things. And they’re kind of like, I’m having trouble translating that into a product. I can’t, I don’t understand the brief try again, Dave. At the same time I was, I was looking at the work of Nicholas Stern, looking at the economic effects of climate, and what a disaster are being because his work is thoroughly valid, it’s, it is going to be a trillion multi trillion dollar economic disaster. And money is one thing, but of course, living species on the planet as another. And I was thinking, I need to work with these folks, I need to work with designers and architects and help them understand the choices they make have implications. And then I came, I’d heard about some issues around what was then called material scarcity. And I then came over to Delft and I had been there a short time, and I sat in a meeting with a colleague from another organisation, and he started talking about this resource constrained these critical materials. It’s like a 30-second thing, I’m on the edge of my chair. And I’m like, This is what I need. I can talk to designers and engineers and architects about this, because I’m talking about the materials and the technologies they put into their products, buildings and systems. This is what I want, it’s tangible. And yet, at the same time, it is materials and energy. And therefore climate, and materials and energy are two sides of the same coin. It still completely interconnects with the real goal and purpose I have is about reducing the horrendous climate effects we’re having on this planet and mitigating and living within the planetary boundaries. So for me, it was it was the dream thing that that was the good story. The nightmare came afterwards with how weird and complex the topic is. But I’m still working on that.

Catherine Weetman  17:14

Yeah, I should think that that’s going to be it’s never going to get less less complicated

David Peck  17:18

No, it just gets more weird and more complicated!

Catherine Weetman  17:21

So I’m interested to unpack something else that you and I have discussed in the past. I remember a while ago, I think it was earlier this year, I saw you post I think it’s one of your students, Gloria Flik, her paper highlighting supply and demand issues for telecoms equipment, looking at, you know, the, the elements that they they used and the shared elements and, and their forecasts for future production versus what we know about supply. And that brought us on to the whole issue and question around fair shares. Obviously, we can see from, from what you’ve told us about the EU critical raw materials list, that that’s the EU thinking about how it protects its own economy, and gets access to the materials it thinks it will, it will need. So I guess that brings up the the kind of perspective from from a country or or regional, geopolitical organisation, but there’s also the the fair shares across different products and different sectors. I know in glorious paper, one of the pieces of telecoms equipment she looked at was was 5g. And I guess from my, you know, non technical background, I’d see 5g and things like that, as a bit of a vanity project, you know, it’s it’s just helping things get a bit a bit faster and a bit more efficient. Whereas we’ve got other technologies, you know, like maybe, maybe batteries and wind turbines and things like that. Maybe they’re more essential. So is anything happening to think about how we should use the materials where we do have supply risks? Or is that a conversation that’s that’s not really happening? Is it just about countries?

David Peck 19:25

Yeah, it’s a really good point. Fairness. So first, first point to make our our global supply of technology and critical materials. Are they fair? And the answer is in many cases, no. We’ve even got no and no in colleagues in Industrial Ecology at Leiden and was a joint programme with Delft in Leiden Industrial Ecology involved in that we got graduates they’re working on a new one. It’s nothing new, it’s very old. But it’s now called Green Colonialism. So our demand for these materials in the global size in particular, and our expectation that they will be supplied to us, because after all, we’re immensely important people, and we have to be supplied with what exactly what we want, nevermind what we need. And therefore, well, you know, if there’s exploitation has to go on or unfair practice has to go on, that’s just the way it has to be, because that’s the way the world works. There are, of course, direct cases of what are known as conflict materials, or where direct human rights abuse against the UN Human Rights Convention where it goes on on a daily basis, I always point to the example. There was a while ago, and I have not seen much data to say it’s changed that much. But cobalt used in batteries. So including in mobile devices, and 50% of mobile devices, had had conflict materials, including human rights abuse. So you know, the two of us, one of our mobiles has got conflict elements. So those types of things are challenging. And this is part of the wicked challenge. So let me just unpack this a little bit more. So we know that the global north is heavy climate emitters and that we’re the heaviest. And we know we want to reduce, and the way we’re going to do damages, we could argue, well, what’s the ultimate killer on the planet, but it’s going to be climate, it’s going to wipe out life on this planet completely if we don’t do something about it. So let’s, let’s take action. So then there’s the kind of unspoken argument, well, if some people have to suffer along the way, in order to do that, then that’s a judgement call we have to make. And because none of this sounds palatable at all, we’re sitting there and going, No, it has to be done fairly. And it has to be done at scale. And we have to do, and it’s like, well, that’s a wish list of what we want, what is actually going to happen. So I often talk to students and researchers, and they say, I’m sorry, what you have to start thinking about is a set of poor choices. Your mission is to find the least poor set of choices that you can find on this topic. Because they just aren’t good solutions that are realistic to deploy, that societies will accept that citizens will accept that governments will accept that companies will accept. So we have to navigate our way through Now that sounds a bit mealy mouthed and we can pour as if I’m not bothered. I really am and actually is a topic that I’m fascinated and, and often deeply saddened by what I discovered. And see. We do have to do it differently. One of the things I am up to optimistic about is growing ideas, and they think a combination of COVID global supply chains and the war in Europe have pushed this into the forefront is for European countries to become more resilient and self sufficient. The idea of just draw some colonialist idea of just going out there and drawing whatever we need in order to feel whatever we want. It’s the beginnings or the end of that thinking. And I think if we can break that become more self sufficient in ourselves without Of course, if again, there’s a wicked talent, Oh, fine, we just don’t buy anything from anyone anywhere you go, you just plunge them into poverty. So that wasn’t very smart. So doing it in a, in a, in a thoughtful well thought through supportive way of other countries in the world, especially fertile. So I think gives me some optimism. But it’s it’s it’s an ill defined plan, if you hear what I’m saying, and I’m not quite sure whether how far we’re getting

Catherine Weetman  24:07

them. Yeah, I think there are just so many complex issues. And I guess the trend for less government regulation rather than more is not really helping any of those, you know, new mining projects and new extraction projects, to necessarily go go as far as we would want them to, in terms of both social justice with not just the people employed there, but the effect on people living around those communities. And also, of course, the ecological damage from the mines. And in in the research I’ve been doing for my next book. I’ve been looking at some of the social trends and noticed quite a lot of mass protest. Like against mining projects, not just in the global south either. But you know, people are really starting to realise how destructive it is for you know, wildlife have habitats but also for, you know, if we think about lithium contamination of water, and that’s one of the issues about fracking for shale gas and so on. You know, the the UK Government just kept talking about how the risk of earthquakes was a lot less than, you know, been publicised, conveniently sweeping all the other, more likely issues under the carpet. So then, go on, sorry,

David Peck 25:45

but just sorry, just coming on that I mean, sorry to interrupt. This is, this is the challenge, right? So we simply sit there and go, well, well, you know, you more or less said, well, mining is a bad thing. I know, I’m paraphrasing. And that’s not exactly what you said. But you were sort of saying, well, it’s damaging and destructive. And of course extracting resources like that is going to have even in the best of cases, environmental and societal impact. And that that is negative impact. It always is the case. But then we sit there and go, Yeah, but anyway, I want to live as sustainably as I can in terms of energy and mobility and product, and so on so forth. And I go, okay, so you do want mining, no, I don’t want any mining, but I want the solar panels on my roof. And I want a heat pump. And I want an electric car. And I want my digital devices in order to try and be lighter touch on the planet. Right. But you’re not making any sense. Because I don’t know how I’m going to make those technologies for you without mining materials. Oh, but can we just recycle them? They can just be recycled that the materials we’ve got around us? No, the short answer is no, we can’t. Yes, you can you can recycle anything like? No, it’s complicated. But we just can’t do it in the timescales that we need. You know, we’ve got till 2030 to try and get this poor planet within some sensible degree change of climate change. And the scale of stuff we need to build across Europe is just astonishing. I think society has no idea about the scale. You know, fossil fuels are just yesterday’s sun, concentrated in bottles. And we’re going to try and pour ourselves without using yesterday’s sunshine, we’re going to use today’s sunshine. And the technology to do that is just highly material demanding. And mining is the only way forwards. Again, we’re not having a a realistic debate about this. We have to mine, we have to within Europe and the mindset to be local. And you mentioned for example, so sometimes when you might some of these rare earths they get bound up with light, mild radioactive materials. So oh, we’re going to open a radioactive licenced mind 10 kilometres from your children school? Like, no, I’m going to stop that. I don’t want that. But then they come back again to the debate, you just had a back fair, you’re not bothered when that’s in the middle of Africa. But when it’s here, it’s suddenly of concern. And so again, I come back to a set of poor choices, what we’re not having as a grown up debate about the poor choices we have to make.

David Peck  25:45

I agree. And I think, you know that that brings me back to the kind of, you know, is 5G essential? And should you know that it kind of comes back to what we’ve talked about before, you know, do we need a global resources council that looks at fair shares and said, Okay, this is a set of poor choices. But what we need to do is minimise the mining of this particular material, because it’s got these, you know, radioactive side effects. And, you know, the one place we could maybe set up a mind that’s away from human population means clearing ancient, you know, rain forest or something. So that’s not there’s no perfect choice. So should it be no good choices or exactly, but should it be? I mean, we talked about, you know, reducing demand. So, you know, you and I are both enthusiastic about the circular economy and its potential to reduce that. But should there be something whereby we try and prioritise the products and the sectors that are most essential in helping us move towards, you know, a zero carbon economy and move towards an economy where we’re regenerating biodiversity because that’s just as big a threat in my view as climate so

David Peck 28:31

I think I think this is a really interesting point. And I I looked at this, so I researched this, what I said was, okay, let’s take the Dutch government, they say by 2030, we want to reduce by 50% primary material consumption in the Dutch economy. We don’t know how we’re going to do that. But anyway, that’s I like the ambition 55% of Prime Ministers. So I looked at it. And I thought to myself, what is it that is done in the past, what was done in history, to get down to 50% less demand and yet could still keep society supplied, and they came to Britain in the Second World War. So it took them a couple of years, to control the supply of product and, and services to the society to balance the demand supply that they were faced with in times of war. Now, I sort of talk about this, but actually, what you’re exploring in your question, is the same question. And the way they did it in the second world, British society is not, oh, you can have what you want, we will decide what you need, and give it to you. The bit that I think is under explored in the story is societal well being so what else can we if you can’t go out and buy whatever you want, whenever you want, given your your budget that you’ve got, if you can’t just spend money on buying stuff, whether we need it or not? What else can we give you. And so art, culture, museums, music, whatever it happens to be, that is fulfilling for people and enlightens them, hopefully, perhaps, maybe that’s a way forwards. In other words, consuming stuff might not be an option, doing stuff that enriches our lives, could be great.

Catherine Weetman  32:05

Yeah, that’s really

David Peck  32:06

It’s big ideas, big ideas

Catherine Weetman  32:09

really interesting. And it plays into a lot of the ideas that people like Jeremy Lent are talking about, you know, about how we’ve lost our social connections. And the one of the important things we need to do to move through this as is to get those back. And I don’t mean social media connections with people, we don’t really know. Proper communities. So I think we’ve, you know, we’ve talked a bit about how we’ve arrived at at this point. Do you want to, you know, is there anything in terms of the circular economy approach that you think could help unlock it, and or that you think is being missed, and yet overlooked?

David Peck 32:59

There is. So in, in the current, most of the policy around circular, has a heavy focus on recycling secondary materials. Now, in the end, if, in the end, in any circular system, you should maximise recycling, because that’s the only route that materials go, the materials themselves go back into the production of new product again. So that’s the final closing the loop as it were. But that’s often where we start. So we sort of go, well, let’s mine stuff, produce stuff, use it for one use cycle, and then smash it all up and try and get some materials and see what we can.

David Peck  33:52

Do intensive, and we don’t all make. And unlike thinking sorry, we missed the bits in the middle. So the parts around product life extension, for example. So what is the effect on critical materials, if we are using products and systems for multiple use cycles? If we’re first of all, perhaps just straight reusing them, then we repair and reuse them? Then we refurbish them and reuse them, and then we re manufacture and reuse them. And I’m particularly focused on the manufacturing and my work. And the answer to that question, is, is poorly understood. We don’t really know. The logic suggests to us that if you’re using the same materials over and over and over again, you’re reducing the demand rate. And that buying time will help us a lot. In the end, of course, over time, it makes no difference. In the end, the product goes back into recycling and if you lose materials in that process, that’s what happens. But by slowing down the Marguerite, and if we can slow it down enough that could be really valuable to us. It’s not really been very well explored in the field. And so the inter linkage between product life extension and critical material demand and supply is poorly understood.

Catherine Weetman  35:14

Wow, we don’t surprise now. We’re fairly surprised,

David Peck  35:18

scientifically. Pauling. Yeah, it’s well understood by people like me talking about it all the while, wouldn’t that be a sensible thing to do? And everybody nods their heads. But then of course, if the scientist in the room, and your empirical evidence for this is like, I don’t have a scientist, you better go and get some empirical evidence. So I am proposing funding to explore this further, because everyone I talked to in the field says this has to be explored, it’s a wise thing to do. But we do need a better understanding of what happens, we have done a lot of work on closing the loop through eventual recycling. The bad news there is, with the rapid ramp up of low carbon and climate mitigation technologies, it’s going to take us till 2014 Plus, to ramp up the recycling because stuff stuff has to go into use cycles, and then come out of use cycles to get into the recycling cycles.

Catherine Weetman  36:21

And much of it won’t have been designed with recycling in mind. So I’ve been designing more resource intensive, more energy intensive and, you know, less coming out. Yeah, exactly.

David Peck  36:33

Yeah. So I think the summary of my answer is we need to explore across the range of the circular options, not just the one that seems obvious, which is the recycling.

Catherine Weetman  36:46

Yeah. And, and that follows on nicely from the episode 90 of the podcast where I was talking about, you know, is circular, really sustainable. And I was complaining that lots of companies are focusing on sustainable in inverted commas, materials and more recycling, and we’re just losing so much, so much value. If we thought about the way that iPhones have developed over the last few years, you know, there are hardly any technological changes. In each new iPhone model. It’s mostly about software. And, you know, one, one big thing that they can kind of make a splash about, but it seems to me that there’s no reason why they couldn’t have a device, designed it like a fair phone to be modular, so that they could just, you know, offer that that upgraded bit for those people who who want it.

David Peck  37:41

And I would ask out, yeah, I mean, I would add that, in the circular models I like, at the top, it says refuse, and we think, and I think they get too little attention, you know, like, do we we do actually need to say no wish, we just don’t need this stuff. Very difficult, of course. And now because we’re in two big things, again, directly as we talk about economy, just now we talked about growth. And it goes European economies, for example, just absolutely struggling with the idea of not having economic growth, and they don’t really know a different model. How do we run economies? How do we run a tax system and that sort of big debate in the UK right now, without never ending growth? And these questions are coming to the fore. And I’m pleased in a way that economists are struggling with this because at least it’s beginning for some thinkers to start to say, there has to be a different way if we can draw fossil fuels and never ending resources, other planetary system in it just never ending take me waste way. And if that’s the system that drives economic growth, then we have to change everything.

Catherine Weetman  39:05

Absolutely.

David Peck  39:06

Which both inspires me and, and worries me.

Catherine Weetman  39:11

I think it’s, you know, it’s, it’s becoming clear, though, that there are companies able to operate profitably by offering reuse, repair services, renting instead of instead of our as well as selling things. And companies that are able to look at the the embedded value in the products that they’ve made and put onto the market. And realising that designing those to be disposed off quite quickly so they can be replaced with the next new model means that an awful lot of the value you’ve embedded in the product, that value being made up of resources, energy, water, labour, and of course, IP intellect, when you when you’re encouraging all that to do just be thrown away, you’re throwing away your own value. If if third party companies as in in the US, there’s a company that remanufacturers light aircraft made by other manufacturers, so if it’s possible to re manufacture light aircraft, that you didn’t even make yourself to be safe, and have a business operating out of, you know, profitably for years and years after that, why can’t we do it with practically everything, and this is, this is the bit of the, of the policy conversation that just doesn’t seem to be registering. And and I find it so frustrating that, you know, the the EU, the UK, all the other economies that are wondering how they’re going to, you know, get get back to the economic growth thing, create meaningful jobs, become more resilient and less dependent on countries that we’d rather not do business with? Why aren’t they going all in on the circular economy? It’s just anyway, I bang on about that at every opportunity, as I’m sure you can tell,

David Peck 41:10

no, I love it. I I’m getting less frustrated. And the reason why I’m getting less with less frustrated is not because I I see wise action taking place with policymakers. I’m getting less frustrated, because the evidence, the scientific data, evidence is becoming clearer and clearer. So that the the, the constraint that policymakers who refuse to engage with what you’re talking about, their the wiggle room they have, is diminishing daily. And so in a way my frustration is diminishing, because you will get you will get a ticket, well, probably sooner than later, because we just have to. So for example, the example with the crisis in energy, you know, and so suddenly, I noticed the other day that everybody seems to be dressing a little bit more traditional, shall we say, putting more layers on. And everyone’s just doing it now without thinking and it’s not really a big burden. And then we find we don’t need the heating on too much. Because actually, we we’ve sort of gone back in time, a little bit to an age when we didn’t have central heating that we could just switch on at the flick of a switch, you know, so I’m kind of looking at it. And then people are sort of saying, well, it’s not so bad really. It never was!

Catherine Weetman  42:34

Yeah, there’s all sorts of tweaks we can do. And and my My top tip is, you know, Merino long johns!

David Peck  42:42

Excellent.

Catherine Weetman  42:45

So, so in terms of, you know, the conversations that you are noticing from companies and governments? Are you seeing more awareness of critical raw materials, and the need for circularity, and so on, and maybe interested in alternative materials to avoid the risky ones.

David Peck  43:06

But let’s they’re they’re two totally different questions. Let’s deal with the first bit first. Am I more optimistic with with incredibly wise, decisions and, and knowledge and understanding in industry and policy makers? Now? Do I sit in meetings on a regular basis go? Oh, by the way, let me tell you about critical materials. And I finish after 10 minutes, and then there’s just shock horror in the room. Black Swan, why did nobody tell us this? And how did I not know. And then I thought I heard something. But I didn’t, I never realised I didn’t understand it. So that’s not changing that fast. Although, I should say very subtly, that is very subtly, he is getting better. So there’s five people in the room, one might say, Yeah, I’ve been reading about this. He’s right. So that’s, that’s the new thing. Whereas everybody is looking at each other’s freaking shoulders, like I have no idea what he’s talking about. So that’s getting better. That’s what companies the big value of the topic is I can sit and make dramatic statements like, if you don’t understand this in your products and your services. And if you don’t change, you will be out of business. So that is a good way of getting a senior teams attention because they do care about with policymakers. It’s getting a lot better, as there’s a lot more dialogue, there’s a lot more exploration. I see a lot more. There’s a growing research and innovation investment. There’s more desire to get a better handle on data. And there’s more of a sense of as I was talking about earlier, you were talking about resilience, how do we build resilience so I know the next half of travellers in Europe programme in Europe is going to be themed resilience. So how do we build that I had a conversation yesterday with with A colleague who discussed with me pathetic autonomy in so these sort of expressions in these terms are coming out from policymakers with a red, again, driven by what’s happened with global supply chains and then energy in the war. We are vulnerable, we are exposed, we are weak. We’re not doing what it says on the policymakers tend, which is protect and secure and provide safety for the citizens and they’re not able to do it on a linear fossil fuel based world. It’s failed. And there is a growing realisation. And again, I notice I keep talking about policymakers and I’m not talking about politics. That’s that’s a slightly interconnected but different dimension is politics changing. Sometimes seemed depressingly not but then I maybe would reflect maybe it’s the last gasps of the old thinking that is on its last legs, because evidence is just showing otherwise, but maybe I’m ever optimistic.

Catherine Weetman  46:10

Yeah, I think what what we what we need on that is is one one country to kind of forge ahead with a more circular regenerative models, and and that will really get the politicians thinking differently at the moment. They’re all just that. And you know, in the UK, we seem to be veering ever further towards, you know, what I would term as free market fundamentalism. But yeah, let’s let’s, though don’t get me started.

David Peck  46:45

On your second question, your second question is about come can we? Can we find other elements to do the things we want? That will replace them? The answer is, as usual, very mixed. Yes. No type answer. There are some areas of scientific research on materials where we look at them and sort of go, Well, we could use these. It’s, it’s a term I don’t like because I don’t think it’s a reality. But it’s one so materials of abundance? Can we can we use these more plentiful, seemingly plentiful materials? They have? No. So we’re asking the impossible of technology and materials. So like, can I just take seawater and just make everything out of it without impacting anything? And that’s like, on the current range of technologies, which we are banking on, to get us out of the climate mess, at the diffusion and scale and and the key answer to this point, this knotty mix is time. So can we build some new idea that somebody has on lab scale? In a university? Or Research Centre? Can we build it at scale and deploy it at scale in society? Within seven years? Generally, the answer is no. They they fail on the time dimension. Can we ramp it up quick enough? The other thing they fail on is systems. So they’ll often say, Well, my material just uses fresh air and sea water or something, done it, and you go, but this technology you need to meet? Okay, that’s outside my scope. I don’t want to talk about that. But how much energy does it need? And where are you getting the energy from? Now, I don’t want to talk about that. I just want to talk about this material using fresh air and sea water. So there’s a systems conundrum I often see with these ideas.

Catherine Weetman  48:47

So yeah, that sounds like we need to encourage people to not just focus on the materials, but focus on systems thinking as well, when they’re coming up with their big ideas. So David, if you could offer people one piece of advice or a phrase to help them thinking about the resources landscape that we’re in and moving further into, what would you say to them?

David Peck 49:12

Slow! Let’s go slower. It’s a time problem. And obviously, the time problem is there isn’t enough. So if we can slow things down, it buys us time and time as as with many things in life, and because the older one gets the more one realises this the more time you give difficult situations, the better the outcomes can be. It’s when we have to do things in haste that we make poor decisions with dramatic outcomes. So I’m very keen on slowing and product life extension in circular economy is a form of slowing. Does it? Is it a silver bullet? Does it answer everything? No. I But it buys time. And I think the one thing we need is,

Catherine Weetman  50:05

yeah, that’s a great point. I like that. And if you could wave a magic wand and change one thing, to help create a better world, what would that be David?

David Peck  50:16

A realisation of where materials come from, and what someone else had to do go through, to provide it. So this, at the moment we just reached behind us without even turning around take. I think if we actually understood what has to happen, and what happens to whom, in the world, we might pause and think a little bit more.

Catherine Weetman  50:45

Yeah, I think when you look at the complexity of some of the global supply chains and the amount of backtracking from here to there, and the number of stages involved in, in the process it it can be mind blowing content, and maybe maybe those realisations would help people treat things as scarce or, or, you know, under pressure. So David, is there somebody that you’d recommend as a future guests for the circular economy podcast?

David Peck 51:16

Yes, there is my good friend, colleague, and former supervisor as well in my PhD, Connie Bakker, Professor Connie Bakker. From today, absolutely a gem of of knowledge and ideas. So I really recommend

Catherine Weetman  51:33

great stuff. I’ve seen some of Connie’s work online, so I’m sure we’ll be able to dig into some of the work that she does in and, and unpack it for people. So thank you. And lastly, David, how can people find out more about the work that you’re doing and get in touch?

David Peck  51:49

Yeah, well, luckily, if somebody is interested in critical materials, what are they? How do we define them? What do we do, we have a massive open online course, MOOC on the edX platform. So if you just type into a search engine, something like edX, MOOC critical materials, you’re pretty quick, and that’s free. And it’s a full programme. And you can dip in and out, you don’t have to do the whole thing. You can use it as a mini library or whatever you like to do with it. And it’s Creative Commons. So you use it in any way you like.

Catherine Weetman  52:24

That sounds brilliant. I’ll definitely include a link to that in the show notes. And I’ve done some of the TU Delft MOOCs in the past and found them really brilliant. I did one on packaging design? I think so. Yeah. I thought it was really insightful. And, you know, so, so much good, practical stuff that you could take away and think about. So David, thanks so much for sharing your, your thoughts and your time with us today. It’s been a fascinating conversation. And, you know, there’s a couple of topics we could have. We could have put the world to rights on I’m sure that anybody won’t necessarily change but just so much so much that we need to resolve isn’t that but thank you very much for for giving us your time today.

David Peck  53:15

Thank you, Catherine. Take care.