Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 0:03

And how that has just been a continued part of how Copenhagen is, and Denmark in general is being built. So that it's in a sense easier, like the easiest mode of of transportation is biking. It will get you the quickest to where you need to go in the most convenient manner while being good for planet and and your own well being

Tom Raftery: 0:30

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. This is the Climate Confident podcast, the number one podcast showcasing best practices in climate emission reductions and removals. And I'm your host, Tom Raftery. Don't forget to click follow on this podcast in your podcast app of choice to be sure you don't miss any episodes. Hi, everyone. Welcome to episode 169 of the climate confident podcast. My name is Tom Raftery. And before we kick off today's show, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to all of this podcast's amazing supporters. Your support has been instrumental in keeping the podcast going, and I'm really grateful for each and every one of you. Today, I'm talking to the Danish Design Council. And in upcoming episodes, we have some really interesting ones coming up. I'll be talking to Professor Dana R Fisher who coined the phrase, apocalyptic optimism. So that's cool one to look out for. Also, we'll be talking to Robin Saluoks from eAgronom and Tucker Perkins from the Propane Education and Research Council, curiously enough. But back to today's episode and my special guests on the show today is Ditte. Ditte, welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 1:50

Sure. Happy to. And thanks for having me. I'm Ditte. I chair the Danish Design Council, and I recently published a book called Danish Design Heritage and Global Sustainability with an emphasis on how can we learn from the past to use the planetary boundaries as a positive creative constraint and hopefully learn to thrive within the planetary boundaries.

Tom Raftery: 2:15

Okay. And for people who might be unaware, what do you mean when you say planetary boundaries?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 2:22

Yeah. So, some years ago, actually back in 2015 already a group of scientists came together and really had this notion of we need to find this sort of safe operating space for what do we have of natural resources? What can we, how can we live within the planetary boundaries to create value for people? So they sought out this sort of and found nine planetary boundaries. The two main being climate change and biodiversity. So in essence, all nine boundaries are of course of great importance. But if we succeed staying within the planetary boundaries of climate change and biodiversity, so not losing too much biodiversity, we are most likely quite home safe. However, if we, on the other hand, might succeed on, you know, the seven or eight others, but not on either climate change or biodiversity, then we are at a very dire place. So, so those being the nine boundaries that we have, that, that scientists has helped us define the safe operating space that we can provide value for people within.

Tom Raftery: 3:41

So it's like the expression in English, living within your means. It's like not, not overspending in other words.

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 3:48

Yes. Yes, very much. And we've just, in Denmark, unfortunately, just had, even though it's just April, the beginning of April, we've just had the overshoot day, so one of the planet, like, one of the boundaries in terms of natural resources has just been used already, which is, of course not living within the planetary boundaries. And I think that's a key point to be mindful of. The Danish design heritage was very good at using the need for social value to be created, especially after the world wars and as the welfare state was being developed. And that had some really great effects. However, at the same time, it was also the sort of the development of industrialization and in particularly the ability to mass produce. And somewhere along the way, we, along with the rest of, of the, of the world got things a bit out of balance. So in essence, we sort of started, there was a global movement to essentially make sure that what people desired was equivalent to production capabilities rather than sort of adjusting production to the needs of humans. So, just to say, while there's a lot of inspiration to be had, of course, we also need to be mindful of the systemic change needed in going from a focus on exchange value. So all of the things that we sort of, we can sell over the counter and back to designing for the use value for, for people. Which actually also goes back to the heritage and the Danish, very famous designer of lightning and lamps, Paul Henningsen, who back in the 50s warned that never had we been less free because unlike during the world wars in where, you know, Countries such as Denmark in the second world war was occupied unlike then with the ability of mass production, how we are choosing to use it. Our minds had efficiently become occupied. So going back to creating value for, for people and, and making that the, the goal rather than seeing exchange value as, as the goal. If that makes sense,

Tom Raftery: 6:19

Okay. Interesting. And. You've mentioned Danish design heritage a couple of times now. What is that?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 6:30

Yeah, that's a great question. So I think Danish design heritage has different is different things. One of the key things that it's very known for is the furniture tradition which stands on One, that ability to use the social purpose, not as something that was an annoyance or something that, that worsened the final design, but on the contrary, as a positive creative constraint that heightened the final design. So that being a key learning that we can use today. And the second part really being a focus on use value and thus caring about the design from a material perspective, from a craft perspective, and from an aesthetics perspective. And that being a second part that we really need to get much better at embracing today. Caring about what we choose to do and what we choose not to do. So those are two specific elements from the realm of the Danish design heritage. And they built upon design in general, which I think has two very key significant impacts that we, that we should learn to use better today, which is one, the ability to question status quo. So all of the things that we take for granted as natural, but are in fact social constructions that could be different, the sort of shift back to use rather than exchange value being one of them, all of the things that we think desire coming from a natural perspective, but have been designed in effect. And then secondly, the ability to give shape to something that we don't yet know, going back to the realm of science and the planetary boundaries and how good the science science has been at highlighting what we need to move away from. We really need design and that ability to shape the unknown, to help us imagine a way forward, you know, what might a future look like, smell like, feel like where use value is at the center. And so hopefully it being less about what we need to leave behind. And more about what we move toward and how that might provide quality of life and, and wellbeing.

Tom Raftery: 9:00

Okay. And do you have any examples of Danish design that you could point to that people might recognize?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 9:11

I think within the furniture tradition, there are many great, so Bang and Olufsen, Finiol all these grandmasters, Arne Jacobsen et cetera, that are really, that are really highlighted and are still of great value today, Vitna being another really old built on that quality. And you see even today the majority of, of those pieces from that time are still in circulation, still of great use because they're, you know, they never lost their quality, neither from an aesthetics nor a, a, functionality and material perspective. And then the second part being how the role of design has been a key in the development of industries with purpose also being at the core. So you have large Danish corporations that are now the sort of that are acting in a global scale that have also had industrial design at the core. So really that ability to work across borders and use design, not just as that sort of nice to have in the end sort of, sprinkle on top, but, but really having that notion of form follows functionality, form follows function so that it, it, and that being the case, rather, you're talking about a thermostat or a a chair essentially, and everything in between. So also the Danish I think anyone who visited Copenhagen to this day and better than, than we Danes realize, because we've come so used to it, it's, it's quite embedded, but that ability to use design for everyday object, whether it's the Metro station or the, how you switch on and off lightning and all these different things that just makes wayfinding and everything more doable and more convenient. So essentially having design as this sort of thing that lies below everything and just makes it easy and doable to move around. Another great example, I think of that, that sort of bridges between the product design and the design of living is our biking culture. So Jan Gehl and Gehl the design studio and their, their, their pioneering work on how to design for mobility via bicycles and pedestrian walking. And how that has just been a continued part of how Copenhagen is and Denmark in general is being built. So that it's in a sense easier, like the easiest mode of of transportation is biking. It will get you the quickest to where you need to go in the most convenient manner while being good for planet and and your own well being. And that now spreading to many other design studios. In the book, I have both an interview with, with, with Gehl, but also Dissing and Weitling, which is an, another architectural studios that are really experts in creating these bridges that move across normal traffic, but bridges only for biking, so making it more convenient and similar. The case of, of Biomega, which is a really nice nicely designed bicycle working to make cars obsolete.

Tom Raftery: 12:39

Interesting. Interesting. And if Denmark is doing so well with design and bike infrastructure. How have you managed to go past world or Danish overshoot day so early in the year?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 12:56

Yeah. That's a really, really good question because it goes to the need for rebalancing the system in a broader societal sense and for design and designers to really realize the crossroad of as a designer, as a design society, do you want to be, you know, in service of the world world breakers or help create the world of tomorrow? And I think unfortunately, design and designers as well have sort of become part of, of, of the system systemic change in more in service of the world breakers with that focus on exchange rather than use value. So when I look towards design, it's in no way to say, let's just continue to do as we're doing on the contrary. It's for design to realize their potential and for society at the same time to use that potential to change both on a systemic, but also on a product and material level, but highlighting it as a way as a toolbox for doing so, so that we can hopefully little by little start creating all of these different avenues that, that, that creates a path for the future. And that can be, that would be also design of, of business models, product as a service, being a key opportunity for that, where we really start seeing that, you know, it's not about quality being opposite of, of, of good business. On the contrary, the business model incentivizes quality. So the better the quality, the better the numbers on the bottom of the your balance sheet essentially. And for me, that was, that was how I got started with both design and circular economy. I became involved with a baby clothing company, Vigga was called that had previously done a a traditional linear model, baby clothing company, where they try to do as much as possible, you know, moving to organic cotton, these types of things, but they were still caught in a linear exchange value mode of operation. So essentially the business was still built upon the more you sell, the more you make. And so essentially not incentivized for your users to use your product as, as much as possible. And then with Vigga changing to that product as a service business model. So all of a sudden you have the business incentive to create quality. And I think that's something that we need to explore. Much more on a individual business level, but also on a societal level, I think we need to acknowledge that the only way forward, the only way we will be able to transform at the speed and scale needed will be to level the playing field, so to speak, in the sense of We have a lot of externalities when we produce. Carbon emission being a key one. And so while we've socialized these sort of externalities, we've privatized the benefits of producing, and we need to level that playing field by pricing in externalities, because in essence, that's the only way a market economy can work, that we have the cost, the actual cost of production factored in so a carbon tax a true carbon tax and a global one being a necessary means to, to really drive the transformation needed.

Tom Raftery: 17:00

Yeah, yeah, yeah. However, we've been saying that for a long time about the need for pricing in externalities. And we're, I don't think any closer to it happening now than we were 20, 30 years ago when people started talking about it.

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 17:17

Yeah, I think there's still a long way to go, but I would say that we are closer. You do have schemes within European Union nations within European Unions that have elements of carbon taxation. It's not at the level where it should be, but there is starting to be some experience gathered. It's not to say it's enough, but there's something. And then one thing I think is really interesting is you're starting to see businesses that are essentially doing this sort of shadow carbon taxes themselves. So they're not paying the tax to, you know, government, etc, etc. But they have carbon taxes internally. And so they gathered that for their, their R&D budgets. Which is, it's a good thing in itself that there's more to the R&D towards the transformation, but also as a nudging effect that having that internal pricing and really pricing in the cost of, carbon among others. I think carbon is what people mostly work with now. And I think that's a great starting point, is for me, super interesting. And, and hopefully we'll, we'll get more of that, because we really need those, you know, I think that's how change happen. You have all of these small pilots or niches, and then, you know, once you get enough of them and they start working together and becoming a unity, you start having enough to, challenge, the norm or the existing regimes, if you will in order to, to create anew. And that's, that's the paradigm shift I also talk about in the book that's necessary and one that there's a sort of, there's, there's still a need for the scientific paradigm shift of really, truly internalizing the fact that what we do as people affect the planet and that effect affects our ability to thrive on the planet and thus carbon pricing and, and, and, and the true cost of carbon being a part of, of our market economy is a necessity, but we still have a long way to go on that. But I think there is a lot of learnings also just from, from that historical perspective, because we've had scientific paradigm shifts before, and they've always been incredibly difficult because, you know, it's sort of like, I think even Machiavelli in his great work the Prince from, I don't know when 1813 or something of that sort. I'm not sure. He describes it as, you know, the innovator having, you know, no real friends because he just has the enemies of everyone who's thriving within the existing regime and no one really has, you know, the benefits of the new thing yet. So it's quite difficult, but, but nonetheless, it eventually it happens. Right. And, and in the same goes for, you know, I use the example of once upon a time, it was, it was challenging to get the scientific paradigm shift through that the earth is, is round and not flat because so many people had vested interest in the opposite. And there was a lot of fear. And I think that's, that's also a very important learning that we have today that, you know, when we go through these paradigm shifts, they're associated with a lot of fear and unknowingness, but in effect, all of them has brought prosperity and much better opportunity to act and create value on the other side. And hopefully that's, that's what we'll get here as well. Understanding that the fact that we are able to measure the planetary boundaries to realize that we have entered The Anthropocene epoch, meaning that, you know, we are, we now are aware that what we do affects the planet and does our ability to thrive or, you know, progress of science. And we just need to embed that in our societal structure and model.

Tom Raftery: 21:24

Yeah. And I mean, you mentioned product as a service there and the fact that innovators have a difficult time and don't have many friends as you, as you, as you said, as Machiavelli said isn't that, I mean, that that's, that's still happening because while you mentioned the baby clothing company, we don't have in reality, many companies yet today doing product as a service and certainly not nearly as many as we need to have.

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 21:51

Yeah, exactly. And, and that's being one thing, but also if you look at subsidies today, they're mainly still like you have some and a growing number of subsidies moving towards a transformation, but you still have a system designed for, for the existing. So the majority of subsidies going towards, towards that. And so there's still a very large way to go. And in particular which was also, you know, where we've been struggling and I think where we all need to work together is that how do we go from the good pilots. The good niches that are small, really nice innovations and companies with that, that are making ends meet and sort of making do, but how do we scale that in order to really get the effect that's needed? I think that's really where we are at today, more than anything. Taking a lot of those great ideas that are out there and making sure that they can be scaled so that we can truly, you know, get the economy of scale, but also get the experience necessary to build upon that and create more and more innovations for that. And I think one of the things in that regard that I'm super inspired by and curious towards is bio-based materials because there is a great opportunity. We can, you know, it's, we, we have a lot of focus on, developing technology for carbon capture and storage. And I think that we know we're at a time and place where that is also necessary. But we are kind of forgetting the brilliance of nature and the simple solutions and sort of what one might call innovation by remembrance of all of these naturals. So trees being the most, sort of, easily coming to mind but, but it could be, eel grass, algaes, all of these different materials where we can essentially build with carbon and thus having a lot, a great deal of carbon stored without having to use new resources. And then at the same time scaling that by leveraging all of the, the innovation coming out of the life science sector. And of course, from a Danish perspective, that's a very key sector as well. But that means that there's so much experience with how do you bioengineer our living organic materials to be able to provide value at scale. And so if we combine the knowledge of that with, with the opportunity within bio based materials for buildings, et cetera, I think that's really an avenue for, for opportunity where we can create that scale, but it requires again a change of mindset and probably that's also a bit of where we need to go and which is already happening to some degree of getting, you know, it, it, it needs to be a broad variety a diverse set of minds coming together. And so we've had a lot of heart going into the transformation and innovation and that's fantastic, but we also need a lot of the knowledge and experience from traditional business joining forces so that we can leverage that to really get where we need to go at the time and scale necessary.

Tom Raftery: 25:26

Okay, okay, and just from a practical perspective, if I am, I don't know, a manufacturer of widgets, whatever, what advice would you give me to make sure that I can go down some of the more sustainable routes, like shifting business models and things like that? Because as you say, there's a lot of pushback from people who have vested interests in things not changing.

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 25:53

Yeah, I think it's, you know, not letting perfect get in the way of good while being mindful that it's a journey. So, you know, getting started is a great start naturally. But, but I think that's, that's a key point that we sometimes think we have to do everything at once. We have to get the perfect carbon tax before we do any. Sort of, we need to just get started little by little. And for that, for me, I've tried to, I tried to breaking down in these this model of the four Rs of the circular way. So one key element being, how do we reduce our, you know, resource consumption without compromising use value. And it could be anything from, you know, the product as a service to business model to simply looking at your packaging and looking towards, can I use less material? Can I do this in a smarter way? And then reuse, reuse of existing products, materials buildings infrastructure, whatnot before looking towards recycling, which is and will be a key component, but might not get us as, as close to staying within the planetary boundaries as reduce, and reuse. And then finally, you know, looking towards replacement materials, what are the new materials that, that might be available or should come become available? Packaging again, maybe you have algae as a, as a replacement for plastics. It might not be, it might be still sort of, fairly early on commercial products out there, but would you maybe call it commercial in traditional terms? Probably not. I think there's, there's right now we see that there's sort of a market accepts sort of non perfect products because there is a demand for new solutions, which is great, but we should utilize that not to sort of stay happy with existing sort of imperfect products, but as an opportunity to really scale that. And algae as a, as a substitute for plastic being one example of that. And so how might one help drive that forward? Well, one way would to be to say, if you are a manufacturer of something that uses a plastic similar product, go to the innovators and say, these are the requirements that I need, if you can deliver on that within let's say one or two years, I will promise to buy from you XX amount of your material. And then we really start having that market economy playing a positive effect on driving the transformation, both on ensuring that there is a demand, but also because a key learning from my own experience is designing to specific demand is the quickest way to get product to market. Otherwise you end up sort of having 10 different avenues that you could potentially design the product for. It could be used here. It could be used here, here, here, here, here. Which just means that it's much more difficult to prioritize and really have that narrow focus. So also from, from that collaboration with specific demand, it also allows the innovators to get to some sort of commercial product quicker. So, so for the more manufacturers can engage with those types of activities, the better, and that would really drive additionality in terms of impact as well.

Tom Raftery: 29:25

Ok, great, great. We're coming towards the end of the podcast now, Ditte. Is there any question I didn't ask that you wish I did, or any aspect of we haven't covered off that you think it's impossible, or sorry, you think it's important for people to think about?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 29:42

I think just one final note is that, you know, I've, I've chosen it's, it's, it's with inspiration from a Christiana Figueres to be, but I've chosen to be a sort of a stubborn optimist. And I think there's a lot of value in that and that we need to help each other become or stay stubborn optimists. It means, you know, working hard to, to creating change. It's it's for me, it means that, you know, hope is something that we have to earn. So we have to work towards it. It's not something that sort of paralyzes us, and oh technology will fix it in, you know, whatever distant future, but it, but it's, it's really something that means we have to work hard at it. But, but in order to, to be efficient at working towards it, I think hope is also a necessity. So I would just encourage everyone to, to work towards that for themselves, but also support others in, in staying and becoming optimistic as well.

Tom Raftery: 30:45

Excellent. Excellent. Yep. Yep. Important. That's in fact, that's one of the reasons I started the podcast was so that I would be hearing good climate news at least once a week so that I wouldn't be curling up in a ball in fetal position crying my eyes out.

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 30:58

Exactly. And that's, I mean, that's, there's plenty of news coming every day that, that, that, that would warrant that. And it's not to, you know, not listen to that, but it's, it's, it's, it's to find a coping mechanism and a way to take that in without you know, becoming paralyzed and unable to, to act.

Tom Raftery: 31:21

yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Ditte, if people would like to know more about yourself or any of the things we discussed in the podcast today, where would you have me direct them?

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 31:31

I would direct them to my website, thecircularway. com or Instagram. Which is just my name. LinkedIn.

Tom Raftery: 31:41

Perfect. I'll, I'll put those links in the show notes. So everyone has access to them. Ditte, thanks a million. That's been fantastic. It's been great to have you on the podcast today.

Ditte Lysgaard Vind: 31:50

Thank you so much for having me and for the conversation.

Tom Raftery: 31:54

Okay, we've come to the end of the show. Thanks everyone for listening. If you'd like to know more about the Climate Confident podcast, feel free to drop me an email to tomraftery at outlook. com or message me on LinkedIn or Twitter. If you like the show, please don't forget to click follow on it in your podcast application of choice to get new episodes as soon as they're published. Also, please don't forget to rate and review the podcast. It really does help new people to find the show. Thanks. Catch you all next time.