Our listeners send in thoughtful questions, and we dive into them without preparation or prior review. This way, our responses stay spontaneous and authentic. Today’s questions come from Bradford and Port Carlisle—two communities in Northern England with rich histories and unique local perspectives.

Andrew, from Bradford, England sent us this - “Are we too focused on Net Zero etc? Why don’t we drill our own oil, instead of importing and sustaining economies elsewhere? Aren’t we at risk of falling behind?”

William highlights that oil extraction requires years of infrastructure development, making it unsuitable for immediate energy needs. He advocates prioritizing renewables, arguing fossil fuel dependence risks long-term disadvantage.

Stuart counters that relying on foreign technology, such as Danish wind turbines, could weaken the UK’s energy independence unless domestic innovation is fostered.

William stresses planning for the next century, pointing to offshore wind as a strategic investment given Britain’s coastal geography.

Stuart notes some politicians dismiss net zero as “net stupid,” while William observes that short electoral cycles often hinder long-term policy, urging a broader vision beyond four- to five-year terms.

Steven, from Port Carlisle, England sent in this question - “Charlie Kirk’s killing. Are those who say that his death was about a man exercising his right to free speech and saying what he wants, leaving us to think more deeply about our own views right? Or are others who discuss other contributing factors right? Religion, Debate, Guns, Antagonism, Politics, Division, Conspiracies, For and Against, Disquiet etc etc etc”.

Stuart reflects on whether Charlie Kirk’s death stemmed from free speech or political division, concluding multiple influences were at play. He argues that freedom of speech is not absolute, noting the individual involved was both intellectual and religious, and sees the event as a symptom of wider societal fractures in America. Stuart admits limited engagement with Kirk’s content, focusing instead on psychology and body language to assess truthfulness.

William, aware of Kirk’s presence online, suspects his approach was designed to provoke reactions and generate revenue. He cautions that expressing opinions can trigger extreme consequences, though he did not follow Kirk closely.

Stuart proposes examining what freedom of speech truly means, distinguishing between genuine restrictions and social politeness, and questioning whether a universal definition exists.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities

We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside