The most surprising bit of information I learned from the interview is that 30% of energy use is spent on transport and 50% is used for space heating. 50% for heating space feels absolutely enormous. It is mostly not particularly cold in the UK. I looked it up and the lowest average temperature is never below freezing. Not to say people shouldn't be heating their spaces, but 50% seems tremendous. I wish there had been a more specific breakdown, how much of that is rail vs cars vs whatever else?
If I had conducted the interview, I would have asked some more questions about the system that produced planned obsolescence for LED lights started selling paper straws as a solution for climate change. The conversation is a political one inherently, and I think it's risky to not acknowledge that and ask explicitly political questions. Is the economic system we have sustainable? Ask people that. What's the most impactful change is a good question for sure, but I think to get a real answer to that you need to ask more specific questions. People don't want to say we have to radically reorient our lives. Do we?
I really appreciate that you're asking specific questions! I also found it troubling that people are unwilling to make the significant changes needed around energy consumption to prevent the imminent climate disaster. I think it's tricky bringing politics into an interview for an open course, but I do agree that a discussion needs to get more serious and actionable.