Amanda Janoo: Wellbeing economics for planetary flourishing (ep426)
“The root of economy is the same as the root of ecology — it just means our home. So it’s about the management or care of our home.”
How do we recalibrate the metrics of mainstream politics, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) often used to define a nation's “success” — and recenter them on our collective and planetary wellbeing? What could a truly regenerative economy encompass, and what might that mean for our immediate and long-term activism?
In this episode, we welcome Amanda Janoo, who feels called to help build just and sustainable economies through goal-oriented and participatory design policies.
Join us as Amanda shares about the limitations of mainstream economics; what the “Wellbeing Economy” is all about; how it relates to other models such as circular economy or degrowth economy; and more.
Tune in and subscribe to Green Dreamer via any podcast app, and read on for our episode transcript.
About our guest:
Amanda is an economic policy expert with over a decade of experience working with governments and international development institutions around the world. Her work aims to build just and sustainable economies through goal-oriented and participatory policy design processes. Amanda has worked for the United Nations and the African Development Bank as an industrial policy and structural transformation expert. As a Fulbright researcher, she explored the relationship between international trade and informal employment.
Amanda graduated from Cambridge University with an MPhil in Development Studies, focused on heterodox economics with Ha-Joon Chang. She is a Fulbright Research Scholar and Economic Policy and Economic Policy Advisor and Capacity Development Expert for UN, AFDB, and other bilateral development agencies. She also works with WEAll as their Economics and Policy Lead.
Artistic credits:
Song feature: A call to the soul by Marco Toba
Episode-inspired artwork by: anisa sima
Dive deeper:
The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi
Expand your lenses:
To support our show and tap into our extended and bonus episodes, join us on Patreon today!
transcript
Note: Our episodes are minimally edited. Please view them as open invitations to dive deeper into each resource and topic explored. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Amanda Janoo: The term heterodox encapsulates pretty much anything that's not neoclassical economics. That can be ecological economics, feminist economics, institutional economics, there are many others. But I was starting to study economics right before the financial crisis. And then I think there was already a lot of the writing on the wall that this assumption that the economy is some abstract thing out there that is governed by its own natural laws beyond our control was starting to crumble. Yet there wasn't a clear alternative paradigm by which to replace this. So, I spent a lot of time also trying to understand the history of economic thought.
Where did some of these ideas come from in the first place? And I think when you look at history and the individuals who came up with these ideas, it makes a lot more sense.
At the end of the Industrial Revolution, a lot of neoclassical ideas emerged from this desire for individual freedom and liberty from more feudalistic control, but the pendulum swung so far that now all we think about is the individual in terms of their material accumulation.
But I think that that loses so many of the fundamental things that ultimately bind us as humans and being in the right relationship with one another and our natural environment. And so that was sort of part of this journey through heterodox economics, but I was always a lot more interested in less of the theory and more of how do you practically change it, which was what led me to policy, movement building kind of work in the economic systems change sphere.
Kamea Chayne: You mentioned metrics. One of the major frustrations I have with mainstream economics is how they seem to center GDP (Growth Domestic Product) as the most important measurement to determine how well a nation is doing. And if we're measuring the wrong things to begin with, and trying to gauge people's quality of life, then the political decisions that follow will also fail or fall short of any intentions or surface-level intentions to improve people's livelihoods.
And we know, for example, that the GDP goes up after oil spills and that even as GDP increases, wealth disparity and the nuances of chronic disease and anxiety and depression levels all have continued to grow. And I know that there are always going to be limitations in terms of what we try to measure because not everything vital to our health and quality of life is quantifiable.
But if we wanted to take a more accurate pulse on the state of the world in terms of health and happiness and community relations and move towards systems that center the health of people and our planet, what are some numbers we already have that you've been keen to look at in this economic reorientation and what do they reveal to us about where we're currently at and where we're headed?
Amanda Janoo:
At this point, particularly within the well-being economy movement or alliance, there are hundreds, if not thousands of alternative GDP indicators, dashboards, and indexes, and they vary in different forms. They tell different stories.
For example, there's the Happy Planet Index, which tells you how much happiness per unit of material consumption is generated. And that flips some of this development paradigm on its head, for example, where communities and countries that end up ranking highest are not countries like the United States, but countries like Costa Rica, where you have much higher levels of happiness and equity and prosperity with less material consumption.
Countries that have gone through some sort of participatory process are asking their citizens what kind of society they’d like to leave behind for their children and grandchildren. Or what do you think matters for well-being now and for generations to come? Being able to articulate that vision clearly and the kind of language that resonates with culture and place, and then work to identify indicators, which can help you to set clear targets in those domains and then monitor progress. And I think one of the challenges we see right now is that I would say across the board, some of the common areas that are looked at are health, education, social connection, time, clean air, clean water, biodiversity, et cetera. Then issues of equity, of what is the distribution of these important aspects of well-being amongst different demographic groups or areas.
Part of the challenge is that we are still throwing together social, environmental, and economic indicators altogether. They're not commensurate because the economy is just part of our society within a larger ecosystem. And so, this is something that I still grapple with as well—what is the interaction between the social and the environmental indicators? Should we just be prioritizing the environmental ones with the assumption that then that will always be beneficial to humanity, which is just a part of this larger ecosystem?
I think the most important thing we can do is to downgrade the economy and recognize that it's a means, not an end.
Kamea Chayne: I appreciate the emphasis on understanding and seeing the economy as a means to the end and not as the thing to prioritize at all costs. And again, also considering the limiting metrics and the different metrics that there are out there. Your work centers on what's called the well-being economy. And I'm aware of various alternative economic models that people have proposed like degrowth economics, donut economics, circular economy, regenerative economy, and so forth. Can you introduce this well-being economy to people who may not have heard of it before and share how it relates to some of the other alternative models out there that also attempt to address the shortcomings of our current capitalistic systems?
Amanda Janoo: The Wellbeing Economy Alliance, at least, emerged a few years after the financial crisis, so about five, or six years ago. And we say that it has many mothers. It was a coming together of a lot of sort of ‘heterodox’ economic thinkers who represented a lot of the different types of concepts that you just mentioned in terms of ecological economists post-growth, donut economics, circular economy, etc, who felt that what was needed was less of conceptual theorizing about the economy and what was needed was more movement building.
So how could we act as a picnic blanket that could amplify a wide range of these different concepts and initiatives and invite in a wider range of actors who come from, let's say, environmental activism or public health, mental health, racial equity, or many more who recognize that we're just dealing with symptoms and we need to move upstream and redesign the economy so that it's evaluated by its contribution to people and planet's well-being.
So part of the challenge is to be a pluralist concept that could hold a wide range of different theories, models, and initiatives.
Part of the challenge is now that the Well-being Economy is being adopted by more and more governments, organizations, and movements, there's a need for greater conceptual clarity to ensure that it's not ultimately greenwashed or co-opted to mean nothing.
But also, the more that you define something in strict forms, the more that you're ultimately going to lose the capacity for it to be contextual and also to be open to such a wide range of different thoughts and initiatives. It’s ultimately a movement-building concept, but yeah, we're probably all still learning and evolving as times change and we see different types of challenges emerge.
Kamea Chayne: I resonate with this sort of both/and of wanting to define something so they don't give room to be able to be co-opted, but also recognizing that a lot of things are place-based and need to honor the context of different communities and biocultural regions and so forth. You've talked about this challenge that when we talk about the economy, a lot of people feel powerless, whether due to the ways that corporations seem to have a stranglehold on many government interests or because the concept of the economy can feel out of reach from what an individual or a household can influence. But as you emphasize, I want to remind everyone that we are the economy. I would appreciate it if you could speak more to the sentiment of powerlessness or disconnection that many of us feel in the context of our economy and perhaps more foundational ways that we might understand what the economy even is to be able to better relate to it.
Amanda Janoo: Absolutely. So, the way that I describe the economy, is it's the way that we produce and provide for one another. It's an aspect of life on this planet and it's always about how we interact with one another in our natural environment to improve our collective quality of life.
I do feel, and I very much can understand why people feel a lot of powerlessness over this concept because even in our mainstream media, we hear every single day this term ‘economy’ constantly. It seems to be presented as the most important thing that will trump any other consideration, but at the same time, its the one area that's too complicated for us to understand or beyond the scope of our immediate influence.
So often when we speak about the economy, it comes alongside discussions of GDP growth rates or stock market values, and maybe discussions of mergers and acquisitions, employment numbers, but it makes it feel like it's a domain purely governed by business and finance. But there's a brilliant woman, Neva Goodwin, who articulates that the economy has three different domains. And there is the business and finance realm which is governed by a profit motive and competitiveness. But then you have also the public purpose realm. Those are the kind of institutions like government, academia, non-profits, etc, that are producing and providing things with a public purpose in mind, a public orientation.
And then you have the care of the core economy, which is how we provide for one another as friends, families, and neighbors, out of a motivation of care and reciprocity. All of those are part of the economy and to be able to shine a light on the important value that's hidden when we think about the care economy and how vital that is for our sense of meaning and connection, purpose, and belonging as well.
Kamea Chayne: If the economy is how we provide for one another, then really economies have existed ever since relationships and communities existed, right? So maybe the core message here is that it's vital to reclaim and re-learn what economies even mean beyond the sort of big “E” economy that a lot of people might find very daunting to think through.
Amanda Janoo: Absolutely. And I think the point you were making earlier about context. So, I worked in international development for quite a long time before joining the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. And I think in that experience, what was so important was one of the major issues with economics is this one-size-fits-all economic logic that is so embedded with colonialism and a particular evolution of Anglo-Saxon philosophical thought of this assumption that across all space and time, people are going to produce and provide for one another the same way when that's going to be influenced by our history and our culture, geographies, our policies, and so many other aspects.
And so it's important to allow for space for that contextualization and to not feel like we need to wait for some alternative economic system or model to be imposed upon us. And we can feel like we can build that better system that we envision and have the power to do that. Now, I think you mentioned this as well. The issue is just at the level of concentration of power that has occurred.
It makes it difficult to feel like an individual has the space and the voice to be actively shaped, by the economic realities, of where they live when you have multinational corporations that are controlling so much of sectors, supply chains, etc. And governments that are seemingly just beholden to those private interests as well. But I think at the end of the day, what we're seeing is a beautiful renaissance and democracy at the same time we're seeing serious threats to democracy as well. And again, everything is always in balance in some way with those kinds of dualities that present themselves.
But this rise of citizen assemblies in areas like biodiversity or climate, I see as exciting innovations where when you ask normal people what kind of transformations they think are needed for environmental goals or social goals, they intuitively understand the kind of transformations that are needed within the economic system to achieve those. I think it's about trusting and honoring the importance of lived experience. And working collectively to advocate for the space for that to be the driving force in our economic policy moving forward.
Kamea Chayne: And also if the economy is how we provide for one another, then I don't know if you've thought through this before, but I wonder if the concept of an economy exists in the more-than-human world as well. And if so, what might we be able to learn from the economy of the more-than-human world and how we're also a part of that broader economy, which extends beyond human constructs?
Amanda Janoo: Absolutely. And I should say the root of economy is the same as the root of ecology. And it just means our home. And so, it's about the management or care of our home. And I do think about this a lot. It's something I've been wrestling with myself. A friend, Evan Steiner, recently mentioned a quote about how the fundamental ideology of modernity is a belief that all of our problems can be solved by humans. I think about this a lot, like the arrogance that we have, to think that we're going to be the ones who ultimately have the best knowledge and guidance.
I think about this also in terms of gift economies, how deeply wired we are as humans to give, and how it reinforces social trust and the intrinsic value of the gift when we give to others that you can't put a price on it. And the rest of life, I think, gives so generously and also with such incredible balance that I think a big part of the paradigm shift is, as you're saying, to look at how all species are in providing for one another in a balanced system.
And also to learn and hold them communally. I think part of it is to accept cycles of growth and death as well. I think Kate Raworth made this point at the Beyond Growth Conference last year in Europe, that some of our growth obsession might be because we're so afraid of our mortality.
We have a hard time accepting that everything has a period of growth and a period of decline, and to be able to hold that wisdom and know when things need to also be hospice and to decline to allow for that balance.
Kamea Chayne: I've also thought about this idea of growth and how a lot of times growth in the ways that the mainstream culture defines it is kind of an illusion because if we're talking about growth in a material sense, which is what GDP often focuses on, in reality, there's finite matter as a part of Earth and therefore all that is possible is constant rearrangements and reconfigurations of where things are. So, the growth of something has to grow off of something.
And so that's important to consider. I think about how this idea of reorienting growth means reorienting growth towards what can be grown. So that could be intimacy in relationships, diversity, complexity in a system, fulfillment, and meaning in how people live their lives. Even the verbiage of how we talk about growth and endless growth. And I think about how that's just literally not possible, given biology and physics and how this world works.
Amanda Janoo: Absolutely. It's something I was speaking with a friend about yesterday and it's inherent within our discussions of the economy is this idea of scarcity. And so, I've also been sitting and reflecting with that because a lot of the environmental articulation, which is important, is to speak to the planetary boundaries and the fact that, you know, there are inherent limits to how much you can take from the earth or pollute the earth within the biophysical realities.
When I was engaging with New Zealand, the Māori developed a well-being framework that looks like Kate Raworth’s doughnut, except the difference is that instead of the earth being the boundary, it's the center and the source of all life.
And so that's also something I'm sitting with a lot as well, what is our understanding of scarcity versus abundance and how do we do that in a way that also isn't ultimately, you know, disregarding of the realities has yeah, I mean, in the end, your point is energy can never be created or destroyed, it's just transformed.
But the thing that freaks me out the most is probably biodiversity loss. Because once something goes extinct, within the time scale of history or millennia, it will come back into balance, but the loss of an entire species is something that we need to grieve and ensure that we're not doing. There’s a real profound implication for that, ethically and sustainably.
Kamea Chayne: Absolutely, I very much think that in situating and focusing growth on what can't be grown. We’ve been heading down this trend of simplification, biodiversity loss, and decline in people's senses of connectedness and fulfillment, and so forth. So instead of growing this thing that supposedly represents what we want to grow, why don't we freely focus on what we do want to grow, which is health and happiness and intimacy, diversity, which is foundational to abundance as well as life on earth.
A central part of your work has been to support participatory democracy, really putting power back into the hands of people and increasing engagement. I feel deeply aligned with this. Also, something that I've been thinking about is this question of, what if an entire population of people have already been so indoctrinated to hold certain values, for example, of materialism or hyper-individualism or extractivism, that we might still democratically vote our ways to self and ecological destruction?
What if people democratically vote to scale up things like lithium mining to support this “green energy transition?” And this comes at the devastation of Indigenous lands stewarded by a minority and therefore, still democratically perpetuating injustice. So, I think the question I'm sitting with here also has to do with how education and media and cultural narratives and values influence our values and politics and worldviews, which then would also impact the ways that participatory democracy plays out. I’m curious as to what comes to your mind here.
Amanda Janoo: I think on the one hand, this concern is part of the major thing that has always been thrown against democracy is the belief that people don't know what's good for them. So, it's better to have other people make those decisions for them. And so I think that requires a little bit of faith in people. We did a pilot in Scotland, and we asked children to articulate what they felt was most important for the well-being of their community. And it was interesting because they got it.
They got that they needed closer access to goods and services. They needed more social connection and trust. They needed more time for play for both adults and children together. They saw these larger systemic things and they were able to come up with some specific initiatives like having a Christmas festival that winter because they felt like that would help all those different domains, which makes so much sense. But even within that example, the environmental dimensions were missing, because we're also talking about an urban landscape, right, where they probably wouldn’t even know that that might be an option.
It's kind of a fable, but I think it's real. It was told by one of my development economics professors, but it was about this NGO that went to a small island in Indonesia and was bringing them cows to help with nutrition and different sorts of issues. And so, they brought the cows and then they came back about a few months later and the community had killed all of the cows except for one because they didn't have any infrastructure to deal with these cows and they were just running around and destroying all of their gardens and houses, etc. And so, the NGO was like, “Oh, I'm so sorry about that. You go back and you decide what you want to do and how we can help you. And we'll make sure that this is led by you.”
And so the community goes back and they deliberate and come back to the NGO and they're like, okay, great. How can we help? So the community expressed that they want cows. And it was because it was the only thing they'd ever been offered. It was the only thing they could think of asking for, right? And so that's always the complexity, I think when we think about participatory process because our imaginations are inherently going to be limited. And so, I think that's part of what I like about the Citizen Assembly model is that it's a balance between deliberative democratic process and when there become moments where people recognize they need more information, they can bring in experts and relevant resources or tools or materials, facts, etc, that can help guide that.
Now, there's no such thing as unbiased information. So, it's always going to probably lead people one way or the other. But I still think that if we feel ownership and accountability to this, whatever it is that we articulate we want to do, I think we're in a better position than we are now of feeling like we're beholden to some large corporate or governmental institution making those decisions for us.
Kamea Chayne: So, the relationship between participatory democracy and other aspects of society also becoming more democratized, like media not being controlled by a few major corporations or the education system not propping up like one way of knowing per se or universalized knowledge, but also honoring the diverse ways of knowledge in more democratic ways.
Democracy needs to be at the core of everything beyond the act of politics itself. Because everything feeds into one another. It's also clear to me that a lot of the ways that our dominant political and economic systems function need to be revamped based on where they are currently today. Sometimes even attempts to incrementally improve something have ended up reinforcing pre-existing dynamics and only superficially creating illusions of change.
But with this said, being able to deeply transform society takes time and requires spilling over beyond certain thresholds as well. And I'm still pondering the how which I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on in a moment as well. But I know that in working in the policy realm, you've gotten to follow and support various things that have worked.
I would love for you to expand more on some of the things that are more within our reach, given our existing reality and systems today, things that have worked in terms of either stalling destructive decisions about to happen or otherwise actually helping to reorient our economies in deeper ways towards more life-affirming values.
Amanda Janoo: Yeah. So maybe because I mentioned Costa Rica earlier, I'll give an example of this city in Costa Rica, Curridabat, which the mayor made pollinator citizens, so like the bees and the butterflies and things like this, as a way in which to transform the understanding of public infrastructure and city planning.
This meant that green spaces started to become viewed as public infrastructure as well for the pollinator species. I think about this work because also Costa Rica has this payment for ecosystem services policy where they tax all oil and gas 10 percent and take that money and directly give it to any communities or individuals who are land stewards, like conservationists, protectionists, doing rewilding, that kind of thing. And so those sorts of examples of where you can utilize the existing notion of rights or citizenship or urban planning, etc, but flip it on its head in many ways.
There's also an example from Iceland where after the financial crisis, they were hit super bad. And they went through quite a feminist revolution of a lot of women taking over positions of power. They had a strong gender mainstreaming policy that required the government to go through all agencies, a process over multiple years, reflecting on gender equity and the value of equity and how their existing processes and systems are perfectly designed to achieve the outcomes that they were currently achieving, which were unequal. And so how would they go about changing that?
One of the things that they reflected on was a realization that in traditional policy accounting, physical infrastructure is viewed as an investment, whereas social infrastructure is viewed as a cost.
And they realized that that was inherently gendered because men have traditionally worked in physical infrastructure and women have worked in social. So, they ended up changing that so that they viewed social infrastructure as an investment and they were able to, as a result, pass much more progressive policies than they would have before that would have otherwise been viewed as too expensive in traditional accounting mechanisms, right? And so, I think there are things like this where you see fundamental paradigm shifts happening within the existing sort of political apparatus and structure, but they expand our imaginations and make us realize that this is all founded in some sort of historical assumption, that those assumptions can be changed. And once those are changed, we also can transform systems and how we live together and value each other in our natural world.
Kamea Chayne: And I think when we talk about economic transformations, it involves both ways that we can support shorter-term incrementalistic changes, given the existing systems that a lot of us seem to be or feel locked into right now. And it also involves a complete reorientation of our systemic and cultural values and the ways that things work.
So I know this is a big question, but I'd be interested in what you've thought through in regards to how you see this collective composting and reorientation taking place, given that these changes can kind of only occur at the expense and at the surrender of power of those who currently benefit the most from the present systems of uneven accumulation and control, meaning that they're not going to willingly give away power and give way for this transition to take place. So how have you envisioned us being able to start collaborating across radical differences to bring the well-being economy to fruition? And how might this play out or how has it already started to play out even?
Amanda Janoo: Yeah, well there's a lot of big questions that are sort of embedded in there. I lived internationally for so long, and coming back to the United States, I recognize that this is a country of immense power. And so within the global perspective, we are the problem, right? I think that even within this epicenter, people are yearning for that change. And I think they see the need for that transformation. So, I don't think that it's true to say that just because somebody has privilege or power they will inherently be against this transformation because things like the epidemic of loneliness, how this increasing commodification of our lives, and the transactional nature of our relationships is making us miserable.
Even though I’m not rich, I would assume that even rich people are feeling this. And so, I think there's something that we can speak to and that can compel a wide range of people across these systems to recognize the need for change. But with that,
I do believe in the importance of power in numbers and people coming together across radical differences in solidarity and towards a shared vision of a better world and a better future.
So much of the work that I do at Wellbeing Economy Alliance is trying to connect different types of initiatives and actors to be a little bit of how we connect, be people between different layers and players, et cetera. And it's tough and particularly in more individualistic cultures, it's challenging. One of the things I was just sitting at hosting an event in DC where we brought together a variety of state-level coalitions that are advancing economic systems change, but under different banners. Some are just transitions, solidarity economy, like Indigenous, like conceptions, well-being economy, et cetera. And one of the things I realized is that we speak a lot about the importance of trust. And I think sometimes we think that trust or we speak of trust as something that is earned, but in reality, it's given, and it's given through our vulnerability.
Like our willingness to make ourselves vulnerable and to open ourselves up to the need of support. One of the quickest ways to get somebody to trust you is to ask them for a favor, which seems so counterintuitive in our contemporary culture, but it's because we're hardwired to give. And when we give something to somebody else, as small as a pen or a gift or whatnot, it reinforces social trust, and it boosts our immune systems or reduces our stress levels.
And so, this action of building trust, I think is at the core of any of this collaboration. And I think it requires the courage of vulnerability for all of us and the humility to say that we don't know, and we make mistakes and we need help if we're going to do that, because I think that's ultimately maybe a recipe for any of that meaningful collaboration moving forward.
Kamea Chayne: I think part of my cynicism comes from just seeing corporate stranglehold on politics and corrupted politicians, and corporations also kind of treated as having personhood, imposing their extractivist logics into decision-making processes. But it's very true that at the human level part of the work is shifting and reorienting our cultural values and returning to what matters most for our senses of belonging and humanity and interdependence and vitality and so forth. So yeah, thank you for these offerings. As we wrap up our discussion here, what else do you feel called to add that I didn't get to ask you about? And what are some of your costs to action or deeper inquiry for our listeners?
Amanda Janoo: Well, I'm thinking about this right now, but do you know where the corporate personhood came from in the US? Okay, so interesting. So, this was part of the 13th Amendment. So, after the Emancipation Proclamation and when we provided African Americans with three-quarters personhood, corporations lobbied and said, well, if these things are going to be viewed as people, then we should be viewed as people as well.
At the time, it was a persuasive enough argument that it was an amendment in our constitution that was based on a fundamentally racist argument and logic. And so, there's a great quote by Abraham Lincoln, which says something around the lines of, you know, we've allowed for corporate ascendancy in an age of corruption to follow. And so, I think it's like important to understand the context within which these things happen. And it's not inevitable.
And of course, corporations are not people, and that a hundred percent needs to be transformed in terms of how we, we don't even hold them accountable the way we hold people accountable. But they should be held to a much higher account. And so I share your cynicism and I hear you in all of that. And I think we're at a unique moment.
I think one of the most probably inspiring books that I've read or that informed me was this book, called The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi. It’s dense, but he talks a lot about how the creation of laissez-faire capitalism or free market sort of economies was fundamentally a cultural project that required the false commodification of people nature, and money. And that there's only so long you can treat people like commodities before they're going to rebel. And he called it the double movement, he was writing in the interwar period. And he saw this double movement manifesting the form of fascism and communism.
We're in a similar double movement where it's not just people anymore, it's nature too that can no longer be treated like a commodity.
I think we're seeing that counter-narrative of fascism very clearly emerging in response. And I think what is needed and what I hope the well-being economy and degrowth and regenerative economy and many others can coalesce to offer an alternative, hopeful vision of political systems that are more democratic, of societies that are more connected and of a natural environment and all species that are treated with dignity and respect.
If there's any sort of call to action, maybe I'll just reiterate what you said earlier. It's just a reminder that we are the economy. And if anybody's interested and passionate about connecting with others working to advance economic systems change, we would love to have you join the Wellbeing Economy Alliance family. You can check us out at weall.org.
Kamea Chayne: Beautiful. Well, Green Dreamer, we are coming to a close here, but we will have more references and resources from this episode linked in our show notes at greendreamer.com. And for now, Amanda, thank you so much for joining me on the show today. We covered so much and just so grateful for this conversation. What final words of wisdom do you have for us as Green Dreamers as we close off?
Amanda Janoo: Well, thank you so much for having me. This was wonderful. My final words of wisdom would be to remember that system change is a marathon, not a sprint. And so, it's important that you take time for yourself, enjoy the process, and stick with it.
