Latest Winners of a Citizen Power Award
This post was originally posted on Project Dirt, where we are building a cluster for all the community-led environmental projects in Peterborough.
Here at the Citizen Power Peterborough* project we’ve been working with community groups that have ideas which could make Peterborough a greener place. One way we’ve been doing this is by running workshops that allow people to develop their ideas and meet others, then help them apply for a Citizen Power grant that will allow them to test that idea on the ground.
So far we’ve funded further development of a well-loved community garden in Paston and a group who are in the process of assuming responsibility for a section of ancient woodland in Bretton. The latest decisions on funding were made at an event last Friday, when eleven individuals and groups applied for grants to allow them to put their ideas into action.
The three judges were environmental innovators Pam Warhurst of Incredible Edible Todmorden and Hermione Taylor of The DoNation, together with Councillor Sam Dalton – the member of Peterborough’s cabinet with responsibility for environmental issues. The judges heard from each group, who pitched the idea of their project for the chance of a grant.
People developing project ideas at an earlier workshop (photo by Adrian Stone)
Among others, the judges heard from one group who wanted to replicate the success of a Cambridge paint upcycling project in Peterborough. Rather than sending paint straight to landfill, they planned to collect waste paint from local recycling centres, store, sort and redistribute it to community groups and families.
A group of students from Peterborough Regional College presented a plan to convert old unused bicycles into safe and usable bikes. The improved bikes will be available for college students to buy at low weekly cost over the course of a year – making travel a more active and healthy experience, as well as being better for the environment.
The judges also heard from another individual who wanted to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative energy systems like hydrogen power to people at public events. He planned to use an education fuel cell to power a low-energy projector, at the same time demonstrating and explaining the physics behind the post-oil future.
In the end, the judges opted to fund all eleven projects for amounts between £300 and £500 each. Each project will be creating a profile on Project Dirt (if they don’t have one already), so in time you’ll be able to keep track of their progress through the Peterborough cluster on Project Dirt.
Well done to all involved!
* Citizen Power Peterborough is an initiative from the people of Peterborough, the RSA, Peterborough City Council and the Arts Council, East
The full list of winners:
- Peterborough Repaint Scheme from Kevin and Fiona
- The Backyard Food Group Shop from Sophie
- Green Backyard Woodskills from Renny
- Rake and Bake Gardening Club from Parents United
- P£anet Bikes from Peterborough Regional College students
- Pond & Frogs project from Peterborough Regional College students
- An Introduction to Hydrogen Fuel Cells, HHO and Alternative Energy from Jordan
- Bike workshop from Dominic
- Slow Sewing from Lorena
- The Little Miracles Peterborough Sensory Garden from Michelle
- The Olive Branch Community Garden & Allotments from Mark
Re: The Understandable Madness of Economic Growth
“I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better.” This ‘brilliant insight’ by Sophie Tucker is one thing that came to my mind reading Jonathan Rowson’s blog about a major economic/environmental conundrum. We are running out of planet due to our exploding consumption but we don’t yet have an economic model that would be stable without this on-going explosion. Yet, I believe, the real challenge here is not a technical one but an adaptive one. Most likely we will have to go to being somewhat poor again eventually.
The technical challenge
As Tim Jackson put it, in our quest to save the planet we do have a major technical problem – finding an economic model which is stable without economic growth. However, it strikes me how little effort has been made to find it. After I read his brilliant book Prosperity Without Growth in 2010 I was hoping that after a respected economist had dared to voice such a ‘heresy’ against economic growth, at least some governments would start throwing money at finding a sustainable economic model. The reason why so little effort has been made to solve it probably lies in the fact we collectively are reluctant to accept the implications of ‘de-growth’ on our everyday lives. It’s not easy to get excited about buying less or traveling less. Thus, the real challenge seems to be an adaptive one. If we can’t adapt to becoming comfortable with reducing our consumption levels, then there won’t be enough political support to give money to those who believe in economic ‘de-growth’.
The adaptive challenge
That is why I am so interested in finding ways to encourage people to be more adaptable. Mindfulness is one thing has allowed me to cut my own consumption dramatically and yet live an even richer life. General research on mindfulness supports the notion that it allows people to become more comfortable with challenges such as that of reducing consumption. This however, is not enough to appeal to the majority of the population and we need to keep looking for ways to face various adaptive challenges.
Return to poverty
You may very well hate me for saying this but I am almost convinced that the currently high living standards in the West are just a temporary anomaly in world history. The Western world has been able to enjoy this period of enormous economic prosperity mostly because it has mostly been alone in such prosperity. Westerners have been able to use their wealth to buy disproportionate amounts of natural resources while they have still been in abundance. Now that much of the developing world is catching up and is joining us in the bidding game for natural resources, prices will inevitably continue rising. This will make things we buy more expensive squeezing our current living standards. Also, if the trend of the developing world catching up continues, there will be fewer and fewer people willing to produce iPhones and other goods for meagre wages, which will push prices up even more.
So coming back to Sophie Tucker’s ‘insight’ I believe most of us will have to shift to becoming somewhat poorer eventually. This will be a very difficult transition period. The higher we rise economically, the more painful that fall will be.
Return to prosperity
However, as Tim Jackson explains it, prosperity does not need to be limited to economic terms. There is an abundance of psychological research showing that economic prosperity is one among many things that correlates with a sense of wellbeing. Other sources of prosperity include the quality of our relationships, safety and vibrancy of our communities, a sense of autonomy, a sense of competence, and mental health. My hope is that once we become more adaptive and flexible we may be able to turn some our attention away from material prosperity to wider prosperity.
Durban: women save planet by huddling in the small hours.
Perhaps the best line of the entire Durban summit on climate change came towards the end from a youth statement by Anjali Appadurai who was selected to speak on behalf of her generation. ”You’ve been negotiating all my life“, she said.
I would like to think her speech helped to give some energy to the exhausted negotiators at a point when coffee and fruit salad were no longer effective in keeping sleep away.
Friends of the Earth suggest the agreement on climate change emissions was ’feeble’, and insufficient to avert catastrophic rises in average global temperatures of above two degrees celcius – the level generally considered merely extremely bad, rather than completely disastrous for our continued tenancy of the planet.
No doubt more could have been achieved, and no doubt more needs to be achieved, and more quickly. Nonetheless Durban feels to me like an important step in the right direction, if not some sort of breakthrough.
The details of the international agreement still need to be fleshed out by 2015, and won’t be implemented until 2020, but agreeing to be part of such a binding process, and arguing about its details, is much better than no agreement at all.
Most fundamentally, it looks like the biggest barriers to international cooperation on carbon emissions, while still standing, no longer look unassailable. (I am reminded of a line from Predator: “If it bleeds, we can kill it.”)
The ‘big three’, USA, China and India appear to have been convinced by some powerful negotiating by Connie Hedegaard of the EU. The wider debate between developing and developed countries still stands, but it seems to be less of a sticking point. There is something unfair about the developed world, who polluted their way to growth, now asking the developing world to remain relatively impoverished because of a problem that was not of their making. However, the two most powerful proponents of this argument, India and China, have enjoyed hight levels of economic growth for over a decade. They still want their economies to grow, but the need for sustained high levels of growth is less acute than it looked a decade ago and there is more scope for cooperation.
That said, there were some sharp words along the way:
The increased flexibility of China is noted by Mark Lynas in the FT, but there was also a tetchy moment where China’s chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, lambasted the EU in a passionate speech, saying: “Who gives you the right to tell us what to do?”
There was an answer from one of the small island states that amounted to: because if you don’t change your ways, we will not exist- and how can we accept that?
India’s environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan also asked a searching question: ”How do I give a blank cheque signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population?” However, it was because of Natarajan, who seems to have taken a decision that went beyond her country’s instruction, that a deal was achieved.
Moreover, if it wasn’t for the ‘huddle‘ ordered by South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane the negotiations would probably have collapsed.
It is easy to get lost in the details, important though they are, but for me three things stood out from watching the Durban negotiations from afar.
1) When Europe is united, it is very powerful on the international stage.
2) Don’t give up.
3) It helps to have plenty of women around.
I know it’s slightly outrageous to say that, but that’s my overall impression. Whether it is Appadurai, Hedegaard, Natarajan, or Nkoana-Mashabane, the biggest stars of Durban were women. A coincidence? I don’t think so.
Meat, deceit and saving the world
Meat production puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than transport. Estimates suggest that the production of meat accounts for 18% of carbon emissions, compared with 14% from transport. In their hot-off-the-press report about taxi drivers’ fuel efficiency, my colleagues Jamie Young and Jonathan Rowson argue that there is a lack of salience when it comes to climate change. This comes across pretty clearly in the British Social Attitudes Survey which came out this week.
The results from the environment section of the survey are alarming. Despite the increasing urgency of the climate change problem, public concern about the environmental threat has declined over the past decade. Less than half (43%) of British citizens consider climate change to be dangerous for the environment; only 28% of us regard air pollution from cars as very or extremely dangerous, a figure which is down from 54% in 2000. These beliefs are reflected in our behaviour. Although recycling is now common, other forms of environmentally-friendly behaviour, such as cutting back on driving and reducing energy use in the home are much less so.
Given that we are pretty certain that there is a gap between knowing what we should do and actually doing it, throwing figures at people about how much carbon is emitted as a result of meat production probably isn’t terribly constructive. However, real life narrative about changes people manage to make might put something more meaningful in the mix.
So, I was vegetarian for eleven years. I gave up being a vegetarian almost as many years ago, and despite being quite an enthusiastic eater of meat, I generally make more meat-free meals than meaty ones. During my committed vegetarian phase, I became quite used to people complaining about the inconvenience of having to accommodate my dietary needs. Julie, an extremely close friend of mine, always gracious and polite, used to try very hard to feed me well when I was visiting her, but on one occasion she said to me “I just don’t know what you actually eat”.
Of the people I know, Julie is the least likely I would imagine to go meat-free. She has three menfolk in her house – two sons and a husband, all of whom have massive appetites and expect a daily dose of flesh-based protein on their plates. As a result of a gradual realisation of the impact of meat production on the climate, and partly swayed by the charismatic influence of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Julie has sneakily withdrawn a great deal of meat from her family’s diet. As I understand it, this has involved a certain degree of deceit.
Basically, she hasn’t mentioned that she’s doing it. She serves up spaghetti bolognaise made with lentils instead of beef, and just doesn’t say anything. She feeds them ‘pie’ (which is actually quiche) – a double deceit here, given that the chaps in her house all claim not to like quiche, as well as assuming that ‘pie’ involves meat. I slightly get the impression that she’s getting as much satisfaction from the subterfuge as she is from doing her bit for the environment. Whatever’s going on in the background, she’s managed to more than halve the amount of meat they eat, and I really think that if Julie can do it, anyone can.
What’s wrong with wonky carrots?
They say there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but today 5,000 people, including me, have had exactly that. The event in Trafalgar Square was the brainchild of Tristram Stuart, author of Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. The aim of the event is to draw attention to the astonishing amount of food that gets thrown away every year.
Partly, the idea is to encourage consumers not to overbuy and to use up food at home before it goes off and also, to draw attention to the shocking quantities of food that get wasted higher up the food chain. UK supermarkets have much more stringent cosmetic standards than our European counterparts, meaning that tonnes of perfectly good fruit and vegetables are sent to landfill simply because they are the wrong shape.
A delicious vegetable curry was prepared by Hare Krishna volunteers, made entirely from ingredients that would have otherwise ended up in landfill. In addition to the main meal, punters could help themselves to freshly pressed apple juice made from misshapen apples deemed unfit for our supermarket shelves. Fruit, including uneven bananas and pineapples were being given away and you could help bag up wonky carrots which will later be distributed to food charities. As well as the vegan curry, there were also tongue sandwiches, and seared ox cheek on offer. The queue for these was considerably shorter than for the veggie option, and, to my amusement a volunteer was checking with people that they knew what they were queuing for.
The whole thing was impressively well organised, with fast moving queues and plenty of volunteers making sure everyone got the message as well as the free food. I spoke to a couple of staff from FareShare, who explained to me how they manage to feed over 35,000 people daily through redistributing food waste. The examples of food thrown away by the industry were very surprising – even rice and pasta with more than a year left before the use-by date get chucked simply because of misprints on the packaging. FoodCycle volunteers handed me recipe cards for great meals you can make with vegetables which are past their best, and a woman from Love Food Hate Waste told me that the average family throws away £50 worth of perfectly good food every month.
Everyone attending was asked to sign the Feed the 5,000 pledge, committing to buying only the food they need, and eating the food they buy. For me, the most striking statistic of the day was that if we all stopped throwing away food that could have been eaten it would have the same carbon impact as taking 20% of cars off the road. I don’t know why this was the figure that had most salience for me – maybe because the carbon impact of car use seems more obvious to me than that of wasted food.
Not wasting food seems like such a simple and obvious thing we can all do, and really shouldn’t be that difficult. I guess like many of these sorts of challenges, it’s about subtle shifts and changes of habit, maybe a bit more in the way of planning before we go shopping, and more flexibility to use up what we’ve got once we’ve bought it. So, before the end of the day, I’d better eat the apple that’s been sitting in my desk drawer all week…
Fellows, Forums and the Environment
At this time of economic unrest individuals, businesses and organisations try to find ways to make them stand out from the rest.
Awards are an important mechanism to encourage business and wider society to move in a sustainable direction. There are now more than 400 awards that reward progress in environmental advancement and sustainable development across many disciplines which can make it extremely difficult to know which to choose.
Taking notice of the situation, a group of RSA Fellows pooled their professional experience of environmental issues and set up a Forum for Environmental and Sustainable Development Awards (now known as the RSA Environment Awards Forum) that accredits awards to objective standards. The Forum ensures that there is a benchmark for awards that reward real progress towards sustainability.
The number of environmental and sustainable development awards has grown dramatically over the past few years. This has led to problems for potential sponsors and entrants who are often unsure of the quality and validity of schemes and in turn for the organisers.
The RSA Environment Awards Accreditation Scheme has been in operation for the past 10 years, with the aim of helping to differentiate the large number of award schemes currently in existence. It provides a mechanism with which to identify the best from the rest, giving recognition to those award schemes that meet a robust set of criteria and by doing so demonstrate high quality and validity.
Another important aim of the Accreditation Scheme is to provide good quality feeder schemes for the European Commission’s biennial European Business Awards for the Environment (EBAE). The EBAE play a crucial role in demonstrating progress on environmental and sustainable development issues worldwide. The Forum is tasked with selecting the UK entrants through accredited feeder schemes for the EBAE, meaning that the companies that get through are the cream of the crop in terms of UK environmental innovation. The UK is an exemplar throughout Europe due to its success at the EBAE (it has won 9 consecutive rounds, the last one being in 2010 with Findus Group).
Feeder Schemes are entitled to use the European Awards logo on their award literature to show that they are a recognised Feeder Scheme. Projects that are submitted for entry are also permitted to use the European Awards logo to promote their achievements, this benefit has 3 stages; UK entrant, EU finalist, EU winner.
Chris Luffingham is Fellowship Networks Manager for the South West, West Midlands and West.
Burned any coal recently?
Would you pay a voluntary fine based on your monthly energy consumption? Well, not a fine exactly, but a membership subscription to a climate change charity? In Hungary, the members of an organisation called Carbonarium keep track of their own CO2 emissions, compare them with one another, implement mitigation measures and pay membership fees based on their calculated CO2 emissions. The more carbon you use, the more you pay to the charity.
It’s an ambitious strategy to encourage individuals to take seriously their role in cutting consumption, and is built on its members’ sense of commitment and personal responsibility. It is an entirely voluntary commitment, and presumably, one could default on payment of the membership fee, or leave the organisation at any time, but nevertheless, it’s quite a remarkable commitment to make.
The payment of fees seems quite extreme, and for most people, the idea of having to pay extra precisely because your gas bill has been higher is presumably not terribly tempting. For me, the payment of the fees seems like it might be a peripheral element to what makes this approach particularly compelling.
I for one have no idea what my personal carbon emissions might be in any given month. I would probably estimate that I’m better than average – I cycle to work, don’t eat much meat, and prefer to wear a jumper than have the heating on – but in concrete terms, I have no idea how I’m doing. Maybe all my cycling to work is cancelled out by several annual flights.
If I was armed with hard facts about my own consumption, I’m sure I’d get quite fired up about making more changes and improving my performance. Even more so if my stats were up for comparison with the people in my various social networks, and an element of competition and social pressure came into play.
However, calculating carbon footprints is a fairly slippery and inaccurate process. Although there are online tools available, they tend to be offputtingly laborious to complete, and some fields are pretty mysterious – I don’t burn coal, but if I did, I think I’d struggle to know how many tonnes I used.
So while I like the idea of having the data about my own carbon use in order to track it and try to reduce it, for me to actually keep regular records I’d need a really user friendly and effortless tool to help me do it. There must be a smartphone app somewhere that does the job. Imagine if keeping track was commonplace, and stats were freely available to view on social network platforms. It wouldn’t take long before we were all doing more than we are now to cut our carbon ratings and I reckon that social pressure would rival those fines in Hungary in terms of getting us to stick to it.
Learning to love stigma
My PhD was about how education might be able to contribute to reducing the stigma of mental illness. Stigma in the context of how it affects the lives of people with mental illness is not a good thing. Having spent a lot of time thinking about stigma from that point of view, I’ve been slightly surprised to find myself considering whether the world needs more stigma, not less.
The context of my deliberation was around the problem of waste, in particular food and food packaging waste. I wondered whether it might be possible to operationalise social stigma in such a way as to make it socially unacceptable to waste food, and to change our attitudes to food packaging.
Stigma has already been useful in some public health arenas, for example with the shift in acceptability of smoking behaviour. The smoking of tobacco is now much more stigmatised than it is glamourised, and although it is not yet clear whether this cultural shift in meaning associated with smoking will lead to an overall reduction in the prevalence of smoking.
The delicate line between the usefulness and hazardousness of stigma has been explored in the context of illegal drug use. In this arena, Neil McKeganey has argued that the stigmatisation of drug use is an important prohibitive factor, but that we need to be careful to make the distinction between stigmatising the use, but not the user.
In the case of wasting food, we have a long way to go before chucking out vegetables that are perfectly edible despite being past their use by date is widely regarded as a form of social transgression. Similarly throwing away aluminium foil after it has been used to wrap food once is probably something that many people do without a second thought, and the cultural shift that is required in order for people to regard this act as shameful is pretty hefty.
I wonder how much of this is to do with the fact that we are blinkered on both sides of the production and disposal chain. Most of us probably don’t know much at all about how aluminium foil is produced. If we did know what is involved in harvesting aluminium from the earth, extracting it, processing it and transporting it, perhaps we would value it more highly and use it more than once. Similarly, it might not have occurred to many of us that aluminium foil never biodegrades. But, aluminium in all its forms is 100% recyclable; not only that, but recycling is 20 times more efficient than primary production. In spite of this, in 2009 the overall recycling rate for aluminium packaging was only 42%. The rest is wasted.
Even armed with this information, I think I would struggle to actively stigmatise a friend or colleague who was putting aluminium foil in the bin. What would the stigmatising look like? It would seem utterly ridiculous to shun them, or to attempt to shame them in front of others. Even just letting them know the facts might make me feel I was coming across all haughty and holier-than-thou.
So, having spent several years of my life grappling with how difficult it is to eliminate stigma, I’m now beginning to think that establishing a new kind of stigma could be just as challenging a task.
Mutual Attraction
Welcome to the arts and society blog. The voices you’ll be hearing most from will come from the Arts and Society team of Jocelyn Cunningham (Director) and Georgina Chatfield (Senior Developer) but we also have an extended team that lead on various parts of our programme.
This first posting very appropriately is by Michaela Crimmin who was previously Head of Arts at the RSA, and curated Arts and Ecology. She is co-founder of Culture and Conflict, a new brokering agency developing networks of people across disciplines and sectors to build the role and recognition of cultural activity in conflict and post-conflict situations.
Michaela is programming a key event in Peterborough this week and offers her reflections:
Reflection for too many of us comes fleetingly, often at the wrong moment, and tends to stay within our own heads. But for me, now, a pause as I look back to Arts & Ecology, a five-year programme I ran for the RSA from 2005 until last year. It is the week before a related event is presented by Citizen Power in Peterborough. Entitled ‘Cross Pollination’, this takes place next Wednesday 19 October. We have the rising star artist Andy Holden talking, together with the ingenious Marcus Coates. They will both bring, I know, everything that I value about art. With them Peter Holden, a remarkable ornithologist, who does a double act with his son demonstrating that connections reach from within families to the natural world with consummate ease, imagination and astuteness.
Despite the gamut of evidence, there are always too many people shrieking ‘Why Art?’ as soon as you take art beyond the confines of a gallery or museum as we do next week. Max Andrews (someone who both ‘gets’ art and the complexity and wonder and terror that is sometimes called ‘The Environment’) edited the book that was one of Arts & Ecology’s consummate successes and this is his riposte:
Whatever its mode of address, art always exhorts an infinite capacity and context for our critical acuity. And as we look to the future, it would seem that a keen aptitude for sensing what we really value is more invaluable than ever.
Arts & Ecology was all about value in its biggest sense of the word, with artists exploring its various meanings. It was about a network, about mutual support and about collaboration. These will be demonstrated afresh next week. The exchange of interests between different, shall we call them, disciplines, only serves to amplify that what is seen by an ornithologist is not always registered by a politician; that what is made visible by an artist, can be an entirely fresh perspective for that same ornithologist – and so it goes on. We know why we compartmentalise and ring fence and build barriers, but so must there be opportunities for exchange as are fostered variously by the mighty Wellcome Trust that runs awards expressly to encourage this; and the small but potent Wysing Arts Centre that particularly welcomes non arts people into its domain. There simply are not enough of these opportunities. Not in higher education, not in civic life, not in environment circles, not in the arts.
There is a talk available online delivered by dramatist and politician Vaclav Havel that I recommend reading. Havel, a poet and a politician, writes of both value and connections. In a modest way Arts & Ecology sought to amplify perspectives on diminishing natural resources and the conflict that often results, on fragility, but also continuously to reassert the joy of being genuinely related to the world around us in ways that will help to ensure it flourishes.
Pure, Impure and Competitive: Altruism
On Tuesday Sept 6th the RSA is hosting the event: The Price of Altruism. Oren Harman will speak about the polymath George Price, perhaps the leading contributor to the study of altruism. In the run up to the event, I’ve been thinking more about altruism. After some shallow digging, I uncovered three different categories of it: pure, impure and competitive.
Economist James Andreoni made a distinction between pure and impure altruism in a paper from back in 1990. The distinction is based on what exactly it is which one feels good about, when committing an altruistic deed. Let’s take an example of voluntarily contributing money towards the building of a playground in a deprived area. Pure altruism would describe when someone donates money, and enjoys the knowledge that the playground will be built. Impure altruism would be when someone donates money, but enjoys the knowledge that he himself has donated to the project. It is the difference between feeling happy about the total supply of a public good versus feeling happy about the individual contribution to that public good. The behavioural outcome may be the same (e.g. donating money to the playground), but the distinction is in the motivation behind the behaviour.
Despite the negative connotation of “impurity”, impure altruism is not a bad thing. First of all, as just mentioned, there is still a positive outcome. Secondly, as this Action for Happiness blog post states, the warm glow associated with altruism may last much longer than other forms of pleasure. My guess is that the warm glow associated with impure altruism may be even stronger than that of pure altruism, because the afterglow is personal and internalised.
A third motivation for altruism is more strategic. Competitive altruism is the term used to describe when someone acts in a way to display his selflessness, in an effort to gain some sort of social status.
In an interesting article by Steven and Alison Sexton, they suggest that competitive altruism may help explain the relative success of the Prius versus other hybrid cars. The Civic Hybrid, for example, has a similar environmental rating to the Prius. The Civic Hybrid has the same chassis as its sister model, the “regular” Civic; a Prius, on the other hand, has its own unique design. So the Prius is easily recognisable as being an environmentally friendly car, whereas the Civic Hybrid is not. The Prius driver is in essence signalling to others that he or she is someone who is selflessly sacrificing something (perhaps performance or purchase price) for the benefit of the environment and his or her fellow human. For the driver of the Civic Hybrid, this selfless reputation is not as easily achieved. Competitive altruism is driven by reputational motives.
Of course, one could ask that age old question: if a person derives some benefit (a warm glow or a good reputation) from behaving altruistically, is that behaviour really altruistic? It’s a conundrum to which I don’t know the answer, but I’m looking forward to learning more about altruism, and George Price, on Tuesday. Click here to join the waiting list or to listen to the event online.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
