Speaker 1: Hadred listeners. We're back from a short summer break.
Speaker 2: Today we are.
Speaker 1: Bringing you an episode from our sister podcast, Spill. That
Speaker 1: is where we break down climate news, general trends, talk
Speaker 1: to other writers, journalists, researchers about what they're doing, and
Speaker 1: generally keep up to date on the climate story. Once
Speaker 1: a month I bring on my former Hot Take co
Speaker 1: host there Mary and a se Hegler, and we talk
Speaker 1: about something that is coming up in a lot of
Speaker 1: climate conversations.
Speaker 2: This week we talked.
Speaker 1: About Project twenty twenty five. You've probably heard of it.
Speaker 1: It's hard to avoid. We thought it was worth talking
Speaker 1: about that and climate policy in general in the lead
Speaker 1: up to this week's debate. Check it out. Hope you
Speaker 1: like it and subscribe if you do wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Mary, how's it going, Hey, Amy, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm good? I'm good. Yeah. Enjoying this election season? Oh
Speaker 2: my god. No.
Speaker 1: Actually, I keep waffling between like being glad I'm not
Speaker 1: in the US during the election and then kind of
Speaker 1: wanting to be there following everything more closely, like, but yeah, man,
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 3: It's just, you know, I'm in such a weird place
Speaker 3: with it because on the one hand, I don't feel
Speaker 3: and maybe this is just because something has broken deep
Speaker 3: down inside of me. I don't feel the intense sense
Speaker 3: of dred that I felt in twenty sixteen. It doesn't
Speaker 3: feel like Donald Trump is eminent, and it felt that
Speaker 3: way in twenty sixteen and in twenty twenty, so as
Speaker 3: that demonstrates I have been wrong before in my life.
Speaker 3: Does that mean that I'm like super crunk and excited
Speaker 3: about Kamala Harris. No, but I don't know if I'm
Speaker 3: capable of getting like that with any politician ever again.
Speaker 3: But yeah, Donald Trump feels like I'm gonna be sent to.
Speaker 2: A gulag, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: I've said enough shit publicly, and he's crazy enough that
Speaker 3: feels like eventually he would get around to rounding up
Speaker 3: people like me in bulogs or whatever. So yeah, it
Speaker 3: doesn't feel like his victory is imminent. It also doesn't
Speaker 3: feel like Kamala Harris is eminent or that she's going
Speaker 3: to be fantastic either, Like I need this chick to
Speaker 3: say she's gonna stop arming Israel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It's just she's definitely not She's saying the offices.
Speaker 3: And I'm not happy about that. I'm not happy about
Speaker 3: that at all.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you something someone asked me recently, and
Speaker 1: I was kind of like, oh, I think that's true. Actually,
Speaker 1: they were saying that it seems like climate is just
Speaker 1: not being discussed as much at all now as it was.
Speaker 1: I feel like, actually the last election cycle it was
Speaker 1: pretty from the center. But it's really, like I sent
Speaker 1: from the conversation right now.
Speaker 3: It's absent from the conversation. You barely heard about it
Speaker 3: at all at the DNC, and even folks who I
Speaker 3: know who are in the climate space are still just like, well,
Speaker 3: this is not the time to push the administration. And
Speaker 3: it's just like, see, this is why y'all are not
Speaker 3: serious as a movement, and largely why I don't think
Speaker 3: I see myself as part of the climate movement anymore.
Speaker 3: Between this and just like utter spinelessness and the silence
Speaker 3: on GAZA, lets me know that we don't want the
Speaker 3: same things. And if that's the world that you want
Speaker 3: to preserve, I don't want to be in that world.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Just don't see myself as part of the broader movement anymore.
Speaker 1: Damn, Mary, that's a big public announcement. I think you've
Speaker 1: been saying it though.
Speaker 2: I think I've town that through my action.
Speaker 3: You know, like do I want a Liverpool future, Sure,
Speaker 3: but I don't think they do.
Speaker 2: Well. That's the thing is.
Speaker 1: It's like, again, have heard people make this argument, and
Speaker 1: I've seen it actually with people criticizing Greta Tunberg for
Speaker 1: protesting in favor of Palestine, saying, you know, you're muddying
Speaker 1: the waters. It's the same argument that's been made over
Speaker 1: and over again. Right, don't muddy the waters on climate
Speaker 1: with labor rights or civil rights, or reproductive justice.
Speaker 3: Or with climates or you know what I mean. It's
Speaker 3: just like, well, climates, these are the name people will
Speaker 3: say in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, now it's
Speaker 3: not the time to talk about climate change because we
Speaker 3: don't want to insert politics. These are the same people
Speaker 3: who will say during an election like this, it's not
Speaker 3: the time to push the Democrats to talk about climate
Speaker 3: because we don't want.
Speaker 2: To muddy the election.
Speaker 3: Just say, you don't want to do shit, you want
Speaker 3: to go hide in your low closet.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It just it reminds me every time of the conversation
Speaker 1: that we had with rev Yer would probably like two
Speaker 1: three years ago now where he was talking about the
Speaker 1: origins of the environmental movement and how it was all
Speaker 1: the people that didn't want to be part of.
Speaker 4: Any of the other social justice that history is alive
Speaker 4: well or went away and having worked, you know, in
Speaker 4: environmental nonprofits, the quote unquote big Greens.
Speaker 3: I knew plenty of folks who were in those positions
Speaker 3: because they wanted to go somewhere where they felt like
Speaker 3: they could be unproblematic. Right, They felt like science was
Speaker 3: just inherently unproblematic, and it's like, okay, girl, but you know,
Speaker 3: once upon a time for anology with science.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, we have a lot to talk
Speaker 1: about today because we're going to talk about Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five and all of the many different layers of
Speaker 1: including some of the specific plans and are laid out,
Speaker 1: but also how people are talking about it, how people
Speaker 1: are and aren't understanding it, how the media is covering
Speaker 1: all of that stuff. So we're going to take a
Speaker 1: quick at break, and then we're going to get back
Speaker 1: to that conversation.
Speaker 2: This is Spill. I'm Amy Westervelt, I'm Marianna east Heckler.
Speaker 2: We'll be back.
Speaker 3: Okay, So this bitch is long as hell. Project twenty
Speaker 3: five is like nine hundred pages.
Speaker 1: I have the pdf open right now and it is
Speaker 1: nine and twenty two pages long exactly.
Speaker 3: And yeah, like so many of our listeners, likely we
Speaker 3: have shit to do.
Speaker 2: So I have not read this entire thing.
Speaker 3: I have read some of the parts that are relevant
Speaker 3: for climate, in particular the EPA chapter, so I feel
Speaker 3: like that's where we should start. And as I was
Speaker 3: reading it, I have written down some questions for you,
Speaker 3: starting with before we even get to the thing, that
Speaker 3: the author is someone named Mandy m Gana Sakara. I
Speaker 3: think that's how you say it, and I wrote down here,
Speaker 3: who the fuck is this bitch?
Speaker 1: Many many has like a very interesting background.
Speaker 2: She is.
Speaker 1: She doesn't have a science background that's important to know,
Speaker 1: that's important, No environmental science background, no science background period.
Speaker 1: She has like a polyscide degree and a law degree,
Speaker 1: and she immediately went to work on Capitol Hill as
Speaker 1: an aid for various senators. She is the person on
Speaker 1: Senator Einhove's team who handed him the infamous snowball on
Speaker 1: the floor of the Senate. So I don't know if
Speaker 1: people remember this almost ten years ago now, where Senator
Speaker 1: Einhove held up a snowball in the Senate and was.
Speaker 2: Like, it's snowing outside. Global warming be happening?
Speaker 3: What snowing outside that day? Or did they just happen
Speaker 3: to have a snowball in the pre was.
Speaker 2: Knowing it was knowing.
Speaker 1: And there's this hilarious picture where like he's doing that
Speaker 1: and Mandy is very smugly smiling behind him. She's so
Speaker 1: pleased with herself. So yeah, she's been kind of in
Speaker 1: the sort of climate denier network for a long time.
Speaker 1: She went to work for an organization called the CO
Speaker 1: two Coalition, which is this organization that basically argues the
Speaker 1: more CO two is actually good for the planet because
Speaker 1: we're going to grow more plants and that you know, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: sure some places won't farewell well, but other places will
Speaker 1: and then it'll all balance out in the end. And
Speaker 1: people are like being unnecessarily freaked out about CO two.
Speaker 1: So like, just vibes, vibes, totally vibes. She worked for them.
Speaker 2: I remember her.
Speaker 1: She actually was the Republican witness who testified during the
Speaker 1: first hearing that Congress had on climate disinformation, which was
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, Jamie Raskin held this committee hearing about
Speaker 1: disinformation and the oil companies, and she was the Republican witness,
Speaker 1: and she gave this whole testimony, yeah, about how actually
Speaker 1: we need fossil fuels for poor people in Africa and
Speaker 1: all of this kind of stuff. So she's she's just
Speaker 1: kind of like been awork, right. And then she also
Speaker 1: was in the Trump administration and working at the EPA
Speaker 1: under Trump, so she was the chief of staff for
Speaker 1: EPA Administer Andrew Wheeler. So I would not be surprised
Speaker 1: at all to see her put forth as a potential
Speaker 1: ep administrator. She's a director the Independent Women's Forum Center
Speaker 1: on Energy and Conservation. The Independent Women's Forum is this
Speaker 1: organization that was kind of set up to do all
Speaker 1: the things that Phyllis Schlaffley did. Phillip Schlaffley was the
Speaker 1: conservative woman who fought against women's rights in the eighties.
Speaker 1: That's kind of what the Independent Women's Forum is. It's like,
Speaker 1: we need to put conservative ideas in the mouths of women,
Speaker 1: and these are the women who do that.
Speaker 2: Mm hm.
Speaker 1: So anyway, that's who Mandy is, yes, and she's definitely
Speaker 1: not someone who remotely has the sort of scientific background
Speaker 1: that a lot of people think should be guiding the
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection Agency. She has no scientific back.
Speaker 2: Do anyone help her with us with any sort of
Speaker 2: scientific background?
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of science in it, that's the thing. No,
Speaker 1: it's a lot of science political out of it. So yeah,
Speaker 1: let's talk about that.
Speaker 3: So one thing I see over and over again is
Speaker 3: basically removing scientists and science from decision making processes and
Speaker 3: replacing them with political appointees. And they're doing this amy
Speaker 3: because the EPA is already too political.
Speaker 5: Because it's so crazy, right, It's like, it's like, the
Speaker 5: EPA is too.
Speaker 1: Political, so make it more political.
Speaker 2: What you fight politics with politics? What are we doing?
Speaker 2: I don't get it.
Speaker 1: It's also strange because it's like, well, I guess that
Speaker 1: works for you in a Trump administration, but then as
Speaker 1: soon as anyone else is in power, isn't it a
Speaker 1: problem for you? Again, I don't really understand the logic here.
Speaker 2: I mean, just this sentence.
Speaker 3: The challenge of creating a conservative EPA will be to
Speaker 3: balance justified skepticism toward an agency that has long been
Speaker 3: amenable to being co opted by the left for political
Speaker 3: ends against the need to implement the agency's true function
Speaker 3: protecting public health and environment and cooperation with the States.
Speaker 2: So there's a.
Speaker 3: Lot here about anything related to climate change, especially if
Speaker 3: that thing related to climate change is related to climate justice.
Speaker 3: That is leftist ideal ideology, politics or whatever. That is
Speaker 3: not science, that's not proven, even though it is like
Speaker 3: bulletproof science. At this point, they are characterizing it as
Speaker 3: automatic politics exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the interesting thing too is that so there's there's
Speaker 1: a real problem on the right when they talk about
Speaker 1: environmental policy, because most conservative voters do actually care about
Speaker 1: clean air and clean water, right, you kind of need
Speaker 1: you always have to straddle this line of being anti
Speaker 1: climate but pro clean air and clean water. But when
Speaker 1: you read into the details of what she's suggesting in
Speaker 1: this chapter, it's walking back a bunch of the science
Speaker 1: based regulations on air pollution and a bunch of the
Speaker 1: science based regulations on clean water that actually don't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with climate and are.
Speaker 2: Not political at all.
Speaker 1: Sorry, there's a leaf blower in the background of my audio.
Speaker 1: You guys are going to hear it.
Speaker 2: It's so yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyway, So it's this very strange piece of writing where
Speaker 1: she's talking constantly about the importance of clean air and
Speaker 1: clean water and public health while also suggesting eliminating the
Speaker 1: things that provide clean air and clean water.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 3: I saw that in the clean water section, and one
Speaker 3: of the things they want they said they want to
Speaker 3: exclude speculative analysis regarding future potential harm, which would mean
Speaker 3: they wait for the disaster to happen. So if I
Speaker 3: come to you and bring you evidence that running this
Speaker 3: pipeline underneath this body of water is really dangerous and
Speaker 3: has a ninety percent chance of that oil getting into
Speaker 3: the water and contaminating it, You're going to call that
Speaker 3: speculative analysis, as opposed to everything will be done basically
Speaker 3: after the fact, correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then actually, we have a really good example of
Speaker 1: why that's a bad idea in Standing Rock. So the
Speaker 1: Dakode Access Pipeline was built despite the fact that the
Speaker 1: environmental impact assessment was very much still up for debate.
Speaker 1: Pipeline got built in the meantime. Now finally, like the
Speaker 1: environmental impact assessment was only finalized earlier this year, and
Speaker 1: the analysis says, oh, this is actually potentially dangerous. They've
Speaker 1: now done an analysis on what could happen if they
Speaker 1: remove the pipes, and they're like, oh, it could cause
Speaker 1: all of this environmental disaster, so like we don't want
Speaker 1: to do that, but it's like, yeah, the same exact
Speaker 1: thing was possible when you put the pipeline in.
Speaker 3: So one thing I've been thinking about a lot lately
Speaker 3: is what the fuck happened to QAnon? And right is
Speaker 3: this big book conspiracy and it kind of just seemed
Speaker 3: like it dissipated. But I was reading an article about
Speaker 3: it last night and they were talking about how basically
Speaker 3: QAnon doesn't need to exist anymore because so much of
Speaker 3: that ideology and just like even the language has been
Speaker 3: adopted by the actual mainstream Republican party.
Speaker 2: And I got to say rest. So reading through this.
Speaker 3: I felt like I heard a lot of a lot
Speaker 3: of echoes of the q Andon sort of ideology.
Speaker 2: So just take you through that.
Speaker 3: There's a part where they're saying they want the EPA
Speaker 3: to take a more supportive role toward local and state efforts,
Speaker 3: building them up so they may lead in a meaningful fashion,
Speaker 3: and that to me sounds like states' rights, but for
Speaker 3: the environments there, they're demeaning the EPA's pursuit of a
Speaker 3: globally focused agenda by participating in the Paris Agreement, by
Speaker 3: giving globally to developing countries.
Speaker 2: And that's just America first and globalism.
Speaker 3: And then there's another part where they're talking about the
Speaker 3: EPA should make public and take comment on all scientific
Speaker 3: studies and analyzes that support regulatory decision making. And they're
Speaker 3: talking about take comment from regular ass people like people
Speaker 3: like Mandy who have no scientific background whatsoever, And that
Speaker 3: to me sounds.
Speaker 2: Like do your own real arch, which is a huge,
Speaker 2: big part of Q and I. So this is a
Speaker 2: q Andon agenda. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the whole like taking public common thing is part
Speaker 1: of a proposal that's been floated for a long time.
Speaker 2: It's the transparency in.
Speaker 1: Science or getting rid of secret science at the EKKA,
Speaker 1: it's how it's like referred to.
Speaker 2: That is a Steve molloy joint. Oh wow, that was
Speaker 2: so smooth.
Speaker 1: Ami sooo, he was a facult lobbyist for a long time.
Speaker 1: He worked on all of these organizations that helped to
Speaker 1: suppress the science on secondhand smoke, and then he went
Speaker 1: to work for coal companies and he has had a
Speaker 1: b in his bonnet about air pollution forever, and he's
Speaker 1: been warning the right that if environmentalists and or the
Speaker 1: left ever really get it together to do their messaging,
Speaker 1: air pollution.
Speaker 2: Over for a.
Speaker 1: Bunch of fossil fuels anyway, because combustion of fossil fuels
Speaker 1: is what generates most particulate matter, right, So he's been
Speaker 1: saying that for a long time. And he came up
Speaker 1: with this proposal in the nineties and then like basically
Speaker 1: dusted it off and included it in the Transition plan
Speaker 1: for Trump for the EPA, and they almost got it
Speaker 1: passed at the end of the Trump administration, it didn't
Speaker 1: quite land, so they are bringing.
Speaker 2: It back again.
Speaker 1: And I think that, yes, scientific research should be as
Speaker 1: transparent and open and like open to me and all
Speaker 1: of that stuff as possible, right, But he tries to
Speaker 1: kind of be like, oh, like they're doing a human
Speaker 1: testing that they're keeping secret, and like because of that,
Speaker 1: people are dying. There's this one woman who took part
Speaker 1: in an air pollution study who did end up dying,
Speaker 1: and the circumstances of her death are very shady, and
Speaker 1: I think there probably is some liability for the people
Speaker 1: who did that study or whatever, But he kind of
Speaker 1: points to that as being indicative that there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of shady and mysterious science happening at the EPA, and
Speaker 1: he wants to institute rules that would basically make it
Speaker 1: impossible for needs scientific study to be used for regulation.
Speaker 1: It would have to meet such a high bar that
Speaker 1: it would just make it impossible for the EPA to
Speaker 1: regulate anything.
Speaker 6: Which, by the way, the EPA already struggles to regulate
Speaker 6: things that they fully know cause cancer. So I'm working
Speaker 6: on a story right now about an herbicide.
Speaker 1: That everyone knows causes Parkinson's and yet the USPA cannot
Speaker 1: ban it because are.
Speaker 2: They able to ban pfos? I mean, has that been
Speaker 2: a big word. But now part of this Project twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Five thing, they want to roll back any restrictions on pithos.
Speaker 1: But that took what twenty thirty years worth of litigation
Speaker 1: and hundreds to thousands of people with cancer and all
Speaker 1: sorts of other things.
Speaker 2: To get that done.
Speaker 1: The EPA is not good at regulating things that harm
Speaker 1: the public.
Speaker 3: Now we should talk just really fast about what pifos is,
Speaker 3: in case anybody doesn't know. It's polychlora acol substances, and
Speaker 3: it's in mad shit like maga's.
Speaker 1: Like the stuff that makes your clothes waterproof or your
Speaker 1: cookware nonstick. It's a coating that's used for a bunch
Speaker 1: of different fabrics and products and stuff, and you know,
Speaker 1: do Pullen and three m there again absolutely knew what
Speaker 1: the potential in the stuff were. And in those cases,
Speaker 1: it's not just that people are getting exposed through consumer products,
Speaker 1: which they are, but also that the manufacturers that we're
Speaker 1: making it were dumping shit in local waterways, So people's
Speaker 1: water is contaminated.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we're running around with plastic all in our goods.
Speaker 2: So there's that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So another thing that the Project twenty twenty five folks
Speaker 3: want to do is they want to get any get
Speaker 3: rid of anything dealing with environmental justice, like a fucking
Speaker 3: heat seeking.
Speaker 2: They really do. They're just like get rid of yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the Biden administration had created in Environmental Justice and
Speaker 3: Civil Rights office off the bat, they want to get
Speaker 3: rid of that. They feel like that should be in
Speaker 3: the office of the administrator and under the guide of a.
Speaker 2: Political appointee because right go wrong.
Speaker 3: And then they want to get rid of any funding
Speaker 3: going to work that they deem superfluous or not really
Speaker 3: related to the environment. We all know what that means.
Speaker 3: That's environmental justice. And one of the main tools it
Speaker 3: seems like they want to use is pause and review.
Speaker 3: So Amy, can you talk about what pause and review is.
Speaker 1: It's like a way to kill things without killing them.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, we're just going to pause this program
Speaker 1: and review what kind of a return on investment we've
Speaker 1: been getting, what the impact is, and then we'll come
Speaker 1: back to it and decide if it should still have
Speaker 1: the same budget or maybe it should be folded into
Speaker 1: another agency or whatever. It's a very like diplomatic way
Speaker 1: to get rid of something without saying that you're getting
Speaker 1: rid of.
Speaker 3: It, right, You just stall install install right. It's like
Speaker 3: when you're trying to make plans with your friends and
Speaker 3: they don't want to just outright and say I don't
Speaker 3: want to go, so they just.
Speaker 2: Maybe maybe.
Speaker 5: Spot I don't know what you're talking about. Mary, all
Speaker 5: your friends to you immediately. Okay, No, this is a
Speaker 5: problem with being a millennial. I think I have a
Speaker 5: lot of friends who get like overwhelmed by the thought
Speaker 5: of making plans anyway, So yeah, it's it's a very
Speaker 5: clear way of saying no without saying no. And so
Speaker 5: this is gonna sounding my friends like me, I swear
Speaker 5: that's totally ding.
Speaker 1: I absolutely had those conversations.
Speaker 3: Yea, right, does so just like, yeah, so that's what
Speaker 3: they're planning to do with environmental justice. And then there's
Speaker 3: also all these parts where they just explicitly want to
Speaker 3: get the fuck rid of it.
Speaker 2: They feel like it's reverse racism.
Speaker 1: They actually mentioned that, And that's interesting too, because that
Speaker 1: is a whole thing that's underway as well.
Speaker 2: I keep meaning to write.
Speaker 1: About this because I feel like a lot of people
Speaker 1: are not seeing how much that is a continuation of
Speaker 1: an effort that started in the eighties and nineties.
Speaker 2: With some of the same people.
Speaker 1: And the only reason I know that is because I
Speaker 1: worked on this show, This Land with Rebecca and Nagel,
Speaker 1: and we were looking into these constitutional challenges to the
Speaker 1: Indian Child Welfare Act, and they were being brought by
Speaker 1: a group of different attorneys, and there were all of
Speaker 1: these organizations that were filing briefs and it was all
Speaker 1: a lot of the same people that are involved in
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five. Actually, it was like Heritage and
Speaker 1: Cato and all of these like right wing think tanks,
Speaker 1: and the more we dug into it, the more we realized, like,
Speaker 1: oh okay, these guys have been trying to do this
Speaker 1: for a really long time. And it's interesting because in
Speaker 1: the eighties and nineties it was actually Clarence Thomas helped
Speaker 1: them develop a better strategy because he was like, you
Speaker 1: guys need to stop with the reverse racism thing. You
Speaker 1: sound like whiny white boys.
Speaker 2: Was he on Supreme Court at this point.
Speaker 1: No, he was working for the Equal Opportunity Commission, gotcha right, right?
Speaker 1: This is before Anita Hill and before Anita Hill where
Speaker 1: he worked with a Neda Hill.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh okay, this is during Anita Hill.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So he was like, you guys need to you
Speaker 1: need you need a better strategy. He basically was like,
Speaker 1: make it about equal opportunity on a reverse racism because
Speaker 1: that's never play well. And they did, and it was
Speaker 1: a very successful strategy. That is how they rolled back
Speaker 1: a bunch of civil rights games.
Speaker 2: And now they've kind of gone back.
Speaker 1: To the old school this is racist against white people things.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: In all these cases, this guy Stephen Miller, who was
Speaker 1: you know, Trump's chief of staff has a new legal organization,
Speaker 1: and they're going after things like there was a venture
Speaker 1: fund that had a contest for black women founders and
Speaker 1: they've gone after them.
Speaker 3: Mm hmmm for being discribed. It doesn't surprise me at all.
Speaker 3: That doesn't surprise me at all. I could see them, you know,
Speaker 3: really going after anybody who's ever worked in DEI. Yes,
Speaker 3: and in their next or any organization that's ever had
Speaker 3: a d they offer.
Speaker 1: They want they want to get rid of DEI entirely.
Speaker 1: They want to get rid of any kind of any
Speaker 1: kind of straightforward attempts to address racial inequality, that's it.
Speaker 3: Or any kind of inequality, right, yeah, exactly exactly so,
Speaker 3: and you see that in this EPA chapter too, where
Speaker 3: it's just like, oh, why should these communities get special
Speaker 3: treatment whatever. Yeah, And the other thing that they really
Speaker 3: want to get rid of or newter is the Inflation
Speaker 3: Reduction Act.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so can always you talk about that.
Speaker 1: They're basically like, well, it's a spending bill, so you
Speaker 1: don't actually have to spend. That's their strategy is they're like,
Speaker 1: you could just not.
Speaker 2: Which, yeah, if they're going on there, right exactly, that
Speaker 2: is a flaw in the IRA.
Speaker 1: That's been pointed out time and time again, is that
Speaker 1: it doesn't it's all spend no regulation, there's no there's
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing that requires that money.
Speaker 2: To be spent. Mm hmmm.
Speaker 1: I think they will struggle with some of those programs,
Speaker 1: and they're going to have a real interesting juggling act
Speaker 1: to do because the fossil fuel industry loves the IRA
Speaker 1: because they have figured out a way to fund carbon capture.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all these bullshit hydrogen hubs. It's a real bonanza
Speaker 1: for them.
Speaker 2: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 1: It's like very sy Yeah, so they're kind of struggle
Speaker 1: to I don't know, like they're going to have to
Speaker 1: find ways to shut down all the parts they don't
Speaker 1: like and keep the ones they do like going.
Speaker 3: But you know, yeah, I mean, obviously I would give
Speaker 3: this chapter an F is bad.
Speaker 2: I don't want we could talk about it forever.
Speaker 3: But there's also other ways that the environment shows up
Speaker 3: through projects twenty twenty five in particular, we run to
Speaker 3: talk about NOAH, the National Oceanica Atmospheric Administrative Administration Administration.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the thing that gives us our weather reports.
Speaker 1: NOA is the other one that, just like the environmental
Speaker 1: justice stuff, they're very explicit about just getting rid of it.
Speaker 1: They're like, there's a couple things in there, those can
Speaker 1: be folded into other agencies and other on.
Speaker 2: This shouldn't exist.
Speaker 3: So Noah is the reason why I know whether or
Speaker 3: not there's a tropical wave that could turn into a
Speaker 3: hurricane and can start planning my evacuation without Noah, as
Speaker 3: I understand it, like they could privatize weather reports, so
Speaker 3: creating right now we can all see the weather for free,
Speaker 3: as in as much details we want to. That actually
Speaker 3: is a space where like the science is open and
Speaker 3: transparent and open for public comment. Like Noah is a
Speaker 3: perfect example of what they're saying they want at the EPA.
Speaker 3: And then it doesn't but they want to kill Noah
Speaker 3: and get rid of the exactly that function.
Speaker 2: Yeah they're talking about.
Speaker 1: They actually make this argument that weather forecasts from private
Speaker 1: companies are more reliable than the ones from Noah, which
Speaker 1: is weird because I'm reasonably certain that a lot of
Speaker 1: the private services use Noah data.
Speaker 3: Those private services would have to pay for Noah's data,
Speaker 3: or they would have to inducted themselves.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, exactly, like take over those satellites themselves, or
Speaker 1: I don't know, anyway, then they also talk about they
Speaker 1: actually specifically talk about the hurricane monitoring, so the National
Speaker 1: Hurricane Centers. They say that it provides an important service.
Speaker 1: But this is what they say in this chapter, data
Speaker 1: collected by the Department should be presented neutrally without adjustments
Speaker 1: intended to support anyone's side in the climate debate. What
Speaker 1: the fact are they taught about this idea is not
Speaker 1: at all subtle insinuation that they're manipulating the data to
Speaker 1: make it look like there's something to be said about
Speaker 1: the link between hurricanes and climate, and it's like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, Okay. So really, basically, what they're saying is
Speaker 1: the only way that any of Noah's current activities can
Speaker 1: can to you or should continue is if they're not
Speaker 1: allowed to attach any of it to climate. And then
Speaker 1: they're also saying to fold a bunch of it into
Speaker 1: the US Coast Guard, the US Geological Survey, the entire
Speaker 1: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, you want to get
Speaker 1: rid of because they say it's the source of much
Speaker 1: of Noah's quote climate alarmism.
Speaker 3: My goodness, they're alarmists about climate alarmism.
Speaker 1: Data collection is very important and necessary, but that can
Speaker 1: just be collected and then like made available to companies.
Speaker 2: That's kind of all we need.
Speaker 1: To do their general approach.
Speaker 2: Am I correct?
Speaker 3: And assuming this could create a world where there is
Speaker 3: a hurricane coming and we don't.
Speaker 1: Know absolutely, I think it could certainly lead to that.
Speaker 1: Even though they're saying like this that this public service
Speaker 1: component is important and that they would they would basically
Speaker 1: want like the Coast Guard to take that over. But like,
Speaker 1: but then there's nothing in here about like okay, but
Speaker 1: there's already a system in place. There's a whole system
Speaker 1: in place and it works pretty well. Like yeah, what's
Speaker 1: the plan for the Coastguard taking that over without the
Speaker 1: step that runs that system?
Speaker 2: Or you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It's just sort of like, I just I don't know
Speaker 1: why you would want to up and in an emergency
Speaker 1: alert service in the right And.
Speaker 2: I mean, I.
Speaker 3: I shudder to think what they want to do with
Speaker 3: FEMA and with disaster response because you know, and we
Speaker 3: we've talked about this one on one before, but Project
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five is alive and well in places like Florida, Louisiana, Texas, right,
Speaker 3: And I'm thinking specifically of Texas and Houston and what
Speaker 3: happened during Hurricane Beryl, which came aground as a Category
Speaker 3: one and shut a major city day and flooded a
Speaker 3: major city for days at a time, and it barely
Speaker 3: made any sort of news because you know, there's so
Speaker 3: much chaos going on. But also like, you don't see
Speaker 3: this governor who's a media hog. You don't see him
Speaker 3: out there talking about it. You don't see him really
Speaker 3: even caring about what happens in Houston. And so to me,
Speaker 3: that feels like, you know, a portal to what we
Speaker 3: could expect for a disaster response.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm just like just like briefly scanning for FEMA
Speaker 1: mentions here. So two things that I'm just like, oh
Speaker 1: my god.
Speaker 2: Why.
Speaker 1: One is that they want to basically bring the private
Speaker 1: sector in to the post disaster loan.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's a bad idea, but the insurance companies are already
Speaker 3: like fuck New Orleans.
Speaker 2: Yeah exactly. I'm just like, uh what.
Speaker 1: And then they also are talking about moving FEMA into
Speaker 1: the Apartment of the Interior or possibly the Department of Transportation,
Speaker 1: possibly like combining it with another agency, So that that
Speaker 1: to me sounds like downsizing FEMA. Which yeah, I'm like,
Speaker 1: at a time when disasters are increasing, you know, right,
Speaker 1: so downsized FEMA and disasters are increasing, they want to
Speaker 1: take the loan governance thing away from the SBA and
Speaker 1: put it in the hands of private sector.
Speaker 2: So you're gonna end.
Speaker 1: Up with totally predatory post disaster.
Speaker 3: CATO exactly and by design. Yeah, but by intricate design,
Speaker 3: not an accident. They absolutely are doing it on purpose.
Speaker 3: This isn't a case of we couldn't have anticipated that
Speaker 3: these things would happen. We know what climate change is
Speaker 3: going to look like. Hurricane Katrina is in the rear
Speaker 3: view mirror. We know what happens when you don't prepare
Speaker 3: for a disaster. We know what happens when you leave people,
Speaker 3: you know, to fin for themselves with no sort of
Speaker 3: order whatsoever.
Speaker 2: So they're doing it on purpose.
Speaker 3: They looked at Hurricane Katrina's response and saw inspiration and
Speaker 3: not horror.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, they refer to FEMA's preparedness grants in this project
Speaker 1: twenty trive document.
Speaker 2: As quote pork First states, I'm surprised they didn't call
Speaker 2: it soy.
Speaker 3: I just you know, and it reminds me of I know,
Speaker 3: I said earlier I don't know if I'm.
Speaker 2: Part of the climate movement anymore, but like the whole reason.
Speaker 3: I feel like I got involved in the first place
Speaker 3: was you see those images from Katrina. You see that
Speaker 3: those people look like you, and that is what is
Speaker 3: waiting on me and climate change.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and lo and behold here we are.
Speaker 3: And we have folks in the climate space being like,
Speaker 3: now it's not the time to push on climate change.
Speaker 3: So enserious, So I'm serious.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Another component to this which was really like you
Speaker 1: kind of see hints of it throughout this document, but
Speaker 1: then in the undercover reporting that the Center for Climate
Speaker 1: Reporting did where they had someone sort of pose as
Speaker 1: a prospective donor to Project twenty twenty five and get
Speaker 1: more detail on their plans, definitely a huge erosion in
Speaker 1: civil rights and a militarized approach to dealing with protests.
Speaker 1: So they in that in that right the right up
Speaker 1: of like their meeting with the Project tween twenty five people,
Speaker 1: the Center for Climate Reporting wrote. Later, a reporter asked
Speaker 1: what will happen if there are left wing protests in
Speaker 1: response to deportations, which is this is another there's a
Speaker 1: I mean every I mean, they're very I want to
Speaker 1: deportes pro full like anti immigration thing as well, and
Speaker 1: lots of people being deported.
Speaker 3: They're talking about reporting deporting pro Palestine protesters, and it's like,
Speaker 3: where would.
Speaker 2: They deport me to? Yeah, yeah, it's just Africa in general.
Speaker 1: Wiperpol Yeah, I guess this is the kind of thinking
Speaker 1: that that is happening here. So they asked them, okay,
Speaker 1: but what if there were protests and response to the deportations,
Speaker 1: and they said the plan would be to bring in
Speaker 1: the military. And the person who's like speaking to them
Speaker 1: from Project twenty twenty five says, I think they would
Speaker 1: attempt a color revolution.
Speaker 2: What is a color revolution? Do I mean a race war?
Speaker 2: I think they mean a race war. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He goes off to say, where they have riots, where
Speaker 1: they have everything you've seen in other countries. George Floyd
Speaker 1: obviously was not about race. It was about destabilizing the
Speaker 1: Trump administration.
Speaker 3: Off.
Speaker 1: Our view is that the president has the ability, both
Speaker 1: along the border and elsewhere to maintain law and order
Speaker 1: with the military.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: So that is disturbing, and that is the point where, like,
Speaker 3: you know, when Joe Biden was still the nominee and
Speaker 3: just incredibly hawkish for Israel. Books were saying that Trump
Speaker 3: and Biden are like what and what when it comes
Speaker 3: to Palestine, And I get it, I really really get it.
Speaker 3: Joe Biden like heartbreaking when it comes to Gaza. But
Speaker 3: also I do think Trump would be worse in the
Speaker 3: sense that he would criminalize the protest again protests, right,
Speaker 3: not just even criminalize it. I think it would like
Speaker 3: make it a death sentence, you know, like shoot on
Speaker 3: site type of situation, because he wanted to do that
Speaker 3: several times during his prey and the military wouldn't do it.
Speaker 3: And now I think, you know, he's learned fine. Lackey's
Speaker 3: so fine, yes, men, And there are plenty of them.
Speaker 3: There are plenty of them out there. So I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's just like like I was saying at the beginning,
Speaker 3: like I'm not you know, google Gaga over Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: I definitely see the problems, but I have to admit
Speaker 3: that Trump is just untenable, Yeah, just untimable. And I
Speaker 3: don't I also don't think that means that we have
Speaker 3: to that Kamala Harris is above criticism.
Speaker 1: No. I find that whole idea that you cannot criticize
Speaker 1: the Democrats at all, because that's basically giving the election
Speaker 1: to Trump.
Speaker 2: To see that at all. Yeah, just am like a
Speaker 2: lot of people think that.
Speaker 1: I know, I know in fact, actually it's because I
Speaker 1: don't want to see another Trump presidency that I want
Speaker 1: the Democrats to improve, because I know that that will
Speaker 1: bring in more voters.
Speaker 3: You know, right. And I think where I'm at is
Speaker 3: I can bring myself to vote for Kamala Harris, but
Speaker 3: I cannot bring myself to campaign. I definitely can't bring
Speaker 3: myself to like chastise anyone else who's like, yeah, she's
Speaker 3: got too much blood on her hands for me. What
Speaker 3: am I supposed to say to that? Yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: like I don't see the blood too, you.
Speaker 1: Know what I mean, certainly not trying to distance herself
Speaker 1: from it.
Speaker 3: I haven't heard her much since the DNC. I did
Speaker 3: not enjoy her speech where she starts talking about her
Speaker 3: support for Israel. But what was very noticeable to me
Speaker 3: is like when she talks about Gaza. First of all,
Speaker 3: I noticed the introduction of the passive voice. I didn't
Speaker 3: like that, But I also noticed that those same words
Speaker 3: coming out of the mouth of Joe Biden would have
Speaker 3: been just like utterly shocking and like would have sent
Speaker 3: us all into a tail span like him actually acknowledging
Speaker 3: the suffering of Gaza in the detail that she did
Speaker 3: would have been very shocking. So yeah, I do think
Speaker 3: we have to say that that is it's not nearly enough,
Speaker 3: not even a fraction of enough, but that is a difference.
Speaker 3: So that does feel like a little bit of a
Speaker 3: distance to me.
Speaker 2: It's not nearly enough. I have to keep saying that.
Speaker 3: And what I also noticed is that when she's articulating
Speaker 3: the suffering of the Palestinians, that is when she gets
Speaker 3: more of a response from the crowd. And so I
Speaker 3: just think about what would it have been like if
Speaker 3: they had gotten a Palestinian speaker, like they would have
Speaker 3: gotten a standing ovation, I think, And what would that
Speaker 3: have looked like on.
Speaker 2: All of those cameras.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because this is not a fringe issue, and this
Speaker 3: isn't even a divisive issue.
Speaker 2: I refuse to pronounce divisive as divisive. I'm so sorry.
Speaker 2: I can't do. It's divisive too.
Speaker 3: Exactly divisive And anyway, it's not a divisive issue. The
Speaker 3: vast majority of Democrats, the vast majority of people in
Speaker 3: this country want to see spire.
Speaker 2: This is not controversial. Yeah, that's right, even people kids.
Speaker 2: I feel like it was.
Speaker 1: Pretty telling when Amy Schumer was like, never said, I'm
Speaker 1: not for a ceasefire. I was like, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: We needed to do something about all of these amys.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm sorry for all the amies.
Speaker 3: We gotta like, until we figure out what's going on, Yeah,
Speaker 3: pause and review on the amies.
Speaker 2: Some work to do. That's true, it's true.
Speaker 3: But I did want to ask about the Center for
Speaker 3: Climate Reporting. So they used some tactics that a lot
Speaker 3: of American journalists don't use. Is basically like a sting operation.
Speaker 3: You're journalists, Yeah, famously, So what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Actually, I this The whole way that I met the
Speaker 1: guys who run the Center for Climate Reporting was that
Speaker 1: I kind of the first time that they did a
Speaker 1: big sting was actually back when they were working for
Speaker 1: Unearthed and they did the Exxon lobbyists sting. So they
Speaker 1: posed as you know, someone who is hiring, and they
Speaker 1: did interviews with these guys and they just like spilled
Speaker 1: all the beans and yeah, at the time, all of
Speaker 1: it was really good. Yeah, And at the time, a
Speaker 1: bunch of campaigners oh, like, why can't our journalists do
Speaker 1: stuff like this? And I was like, well, that's you know,
Speaker 1: like activists can get away with that, but journalists can't
Speaker 1: because we would be sued this, that, and the other.
Speaker 1: And Lawrence Carter, who runs the Center for Timer Reporting,
Speaker 1: was like, excuse me, but like I'm a journalist and
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. So actually I had him on to
Speaker 1: Drill to talk about it because I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: tell me more. So he kind of walked me through
Speaker 1: the history of using that tactic in the UK and
Speaker 1: that they have a pretty solid kind of checklist for
Speaker 1: what warrants a situation where that kind of tactic should
Speaker 1: be used, and then how do you do it in
Speaker 1: an ethical way and all of that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: And I started.
Speaker 1: Looking into it more and I was like, actually, US
Speaker 1: journalists did used to do that affair of bit and
Speaker 1: it was largely Herb Schmertz and mobile oil that put
Speaker 1: an end.
Speaker 2: To it, and always a roughly to Herb all roads. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes, there's like there's some archival footage of him during
Speaker 1: this sixty minute panel where he's ranting, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's unethical and journalist shouldn't do it and this
Speaker 1: to the other and then could it hurt and several
Speaker 1: other corporations too, not Justble, but herb was definitely like,
Speaker 1: you know, the guy rallying everything around this really got
Speaker 1: together and filed some lawsuits against organizations that were doing
Speaker 1: it and kind of kicked up enough of a fuss
Speaker 1: and made it clear that there would be expensive legal
Speaker 1: threats to the point where it almost never.
Speaker 2: Happens in US media anymore.
Speaker 1: But then you've got like the Project very toss guy
Speaker 1: who does it on the right, and like, yeah, he
Speaker 1: does it in a really unethical and very sloppy way.
Speaker 1: So that's the only reference point people today have is.
Speaker 2: Like that guy.
Speaker 1: So they see that stick and they go like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's not you know whatever. But I think there is
Speaker 1: an argument to be made for and this, this is
Speaker 1: a good example of like how else would we get
Speaker 1: someone from Project twenty twenty five to honestly lay out
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do.
Speaker 3: I mean, I honestly feel like maybe they should do
Speaker 3: it for polling right, because Republicans are far less likely
Speaker 3: to respond to a poll, which is why, like, I
Speaker 3: don't know, I've been complaining about this on Twitter and
Speaker 3: no one's listening, But we're seeing all of this news
Speaker 3: about like Harris is ahead in the polls and blah
Speaker 3: blah bla blah blah, and the polls ain't been right
Speaker 3: for the past two elections.
Speaker 2: So I don't know how much try to pull that.
Speaker 3: So, like, what is anybody doing that sort of reporting
Speaker 3: where they go to Trump rallies and talk to Trump
Speaker 3: supporters and see what they're saying, like is he Are
Speaker 3: the crowds still packed? Are the supporters still participating? Like
Speaker 3: what is what's the vibe at the Trump rallies? Because
Speaker 3: that was the part that no one, no one wanted
Speaker 3: to seriously in twenty sixteen. His supporters were like riled
Speaker 3: up and like, so is he Are people not showing
Speaker 3: up for him anymore?
Speaker 1: I know one thing. So two things that I know
Speaker 1: just from like reporters that I know who live in
Speaker 1: swing states or rural states or conservative states.
Speaker 2: One is that he is not.
Speaker 1: On the campaign trail like almost.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. Apparently he has very.
Speaker 1: Few field offices even which is strange, which.
Speaker 3: I think was he really took this for granted. He
Speaker 3: thought he was running against Biden.
Speaker 1: And it is also an old man who wasn't going
Speaker 1: to be getting out much and also didn't have a
Speaker 1: lot of fields.
Speaker 2: So, you know, Kamala.
Speaker 1: Harris even she's not young, but she seems like a
Speaker 1: common compared to these guys.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 3: He's also you know she Black people don't age like that,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. So, like a black fifty
Speaker 3: nine is not the same as Tim Walls can show
Speaker 3: you they're the same age.
Speaker 2: Brain, you are kidding me, They're the same age. That's hilarious.
Speaker 3: Actually, it is hilarious. He's funny about it. He's like, yeah,
Speaker 3: I ran the school lunchroom for like ten years.
Speaker 2: You don't leave that job with all your hair.
Speaker 1: So well, anyway, she's showing up everywhere, you know, like
Speaker 1: they're doing a bunch of events and whatever whatever. So
Speaker 1: with Trump, it's like he's having significantly fewer Rellys, which
Speaker 1: is interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then a friend of mine who's in Pennsylvania was like, yeah, actually,
Speaker 1: like I drove through the part of Pennsylvania that's like
Speaker 1: most Trump trumpy trumpy, and she's like, the signs were out,
Speaker 1: but definitely not as much as like twenty sixteen, probably
Speaker 1: about half as many signs.
Speaker 2: That's interesting.
Speaker 3: I am seeing online, like a lot of the all well,
Speaker 3: we can't call him all right, but like the far
Speaker 3: right white supremacist screws are starting to break with him,
Speaker 3: like Nick Fuints is frustrated with him. And at first
Speaker 3: it started with a lot of these types of people
Speaker 3: saying that they were turning on the Trump campaign. They
Speaker 3: still like Trump, but they felt like the people around
Speaker 3: him they don't like doing what they wanted. And they
Speaker 3: were like, until the Trump campaign corrects itself, we're.
Speaker 2: Heading for a loss.
Speaker 3: And like Nick Klint has like declared war on the
Speaker 3: Trump campaign. And now I'm singing he's frustrated with Trump
Speaker 3: the person, because Trump is saying things like he's acknowledging
Speaker 3: now that Biden is the president, because he's saying like
Speaker 3: there was a cup against.
Speaker 2: An American president. Isn't that terrible?
Speaker 3: He's saying things like I lost by a sliver in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty, So Nickquints is like, oh, I'm sorry you
Speaker 3: lost thought I thought it was stolen. What happened to
Speaker 3: stop the stale where all these people like had their
Speaker 3: lives ruined trying to get the election back for you.
Speaker 3: Now people are starting to get pissed at Trump, and
Speaker 3: then There's something about the abortion stance, right, Like he
Speaker 3: had this vote on abortion rights in Florida and Trump
Speaker 3: was saying he was going to vote against the Desanta's
Speaker 3: bill or the pro life bill, and because it was
Speaker 3: only like six weeks and he was like, I think
Speaker 3: people need more time. So he said he was going
Speaker 3: to vote no, and then there was this big backlash
Speaker 3: and he went back and said now I'm going to
Speaker 3: vote yes. And so he changed his mind in public
Speaker 3: due to pressure from abortion votes. So those are the
Speaker 3: things that make me feel like this is not he's
Speaker 3: losing support.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 3: I don't want to say that gives me hope because
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris is not, you know, my favorite person in
Speaker 3: the world either, but I'm a hell of a lot
Speaker 3: more comfortable with her in the White House than I
Speaker 3: am with other people. And it's like the way that
Speaker 3: we think about elections, I think maybe needs to change, right,
Speaker 3: Like you're not electing a friend, you're electing in aponent.
Speaker 3: So like who do you want to organize against? And
Speaker 3: do you want to organize against Donald Trump or do
Speaker 3: you want to organize against Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: I'll take Kamala Harris in a heartbeat.
Speaker 1: That's it for this week. I hope you liked this
Speaker 1: episode of Spill Again. You can subscribe to it wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. We'll be back with more Drilled
Speaker 1: next week, and we are busily working away on a
Speaker 1: couple of new narrative seasons for you as well. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, you can also find lots of articles on
Speaker 1: our website at Drilled dot media and all over the
Speaker 1: place because we're partnering with lots of outlets. If you
Speaker 1: are an outlet that wants to up your climate coverage
Speaker 1: and incorporate more investigative stories, get in touch Drill dot Media.
Speaker 1: You can also sign up for our newsletter there. It's
Speaker 1: a weekly roundup of important climate news and a little
Speaker 1: bit of analysis. It's never more than ten minutes to read,
Speaker 1: and people tell us it helps them keep up on
Speaker 1: the climate story. Check that out Drilled dot Media. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening, and we'll see you next week. M