1 00:00:01,600 --> 00:00:04,320 Speaker 1: The past two years has seen the Supreme Court of 2 00:00:04,360 --> 00:00:09,440 Speaker 1: the United States fundamentally reshaped the government's ability to regulate 3 00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:15,400 Speaker 1: greenhouse gas emissions. I'm primarily talking about rulings in three 4 00:00:15,600 --> 00:00:19,880 Speaker 1: cases West Virginia versus EPA in twenty twenty two, and 5 00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:25,040 Speaker 1: then two cases called Loperbright and Corner Post in twenty 6 00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:29,440 Speaker 1: twenty four. Loperbright got a lot of attention because it 7 00:00:29,600 --> 00:00:33,360 Speaker 1: is the case that got rid of what's called Chevron deference. 8 00:00:34,240 --> 00:00:37,199 Speaker 1: Chevron deference was a president that was in place for 9 00:00:37,320 --> 00:00:40,400 Speaker 1: a number of decades. It basically said that when legislation 10 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:44,440 Speaker 1: or a particular statute has not been explicit about exactly 11 00:00:44,520 --> 00:00:47,920 Speaker 1: how a law should be implemented by an agency, it's 12 00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:51,240 Speaker 1: up to that agency to decide how to implement the law. 13 00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:54,840 Speaker 1: The idea of being that laws are often quite vague, 14 00:00:55,160 --> 00:00:59,040 Speaker 1: it's up to regulatory agencies to implement those laws based 15 00:00:59,120 --> 00:01:03,280 Speaker 1: on what they're exports are telling them. That is gone now, 16 00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:07,280 Speaker 1: which means prepare to see a lot of lawsuits about regulations, 17 00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:11,600 Speaker 1: particularly environmental regulations. The Corner Post ruling came out during 18 00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:15,839 Speaker 1: the same Supreme Court session and got almost no coverage, 19 00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:20,440 Speaker 1: but is equally problematic when it comes to environmental and 20 00:01:20,480 --> 00:01:24,520 Speaker 1: climate policy. That case got rid of the statute of 21 00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:30,720 Speaker 1: limitations on legal challenges to previously passed legislation. So if 22 00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:33,320 Speaker 1: you think about the most recent ten years or so, 23 00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:37,080 Speaker 1: you know, an administration comes in, they pass a new 24 00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:40,440 Speaker 1: power plant rule, it gets challenged, that makes its way 25 00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:44,319 Speaker 1: through the court. We have not seen, for example, a 26 00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:48,040 Speaker 1: challenge to a rule that came about in the Clinton 27 00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:52,280 Speaker 1: administration because there was a statute of limitations on that 28 00:01:52,440 --> 00:01:56,919 Speaker 1: sort of litigation. Now that's gone. So just think about 29 00:01:56,920 --> 00:02:00,200 Speaker 1: what that might mean if the Koch brothers, for example, 30 00:02:00,760 --> 00:02:05,680 Speaker 1: continue to fire up their litigation machine and start filing 31 00:02:05,720 --> 00:02:10,120 Speaker 1: suits challenging all of the past twenty years worth of 32 00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:14,080 Speaker 1: environmental regulations. That is what we are in for in 33 00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:19,120 Speaker 1: the years ahead now. Before West Virginia came along and 34 00:02:19,200 --> 00:02:24,079 Speaker 1: said that because the Cleaner Act didn't explicitly lay out 35 00:02:24,120 --> 00:02:28,800 Speaker 1: climate policy, the EPA cannot use it to regulate greenhouse 36 00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:36,440 Speaker 1: gas emissions. Another case, Massachusetts versus EPA, ruled that in 37 00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:40,200 Speaker 1: nineteen seventy when the Clean Air Act was passed, climate 38 00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:44,440 Speaker 1: science was quote in its infancy, and they inferred from 39 00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:48,079 Speaker 1: that that Congress could not possibly have meant for that 40 00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:53,000 Speaker 1: Act to be used to regulate anything related to climate change. 41 00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:57,800 Speaker 1: In a new study in Ecology Quarterly, Naomia Rescuez and 42 00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:01,320 Speaker 1: a handful of other researchers with her at Harvard University 43 00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:06,040 Speaker 1: decided to look into whether that is even true this 44 00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:10,600 Speaker 1: idea that climate science was in its infancy in nineteen seventy. 45 00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:14,840 Speaker 1: What they found was that climate science really was not 46 00:03:15,400 --> 00:03:19,639 Speaker 1: in its infancy in nineteen seventy. Then, in fact, there 47 00:03:19,760 --> 00:03:23,200 Speaker 1: was not only quite a bit of scientific knowledge about 48 00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:26,640 Speaker 1: climate change, both at the oil companies themselves as we know, 49 00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:30,800 Speaker 1: and also in the government, but that even in a 50 00:03:30,840 --> 00:03:34,720 Speaker 1: lot of popular culture, climate change as a thing that 51 00:03:34,880 --> 00:03:38,600 Speaker 1: was happening and that was understood to be caused by 52 00:03:39,160 --> 00:03:45,120 Speaker 1: fossil fuel combustion, was pretty commonly known. They found all 53 00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:48,720 Speaker 1: of these really incredible examples of late night talk shows 54 00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:55,240 Speaker 1: talking about it, beat poets talking about it, movies, TV shows, 55 00:03:55,480 --> 00:04:00,680 Speaker 1: all kinds of spots where it seemed unlikely that people 56 00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:03,240 Speaker 1: would be talking about this issue if it was not 57 00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:08,839 Speaker 1: more widely known. That research calls into question a lot 58 00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:12,720 Speaker 1: of the assumptions that some of these recent rulings have 59 00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:15,800 Speaker 1: been based on, which makes things a little more interesting. 60 00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:20,320 Speaker 1: I talked to Aresquez about her research, what was new 61 00:04:20,360 --> 00:04:24,360 Speaker 1: and surprising to her, how this history shapes how we 62 00:04:24,480 --> 00:04:28,240 Speaker 1: understand the whole history of climate science in general. And 63 00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:32,360 Speaker 1: I also called up Patrick Parento at Vermont Law School 64 00:04:32,920 --> 00:04:37,120 Speaker 1: to ask about how this new research might play into 65 00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:39,960 Speaker 1: the cases we're expecting to see in the next couple 66 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:43,120 Speaker 1: of years. That's all coming up after this quick break. 67 00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:55,320 Speaker 1: I'm Amy Westervelt and this is drilled. I wanted to 68 00:04:55,520 --> 00:04:58,160 Speaker 1: just ask you first, what prompted you to start looking 69 00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:00,800 Speaker 1: into this. Did you start doing the research after West 70 00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:03,320 Speaker 1: Virginia versus EPA or was there another. 71 00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:05,400 Speaker 2: Well, this paper has been super long in coming, and 72 00:05:05,440 --> 00:05:08,279 Speaker 2: it's actually taken a long time, partly because it turned 73 00:05:08,320 --> 00:05:11,080 Speaker 2: out to be a much much bigger project than we expected. 74 00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:14,280 Speaker 2: That party is, we all had other day jobs, so 75 00:05:14,279 --> 00:05:17,240 Speaker 2: this is like being actually as a second project or 76 00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:20,000 Speaker 2: a third project. So the short answer is, actually, I've 77 00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:23,960 Speaker 2: been interested in this question really ever since Mass versus EPA, 78 00:05:24,560 --> 00:05:28,919 Speaker 2: when Big in court said that in nineteen seventy climate 79 00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:32,760 Speaker 2: science was in its infancy and implied therefore that there 80 00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:35,120 Speaker 2: was no way Congress could have really understood the problem 81 00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:39,240 Speaker 2: enough for them to intend for the cleaner app to 82 00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:43,560 Speaker 2: apply to CO two rehouse gases. Yes, well, I say science, 83 00:05:43,560 --> 00:05:46,520 Speaker 2: who was working on the history of cloud science. That 84 00:05:46,640 --> 00:05:48,960 Speaker 2: statement that client science was in its infancy. 85 00:05:49,279 --> 00:05:50,200 Speaker 3: I knew it was wrong. 86 00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:52,600 Speaker 2: I just knew that was false, because already by that 87 00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:55,920 Speaker 2: time I had been working probably about five years already 88 00:05:55,920 --> 00:05:57,160 Speaker 2: on the history of climate science. 89 00:05:57,440 --> 00:05:59,719 Speaker 3: And I knew that already in the nineteen fifties. 90 00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:02,600 Speaker 2: You know, in the fifties we see the beginning of 91 00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:06,039 Speaker 2: what becomes a sustained you know, half a century of 92 00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:10,039 Speaker 2: important scientific work on CO two, the greenhouse effair and 93 00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:14,960 Speaker 2: its potential implications. But what I didn't know was how 94 00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:19,760 Speaker 2: much had that been communicated to government. And you might 95 00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:23,560 Speaker 2: recall Emergency of Doubt. We cite the nineteen sixty five 96 00:06:23,640 --> 00:06:26,960 Speaker 2: Peace Sack Report on Environment that has a whole appendix 97 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,840 Speaker 2: about climate change. And we know by the time we 98 00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:32,359 Speaker 2: wrote Merchants of Doubt, which was in twenty ten, we 99 00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:35,000 Speaker 2: knew that at least President Johnson was aware of it. 100 00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:37,240 Speaker 2: We know that that report landed on his desk, and 101 00:06:37,279 --> 00:06:41,200 Speaker 2: we know that he mentions CO two and climate in 102 00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:44,560 Speaker 2: his Special Message to Congress that year. So I knew 103 00:06:44,600 --> 00:06:47,960 Speaker 2: that there was a pretty significant scientific conversation already taking 104 00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:51,160 Speaker 2: place by nineteen sixty five. I knew that Dave Keeling 105 00:06:51,200 --> 00:06:53,840 Speaker 2: by sixty five had already concluded that he had enough 106 00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:56,000 Speaker 2: data to say, Yeah, this is going to be a 107 00:06:56,000 --> 00:06:58,880 Speaker 2: big deal. And we knew that it had reached the 108 00:06:58,960 --> 00:07:01,640 Speaker 2: executive branch through Peasact. But what we didn't know at 109 00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:04,640 Speaker 2: that time was how broad was the conversation and did 110 00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:08,000 Speaker 2: Congress know about this, because obviously we have separation of 111 00:07:08,040 --> 00:07:11,080 Speaker 2: powers in the US government, so it's plausible that, you know, 112 00:07:11,120 --> 00:07:13,480 Speaker 2: the executive branch might know stuff that they did not 113 00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:17,440 Speaker 2: communicate clearly to the legislative branch. So that was something 114 00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:19,239 Speaker 2: that I had been interested in for a long time. 115 00:07:19,560 --> 00:07:21,760 Speaker 2: And then at some point I can't remember exactly when 116 00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:23,920 Speaker 2: this was, but it was shortly after I moved to Harvard's. 117 00:07:23,920 --> 00:07:27,240 Speaker 2: This would have been twenty thirteen, fourteen fifteen, something like that. 118 00:07:27,400 --> 00:07:30,080 Speaker 2: Jody Freeman called me kind of asking the same question, 119 00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:32,880 Speaker 2: you know, what did we know about what was known 120 00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:36,680 Speaker 2: about this issue when the Cleaner Act was written. Because 121 00:07:37,280 --> 00:07:41,400 Speaker 2: the preambleton Cleaner Act includes the words whether in climate 122 00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:46,160 Speaker 2: so ut any straightforward, non tortured reading of the statue, 123 00:07:46,560 --> 00:07:49,080 Speaker 2: it obviously relates to weather and climate, because the words 124 00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:53,960 Speaker 2: are in the statue and were that you talks about impacts. 125 00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:56,160 Speaker 3: Impacts on weather and climate are one of the things 126 00:07:56,160 --> 00:07:58,520 Speaker 3: they say. It seems pretty obvious. 127 00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:01,080 Speaker 2: But the other side had argued in a couple of 128 00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:04,440 Speaker 2: amikas briefs, oh, well, when they used the word climate, 129 00:08:04,520 --> 00:08:07,160 Speaker 2: they didn't really mean it the way we mean it 130 00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:10,320 Speaker 2: today to mean global climate change. They were just talking 131 00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:13,960 Speaker 2: about the climate of California or the climate of North Carolina. 132 00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:17,800 Speaker 2: They were thinking about local effects and climate. Well, so 133 00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:20,760 Speaker 2: we thought, well we could answer that question. And it 134 00:08:20,840 --> 00:08:23,920 Speaker 2: is true that sometimes words can be used in different ways, 135 00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:26,680 Speaker 2: and it is true the word climate can refer to 136 00:08:26,840 --> 00:08:28,200 Speaker 2: local or global climate. 137 00:08:28,840 --> 00:08:29,720 Speaker 3: So I hired. 138 00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:32,079 Speaker 2: Colleen, my GRADUA student coming in the near Christiansen, who's 139 00:08:32,080 --> 00:08:34,240 Speaker 2: the second althar on the paper, to just do a 140 00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:37,680 Speaker 2: little bit of digging, and very quickly the project grew 141 00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:42,920 Speaker 2: and we discovered this really astonishingly broad and deep conversation 142 00:08:43,640 --> 00:08:48,800 Speaker 2: among scientists and among Congress and members of Congress about 143 00:08:48,840 --> 00:08:53,760 Speaker 2: this issue about global climate change related to greenhouse gases 144 00:08:53,800 --> 00:08:56,960 Speaker 2: in the atmosphere. And so we started working on this, 145 00:08:57,120 --> 00:08:58,920 Speaker 2: raised a little money pay for calling to be a 146 00:08:58,960 --> 00:09:01,600 Speaker 2: research assisted and as it grew, when we found more 147 00:09:01,600 --> 00:09:04,240 Speaker 2: relevant things than we recruited in Hanna Conway to join 148 00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:09,079 Speaker 2: the project. And then West Virginia happened, and this so 149 00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:12,840 Speaker 2: called Major Questions doctrine. And one of the things that 150 00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:16,320 Speaker 2: the court said in that case, as you know, was 151 00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:19,959 Speaker 2: to introduce the standard of the vast economic and political significance, 152 00:09:20,480 --> 00:09:23,760 Speaker 2: and generally that if something is a vast economic and 153 00:09:23,800 --> 00:09:27,640 Speaker 2: political significance, that it raises the bar for agency regulation, 154 00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:31,280 Speaker 2: and that therefore the statute has to be absolutely explicit 155 00:09:31,320 --> 00:09:35,680 Speaker 2: before an agency could make choices. Now, we could argue 156 00:09:35,679 --> 00:09:40,200 Speaker 2: about the justificational wisdom of that claim, but I'm not 157 00:09:40,280 --> 00:09:41,400 Speaker 2: a legal experts so. 158 00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:43,040 Speaker 3: I wouldn't want to get into that. 159 00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:47,120 Speaker 2: But what we did know when that decision came out 160 00:09:47,360 --> 00:09:50,200 Speaker 2: was that we actually had people in the nineteen sixties 161 00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:55,000 Speaker 2: talking about the potentially vast economic and political significance of 162 00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:57,959 Speaker 2: doing something about C two, And we even had conferences 163 00:09:57,960 --> 00:10:00,560 Speaker 2: where people from Ford Motor Company had been at the 164 00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:03,679 Speaker 2: conference discussing these issues. There was a report on electric 165 00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:06,959 Speaker 2: cars by the Department of Transportation that specifically talks about 166 00:10:07,320 --> 00:10:10,880 Speaker 2: how CO two might force us to convert the entire 167 00:10:11,120 --> 00:10:15,079 Speaker 2: automobile fleet to electric. Well that kind of lit a 168 00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:16,839 Speaker 2: fire on us and said, Okay, we've a work on 169 00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:19,559 Speaker 2: this project for years, kind of back burner. We need 170 00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:21,440 Speaker 2: to put this on the front burner and we need 171 00:10:21,480 --> 00:10:24,200 Speaker 2: to get this written. And so that's the story about 172 00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:27,480 Speaker 2: the paper and why it's now coming out. So it 173 00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:30,040 Speaker 2: absolutely is relevant to West Virginia, but it was not 174 00:10:30,160 --> 00:10:32,240 Speaker 2: motivated originally about West Virginia. 175 00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:33,720 Speaker 3: That's so interesting. 176 00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:37,320 Speaker 1: I know you're not a legal scholar, and I'm going 177 00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:40,559 Speaker 1: to try not to ask you legal strategy question. 178 00:10:41,000 --> 00:10:43,560 Speaker 3: But I have curious if you've heard from folks. 179 00:10:43,240 --> 00:10:48,640 Speaker 1: In the legal realm about how having this information might 180 00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:51,600 Speaker 1: help with the next I mean, like, I know, the 181 00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:55,760 Speaker 1: EPA's most recent power plant guidelines have already been challenged, 182 00:10:56,040 --> 00:10:58,520 Speaker 1: and I imagine that they're going to fall into this 183 00:10:58,760 --> 00:11:03,439 Speaker 1: thicket of major questions doctor and now post Shavon Dufferin's 184 00:11:03,480 --> 00:11:04,160 Speaker 1: staff too. 185 00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:06,760 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I'm sort of careful about that. 186 00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:09,240 Speaker 2: I don't spend a lot of time talking to lawyers 187 00:11:09,280 --> 00:11:12,120 Speaker 2: who are actively engaged in these kinds of cases in 188 00:11:12,160 --> 00:11:14,480 Speaker 2: advance of me doing my research, because I really want 189 00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:18,160 Speaker 2: us to look at the evidence as objective as possible 190 00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:20,400 Speaker 2: and let the tips fall, and then it's up to 191 00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:24,240 Speaker 2: lawyers and judges to decide the consequences and implications. 192 00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:26,880 Speaker 3: So I mean, this isn't part of a legal strategy. 193 00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:29,840 Speaker 2: And although I'm sure that some of our opponents will 194 00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:32,559 Speaker 2: probably claim that it's not part of a legal strategy, 195 00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:36,480 Speaker 2: wasn't written to support any kind of particular legal approach, 196 00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:39,760 Speaker 2: or much less any particular case. But obviously we think 197 00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:41,920 Speaker 2: it has implications. We wouldn't have done the work if 198 00:11:41,960 --> 00:11:44,320 Speaker 2: we didn't think it mattered. And so let me read 199 00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:47,240 Speaker 2: you something that actually Ashton wrote in response to a 200 00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:50,840 Speaker 2: query from a different journalist about this. So asked MacFarlane 201 00:11:50,880 --> 00:11:54,800 Speaker 2: with jdphd student who's just finished his jd at Harvard 202 00:11:54,880 --> 00:11:57,760 Speaker 2: Law School and now is working with me doing a PhD. 203 00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:01,120 Speaker 2: And we recruited to partici making this party because we 204 00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:04,200 Speaker 2: felt like we did want a little bit more legal insights. 205 00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:06,760 Speaker 2: And he's studied with Jodi Freeman and Richard Lazarus and 206 00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:09,960 Speaker 2: all the big name environmental law professors at Harvard. So 207 00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:13,440 Speaker 2: here's why he wrote the major questions. Doctrine requires a 208 00:12:13,480 --> 00:12:17,440 Speaker 2: clear statement from Congress to authorize regulatory action of vast 209 00:12:17,480 --> 00:12:21,560 Speaker 2: economic and political significance. The doctrine reflects an assumption that 210 00:12:21,600 --> 00:12:25,160 Speaker 2: Congress would be exceptionally clear when granting an agency highly 211 00:12:25,160 --> 00:12:29,040 Speaker 2: significant regulatory power. How do we determine what counts as 212 00:12:29,080 --> 00:12:32,600 Speaker 2: a quote major question and a quote clear statement. The 213 00:12:32,640 --> 00:12:35,240 Speaker 2: Supreme Court has implied that the inquiry depends on both 214 00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:38,840 Speaker 2: context and history. Yet the Court missed large swats of 215 00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:42,360 Speaker 2: relevant history about climate change, which we present in this article. 216 00:12:42,880 --> 00:12:45,320 Speaker 2: This history is important not only to the wholesale question 217 00:12:45,360 --> 00:12:47,800 Speaker 2: of whether the Cleaner Act covers greenhouse gases, which we 218 00:12:47,840 --> 00:12:50,800 Speaker 2: think it clearly does and our paper then supports that, 219 00:12:51,200 --> 00:12:54,280 Speaker 2: but also to the retail question of whether any new 220 00:12:54,320 --> 00:12:58,280 Speaker 2: climate regulation is sufficiently well authorized. And then he goes 221 00:12:58,320 --> 00:13:00,439 Speaker 2: on to say, the Court has not said, perc actually 222 00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:03,560 Speaker 2: how history informs the major question analysis, nor what types 223 00:13:03,600 --> 00:13:06,560 Speaker 2: of historical material matter most. Our key point is there's 224 00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:09,600 Speaker 2: a whole lot of history that the Court overlooked, and 225 00:13:09,640 --> 00:13:12,520 Speaker 2: it should not overlook that history in future climate cases. 226 00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:14,480 Speaker 2: And I guess what I would add to that is 227 00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:17,480 Speaker 2: that so much of what the Court claimed was about 228 00:13:17,480 --> 00:13:21,640 Speaker 2: this issue of the clear statement, and they've repeatedly implied 229 00:13:21,720 --> 00:13:25,120 Speaker 2: both in Mass versus EPA and in West Virginia, you know, 230 00:13:25,400 --> 00:13:27,640 Speaker 2: sort of continue to imply this idea that there's no 231 00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:29,959 Speaker 2: way that Congress could really have intended this to apply 232 00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:32,319 Speaker 2: to Co. Two A because they didn't really know and 233 00:13:32,360 --> 00:13:36,439 Speaker 2: be because they hadn't anticipated the vast economic significance. And 234 00:13:36,480 --> 00:13:39,000 Speaker 2: we think this paper shows that both of those implications 235 00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:39,440 Speaker 2: are wrong. 236 00:13:40,320 --> 00:13:44,560 Speaker 1: I called up Patrick Parento at Vermont Law School to 237 00:13:44,720 --> 00:13:48,320 Speaker 1: ask about how this new research might come into play 238 00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:51,000 Speaker 1: in some of the cases we expect to see in 239 00:13:51,040 --> 00:13:52,600 Speaker 1: the months and years ahead. 240 00:13:53,640 --> 00:13:58,520 Speaker 4: The bottom line is, what we're now talking about is 241 00:13:58,559 --> 00:14:03,199 Speaker 4: the margin. We know we're going to lose almost all 242 00:14:03,280 --> 00:14:04,920 Speaker 4: of the cases that make. 243 00:14:04,800 --> 00:14:07,320 Speaker 5: It to the Supreme Court docket. 244 00:14:07,720 --> 00:14:12,480 Speaker 4: It's now a question of can you in some cases 245 00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:14,480 Speaker 4: work the margins? 246 00:14:14,520 --> 00:14:18,200 Speaker 5: And that means either Roberts or Barrett, maybe. 247 00:14:18,040 --> 00:14:23,600 Speaker 4: Even sometimes Kavanaugh, almost never Gorsich or Alito or Thomas. 248 00:14:24,040 --> 00:14:27,200 Speaker 4: If you're alert as an advocate, as a lawyer arguing 249 00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:28,280 Speaker 4: these cases. 250 00:14:29,000 --> 00:14:30,320 Speaker 5: There's got to be a way to. 251 00:14:30,160 --> 00:14:34,800 Speaker 4: Cobble together votes if you can convince them that the 252 00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,200 Speaker 4: text of the statue ought to be interpreted in a 253 00:14:38,240 --> 00:14:41,240 Speaker 4: certain way that they call the best reading. 254 00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:44,560 Speaker 5: That's where we've come to. What's the best reading? 255 00:14:45,040 --> 00:14:48,680 Speaker 4: Of the text of the statue, since we're all textualists now, 256 00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:52,160 Speaker 4: as Justice Kagan has famously said, and so you know, 257 00:14:52,480 --> 00:14:57,320 Speaker 4: the best reading does to some extent turn on what 258 00:14:57,440 --> 00:15:03,560 Speaker 4: was on Congress's mind. Intend what can we infer from 259 00:15:03,560 --> 00:15:07,960 Speaker 4: the type of words and language they used was their intent? 260 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:10,480 Speaker 5: And we know that both of the cases both are 261 00:15:10,480 --> 00:15:11,080 Speaker 5: the rules I. 262 00:15:11,000 --> 00:15:15,200 Speaker 4: Should say that are now in litigation, the car rules, 263 00:15:15,240 --> 00:15:15,840 Speaker 4: the tail. 264 00:15:15,640 --> 00:15:18,120 Speaker 5: Piper rules, and the power plant rules. 265 00:15:19,320 --> 00:15:23,320 Speaker 4: We know the odds are one or both of them 266 00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:25,200 Speaker 4: are going to wind up on the. 267 00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:26,400 Speaker 5: Supreme Court docket. 268 00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:31,920 Speaker 4: But the point is the combination of all these decisions 269 00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:38,360 Speaker 4: West Virginia lowerl Bright Open Ruling, Chevron Corner Post knocking 270 00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:41,160 Speaker 4: out the six year statute of limitations, meaning pretty of 271 00:15:41,200 --> 00:15:43,920 Speaker 4: the rules on the books is fair game. We haven't 272 00:15:43,920 --> 00:15:47,600 Speaker 4: begun to see the avalanche of lawsuits that we're going 273 00:15:47,680 --> 00:15:51,720 Speaker 4: to see with specific legal foundation and Koch Brothers' money. Man, 274 00:15:51,760 --> 00:15:54,320 Speaker 4: oh man, So you have to look at that whole 275 00:15:54,560 --> 00:15:56,840 Speaker 4: suite that we've seen, and of course we've got more coming. 276 00:15:57,080 --> 00:16:00,680 Speaker 4: When you look at that, the agency lawyers and. 277 00:16:00,760 --> 00:16:03,760 Speaker 5: The staff technical staff, you. 278 00:16:03,640 --> 00:16:08,920 Speaker 4: Know they've got to be thinking, man, can we get 279 00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:14,440 Speaker 4: five votes? Can we get five votes, you know, and 280 00:16:15,240 --> 00:16:17,840 Speaker 4: do you just do a headcount and you figure out 281 00:16:18,160 --> 00:16:22,400 Speaker 4: who can we get to support this interpretation. But you know, 282 00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:28,240 Speaker 4: they're zeroing in on already what was It's sometimes called 283 00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:33,120 Speaker 4: antecedent interpretations of a statute. 284 00:16:33,120 --> 00:16:34,840 Speaker 5: In this case, we're talking Clean Air Act. 285 00:16:35,400 --> 00:16:38,720 Speaker 4: So for the car rules and the power plant rules, 286 00:16:38,880 --> 00:16:43,160 Speaker 4: they're going back to the nineteen seventy Act, increasing forward 287 00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:47,600 Speaker 4: and the history and how they've been interpreted before, so 288 00:16:47,680 --> 00:16:50,800 Speaker 4: that the newest, the interpretation. 289 00:16:50,240 --> 00:16:54,280 Speaker 6: Of today is not new. So now we'll find out. 290 00:16:54,880 --> 00:16:55,680 Speaker 5: Now we will. 291 00:16:55,520 --> 00:17:02,720 Speaker 6: Really find out if APA's attempts to testify these two rules. 292 00:17:03,000 --> 00:17:08,320 Speaker 6: We'll find out whether it's possible for EPA to get 293 00:17:08,359 --> 00:17:12,359 Speaker 6: the five votes they need to uphold these two rules, 294 00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:20,400 Speaker 6: or whether Morrissey and Company West Virginia Company are right 295 00:17:21,240 --> 00:17:25,520 Speaker 6: that no matter what EPA tries to do to address climates, 296 00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:27,680 Speaker 6: they're going to lose because everything they do is a 297 00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:31,960 Speaker 6: major question. They don't get any difference. The best breaking 298 00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:34,560 Speaker 6: of the statue is not what EPA says it is. 299 00:17:34,520 --> 00:17:34,920 Speaker 5: Et cetera. 300 00:17:35,359 --> 00:17:43,679 Speaker 4: So in that sense, this really robust, sophisticated analysis of 301 00:17:43,720 --> 00:17:46,520 Speaker 4: the history of the Clean Air Act, it's got to 302 00:17:46,600 --> 00:17:47,320 Speaker 4: make a difference. 303 00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:51,359 Speaker 1: Okay, there are a number of things in here that 304 00:17:51,640 --> 00:17:54,399 Speaker 1: are really interesting and that had not been published before 305 00:17:54,520 --> 00:17:57,000 Speaker 1: and that people did not know about in terms of 306 00:17:57,040 --> 00:17:59,880 Speaker 1: this history. I imagine there were things that were surprising 307 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:03,440 Speaker 1: you too. What were some of the most surprising discoveries 308 00:18:03,440 --> 00:18:06,480 Speaker 1: in terms of when people were talking about what, Well, 309 00:18:06,520 --> 00:18:06,880 Speaker 1: there were. 310 00:18:06,760 --> 00:18:07,760 Speaker 3: A bunch of things. 311 00:18:08,359 --> 00:18:13,200 Speaker 2: The biggest surprise actually was was, you know, Sports Illustrated 312 00:18:13,200 --> 00:18:16,480 Speaker 2: and the Weekly Reader, and just to see the way 313 00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:21,280 Speaker 2: that this had permeated into popular culture and popular conversation 314 00:18:21,600 --> 00:18:24,400 Speaker 2: very very early on, and I think we all fell 315 00:18:24,400 --> 00:18:28,920 Speaker 2: in love with the Alan Ginsburg piece. Here's this beat poet, right, 316 00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:31,080 Speaker 2: he's a poet, not a scientist. He's on the MERV 317 00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:33,200 Speaker 2: Griffith Show, which is one of the most popular talk 318 00:18:33,240 --> 00:18:35,960 Speaker 2: shows on television in those days. I mean MERV Griffith 319 00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:39,240 Speaker 2: was the opera of the nineteen sixties. And he's talking 320 00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:43,400 Speaker 2: about climate change. He's talking about the ice caps melting, 321 00:18:43,880 --> 00:18:46,480 Speaker 2: and he's linking it to cars. He says, pollution from 322 00:18:46,520 --> 00:18:49,359 Speaker 2: automobiles can melt the ice cap and you know, flood 323 00:18:49,400 --> 00:18:51,240 Speaker 2: the coastal cities of the world. I mean, that is 324 00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:54,960 Speaker 2: one hundred percent global climate change. As we understand it today, 325 00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:58,919 Speaker 2: and Alan Ginsburg has got it in a nutshell in 326 00:18:58,960 --> 00:19:03,080 Speaker 2: the nineteen sixties, he's talking about it on Primetime. And 327 00:19:03,160 --> 00:19:06,040 Speaker 2: then the other piece I really loved was so then 328 00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:09,800 Speaker 2: and Ashton found this. So then this angry constituent in 329 00:19:09,920 --> 00:19:14,119 Speaker 2: Washington State rites to his senator, Henry Jackson. And Henry 330 00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:16,639 Speaker 2: Jackson was one of the most famous powerful senators of 331 00:19:16,720 --> 00:19:18,960 Speaker 2: that time, someone whose name was well known to me 332 00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:21,280 Speaker 2: that I remember from my own childhood. I mean, I 333 00:19:21,320 --> 00:19:24,080 Speaker 2: remember we didn't like Scoop Jackson because he was very 334 00:19:24,160 --> 00:19:26,800 Speaker 2: pro Vietnam War. So this is a very famous name. 335 00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:29,240 Speaker 2: I mean, this whole project, all these names that I 336 00:19:29,280 --> 00:19:32,000 Speaker 2: already knew kept popping up. These were not minor people. 337 00:19:32,320 --> 00:19:34,520 Speaker 2: So Scoop Jackson's one of the most powerful people in 338 00:19:34,560 --> 00:19:37,760 Speaker 2: the US Congress at the time. The constituentent writes to 339 00:19:37,840 --> 00:19:41,040 Speaker 2: him complaining, asking him to do something about it, and 340 00:19:41,160 --> 00:19:43,639 Speaker 2: Jackson reads the letter and instead of just throwing it in 341 00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:46,000 Speaker 2: the bin or thinking it's a hoax or whatever, or 342 00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:49,560 Speaker 2: the guy's crazy, he writes a letter to the president's 343 00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:53,080 Speaker 2: science advisor Lee to Bridge. This is the advisor to 344 00:19:53,160 --> 00:19:57,120 Speaker 2: Richard Nixons or Republican president, and he says to to Bridge, well, 345 00:19:57,400 --> 00:19:59,560 Speaker 2: you know what about this? Is there any truth in this? 346 00:20:00,080 --> 00:20:02,920 Speaker 2: And Leegia Bridge writes back a multipage letter in which 347 00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:06,879 Speaker 2: he explains very carefully and patiently. He explains to Henry 348 00:20:06,920 --> 00:20:10,080 Speaker 2: Jackson that yes, actually this is a real thing. And 349 00:20:10,119 --> 00:20:11,960 Speaker 2: then a few months later he goes on Meet the 350 00:20:12,000 --> 00:20:15,480 Speaker 2: Press again mainstream American television to talk about the issue 351 00:20:15,480 --> 00:20:17,520 Speaker 2: and even says we might need to have a carbon tax. 352 00:20:17,720 --> 00:20:20,879 Speaker 2: And this is in nineteen sorry I fraid of sixteen 353 00:20:20,920 --> 00:20:22,760 Speaker 2: nine or seventy, but right before the passage of the 354 00:20:22,760 --> 00:20:26,359 Speaker 2: Cleaner Act. So here you have a powerful senator, the 355 00:20:26,440 --> 00:20:30,199 Speaker 2: science advisor to a Republican president, just talking openly and 356 00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:33,960 Speaker 2: honestly about this issue and not being dismissive, not thinking 357 00:20:34,040 --> 00:20:37,720 Speaker 2: to hoax, but actually taking it seriously and trying to learn. 358 00:20:38,040 --> 00:20:40,640 Speaker 3: And I just thought that was kind of beautiful. It's 359 00:20:40,680 --> 00:20:44,000 Speaker 3: so interesting. I also bought the Frank Capra movie. 360 00:20:43,920 --> 00:20:46,240 Speaker 2: Capra Will Be Speak To And you know, mister science, 361 00:20:46,280 --> 00:20:49,600 Speaker 2: I know that was brilliant too. Any Frank Capra, super 362 00:20:49,720 --> 00:20:52,160 Speaker 2: famous name from the history of film. Right, So again 363 00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:55,439 Speaker 2: I feel like for me, the biggest surprise overall is 364 00:20:55,600 --> 00:20:58,679 Speaker 2: I knew scientists were talking about this, but as you know, 365 00:20:59,040 --> 00:21:01,960 Speaker 2: a lot of scientific conversations can be very in the weeds. 366 00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:05,760 Speaker 2: Scientists can really live in their own science bubble, and 367 00:21:06,119 --> 00:21:10,320 Speaker 2: so what I didn't know was how broadly this information 368 00:21:10,400 --> 00:21:13,600 Speaker 2: had percolated in the nineteen sixties. That I guess was 369 00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:16,959 Speaker 2: the biggest surprise, And of course that reinforces our claim 370 00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:20,800 Speaker 2: that Congress was aware of this. They were talking about it, 371 00:21:20,840 --> 00:21:23,600 Speaker 2: they knew about it, they heard testimony about it, they 372 00:21:23,600 --> 00:21:28,480 Speaker 2: were getting information from leading scientists like the President's science advisor, 373 00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:31,560 Speaker 2: like the head of ENCAR, Gordon MacDonald, who's serving on 374 00:21:32,000 --> 00:21:36,160 Speaker 2: CEQ at that time. Important leading scientists are talking to important, 375 00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:40,439 Speaker 2: leading members of Congress, and that's crucial then in the 376 00:21:40,440 --> 00:21:44,480 Speaker 2: context of the Major Questions doctrine for understanding what Congress 377 00:21:44,560 --> 00:21:47,119 Speaker 2: knew about this issue and therefore what they could have 378 00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:48,680 Speaker 2: intended when they wrote this law. 379 00:21:49,440 --> 00:21:52,040 Speaker 1: In any of the stuff that you found, did you 380 00:21:52,119 --> 00:21:56,679 Speaker 1: get any sense of why they steered clear of being 381 00:21:56,720 --> 00:21:58,400 Speaker 1: more specific in the law? 382 00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:00,639 Speaker 2: Yeah, I wed think we do know that answer to that, 383 00:22:00,960 --> 00:22:03,080 Speaker 2: and our group had a lot of discussions about this. 384 00:22:03,880 --> 00:22:05,560 Speaker 2: I mean, part of this whole thing has to do 385 00:22:05,600 --> 00:22:07,919 Speaker 2: with whether or not they understood CO two to be 386 00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:11,880 Speaker 2: a pollutant, and therefore whether they intended these discussions about 387 00:22:11,920 --> 00:22:14,800 Speaker 2: pollution to include CO two. The answer to that question 388 00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:16,960 Speaker 2: is absolutely yes, and that was one of the other 389 00:22:17,000 --> 00:22:21,000 Speaker 2: big surprises. It was astonishing to us how many conferences 390 00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:24,600 Speaker 2: on air pollution in the nineteen sixties discuss CO two 391 00:22:25,119 --> 00:22:28,360 Speaker 2: and how many reports that are written on air pollution 392 00:22:29,440 --> 00:22:31,960 Speaker 2: mentioned CO two as a pollutant. So there's absolutely no 393 00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:35,520 Speaker 2: question that they understand that CO two is a pollutant. 394 00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:39,200 Speaker 2: But there's two things that we think happened. The first 395 00:22:39,240 --> 00:22:42,879 Speaker 2: is that there's a very clear conversation about what kind 396 00:22:43,000 --> 00:22:46,280 Speaker 2: of a pollutant is it. So while they recognize that 397 00:22:46,320 --> 00:22:49,439 Speaker 2: it's definitely a pollutant, they also say, and this is 398 00:22:49,760 --> 00:22:52,280 Speaker 2: it still comes up even today, that it's a different 399 00:22:52,440 --> 00:22:55,119 Speaker 2: kind of pollutant. And so the way we've been thinking 400 00:22:55,119 --> 00:22:58,240 Speaker 2: about it now is taking a parallel from public health 401 00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:01,600 Speaker 2: to distinguish between a que and chronic threats, or cute 402 00:23:01,600 --> 00:23:05,240 Speaker 2: and chronic disease. So they recognize that CO two is 403 00:23:05,240 --> 00:23:07,240 Speaker 2: a pollutant, but they say it's a different kind of 404 00:23:07,320 --> 00:23:10,159 Speaker 2: pollutant than the sort of things that are leading to 405 00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:13,919 Speaker 2: smog in Los Angeles or New York other urban areas, 406 00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:18,399 Speaker 2: and the immediate attention of the moment is on the 407 00:23:18,440 --> 00:23:21,360 Speaker 2: acute pollutants, because they are literally killing people right People 408 00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:24,199 Speaker 2: are going to the emergency room in Los Angeles on 409 00:23:24,280 --> 00:23:29,040 Speaker 2: bad air days, and so understandably, the primary focus of 410 00:23:29,160 --> 00:23:32,480 Speaker 2: discussion is on these acute pollutants, which then lead the 411 00:23:32,480 --> 00:23:35,800 Speaker 2: EPA to create the national ambient air quality standards for 412 00:23:35,880 --> 00:23:39,320 Speaker 2: things like Knox smocks, our snack margery, stuff like that. 413 00:23:39,560 --> 00:23:42,960 Speaker 2: But they also understand that these other things are pollutants too, 414 00:23:43,560 --> 00:23:46,040 Speaker 2: and that they need to be dealt with, but maybe 415 00:23:46,040 --> 00:23:49,080 Speaker 2: not immediately. And so we come across various reports where 416 00:23:49,080 --> 00:23:51,600 Speaker 2: they say things like in the fullness of time, and 417 00:23:51,640 --> 00:23:53,639 Speaker 2: so we have a long discussion in our group of about, well, 418 00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:56,200 Speaker 2: what do they mean by in due course or in 419 00:23:56,240 --> 00:23:59,160 Speaker 2: the fullness of time? And that's actually a really hard 420 00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:01,679 Speaker 2: question to answer. But here's how I've been thinking about it. 421 00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:04,240 Speaker 2: You know, the team thinks that, like Hannah Conway, I 422 00:24:04,240 --> 00:24:06,080 Speaker 2: remember asking this to her specifiction, she said, well, she 423 00:24:06,200 --> 00:24:08,360 Speaker 2: thinks that they thought it meant like within the decade, 424 00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:11,159 Speaker 2: that we were going to deal with these acute threats first, 425 00:24:11,200 --> 00:24:14,119 Speaker 2: but then we would get to these other chronic threats, 426 00:24:14,520 --> 00:24:17,760 Speaker 2: and I think that the scientific community was part of 427 00:24:17,800 --> 00:24:21,680 Speaker 2: that because the scientists themselves recognized that even though they 428 00:24:21,680 --> 00:24:26,080 Speaker 2: were confident that CO two, if it was left unabated, 429 00:24:26,200 --> 00:24:28,760 Speaker 2: would lead to climate change, or would almost certainly, or 430 00:24:28,800 --> 00:24:29,440 Speaker 2: would probably. 431 00:24:29,480 --> 00:24:31,000 Speaker 3: You can put in whatever cameo. 432 00:24:30,800 --> 00:24:33,199 Speaker 2: You want, but there were a lot of details that 433 00:24:33,240 --> 00:24:36,280 Speaker 2: in the nineteen sixties were not well understood. For example, 434 00:24:36,840 --> 00:24:39,720 Speaker 2: you see questions about ocean heat uptake, you see this 435 00:24:40,119 --> 00:24:44,240 Speaker 2: about the biosphere. So these were big scientific questions which 436 00:24:44,280 --> 00:24:48,399 Speaker 2: scientists themselves understood needed to be addressed. So in the 437 00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:51,639 Speaker 2: nineteen seventies, that's when we see the growth of climate modeling. 438 00:24:51,680 --> 00:24:54,879 Speaker 2: That's when Suki Minabi begins to build his first climate 439 00:24:54,920 --> 00:24:57,600 Speaker 2: models at the Geophysical Sluid Dynamics, the work from which 440 00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:00,320 Speaker 2: he finally want to know about prize couple years ago. 441 00:25:00,760 --> 00:25:03,480 Speaker 2: So there's this sense in the scientific community that, oh, yeah, 442 00:25:03,520 --> 00:25:05,840 Speaker 2: that makes sense, We've got more work to do. And 443 00:25:05,880 --> 00:25:08,680 Speaker 2: so I think that everyone involved in this conversation, both 444 00:25:08,720 --> 00:25:12,359 Speaker 2: the scientists and the legislatures, understood that CO two was 445 00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:15,480 Speaker 2: a threat, understood that it was a serious threat, understood 446 00:25:15,480 --> 00:25:18,439 Speaker 2: that it would have vast economic and political consequences. 447 00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:20,840 Speaker 3: Either way, whether we regulated or. 448 00:25:20,840 --> 00:25:23,600 Speaker 2: We didn't regulate it, it would have vast consequences. But 449 00:25:24,400 --> 00:25:26,199 Speaker 2: they thought, you know, we have a little time to 450 00:25:26,240 --> 00:25:28,680 Speaker 2: work this out. And what they meant by a little 451 00:25:28,680 --> 00:25:32,720 Speaker 2: time was a decade or maybe two. And that actually 452 00:25:32,760 --> 00:25:35,240 Speaker 2: fits with the larger history that I've written about, if 453 00:25:35,240 --> 00:25:38,119 Speaker 2: you think about it. So in the nineteen seventies we 454 00:25:38,160 --> 00:25:41,120 Speaker 2: begin to see the first global conferences on climate change, 455 00:25:41,600 --> 00:25:44,760 Speaker 2: we see the National Academy issues a couple of reports, 456 00:25:44,840 --> 00:25:47,720 Speaker 2: the famous Charny Report, and then in the eighties we 457 00:25:47,760 --> 00:25:51,240 Speaker 2: get the creation of the IPCC and in nineteen ninety 458 00:25:51,240 --> 00:25:53,600 Speaker 2: two the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. 459 00:25:53,880 --> 00:25:56,040 Speaker 3: So, in fact, the sorting of. 460 00:25:56,000 --> 00:25:59,760 Speaker 2: The science and the move to regulate CO two do 461 00:26:00,119 --> 00:26:04,200 Speaker 2: happened within the one to two decade framework that people anticipated. 462 00:26:04,359 --> 00:26:07,280 Speaker 2: But the giant butt in the story of the giants 463 00:26:07,280 --> 00:26:10,040 Speaker 2: spanner in the works is that in the late eighties, 464 00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:12,960 Speaker 2: as the science starts to come together, that's when the 465 00:26:12,960 --> 00:26:14,840 Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry begins to try. 466 00:26:14,680 --> 00:26:15,080 Speaker 3: To fight it. 467 00:26:15,200 --> 00:26:17,639 Speaker 1: Yeah, one thing I want to ask you about is 468 00:26:17,680 --> 00:26:19,840 Speaker 1: that I don't know we've started hearing from the fossil 469 00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:23,600 Speaker 1: fuel companies in the last ten years maybe a little 470 00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:26,720 Speaker 1: bit less. This's the whole idea of like, well everybody knew, 471 00:26:26,760 --> 00:26:30,160 Speaker 1: so you can't just hold us accountable, right. I'm sure 472 00:26:30,240 --> 00:26:32,920 Speaker 1: that they will find ways to use the stuff in 473 00:26:33,000 --> 00:26:35,280 Speaker 1: here to bolster the argument. So I'm curious what you 474 00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:35,959 Speaker 1: think about that. 475 00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:39,800 Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly the same argument that the tobacco industry used. 476 00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:43,040 Speaker 2: They are once again using the tobacco playbook. And there's 477 00:26:43,119 --> 00:26:46,359 Speaker 2: two important answers to that. Yes, we did know, but 478 00:26:46,520 --> 00:26:50,520 Speaker 2: then we got confused about this because of what the 479 00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:54,160 Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry did. They worked actively to undermine our 480 00:26:54,200 --> 00:26:56,719 Speaker 2: knowledge and understanding. And we may do a follow up 481 00:26:56,720 --> 00:26:59,280 Speaker 2: paper to answer exactly that question. I mean, why was 482 00:26:59,320 --> 00:27:02,320 Speaker 2: all this underst standing lost? You know, why did so 483 00:27:02,359 --> 00:27:05,720 Speaker 2: many Americans say, by the eighties and nineties and even 484 00:27:05,760 --> 00:27:07,960 Speaker 2: into the two thousands, think we didn't really know that 485 00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:10,200 Speaker 2: there was no scientific consensus, all that stuff. 486 00:27:10,000 --> 00:27:11,040 Speaker 3: I've worked on in the past. 487 00:27:11,280 --> 00:27:14,280 Speaker 2: Yeah, the answer to that is fossil fuel industry malfeasance. 488 00:27:14,600 --> 00:27:17,679 Speaker 2: So they are responsible for the fact that we lost 489 00:27:17,840 --> 00:27:19,880 Speaker 2: this knowledge that we actually used to have. 490 00:27:20,320 --> 00:27:21,359 Speaker 3: So that's the first part. 491 00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:23,920 Speaker 2: And then second part is that I'm not a legal scholar, 492 00:27:23,960 --> 00:27:26,600 Speaker 2: but the law is very clear. If you produce a 493 00:27:26,640 --> 00:27:30,480 Speaker 2: product that kills people, the fact that some people knew 494 00:27:30,480 --> 00:27:33,200 Speaker 2: that it may kill people doesn't get you off the right. 495 00:27:33,240 --> 00:27:37,200 Speaker 2: Corporations have legal responsibilities. Just because someone may or may 496 00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:41,280 Speaker 2: not have known about saying doesn't absolve you from legal 497 00:27:41,320 --> 00:27:44,320 Speaker 2: and moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions. 498 00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:54,359 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's it for this time. We'll be back soon 499 00:27:54,440 --> 00:27:57,280 Speaker 1: with another episode. Don't forget to check out the print 500 00:27:57,520 --> 00:28:00,800 Speaker 1: stories on our website at drilled dot media. Yeah, and 501 00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:05,320 Speaker 1: with various co publishing partners including Rolling Stone and Vox. 502 00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:09,840 Speaker 1: This episode was mixed and mastered by Peter Duff. Our 503 00:28:09,920 --> 00:28:13,120 Speaker 1: theme music is Bird in the Hand by Forenown. Our 504 00:28:13,240 --> 00:28:16,639 Speaker 1: artwork is by Matthew Fleming. You can also check us 505 00:28:16,640 --> 00:28:20,880 Speaker 1: out on Twitter at we are drilled and everywhere else 506 00:28:20,960 --> 00:28:24,280 Speaker 1: on social media at Drilled Media. You can sign up 507 00:28:24,280 --> 00:28:27,160 Speaker 1: for our newsletter on our website as well that comes 508 00:28:27,160 --> 00:28:30,479 Speaker 1: out once a week and gives in overview of an 509 00:28:30,520 --> 00:28:35,080 Speaker 1: important story that's happening in the climate universe, plus suggestions 510 00:28:35,160 --> 00:28:39,480 Speaker 1: for the week's five must read climate stories. It's never 511 00:28:39,560 --> 00:28:42,040 Speaker 1: more than a ten minute read, and people tell us 512 00:28:42,040 --> 00:28:44,800 Speaker 1: it helps them keep up to date on all things 513 00:28:44,920 --> 00:28:45,360 Speaker 1: climate