Speaker 1: It's the big take from Bloomberg News and I Heeart Radio.
Speaker 1: I'm west Consova today. I want to drive your car
Speaker 1: into this city. Well, get ready to pay. Some big
Speaker 1: crowded cities like New York and London have tried to
Speaker 1: reduce traffic jams and air pollution with congestion fees that
Speaker 1: make it expensive to bring your car downtown. Now London
Speaker 1: is taking things a step further. Air pollution has fallen there,
Speaker 1: so the city is trying not just to keep down
Speaker 1: the number of cars, but enforcing steep fees on gasoline
Speaker 1: and diesel vehicles to encourage people to ditch them for electric.
Speaker 1: We'll hear all about that in a few minutes. First,
Speaker 1: I asked Eric Roston, Bloomberg Sustainability editor, to give us
Speaker 1: an overall air pollution update. Cars and factories, farms. They're
Speaker 1: generally cleaner than they were a few decades ago. So
Speaker 1: are we moving in the right direction or starting to
Speaker 1: slide back? Eric Rostin, thanks for being here, Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. Eric. You spent a lot of time thinking
Speaker 1: about air pollution, and it's kind of different now than
Speaker 1: it was a hundred years ago. So let me just
Speaker 1: ask you the most basic question, what is air pollution?
Speaker 1: It might be easiest to start with the parts of
Speaker 1: air pollution that we're the same hundred years ago, because
Speaker 1: there's not a lot of it. There's desert dust. Dust
Speaker 1: from northwest Africa can actually not only pollute the African consonant,
Speaker 1: but is taken by winds over to North America and
Speaker 1: we get a little bit of that, obviously not as
Speaker 1: bad as the continent itself does. Another thing is wildfires. Wildfires.
Speaker 1: There have always been wildfires. They're getting more damaging and
Speaker 1: more frequent, but they kick up an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: smoke and ash, and those can cause the cardiovascular problems
Speaker 1: that are such a problem with modern air pollution that
Speaker 1: we're talking about strokes and heart disease and lung cancer
Speaker 1: and respiratory infections. What's happened in the last century is
Speaker 1: we built billions of machines that make the air dirty.
Speaker 1: The overwhelming amount of this kind of air pollution is
Speaker 1: are very tiny particles. The scientists call it particulate matter
Speaker 1: two point five or PM two point five, and the
Speaker 1: two point five just means these are little tiny pieces
Speaker 1: of of pollution smaller than two point five micrograms and
Speaker 1: they get caught in our lungs and our noses, and
Speaker 1: a little dose may not be that harmful, but over
Speaker 1: time this is a public health threat that kills about
Speaker 1: four and a half million people prematurely every year. Then
Speaker 1: PM two point five, it would be nice to say, well,
Speaker 1: it's just this substance, but it's a lot of different substances.
Speaker 1: When we burn things, that kicks up all kinds of
Speaker 1: imperfect products of combustion. There's a lot of impurities in
Speaker 1: the stuff we burn in coal, in gasoline, and that
Speaker 1: leads to all kinds of other kinds of air pollution,
Speaker 1: like nitrogen air pollution. There's an oxygen based pollutant called ozone,
Speaker 1: which while it's when it's up in the stratosphere, it
Speaker 1: protects the Earth from the Sun's ultra violet radiation. Closer
Speaker 1: to ground, ozone is a dangerous and un harmful polluting
Speaker 1: When it gets really hot, you'll hear public health agencies
Speaker 1: issue like an ozone day emergency, and that's that's where
Speaker 1: that comes from. Transportation is actually only about twelve percent
Speaker 1: of the mortality that comes from air pollution. It also
Speaker 1: comes from all these other things, mostly power plants and wildfires,
Speaker 1: desert dust, and all sorts of other machines we've brought
Speaker 1: into the world world. So I mean, that's a whole
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. And I guess the question is what
Speaker 1: is the way that policy experts and scientists look at
Speaker 1: like the totality of pollution, because as you say, if
Speaker 1: you just take out one little part of it, you're
Speaker 1: not really making much of a dent. What is the
Speaker 1: way that you try to figure out, all right, how
Speaker 1: do you lower it to the point where that huge
Speaker 1: number of deaths it becomes meaningfully less. The good news
Speaker 1: there is it already has in rich nations that have
Speaker 1: had pollution the longest, so like air pollution levels have
Speaker 1: been falling in rich countries, and like we know how
Speaker 1: to regulate it. Within the last twenty years alone in
Speaker 1: the you know, in the US there has been declines
Speaker 1: in PM two point five level, the associated levels of
Speaker 1: ozone and nitrogen pollution, So we know how to do it.
Speaker 1: And you know, like with PM two point five, the
Speaker 1: scientists say, like, no amount of this stuff is okay,
Speaker 1: and of the world lives in with polluted air. So
Speaker 1: there's a long way to go. But just the tools
Speaker 1: of car efficiency of switching power plants from coal to gas,
Speaker 1: or even better than that these days, from any fossil
Speaker 1: fuel to renewable energy. These are all things that just
Speaker 1: save millions and millions of lives. And it's very important
Speaker 1: to emphasize that the communities that are losing lives are
Speaker 1: communities that have generally been underserved by government safety and
Speaker 1: public health protections. So these are poor communities. These are
Speaker 1: in many places communities of color. So attacking air pollution
Speaker 1: today also means helping underserved communities actually come out from
Speaker 1: under holy disproportionate risks that have been suffering under for
Speaker 1: for decades. We've been talking about how air pollution obviously
Speaker 1: takes the quality of the air and therefore what we're
Speaker 1: breathing in in. But you write about how scientists are
Speaker 1: now seeing other problems associated with air pollution having to
Speaker 1: do with how it affects the climate conventionally, like going
Speaker 1: back to like you know, the beginning of the whole
Speaker 1: air pollution debate in the middle of the last century.
Speaker 1: It's more a local problem. It's a problem for cities.
Speaker 1: It's a problem for communities. One thing that they've been
Speaker 1: sort of slower to pick up on is that the
Speaker 1: air pollution is also not great for the climate, because like,
Speaker 1: particularly in highly polluted northern cities, they get a lot
Speaker 1: of snow, and even beyond that, just like the Arctic
Speaker 1: winds from the south will blow soot up to glaciers,
Speaker 1: up to Arctic ice and it'll precipitate there. And when
Speaker 1: you have like black chemicals sitting on white snow, the
Speaker 1: darkness of those particulates attracts heat and melts snow and
Speaker 1: ice faster than it otherwise would. And then the other
Speaker 1: thing that has taken signed is a long time to
Speaker 1: really pinpoint, is that a lot of the particular batter
Speaker 1: are sulfur based chemicals that once you put them up
Speaker 1: in the air, they tend to get stuck up there,
Speaker 1: and they actually they reflect sunlight. We've put enough pollution
Speaker 1: into the atmosphere to heat the world already by like
Speaker 1: maybe one point four degrees. The world has only heated
Speaker 1: up one point one degree celsius in the last two
Speaker 1: hundred years. And the reason is that all the sulfur
Speaker 1: pollution that comes out of cars and power plants goes
Speaker 1: up there and hangs out and actually gives us a
Speaker 1: little bit of a I don't hesitate to call it
Speaker 1: a bonus, but part of the pollution from a climate
Speaker 1: perspective is actually, you know, doing us a favor in
Speaker 1: terms of heating. This is, of course, the very same
Speaker 1: chemicals that we spent the eighties and nineties trying to
Speaker 1: get rid of because it causes acid rain. One way
Speaker 1: that a lot of governments are trying to bring down
Speaker 1: air pollution levels is by pushing people to abandon gasoline
Speaker 1: and diesel powered vehicles and move towards electric vehicles. How
Speaker 1: big a deal is that transition when it comes to
Speaker 1: overall air pollution levels. It's one of the most fundamentally
Speaker 1: positive things we can do. As sad as it is.
Speaker 1: The reason we're in this push towards e v s
Speaker 1: and cleaner transportation, actually isn't air pollution. You know, you
Speaker 1: would hope, all things being equal, that we would have
Speaker 1: found out half a century ago that these machines contribute
Speaker 1: to premature death. We would say, oh, well, we don't
Speaker 1: want anybody to die prematurely, so we're gonna swap these
Speaker 1: right out with clean machines. We didn't do that, And
Speaker 1: what we did was let the cars and the power
Speaker 1: plants and the airplanes and the aggric culture all add
Speaker 1: up until we increased the amount of carbon dioxide in
Speaker 1: the atmosphere by more than fifty over what it was
Speaker 1: fifty years ago. That's raising global temperatures in a dangerous way.
Speaker 1: Now we're in a position where it's dangerous if we
Speaker 1: don't stop burning fossil fuels, and that's driving the push
Speaker 1: towards e v s, and as a side benefit, will
Speaker 1: kill fewer people because they'll be less air pollution. The
Speaker 1: critical caveat with electric cars is you're limiting tailpipe pollutions
Speaker 1: from them, So any electric car is going to be
Speaker 1: much more pleasant to stand around if it's idling. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, the energy is coming from the
Speaker 1: electrical grid, and so the quality of the actual climate
Speaker 1: gains from transportation is wholly dependent on your local power source.
Speaker 1: So if you have an electric car and a local
Speaker 1: power source, like I think, it's still less than having
Speaker 1: a gasoline car in the long run. But the goal
Speaker 1: here is to swap out fossil fuels more. With Eric
Speaker 1: Rosston in just a bit when we come back, will
Speaker 1: head to London to hear how bad cities experiment with
Speaker 1: high car fees is going now that Eric Rosston has
Speaker 1: healthfully given us plenty of reason to worry. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about what can be done. Bloomberg City Lab correspondent fergus
Speaker 1: O Sullivan is here with me now from London. Fergus
Speaker 1: O Sullivan, thanks so much for joining me today, my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. You've written it's just really fascinating
Speaker 1: story about how London has dramatically reduced its air pollution
Speaker 1: in a really short time. Can you describe what it
Speaker 1: was like and what they did. London is actually the
Speaker 1: city where the first person ever to have pollution lists
Speaker 1: as a cause of death lived. So it's a place
Speaker 1: that has suffered from really really terrible nitrogen oxide pollution.
Speaker 1: It can be a pretty unhealthy place to live. So
Speaker 1: to give an example of how bad it is, Oxford Street,
Speaker 1: London's main shopping street. It usually exceeds it's safe pollution
Speaker 1: levels for the year in the first week of January,
Speaker 1: the first week of the year they blow through their
Speaker 1: annual limit. Yes, or they have a certain amount of
Speaker 1: peaks that they're allowed and they just go peak to
Speaker 1: peak to peak to peak to peak. And so the
Speaker 1: government the City of London decided to take a pretty
Speaker 1: dramatic step to do something about that. What did they do.
Speaker 1: They've had some pretty groundbreaking anti pollution measures here since
Speaker 1: way back in two thousand and three, and that's when
Speaker 1: the Central London Congestion Charge was introduced. It's currently fifteen
Speaker 1: pounds a day. That's at eighteen and a half dollars
Speaker 1: roughly that you have to pay if you want to
Speaker 1: drive in Central London for every car except for battery
Speaker 1: electric and plug in hybrids. So in the most congested
Speaker 1: part of the city, you want to drive there, you've
Speaker 1: got to pay up. You've gotta pay up, yes, substantially,
Speaker 1: and that's been in a place for nineteen years and
Speaker 1: that was extremely effective. The thing with that is it
Speaker 1: was intended to stop the average Joe really driving into
Speaker 1: central London, to stop private drivers, and their numbers have
Speaker 1: completely did drop. But then you had this upswing in
Speaker 1: Uber and Bolt, these private hire cabs and online shopping
Speaker 1: spiked delivery van levels, so actually the traffic then rose up,
Speaker 1: so people themselves weren't driving in, but once they got there,
Speaker 1: they were still taking taxis and ubers to get around exactly,
Speaker 1: and people concreasingly stopped going to the shops and waiting
Speaker 1: for the shops to come for them via delivery lan
Speaker 1: and so ultimately a few years ago it reached the
Speaker 1: same level, but it took about, you know, ten fifteen
Speaker 1: years to each that level. They introduced something a little
Speaker 1: more stringent called the Ultra Low Emission Zone. That's only
Speaker 1: on the most polluting cars, so all cars built before
Speaker 1: two thousand and five that run on gas and all
Speaker 1: diesel vehicles of any type before and for that you
Speaker 1: have to pay twelve pounds fifty a day. That's about
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars fifty. Is that on top of the congestion
Speaker 1: already in place. That's on top of the congestion charge.
Speaker 1: So if you want to drive into that zone now
Speaker 1: you have to pay seven pounds fifty a day. That's
Speaker 1: about thirty four dollars. So it's very very large amount.
Speaker 1: But the actually Ultra Low Emission Zone is currently twice
Speaker 1: the size of the congestion charge shown. So it covers
Speaker 1: all of in in London and in probably August of
Speaker 1: this year it's going to cover the entirety of Greater London.
Speaker 1: So exactly how big is this zone? You said it's larger,
Speaker 1: what is it encompassed? If you're in London. How big
Speaker 1: the zone for ultraal low emissions. It covers about three
Speaker 1: point eight million Londoners homes, so it's substantial. It's about
Speaker 1: half so if if you think of London as being
Speaker 1: within the M twenty five Beltway, it's about half that
Speaker 1: area currently in the of the big road that circles
Speaker 1: Lining exactly. But this summer the zone is going to
Speaker 1: be extended all the way up pretty much out to
Speaker 1: that beltway. It's not exactly the same border, but it's
Speaker 1: very very close. So it sounds like the Ultra Low
Speaker 1: emission zone has a different goal than the first one,
Speaker 1: which was to discourage people from driving. This one seems
Speaker 1: more at trying to get people to buy electric cars
Speaker 1: so that they can't drive in most of London without
Speaker 1: incurring a fee. Yes, this is substantially intended to push
Speaker 1: a model shift, and one of the things that is
Speaker 1: relevant with looking back at the congestion charge. Remember I
Speaker 1: said that it was good at deterring private vehicles, but
Speaker 1: increasingly it's the commercial fleet that it is a big issue.
Speaker 1: So it's also substantially about encouraging large scale haulers and
Speaker 1: people like Uber to switch their vehicles over to to
Speaker 1: something much cleaner, and it seems to be having that effect.
Speaker 1: How has it been working out? The numbers are still small,
Speaker 1: but they are also at the same time quite spectacular.
Speaker 1: So looking at Uber for example, about thirteen percent of
Speaker 1: their journeys in London are by electric vehicle now, but
Speaker 1: that's triple what they were that was in the second
Speaker 1: quarter of two. But that's triple what they were running
Speaker 1: in the first quarter of one. So ready it's gone
Speaker 1: up three times. It's about five times what the average
Speaker 1: is in North American cities. So yes, there has been
Speaker 1: quite a flip, and that seems to be ongoing. And
Speaker 1: what about diesel, because diesel is really dirty as compared
Speaker 1: to just a regular guest line car. In terms of
Speaker 1: the amount of diesel vehicles coming into Inner London, you know,
Speaker 1: it was spectacular. Forty four thousand fewer diesel vehicles every
Speaker 1: day entered the zone after it was introduced compared to
Speaker 1: the week's proceeding, So it's almost like flipping a switch.
Speaker 1: One week later, there's forty four thousand fewer of these
Speaker 1: vehicles every day. So the goal here, of course is
Speaker 1: to not just decrease congestion, but to lower pollution. Is
Speaker 1: that working. Yes, it has reduced pollution. They believe that
Speaker 1: in the first six months it reduced proportion of harmful
Speaker 1: pollutants in inner London by and in central London by forty.
Speaker 1: And this is over which period of time, over the
Speaker 1: first six months of the ulas being introduced. So over
Speaker 1: the six months since the Ultra Low Emission Zone, air
Speaker 1: pollution in central London has dropped tw yes and forty
Speaker 1: in the city corps. But it makes sense when you
Speaker 1: think about it, because it's like flicking the switch. One
Speaker 1: day they can drive in the next day it's commercially
Speaker 1: unviable to them. Suddenly the pollution isn't there. So it
Speaker 1: shows that you can really deliver things very quickly. How
Speaker 1: has the public responded to this, it's pretty big stick
Speaker 1: without a whole lot of carrot. Well, yes, it is
Speaker 1: a pretty big stick and not a whole lot of carrot.
Speaker 1: But then, not to be too sensationalist about it. Not
Speaker 1: dying of from air pollution is a pretty juicy carrot
Speaker 1: if you ask me. And I think people's understanding of
Speaker 1: the genuine dangers has grown. Also worth bearing in mind
Speaker 1: that before these charges, London was a terrible place to
Speaker 1: drive and a profoundly inconvenient place to drive. And this
Speaker 1: is not a widespread out North American city where you
Speaker 1: can just you know, drive through a city like a
Speaker 1: hot knife through butter. I'm in my forties, I don't
Speaker 1: have a license, and I have never had the need to,
Speaker 1: and I've always lived in London and it's just not convenient.
Speaker 1: So I think a lot of people feel that way.
Speaker 1: It's always been a headache. It's just like making it
Speaker 1: yet more complicated. You're right that European countries might not
Speaker 1: be quick to embrace London as a medel, but the
Speaker 1: US is more likely to adapt a version of London's approach.
Speaker 1: Why do you say that, Well, I just think that
Speaker 1: there is there are more overlaps between British and American
Speaker 1: civic cultures, if you like, then there are between America
Speaker 1: and continentally European civic cultures. So I think this kind
Speaker 1: of more less a fair somewhat market driven approach is
Speaker 1: something that would probably face some pushback in America, but
Speaker 1: it's a model that they will people will understand, and
Speaker 1: it kind of fits with the culture, the idea of like, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want you to do this, but if you're
Speaker 1: really going to do it, you have to pay because
Speaker 1: you know you are getting something you have to pay
Speaker 1: back in And I think that kind of contract with
Speaker 1: the public is something that the American citizens will probably
Speaker 1: find more familiar than they're simply like someone's telling me,
Speaker 1: I can't drive my car here after the break our
Speaker 1: electric cars the answer to pollution in big cities Burgas
Speaker 1: we've been talking about how London's plan has increased the
Speaker 1: number of electric vehicles down the road, are there other
Speaker 1: incentives more generally to get people that make the switch
Speaker 1: from gasoline cars in terms of reductions in the cost
Speaker 1: of e V so that makes easier people to buy them.
Speaker 1: There are some incentives offered by national government. What that's
Speaker 1: reflected in, however, is actually lower prices at points of sale.
Speaker 1: So those subsidies are given to the manufacturers and it
Speaker 1: just means that the prices are kept relatively low. Our
Speaker 1: associate producers and of Sudiki ask drivers in London if
Speaker 1: the ultra low emission fees will make them more likely
Speaker 1: to buy an electric car. Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 1: I guess i'd be competitive get in at week or yes,
Speaker 1: at one point in my life. But yeah, that's not
Speaker 1: an option right now because we're just too expensive. I'm
Speaker 1: starting to think about in the future that possibly I
Speaker 1: could get a like an electrical vehicle might be better. Um,
Speaker 1: and I've seen them expand on the streets a lot more.
Speaker 1: I would I would have to judge a lot more
Speaker 1: aspects about it, not just the lower mission zones. As
Speaker 1: for the expansion of the zone, I think it is
Speaker 1: a little bit too early to be pursuing that, seen
Speaker 1: as if you look on any street in London you
Speaker 1: see very few ultra low admission vehicles at present, and
Speaker 1: I think that the policy of expansion of the zone
Speaker 1: should have been rolled out more slowly. It's something that
Speaker 1: impacts my own considerations when I'm looking at purchasing a
Speaker 1: vehicle within the next few months. One thing I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you about, though, is when you introduce many
Speaker 1: electric vehicles into a city, you need to have a
Speaker 1: lot of charging stations. How has London downe that? How
Speaker 1: are US city is going to very quickly increase the
Speaker 1: number of charging stations so all these cars can keep
Speaker 1: running well. There has been substanchi investment in charging stations
Speaker 1: and a growing network of them. I would say that
Speaker 1: that is arguably a further hurdle that isn't going to
Speaker 1: need to be overcome. Currently it's not just a question
Speaker 1: of finding a charging station, but finding a charge provider
Speaker 1: that your vehicle has a filiated to. I believe that
Speaker 1: some changes are in the pipeline so that any charging
Speaker 1: station is used visible by any electric vehicle. But currently, yes,
Speaker 1: it can be inconvenient, So it's getting better, but I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say it's necessarily it's optimum levels yet. Fergus and Sullivan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Thank you. Let's bring back Bloomberg Sustained Ability
Speaker 1: Editor Eric Roston. Eric, we've been talking about how if
Speaker 1: you want people to buy electric cars, you need a
Speaker 1: lot more places to charge them to make it convenient,
Speaker 1: and that means making more electricity, which itself isn't always
Speaker 1: that clean. So let's say you live in an area
Speaker 1: where your power comes from the coal plan. There's not
Speaker 1: as many as there used to be, but they're still around.
Speaker 1: Does buying an e V put you in the plus
Speaker 1: side of the ledger? There? Some of the researchs does
Speaker 1: indicate that even if you buy an EV and you're
Speaker 1: on a coal fired power grid, that the gains overall
Speaker 1: are still net positive from a climate perspective. This is
Speaker 1: a really really messy problem we have. I don't know
Speaker 1: how many hundreds of millions or billions of cars in
Speaker 1: the world, how many tens of millions of discrete power
Speaker 1: grids there are. But it's not going to happen overnight.
Speaker 1: So some parts of the system are going to get
Speaker 1: ahead of the other parts of the system. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you want an electric car, buy an electric car.
Speaker 1: If you don't want an electric car, don't buy an
Speaker 1: electric car. But the fact is that every five years
Speaker 1: that go by, there's going to be more electric vehicles
Speaker 1: and less fossil fuels, And so the calculation for any individual,
Speaker 1: you know, it is always going to be, well, what's
Speaker 1: the safest, most fun car that I can afford. But
Speaker 1: the fact is is that as evs become cheaper, more
Speaker 1: people will buy them, and as fossil fuels are squeezed
Speaker 1: out of the energy system, less and less of it
Speaker 1: will power e vs. So it's a very difficult question
Speaker 1: to answer on a on an individual level, but on
Speaker 1: the system level, things are moving in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Do evs have their own sort of problems with contributing
Speaker 1: ti polution, Like if we start seeing a rise in
Speaker 1: e vs where they sort of overtake gasoline powered vehicles,
Speaker 1: what are the downsides of doing that? The downsides are
Speaker 1: in the vast amount of precious minerals that you need
Speaker 1: to build electric cars. You need like batteries and other
Speaker 1: components require elements that we don't have a century of
Speaker 1: experience in mining at scale. So mining is just one
Speaker 1: of the most invasive extractive things that people do, and
Speaker 1: it's hard. You know, we need a lot more lithium
Speaker 1: than we ever had before. There's scarcity, and that's why
Speaker 1: you've seen prices rise so much. The same with cobalt.
Speaker 1: Mining is invasive and it has real environmental impacts. There's
Speaker 1: also end of life issues, like we're gonna need to
Speaker 1: mine old old cars. Nobody wants anymore for their lithium
Speaker 1: and cobalt and other things things, and so you see
Speaker 1: it happening, but at a very fast clip. We need
Speaker 1: to gin up industrial systems that can both produce these
Speaker 1: minerals without wrecking local communities and local ecosystems in the
Speaker 1: place where the minerals are found, and we also need
Speaker 1: end of life systems for for consumer products that will
Speaker 1: take defunct car batteries and other kinds of batteries and
Speaker 1: get those materials out and get them back into the
Speaker 1: supply chain. Eric Roston, thanks so much for talking to
Speaker 1: me today. Thanks for having me. You can read more
Speaker 1: from Eric Roston and fergus O Sullivan on Bloomberg dot com.
Speaker 1: Here's a quick p s A. It's a new year
Speaker 1: and you might be thinking about making some changes in
Speaker 1: your life. Our colleagues at the Bloomberg podcast Zero have
Speaker 1: a special episode all about changing jobs, specifically people who
Speaker 1: quit their jobs to go to work fighting climate change.
Speaker 1: You I'll hear the stories of a restaurant critic, geophysicist,
Speaker 1: even an international war crimes attorney. They all left their
Speaker 1: previous careers behind to try to slow the warming of
Speaker 1: the world. Check it out. The podcast is called Zero,
Speaker 1: the episode How to Quit your job for the Climate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to us here at the Big Take
Speaker 1: the Daily podcast from Bloomberg and I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more shows from my Heart Radio, visit the heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. Read today's story and
Speaker 1: subscribe to our daily newsletter at bloomberg dot com slash
Speaker 1: Big Take, and we'd love to hear from you. Email
Speaker 1: us with questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot net. The supervising producer of The Big Take is
Speaker 1: Vicky Bergalina. Our senior producer is Katherine Pink. Our producer
Speaker 1: is and associate producer is Rafael lum Si Lee is
Speaker 1: our engineer. Original music by Leo Sidrin. I'm West Kasova.
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend. M h um um um um
Speaker 1: m m