1 00:00:02,120 --> 00:00:05,680 Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westerbild. This 2 00:00:05,880 --> 00:00:12,040 Speaker 1: is season fourteen Obstruction. We have been talking each week 3 00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:16,599 Speaker 1: to the authors who have edited and contributed to a big, new, 4 00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:21,239 Speaker 1: giant collection of peer viewed research on climate obstruction. It's 5 00:00:21,239 --> 00:00:24,319 Speaker 1: from the Climate Social Science Network at Brown University and 6 00:00:24,360 --> 00:00:29,440 Speaker 1: it's called Climate Obstruction a Global Assessment. For the past 7 00:00:29,600 --> 00:00:33,960 Speaker 1: eleven episodes, we've looked at what climate obstruction actually looks 8 00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:36,920 Speaker 1: like in different parts of the world, all the different 9 00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:40,120 Speaker 1: tactics that are being used to different people and industries 10 00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:43,040 Speaker 1: that are using them, why it works so well, all 11 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,639 Speaker 1: of those things. In these next two and last two 12 00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:50,120 Speaker 1: episodes of the season, we're looking at what efforts have 13 00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:54,000 Speaker 1: been made to push back on obstruction and what has 14 00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:58,320 Speaker 1: actually worked. So this is really interesting and exciting because 15 00:00:58,320 --> 00:01:02,000 Speaker 1: we're now looking at peer reviewed research on what actually 16 00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:07,480 Speaker 1: works to stop obstruction, which is new research, and frankly, 17 00:01:07,520 --> 00:01:09,360 Speaker 1: I'm kind of surprised that there's even enough of it 18 00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:15,240 Speaker 1: to make for two whole chapters. Those chapters are focused 19 00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:21,120 Speaker 1: on two key types of efforts, litigation and activism. Today 20 00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:24,679 Speaker 1: we are starting with litigation, so there are hundreds of 21 00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:28,600 Speaker 1: court cases all over the world targeting polluting companies and 22 00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:32,360 Speaker 1: industries from a bunch of different ankles. And today I'm 23 00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:35,640 Speaker 1: joined by Joanna Setzer from the London School of Economics 24 00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:39,400 Speaker 1: to walk through what those strategies are and what is working. 25 00:01:39,920 --> 00:01:48,760 Speaker 1: That conversation is coming up after this quick break. 26 00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:01,800 Speaker 2: My name is Joanna Setzer, Associate Professor at the Grantham 27 00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:04,360 Speaker 2: Research Institute at the London schol Economics. 28 00:02:04,920 --> 00:02:07,360 Speaker 1: What was the idea for doing this work in the 29 00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:10,200 Speaker 1: first place? Why are we talking about litigation? Great? 30 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:13,840 Speaker 2: So well, if you think about this book, it's such 31 00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:19,040 Speaker 2: a broad set of angles that are covered, and that's 32 00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:22,280 Speaker 2: why I think it's a really important contribution. So what 33 00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:26,720 Speaker 2: I see our chapter and the law more broadly is 34 00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:30,360 Speaker 2: able to do. It's able to do a quiet revolution. 35 00:02:30,960 --> 00:02:34,280 Speaker 2: So I think I see law and the state as 36 00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:39,240 Speaker 2: countering this organized obstruction. And then we see also how 37 00:02:39,400 --> 00:02:43,440 Speaker 2: obstructors might also use law to fight back. So it's 38 00:02:43,480 --> 00:02:47,399 Speaker 2: a complex one. And we wrote this chapter together with 39 00:02:47,600 --> 00:02:51,560 Speaker 2: Grace and Ben and several other contributing authors. The way 40 00:02:51,600 --> 00:02:55,680 Speaker 2: we went about that was mapping these three big leavers 41 00:02:55,960 --> 00:03:00,000 Speaker 2: that show how law can puncture. The playbook of delis 42 00:03:00,280 --> 00:03:07,160 Speaker 2: obstruction and the three leavers are regulation, litigation, and government investigations. 43 00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:09,880 Speaker 2: So we go one by one and there's lots of 44 00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:13,239 Speaker 2: connection between them and the other chapters. 45 00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:17,760 Speaker 1: This chapter and the one on activism feel like the okay, 46 00:03:17,800 --> 00:03:22,000 Speaker 1: so what can we do about it? Chapters? And I 47 00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:24,959 Speaker 1: think helpful for people to know that there are things 48 00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:28,320 Speaker 1: that can be knowne That are being done and it's 49 00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:32,200 Speaker 1: not all just a one way thing. So in addition 50 00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,840 Speaker 1: to governments, what are the other type like groups of 51 00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:39,240 Speaker 1: people or types of people who are taking these actions 52 00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:40,040 Speaker 1: that you mentioned? 53 00:03:40,880 --> 00:03:44,000 Speaker 2: Yeah, so well, the actors that are taking this action 54 00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:48,240 Speaker 2: are very much a reflection of the very multifaceted group 55 00:03:48,280 --> 00:03:51,520 Speaker 2: of actors that is part of climate obstruction and of 56 00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:54,200 Speaker 2: the efforts to fight it. So it's a whole ecosystem, right. 57 00:03:54,520 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 2: You have the fossil fuel producers and the trade groups. 58 00:03:57,960 --> 00:04:04,480 Speaker 2: You have the aligned sectors, pr firms, finance, political actors, 59 00:04:04,760 --> 00:04:09,680 Speaker 2: media and lawyers and jos and of course the government. 60 00:04:09,760 --> 00:04:14,480 Speaker 2: So all of these are involved in either litigation or legislation. 61 00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:17,080 Speaker 2: So I think when I give some examples, you will 62 00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:20,479 Speaker 2: see that. And again, the fact that law can be 63 00:04:20,600 --> 00:04:24,479 Speaker 2: used both to obstruct and to counter obstruction is a 64 00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:28,760 Speaker 2: reflection of this variety of actors. The other thing that 65 00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:32,320 Speaker 2: I think it's important with legal responses is that you 66 00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:37,200 Speaker 2: can only have legal responses if you have evidence. And 67 00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:41,799 Speaker 2: therefore the legal response is a reflection of the evidence 68 00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:44,840 Speaker 2: that is available. And a lot of this evidence is 69 00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:49,120 Speaker 2: produced by the science, so attribution science, and also by 70 00:04:49,320 --> 00:04:54,840 Speaker 2: the documents that show where the obstruction took place. So 71 00:04:55,080 --> 00:04:59,720 Speaker 2: the legal response depends on the investigation and often even 72 00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:03,280 Speaker 2: in the digation by journalists to produce the evidence. So 73 00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:08,720 Speaker 2: if we think about regulation and legislation, there are different 74 00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:14,120 Speaker 2: functions that legislation and regulation have to counter obstruction. The 75 00:05:14,160 --> 00:05:18,280 Speaker 2: first one is the most direct, I think probably obvious one, 76 00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:22,520 Speaker 2: which is you pass a law to determine controls, so 77 00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:28,960 Speaker 2: direct emissions, standards, targets, pricing, all of this, we understand 78 00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:33,200 Speaker 2: are also ways through which the law can fight or 79 00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:36,960 Speaker 2: counter obstruction. Because the moment that you set a clear target, 80 00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:42,640 Speaker 2: a clear pricing mechanism, clear standard, you create a clarity 81 00:05:43,240 --> 00:05:46,960 Speaker 2: that then actors have to respond. Of course, in turn, 82 00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:51,159 Speaker 2: I'm going to always probably have to bring that other side. 83 00:05:51,440 --> 00:05:56,000 Speaker 2: In turn, you will have some heavy pushback against laws 84 00:05:56,000 --> 00:06:00,120 Speaker 2: and policies that set those targets. But we have a 85 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:05,520 Speaker 2: lot of also academic evidence that passing legislation is the 86 00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:11,360 Speaker 2: most robust way to set intentions but also the actual targets, 87 00:06:11,440 --> 00:06:16,000 Speaker 2: and that has resulted in reduction of emissions. So legislation 88 00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:19,680 Speaker 2: that sets targets is the most obvious one. But then 89 00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:23,280 Speaker 2: other ways in which legislation and regulation are important are 90 00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:29,000 Speaker 2: to deal with the issue of misinformation and transparency. So 91 00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:33,840 Speaker 2: we have several examples of legislation that deal with greenwashing, 92 00:06:34,240 --> 00:06:40,000 Speaker 2: that establish disclosure duties or rules for advertisements and even 93 00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:44,520 Speaker 2: what we call regulatory shaming. And the chapter brings several 94 00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:49,679 Speaker 2: examples of national agencies that have penalties and that will 95 00:06:49,720 --> 00:06:54,440 Speaker 2: expose firms for misleading claims, and also competition and consumer 96 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:59,839 Speaker 2: authorities that will point to, for instance, claims or equald 97 00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:04,080 Speaker 2: design that are vague, or carbon neutral offsets that are 98 00:07:04,520 --> 00:07:09,600 Speaker 2: not substantiated. And then finally, through law you can also 99 00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:13,760 Speaker 2: try to deal with conflicts of interest. So we know 100 00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:17,880 Speaker 2: that there is strong lobbying and issues such as revolving 101 00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:23,440 Speaker 2: doors and how both in the domestic context but also internationally. 102 00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:28,120 Speaker 2: We know now of how many lobbyists attend UNS, Triple 103 00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:33,480 Speaker 2: C meetings cops for instance, and through lawmaking. Through regulation, 104 00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:39,040 Speaker 2: you can also address these and minimize the ways and 105 00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:43,320 Speaker 2: how often such conflicts of interest and lobbying will take place. 106 00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:47,800 Speaker 1: Okay, can we talk a little bit about timeline and 107 00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:53,440 Speaker 1: just sort of the evolution of litigation in particular. So 108 00:07:53,760 --> 00:07:57,200 Speaker 1: you mentioned this in the chapter, and we've definitely covered 109 00:07:57,200 --> 00:07:59,240 Speaker 1: this before too, that there was sort of this early 110 00:07:59,320 --> 00:08:02,880 Speaker 1: batch of cases in early two thousands and then not 111 00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,360 Speaker 1: absolutely the thing, but not much happening until this recent 112 00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:09,120 Speaker 1: explosion in the last decade. So I'd love to have 113 00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:11,480 Speaker 1: you talk a little bit about how many cases we're 114 00:08:11,480 --> 00:08:14,600 Speaker 1: talking about and what are the things that have led 115 00:08:14,760 --> 00:08:18,600 Speaker 1: to so many more cases being filed in the last 116 00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:19,640 Speaker 1: decade or so. 117 00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:25,120 Speaker 2: Yes, definitely, well, litigation is a very visible response to 118 00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:29,640 Speaker 2: climate obstruction. And if we think in terms of numbers 119 00:08:29,640 --> 00:08:35,040 Speaker 2: of cases, the Saban Center at Columbian Diversity collects all 120 00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:38,880 Speaker 2: the litigation that is climate specific, and there are over 121 00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:42,360 Speaker 2: three thousand cases around the world in sixty countries. So 122 00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:46,640 Speaker 2: there's now a really large number of climate specific cases, 123 00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:51,120 Speaker 2: and these will deal with the problem of obstruction in 124 00:08:51,160 --> 00:08:55,720 Speaker 2: different ways. So if you think about the first wave 125 00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:59,920 Speaker 2: of cases in the US that dealt with that, were 126 00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:04,800 Speaker 2: brought against the carbon majors and seeking compensation. Those were 127 00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:09,880 Speaker 2: all unsuccessful and it took time. And when I say 128 00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:12,319 Speaker 2: it took time, it took also back to the issue 129 00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:15,960 Speaker 2: of evidence. There was a need for more robust evidence 130 00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:20,640 Speaker 2: and developments in law, and also in other countries, the 131 00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:23,760 Speaker 2: law carried on developing for us to find ourselves in 132 00:09:23,800 --> 00:09:26,360 Speaker 2: this moment that we are now, where we haven't seen 133 00:09:26,480 --> 00:09:31,040 Speaker 2: yet one successful case that has obtained damages from these companies, 134 00:09:31,559 --> 00:09:34,280 Speaker 2: not so far, and the group of cases that we 135 00:09:34,320 --> 00:09:39,040 Speaker 2: have now is distinctively different and I would say closer 136 00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,200 Speaker 2: to get that than the first wave. So what we 137 00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:45,520 Speaker 2: have now is we have cases that are built upon 138 00:09:45,840 --> 00:09:51,199 Speaker 2: the arguments that these companies have historically deceived consumers. So 139 00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:54,200 Speaker 2: it's really interesting to see in the US how the 140 00:09:54,559 --> 00:10:01,040 Speaker 2: argument of deception obstruction forms the basis for cities and 141 00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:05,760 Speaker 2: states to seek compensation. So we have now around thirty 142 00:10:05,840 --> 00:10:09,680 Speaker 2: cases brought by states and cities and tribes that allege 143 00:10:09,720 --> 00:10:13,480 Speaker 2: that oil majors and trade groups they knew they misled, 144 00:10:13,640 --> 00:10:17,000 Speaker 2: and they delayed, and by doing this they have worsening 145 00:10:17,280 --> 00:10:21,280 Speaker 2: the harm and the adaptation costs. This is very unique 146 00:10:21,280 --> 00:10:24,600 Speaker 2: in the US, so in other countries. The basis for 147 00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:28,760 Speaker 2: such compensation cases tends to be more on the emissions themselves, 148 00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:32,560 Speaker 2: not so much on the misleading on the obstruction. So 149 00:10:32,600 --> 00:10:35,760 Speaker 2: the US cases make they bring this issue of obstruction 150 00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:38,920 Speaker 2: at the center of why. As a result of that, 151 00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:41,880 Speaker 2: we have the problem that we have now And these 152 00:10:41,920 --> 00:10:45,720 Speaker 2: cases now have survived years of the companies trying to 153 00:10:45,800 --> 00:10:49,560 Speaker 2: remove them from courts, and we have, for instance, the 154 00:10:49,640 --> 00:10:54,280 Speaker 2: Honolulu case moved into phases of discovery and trial, so 155 00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:57,760 Speaker 2: it's getting closer. Again, we haven't had a successful case 156 00:10:57,800 --> 00:11:02,440 Speaker 2: seeking compensation, but they will be quite diverse. Also across 157 00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:07,480 Speaker 2: these several cases either focusing on public nuisance or fraud 158 00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:11,320 Speaker 2: or consumer liability. There's even a couple of cases that 159 00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:15,559 Speaker 2: are based on racketeer. So the reco act and what 160 00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:19,160 Speaker 2: it might be of these compensation cases is that we'll 161 00:11:19,160 --> 00:11:24,600 Speaker 2: see trillions, billions of dollars potentially these companies having to 162 00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:28,680 Speaker 2: pay not just because of the damages that they caused 163 00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:32,920 Speaker 2: to the climate system, but also because they deceived and 164 00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:37,240 Speaker 2: misled the public and shareholders. So this is one type 165 00:11:37,280 --> 00:11:40,760 Speaker 2: of litigation that is very visible. But it's also important 166 00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:44,800 Speaker 2: that not all litigation that is relevant for this issue 167 00:11:44,800 --> 00:11:48,600 Speaker 2: of obstruction is of this type. So there are other 168 00:11:48,840 --> 00:11:52,400 Speaker 2: examples that have already seen success. And here we have 169 00:11:52,559 --> 00:11:56,040 Speaker 2: the climate washing cases, right the core of climate washing. 170 00:11:56,080 --> 00:12:02,800 Speaker 2: Greenwashing is misleading information is attempts to obstruct to an extent, 171 00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:07,000 Speaker 2: and here we have many hundreds of cases that have 172 00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:13,480 Speaker 2: brought the or challenged carbon neutral flights or fossil fuels 173 00:12:13,559 --> 00:12:17,840 Speaker 2: that are marked as clean. And then also going beyond 174 00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:22,040 Speaker 2: the carbon majors, you have cases against banks or also 175 00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:26,680 Speaker 2: there are examples against the agriculture sector. So it's much 176 00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:31,439 Speaker 2: more varied the types of actors against who these claims 177 00:12:31,440 --> 00:12:34,839 Speaker 2: are brought, and they are trying to get either some 178 00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:41,040 Speaker 2: civil penalty or a corrective statement. So address obstruction from 179 00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:45,160 Speaker 2: this angle of you've lied, you have to repair that lie, 180 00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:48,480 Speaker 2: and we've seen a really high rate of success also 181 00:12:48,520 --> 00:12:51,960 Speaker 2: compared to other types of cases in climate washing. 182 00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:55,080 Speaker 1: Can I actually have you talked a little bit about 183 00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:59,079 Speaker 1: attribution science too, and the role that has played in 184 00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:03,319 Speaker 1: strengthening some of these cases. How has that like kind 185 00:13:03,360 --> 00:13:05,240 Speaker 1: of come into the litigation Mecht? 186 00:13:06,840 --> 00:13:12,040 Speaker 2: Yes, So attribution science has been a critically important part 187 00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:17,600 Speaker 2: of climate cases, particularly these that seek compensation. So the 188 00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:22,800 Speaker 2: issue there was that with governments. To an extent, it's 189 00:13:22,880 --> 00:13:26,239 Speaker 2: easier to file a case against the government because governments 190 00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:30,480 Speaker 2: have duties before, because they've scienced to the Paris Agreement, 191 00:13:30,600 --> 00:13:34,720 Speaker 2: because they have duties of care that are established through legislation. 192 00:13:35,280 --> 00:13:41,000 Speaker 2: And that's quite different from corporates who don't have commitments 193 00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:45,800 Speaker 2: to Paris. They don't have obligations often to reduce emissions 194 00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:50,480 Speaker 2: through legislation. And then moreover, also the fact that it 195 00:13:51,480 --> 00:13:55,439 Speaker 2: is in legal terms, it's not only necessary to demonstrate 196 00:13:55,559 --> 00:13:58,680 Speaker 2: that a company has emitted, but you also have to 197 00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:02,160 Speaker 2: demonstrate the damage. And how do you do that. Well, 198 00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:06,199 Speaker 2: the way you can do that is precisely through attribution science. 199 00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:11,319 Speaker 2: So attribution science is this science that will connect the 200 00:14:11,480 --> 00:14:17,400 Speaker 2: increase emissions and the result of those emissions, therefore to 201 00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:22,440 Speaker 2: what extent those emissions have increased the severity of extreme 202 00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:27,080 Speaker 2: weather events, and then attribute that to specific sources. So 203 00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:30,840 Speaker 2: that is absolutely critical in legal terms, because you wouldn't 204 00:14:30,880 --> 00:14:34,120 Speaker 2: be able to ask Xon or Shell, any company to 205 00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:37,920 Speaker 2: pay unless you can demonstrate that a they've emitted and 206 00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:42,000 Speaker 2: how much, and b to what extent those emissions have 207 00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:46,840 Speaker 2: contributed to that specific damage. And what's interesting is that 208 00:14:46,960 --> 00:14:51,400 Speaker 2: attribution science was taking place anyway, because there are so 209 00:14:51,440 --> 00:14:54,880 Speaker 2: many scientists that were working on that, because it's an 210 00:14:54,880 --> 00:14:58,920 Speaker 2: important scientific question, and what was missing was how to 211 00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:04,680 Speaker 2: translate those findings into the litigation, into the filings and 212 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:09,440 Speaker 2: in a way that is sufficient proof for courts to 213 00:15:09,520 --> 00:15:12,440 Speaker 2: be able to consider that as evidence. And this is 214 00:15:12,480 --> 00:15:15,760 Speaker 2: what we're seeing now. In the last few years, there 215 00:15:15,840 --> 00:15:20,440 Speaker 2: was a really interesting paper that was published by Rupert 216 00:15:20,440 --> 00:15:23,720 Speaker 2: Sewers Smith and others showing that actually there was an 217 00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:28,040 Speaker 2: evidentiary gap, that's the state of the art science that 218 00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:30,760 Speaker 2: existed already at the time they published the paper was 219 00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:35,520 Speaker 2: not reflected in the litigation, which suggests that even the 220 00:15:35,560 --> 00:15:38,640 Speaker 2: cases at the time could have done better if they 221 00:15:38,680 --> 00:15:42,160 Speaker 2: had engaged with the state of the art science. And 222 00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:46,600 Speaker 2: this has changed because the lawyers are now better qualified 223 00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:48,880 Speaker 2: and they are paying more attention and really putting a 224 00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:51,920 Speaker 2: lot of effort into understanding the science. And at the 225 00:15:51,960 --> 00:15:56,680 Speaker 2: same time, the scientists they realized that there was an 226 00:15:56,680 --> 00:16:01,480 Speaker 2: opportunity to make their research useful and applies, and therefore 227 00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:05,400 Speaker 2: they started really understanding in what ways they could present 228 00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:08,680 Speaker 2: that those findings that they would have anyway, but in 229 00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:11,840 Speaker 2: ways that could be understood by courts and understood by 230 00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:15,680 Speaker 2: that language that is the language of law. And then 231 00:16:15,800 --> 00:16:19,280 Speaker 2: this is all now what we're seeing now, and therefore 232 00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:23,160 Speaker 2: we have yet to understand what is going to be 233 00:16:23,280 --> 00:16:27,560 Speaker 2: the the use how this will impact the findings of 234 00:16:27,720 --> 00:16:31,600 Speaker 2: courts and experts in these cases. But we are definitely 235 00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:35,480 Speaker 2: closer thanks to the science and to this understanding of 236 00:16:35,560 --> 00:16:38,800 Speaker 2: how to apply the science, we're closer to seeing this 237 00:16:39,120 --> 00:16:43,720 Speaker 2: attribution being established not only through the academic papers but 238 00:16:43,760 --> 00:16:44,960 Speaker 2: also through courts. 239 00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:50,560 Speaker 1: That's so interesting. Okay, you mentioned in the chapter that 240 00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:53,680 Speaker 1: you know, most of this litigation was focused on the 241 00:16:53,680 --> 00:16:55,760 Speaker 1: Global North for a long time, but now there's been 242 00:16:55,760 --> 00:17:00,000 Speaker 1: an increase in cases in the Global South. Can you 243 00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:02,200 Speaker 1: talk about that a little bit. What is litigation looking 244 00:17:02,320 --> 00:17:04,840 Speaker 1: like in Global South countries? 245 00:17:05,840 --> 00:17:10,119 Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's true that in general it took longer 246 00:17:10,119 --> 00:17:13,000 Speaker 2: for countries in the Global South to start filing cases, 247 00:17:13,320 --> 00:17:16,920 Speaker 2: and we can of course explore why, But the most 248 00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:19,680 Speaker 2: obvious reasons is that it's quite expensive to file a 249 00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:23,400 Speaker 2: case and you need that expertise to understand the science 250 00:17:23,520 --> 00:17:26,320 Speaker 2: issues at stake. So it took a while for the 251 00:17:26,359 --> 00:17:29,880 Speaker 2: first cases to be filed in the Global South compared 252 00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:31,840 Speaker 2: to the number of cases we were already seeing in 253 00:17:31,880 --> 00:17:35,720 Speaker 2: the US and Australia, but in the last ten years 254 00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:39,000 Speaker 2: there's been a really sharp increase and the majority of 255 00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:42,480 Speaker 2: cases have been filed in the last five years in 256 00:17:42,520 --> 00:17:46,320 Speaker 2: the Global South, with countries such as Brazil, and we 257 00:17:46,400 --> 00:17:49,119 Speaker 2: don't have a full account of how many. But in 258 00:17:49,240 --> 00:17:53,359 Speaker 2: China also cases the number of cases dealing with climate 259 00:17:53,400 --> 00:17:56,800 Speaker 2: issues has grown, but we haven't analyzed there are more 260 00:17:56,840 --> 00:18:00,040 Speaker 2: than five hundred cases, for instance. That's the court, the 261 00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:04,200 Speaker 2: Supreme People's Court of China has already mentioned that they 262 00:18:04,320 --> 00:18:07,960 Speaker 2: are looking into but we haven't yet looked. So the 263 00:18:08,000 --> 00:18:11,199 Speaker 2: Global South has this both issue of coming a bit 264 00:18:11,280 --> 00:18:14,919 Speaker 2: later and that we still have to understand better and 265 00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:18,240 Speaker 2: get hold of what this group of cases are. But 266 00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:21,960 Speaker 2: the ones that we know of they both reflect some 267 00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:24,360 Speaker 2: of these trends in the Global North. So you see 268 00:18:24,520 --> 00:18:29,640 Speaker 2: cases seeking compensation with the caveat that those cases are 269 00:18:29,680 --> 00:18:33,600 Speaker 2: not a US city and state filing a case against 270 00:18:33,640 --> 00:18:36,480 Speaker 2: a company, you know, a major oil company in the US. 271 00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:41,320 Speaker 2: We're here talking about individuals and communities in the Global 272 00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:46,240 Speaker 2: South filing cases against companies in courts in the Global North. 273 00:18:46,520 --> 00:18:50,040 Speaker 2: So there is this transnational angle that is fascinating that 274 00:18:50,520 --> 00:18:53,080 Speaker 2: you see in some of this litigation. One of the 275 00:18:53,119 --> 00:18:57,240 Speaker 2: best examples is the case of Saulu Luya, the proven 276 00:18:57,320 --> 00:19:01,080 Speaker 2: farmer who files a case against the energy giant or 277 00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:05,200 Speaker 2: WE in Germany. So this case has been recently dismissed, 278 00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:09,080 Speaker 2: but it got all the way to the evidentuary phase. 279 00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:13,200 Speaker 2: The judges looked into the evidence, into the attribution science, 280 00:19:13,600 --> 00:19:17,280 Speaker 2: and while they found that there was not enough evidence 281 00:19:17,359 --> 00:19:22,320 Speaker 2: to demonstrate that Saul's house wasn't at sufficient risk from 282 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:27,040 Speaker 2: the melting glacier flooding the house, it did confirm that 283 00:19:27,080 --> 00:19:30,840 Speaker 2: in principle that responsibility would be possible. So again it's 284 00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:35,399 Speaker 2: a matter of time until the next case where the 285 00:19:35,600 --> 00:19:40,399 Speaker 2: individual bringing the lawsuit, for instance, lives closer to where 286 00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:45,600 Speaker 2: that flood would have happened, could be successful. So interesting 287 00:19:45,640 --> 00:19:49,600 Speaker 2: developments in this litigation dealing with damages in the South. 288 00:19:49,640 --> 00:19:53,000 Speaker 2: And we have still ongoing cases such as one that 289 00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:58,040 Speaker 2: was brought by a group of Islanders in Indonesia against 290 00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:02,400 Speaker 2: the cement giant Home SIM in Switzerland, and we are 291 00:20:02,520 --> 00:20:05,640 Speaker 2: still waiting for that case to be decided. And then 292 00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:09,640 Speaker 2: you have also lots of other cases that will address 293 00:20:09,880 --> 00:20:15,840 Speaker 2: issues around greenwashing and misleading offsetting, and also cases that 294 00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:19,480 Speaker 2: will deal with permitting. So the world of climate litigation 295 00:20:19,560 --> 00:20:23,040 Speaker 2: in the South is evolving in parallel, but also with 296 00:20:23,119 --> 00:20:27,760 Speaker 2: some really important decisions where you've seen already courts in Brazil, 297 00:20:28,240 --> 00:20:34,200 Speaker 2: in Indonesia and in South Africa giving decisions that protected 298 00:20:34,560 --> 00:20:39,080 Speaker 2: either climate regulation or challenged the governments for being not 299 00:20:39,240 --> 00:20:45,840 Speaker 2: implementing existing legislation or also to implement adaptation policies that 300 00:20:45,920 --> 00:20:49,119 Speaker 2: were not being implemented. Just to give a few examples. 301 00:20:49,320 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 2: Fascinating and then I didn't mention, sorry, in the global South, 302 00:20:53,560 --> 00:20:56,520 Speaker 2: but then it's more to it that part of the investigations. 303 00:20:56,600 --> 00:20:59,680 Speaker 2: So it's one of the examples that we discussed quite 304 00:20:59,680 --> 00:21:03,880 Speaker 2: a lot in the chapter of then not legislation or litigation, 305 00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:07,000 Speaker 2: but government investigations. There's a good example from the South, 306 00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:09,160 Speaker 2: but maybe I can leave it for when we get 307 00:21:09,240 --> 00:21:11,080 Speaker 2: to the investigations. 308 00:21:10,520 --> 00:21:13,080 Speaker 3: The Phililippines, right, yeah, yeah, I'm going to ask you 309 00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:15,359 Speaker 3: about that, Okay, So I want to talk to you 310 00:21:15,600 --> 00:21:19,120 Speaker 3: about the international courts and the role that they play, 311 00:21:19,200 --> 00:21:21,080 Speaker 3: and especially I know that this chapter. 312 00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:26,159 Speaker 1: Was written way before the ICJ ruling came out, but 313 00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:28,520 Speaker 1: I'm curious to hear your take on you know the 314 00:21:28,560 --> 00:21:31,800 Speaker 1: importance that that ruling might have on litigation in general 315 00:21:31,840 --> 00:21:35,000 Speaker 1: and like on some of the cases that are underway. So, yeah, 316 00:21:35,040 --> 00:21:39,040 Speaker 1: what role do the international courts play in general? And 317 00:21:39,080 --> 00:21:43,040 Speaker 1: then how important is this ICG ruling? 318 00:21:44,400 --> 00:21:47,000 Speaker 2: Well, it's a big question and it's very recent, right, 319 00:21:47,040 --> 00:21:50,600 Speaker 2: It was only in July twenty five that the International 320 00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:54,440 Speaker 2: Courts of Justice, the ICJ, issued its first ever advisory 321 00:21:54,520 --> 00:21:58,439 Speaker 2: opinion on climate change. So specifically, the court was looking 322 00:21:58,480 --> 00:22:03,359 Speaker 2: at whether trees, whether states had obligations to address climate 323 00:22:03,440 --> 00:22:08,720 Speaker 2: change and under international law. And what is very obvious 324 00:22:08,760 --> 00:22:12,040 Speaker 2: and very important already is that there's a conclusion that 325 00:22:12,160 --> 00:22:17,600 Speaker 2: states have duties to address climate change, not only because 326 00:22:17,640 --> 00:22:20,479 Speaker 2: they have to follow the Paris Agreement, but also because 327 00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:24,240 Speaker 2: there are so many other laws and obligations under international 328 00:22:24,280 --> 00:22:28,439 Speaker 2: law and human rights that make them then obliged to 329 00:22:28,760 --> 00:22:32,199 Speaker 2: address climate change. And the second step is that not 330 00:22:32,280 --> 00:22:34,960 Speaker 2: only they have that obligation, but that if they failed 331 00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:40,320 Speaker 2: to act, they could be exposed to legal risk. Now, 332 00:22:40,680 --> 00:22:45,080 Speaker 2: one of the first reactions that people had when looking 333 00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:49,359 Speaker 2: at this ICG Advisor opinion was whether it would only 334 00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:54,359 Speaker 2: apply to states. And now we're already seeing many scholars 335 00:22:54,400 --> 00:22:58,040 Speaker 2: clarifying that, of course that's not the case. That's well 336 00:22:58,320 --> 00:23:02,920 Speaker 2: the icg's Advice your opinion response to a question about 337 00:23:02,920 --> 00:23:06,480 Speaker 2: the obligations of states. The moment that states have that obligation, 338 00:23:06,840 --> 00:23:11,520 Speaker 2: it really trickles down into consequences that will affect the 339 00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:15,520 Speaker 2: major emitters. So just for example, if a state is 340 00:23:15,560 --> 00:23:19,919 Speaker 2: giving issuing a permit for new oil and gas, that 341 00:23:20,240 --> 00:23:23,639 Speaker 2: is part of what this advisor your opinion is about. 342 00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:28,800 Speaker 2: So it will affect the major emitters, at least indirectly, 343 00:23:28,840 --> 00:23:32,320 Speaker 2: but quite directly as well. And it might also shape 344 00:23:33,280 --> 00:23:38,280 Speaker 2: the future of legislation of what the next NDCs will 345 00:23:38,320 --> 00:23:43,040 Speaker 2: be about, because there is this clear obligation for NDCs 346 00:23:43,080 --> 00:23:47,960 Speaker 2: to be ambitious. And it might and likely will affect 347 00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:53,400 Speaker 2: the future of litigation because you have this signal from 348 00:23:53,560 --> 00:23:58,280 Speaker 2: the highest court in the world that international law is 349 00:23:58,440 --> 00:24:03,080 Speaker 2: converging and that countries are expected to act. So the 350 00:24:03,160 --> 00:24:09,320 Speaker 2: consequences are really huge. It's extremely important, Advisory opinion, that 351 00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:13,720 Speaker 2: we are only starting to understand all its consequences, and 352 00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:17,280 Speaker 2: what is most importantly is that we will start also 353 00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:21,240 Speaker 2: seeing that reflected, So for instance, we will see how 354 00:24:21,240 --> 00:24:25,680 Speaker 2: it's going to be considered and affect the cop negotiations 355 00:24:25,720 --> 00:24:29,240 Speaker 2: now in December and the NDCs and so on. So 356 00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:32,520 Speaker 2: it's still a bit speculative how we're going to see 357 00:24:32,520 --> 00:24:35,919 Speaker 2: those impacts, but they are very likely to be observable 358 00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:40,640 Speaker 2: and to increase the legal risks for countries and for corporations. 359 00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:43,840 Speaker 1: Okay, so we've already talked about a couple of really 360 00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:47,399 Speaker 1: interesting cases, but I'm curious for your take on, you know, 361 00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:50,960 Speaker 1: what are the cases that you're following right now or 362 00:24:51,000 --> 00:24:53,680 Speaker 1: that you think are really important for people to kind 363 00:24:53,680 --> 00:24:56,040 Speaker 1: of have on their radar at the moment. 364 00:24:56,400 --> 00:24:58,719 Speaker 2: So we already discussed some of these cases that are 365 00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:02,840 Speaker 2: seeking compensation, and of course they are important, but it's 366 00:25:02,880 --> 00:25:05,639 Speaker 2: been many years that we're waiting for something there. I 367 00:25:05,640 --> 00:25:10,040 Speaker 2: think there are other cases that are more eminent and 368 00:25:10,080 --> 00:25:14,080 Speaker 2: that I'm very interested in, and maybe cases that haven't 369 00:25:14,119 --> 00:25:18,879 Speaker 2: received so much attention. And so one type of case 370 00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:23,280 Speaker 2: that I've been particularly interested in following are these different 371 00:25:23,320 --> 00:25:27,879 Speaker 2: types of cases seeking damages, So cases based on this 372 00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:32,000 Speaker 2: idea of polluter space, but that are not like the 373 00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:34,879 Speaker 2: compensation claims that we see in the US that seek 374 00:25:34,960 --> 00:25:40,320 Speaker 2: compensation for historical omissions. They seek compensations for climate damages 375 00:25:40,760 --> 00:25:42,720 Speaker 2: as they happen. And so let me just give you 376 00:25:42,760 --> 00:25:45,120 Speaker 2: an example. To the Strait in Brazil, there are now 377 00:25:45,440 --> 00:25:49,680 Speaker 2: a few hundreds of cases that have asked for individuals 378 00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:55,359 Speaker 2: or companies that have committed deforestation illegal deforestation, to pay 379 00:25:55,560 --> 00:25:59,159 Speaker 2: for climate damages. And the way they do that is 380 00:25:59,240 --> 00:26:03,879 Speaker 2: by demonstrating that this area of forest that was burned, 381 00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:07,800 Speaker 2: and you have the science by burning you have x 382 00:26:07,800 --> 00:26:12,480 Speaker 2: amount of emissions, and those emissions in the market would 383 00:26:12,520 --> 00:26:17,920 Speaker 2: cost x dollars per ton, and you multiply one by 384 00:26:17,920 --> 00:26:21,399 Speaker 2: the other and you get to an amount that has 385 00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:24,920 Speaker 2: It's pretty robust in terms of methodology, and while it 386 00:26:25,040 --> 00:26:28,080 Speaker 2: might not be a huge amount in the millions and billions, 387 00:26:28,480 --> 00:26:33,080 Speaker 2: it's an amount that is already painful enough to get 388 00:26:33,600 --> 00:26:38,400 Speaker 2: these companies to consider carefully or individuals what the benefits 389 00:26:38,440 --> 00:26:41,960 Speaker 2: are of burning the forest or emitting, let's say, if 390 00:26:41,960 --> 00:26:46,760 Speaker 2: it's you're talking about a thermal coal plant emitting beyond 391 00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:50,080 Speaker 2: what you've been authorized. So what I like seeing is 392 00:26:50,119 --> 00:26:56,080 Speaker 2: these creative cases that might look into something that is 393 00:26:56,119 --> 00:27:00,440 Speaker 2: more specific, so one activity, but by doing that you're 394 00:27:00,480 --> 00:27:03,840 Speaker 2: creating something bigger. And you know, another example are the 395 00:27:03,880 --> 00:27:07,920 Speaker 2: cases here in the UK where despite a very conservative 396 00:27:08,280 --> 00:27:14,240 Speaker 2: generally conservative judiciary and difficult, expensive to litigate country. You 397 00:27:14,280 --> 00:27:19,280 Speaker 2: see how one case that was challenged, one specific project 398 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:22,600 Speaker 2: for new oil and gas that was challenged on the 399 00:27:22,640 --> 00:27:28,680 Speaker 2: basis that the companies hadn't calculated the emissions resulting from 400 00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:31,840 Speaker 2: the burning of oil in down the line, so Scope three. 401 00:27:32,600 --> 00:27:36,440 Speaker 2: By doing that, by challenging that hadn't been calculated and informed, 402 00:27:37,400 --> 00:27:42,480 Speaker 2: it has allowed many other developments in the UK, much 403 00:27:42,520 --> 00:27:46,240 Speaker 2: more significant new areas of oil and gas to be challenged. 404 00:27:46,760 --> 00:27:52,440 Speaker 2: So it's this combination of using sometimes just one specific, 405 00:27:53,080 --> 00:27:57,960 Speaker 2: smaller case that you win, and by doing that creating 406 00:27:58,280 --> 00:28:02,360 Speaker 2: an impact that is why, and that puts that challenges 407 00:28:02,400 --> 00:28:05,840 Speaker 2: the whole social license for oil and gas in a country. 408 00:28:06,480 --> 00:28:09,160 Speaker 2: So these are a few examples, and as I said, 409 00:28:09,200 --> 00:28:11,639 Speaker 2: I think we still have to understand better what's happening 410 00:28:11,640 --> 00:28:15,520 Speaker 2: in China. There is a whole world of litigation there 411 00:28:15,760 --> 00:28:20,520 Speaker 2: being brought by public prosecutors. The courts are preparing themselves, 412 00:28:20,720 --> 00:28:24,760 Speaker 2: Judges are doing training and trainings and studying the science. 413 00:28:25,240 --> 00:28:28,280 Speaker 2: So it won't take long for us to see thousands 414 00:28:28,280 --> 00:28:33,360 Speaker 2: of cases also where you will see the courts interfering 415 00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:37,040 Speaker 2: in activities that are highly polluting. But I think back 416 00:28:37,080 --> 00:28:40,160 Speaker 2: to the issue of obstruction, which is of course the 417 00:28:40,200 --> 00:28:44,720 Speaker 2: object of our chapter. It's important to understand also how 418 00:28:44,880 --> 00:28:49,760 Speaker 2: these legal strategies have been increasingly used by companies to 419 00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:56,160 Speaker 2: obstruct protesters or angels or even scientists. And we have 420 00:28:56,240 --> 00:29:00,360 Speaker 2: a tendency to focus on the cases that are to 421 00:29:00,560 --> 00:29:05,640 Speaker 2: promote climate aligned action and change, but it's also important 422 00:29:05,680 --> 00:29:09,480 Speaker 2: and we put this as an important question for research 423 00:29:09,560 --> 00:29:13,960 Speaker 2: and investigation to take place where there is also understanding 424 00:29:14,000 --> 00:29:17,200 Speaker 2: of how companies and governments. In the US government now 425 00:29:17,240 --> 00:29:21,680 Speaker 2: is a clear example of using litigation, using legislation to 426 00:29:21,800 --> 00:29:27,160 Speaker 2: stop action, to stop investigations, to stop litigation. And we 427 00:29:27,280 --> 00:29:32,080 Speaker 2: have to therefore have this full understanding of how law 428 00:29:32,360 --> 00:29:36,800 Speaker 2: is used in all directions to understand risks and also 429 00:29:36,960 --> 00:29:40,680 Speaker 2: prepare for situations where you will have such type of 430 00:29:41,280 --> 00:29:45,680 Speaker 2: we call slap litigation so strategical litigation against public participation 431 00:29:46,280 --> 00:29:52,120 Speaker 2: or also arbitration claims brought by companies against states. So 432 00:29:52,280 --> 00:29:56,120 Speaker 2: have the full picture is necessary to understand how to 433 00:29:56,160 --> 00:29:59,480 Speaker 2: stop obstruction, but also where further obstruction might come. 434 00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:03,000 Speaker 1: Speaking of which you have this case study about the 435 00:30:03,120 --> 00:30:08,760 Speaker 1: US and looking at you know, barriers to regulatory and 436 00:30:08,880 --> 00:30:12,240 Speaker 1: litigation efforts other than the ones you just touched on. 437 00:30:12,280 --> 00:30:14,440 Speaker 1: Are there any other what are some of the other 438 00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:17,520 Speaker 1: barriers that you're seeing in the US that are like 439 00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:20,680 Speaker 1: helping to inform this, like how do we prepare for 440 00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:27,320 Speaker 1: obstruction actually using legislative and judicial tools against climate action? 441 00:30:28,200 --> 00:30:31,920 Speaker 2: So okay, let me start with in terms of slabs. 442 00:30:32,560 --> 00:30:35,200 Speaker 2: It's really be interesting to understand that this is both 443 00:30:35,240 --> 00:30:38,760 Speaker 2: growing but also there are ways in which regulation can 444 00:30:38,920 --> 00:30:44,640 Speaker 2: protect citizens and organizations, right, and so we see for 445 00:30:44,640 --> 00:30:48,000 Speaker 2: instance in the U, in the European Union, the EU 446 00:30:48,320 --> 00:30:52,600 Speaker 2: has adopted an anti slab directive, so it's quite recent, 447 00:30:52,640 --> 00:30:56,640 Speaker 2: it's from twenty twenty four, and this directive aims at 448 00:30:56,640 --> 00:31:01,160 Speaker 2: protecting public interest defenders and what does it will then 449 00:31:01,960 --> 00:31:06,320 Speaker 2: enable the early dismissal of what could be an unfounded 450 00:31:06,440 --> 00:31:12,440 Speaker 2: claim and protect citizens from abusive claimants. But using that 451 00:31:12,680 --> 00:31:16,920 Speaker 2: now we are so it's pending. But green Peace after 452 00:31:17,240 --> 00:31:23,600 Speaker 2: it's suffered this really terrifying lawsuit in the North Dakota 453 00:31:23,840 --> 00:31:28,240 Speaker 2: Court that green Peace was ordered to pay over six 454 00:31:28,360 --> 00:31:33,640 Speaker 2: hundred something million dollars in damages for supporting protests against 455 00:31:33,680 --> 00:31:38,120 Speaker 2: the Dakota Access Pipeline. Green Peace brought a case in 456 00:31:38,240 --> 00:31:43,280 Speaker 2: the EU using this directive. So it reminds us that 457 00:31:44,000 --> 00:31:49,360 Speaker 2: whereas the litigation can be stage for this battle from 458 00:31:49,600 --> 00:31:53,400 Speaker 2: all sides, and that you end up having this really 459 00:31:53,960 --> 00:31:57,200 Speaker 2: risky dependence on what a jury or what a court, 460 00:31:57,320 --> 00:32:02,959 Speaker 2: what one judge will decide. By having legislation that protects citizens, 461 00:32:03,360 --> 00:32:07,200 Speaker 2: you have a much safer, broader protection in place. So 462 00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:10,960 Speaker 2: the U has many examples like that of still being 463 00:32:11,000 --> 00:32:14,600 Speaker 2: able to pass legislation that will protect the interests of 464 00:32:14,800 --> 00:32:19,520 Speaker 2: public defenders and then if you extend to disclaiming in 465 00:32:19,600 --> 00:32:23,240 Speaker 2: other protections more broadly. 466 00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:26,720 Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, it'll be interesting to see what happens 467 00:32:26,720 --> 00:32:27,120 Speaker 1: with that. 468 00:32:27,840 --> 00:32:30,400 Speaker 2: And you did an amazing investigation of that case. Of 469 00:32:30,440 --> 00:32:33,480 Speaker 2: course I listened to all your episodes. I'm a big fan. 470 00:32:34,680 --> 00:32:37,800 Speaker 2: I thought it was excellent. How of course I read 471 00:32:37,880 --> 00:32:42,440 Speaker 2: this case from the court documents and what legislation is 472 00:32:42,440 --> 00:32:47,080 Speaker 2: being used, but also to have that story told from 473 00:32:47,280 --> 00:32:52,520 Speaker 2: what the individual's experience and the unjustice that was so 474 00:32:53,440 --> 00:32:59,520 Speaker 2: patient there is so important. So yeah, absolutely important to 475 00:32:59,520 --> 00:32:59,920 Speaker 2: your work. 476 00:32:59,920 --> 00:33:03,000 Speaker 1: I really love it. Thank you, thank you. Yeah, I know, 477 00:33:03,360 --> 00:33:06,240 Speaker 1: I just was so shocked that they were not allowing 478 00:33:06,360 --> 00:33:11,040 Speaker 1: any recording or anything in the courtroom, so it was like, wow, Okay, 479 00:33:11,080 --> 00:33:14,280 Speaker 1: so if we're not there, we're really not going to 480 00:33:14,360 --> 00:33:18,640 Speaker 1: know what's happening in this case, you know, And it 481 00:33:18,720 --> 00:33:22,520 Speaker 1: was so egregious. I think it really shook our reporter, Ellien. 482 00:33:22,840 --> 00:33:25,520 Speaker 1: I mean, she's like a criminal justice reporter and has 483 00:33:25,680 --> 00:33:29,480 Speaker 1: reported on activist movements and surveillance and all that stuff. 484 00:33:29,520 --> 00:33:32,320 Speaker 1: So it's not like she is naive about abuses of 485 00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:37,320 Speaker 1: the criminal justice system or the courts. But she came 486 00:33:37,360 --> 00:33:39,400 Speaker 1: back from that being like, wow, like I don't have 487 00:33:39,480 --> 00:33:41,640 Speaker 1: any faith at all in the justice system. 488 00:33:43,160 --> 00:33:47,680 Speaker 2: I think losing faith in the justice system is something 489 00:33:47,680 --> 00:33:51,760 Speaker 2: we want to avoid because when nothing works, you still 490 00:33:51,880 --> 00:33:55,920 Speaker 2: should have that option. And you see, okay didn't. It 491 00:33:56,040 --> 00:33:58,920 Speaker 2: was a terrifying result there in North Dakota, which was 492 00:33:59,120 --> 00:34:02,160 Speaker 2: I think also not completely surprising. But then you have 493 00:34:02,680 --> 00:34:05,320 Speaker 2: a higher court, you can go to the EU. There 494 00:34:05,360 --> 00:34:09,719 Speaker 2: are so many options, and that's what's I think you 495 00:34:09,760 --> 00:34:12,160 Speaker 2: can always have some hope when it comes to the 496 00:34:12,239 --> 00:34:15,080 Speaker 2: law that there will be a court, there will be 497 00:34:15,200 --> 00:34:19,640 Speaker 2: a jurisdiction where that message will be understood. 498 00:34:20,560 --> 00:34:23,560 Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, So shifting gears a little bit. I want 499 00:34:23,600 --> 00:34:28,320 Speaker 1: to talk about the regulatory side of the legal question, 500 00:34:28,840 --> 00:34:33,279 Speaker 1: and have you kind of run down. What are some 501 00:34:33,360 --> 00:34:38,000 Speaker 1: of the regulatory levers that can be pulled to deal 502 00:34:38,040 --> 00:34:43,120 Speaker 1: with climate obstruction, to prevent it as supposed to punish 503 00:34:43,160 --> 00:34:43,600 Speaker 1: it later. 504 00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:47,880 Speaker 2: So in the chapter we discuss in addition to some 505 00:34:47,960 --> 00:34:51,160 Speaker 2: of the legislation and the litigation, we speak about government 506 00:34:51,239 --> 00:34:57,120 Speaker 2: investigations and the advantage of these investigations is that they 507 00:34:57,160 --> 00:35:00,960 Speaker 2: can move faster than courts and they can also produce 508 00:35:01,239 --> 00:35:05,840 Speaker 2: evidence that then can be for used in other instances. 509 00:35:06,280 --> 00:35:10,640 Speaker 2: So we look closer at three examples, one in the Philippines, 510 00:35:10,680 --> 00:35:15,320 Speaker 2: one in the US, and one in Europe where investigations 511 00:35:15,360 --> 00:35:20,480 Speaker 2: have been used directly looking into the issue of obstruction. 512 00:35:21,560 --> 00:35:25,799 Speaker 2: The case in the Philippines is really interesting because we 513 00:35:25,960 --> 00:35:29,520 Speaker 2: have their the Philippines Commission on Human Rights, which is 514 00:35:29,680 --> 00:35:35,239 Speaker 2: a body that is an investigatory body, doing this investigation 515 00:35:35,560 --> 00:35:39,719 Speaker 2: on the as a consequence of the terrible hurricane that 516 00:35:39,880 --> 00:35:45,800 Speaker 2: took place, hearing survivals, hearing experts and scientists, also inviting 517 00:35:45,840 --> 00:35:49,440 Speaker 2: the companies to speak, and very few companies spoke, but 518 00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:54,200 Speaker 2: they did invite all the companies and what they did 519 00:35:54,640 --> 00:35:59,040 Speaker 2: was through this really thorough investigation on the human rights 520 00:35:59,120 --> 00:36:04,120 Speaker 2: harms of corporate conduct, they concluded that the carbon majors 521 00:36:04,160 --> 00:36:10,320 Speaker 2: had engaged in of station and obstruction. So this becomes 522 00:36:10,440 --> 00:36:14,920 Speaker 2: in itself a case that is backed up by huge 523 00:36:15,320 --> 00:36:20,040 Speaker 2: amounts of evidentary material that others have been able to 524 00:36:20,200 --> 00:36:24,520 Speaker 2: use as a demonstration of the obstruction. And there is 525 00:36:24,640 --> 00:36:30,520 Speaker 2: a very detailed description testimony of how the companies that 526 00:36:30,640 --> 00:36:36,960 Speaker 2: were investigated were obstructing the historically the science and policy 527 00:36:37,160 --> 00:36:40,480 Speaker 2: on climate. And then the other two examples that we 528 00:36:40,719 --> 00:36:44,000 Speaker 2: use and in the chapter are one in the US 529 00:36:44,120 --> 00:36:47,920 Speaker 2: actually in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two, where 530 00:36:48,040 --> 00:36:51,880 Speaker 2: a series of subpoenas and hearings revealed that there's a 531 00:36:51,960 --> 00:36:57,160 Speaker 2: delay strategy that to expand oil and gas, and it 532 00:36:57,320 --> 00:37:02,600 Speaker 2: makes it clear that also it's again and clean energy investment. 533 00:37:03,520 --> 00:37:08,040 Speaker 2: And what this investigation does it really helps shifting that 534 00:37:08,120 --> 00:37:11,880 Speaker 2: political space, right. You see that even if it's just 535 00:37:11,920 --> 00:37:17,120 Speaker 2: an inquiry, it shows quite quickly with robust evidence that 536 00:37:17,600 --> 00:37:21,040 Speaker 2: that situation is taking place, and then others can follow 537 00:37:21,320 --> 00:37:26,000 Speaker 2: with that. And finally we looked at an investigation by 538 00:37:26,080 --> 00:37:28,720 Speaker 2: the European Parliament. This was a few years ago already 539 00:37:28,719 --> 00:37:32,759 Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen, where there was really public spotlight on 540 00:37:33,480 --> 00:37:39,360 Speaker 2: denial and corporate messaging with the politics of transparency becoming 541 00:37:39,480 --> 00:37:44,600 Speaker 2: very clear, and that in itself motivated the European Parliament 542 00:37:44,760 --> 00:37:50,400 Speaker 2: to further legislate. And that's again an example of how 543 00:37:50,560 --> 00:37:55,640 Speaker 2: an investigation then also can motivate new legislation, better legislation 544 00:37:56,120 --> 00:38:02,439 Speaker 2: that will increase accountability and improve transparency, and by doing 545 00:38:02,480 --> 00:38:04,120 Speaker 2: that avoiding abstraction. 546 00:38:04,640 --> 00:38:07,720 Speaker 1: Awesome. Can I have you define greenwashing and climate washing 547 00:38:08,239 --> 00:38:11,440 Speaker 1: and then talk about what are some of the regulatory 548 00:38:11,840 --> 00:38:16,600 Speaker 1: possibilities for dealing with those two problems? Sure? 549 00:38:16,920 --> 00:38:21,440 Speaker 2: So, we usually use green washing and climate washing a 550 00:38:21,440 --> 00:38:26,200 Speaker 2: bit interchangeably. In general, what we mean is examples of 551 00:38:26,280 --> 00:38:30,280 Speaker 2: when the public has been misled the public being general, 552 00:38:30,280 --> 00:38:36,240 Speaker 2: public investors, or even regulators about climate impacts, plans, or progress. 553 00:38:36,480 --> 00:38:41,480 Speaker 2: So when it's specific about misleading on climate issues, we 554 00:38:41,680 --> 00:38:44,759 Speaker 2: tend to talk about climate washing, whereas when it's misleading 555 00:38:44,800 --> 00:38:49,800 Speaker 2: about green in general, we speak about green washing. But overall, 556 00:38:50,040 --> 00:38:55,680 Speaker 2: greenwashing climate washing are short terms to define the misleading 557 00:38:55,760 --> 00:39:00,160 Speaker 2: of public by corporates or also by the government. They 558 00:39:00,200 --> 00:39:03,200 Speaker 2: are quite similar, but climate washing tends to be used 559 00:39:03,239 --> 00:39:08,000 Speaker 2: when it's more specific about misleading the public, investors, or 560 00:39:08,040 --> 00:39:13,840 Speaker 2: regulated about the climate impacts, and green washing is broader 561 00:39:14,040 --> 00:39:19,120 Speaker 2: when it's misleading about any green credentials? Got it? 562 00:39:19,640 --> 00:39:23,400 Speaker 1: And what are the sorts of regulations that can be 563 00:39:23,520 --> 00:39:26,120 Speaker 1: passed to deal with this? I mean, I know that 564 00:39:26,200 --> 00:39:29,440 Speaker 1: these things often become the basis of litigation claims, But 565 00:39:29,520 --> 00:39:32,759 Speaker 1: what are the things that can be done to put 566 00:39:32,760 --> 00:39:36,680 Speaker 1: guardrails on or maybe prevent climate and green washing ahead 567 00:39:36,719 --> 00:39:37,000 Speaker 1: of time? 568 00:39:38,200 --> 00:39:42,160 Speaker 4: Yeah? So, well, there are several needs and regulations that 569 00:39:42,560 --> 00:39:47,280 Speaker 4: exist to protect and empower consumers and investors to prevent 570 00:39:47,400 --> 00:39:49,080 Speaker 4: green washing, and. 571 00:39:49,080 --> 00:39:52,160 Speaker 2: These tend to be found in many countries. That's why 572 00:39:52,200 --> 00:39:56,320 Speaker 2: it's also been an area where we've seen so much litigation, 573 00:39:56,760 --> 00:40:00,680 Speaker 2: because most countries have some law or met chanism to 574 00:40:00,800 --> 00:40:06,279 Speaker 2: protect consumers from misleading any sort of lying. You have 575 00:40:06,880 --> 00:40:11,960 Speaker 2: less legislation that is specific about greenwashing, and even less 576 00:40:12,160 --> 00:40:17,320 Speaker 2: legislation that is specific about climate washing, but there's usually 577 00:40:17,560 --> 00:40:22,520 Speaker 2: at least some protection through consumer law through anti fraud 578 00:40:22,600 --> 00:40:27,680 Speaker 2: law that will be potentially used to stop falls or 579 00:40:27,680 --> 00:40:34,040 Speaker 2: misleading advertisement. Now, whether you need that specific legislation that 580 00:40:34,280 --> 00:40:38,719 Speaker 2: is only dealing with climate washing is a question that 581 00:40:38,800 --> 00:40:42,080 Speaker 2: is discussed. Some say that would be helpful because there 582 00:40:42,120 --> 00:40:48,280 Speaker 2: are some technicalities about carbon offsetting and how you announce 583 00:40:48,800 --> 00:40:54,719 Speaker 2: your net zero and whether you're counting on technologies that 584 00:40:55,040 --> 00:40:58,719 Speaker 2: don't exist for your net zero pledges. And some would 585 00:40:58,800 --> 00:41:03,520 Speaker 2: argue that in order to fully protect consumers from this 586 00:41:03,640 --> 00:41:06,680 Speaker 2: type of false or misleading advertisement, you would need some 587 00:41:06,800 --> 00:41:11,320 Speaker 2: specific legislation. And then in the meantime, while that doesn't exist, 588 00:41:12,160 --> 00:41:16,560 Speaker 2: we can still rely on the general consumer protection laws 589 00:41:16,600 --> 00:41:20,040 Speaker 2: that will be available. And what's also quite good in 590 00:41:20,080 --> 00:41:23,600 Speaker 2: this case is that there are two more advantages. One 591 00:41:23,680 --> 00:41:27,880 Speaker 2: is that usually the evidence needed for these cases is 592 00:41:27,880 --> 00:41:31,600 Speaker 2: not so complex. So if a company claims that they 593 00:41:31,640 --> 00:41:35,920 Speaker 2: are investing heavily on renewables and you have on their books, 594 00:41:36,440 --> 00:41:41,160 Speaker 2: they will publish themselves that they invest zero zero something percent. 595 00:41:41,640 --> 00:41:45,560 Speaker 2: You can make that argument quite easily. And then also 596 00:41:45,640 --> 00:41:49,080 Speaker 2: another advantage is that in some countries you might not 597 00:41:49,120 --> 00:41:52,160 Speaker 2: need to bring a judicial case to a court. There 598 00:41:52,160 --> 00:41:57,040 Speaker 2: are also some administrative regulatory agencies and bodies that will 599 00:41:57,080 --> 00:42:01,040 Speaker 2: deal with misleading information, and these tend to quite specialized 600 00:42:01,080 --> 00:42:05,560 Speaker 2: and quicker, so you might have quicker results in stopping 601 00:42:06,160 --> 00:42:09,480 Speaker 2: greenwashing and misleading through these routes. 602 00:42:09,920 --> 00:42:12,440 Speaker 1: You touch on this in the chapter two, but I 603 00:42:12,480 --> 00:42:16,319 Speaker 1: feel like it's becoming a big issue. But how do 604 00:42:16,360 --> 00:42:20,480 Speaker 1: you deal with the fact that there is this increasing 605 00:42:20,880 --> 00:42:24,919 Speaker 1: push to claim that like any effort to deal with 606 00:42:25,000 --> 00:42:30,560 Speaker 1: greenwashing or climate denial or climate washing is censorship. And 607 00:42:31,040 --> 00:42:34,200 Speaker 1: where is that line between you know, protecting free speech 608 00:42:34,600 --> 00:42:40,120 Speaker 1: and holding people accountable for spreading misleading information. 609 00:42:41,440 --> 00:42:45,640 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a very difficult part of the chapter and 610 00:42:45,760 --> 00:42:48,000 Speaker 2: one that in itself, you know, you could have a 611 00:42:48,040 --> 00:42:52,839 Speaker 2: whole book about that. So some core tensions that we identify, 612 00:42:53,360 --> 00:42:57,480 Speaker 2: and this one between speech and deception is one where 613 00:42:58,000 --> 00:43:00,920 Speaker 2: on one hand, you need and you have have robust 614 00:43:01,200 --> 00:43:05,200 Speaker 2: protections for speech, and these are important and they coexist 615 00:43:05,680 --> 00:43:12,680 Speaker 2: with this longstanding authority to regulate misleading. So where courts 616 00:43:13,040 --> 00:43:17,319 Speaker 2: draw that line is what we're seeing now, And there's 617 00:43:17,800 --> 00:43:23,799 Speaker 2: a whole margin of subjectivity of uncertainty against but it's 618 00:43:23,840 --> 00:43:26,879 Speaker 2: just the fact that you don't want to lose those 619 00:43:26,920 --> 00:43:30,080 Speaker 2: protections for free speech and at the same time you 620 00:43:30,120 --> 00:43:34,400 Speaker 2: don't want to allow any misleading claim to be made. 621 00:43:34,800 --> 00:43:38,400 Speaker 2: So that's a really good example of maybe what is 622 00:43:38,440 --> 00:43:42,040 Speaker 2: the place how do you mediate those things? Well, I 623 00:43:42,040 --> 00:43:46,920 Speaker 2: think courts have a really important role in drawing that line. 624 00:43:47,000 --> 00:43:49,560 Speaker 2: So it's one of those that I think it's just 625 00:43:49,640 --> 00:43:53,600 Speaker 2: you can't not have that tension, and it confirms the 626 00:43:53,640 --> 00:43:58,440 Speaker 2: importance of specialized bodies or courts in resolving. 627 00:43:59,239 --> 00:44:01,160 Speaker 1: I think that we're going to see in the US 628 00:44:01,360 --> 00:44:06,600 Speaker 1: a Citizens United type claim around the liability cases. I've 629 00:44:06,640 --> 00:44:08,680 Speaker 1: been saying that for a while, and like it's moving 630 00:44:08,719 --> 00:44:11,239 Speaker 1: in that direction. I mean, that's the main argument that 631 00:44:11,239 --> 00:44:15,160 Speaker 1: they're pushing. Is this idea that because falsehoods were told 632 00:44:15,400 --> 00:44:19,920 Speaker 1: in the service of shaping policy, that they're protected political speech, 633 00:44:21,239 --> 00:44:24,600 Speaker 1: and all the First Amendment attorneys I've talked to think 634 00:44:24,600 --> 00:44:28,480 Speaker 1: that argument is going to win, which is really scary 635 00:44:28,520 --> 00:44:30,719 Speaker 1: because then you end up in a situation where, like 636 00:44:30,880 --> 00:44:32,799 Speaker 1: I mean, the Supreme Court in the US right now 637 00:44:32,920 --> 00:44:36,400 Speaker 1: is a joke. So it's a scary time to think about, 638 00:44:36,440 --> 00:44:41,239 Speaker 1: like a court in a major developed country affirming that 639 00:44:42,360 --> 00:44:46,240 Speaker 1: lying about climate change is protected speech. I'm just curious, 640 00:44:46,320 --> 00:44:48,359 Speaker 1: like what you think about the impact that that would 641 00:44:48,440 --> 00:44:53,600 Speaker 1: have on potentially other litigation around misleading claims. 642 00:44:55,600 --> 00:44:58,880 Speaker 2: Yes, you know, I think there's something interesting that each one, 643 00:44:59,120 --> 00:45:03,120 Speaker 2: let's say, opposing views on this will see themselves as 644 00:45:03,120 --> 00:45:05,319 Speaker 2: the owner of the truth. Right, So you have this 645 00:45:05,520 --> 00:45:09,279 Speaker 2: really crazy conversation where you could see that someone who 646 00:45:09,320 --> 00:45:14,080 Speaker 2: is completely against climate protections or even challenging climate science, 647 00:45:14,440 --> 00:45:17,920 Speaker 2: will very much agree with someone who is a climate scientist, 648 00:45:17,960 --> 00:45:21,200 Speaker 2: and protecting climate policy is on one issue, which is, well, 649 00:45:21,239 --> 00:45:23,399 Speaker 2: we all have the right to say what we think. 650 00:45:23,520 --> 00:45:27,759 Speaker 2: The protection for free speech is absolutely important. And you 651 00:45:27,760 --> 00:45:31,680 Speaker 2: know they will both say that they are doing that right. 652 00:45:30,880 --> 00:45:35,839 Speaker 2: And so it's a very complex situation because that's what 653 00:45:36,080 --> 00:45:38,920 Speaker 2: free speech is to an extent. And this is what 654 00:45:38,960 --> 00:45:42,240 Speaker 2: I was saying about drawing the line is how courts 655 00:45:42,320 --> 00:45:45,960 Speaker 2: will deal with what is political advocusy, what is paid lobbying, 656 00:45:46,080 --> 00:45:51,120 Speaker 2: what is ultimately what is backed up by robust science. 657 00:45:51,520 --> 00:45:54,200 Speaker 2: And this is where I think we are very lucky 658 00:45:54,280 --> 00:45:57,760 Speaker 2: that we have the IPCC. In other areas, you don't 659 00:45:57,800 --> 00:46:03,120 Speaker 2: have a world effort earth of bringing thousands of scientists 660 00:46:03,600 --> 00:46:08,719 Speaker 2: who agree on the level of certainty of the state 661 00:46:08,800 --> 00:46:11,360 Speaker 2: of the art of the science right what other areas 662 00:46:11,360 --> 00:46:15,320 Speaker 2: that exist, Not like not any other area you would 663 00:46:15,320 --> 00:46:19,640 Speaker 2: have that. So I find that when we get that 664 00:46:20,000 --> 00:46:25,120 Speaker 2: really unresolvable in principle moment where both claim the truth 665 00:46:25,560 --> 00:46:28,279 Speaker 2: and maybe you know both truly believe that they have 666 00:46:28,360 --> 00:46:32,080 Speaker 2: the truth both sides, then you go to the science 667 00:46:32,280 --> 00:46:36,279 Speaker 2: and and it's all there in one place. The IPCC scientists. 668 00:46:36,320 --> 00:46:41,840 Speaker 2: They spent they spent years reading paper by paper consolidating, 669 00:46:41,960 --> 00:46:45,120 Speaker 2: and it's not that they are making new analysis, right, 670 00:46:45,160 --> 00:46:50,239 Speaker 2: They're just knowing what exists. And it's science that has 671 00:46:50,320 --> 00:46:53,480 Speaker 2: been peer reviewed, that comes from the leading universities, that 672 00:46:53,560 --> 00:46:56,560 Speaker 2: has been you know, published in journals. So it can't 673 00:46:56,600 --> 00:47:01,000 Speaker 2: get better than that. And what then? The last challenge 674 00:47:01,040 --> 00:47:03,719 Speaker 2: of this story is that you will have to get 675 00:47:03,840 --> 00:47:07,120 Speaker 2: the courts to go through the science and understand what 676 00:47:07,280 --> 00:47:11,000 Speaker 2: is being said. So it will be in many of 677 00:47:11,040 --> 00:47:14,160 Speaker 2: these instances that the decision will have to be made 678 00:47:14,440 --> 00:47:18,160 Speaker 2: by judges that will have to engage with the IPCC science. 679 00:47:18,520 --> 00:47:22,600 Speaker 2: But if they do, the answer is there. So I 680 00:47:22,640 --> 00:47:26,319 Speaker 2: do have hope that these issues around free speech will 681 00:47:26,360 --> 00:47:30,040 Speaker 2: be resolved by robust science that already exists. 682 00:47:35,239 --> 00:47:37,960 Speaker 1: That's it for this time. Make sure you're subscribed so 683 00:47:38,000 --> 00:47:41,279 Speaker 1: you don't miss an episode. You can find more on 684 00:47:41,360 --> 00:47:45,680 Speaker 1: this season, including transcripts and lots of related articles and 685 00:47:45,760 --> 00:47:49,960 Speaker 1: background information on our website at drilled dot Media. You 686 00:47:50,000 --> 00:47:53,279 Speaker 1: can also sign up for our newsletter there. Our producers 687 00:47:53,320 --> 00:47:56,680 Speaker 1: for this season are Martin Saltz Uswick and Peter duff. 688 00:47:57,280 --> 00:47:59,920 Speaker 1: Our theme song is Bird in the Hand, by Foreign I. 689 00:48:00,560 --> 00:48:04,040 Speaker 1: Our cover art is by Matthew Fleming. Our First Amendment 690 00:48:04,040 --> 00:48:07,759 Speaker 1: Attorney is James Wheaton with the First Amendment Project. The 691 00:48:07,800 --> 00:48:12,000 Speaker 1: show was created, written, and reported by me Amy Westervelp. 692 00:48:12,200 --> 00:48:14,080 Speaker 1: Thanks for listening and see you next time.