Speaker 1: One of the issues that animates so many of us
Speaker 1: living in states like California, but people all across the
Speaker 1: United States, from Florida, Louisiana, people in states that have
Speaker 1: been ravaged by some of the most extreme storms and
Speaker 1: our lifetime hurricanes, floods, fires here on the West Coast.
Speaker 1: I think all recognize the imperative of focusing on the
Speaker 1: issue of climate change. Of course, so much of our
Speaker 1: focus is moved in other directions, but mother Nature, she
Speaker 1: bats last, and she bats a thousand and that's why
Speaker 1: this week, as we celebrate Earth Day in the United
Speaker 1: States of America, I thought it was important to talk
Speaker 1: about the state of climate policy in the United States
Speaker 1: of America. California just reached two thirds of all of
Speaker 1: our electricity now renewable electricity. We're in the how business,
Speaker 1: and my next guest is also focused on how America
Speaker 1: can lead the globe on low carbon green growth. This
Speaker 1: is Gavin Newsom and this is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Well, Senator,
Speaker 1: thanks for taking the time to be on the podcast,
Speaker 1: and I thought it was a great time to have
Speaker 1: a chance to sit down and talk to you about
Speaker 1: one of the most pressing issues of our time. That's
Speaker 1: issue of climate and what the climate is in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. The Trump administration has come in even more
Speaker 1: ferociously from my perspective, trying to analyze some of the
Speaker 1: progress that we've made here in the state of California,
Speaker 1: but all across the United States. A lot of the
Speaker 1: progress that was advanced you advanced in your colleagues during
Speaker 1: the Biden administration and the IRA and the Infrastructure Bill,
Speaker 1: promises that were promoted in Project twenty twenty five that
Speaker 1: are taking shape. The EPA coming out with a set
Speaker 1: of recommendations and rulemaking that they're looking to advance that
Speaker 1: is jaw dropping. So I really appreciate the timeliness of
Speaker 1: your visit and the opportunity to dialogue about some of
Speaker 1: these things. Tell me what I don't know in this space,
Speaker 1: and tell me what folks listening should know about the
Speaker 1: state of climate policy in America.
Speaker 2: I think what most people don't know is how close
Speaker 2: we are to a climate driven economic collapse that comes
Speaker 2: when climate risk becomes uninsurable so you can't get up
Speaker 2: property insurance policy on your home. There are plenty of
Speaker 2: Californians who are experiencing that. And then when you can't
Speaker 2: get property insurance on your home, you can't get a
Speaker 2: mortgage on it, you can't sell it to somebody who
Speaker 2: needs a mortgage. So unless you're selling it to a
Speaker 2: billionaire who can pay cash, you're screwed. So no mortgage
Speaker 2: means your property values crash. And when your property values crash,
Speaker 2: if that happens to enough people, which it will, because
Speaker 2: this is driven by climate risk that touches millions and
Speaker 2: millions of people, you then get an economic wipeout, like
Speaker 2: the two thousand and eight mortgage meltdown caused across the country,
Speaker 2: harming people who had no problems with their mortgage. It
Speaker 2: was just the economic wipeout.
Speaker 1: So someone listening may think that may be slightly hyperbolic.
Speaker 1: Then again, folks living on the coasts, folks living in
Speaker 1: the South, in places like Louisiana, obviously in Florida, not
Speaker 1: just in California, are feeling that reality. Obviously, the wildfires
Speaker 1: here in the Western United States, of the hurricanes in
Speaker 1: the southern part of the country. What is a what's
Speaker 1: the national prism them to begin to address this issue. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we've got to deal with some of the underlying issues
Speaker 1: of climate change. But in an adaptation policy. We often
Speaker 1: are talking about sea level rise, we're talking about other
Speaker 1: strategies to mitigate, but you're talking about a looming financial crisis.
Speaker 1: Chris raises the bar of concern. Correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Florida, I think is first and worst. Florida
Speaker 2: has more liability from the fund it's set up to
Speaker 2: backstop the insurers who go bust there, which is like
Speaker 2: a dozen already because they're basically little pop ups that
Speaker 2: aren't for real, right, and the state steps in when
Speaker 2: they don't pay claims, and then the taxpayer has to pay.
Speaker 2: And they've got a separate state backed insurance company that
Speaker 2: is trying to look like an insurance company and carrying
Speaker 2: all this liability that probably they won't be able to
Speaker 2: make good on. Those two risks to ensure to Florida
Speaker 2: are bigger than the state's actual sovereign debt. So there's
Speaker 2: a huge overhang over Florida and it's going to do
Speaker 2: nothing but get worse. You've got property insurance rates that
Speaker 2: have tripled in a lot of places in Florida and
Speaker 2: that are expected to triple again. You know, that's really brutal.
Speaker 2: And when that happens, it starts cascading out through the economy.
Speaker 2: The International Financial Stability Board put out a global warning
Speaker 2: to banks look out for this. This is coming because,
Speaker 2: for instance, if all these properties value go down because
Speaker 2: they're not mortgageable any longer, then their value goes down
Speaker 2: on the loan to value ratio of a bank. And
Speaker 2: now suddenly a bank doesn't look solvent any longer, and
Speaker 2: it's got its own problems. So these problems cascade out
Speaker 2: into the economy, and that's what we have to prepare
Speaker 2: people for. And I think you know you asked a
Speaker 2: great question is what do we do about it? Step
Speaker 2: one is to stop what is causing this, which is
Speaker 2: a climate change. But behind that the climate denial operation
Speaker 2: of the fossil fuel industry, which, through disinformation and political corruption,
Speaker 2: is just ruining our ability to deal with a problem
Speaker 2: whose solutions are actually pretty evident if we could get
Speaker 2: around the wiles and the mischief of the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the clarity on that. I mean, the climate
Speaker 1: crisis is nothing more than a fossil fuel crisis. Is
Speaker 1: the burning of oil and gas and.
Speaker 2: Then lying about it to the public at industrial scale.
Speaker 1: And having the best scientists having the best researchers in
Speaker 1: this space for decades and decades and being able to
Speaker 1: see into the future and then knowingly lied about it.
Speaker 1: They weren't just in denial, they actually suppressed this information
Speaker 1: from the public for decades.
Speaker 2: The scientists have known their stuff about climate this whole time.
Speaker 2: I mean, the scientist community can really take a bow
Speaker 2: for really excellent presentations and really excellent understanding and predictions.
Speaker 2: And that includes the ones paid by Exxon.
Speaker 1: Ago, and Exon needs some of the greatest geologists. They
Speaker 1: hire some of the best in the brightest minds, best
Speaker 1: can be broadly described, but for the job intended. So
Speaker 1: they're to be able to track the talent because they're
Speaker 1: able to dig deep into their wallet to get that talent.
Speaker 1: But as a consequence, they're deep deeper into our wallets right.
Speaker 2: Now because spend similar talent in the disinformation propagandizing, setting
Speaker 2: up phony front groups.
Speaker 1: The whole armada.
Speaker 2: Of disinformation effort that they run is also being done
Speaker 2: at a very uh I hate to say it, it's
Speaker 2: being done very professionally.
Speaker 1: And so, Senator you're one of the few folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a handful of you, and I you know I
Speaker 1: give a do where it is deserved. There is a
Speaker 1: handful of US senators that have the guts because I
Speaker 1: think it takes guts to say what you just said
Speaker 1: and the courage to be out front, to call balls
Speaker 1: and strikes and to call out those that are responsible
Speaker 1: polluters should pay. But they're socializing the con one one
Speaker 1: incon one o one on all of us. So the
Speaker 1: question is why is it just simply because it's electorally
Speaker 1: ill advised to be so candid? Is it because of
Speaker 1: the corruption that is sort of imbued in the system.
Speaker 1: It's the unwilling to take the risk of to be
Speaker 1: more resolved in this space. Is it just what we've
Speaker 1: come to expect, and that is big money influencing having
Speaker 1: outsized influence.
Speaker 2: Boom, big money having outsized influence. If you set up
Speaker 2: an enormous armada of phony front groups and you put
Speaker 2: Madison Avenue tested fake messaging through that, and you backstop
Speaker 2: it with literally billions of dollars in dark money into Congress,
Speaker 2: into the back pocket of Mitch McConnell so that he
Speaker 2: can throw super packs drop ads on Democrats. You put
Speaker 2: that whole machine together, and up against it, you have
Speaker 2: Democrats being like well meaning and talking about polar bears.
Speaker 2: It's like, totally not a fair fight. It's the panzer
Speaker 2: tanks versus the Polish cavalry. You just don't have a chance.
Speaker 2: So we need to be much better about it. The
Speaker 2: good news is we don't have to build the apparatus
Speaker 2: of lies. All we have to do is build a
Speaker 2: much more adept and shark apparatus to point out the
Speaker 2: lies well said, and we'll people see what has been
Speaker 2: done to them when they understand did what was his name,
Speaker 2: Harvey used to say, the end of the story.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, Yeah, that's the end of the story.
Speaker 2: That's the end of the story.
Speaker 1: You allied to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you allied to at an industrial scale.
Speaker 1: So we're all dealing with the consequences. Of course. You know,
Speaker 1: as a governor of California that's dealt with more natural
Speaker 1: disasters than most governors, and I think Jerry Brown could
Speaker 1: have said that prior to me. And in the last
Speaker 1: ten years, we've experienced some of the worst wildfires in
Speaker 1: US history, not just California history. Obviously, the wildfires in
Speaker 1: southern California that occurred instead of winter, Yeah, nine months,
Speaker 1: the driest conditions we've experienced down there in modern history,
Speaker 1: and in January, with one hundred mile an hour winds
Speaker 1: attached to a fire, we experienced a loss of thirteen
Speaker 1: plus thousand properties. The issue of insurance, by definition, is
Speaker 1: top of mind. Is the number one concern people have
Speaker 1: right now of accessing whatever insurance they had so they
Speaker 1: can recover their lives and get back on their feet.
Speaker 1: But the idea of getting back and rebuilding, the number
Speaker 1: one concern is can I get a mortgage now? Because
Speaker 1: can that mortgage be attached to a requirement.
Speaker 2: To have insurance? Yeah, and that's the cascade. You can't
Speaker 2: predict the risks, so you can't get the insurance. So
Speaker 2: the buyer who you want to sell your property to
Speaker 2: you can't get a mortgage, so you have to drop
Speaker 2: the price, and you've got this property values crash that
Speaker 2: then cascades out through the economy. And it has been
Speaker 2: warned of so clearly that the Chairman of the Fed,
Speaker 2: Jay Powell, Federal Reserve, came a month ago to the Senate,
Speaker 2: spoke to the Banking Committee and said, you know, ten
Speaker 2: to fifteen years from now, there'll be whole regions of
Speaker 2: the United States where you can't get a mortgage anymore.
Speaker 1: And he's a pretty conservative, I mean not pretty very concerned,
Speaker 1: not very dreams and not very green. So it's just
Speaker 1: look at bottom line. Is climate risk is financial risk? Yes,
Speaker 1: and it's language. I think hopefully that could bring people
Speaker 1: to the table on fundamentally addressing the solutions. Now, let's
Speaker 1: we talk about prevention. We could talk about low carbon
Speaker 1: green growth, we could talk about decarbonizing our economy and
Speaker 1: changing the way we produce and consume energy, but also
Speaker 1: how do we address the situational reality ten or fifteen years.
Speaker 1: Obviously we're looking at IBPC, we're looking at twenty forty
Speaker 1: five goals in carbon neutrality, that in that timeline, but
Speaker 1: beyond that, the insurance market and stabilizing it. It's not
Speaker 1: unique to Florida, it's not Nique Louisiana, as up in Montana,
Speaker 1: of all places, they were discussing this as a top priority.
Speaker 1: Obviously in California, is there a federal frame you talking
Speaker 1: to your colleagues about a federal strategy to address some
Speaker 1: of these insurance concerns.
Speaker 2: I think until we turn the corner on fossil fuel emissions,
Speaker 2: the insurance industry is going to continue looking out into uncertainty.
Speaker 2: How bad does this get? Every year that we add
Speaker 2: more fossil fuel emissions, we add to their uncertainty, we
Speaker 2: add to their peril, and so they're going to continue
Speaker 2: to withdraw away from that risk. The board member of Alians,
Speaker 2: which is one of the biggest insurance companies in the world,
Speaker 2: as you know, just recently wrote an article about how
Speaker 2: climate change means the end of the insurance industry business model,
Speaker 2: and by the way, that takes down mortgages that require insurance,
Speaker 2: and by the way, that also takes down a lot
Speaker 2: of financial transactions where there's an insurance component to a
Speaker 2: complex financial transaction. So this cascades out very, very widely,
Speaker 2: and very rapidly, and we simply have to start with
Speaker 2: first principles. This is caused by fossil fuel emissions. We're
Speaker 2: not dealing it, dealing with it properly because of fossil
Speaker 2: fuel mischief politically, through their dark money and through their lives.
Speaker 2: We've got to break the back of the fossil fuel
Speaker 2: disinformation machine, get back to legislating properly. And then there's
Speaker 2: the possibility that the insurance interests is okay. Now we
Speaker 2: see an end through this, we can work our way
Speaker 2: through how we redesign products so we can still provide
Speaker 2: coverage in Florida, for instance, which is really in terrible,
Speaker 2: terrible shape.
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting, you know, I can't help when I
Speaker 1: when you bring up dark money to see to me
Speaker 1: how transparent in the light of day that corruption is.
Speaker 1: I just think about that infamous meeting with oil executives
Speaker 1: that then candidate Donald Trump had where he said, give
Speaker 1: me a billion dollars and I'll roll back basically the
Speaker 1: twentieth century. I'll give you what you want. And he did,
Speaker 1: and he did.
Speaker 2: He's trying and is.
Speaker 1: That a gross exagerate? Goes back to my opening question
Speaker 1: to you. I mean, EPA, this is a wreck. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've seen. We went through Trump one point zero, we
Speaker 1: went through Bush. I mean, well, remember I'm from my
Speaker 1: old office, is in Ronald Reagan's office, and so even
Speaker 1: going back to the James Watts days, and I remember
Speaker 1: all the vandalism was being done on the environment back then,
Speaker 1: natural resources, not just in terms of environmental policy and
Speaker 1: waivers and the Clean Air Act and the like Endangered
Speaker 1: Species Act. But this seems from my perspective, we're just
Speaker 1: a few weeks into this administration. This seems tenex The
Speaker 1: acceleration of that kind of analysm and regressive policy making
Speaker 1: is am I oversating.
Speaker 2: Though you are not just one example that we're looking
Speaker 2: at a lot, both in the judiciary and the Environment
Speaker 2: pub Works committees. Is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is desperate to attack, and in order
Speaker 2: to do so, they're not just having EPA try to
Speaker 2: figure out ways to undo the fund. They got the
Speaker 2: US Attorney for the District of Columbia to try to
Speaker 2: cook up a fake criminal case so they could use
Speaker 2: the fake criminal case as a justification to get a
Speaker 2: court order freezing the funds prior to seizing them. The
Speaker 2: problem was that the career staff said, there's no crime here,
Speaker 2: we can't do this. So what did they do?
Speaker 1: Fired?
Speaker 2: The chief of the Criminal Division went forward with the
Speaker 2: political US attorney signing the pleading completely on his own.
Speaker 2: Not one person in the office would sign it. Then
Speaker 2: the judge threw it out. So they're willing to break
Speaker 2: through barriers of bad behavior, including maladministration of the criminal laws,
Speaker 2: to try to get harm done to climate initiatives, and
Speaker 2: to try to earn the billion dollars or whatever it
Speaker 2: was that they spent on on Trump. We know it's
Speaker 2: north of one hundred million. That was what was disclosed.
Speaker 2: But when you hide it through C four's and through
Speaker 2: super PACs and in it goes, and who knows what
Speaker 2: we wanted to do was crypto fund I mean the
Speaker 2: whole thing. It's just really hard to tell. But he
Speaker 2: could easily have gotten a billion dollars. We just don't
Speaker 2: know yet.
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting. I think back and forgive me
Speaker 1: for going back to Ronald Reagan, because you have been
Speaker 1: a recent champion of trying to protect California's waivers under
Speaker 1: the Clean Air Act. And just for those listening, it's
Speaker 1: an interesting fact California's modern environmental movement. There were very
Speaker 1: many moments, obviously off shoil spill in Santa Barbara, but
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan really established the regulatory regime as governor in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty seven with the creation of the California Air
Speaker 1: Resource Board, and in nineteen seventy a Republican by the
Speaker 1: name of Richard Nixon gave Reagan the authority under that
Speaker 1: Clean Air Act to advance that waiver. Same person that
Speaker 1: brought us the Endangered Species Act, among many other environmental rules,
Speaker 1: including the EPA itself. Republicans, I'm old enough to remember,
Speaker 1: not that I wasn't around for that necessarily, but I
Speaker 1: do remember another Republican, George H. W. Bush, on the
Speaker 1: issue of some issues around the ozone layer as well.
Speaker 1: What the hell's happened in this country that we've lost
Speaker 1: sort of a bipartisan appreciation for clean air, clean water,
Speaker 1: having a life you can live out loud without asthma,
Speaker 1: and being able to live longer and healthier lives. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of rhetoric in this space, but what
Speaker 1: the hell's happened this new reality?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the new reality has a lot to
Speaker 2: do with corruption and a lot to do with Citizens United,
Speaker 2: which unleashed political spending on an unprecedented level. And nobody
Speaker 2: had a bigger incentive to spend money politically than a polluter,
Speaker 2: and nobody had a bigger incentive to hide that it
Speaker 2: was them spending money politically louter. So you could go
Speaker 2: in and make your backroom deal with the Republican Party
Speaker 2: and say you knock it off on climate, you knock
Speaker 2: it off on environmental enforcement, we will give you all
Speaker 2: the money that you need, and nobody will know it's us.
Speaker 2: It'll all come through Californians for Peace and Puppies and Prosperity,
Speaker 2: or some phony front group that will prop up for you,
Speaker 2: and the motives are huge. The International Monetary Fund says
Speaker 2: that the subsidy for fossil fuel in the United States
Speaker 2: every single year from being allowed to pollute for free
Speaker 2: is seven hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: This subsidy, the sub American taxpayers are pain in the aggregate.
Speaker 2: In the in the form of pollution harms that in
Speaker 2: proper economics are baked into the price of the product,
Speaker 2: but they're not in the price of the product. So
Speaker 2: they would economists call a negative externality, which is a
Speaker 2: form of subsidy. Ask Milton Friedman, the great conservative economists, right,
Speaker 2: and when you're fighting for a seven hundred billion dollar subsidy,
Speaker 2: how much would you spend a year in politics to
Speaker 2: protect seven hundred billion? I mean, the number goes through
Speaker 2: the roof. It's astronomical. So the notion that they could
Speaker 2: have given a billion dollars to trump the notion that
Speaker 2: they could spend ten billion dollars a year influencing Congress
Speaker 2: is completely plausible when you're playing for stakes of that magnitude.
Speaker 1: It wasn't that long ago that these guys made sixty
Speaker 1: three billion dollars net profit in ninety days. Yeah, with
Speaker 1: some of the most egregious gas spiking we've ever experienced
Speaker 1: in US history, with no account of zero accountability. As
Speaker 1: the price of the barrel of oil was going down,
Speaker 1: the price of gasoline was going up, and there were
Speaker 1: no new regulatory in positions or fees attached to that.
Speaker 2: That's the thing about this line that Republicans like to
Speaker 2: utter that you know what we need is energy independence.
Speaker 2: We will never have energy and dependence in the United
Speaker 2: States America with fossil fuel because the price is not
Speaker 2: set in America. Thank the price is set by a
Speaker 2: foreign cartel. That's exactly where that sixty two million came from.
Speaker 2: Putin comes over the border, prices spike in OPEC, and
Speaker 2: instead of being loyal to their American customers and keeping
Speaker 2: the prices where they were doing just fine, they ramped
Speaker 2: their prices up to meet the cartel price and gouged
Speaker 2: and gouged and gouged and made the biggest profits in
Speaker 2: the history of the corporation.
Speaker 1: And somehow they had the American people, hardworking folks, defending
Speaker 1: these oil companies despite the fact they were directly being
Speaker 1: fleeced by the same folks, the same petro dictators overseas
Speaker 1: that were determining domestic policy, not just influencing forum.
Speaker 2: Well, that climate denial machine got turned on full blast
Speaker 2: to say that this was Joe Biden's fault and we
Speaker 2: did not have and the president then President I did
Speaker 2: not have a strategy to fight back. Now, ultimately they
Speaker 2: went for the clawback legislation, and by fighting for the
Speaker 2: clawback legislation, they actually turned that issue where actually people
Speaker 2: started to blame the fossil fuel industry, particularly once they'd
Speaker 2: seen those profit reports. So we were able to turn
Speaker 2: that issue, but it took some willingness to fight, and
Speaker 2: it took a while before the Biden administration got around
Speaker 2: to where they were willing to fight back. There were
Speaker 2: months in which there was a one way street of
Speaker 2: public information all saying Biden inflation, Biden gas prices. Biden
Speaker 2: did this, which is.
Speaker 1: A great irony because under the Biden administration we were
Speaker 1: never more energy independent in terms of net exports. I
Speaker 1: think it's between thirteen point three or four billion a
Speaker 1: million gallon of barrels a day that were exporting more
Speaker 1: than Trump administration ever exporting. We're also producing more clean
Speaker 1: energy and green energy. And I want to compliment you
Speaker 1: on the IRA the three hundred and sixty nine billion
Speaker 1: dollars up to a trillion dollars. We'll see where it
Speaker 1: counts up to of tax credits and obviously the infrastructure bill.
Speaker 1: Are you seeing the benefit. There's been a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, I'm talking to Ezra Client on the podcast.
Speaker 1: You know where he thought there was the mistake of
Speaker 1: those bills. It wasn't attached to streamlining and green tape
Speaker 1: and addressing the issue of a regulatory thicket in terms
Speaker 1: of advancing those alternative energy stratu.
Speaker 2: We could have done more. But right now you're seeing
Speaker 2: an awful lot of Republicans, Senators and congressmen coming into
Speaker 2: John Thune, coming into Speaker Johnson and saying, hold on,
Speaker 2: hold on, not so fast. This is a factory in
Speaker 2: my district. This is a factory where I've got employees,
Speaker 2: This is an investment where I was there when we
Speaker 2: cut the ribbon not so fast. So I think we
Speaker 2: did a fairly good job there. It just isn't enough
Speaker 2: because you simply can't have a competition for energy in
Speaker 2: which one side, the polluting side, pollutes for free and
Speaker 2: gets a seven hundred billion dollar negative externality subsidy and
Speaker 2: the other side has to fight and plus with that
Speaker 2: huge subsidy. They're attacking the other side constantly in the
Speaker 2: public media, lying about them, attacking politicians. It's a very,
Speaker 2: very tough environment. I will tell you, Governor, if the
Speaker 2: United States of America had the vehicle efficiency standards that
Speaker 2: California has, the carbon price that California has, if national
Speaker 2: energy policy was as good as California's, we would be
Speaker 2: on our way through this problem. We would have a
Speaker 2: much wider pathway to climate safety. As it is, it
Speaker 2: is a very narrow path, and we've got to fight
Speaker 2: really hard to make sure that we succeed well.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that, and again it goes back to my compliments,
Speaker 1: and they weren't lightly extended to you for being a
Speaker 1: fierce champion of protecting our heartened status because of those
Speaker 1: waivers that have allowed us to advance our clean car goals,
Speaker 1: to allow us to have an influence to support other
Speaker 1: states efforts. These one seventy seven states. We call them because.
Speaker 2: We're joining forces, one of them in Rhode Island right
Speaker 2: behind you.
Speaker 1: God bless and all the other climate alliances we've created,
Speaker 1: not just in the United States, but also internationally in
Speaker 1: the MoU you under two coalitions and the like. But
Speaker 1: let me ask you just in closing, there's one major
Speaker 1: conference coming up. It's COP what referred to as COP thirty.
Speaker 1: What is COP What is COP thirty represent and do
Speaker 1: you think it represents this next big international climate? What
Speaker 1: do you think this moment represents Trump? Trump Ism? What
Speaker 1: do you think we represent? You, your state, Rhode Island,
Speaker 1: California represent to the international community at this critical moment
Speaker 1: as well, what.
Speaker 2: We are seeing is a long litany of fossil fuel
Speaker 2: lies about what our future is going to be. On
Speaker 2: a collision course with the insurance in tries look at
Speaker 2: what our future is going to be. The fossil fyo
Speaker 2: industry can lie for free. The insurance industry makes trillion
Speaker 2: dollar bets on getting it right and has fiduciary responsibilities
Speaker 2: to do its best. And the insurance industry is predicting
Speaker 2: real calamity with that cascade through real estate markets and
Speaker 2: into world economic meltdown. So if in Brazil at the
Speaker 2: cop we are focusing on that insurance risk and what
Speaker 2: it means for real estate markets. According to The Economist magazine,
Speaker 2: a twenty five trillion dollar hit to the world's largest
Speaker 2: asset class real estate. If we can focus on that,
Speaker 2: then we can focus our minds adequately to find that
Speaker 2: narrow pathway to climate safety. If it's more nebulous, talk
Speaker 2: about ambitions and you know, green this, and you know,
Speaker 2: it's like, no, now we're down to a very narrow path.
Speaker 2: We've got to nail this, BEFO. We're going to leave
Speaker 2: our children and grandchildren a pathway to climate safety.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. It's interesting. I mean, it's in closing.
Speaker 1: I appreciate, I really appreci I mean, again, anyone listening
Speaker 1: appreciates the insurance pressures there under the issue of affordability
Speaker 1: is the issue of our time. It's defined the last
Speaker 1: few years. I think it had big an outsize, influenced
Speaker 1: clearly in the election, not just here but around the globe.
Speaker 1: But the issue of insurance and climate and connecting that dot,
Speaker 1: I think is profound, and so I'm very grateful, thank you,
Speaker 1: Senner for taking the time, thank you