Podcasts about Celsius

Scott and J.C. are on the show for episode 448. It's a victory Monday as they once again review the Bucs 38-31 win over the Colts in an important game on the road. They break down a big game for Shaq Barrett while also looking into how the Bucs stack up with the rest of the NFC. With six games to go, each of them takes a brief look into how the rest of their schedule shapes out. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

The Pewter Postgame show is live from Whiskey Wings in Temple Terrace for episode 447. The entire staff comes in a rotation to give their insight and analysis on a roller coaster of a game where the Bucs defeated the Colts 38-31 on the road. They discuss the five turnovers that came at the right time for the defense and the opportunistic ways the offense scored from. Of course they also got into the game changing play by Shaq Barrett that turned things around, and an all-time performance from Leonard Fournette, who scored four touchdowns on the afternoon, including the game winner. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

Today is the birthday of Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius, (1701) who invented the Celsius temperature scale.

The environment plays a large role in your success as medic in survival settings. If you don't take weather conditions and other factors into account, you have made the environment your enemy, and it's a formidable one. One major issue is cold-related illness, otherwise known as hypothermia. Normally, the body core ranges from 97.5 to 99.5 degrees Fahrenheit (36.5-37.5 degrees Celsius) when taken orally or rectally. Rectal temps tend to be slightly higher than oral, and oral temps slightly higher than skin readings, such as those taken in the armpit. Hypothermia begins when the body core drops below 95 degrees. Dr. Joe Alton discusses what to do when the family medic is faced with someone struck by cold exposure. Also, Nurse Amy Alton begins a series on nursing care off the grid. While not as sensational as emergency trauma care, the daily maintenance of the bedridden group member is so important that you're bound to lose people if you don't know how to properly care for them all the way to recovery. Amy discusses what you need to know in part 1... Wishing you the best of health in good times or bad, Joe and Amy Alton Hey, have you gotten your copy of the brand new, greatly expanded 4th edition of the Survival Medicine Handbook? You should check it out here! You'll be glad you did!.

2021 marks the most expensive Thanksgiving dinner ever. Oil companies can't pump oil as fast as the Fed can print money. Pilgrims set sail for Communism, but landed on Capitalism. Desperate Americans look to crypto as a ticket to wealth. Bitcoin is fiat and people will lose faith in it like other fiats. Alex Mashinsky of Celsius tells desperate Americans to take out loans to buy Bitcoin. CNBC hosts an hour-long special shilling Bitcoin. Cathie Woods is bullish on Bitcoin, but expects deflation. Wherever inflation starts, it always ends up at the supermarket. Fed can't fight inflation and bail out the housing market at the same time. Even Fed's preferred data shows they are miles above their inflation target. One-of-a-kind financing program at https://netsuite.com/gold Go to https://shopify.com/gold for a FREE fourteen-day trial and get full access to Shopify's entire suite of features. INVEST LIKE ME: https://schiffradio.com/invest RATE AND REVIEW on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PeterSchiff/reviews/ SIGN UP FOR MY FREE NEWSLETTER: https://www.europac.com/ Schiff Gold News: http://www.SchiffGold.com/news Buy my newest book at http://www.tinyurl.com/RealCrash Follow me on Facebook: http://www.Facebook.com/PeterSchiff Follow me on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/PeterSchiff Follow me on Instagram: https://Instagram.com/PeterSchiff

The Bucs have a quick turnaround following a Monday night game and a Thanksgiving week going on as well for episode 446. Scott and Jon preview the Bucs road game against the Colts and who gets the better of the Bucs run defense against the Colts running game. Tampa Bay needs to bring their best road game of the season because Indianapolis has won five of their last six games. The Bucs are two games up in the NFC South, but sure would love to expand that lead. Luckily for the Bucs, it looks like they might have Vita Vea and Antonio Brown available for this next trip. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Dr. Joanna Lewis joins us to discuss China's commitment to addressing climate change. Dr. Lewis provides an overview of major domestic and international policies that China has implemented to combat climate change, including its dual-carbon goals, newly launched emissions trading scheme, and commitment to end new coal-fired financing abroad. She emphasizes that China is a crucial player not just in international climate negotiations, but also in the global effort to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Dr. Lewis also assesses China's role in the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow and discusses how China's performance impacted international progress in combating climate change and China's desire to be seen as a global leader on climate issues. Lastly, Dr. Lewis highlights the new joint working group between the U.S. and China as an important step in making meaningful progress on climate change during an era of strategic competition between the two countries. Dr. Joanna Lewis is the Provost's Distinguished Associate Professor of Energy and Environment and Director of the Science, Technology and International Affairs Program (STIA) at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Dr. Lewis has two decades of experience working on international climate and clean energy policy with a focus on China. She is also a faculty affiliate in the China Energy Group at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Scott, Jon and Matt are on for episode 445 in a Pewter Post Game show. They break down how the Bucs got back on the winning track by defeating the Giants 30-10 on Monday night football at home. There's discussions of Mike Evans' record breaking touchdown and the impact that Rob Gronkowski and Sean Murphy-Bunting had in their return. And of course, they get into the dominating second half that was had by the defense, highlighted by an interception from defensive lineman Steve McLendon! There was also the involvement that Devin White had in both turnovers. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

Big Crypto news today as Latin America's largest company to allow customers to buy Bitcoin in Brazil via app. Odell Beckham Jr. has teamed up with Cash App and will be taking 100% of his new NFL contract in Bitcoin. Crypto is no fad says Australia's Minister Of Financial Services. Global banking powerhouse Citi is hiring 100 people to beef up its blockchain and digital assets division, according to a person familiar with the bank's plans. December 8th several crypto CEOs will testify in front of the House Financial Services Committee. Nike wants to bring sneakerheads into the Metaverse. Crypto lender Celsius increases Bitcoin mining investment to $500 million. El Salvador government strikes deal with Bitfinex, Blockstream to issue $1 billion bitcoin bond. C3 Protocol, a cryptocurrency trading project linked to the Algorand blockchain, has raised $3.6 million in a funding round that was led by Arrington Capital and Jump Capital.

In this English listening practice lesson, I have recorded a topic which is about climate change and the recent COP 26 climate conference that was hosted in Glasgow in Scotland by the UK government. Making interesting English lessons is important. Keeping you focused and engaged in the content you need to learn to improve your English skills is half the battle when learning a new language. In this lesson, you will hear lots of English vocabulary, idioms, phrases and British culture and views, so jump in and start listening now. This lesson will help you improve your English language listening skills. ✔Lesson transcript: https://adeptenglish.com/lessons/english-lessons-listening-practice-climate/ The COP26 was a two week UN-sponsored international conference held in the Scottish Event Campus, Glasgow, UK. COP stands for ‘Conference of the Parties' this is a term used by the United Nations Climate Change which is used to refer to meetings held annually during its Convention period. The conference seeks to reduce global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, aiming for 1.5 degrees if possible. With important countries not attending the event, and some important world leaders sleeping during presentations, ask yourself, are we taking these problems seriously any more? Even the event's name suggests we have genuine problems agreeing to make changes collectively. We are in the 26th meeting and we still don't have a common world agreement dealing with the key issue of temperature rises. Not only can you practice listening to natural, conversational English being used in real-life situations, talking about real-world events. You can also read along and look up difficult vocabulary at the same time using our free PDF transcript for every audio lesson. If you're an English language learner and want to bring your listening skills up a notch, you're in the right place. Listening to our podcast will help you. So why not listen to our free English language podcasts and keep up to date with the world without having to leave the comfort of your home. We have lots of listening practice lessons where you can learn to speak better English with two new English listening practice lessons every week. Learn more about our courses here: https://adeptenglish.com/language-courses/ Adept English is here to help with FREE English lessons and language courses that are unique, modern and deliver results. You can learn to speak English quickly using our specialised brain training. We get straight to the point of how you should learn to speak English. We teach you in a fun and simple way that delivers results. If you want to learn to speak English, our approach to learning through listening will improve your English fluency.

If you know my guest today, you probably know what a rock star researcher is, but you may not know much of anything personal about him. Today, Brandon Marshall, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology at Brown University, gives me a glimpse into his life: acting, snowboarding, home decorating, caring for 2 pugs, and stubbornly refusing to leave Celsius back in Canada. Of course, Brandon shares how he successfully manages a very large research team, cross-training staff and letting them lead, and avoiding overwhelm. Enjoy!Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/shinyepipeople)

The bipartisan infrastructure bill sets aside $1.2 trillion dollars in funding for clean water, bridges, and roads, as well as higher-tech infrastructure like EV charging stations and electric school buses. Why the implementation of these projects needs to focus on creating equitable and sustainable systems that will last for generations. Also, the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland brought mixed results with an agreement to phase down coal, side agreements to cut methane emissions and a rulebook for international carbon trading markets. But there was little progress in efforts to help developing countries cope with the effects of climate change and the talks were widely criticized for their lack of inclusivity. Most importantly, COP26 failed to establish a fully credible path to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And for many Native American communities, seeds are living and life-giving organisms which should be carefully kept and cherished. The 2021 novel “The Seed Keeper” relays the importance of seed keeping across 4 generations of Dakota women. Join the next Living on Earth Book Club event on December 9th at 6:30 p.m.! We'll be speaking with diver-filmmaker Craig Foster about his book Underwater Wild, which captures the underwater world of wonder seen in the Academy Award-winning documentary “My Octopus Teacher.” Register at loe.org/events Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2015, delegates from 196 nations entered into the legally binding treaty on climate change known as the Paris Agreement, which set a goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2 and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.” Yet in August of this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new assessment report that starkly illustrated the world's collective failure to meet that target. Delegates from across the globe have just met in Glasgow for the international climate summit known as COP26, with the hope of strengthening commitments to keep emissions targets at that 1.5 degree level.  After two weeks of negotiations, presentations and protests in Glasgow, COP26 is a wrap. This week we discuss what was achieved - and what wasn't - at the summit.  For transcripts and other information, visit: https://www.climateone.org/watch-and-listen/podcasts  Guests: Vanessa Nakate, Ugandan climate activist Jiang Lin, Adjunct Professor, University of California Berkeley Albert Cheung, Head of Global Analysis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2015, delegates from 196 nations entered into the legally binding treaty on climate change known as the Paris Agreement, which set a goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2 and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.” Yet in August of this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new assessment report that starkly illustrated the world's collective failure to meet that target. Delegates from across the globe have just met in Glasgow for the international climate summit known as COP26, with the hope of strengthening commitments to keep emissions targets at that 1.5 degree level.  After two weeks of negotiations, presentations and protests in Glasgow, COP26 is a wrap. This week we discuss what was achieved - and what wasn't - at the summit.  For transcripts and other information, visit: https://www.climateone.org/watch-and-listen/podcasts  Guests: Vanessa Nakate, Ugandan climate activist Jiang Lin, Adjunct Professor, University of California Berkeley Albert Cheung, Head of Global Analysis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2015, delegates from 196 nations entered into the legally binding treaty on climate change known as the Paris Agreement, which set a goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2 and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.” Yet in August of this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a new assessment report that starkly illustrated the world's collective failure to meet that target. Delegates from across the globe have just met in Glasgow for the international climate summit known as COP26, with the hope of strengthening commitments to keep emissions targets at that 1.5 degree level.  After two weeks of negotiations, presentations and protests in Glasgow, COP26 is a wrap. This week we discuss what was achieved - and what wasn't - at the summit.  For transcripts and other information, visit: https://www.climateone.org/watch-and-listen/podcasts  Guests: Vanessa Nakate, Ugandan climate activist Jiang Lin, Adjunct Professor, University of California Berkeley Albert Cheung, Head of Global Analysis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ahead of the Monday night football game, Jon and Matt have a Bucs Q&A and therapy session for episode 444 to close out the week. They address multiple questions about if the Bucs offensive scheme is one of the best in the league and what the defense needs to do to switch up their coverages. There was breaking news about Antonio Brown as well, which they discussed after learning more about it during the broadcast, plus the latest injury report is revealed. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

We can plot the words we use to describe temperature on a scale: cold, cool, warm, hot. It's not as precise as a temperature scale like Celsius or Fahrenheit, but we all generally agree on where these words sit in relation to each other. We can also do the same with other sets of words that don't necessarily have an equivalent scientific scale, such as the relationship between “some", "a few" and “many“ or even words like "suppose”, “believe” and “know”. In this episode, your hosts Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne get enthusiastic about the things that get implied when we use words that involve scales, aka scalar implicature. Why can we revise our description of a warm coffee by saying “actually, it's hot” but not “actually, it's cold”? What happens when your language breaks up the scale differently to another language (spoiler: everyone can still agree that a warm spring day is different to a scorching hot one in the height of summer). And how can implied scales be used for humorous purposes, as in the Whale Fact™ that many whales were never taught how to drive manual stick shift? Announcements: It's our 5 year anniversary! We've loved sharing the Lingthusiasm with you all these year, and as we do every year for our anniversary celebrations, we're asking you to share it too! Share your favourite episode or moment on social media (and don't forget to tag us!), or just tell a friend who you think could use a little more linguistics in their life. Then go forth and enjoy the warm fuzzies of having spread the linguistic joy! In this month's bonus episode we're getting enthusiastic about linguistic illusions! We talk about the where the Yanny/Laurel illusion that became popular on social media a while back came from, the McGurk Effect, using the Stroop Test to find spies, hallucinating words from musical instruments, the Comparative Illusion (aka "More people have been to Russia than I have"), and making our own speech to song illusion to infect you with (sorry) (no but seriously). Join us on Patreon to listen to this and 56 other bonus episodes. You'll also get access to the Lingthusiasm Discord server where you can discuss your favourite linguistically interesting fiction with other language nerds! https://www.patreon.com/lingthusiasm For links to everything in this episode:

On Nov. 12, COP26 wrapped up in Glasgow, Scotland, after two weeks of tense negotiations attended by heads of state from across the world.  The outcome? The Glasgow Climate Pact, an agreement that aims to hold the world to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of global heating above pre-industrial levels.  Masako Konishi, Expert Director for Conservation and Energy at WWF Japan, was in Glasgow for the two-week conference and joins Deep Dive to give her insights into what was agreed at COP26, and the role Japan played at this crucial climate summit. Subscribe to The Japan Times One of the best ways that you can support Deep Dive is by subscribing to The Japan Times, and we are currently offering a 30% discount on the first six months of a digital premium subscription. Head to jtimes.jp/deepdive30 and enter the promo code "DEEPDIVE30" to claim the discount, and get unlimited access to The Japan Times' journalism. Thank you as always for your support. Read more:  COP26 seals breakthrough climate deal after major compromises (The Japan Times) Japan, once a leader on climate, under fire at COP26 over coal use (The Japan Times) Kishida places Japan's business interests at the forefront of climate policy (The Japan Times) Japan gets Fossil of the Day Award at COP26 after Kishida speech (The Japan Times) Toyota defends skipping COP26 emissions pledge (The Japan Times) On this episode: Masako Konishi: Twitter | WWF Japan Oscar Boyd: Twitter | Articles | Instagram Announcements: Sign up to the Deep Dive mailing list and be notified when new episodes comes out. Get in touch with us at deepdive@japantimes.co.jp. Support the show! Rate us, review us and share this episode with a friend if you've enjoyed it. Follow us on Twitter, and give us feedback. This episode of Deep Dive may be supported by advertising based on your location. Advertising is sourced by Audioboom and is not affiliated with The Japan Times. Photo: People dressed as Pikachu protest against the funding of coal by Japan, near the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP26) venue in Glasgow, Scotland, on Nov. 4. | REUTERS

Scott and Jon are on for episode 433. Before previewing Bucs vs. Giants, they get into the latest Bucs news which include outside linebackers coach Larry Foote explaining how the Bucs decide to split the playing time between the starters and backups at the position, along with the team announcing that cornerback Richard Sherman is going on the injured reserve. They then review the Monday night game that the Bucs have next against the Giants, which might be closer than predicted. With that said, this could be the week that the Bucs offense gets back on track, especially since they're playing at home, which they've been much better at so far this season. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

In this iPhone101 QuickByte, Jeff Thompson takes us through the native Weather App and demonstrates how to add locations such as cities or airports to the location list. How to arrange the locations in a preferred order and how to change from Fahrenheit to Celsius or Celsius to Fahrenheit. Join in and learn how to add family, friends and points of interests to your location list in the native Weather App. Adding and Arranging locations in the native Weather App Open the Weather App, Hey Siri,, “Open Weather App”. Or single finger double tap on the Weather icon. Note: By default the opening screen will be of the location that holds the top position on the Location List. And, if the Weather App remains in your App Switcher, you will return to the last screen you were previously on. This demo is conducted as if the Weather App was not in the App Switcher, thus, opening to the default landing screen. 4 finger tap to go to the very bottom to “Location List”, single finger double tap. To add a new city, single finger swipe left to right twice to, “Search for a city or airport” search field, single finger double tap. Enter your city or airport by typing or dictation. You can use the 2 finger double tap to activate dictation or use the “dictate” button in the bottom right hand side of the keyboard. A list will populate just below and with a couple single finger swipes left to right, single finger double tap on the location you want. A new screen opens with your choice and can be added to your saved list of locations by single finger double tapping on, “Add”, in the upper right hand of the screen. You can choose, “Cancel”, and return to the search list and continue searching. To remove a location from your list: Open the Weather App, Hey Siri,, “Open Weather App”. Or single finger double tap on the Weather icon. 4 finger tap to go to the very bottom to “Location List”, single finger double tap. Swipe down through your list and flick up to the delete choice  and single finger double tap. Note: ensure that your Rotor setting is set to, “Actions” for these choices to appear. Moving Locations in the list While on the Location List page, go to the location you want to move and flick up until you have the desired, Move Up or Move Down, single finger double tap. OR Drag and drop by going to the location you want to move and then single finger swipe left to right to, “Reorder Button, Draggable”. Do a single finger double tap and hold, then slide your finger up or down, listening and let go when the desired location is achieved. Changing from Fahrenheit to Celsius or Celsius to Fahrenheit. Open the Weather App, Hey Siri,, “Open Weather App”. Or single finger double tap on the Weather icon. 4 finger tap near the top of the screen  and single finger swipe left to right to the, “More”, button, single finger double tap. Single finger swipe left to right down to Fahrenheit or Celsius and Choose by Single Finger Double Tapping on either one.   Contact Your State Services If you reside in Minnesota, and you would like to know more about Transition Services from State Services contact Transition Coordinator Sheila Koenig by email or contact her via phone at 651-539-2361. Contact: You can follow us on Twitter @BlindAbilities On the web at www.BlindAbilities.com Send us an email Get the Free Blind Abilities App on the App Storeand Google Play Store. Give us a call and leave us some feedback at 612-367-9063 we would love to hear from you! Check out the Blind Abilities Communityon Facebook, the Blind Abilities Page, and the Career Resources for the Blind and Visually Impaired group

Jason Bordoff, cofounding dean, Columbia Climate School, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy, and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University, leads a conversation on energy policy and efforts to combat climate change.   FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I am Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. And the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have with us today Jason Bordoff to talk about energy policy and efforts to combat climate change. Jason Bordoff is cofounding dean of the Columbia Climate School, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy, and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University. He previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for energy and climate change on the National Security Council, and he has held senior policy positions on the White House's National Economic Council and Council on Environmental Quality. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine and is often on TV and radio. So, we're really happy to have him with us today. So, Jason, thank you very much. We are just coming off the COP26 conference that took place in Glasgow that started on October 31, I believe, and concluded last Friday, November 12. Could you talk about what came out of the conference at a high level, if you think that the agreements that were reached went far enough or didn't go far enough, and what your policy recommendations are to really advance and fight the countdown that we have to the Earth warming? BORDOFF: Yeah. Thanks. Well, first, thanks to you, Irina, and thanks to CFR for the invitation to be with you all today. Really delighted to have the chance to talk about these important issues. I was there for much of the two-week period in Glasgow representing the Energy Center and the Climate School here at Columbia. I think it's kind of a glass half-full/glass half-empty outlook coming out of Glasgow. So I think the Glasgow conference was notable in several respects. We'll look back on it, I think, and some of the things we will remember are—some of the things we'll remember—(dog barking)—sorry—are the role of the private sector and private finance, I think, was much more prominent in Glasgow this year. I think there were commitments around some important things like methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, was much higher on the priority list in this U.N. climate meeting than in prior ones. You had pledges on deforestation and other things that are important. And then the final agreement did have some important elements to it, particularly around Article 6, how you design carbon markets around the world. But the glass half-empty outlook is still we are nowhere close to being on track for the kind of targets that countries and companies are committing to: net zero by 2050 or 1.5 degrees of warming. I think there were—there should be hope and optimism coming out of COP. The role of the youth—at Columbia, we were honored to organize a private roundtable for President Obama with youth climate activists. It's hard to spend time with young people in COP or on campus here at Columbia or anywhere else and not be inspired by how passionately they take these issues. So the activism you saw in the streets, the sense of urgency among everyone—activists, civil society, governments, the private sector—felt different, I think, at this COP than other COPs that I have attended or probably the ones I haven't attended. But there was also for some I saw kind of we're coming out of this and we're on track for below two degrees. Or, you know, Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, tweeted that when you add up all the pledges we're on track for 1.8 degrees Celsius warming. He's talking about all of the pledges meaning every country who's promised to be net zero by 2050, 2060, 2070, and at least from my standpoint there's a good reason to take those with a grain of salt. They're not often backed up by concrete plans or ideas about how you would get anywhere close to achieving those goals. So it's good that we have elevated ambition, which is kind of one of the core outcomes of the COP in Glasgow. But it is also the case that when you elevate ambition and the reality doesn't change as fast or maybe faster than the ambition is changing, what you have is a growing gap between ambition and reality. And I think that's where we are today. Oil use is rising each and every year. Gas use is rising. Coal use is going up this year. I don't know if it's going to keep going up, but at a minimum it's going to plateau. It's not falling off a cliff. So the reality of the energy world today—which is 75 percent of emissions are energy—is not anything close to net zero by 2050. It is the case that progress is possible. So if you go back to before the Paris agreement, we were on track for something like maybe 3.7 degrees Celsius of warming. If you look at a current outlook, it's maybe 2.7, 2.8 (degrees), so just below three degrees. So progress is possible. That's good. If you look at the nationally determined contribution pledges—so the commitments countries made that are more near term, more accountability for them; the commitments they made to reduce emissions by 2030, their NDCs—we would be on track for about 2.4 degrees Celsius warming, assuming all those pledges are fulfilled. But history would suggest a reason to be a little skeptical about that. The U.S. has a pledge to get to a 50 to 52 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, and look at how things are working or not working in Washington and make your own judgment about how likely it is that we'll put in place the set of policies that would be required to get to that ambitious level of decarbonization by 2030. And I think the same healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when you look elsewhere in the world. But even if we achieve all of those, we're still falling short of below two degrees, nevertheless 1.5 (degrees). And so, again, I think the outcome from COP for me was optimism that progress is possible—we have made a lot of progress in the last ten years—but acute concern that we're nowhere close to being on track to take targets like 1.5 degrees Celsius or net zero by 2050 seriously. And we just need to be honest as a climate and energy community—and I live in both of those worlds; there's a lot of overlap between them, obviously—about how hard it is to achieve the goals we are talking about. Renewables have grown incredibly quickly. Optimistic headlines every day about what is happening in solar and wind. Costs have come down more than 90 percent. Battery costs have come down more than 90 percent in the last decade. But solar and wind create electricity, and electricity is 20 percent of global final energy consumption. The outlook for electric vehicles is much more promising today. Lots of companies like Ford and others are committing to be all-electric by a certain date ten or twenty years from now. Cars are 20 percent of global oil demand. About half of the emission reductions—cumulative emission reductions between now and 2050 will need to come from technologies that are not yet available at commercial scale and sectors of the economy that are really hard to decarbonize like steel and cement and ships and airplanes. We're not—we don't have all the tools we need to do those yet. And then, in Glasgow, the focus of a lot of what we did at Columbia was on—we did a lot of different things, but one of the key areas of focus was the challenge of thinking about decarbonization in emerging and developing economies. I don't think we talk about that enough. The issue of historical responsibility of loss and damage was more on the agenda this year, and I think you'll hear even more about it in the year ahead. The next COP is in Africa. There was growing tension between rich and poor countries at this COP. I think a starting point was what we see in the pandemic alone and how inequitable around the world the impacts of the pandemic are. Many people couldn't even travel to Glasgow from the Global South because they couldn't get vaccinated. We need, between now and 2050, estimates are—a ballpark—$100 trillion of additional investment in clean energy if we're going to get on track for 1.5 (degrees)/net zero by 2050. So the question that should obsess all of us who work in this space: Where will that money come from? Most of it's going to be private sector, not public. Most of it is going to be in developing and emerging economies. That is where the growth in energy is going to come from. Eight hundred million people have no access to energy at all. Nevertheless, if you model what energy access means, it's often defined as, you have enough to turn on lights or charge your cellphone. But when you talk about even a fraction of the standard of living we take for granted—driving a car, having a refrigerator, having an air conditioner—the numbers are massive. They're just huge, and the population of Africa's going to double to 2.2 billion by the year 2050. So these are really big numbers and we need to recognize how hard this is. But we should also recognize that it is possible. We have a lot of the tools we need. We need innovation in technology and we need stronger policy, whether that's a carbon price or standards for different sectors. And then, of course, we need private-sector actors to step up as well, and all of us. And we have these great commitments to achieve these goals with a lot of capital being put to work, and now we need to hold people accountable to make sure that they do that. So, again, I look back on the last two weeks or before, two weeks of COP, the gap between ambition and reality got bigger. Not necessarily a bad thing—ambition is a good thing—but now it's time to turn the ambition into action. We need governments to follow through on their pledges. Good news is we have a wide menu of options for reducing emissions. The bad news is there's not a lot of time at our current rate of emissions. And emissions are still going up each and every year. They're not even falling yet. Remember, what matters is the cumulative total, not the annual flow. At our current rate of emissions, the budget—carbon budget for staying below 1.5 (degrees) is used up in, around a decade or so, so there's not much time to get to work. But I'm really excited about what we're building with the first climate school in the country here at Columbia. When it comes to pushing—turning ambition into action, that requires research, it requires education, and it requires engaging with partners in civil society and the public sector and the private sector to help turn that research into action. And the people we're working with here every day on campus are the ones who are going to be the leaders that are going to hopefully do a better job—(laughs)—than we've done over the last few decades. So whatever you're doing at your educational institution—be it teaching or research or learning—we all have a role to play in the implementation of responsible, forward-thinking energy policy. I'm really excited to have the chance to talk with you all today. Look forward to your questions and to the conversation. Thank you again. FASKIANOS: Jason, that's fantastic. Thank you very much for that informative and sobering view. So let's turn to all of you now for your questions. So I'm going to go first to—I have one raised hand from Stephen Kass. Q: OK. Thank you. Jason, thank you for the very useful and concise summary. What specific kinds of energy programs do you think developing countries should now be pursuing? Should they be giving up coal entirely? Should they be importing natural gas? Should they be investing in renewables or nuclear? What recipe would you advise developing countries to pursue for their own energy needs? BORDOFF: It's going to need to be a lot of different things, so there's no single answer to that, of course. And by the way, I'll just say it would be super helpful if people don't mind just introducing yourself when you ask a question. That would be helpful to me, at least. I appreciate it. I think they need to do a lot of different things. I think I would start with low-hanging fruit, and renewable electricity is not the entire answer. The sun and wind are intermittent. Electricity can't do certain things yet, like power ships and airplanes. But the low cost of solar and wind, I think, does mean it's a good place to start, and then we need to think about those other sectors as well. I think a key thing there comes back to finance, and that's why we're spending so much time on it with our research agenda here. Access to financing and cost of capital are really important. Clean energy tends to be more capital-intensive and then, like solar and wind, more CAPEX, less OPEX over time. But attaining financing in poor countries is really difficult and expensive. Lack of experience with renewable energy, local banks are often reluctant to lend to those kinds of projects. And then foreign investors, where most of that capital is going to come from, view projects often in emerging markets and developing economies particularly as more risky. Local utilities may not be creditworthy. There's currency inflation risk in many developing countries, people worry about recouping their upfront investment if bills are paid in local currency. There's political risk, maybe corruption, inconsistently enforced regulations. And it can be harder to build clean energy infrastructure if you don't have other kinds of infrastructure, like ports, and roads, and bridges and a good electrical grid. So I would start there. And I think there's a role for those countries to scale up their clean energy sectors, but also for policymakers and multilateral development banks and governments elsewhere—there was a lot of focus in Glasgow on whether the developed countries would make good on their promise made in Copenhagen to send $100 billion a year in climate finance to developing countries. And they fell short of that. But even that is kind of a rounding error, compared to the one to two trillion (dollars) a year that the International Energy Agency estimates is needed. So there are many other things besides just writing a check that government, like in the U.S. or elsewhere, can do. The Development Finance Corporation, for example, can lend to banks in local and affordable rates, finance projects in local currency, expand the availability of loan guarantees. I've written before about how I think even what often gets called industrial policy, let's think about some sectors—in the same way China did with solar or batteries fifteen years ago. Are there sectors where governments might help to grow domestic industries and, by doing that, scale—bring down the cost of technologies that are expensive now, the premium for low-carbon or zero-carbon cement or steel. It's just—it's not reasonable to ask a developing country to build new cities, and new highways, and all the new construction they're going to do with zero-carbon steel and cement because it's just way too expensive. So how do you bring those costs down? If we think about investments, we can make through U.S. infrastructure or other spending to do that, that not only may help to grow some domestic industries and jobs here, that can be its own form of global leadership if we're driving those costs of those technologies down to make it cheaper for others to pick up. So I think that's one of the places I'd start. But there are a lot of other things we need to do too. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question—and let me just go back. Stephen Kass is an adjunct professor at NYU. So the next question is a written question from Wei Liang, who is an assistant professor of international policy studies at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. And the question is: I wonder if you could briefly address the Green Climate Fund and individual countries' pledge on that. BORDOFF: Yeah, I mean, it touches a little bit on what I said a moment ago about the need for developed countries to provide climate finance to developing countries. And so I think that's—it's important that we take those obligations seriously, and that we, in advanced economies, step up and make those funds available. And but, again, we're talking—the amount we're still talking about is so small compared to the amounts that are needed to deal both with the impacts of climate change, and then also to curb climate change, to mitigate climate change. Because we know that developing countries are in the parts of the world that will often be most adversely impacted by climate impacts—droughts, and heat waves, and storms, and food security issues—from a standpoint of equity are the parts of the world that have done the least to cause this problem, responsible for very few emissions. If you look cumulatively at emissions since the start of the industrial age, about half—nearly half have come from the U.S. and EU combined. Two percent from the entire continent of Africa. So they are using very little energy today, haven't therefore contributed to the problems, and have the fewest resources, of course, to cope with the impacts, and also to develop in a cleaner way. Sometimes it's cheaper to develop in a cleaner way. Renewables are often today competitive with coal, even without subsidy. But there are many areas where that's not the case, and there is a cost. And we need to help make sure that, you know, we're thinking about what a just transition looks like. And that means many different things for different communities, whether you're a coal worker or an agricultural worker in California that may, you know, be working outside in worse and worse heat. But it also means thinking about the parts of the world that need assistance to make this transition. So I think we need to be taking that much more seriously. FASKIANOS: Next question is a raised hand from Tara Weil, who is an undergraduate student at Pomona College. Q: Hi. So, given that developed nations are the largest contributors to carbon emissions, as you've said, how can larger powers be convinced as to the importance of addressing global inequality with regards to climate change? And thank you so much, also, for giving this talk. BORDOFF: Yeah. Thank you for being here. I don't have a great answer to your question. I mean, the politics of foreign aid in general are not great, as we often hear in events at CFR. So I do think one—we need to continue to encourage, through political advocacy, civil society, and other ways, governments in advanced economies to think about all the tools they have at their disposal. I think the ones that are going to be—I'm reluctant to try to speak as a political commenter rather than a climate and energy commenter on what's going to work politically. But part of that is demonstrating what—it's not just generosity. It is also in one's self-interest to do these things. And just look at the pandemic, right? What would it look like for the U.S. to show greater leadership, or any country to show even greater leadership and help cope with the pandemic all around the world in parts of the world that are struggling to vaccinate their people? That is not only an act of generosity, but it is clearly one of self-interest too, because it's a pretty globalized economy and you're not going to be able to get a pandemic under control at home if it's not under control abroad. Of course, the same is true of the impacts of climate change. It doesn't matter where a ton of CO2 comes from. And we can decarbonize our own economy, but the U.S. is only 15 percent of annual emissions globally. So it's not going to make a huge difference unless everyone else does that as well. There is also the potential, I think, to—and we see this increasingly when you look at the discussion of the Biden infrastructure bill, how they talk about the U.S.-China relationship, which of course are the two most important countries from the standpoint of climate change. It is one of cooperation. That was one of the success stories in Glasgow, was a commitment to cooperate more. We'll see if we can actually do it, because it's a pretty difficult and tense U.S.-China relationship right now. So the question is, can you separate climate from all those other problems on human rights, and intellectual property, and everything else and then cooperate on climate? It's been hard, but there's a renewed commitment to try to do that. But also, a recognition that action in the clean energy space is not only about cooperation but it's also about economic competition. And you have seen more and more focus on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle on thinking about the security of supply chains, and critical minerals, and the inputs in lithium and rare earth elements that go into many aspects of clean energy. To my point before about aspects of industrial policy that might help grow your own domestic economy, I think there are ways in which countries can take measures that help—that help their own economies and help workers and help create jobs, and that in the process are helping to drive forward more quickly the clean energy technologies we need, and bring down the cost of those technologies to make them more accessible and available in some of the less-developed countries. So I think trying to frame it less as do we keep funds at home, do we write a check abroad? But there are actually many steps you could do to create economic opportunities and are win-win. Without being pollyannish about it, I think there is some truth to some of those. And I think we can focus on those politically as well. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take an international question from Luciana Alexandra Ghica, who is an associate professor for international cooperation at the University of Bucharest. What type of topics do you think we should address immediately in university programs that provide training in climate, development, global policies, or international public affairs, so that a new generation of leaders really pushes forward the agenda on climate change? BORDOFF: Yeah. Well, I'll say a quick word about what we're doing at Columbia, and maybe it's relevant to that question, because Columbia has made this historic commitment to build a climate school. There are many initiatives, and centers, and institutes. There was not only a handful of schools—law school, business school, medical school, engineering school. And it is the largest commitment a university can make to any particular topic, is something on the scale of a school with degree-granting authority and tenure-granting authority, and all the things that come with a school. And it's just the scale at a place like Columbia, and many other places, is just enormous. That's what we're doing on climate. We have created a climate school. And I'm honored President Bollinger asked me to help lead it. And we're going to build a faculty. We have our first inaugural class of masters' students, about ninety students that are going through the program right now, and we have a building in Manhattan for the climate school, and on and on. The idea—but the question is, what is climate, right? Because academia has been historically organized into traditional academic disciplines. So you have people who you hire through a tenured search, and they go to the engineering faculty and build their lab there. And there's law professors, and their business school professors, and on and on and on, social work. But for climate, you need all of those, right? They all kind of need to come together. And, like, interdisciplinary doesn't even sort of do justice to what it means to think about approaching this systemic—it's a systemic challenge. The system has to change. And so whatever solution you're talking about—if you want to get hydrogen to scale in the world, let's—you know, for certain sectors of the economy that may be hard to do with renewable energy, or in terms of renewable energy and, say, green hydrogen. You need engineering breakthroughs to bring down the cost of electrolyzers, or you need new business models, or you need financial institution frameworks that figure out how you're going to put the capital into these things. You need the policy incentives. How are you going to—you need permitting and regulation. How do we permit hydrogen infrastructure? It's barely been done before. There are concerns in the environmental justice community about some aspects of technologies like that or carbon capture that need to be taken seriously and addressed. There are geopolitical implications, potentially, to starting to build a global trade in ammonia or hydrogen, and what security concerns—energy security concerns might accompany those, the way we thought about oil or gas from Russia into Europe. I have an article coming out in the next issue of Foreign Affairs about the geopolitics of the energy transition. So we need disciplines that come together and look at a problem like that in all of those multifaceted dimensions, so we can figure out how to get from a lab to scale out in the world. And so when we think about the areas of concentration here, climate finance, climate justice, climate in society, climate in international security—I mean, a range of things that I think are really important to help people understand. And that's going to be a major focus of what we do at the climate school here. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Let's go next to Sean Grossnickle, who has raised his hand. A graduate student at Fordham University. Q: Speak now? Hi, this is not Sean but Henry Schwalbenberg, also at Fordham, where I teach in our international political economy and development program. I went to a conference about a month ago in Rome. And there was a physicist from CERN. And he was a big advocate of something I'd never heard of, and this is this thorium for nuclear reactors. And he was going through all the pros, but I wanted a more balanced perspective on it. And I'm hoping that you might give me a little pros and cons of this thorium nuclear reactor technique. BORDOFF: Yeah. I will be honest and say that nuclear is not my area of focus. We have a pretty strong team here that works in nuclear, and I think is optimistic about the breakthroughs we're going to see in several potential areas of nuclear—advanced nuclear technology, that being one of them, or small modular reactors, and others. At a high level, I will say I do think if you're serious about the math of decarbonization and getting to net zero by 2050, it's hard to do without zero-carbon nuclear power. It's firm, baseload power. It runs all the time. Obviously, there are challenges with intermittency of solar and wind, although they can be addressed to some extent with energy story. Most of the analyses that are done show not necessarily in the U.S. but in other parts of the world significant growth in nuclear power. The International Energy Agency just modeled what it looks like to get to net zero by 2050, and this pathway that got a lot of attention for saying things like we would not be investing in new oil and gas supply. The world has to change a lot pretty quickly. And they have about a hundred new nuclear plants being built by 2030, so that's a pretty big number. So we're going to need all tools—(laughs)—that we have at our disposal. And unfortunately, I worry we may still fall short. So I think at a high level we need to think really hard about how to improve nuclear technology. The people who know that really well I think are optimistic about our ability to do that. And I will follow up on thorium in particular with my colleagues at Columbia, and happy to follow up with you offline about it. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to take a written question from Stephen Bird, who's an associate professor of political science at Clarkson University. He thanks you, and he wanted you to talk a little bit more about political will. The overall dollar amounts are clear. Much cheaper to address climate change than to ignore it. That said, countries are, clearly, lagging. Is it a case of countries just don't want to take action now because of issues of fairness or because of lack of domestic political support, i.e., citizens aren't convinced that they should pay costs now with payoffs that come later, and what might we do to improve that issue in terms of persuading or arguing for more political will? BORDOFF: Yeah. It's a question for, you know, a political scientist as much as an energy or climate expert, and I wish I had a better answer to it. I think it is—climate is one of the trickiest problems for so many reasons but one of those is there is no acute event now that you sort of respond to, hopefully, and pull everyone together. It's a set of things that, you know, of course, there would have been storms and droughts before but we know they're intensified and made worse. It's hard to rally public support. We often respond to a crisis kind of proverbial, you know, frog in the boiling water kind of thing. So that makes it hard. There are huge issues—we talked about a just transition a few minutes ago—there are huge issues with intergenerational equity when we talk about climate. There are, clearly, climate impacts and damages today but some of the worst will be in the future, including for people who may not be born yet, and we don't do a great job in our political environment about thinking about those and valuing them today and how you do that, and from an economic standpoint, of course, there are questions about discount rates you apply and everything else. I think, politically, one of the things that has mobilized stronger climate—support for climate action, so it is encouraging that if you look at polling on climate change, the level of urgency that the public in many countries, including the U.S., broadly, ascribe to acting on climate has gone up a lot. It's higher today than it was, you know, a decade or so ago. That's a result of people seeing the impacts and also advocacy campaigns and political campaigns. It is often tied to—it's like a win-win. Like, President Biden says when he thinks of climate he thinks of jobs, and so we're going to deal with climate and we're going to grow the economy faster and we're going to create jobs, and there is truth to that. It is also the case that there are costs. The cost of inaction are higher, but there are costs associated with the transition itself. So if you survey the American public, I think, climate, according to the latest YouGov/Economist poll I saw, you know, it was number two on the list of things they cared the most about. That's much higher than in the past. And then if you ask the American public are they willing to pay $0.25 a gallon more at the pump to act on climate, 75 percent say no. And you look at the challenges the Biden administration is having right now sort of thinking about a really strong set of measures to put in place to move the ball forward on climate, but acute concern today about where oil prices are and inflation and natural gas prices as we head into the winter. If the weather is cold then it's going to be really expensive for people to heat their homes in parts—some parts of the country like New England, maybe. So that's a reality, and I think we need to—it was interesting, in the roundtable we did with President Obama with climate activists, that was a message he had for them. You know, be impatient, be angry, keep the pressure on, but also be pragmatic. And by that he means, like, you know, try to see the world through the eyes of others and people who are worried about the cost of filling up at the pump, the cost of paying their heating bills. They're not—some of them may not be where you are yet. They may not have the same sense of urgency with acting on climate that many of us on this Zoom do and need to take those concerns seriously. So I think that's a real challenge, and it can be addressed with good policy, to some extent, right, if you think about the revenue raised from a carbon tax and how it could be redistributed in a way that reduce the regressive impacts. I've written about how, at a high level—I'll say one last point—if we get on track for an energy transition, which we're not on yet, right. (Laughs.) Oil and gas use are going up each and every year. But imagine we started to get on track where those were falling year after year. It's still going to take decades, and that process of transition is going to be really messy. It's going to be really volatile. We're going to have fits and starts in policy from Obama to Trump to Biden. We're going to make estimate—we're going to make bets on technologies and maybe get those technologies wrong or misunderstand the cost curves, the potential to shut down investment in certain forms of energy before the rest are ready to pick up the slack. If it's messy and volatile and bumpy, that's not only harmful economically and geopolitically, it will undermine public support for stronger climate action. So you see, like, in Washington they're selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because we're moving to a world beyond oil and also we have all this domestic oil now with shale. We need more, not fewer, tools to mitigate volatility for the next several decades if we're serious about making this transition, and I think the same is true for thinking about sort of buffers you could build into geopolitics, foreign policy, and national security, because there will be—in a post-oil and gas world, you know, you may say, well, we're not going to worry as much about the Middle East or about, you know, Russia's leverage in Europe. But there will be new risks created and we can talk about what some of those might be, and we need new tools of foreign policy to mitigate those potential foreign policy risks. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question. Raised hand from Chloe Demrovsky, adjunct instructor at NYU. Q: Hey, can you hear me? BORDOFF: Yes. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Hi. Chloe Demrovsky, adjunct at NYU and president and CEO of Disaster Recovery Institute International. Thanks for being with us, Jason. So my question is about the feasibility and your thoughts on artificially altered clouds or solar geoengineering. What are the ethical and geopolitical implications of, perhaps, using this to buy a little time for our energy transition? Thanks. BORDOFF: Yeah. A super interesting question, and I will say, again, I'm sort of—think of myself as an energy expert. So that is where I spend more time than thinking about tools like solar geoengineering. I guess, it seems there's, obviously, huge risks associated with something like that and we need to understand them. We need to do research. We need to figure out what those risks may be. There are global governance concerns. It's actually pretty cheap to do solar geoengineering. So what happens when some country or some billionaire decides they want to start spraying stuff into the atmosphere to cool the planet? And for those who don't know that, you know, solar—I mean, you think of after a volcano the planet cools a little bit because of all the particulates up in the atmosphere. When you model in an energy system model how much phasing out coal will reduce warming, you, obviously, have much less carbon dioxide emissions but that's offset slightly—not completely, of course—it's offset a little bit by the fact that you have less local air pollution, which is a good thing from air pollution. But air pollution has a slightly cooling effect, because you have these little particles floating around that reflect sunlight. So the idea is can we create that artificially and cool the planet, and you can imagine lots of reasons why that could go wrong when you're trying to figure out what—how much to put in there, what unintended consequences could be. You still have other impacts of carbon dioxide like ocean acidification. Maybe you go too far in one direction, that's like you're setting the thermostat. That's why one of the companies doing carbon removal is called Global Thermostat. You're kind of figuring out what temperature it should be. But I will say so it's an area that needs research and I think, given how far we are away from achieving goals like 1.5 and net-zero 2050, I guess what I would say is in the same way that when I worked in the Obama administration it was—I wouldn't say controversial, but there were some people who didn't want to talk about adaptation because it was kind of a more—there was a moral hazard problem there. It was, you know, less pressure to mitigate and reduce emissions if we thought adaptation was a solution. People worry about that from the standpoint of solar geoengineering. But the likelihood—I hope I'm wrong, but the likelihood that we roll the clock forward, you know, later this decade and we realize we've made progress but we're still pretty far short, and the impacts of climate change in the same way the IPCC 1.5 report said, you know what, 1.5 is going to be pretty bad, too, and that's even worse than we thought, the more we learn about climate the more reason there is to be concerned, not less concerned. It seems very plausible to me that we will kind of come to a growing consensus that we have to think about whether this technology can, as you said, buy us time. This is not something you do permanently. You need to get to net zero to stop global warming. But if you want to reduce the impacts of warming on the rate of Arctic sea ice melt and all the rest, can you buy time, extend the runway, by doing this for some number of decades. And I think—I don't have a strong view on the right answer to that. But I think it's something we, certainly, need to be thinking about researching and understanding what the consequences would be because we're going to have to figure out how to take more abrupt actions to close that gap between ambition and reality unless the reality starts to change much more quickly than is the case right now. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I saw a raised hand from Maya but she lowered it. So if you want to raise your hand again, please do so. And in the meantime, I'm going to take a written question from Jennifer Sklarew, who's an assistant professor of energy and sustainability at George Mason University. Was CCS/CCUS, which carbon capture and storage/carbon capture utilization and storage, to write out those acronyms, promoted as a climate change solution in Glasgow and was there a pushback against this technology option as both a climate change solution and a support mechanism for continued fossil fuel use? BORDOFF: There was some pushback but, I think, actually, more in the other direction. So I think there has been a growing recognition from many in the climate world that carbon capture technology, carbon removal technology, need to be part of the solution. I think there's almost no climate model at this point that shows how you would get to 1.5 degrees or net zero—1.5 degrees without huge amounts of negative emissions—carbon removal. Some of that can be nature based, but a lot of it will be—some of it will be technology based as well and focusing on what we care about, which is the emissions, is the most important thing. So and this is not, I don't think, the primary thing you're going to do. You want to do the things that are easiest and cheapest and present the fewest risks. So putting a lot of renewables into the grid, getting electrification into the vehicle fleet—there's a lot of things that you would do before that. But if you think about some of the sectors in the economy we talked about before that are hard to decarbonize like steel and cement, it may well be the case that carbon capture is part of the technology there. There was a big announcement yesterday from the NET Power Allam Cycle gas plant in Texas that they had finally come online with delivering net-zero power to the grid. It was sort of a milestone in that technology. So we need to advance this technology and figure out how we're going to—how we're going to get where we need to be. We need to hold that kind of technology accountable to make sure that it's actually meeting the standards we're talking about so that it actually is very low, if not zero, carbon. But if you look at, you know, most of the scenarios I'm aware of, whether it's—Princeton did the study “Net-Zero America,” how we get to net zero by 2050 in the U.S. The International Energy Agency, as I said, did it for net zero globally. There is a meaningful role for carbon capture, to some extent, in the power sector in these heavy industry sectors like steel and cement, and then making, say, hydrogen some of that will be blue hydrogen. Most of it, eventually, will be green, but there may be some role for blue hydrogen, which is—which is gas with carbon capture. So I think, if anything, there's been a growing understanding that we need all tools on deck right away and, again, I fear even with all the tools we may still fall short. FASKIANOS: Great. There's a written question from Laila Bichara, who's at SUNY Farmingdale, international business. There was a New York Times article, “Business Schools Respond to a Flood of Interest in ESG,” talking about the issue of the scarcity of skills in recent graduates to help with social impact, sustainable investments, climate finance, and social entrepreneurship. And she wanted to know if there are resources that you could point the group to in terms of foundation courses or certification that would provide all students with a basic foundation. BORDOFF: Yeah. That's a really good question and it's a growing area of focus and I think universities should be doing more in. The Tamer Center of Columbia Business School does a lot of work in ESG. We hosted a really interesting roundtable at the Center on Global Energy Policy yesterday on ESG and actually been doing a lot of work thinking about that in the context of state-owned enterprises and national oil companies, which we don't talk about enough. But they're a really, really big part of the problem we're talking about. We tend to focus more on these very well-known private sector companies or financial institutions in places like New York. So there—Bloomberg Philanthropies has done a huge amount in this space. I think there's some really good educational programs with some universities and business schools that have done a lot in the ESG space. But I think it's a need, to be frank. I mean, the fact that you're asking the question and I'm pointing to a few examples, but not a huge number, and it is something that universities need to educate themselves about but then is an opportunity for us to educate others. Maybe a revenue one, too, with executive education or something. But there's a lot of companies and financial institutions that want to understand this better. I worry that while there's a huge growing focus on climate, which is a good thing, in the financial community, the phrase ESG kind of means so many different things right now. It's this alphabet soup of regulations and standards and disclosure requirements, and some may make a difference and some may not and it's hard to figure out which ones matter, and for people who want to do the responsible thing what does that really mean. That's an area where research is needed. I mean, that's a role for what we do every day to think about if the SEC is going to regulate what makes a difference and what doesn't, if you're going to create green bonds. If you're going to call everything green in the finance community, what's real and what's not? What moves the needle? What doesn't? What are the returns for greener portfolios? How is that affecting the cost of capital for clean energy versus dirty energy? You know, on and on. I think those are important research questions for us to take on and then it's our job to help educate others as well. FASKIANOS: Great. So the next question I'm going to take from—oh, OK. Good. Maya Copeland (sp) has written her question. She's a political science major at Delaware State University. Do you believe developed nations like the U.S. have done a lot in reference to climate change or mostly talk? If you believe nations like the U.S. have dropped the ball in this aspect, what do you think it would take to get those powerhouses serious about environmental change? BORDOFF: I think advanced economies have done—many have done a lot. I mean, the European Union has taken climate seriously and has reduced emissions and has pretty strong measures in place with a carbon market, for example, with a pretty high carbon price right now. The politics of this issue are not quite as favorable in the U.S., but the U.S. has seen emissions decline more than most over the last decade and a half, in part because of policy measures that have, you know, advanced renewable energy and brought the cost of that down as well as cheaper natural gas displacing coal for a while. But at a broader level, you know, have we done enough? The answer is no one's done enough—(laughs)—which is why emissions are still going up every single year. So that—so the answer is no, we haven't done enough. Almost no country has done enough at home to be on a trajectory for net zero 2050. You saw the announcements from countries like India saying, we'll get to net zero by 2070, and, you know, people said, oh, well, that's terrible. They're not saying 2050. And implicit in that is sort of saying, well, if you want to get global to net zero by 2050 we're not all going to move at the same speed, right. Some countries have advanced with the benefit of hydrocarbons since the Industrial Age and some haven't. So, presumably, the pathways are going to look different, right. And, you know, that's not always how countries in the advanced—in the developing—in the developed world talk about it. The commitment from the Biden administration is net zero by 2050. So I would say there's been—there are some models to point to of countries that have taken this issue seriously but we're not doing enough and partly because the political will is not there and partly—I come back to what I said before—this problem is harder than people realize. So you say which countries are doing enough, like, point to some models, right, and somebody might point to Norway, which, you know, the share of new vehicles sold that are electric in Norway went from zero to, I think, it's 70 percent now. I mean, that's amazing. Seventy percent of new car sales are electric. And if you go back to the start of that trajectory, about a decade or decade and a half, oil demand is unchanged in Norway. So we can talk about why that is and it's because a lot—as I said earlier, a lot of oil is used for things other than cars, and it's increased for trucks and planes and petrochemicals. It takes time for the vehicle fleet to turn over. So when you start selling a bunch of electric cars, you know, average car is on the road for fifteen years so it takes a while before that—the vehicle stock turns over. So I saw that kind of mapped out on a chart recently, just two lines—one is electric vehicle sales going straight up and then the other is oil demand in a flat line. It's a reminder of how unforgiving the math of decarbonization is. The math of climate is really unforgiving, like, you know, the kind of harmful impacts we're going to see with even 1.5 degrees warming. But the math of energy and decarbonization is really unforgiving, too. It's—and we just need to be honest with ourselves about what it takes to get where we need to go. Because I think it's good to have optimism and ambition, but I worry there should be optimism but not happy talk. We should recognize that there's a lot of work to do and let's get to work doing it. FASKIANOS: Great. So there are several questions in the chat about China. I'm going to start off with Andrew Campbell, who's a student at George Mason University. Is LNG—liquefied natural gas—a bridge toward renewable energy still being considered? If not, how are India and China's expected growth and increase in coal use going to be addressed? And then there are a couple of other comments or questions about China. You know, what's your take on China as the biggest emitter and return somewhat to coal? Can we actually even make stated and adequate new goals? And, you know, given the relationship between U.S. and China, which is contentious, you know, what is the cooperation going to be between U.S. and China on climate? So there's a lot packed in there, but I know you can address it all. (Laughs.) BORDOFF: Yeah. I think the China question is really hard, as I said earlier, this kind of, like, competition and cooperation and we're going to try to do both, and I think there was a hope early on—Secretary Kerry said it—that climate could be segmented from the broader challenges in the U.S.-China relationship, and I think that has proven harder to do than people had hoped, in part, because, you know, you need both parties to want to do that. I think China has signaled it's not necessarily willing to segment cooperation on climate from lots of other issues. And then these things bleed together where, you know, there's measures being taken in Washington to restrict imports of solar panels from China, that there were concerns that were made with—in ways that have human rights abuses associated with them with forced labor or maybe have unfair trade practices in terms of subsidies. China is—you know, the leadership in China takes climate seriously. This is a country that recognizes, I think, climate change is real and that needs to be addressed. They have a set of national interests that matter a lot, obviously, to them in terms of economic growth, and the pathway to get there is challenging. So it's a country that's growing clean energy incredibly quickly, as we're seeing right now, in part because there's a(n) energy crunch throughout Europe and Asia. They are ramping up the use of coal quite a bit again, but also taking some pretty strong measures to advance clean energy and, over time, hopefully, move in a lower carbon direction for reasons both about concerns over climate but also local air pollution, which is much, much worse in many parts of China than it is here and that's a huge source of concern for the public there. So when it comes to things like coal they need to figure out how to address those air pollution problems. And then for reasons of economic competition, like I mentioned a minute ago. I mean, China dominates the global market for refining and processing of critical minerals for solar panels, and there are economic and national competitiveness and strategic reasons to do that. So all of those things motivate them to move in the direction of clean energy, but they need to be moving faster to phase down hydrocarbon energy for sure. And then you ask a really hard question about—not hard, but one of the most contentious questions is about the role of natural gas in the transition, and we can have a whole separate session about that. I think there is a view of many in the climate community and many in developing countries—in developed countries that there's not space left in the carbon budget for natural gas, and you saw the Biden administration recently declare through the Treasury Department that, except in very rare cases of the poorest of the poor like Sierra Leone or something, they would not finance natural gas projects through the multilateral development banks. The vice president of Nigeria, I think, responded—speaking of CFR—in Foreign Affairs by writing that this was not fair and you need to think about a viable pathway for a country like Nigeria to develop and it just—it doesn't work to get there that fast. There has to be a bridge. The role of gas looks very different in different parts of the world. It looks different in the U.S. than it does in an emerging or a developing economy. It looks different in the power sector, where there are a lot more alternatives like renewables than it does in heavy industry or how we heat our homes. It looks different for, say, in the Global South, where you're talking about people who are still using coal and charcoal and dung for cooking to think about solutions like liquefied petroleum gas. So all of those things are true, but we need to think about gas also with the carbon budget in mind. I mean, the math is just the math. (Laughs.) If you're going to build any gas infrastructure and not have it blow through the carbon budget, it's going to have to be retired before the end of its normal economic life and you need to think about how that might look in different parts of the world. So you need to be fair to people, to allow them to grow, but also recognize that the math of carbon, you know, is what it is. FASKIANOS: Great. I just want to credit those last—the China questions came from Lada Kochtcheeva at North Carolina State University and Joan Kaufman, who's director of Schwarzman Scholars based in China. We are really at the end of our time—we started a couple minutes late—and I just wanted to go back to—there are students on the call who are following with a professor on the webinar who wanted you just to comment on blue hydrogen, whether or not it is contributing or helping to reduce greenhouse gases. BORDOFF: I think the answer is it can. You just need to make sure that it actually does. So the question of—and by blue hydrogen we mean, you know, using gas with carbon capture to create hydrogen. It needs to have very low methane leakage rates. It needs to have very high capture rates, and we know that is technically possible. It doesn't mean it will be done that way. So if people are going to pursue blue hydrogen as part of the solution in the—particularly in the near term, you need to make sure that it's meeting those standards. I think in the long run my guess and, I think, most guesses would be that green hydrogen is going to make more sense. It's going to be cheaper. The cost is going to come down. And so if we have a significant part of the energy sector that is hydrogen and ammonia in, say, 2050, more of that's going to be green than blue. But there can be a role for blue if you make sure it's done the right way. You just have to actually make sure it's done the right way. FASKIANOS: Great. And, Jason, we are out of time, but I wanted to give you one last, you know, one-minute or thirty seconds, whatever you want, just to say some parting words on your work at the center or, you know, to leave the group with what they can do, again. So— BORDOFF: Well, I would just say thanks for the chance to be with you all and for the work that you're doing every day. You know, I think Glasgow was a moment when the world came together to elevate ambition and roll up our sleeves and say this is—this is the decisive decade. Like, we'll know ten years from now—(laughs)—if we got anywhere close to making it or not. And so it's time for everyone to kind of roll up their sleeves and say, what can we do? We're doing that, I think, at Columbia with the creation of this new climate school. We do that every day at the Center on Global Energy Policy. And so just in all of your institutions, you know, what does that mean for you? What does it mean for the institution? What does that mean for your own research and time and how you allocate it? How do we step up and say, what can we do in the biggest and boldest way we can? Because we need—we're creating a climate school because I think the view is—you know, a hundred years ago there were no schools of public health and now it's how would you deal with a pandemic without a school of public health? So I think our view is decades from now we'll look back and wonder how we ever thought it was possible to handle a problem as complex and urgent as climate change without universities devoting their greatest kind of resource to them. And the measure of success for universities has to be research and new knowledge creation. It has to be education. It has to be serving our own communities. For us, it's, you know, the community here in New York, Harlem. But also are we focusing the extraordinary resources and capacity and expertise of these great institutions to solve humanity's greatest problems? That has to be a motivating force, too, for much of—maybe not all of but a lot of what universities do. So I'd just ask all of us to go back and think about how we can do that in our own work every day. and we have to do it through partnerships. I think universities don't work together as well as they need to. But this is only going to work if we work together. FASKIANOS: Great way to end. Thank you very much, Jason Bordoff. We really appreciate it. We'll have to look for your article in Foreign Affairs magazine, which is published by CFR. So, we are excited that you continue to contribute to the magazine. You can follow Jason Bordoff on Twitter at @JasonBordoff. Very easy to remember. Our final academic webinar of the semester will be on Wednesday, December 1, at 1:00 p.m. (ET). Michelle Gavin, who is CFR's Ralph Bunche senior fellow for Africa policy studies, will talk about African politics and security issues. So in the meantime, follow us at @CFR_Academic. Come to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues, and we look forward to continuing the conversation with you. Take care. BORDOFF: Thank you. (END)

Click here to download the full transcription as a formatted PDF. Episode Summary: Welcome to The No Cap Health Show, a weekly podcast where Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler uses his decades of experience in medicine and ability as an expert researcher to provide a light-hearted approach and share health trends popular on TikTok. In this episode, Dr. Brian continues his discussion on today's topic: Benefits of Cold Showers, Part One. Can taking cold showers help with weight loss? What impact can cold showers have on mental health? Should you avoid taking hot showers in the winter? Are there any environmental benefits to taking cold showers? Find out in today's episode! If you're enjoying the show, we'd love it if you leave the show a Rating & Review at RateThisPodcast.com/NoCap. Key Takeaways 01:15 – Dr. Brian continues his discussion on today's topic, Benefits of Cold Showers 01:49 – Dr. Brian encourages listeners to take a moment to rate this podcast on RateThisPodcast.com/NoCap 02:09 – How Dr. Brian got involved in TikTok 03:01 – Cold showers and weight loss 05:43 – How cold showers can impact mental health issues such as depression 07:40 – Cold showers and endorphins 09:01 – A warning about hot showers during the winter 09:50 – A huge benefit to the environment 11:58 – Dr. Brian provides the No Cap Recap of today's episode and encourages listeners to reach out and Rate and Review this podcast on   Tweetable Quotes “There's really no scientific basis for the claim that cold showers help with weight loss. But there is some scientific basis for how this started to get out there. We have, of course, fat and most of the fat is white fat. There's brown fat, small amounts on our body, and these fat cells are known to increase metabolism when they are stimulated. And being in the cold has been shown to stimulate metabolism of those brown fat cells.” (03:40) (Dr. Brian) “I have to give a lot of credit to Olympian Michael Phelps because he came out with his issues and battles with depression as an Olympian.” (06:25) (Dr. Brian) “Five minutes of cold showers twice a week relieved the symptoms of depression. That's pretty powerful because that's no medication, that's no therapy, it's nothing else. It's literally just doing that five-minute cold shower a few times a week.” (07:19) (Dr. Brian) “I do want to mention hot showers because it's winter and, of course, we love those hot, warm showers in the winter especially. But do be aware it can have a really drying effect on your skin.” (09:01) (Dr. Brian) “Switzerland estimated that taking a warm shower for 8.7 minutes, six times a week uses fifteen liters per minute of warm water at 35 degrees Celsius. And that produced up to 248 kilograms of CO2 per person per year, which corresponds to a flight from Zurich to Paris and back.” (10:47) (Dr. Brian) Links Mentioned Link to the Wim Hof Method Dr. Brian's Website Dr. Brian's TikTok Dr. Brian's Instagram   Please remember, Dr. Brian is a doctor, but he is not your doctor. He is here to provide general information, not medical advice, so you should always check with your doctor before relying on any information.   Podcast Production & Marketing provided by FullCast Copyright. Advanced Vision Education, LLC See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After two, torturous weeks of around-the-clock negotiations at the COP26 Summit in Glasgow, Scotland, diplomats from nearly 200 countries agreed to accelerate their commitments to reduce carbon emissions, phase out fossil fuels, and ramp up aid to poor countries, many of whom are the biggest victims of the climate crisis.  However, not everyone is pleased with the outcome in Glasgow. Climate experts point out that the accord will not put the world on track to avoid catastrophic warming beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius. To discuss the Glasgow accord, India's commitments, and the questions that remain, Milan is joined on the show this week by Navroz Dubash, a professor at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi and a veteran energy and climate scholar, policy adviser, and activist.  Navroz and Milan discuss the big takeaways from COP26, India's surprise net-zero pledge, and an eleventh hour fracas over language on coal. Plus, the two discuss the credibility deficit plaguing the United States' climate diplomacy.  Jayant Sinha, “How India Can Get to Net Zero Emissions,” Grand Tamasha, October 12, 2021. Navroz Dubash, “Understanding India's climate pledges,” Hindustan Times, November 12, 2021. Navroz Dubash, “Unlocking climate action in Indian federalism,” Hindustan Times, August 11, 2021. 

We have a film break down session for episode 442 of the show. Jon and Paul give their analysis with a review of the Bucs offense and whether Tom Brady is at fault for the struggles that went down on Sunday. If it's not on Brady, they highlight the issues of pass protection and receiver routes through the all-22 tape to get down to the bottom of the problems. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

Global warming is, obviously, a world-wide phenomenon.  When the concept of a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise is discussed, it refers to the average global temperature and the effects that would have on such things as sea level rise and weather patterns.  But the effects of the changing climate are not homogeneous.  Very different things […]

BIÉLORUSSIE, UKRAINE : LES MANŒUVRES DE POUTINE – 15/11/21 Invités PASCAL BONIFACE Directeur de l'IRIS Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques JEAN-DOMINIQUE GIULIANI Président de la Fondation Robert Schuman ARMELLE CHARRIER Éditorialiste en politique internationale - « France 24 » ISABELLE MANDRAUD Cheffe adjointe du service international - « Le Monde » Auteure de « Poutine, la stratégie du désordre » La crise migratoire entre la Biélorussie et l'Union européenne s'enlise. Ce lundi, le président biélorusse Alexandre Loukachenko a assuré travailler « activement » à faire rentrer chez eux les migrants campant à la frontière entre son pays et la Pologne, tout en soutenant que ces derniers ne souhaitaient pas partir, tandis que l'UE prépare de son côté de nouvelles sanctions contre le régime de Minsk. Dans ce nouveau bras de fer, les Européens accusent le dictateur biélorusse d'avoir fait venir dans son pays des candidats à l'immigration du Moyen-Orient, en leur octroyant des visas touristiques et en les acheminant jusqu'à la frontière de Schengen. Alexandre Loukachenko se vengerait ainsi des sanctions européennes adoptées envers son pays pour dénoncer sa répression de l'opposition depuis sa très contestée réélection en 2020. Plusieurs milliers de personnes voulant rallier l'Europe sont désormais bloquées depuis plusieurs jours le long de la frontière qui sépare la Pologne de la Biélorusse. Une zone interdite aux ONG et aux médias où ces migrants, dont des femmes et des enfants, connaissent une situation critique, tandis que le thermomètre chute la nuit sous zéro degré Celsius. Dans ces forêts, des associations cherchent toutefois à porter secours dans la plus grande discrétion à ceux qui arrivent à passer les barbelés érigés par Varsovie. Mais beaucoup sont également renvoyés en Biélorussie par les autorités polonaises. Le gouvernement polonais a ainsi annoncé une cinquantaine de refoulements ce week-end et multiplie les messages sur les portables étrangers qui bornent à la frontière : « ne venez pas, la Pologne n'ouvrira pas sa frontière, le régime biélorusse vous ment ». Le ton n'est pas à l'apaisement, Européens et Biélorusses se rejettent la responsabilité de la crise. Mardi, le Premier ministre polonais, Mateusz Morawiecki, a notamment accusé le président russe, Vladimir Poutine, principal allié de Minsk, d'être le « commanditaire » de cette vague migratoire. Des accusations qualifiées d'« irresponsables et inacceptables » par le Kremlin. « Je veux que tout le monde le sache. Nous n'avons rien à voir là-dedans », a déclaré le président Russe avant d'appeler au dialogue et d'inviter l'Europe à apporter une aide financière à la Biélorussie pour prendre en charge les migrants. Sous pression, Alexandre Loukachenko peut donc toujours compter sur le soutien de son principal allié, Vladimir Poutine. D'ailleurs si après sa menace de fermer les vannes d'un important gazoduc russe vers l'Europe transitant sur son sol en cas de nouvelles sanctions européennes, Moscou a assuré aux Européens que les livraisons se poursuivraient normalement, dans le même temps la Russie a dépêché des troupes près de la frontière ukrainienne et a réalisé des exercices militaires conjoints avec la Biélorussie, près de la frontière avec la Pologne. Des mouvements armés qui sont pris très au sérieux en Europe. Ce soir, les ministres des Affaires étrangères et de la défense des « 27 » se retrouvent à Bruxelles, pour une réunion prévue de longue date, mais qui dominée par cette crise. De nouvelles sanctions seront décidées. Parallèlement, la Lituanie, l'Estonie et la Pologne envisagent d'invoquer l'article 4 de la Charte de l'OTAN - cet article prévoit des consultations entre membres « chaque fois que l'intégrité territoriale, l'indépendance politique ou la sécurité » d'un pays de l'alliance sera menacée. C'est le Premier ministre polonais Mateusz Morawiecki qui l'a fait savoir hier : « Il ne suffit pas que nous exprimions publiquement notre inquiétude — nous avons maintenant besoin de mesures concrètes et de l'engagement de l'ensemble de l'alliance ». Alors que se passe-t-il vraiment à la frontière entre la Pologne et la Biélorussie ? Quel est le rôle de la Russie dans cette crise ? Jusqu'où ira l'escalade ? Enfin quelle est la position des candidats à l'élection présidentielle dans ce dossier ? DIFFUSION : du lundi au samedi à 17h45 FORMAT : 65 minutes PRÉSENTATION : Caroline Roux - Axel de Tarlé REDIFFUSION : du lundi au vendredi vers 23h40 RÉALISATION : Nicolas Ferraro, Bruno Piney, Franck Broqua, Alexandre Langeard PRODUCTION : France Télévisions / Maximal Productions Retrouvez C DANS L'AIR sur internet & les réseaux : INTERNET : francetv.fr FACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/Cdanslairf5 TWITTER : https://twitter.com/cdanslair INSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/cdanslair/

The Pewter Report staff tries to make sense of the debacle that was the Bucs' 29-19 loss to Washington in episode 441. They explain what went wrong on the offensive side of the ball that saw Tom Brady throw two interceptions, though only one was his fault, as well as why the defense couldn't get off the field in the fourth quarter. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

The UN Climate Summit in Glasgow has adopted a new pact aimed at curbing global warming. The British hosts stressed that the deal would keep within reach the goal of keeping temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but many countries said the final text had been watered down. The main target of criticism was India's lobbying to change the expression 'phasing out' to 'phasing down' the use of coal. Also in the programme: Belarus says it's delivering aid to migrants at its border who are trying to cross into Poland; and doctors in Sudan say the security forces have killed at least five protesters during the latest rally against military rule. (Image: The president of the COP26 climate summit, Alok Sharma. Credit: Epa/Robert Perry)

Celsius Holdings (NASDAQ: CELH) has reached another inflection point in its business, one which positions the energy drink brand for exponential growth and market share gains. This is above and beyond the recent brand popularity spike that has seen year-over-year quarterly revenue growth expand aggressively. In the last two years, Celsius Holdings have grown from two-tenths of a percent to now amassing a two percent market share in the energy drink category. As the brand hits critical mass with a run rate close to $400 million in revenue, it has sidestepped the challenging current marketplace dynamics that are causing larger cost barriers of entry for smaller scale new entrants that are now paying significantly higher shipping, raw materials, co-packer fees, and not being able to pass costs on and stay competitive due to Monster Energy and Red Bull pricing strategy. With the right level of resource investment across all aspects of the organization, Celsius Holdings will be able to maximize this opportunity of achieving concurrent expansion in ACV across all channels, while also increasing retail velocities. FOLLOW ME ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS LINKEDIN - https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuaschallmba TWITTER - https://www.twitter.com/joshua_schall INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/joshua_schall FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/jschallconsulting MEDIUM - https://www.medium.com/@joshuaschall

COP26 President Alok Sharma has said that the summit will be a success only if it keeps the target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius alive. But it's extremely unlikely that countries will commit to those kinds of carbon cuts at the summit. Also, Nov. 13 marks the sixth anniversary of the coordinated terrorist attacks at the Bataclan concert hall and six other sites in Paris. This year, it comes amid a major trial against the 10-man group that carried out the attacks. Plus, ever wonder what happens if a large asteroid goes on a trajectory to hit planet Earth? NASA is now testing a solution called the Double Asteroid Redirection Test — or DART — and they say it's the world's first planetary defense mission.

Psilocybin Effective In Treating Serious Depression Depression is often treatable with medication, therapy, or a combination of the two. But some 30% of patients don't respond well to existing medications—and may try multiple antidepressant drugs with little or no improvement. This week, researchers reported that a new trial suggests psychedelics may be an effective therapy for treatment-resistant depression. A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial found that people with treatment-resistant depression who were given 25 milligrams of psilocybin, the psychedelic component of magic mushrooms, had a significant decrease in depressive symptoms. The treatment didn't work for everyone, however, and more research needs to be done before the finding can move to clinical use. Sabrina Imber, a science fellow at the New York Times, joins Ira to talk about the trial and other stories from the week in science—including a new timeline for the planned Artemis missions to the moon, screaming bees, and a very wayward eagle. Activists And Vulnerable Nations At COP26 Seek More Than Promises There's a big international climate summit wrapping up in Glasgow, Scotland this week. COP26 is the followup to 25 previous United Nations meetings about how the world must respond to the climate crisis—and its shortcomings in doing so. This year leaders had a big conversation to tackle: Countries needed to pledge to reduce emissions even further to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. To do so, they needed to finish hashing out the details of how they will enforce the 2015 Paris Agreement's provisions. Meanwhile, island nations and other vulnerable countries, who themselves don't emit much carbon, have continued to lobby for payment for what's called loss and damages. That's the harm they've already encountered as seas rise, threatening to obliterate their existence. The first week kicked off with bold pledges about methane emissions, coal phaseouts, and ending deforestation. This week, former President Obama spoke about the need for urgent action, and called out large greenhouse gas polluters like Russia and China for not attending. And a grim United Nations report was released, forecasting that despite all the bold pledges, the world was on track to warm a dangerous 2.4 degrees Celsius. The team of Threshold, a podcast that tells stories about our changing environment, has been reporting on these updates from Glasgow, talking to attendees and occasionally witnessing negotiations. In today's show, Ira talks to journalist Amy Martin, Threshold's executive producer and host, about her opinion on the outcome of COP26—and if transformative change can still come out of this year's meeting.   ”Dopesick” Takes On The Opioid Crisis The opioid epidemic has affected millions of people across the country—and more than 800,000 people are estimated to have died from an opioid overdose. At the root of this crisis is the painkiller Oxycontin, manufactured by Purdue Pharma. The company has made billions of dollars from the drug; but has also spent the better part of the last two decades fighting legal battles over its impacts, falsely arguing the drug is non-addictive and completely safe. Meanwhile, people from all walks of life, particularly in small towns across America, have been crippled by addiction to Oxycontin. The limited series “Dopesick” traces the story of the opioid epidemic, from the creation of the Oxycontin pill to a landmark legal battle where Purdue Pharma admitted it misbranded the drug as being less addictive than other prescription opioids. “Dopesick” follows a wide range of characters, from Purdue Pharma executives and federal prosecutors, to an Appalachian doctor and his pain-addled patients. Joining Ira to talk about bringing the show and its people to life is Danny Strong, creator and writer of “Dopesick,” joining from New York, New York.

La conferencia sobre el clima de Glasgow encara este viernes su recta final con un bloqueo negociador, tras dos semanas de grandes anuncios por numerosos países considerados sin embargo insuficientes para enfrentar el desafío medioambiental. Con nuestra enviada especial a Glasgow, Yasna Mussa, y AFP. En un nuevo intento de acuerdo entre casi 200 países para intensificar el combate contra el calentamiento, la COP26 de Glasgow llamó el viernes a suprimir progresivamente la energía producida con carbón "sin mitigación" y "las ineficaces subvenciones a los combustibles fósiles". Los delegados de 194 países reunidos en la ciudad escocesa desde el 31 de octubre tienen como misión determinar cómo cumplir los compromisos del Acuerdo de París. RFI Antes de redactar el documento final los asistentes tienen sobre la mesa de las negociaciones un segundo borrador. ¿Qué ha trascendido de los puntos principales de ese borrador? Yasna Mussa: En la nueva versión que se publicó temprano este viernes 12 de noviembre, se mantiene una referencia a los combustibles fósiles a pesar de la campaña y el lobby de los principales productores de carbón, de petróleo y de gas por eliminarla. Después de dos semanas de discusiones, llega este segundo borrador, que aún no es el definitivo y que necesita que las 197 partes están de acuerdo en su aprobación. Aunque conserva una referencia a los combustibles fósiles. El lenguaje de este segundo borrador es un poco más sutil con respecto a la versión anterior. El texto actual pide la aceleración de la eliminación progresiva de la energía del carbón y de los subsidios ineficientes para los combustibles fósiles, mientras que el borrador anterior no incluía la palabra ineficiente. Esta segunda versión del texto también conserva el lenguaje que dice que el mundo debería apuntar a limitar el calentamiento global a 1,5 grados Celsius por encima de los niveles preindustriales. Todo apunta a que ese segundo borrador tendrá resoluciones más edulcoradas que las inicialmente previstas. Pero a lo largo de estas dos semanas de cumbre se han ido anunciando acuerdos bilaterales y multilaterales, no siempre fáciles de descifrar para el común de los mortales. ¿Qué avances a tu entender, cabe distinguir? Los avances son escasos y por eso las manifestaciones de activistas y la sociedad civil continúan este viernes a la espera del texto final. Han catalogado esta COP26 de vaga y poco ambiciosa en políticas climáticas. Pero sin duda una de las grandes noticias fue que por primera vez, en más de 26 años se habla claramente de una salida del carbón y el fin de los subsidios a los combustibles fósiles. Y si se llegase a mantener esta referencia, incluso en la forma actual más suavizada que en el primer borrador, sería el primer acuerdo climático de la conferencia en hacer alguna mención al papel de los combustibles fósiles que, recordemos, es el mayor contribuyente a la crisis climática provocada por intervención humana. El acercamiento también entre Estados Unidos y China, los dos mayores emisores de dióxido de carbono en el mundo no se traduce en nada concreto aún, pero sí podríamos decir que este encuentro es al menos un avance, aunque ahora habrá que esperar si solo se queda en un anuncio o va más allá para cooperar activamente en frenar el cambio climático. Y para terminar, esta cumbre comenzó con muy malos presagios. Después de dos semanas de discusiones, ¿cuál es tu conclusión?  El objetivo general de la presidenciaq británica de la COP 26 era mantener vivo el 1,5 grados centígrados centígrados por lo que este lenguaje más firme es lo que a lo que Alok Sharma, el presidente de este encuentro, y otras naciones líderes en materia de clima esperan. Habrá que convencer todavía a países como Arabia Saudita, Rusia, China, Brasil y Australia, que han mostrado su resistencia a lo largo de las negociaciones. Además, aún hay grandes desencuentros en materia de financiación y justicia climática, lo que evidencia las diferencias entre los países ricos y los que están en vías de desarrollo. El dinero sigue siendo la gran piedra en el zapato entre las partes, pero la verdad es que no sabremos si fracasó o no hasta que se entregue una versión final y aprobada, lo que podría ser al final de este día o incluso se podría extender hasta la madrugada, como ha sucedido en otras ocasiones. La experiencia pasada nos ha mostrado cómo los borradores de los acuerdos de la COP se diluyen en el texto final, pero también existe la posibilidad de que algunos elementos se refuerzen y ahí están puestas las esperanzas para que esta COP26 no sea catalogada como un fracaso.

Jon and Paul join the show for episode 440. They review the Bucs offense led by Tom Brady and what's been good and bad about this unit that is leading the team. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

Texte:Les principales économies mondiales du G20 se sont engagées à atteindre l'objectif de limiter le réchauffement climatique à 1,5 degrés Celsius.Traduction:The G20 major economies committed to the key goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

It's the youngest generation that will feel the most severe effects of climate change, and youth activists are raising alarms both at home and at the COP26 climate summit, which ends this week. Delegates released a draft agreement Wednesday acknowledging the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but the pact is short on concrete commitments. That's raising concerns among youth activists, who are widely skeptical that world leaders are committed to cutting carbon emissions aggressively enough. We'll talk with some California youth involved in climate organizing and education to get their thoughts about the summit and what comes after.

Scott and Jon are on for episode 439 as they give a full preview of the Bucs game against the Washington Football Team as both organizations return from a bye. They also get into the other latest news around the Bucs, which includes the signings of Breshad Perriman and Darren Fells along with getting Scotty Miller and Sean Murphy-Bunting back to practice. The biggest and yet most concerning thing we found out, too, is the foot injury to Chris Godwin. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

Have you been investing in fossil fuels and climate change without realizing it?Alex Wright-Gladstein, Founder, and CEO of Sphere, sits with A.J. Lawrence to discuss how the investment holdings of most people's 401(k)s support the financing of fossil fuels. They also talk about her journey in climate change and sustainability, transitioning from being CEO of Ayar Labs to starting Sphere, and all the entrepreneurial lessons along the way.Listen to this episode to learn more about climate change, entrepreneurship, and understanding where the finance in your investment holdings actually goes.About our guest:Alex Wright-Gladstein is an entrepreneur with a passion for addressing climate change.  She is also the Co-Founder of Ayar Labs founded in 2015, formerly OptiBit, a company transforming computing performance by moving data with light. On today's episode: Meet Alex Wright-Gladstein, Founder and CEO of Sphere – 00:50 Alex shares where she stands in her entrepreneurial journey – 03:51 The difference switching from technology to finance – 08:18 The importance of developing a community focus when creating a movement – 12:08 The approach for advocating climate-friendly practices in companies today – 16:19 Alex explains the impact of each person's “pocketbook” – 17:41 Alex talks about what had the most significant impact on improving her growth as an entrepreneur – 20:52 The intentionality required for building the right team – 23:29 Alex shares about what she currently finds really interesting – 27:42 How Alex defines success – 33:01 Key Takeaways: Understanding the need for systemic change is really important for tackling climate issues. There are so many factors that keep things in place and are root problems for why an issue exists. It will be tough to make a significant difference if you don't understand the deeper problems and hidden forces behind why they still exist.  It is so crucial for entrepreneurs to be intentional. Intentionality is about where you focus your time and energy. Being intentional about building the right team that can run with your vision is time worth spending. Do not make the mistake of quickly filling gaps in your team and stunting long-term growth with the wrong people in the driver's seat. Have clear, measurable goals towards your success. Do not make the journey towards success and progress vague or arbitrary. Some things have to be made black and white. The clearer and more measurable you make your goals, the better you will have insight into what you need to do to reach them. The next seven years are a crucial window for climate change action. Scientists predict that the global warming impact will cross the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold in seven years if things continue as they are. This can lead to irreversible damage to the planet. The good news is 80% of Americans are concerned about climate change, and the correct systemic change can avert this problem. (Read about the Sunrise Movement for more information) What do entrepreneurs need to be intentional about and focus on?[22:39] “Be really intentional about hiring. It can be so easy to take shortcuts and bring someone on because you desperately need to fill a gap, but it is very hard to reverse mistakes.”Are you on the journey of growing as an entrepreneur? Let us know how you are building your knowledge and developing intentionality. Also, don't forget to drop a hello if you want to share your entrepreneurship story on the podcast.Connect with Alex Wright-Gladstein: Sphere: https://www.oursphere.org  Ayar Labs - ​​https://ayarlabs.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ga1ex LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/alexwrightgladstein/  Follow Beyond 8 Figures: Website:  Beyond8Figures.com Twitter:  @beyond8figures  Facebook: Beyond 8 Figures Instagram:@b8fpodcast Email: team@b8fpodcast.com Connect with Insights Lab:  Website: https://insightslab.ai/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheInsightsLab/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insightslab.ai/ Email: weare@insightslab.ai  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/insightslab-ai/ 

Jon and J.C. are on for episode 438 as they break down the state of the NFC for the Bucs after a very beneficial bye week. Although they didn't play, the Bucs received some help as most of the top teams in the division and conference lost as Tampa Bay moved up in the standings because of it. They also discuss the chances of Tom Brady winning MVP this season and look ahead to the rest of the Bucs' schedule. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

This week, we question everything, because Justin has written six trivia answers, and Hallie has to give the who, the what, the when, the where, the why, and the how. We also drill down on movie censorship, baseball pitches, and one of Justin's favorite pieces of classical music!2:46: Q1 (Movies & TV): Who: He was president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America from 1922 to 1945, and the Motion Picture Production Code that governed the content of Hollywood films from 1934 to 1954 is nicknamed for him.10:23: Q2 (Arts & Literature): What: Often called the first novel in history, it was first published prior to 1021 by Japanese noblewoman Murasaki Shikibu.19:04: Q3 (Times & Places): When: The decade in which sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau was transferred to China.28:35: Q4 (Music): Where: It's the location that Antonin Dvorak's ninth symphony is “from”, per its title.36:38: Q5 (Everything Else): Why: Because this temperature, equivalent to -273.15 degrees Celsius, is the coldest temperature physically possible.51:22: Q6 (Sports & Games): How: By releasing the ball off the index finger to impart lateral spin, with velocity in between a fastball and a curveball.Theme music: "Thinking it Over" by Lee Rosevere, licensed under CC BY 2.0E-Mail: quizandhers@gmail.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/quizandhers/Twitter: https://twitter.com/quizandhersInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/quizandhers/3 Beers In Podcast: https://www.3beersinpodcast.com/

This week we've got deep and soulful music on Shogun Audio, Hospital Records, Goldfat, Fokuz, Celsius, and much, much more!Tracklist:Kublai & Note – Landscapes [Forthcoming Goldfat]Lenzman – Zusterleifde [The North Quarter]Duskee & Disrupta – Yesterday [DarkMode]Mystific – Feelings Matter [Fokuz]London Elektricity – Possible Worlds ft. Inja (Digital Native Remix) [Hospital]Makoto – Osiris ft. Danny Wheeler [Hospital]Stimpy – Soulful Baby [Forthcoming Fokuz]Lenzman – Starlight ft. Fox [The North Quarter]Decon – Groove X [Jazzsticks]Pyxis & NickBee – Vibration [Four Corners]Mystific & Higher (Than) – Mirage [Forthcoming Influenza]Omina & Izzy Wilding – Hold On [Celsius]Pola & Bryson – Neverend ft. Solah [Shogun]Alexvnder – Peace [Forthcoming Glitch Audio]Detect Theory & Synthezia – Lucid Dreams [Celsius]

Sign up for our mailing list! We also have t-shirts and mugs with our logo! Thanks to Richard from NC for his suggestion that leads us to learn about some interesting seals! Further reading: Mystery of Siberian freshwater seal food choice solved Under Antarctica's ice, Weddell seals produce ultrasonic vocalizations Further listening/watching: Rarely-heard Weddell Seal Sounds in Antarctica The bearded seal Wikipedia page with audio so you can listen over and over and over The Baikal seal, the world's only fully fresh water seal species: Baikal seal, round boi: The Baikal seal's teeth have teeth: A Weddell seal mama with her pup who seems to be practicing singing: Look ma, no ears! The bearded seal. Can you tell where its name comes from? (Moustachioed seal might be more accurate.) (Also, note the ear opening with no external ear flap.) Show transcript: Welcome to Strange Animals Podcast. I'm your host, Kate Shaw. This week let's learn about some interesting seals. Thanks to Richard from NC who suggested freshwater seals, which is where we'll start. Most seals live on the coast and spend most of the time in the ocean. But there's one species of seal that lives exclusively in fresh water. That's the Baikal [bay-CALL] seal, and the only place it lives is a big lake in Siberia called Lake Baikal. Lake Baikal formed where two sections of the earth's crust are being pulled apart by continental drift. That's called a rift lake or rift valley lake. The lake gets bigger every year, but only by a tiny amount—just under an inch, or 2 cm. Since this has been going on for an estimated 25 to 30 million years, though, it's an extremely big, deep lake. It is, in fact, the deepest lake on earth, and is also the oldest lake on earth. It's more than twice as old as Lake Tanganyika in East Africa, which is also a large, deep rift lake but only about 12 million years old at the most. Lake Baikal is almost 400 miles long, or 636 km, and nearly 50 miles wide, or 80 km. At its deepest point, it's 3,893 feet deep, or 1,186.5 meters. That's from the surface of the water to the muddy bottom. But that mud and sediment on the bottom has been building up for a very long time and there's a lot of it—4.3 miles of it, in fact, or 7 km. The water is very clear and very oxygenated, but the surface freezes for several months out of the year. Then again, there are some hydrothermal vents, especially in the deepest areas, that heat the water around them to 122 degrees Fahrenheit, or 50 Celsius. Because Lake Baikal is so deep, so big, so oxygenated, and so old, lots of species of animal live in and around it that live nowhere else in the world. That includes the Baikal seal. The Baikal seal is related to the Arctic ringed seal but has lived in the lake exclusively for probably two million years. It only grows five and a half feet long at most, or 1.65 meters, and is usually closer to four feet long, or 1.2 meters. It's gray in color and has no external ears, so that its head appears smooth. It can still hear, but because it doesn't have ears sticking out of its head, it's more streamlined than seals with external ears. It has large eyes, a pair of front flippers that it uses to maneuver in the water and on land, and a pair of hind flippers that act like a tail instead of legs. That's actually the main difference between earless and eared seals. Earless seals are more streamlined in general and more adapted for life in the water and for deep diving, but they're awkward on land because they can't use their hind limbs for walking. Eared seals have little flaps of external ears and while their hind flippers act as a tail in the water, the seal can turn its hind flippers over to walk on them on land. The Baikal seal is quite small for a seal, which keeps it from needing as much food as a bigger animal. For a long time people thought the Baikal seal mostly ate fish,

President Joe Biden stated this week that the increase of vaccinations across the country can help boost employment due to the recent mandates. Meanwhile, Pfizer claims its experimental antiviral pill can reduce the risk of death and hospitalization from COVID-19 by nearly 90%. Professor & physician at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Dr. Marty Makary gives his opinion on whether we are finally coming out of the global pandemic. Earlier in the week, the President addressed delegates at the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Glasgow, Scotland to set new goals to reduce deforestation & keep global temperatures within one and a half degrees Celsius. FOX News Foreign Correspondent Simon Owen was there and speaks to Jared Halpern about the conference.

We're talking the Bucs' future salary cap situation again for episode 437. Jon and J.C. are joined by a very special guest - PFF's salary cap budget expert, Brad Spielberger! The three of them discuss whether the Bucs can re-sign key players such as Chris Godwin, Anotnio Brown and Carlton Davis as Spielberger gives his analysis on how and if the Bucs can do it. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

Listen to the Daily Global #News from Grecian Echoes and WNTN 1550 AM.  Nonfarm payrolls increased by 531,000 in October, beating the estimate of 450,000.  The unemployment rate fell to 4.6%, a new pandemic low and better than expectations.  Global warming could be kept to 1.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if all the pledges and promises made at the COP26 summit in Glasgow are kept.  Pfizer says its Covid pill with HIV drug cuts the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%. 

The UN Climate Conference in Glasgow is being described as a make-or-break moment for humanity. The purpose of the gathering is to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. Currently the world is way off target, with temperatures still projected to rise higher than is sustainable. A big part of the problem is the huge cost involved. Developed countries have confirmed they have failed to meet a pledge made in 2009 to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020. Developing countries say the money is needed now. They require defences to protect their populations from the growing effects of climate change, and to move away from carbon energy and towards renewable sources. So what is climate finance, what's been promised and will it be be delivered? Join Ritula Shah and a panel of expert guests from the UN summit in Glasgow as they discuss who pays to fix climate change.

The process that powers our sun was still a mystery about 100 years ago. Bit by bit, scientists have worked out that the fusion of hydrogen at a star's core can generate enough power to keep it shining for billions of years. Now, armed with this knowledge, researchers around the world are trying to figure out if we can recreate that fusion process here on Earth. (And yes, trying to kickstart fusion—and then contain superheated plasmas that reach temperatures up to 100 million degrees Celsius—is just as hard as it sounds.) If scientists can pull it off, the payoff could be huge: A deep understanding of stellar physics could one day lead to a virtually unlimited supply of clean energy. To discover just how, Dr. Alok Patel hears from an astrophysicist and a fusion scientist.

This week, over 30,000 participants are anticipated in Glasgow, Scotland to kick off COP26. The climate conference hosted by the United Nations is a critical moment for nations to address the fight against climate change in order to avoid catastrophic consequences. The expectations for the two-week conference are high as world leaders and delegates are expected to commit to ambitious climate goals that will prevent the global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius. In this episode Olivia Lazard joins Doug to unpack key developments from the climate conference thus far and how the EU and United States can still take the lead on climate.Olivia Lazard, "The Need for an EU Ecological Diplomacy," Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceOlivia Lazard, "The EU's Deforestation Package: A Test for Taking the Green Deal Global," Strategic Europe

The whole PR staff is on for episode 436 in a roundtable edition for the show. With the Bucs on a bye this week, the topic of discussion turns to the future of free agency for a lot of Bucs that are in the last year of their deals. Everyone gives their analysis on which players will be back and which won't. This includes top name players such as Chris Godwin, Ryan Jensen and Rob Gronkowski on offense along with Jordan Whitehead, Jason Pierre-Paul and Carlton Davis II on defense. Hear it all on the Pewter Report Podcast, energized by CELSIUS.

In anticipation of the release of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, this week we're talking about the original 1984 Ghostbusters. Bustin' makes us feel good as we talk about Bill Murray and Rick Moranis doing everything, the problematic and redemptive actions of Venkman, and how it's oddly connected to Wonder Woman 1984. Thank you to our friends over at Toboggan for sending some of their fantastic jackets to the network. Toboggan Canada makes fantastic lightweight jackets, puffers, parkas, bombers and more. Rated from -15 to -30 Celsius stay comfortable through fall and winter while looking chic. Visit www.toboggancanada.com today and use promo code superheroes20 for 20% off your purchase. Brought to you in part by Virtual Game Night. Live games for your happy hour, conferences, birthday parties, or whoever else you might be on a video conference with. If you want to turn your next virtual gathering into a Virtual Game Night, visit www.virtualgamenight.live/superhero and and use promo code SUPERHERO100 to receive a $100 credit toward the price of any game night package. This episode brought to you in part by BATMAN: THE AUDIO ADVENTURES. The first scripted audio original featuring Batman and his villainous rogues gallery in a world premier story of Life and Death in Gotham City, debuting exclusively on HBO Max. Starring Jeffrey Wright as Batman and a who's who of incredible Saturday Night Live alums. Go to www.hbomax.com/batmanaudioadventures for more, and stream BATMAN: THE AUDIO ADVENTURES only on HBO Max.

The Science Behind Cryptid Sightings People around the world have long been fascinated by the idea that there are strange creatures out there, ones that may or may not exist. Tales circulate about cryptids–animals whose existence can't be proved—like Bigfoot hiding out in American forests, or sea serpents lurking just below the water in coastal towns. Despite the best efforts of monster hunting T.V. shows and amateur sleuths, there may never be concrete proof that these creatures exist. But that doesn't stop people from analyzing strange photographs or odd carcasses and saying maybe, just maybe, cryptids do exist. Darren Naish, a paleontologist and author based in Southampton, U.K., has a particular interest in looking at cryptozoology—from a skeptical perspective. His breakdowns of cryptid sightings from a scientific perspective have been published in Scientific American, his website, and in his book, Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths. Darren speaks to guest host Sophie Bushwick about faked evidence, his relationship with cryptozoology, and how cryptids may lead to other pseudoscience beliefs.   Stories From Those On The Frontlines Of Sea Level Rise Next week marks the start of the UN's annual conference on climate change in Glasgow, Scotland. It's a big moment for global consensus on climate change: Nations are supposed to make new, aggressive pledges to lower their emissions in the attempt to prevent the planet from hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. Meanwhile, in the world we see and touch, seas are already rising. In some coastal areas, seas have risen between 0.5 to 1.5 feet in the last century. We're also already seeing hurricanes with higher storm surge, and heavier rainfall. More change, of course, is projected. The SciFri Book Club has been talking about these risks, and reading about how these numbers have endangered wetlands, flooded homes, lost livelihoods, and sometimes scattered communities in Elizabeth Rush's 2018 book Rising: Dispatches From The New American Shore. But while we've talked to wetland scientists and Elizabeth herself, the voices of community members most affected by climate change—a key part of Rising's mission—were still missing. In a final conversation with guest host Sophie Bushwick, producer Christie Taylor shares some of the stories of people on the frontlines, including a real-estate agent who helped his neighbors relocate after Hurricane Sandy, and the leader of the Gullah Geechee people on the sea islands of the southeast coast. Plus, social scientist A.R. Siders' insights into communities' need to adapt to sea level rise, and how they can be most successful.   Listen To The Haunting Howls That Once Permeated Europe Last year, Melissa Pons, a field recordist and sound designer, set out to capture a sound that at one time would have been familiar to almost any European: the howl of an Iberian wolf. There was a time when the sounds of wolves filled the forests and mountains of Europe. But after centuries of persecution by humans, only some 12,000 wolves remain in all of Europe. Isolated pockets of wolves can be found in Italy, Spain, Greece, and Finland. A sixth of the entire remaining population lives in the mountains of Portugal. Pons headed to the remote, mountainous region of Picão—a settlement on the small island Príncipe off the west coast of Africa—where there is a rehabilitation center for the Iberian wolf. There are some 350 packs of wolves spread out over about 45 acres of the reserve. Pons first explored the region and observed the wolves. Then she set up her recording gear and gathered over 100 hours of tape. From those recordings, she composed an album where each track captures a distinct soundscape made by these wolves. The album is available online and half the proceeds go toward supporting the rehabilitation center in Portugal.