Podcasts about climate policy

In this episode of Climate Positive, Guy Van Syckle and Gil Jenkins sit down with Caroline Spears, Executive Director of Climate Cabinet, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting clean energy and climate policy leaders at state and local levels. These often-forgotten races are sometimes decided by a couple hundred votes and can also decide the fate of billions of dollars of decarbonization investment. Caroline explains how Climate Cabinet strategically identifies target candidates through data science and political expertise, aiming to elect climate champions with the highest potential ability to shape positive change. Through real-world examples, she demonstrates the organization's effectiveness in close political races and the tangible difference their support can make.LinksClimate Cabinet Website Sign up for a monthly donation to help Climate Cabinet find and elect the highest ROI clean energy champions in state and local elections across the U.S. Caroline Spears on LinkedInEpisode recorded on October 2, 2025   Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, Hilary, and Guy at climatepositive@hasi.com.

In 2024, Denmark reached a landmark Green Tripartite Agreement, introducing the world's first agricultural climate tax as part of a comprehensive package of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, restore nature, improve biodiversity, and tackle nitrogen pollution. This pioneering policy framework is poised to transform Danish agriculture and rural landscapes over the coming decades. This webinar features insights from Johannes Flatz of CONCITO and Erik Jørgensen of the Danish Agriculture & Food Council, who will outline the negotiation process behind the Agreement and assess its implications for the Danish agri-food sector, climate policy, and rural development. From an Irish perspective, Dr. Maria Snell of Macra na Feirme and Ailbhe Gerrard of Talamh Beo and Brookfield Farm will consider the opportunities and challenges for Ireland in delivering on climate and biodiversity targets within the farming community, exploring how elements of the Danish model might be adapted to the current policy landscape in Ireland. Bringing together Danish and Irish viewpoints, this discussion examines the design, implementation, and adaptation of ambitious agricultural climate measures across contrasting European settings, and the potential role such agreements can play in aligning environmental objectives with rural prosperity. Speaker bios: Johannes Flatz is a Climate Analyst in CONCITOs programme on food and consumption. Johannes works as a climate analyst with a focus on analysis of European agricultural policies. Johannes is particularly focused on the analysis of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the regulation of carbon emissions from the agricultural sector. Johannes has a master's degree in environmental economics from the University of Copenhagen. Erik Jørgensen is the Chief Consultant at the Climate & Energy, Danish Agriculture & Food Council. Maria Snell is a Senior Policy Executive at Macra na Feirme, Ireland's national organisation representing young farmers and rural youth. She holds a PhD in Environmental Science from the UK, where she worked on projects focused water quality, habitat management, and ecological health in agricultural catchments. Maria returned home to join Macra, where she works to ensure the voices of rural youth are represented in shaping sustainable agricultural, rural development and environmental policy. Ailbhe Gerrard is a farmer, beekeeper, and agricultural educator, and the founder of Brookfield Farm in Co. Tipperary. She is also a leading member of Talamh Beo, the Irish branch of La Via Campesina, and has been recognised for her innovative agroecological farming practices and advocacy for community-led food systems.

For decades, the meat and dairy industries managed to successfully avoid any attention for the planet-heating emissions they pump into the atmosphere; once governments started talking about regulating methane, though, they started working on efforts to avoid them. In today's episode, Silvia Secchi (University of Iowa) and Kathrin Lauber (University of Edinburgh) join us to walk through "agricultural exceptionalism" and the strategies the animal ag industry uses to keep regulation and climate policy at bay. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Could Barnaby Joyce end up leading Pauline Hanson's One Nation party?It might be exactly what the MP has his eyes on as talk of his defection from the Nationals intensifies. Today, Melissa Clarke, political correspondent for Radio National Breakfast, on what Barnaby is up to and why. Featured: Melissa Clarke, Radio National Breakfast political correspondent

FIRST WITH YESTERDAY'S NEWS (highlights from Thursday on Newstalk ZB) Memories of Jim/What State Housing Is For/Climate Policy Is So Last Decade/That's No Way to LiveSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The coal, utilities, and transportation industries have all mounted efforts to stop governments from regulating emissions or transitioning to cleaner energy. In this episode we look at how those efforts took shape around the world, and what tactics they used to block progress. Jen Schneider, at Boise State University and Gregory Trencher, at Kyoto University, join us to walk through the peer-reviewed research on these efforts. You can now download a FREE copy of the book Climate Obstruction: A Global Survey here! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On October 9, 1975, CBC listeners across the country heard David Suzuki introduce the very first episode of Quirks & Quarks. 50 years and thousands of interviews later, Quirks is still going strong, bringing wonders from the world of science to listeners, old and new.On October 7, 2025 we celebrated with an anniversary show in front of a live audience at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario. We had guests from a range of scientific disciplines looking at what we've learned in the last 50 years, and hazarding some risky predictions about what the next half century could hold. Our panelists were:Evan Fraser, Director of Arrell Food Institute and Professor of Geography at the University of Guelph, co-chair of the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council, a fellow of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau foundation, and a fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.Katie Mack, Hawking Chair in Cosmology and Science Communication at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.Luke Stark, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Information & Media Studies at Western University in London, Ontario, and a Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Azrieli Global Scholar with the Future Flourishing Program.Laura Tozer, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto and director of the Climate Policy & Action Lab at the Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences at the University of Toronto Scarborough.Ana Luisa Trejos, a professor in the Department Electrical and Computer Engineering and the School of Biomedical Engineering and Canada Research chair in wearable mechatronics at Western University in London, Ontario.Yvonne Bombard, professor at the University of Toronto and scientist and Canada Research Chair at St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, where she directs the Genomics Health Services Research Program.

Climate change has been described as a “super wicked” policy problem. Policymakers face profound difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the risks, the costs of potential solutions, and the challenges of collective action. Because climate change is global in scope, the source of emissions is often seen as less important than their overall volume. Yet despite extensive efforts by many countries, including the United States at various times, worldwide carbon emissions continue to rise.Frustration with this state of affairs has led some state and local authorities to pursue climate litigation in addition to legislative or regulatory action. These lawsuits allege that energy producers are responsible for substantial monetary harms; and taken together, they seek many billions or even trillions of dollars in damages. Many recent cases focus on claims that companies misrepresented the effects of fossil fuels on the environment in violation of state consumer protection laws.On October 8, 2025, join us for a panel discussion examining the legal and policy issues raised by these cases, including: • Preemption under the Clean Air Act and federal common law; • Challenges in demonstrating causation and attribution; • Possible implications for First Amendment protections; • Allocation of damages among dozens of energy companies, including state-owned firms that may be shielded by sovereign immunity. • The contributing role of both plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of fossil fuels; and • Whether litigation is likely to help advance efforts to address climate change.Featuring:David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity ProjectProfessor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law SchoolProfessor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityAdam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC

As Canada's environment minister in 2015, Catherine McKenna emerged as a leading voice in the climate debate. She also faced some of the unprecedented and disturbing abuse that was aimed at public officials, and became an advocate for the voice of women in politics. McKenna is still a force at the centre of Canada's climate discussion and the global one. She talks to Wonk host Amanda Lang about the urgent economics of climate change, her new memoir and why Canada needs to deal with rising polarization.

From deadly California wildfires and Arson to secret Chinese SIM card operations capable of crippling U.S. infrastructure, today's episode dives into the headlines that shake the nation. We explore government mismanagement, climate policy failures, the rise of Antifa as a global threat, foreign espionage, bioweapons, and the high-stakes military and geopolitical decisions involving Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, and beyond. No spin, just a clear-eyed look at the crises and plots shaping American lives.

Catherine McKenna joined me in person for a live recording of this episode at the Naval Club of Toronto here in our east end. We discussed her new book ‘Run Like a Girl', lessons learned from her six years in federal politics, the reality of political harassment, the tension between party loyalty and telling it like it is, and why we should be wary of “grand bargains” on climate with oil and gas companies.Catherine served as Environment and Climate Change Minister from 2015-2019 and Infrastructure Minister from 2019-2021. She's now the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions and chairs a UN expert group advising the Secretary General on net zero commitments.Read further:Run Like A Girl - Catherine McKenna (2025)https://www.catherinemckenna.caChapters:00:00 Introduction & Run Like A Girl Book05:32 Lessons from Politics: Hard Work & Balance08:52 Climate Barbie & Political Harassment15:26 Running for Office in Ottawa Centre23:17 Being a Team Player vs. Speaking Truth32:05 Leaving Politics40:30 Climate Policy & the Oil & Gas “Grand Bargain”48:24 Supporting Others in Politics52:56 Carbon Pricing Communication Failures59:13 Gender Balance, Feminism & Cabinet01:04:04 Final Thoughts & ClosingTranscript:Nate Erskine-Smith00:02 - 00:38Well, thank you everyone for joining. This is a live recording of the Uncommon's podcast, and I'm lucky to be joined by Catherine McKenna, who has a very impressive CV. You will know her as the former Environment Minister. She is also the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions, a consultancy focused on all things environment and nature protection. And you may or may not know, but she's also the chair of a UN expert group that gives advice to the Secretary General on net zero solutions. So thank you for coming to Beaches East York.Catherine McKenna00:38 - 00:56It's great to be here. Hello, everyone. And special shout out to the guy who came from, all the way from Bowmanville. That's awesome. Anyone from Hamilton, that's where I'm originally found. All right. Nice, we got a shout out for Hamilton. Woo-hoo.Nate Erskine-Smith00:57 - 01:19So I ran down a few things you've accomplished over the years, but you are also the author of Run Like a Girl. I was at, you mentioned a book launch last night here in Toronto, but I attended your book launch in Ottawa. And you can all pick up a book on the way out. But who did you write this book for?Catherine McKenna01:21 - 02:58So, I mean, this book has been a long time in the making. It's probably been five years. It was a bit of a COVID project. And you'll see, it's good, I've got my prop here, my book. But you'll see it's not a normal kind of book. So it has a lot of images of objects and of, you know, pictures, pictures of me getting ready to go to the state visit dinner that was hosted by Obama while I'm trying to finalize the text on climate. So it's got like random things in it, but it's intended for a much broader audience. It's really intended to inspire women and girls and young people. And I think that's particularly important right now because I work on climate and I think it's really hard. Do people here care about climate? Yes, I imagine here you care about climate. I mean, I actually think most Canadians do because they understand the wildfires and they see the smoke and people are being evacuated from communities and you can't get insurance if you're in a flood zone. But I do think in particular we need to bolster spirits. But also it's a book, it's really about how to make change. It's not like people think it's like a political memoir. So I think, you know, fancy people in politics will look at the end of the book to see if their name is there and maybe be disappointed if it isn't. But it's not really that kind of book. It's like I was a kid from Hamilton. I didn't want to be a politician. That wasn't my dream when I grew up. I wanted to go to the Olympics for swimming. And spoiler alert, I did not make the Olympic team, but I went to Olympic trials.Nate Erskine-Smith02:59 - 02:59You're close.Catherine McKenna03:00 - 04:05I was, well, closest, closest, but, but it wasn't, I mean, you know, life is a journey and that wasn't, it wasn't sad that I didn't make it, but I think it's just to hopefully for people to think I can make change too. Like I didn't come as a fully formed politician that was, you know, destined to be minister for the environment and climate change. So in particular for women and young people who are trying to figure out how to make change, I think it's a little bit my story. I just tried to figure it out. And one day I decided the best way to make change was to go into politics and get rid of Stephen Harper. That was my goal. He was my inspiration, yes, because we needed a new government. And yeah, so I really, really, really am trying to reach a much broader audience because I think we often are politicians talking to a very narrow group of people, often very partisan. And that's not my deal. My deal is we need everyone to be making change in their own way. And I want people who are feeling like maybe it's a bit hard working on climate or in politics or on democracy or human rights that you too can make change.Nate Erskine-Smith04:06 - 05:17And you were holding it up. I mean, it's a bit of a scrapbook. You've described it. And it's also honest. I mean, there was some media coverage of it that was sort of saying, oh, you said this about Trudeau, calling him a loofer. And there's a certain honesty about I've lived in politics and I'm going to call it like it is. But what I find most interesting is not the sort of the gotcha coverage after the fact. It's when you go to write something, you said you're not a writer at the launch that I saw in Ottawa, but you obviously sat down and were trying to figure out what are the lessons learned. You've had successes, you've had failures, and you're trying to impart these lessons learned. You mentioned you sort of were going down that road a little bit of what you wanted to impart to people, but you've had six years in politics at the upper echelon of decision-making on a really important file. I want to get to some of the failures because we're living through some of them right now, I think. Not of your doing, of conservative doing, unfortunately. But what would you say are the lessons learned that you, you know, as you're crystallizing the moments you've lived through, what are those lessons?Catherine McKenna05:19 - 07:12It's funny because the lessons I learned actually are from swimming in a way that actually you got to do the work. That, you know, you set a long-term goal and, you know, whatever that goal is, whatever you hope to make change on. And then you get up and you do the work. And then you get up the next morning and you do the work again. And sometimes things won't go your way. But you still get up the next morning. And I think it's important because, like, you know, look, I will talk, I'm sure, about carbon pricing. We lost the consumer carbon price. There's a chapter. It's called Hard Things Are Hard. I'm also, like, really into slogans. I used to be the captain of the U of T swim team. So I feel like my whole life is like a Nike ad or something. Hard things are hard. We can do it. But yeah, I mean, I think that the change is incremental. And sometimes in life, you're going to have hard times. But the other thing I want people to take from it is that, you know, sometimes you can just go dancing with your friends, right? Or you can call up your book club. I would sometimes have hard days in politics. And I was like, oh, gosh, that was like, what? happened. So I'd send an email, it would say to my book club. So if you have book clubs, book clubs are a good thing. Even if you don't always read the book, that would be me. But I would be SOS, come to my house. And I'd be like, all I have is like chips and wine, but I just need to hang out with regular people. And I think that's also important. Like, you know, life is life. Like, you know, you got to do the work if you're really trying to make change. But some days are going to be harder and sometimes you're just trying to hang in there and I had you know I had I have three kids one of them they're older now one of them is actually manning the the booth selling the books but you know when you're a mom too like you know sometimes you're going to focus on that so I don't know I think my my lessons are I I'm too gen x to be like you've got to do this and INate Erskine-Smith07:12 - 07:16learned this and I'm amazing no that's not writing a graduation speech I'm not I'm not writing aCatherine McKenna07:16 - 08:43graduation speech and I don't know that you know the particular path I took is what anyone else is going to do I was going to I went to Indonesia to do a documentary about Komodo dragons because my roommate asked me to so that led me to go back to Indonesia which led me to work for UN peacekeeping and peacekeeping mission in East Timor but I think it's also like take risks if you're a young person Like, don't, people will tell you all the time how you should do things. And I, you know, often, you know, doubted, should I do this, or I didn't have enough confidence. And I think that's often, women often feel like that, I'll say. And, you know, at the end, sometimes you are right. And it's okay if your parents don't like exactly what you're doing. Or, you know, people say you should stay in corporate law, which I hated. Or, you know, so I don't know if there's so many lessons as a bit as, you know, one, you got to do the work to, you know, listen to what you really want to do. That doesn't mean every day you're going to get to do what you want to do. But, you know, if you're really passionate about working human rights, work on human rights, like figure out a way to do it and then also have some fun. Like life can feel really heavy. And I felt that during COVID. I think sometimes now after, you know, looking at, you know, social media and what Donald Trump has done or threatened to do, it can feel hard. So I think it's also OK to to just check out and have fun.Nate Erskine-Smith08:44 - 08:46I like it. Well, there aren't lessons, but here are three important lessons.Catherine McKenna08:48 - 08:50I am a politician. It's good. Well, it's OK.Nate Erskine-Smith08:50 - 09:57You mentioned a few times really writing this book in a way to young people and specifically to young women to encourage them to to make a difference and to get involved. and yet politics, we were both drawn to politics, I think for similar reasons, and it is one of the most important ways to make a difference, and I wanna get to you. There are other ways to make a difference, of course, but there's a bit of a tension, I think, in what you're writing, because you're writing this encouragement to make a difference, and politics is so important, and on the flip side, you document all sorts of different ways that politics has been truly awful, the absurdity of, I knew the ridiculous idiocy of Climate Barbie, but I didn't actually appreciate that you had these bizarre men coming to your house to take selfies in front of your house. That's just a next-level awfulness. And so how do you, when you're talking to young people, to encourage them on the one hand, but also you don't want to shield them from the awfulness, and we all want to make politics a more civil, better place, but these are problematic tensions.Catherine McKenna09:58 - 10:42Yeah, I mean, look, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say about like the hate and abuse that I got, but also my staff got. I mean, they come to my office and start screaming. And of course, everything's videotaped. So and, you know, there were incidents at my house. And so I first of all, I believe in being honest. Like, I just believe in it. I believe that people deserve the truth. But also in this case, I wasn't looking for sympathy. I'm out of politics. I don't need sympathy, but we need change. And so I think the only way, one of the only ways we get changed, and you know how hard it is to get policy, like online harm legislation. We still have not gotten online harm. In a way, it's kind of unfathomable that we can't just get it. Like, we know that online.Nate Erskine-Smith10:42 - 10:43C5 happened real quick, though. Don't worry.Catherine McKenna10:43 - 10:43Okay.Catherine McKenna10:44 - 10:48Well, luckily, I'm not in politics anymore. I'm not in politics anymore.Catherine McKenna10:48 - 11:48I just do my thing. But I do think that by documenting this, I'm hoping that people will read it and say, well, wait a minute, that's not OK, because that's how we will get the support to get legislation to make sure that we hold social media platforms accountable. that's the way that we will be able to get people to say to politicians, you cannot go and do personal attacks and then go spread them online to get to get clicks. And that we can get proper protection for politicians, which I don't love, but actually we need that sometimes. So I think that it is important to say that I don't want people to feel down because I have multiple purposes in the book. Like people are talking about this. And I've had a number of my female politician friends saying thank you for stepping up because now people are taking it more seriously because they're like wow that was bad like climate barbie sounds kind of quaint now but climate barbie led to a whole bunch of things that led to a bunch of things that led to rcmp finally being outside my house whichNate Erskine-Smith11:49 - 12:05wasn't amazing but at least i felt safe but it's one thing to say quaint but it normalizes a misogyny that is that is awful right yeah so it's and it might it might not be a direct threat it might not be taking a selfie outside of your home which is an implicit threat but it is it's normalizing an awfulness in our politics.Catherine McKenna12:06 - 12:10Yeah, I mean, it is. From other politicians. It was a former minister in Harper's CabinetNate Erskine-Smith12:10 - 12:11who started it, right?Catherine McKenna12:11 - 12:21It was, or at least amplified it. We'll go there, like the climate Barbie. Okay, so climate Barbie is, it's quite weird because now my kids are like, well, Barbie went to the moon.Catherine McKenna12:21 - 12:22Barbie was an asteroid.Catherine McKenna12:23 - 14:57Quinn is here, like, you know, Barbies are, like, you know, not that big a deal. The thing is, if you are my age, if anyone here is 50 or over, I think you're pretty clear when someone who's 50 or over calls you climate barbie there's a lot going on in that and i said nothing like i was actually baptized climate barbie very early on um by a rage farming alt-right outlet they are not media and that's what they do this is their game they go after progressives to make money actually um for clickbait but i didn't do anything for so long um and i guess my team was lovely and i had a lot of really awesome women and they're like just don't do it because you'll they'll know that you know they can go after you um and so i'm at the un actually it's like seven years ago i was just at the un last week yes i heard donald trump but i was there to work on climate but it was the same thing it was the end of a really long day i was going back to the hotel i was actually in the hotel lobby some crabby hotel with my team and i look at my phone i was like why is my twitter exploded what has happened and then i see the climate barbie tweet and i said to my team. I said, okay, I'm sorry. I'm just going to have to deal with this situation. And they knew, like, I'm, when I say I'm dealing with it, I'm going to deal with it. And so I, I, you know, I'm a lawyer by training. So I, you know, try, I am Irish. I've got the hot headed side and then I've got the lawyer rational side. So I was like, okay, what am I going to say? There's going to call it out, but in a way that isn't falling into the trap of just calling names. So I said, it's in this book. I'm not going to get exactly right, but it was something like, would you use that kind of language with your girlfriend, wife, mother? You're not chasing women out of politics. Your sexism is going to chase women, whatever it was. And what was so interesting about this, and this is why in this book, I do the same thing, is that it went viral. And I wasn't trying to do this. I was trying to shame him so he would stop. And people like would stop me in the streets. And it would be, you know, conservative men, they'd be like, I'm a conservative, I'm ashamed. This is not acceptable. And I really appreciate this. This is how you stand up to bullies. And I thought, oh, this is important that we do this every once in a while, because often as a woman, you're kind of supposed to take it because otherwise you look a bit weak. And I realized actually the power is other people saying that this is not okay. So I actually appreciate that you call it out. You will see in my book. I will just let me see if I can find it. I also, like, kind of bizarrely, a bunch of, like, men would send me Barbies with really mean notes.Catherine McKenna14:57 - 15:04So they'd go to a store, buy a Barbie, then go and find the address of my constituency office or my ministerial office,Catherine McKenna15:05 - 15:32and then send it with a note that they personally addressed. Like, that's kind of weird. So anyway, the funny thing is, I guess, is it funny? I don't know. It's just it. There's a Barbie. This is actually a picture of one of the Barbies that was sent. We would normally put our Barbies in the Christmas toy drive. I guess we figured might as well give it to, you know, kids that would like the Barbie. But I found one when I was cleaning up my office. And I was like, oh, I'm going to just keep that. I'm going to like, you know, just keep that. So you can...Nate Erskine-Smith15:32 - 15:33No one's sending you Barbies.Catherine McKenna15:33 - 15:38I have a book of just... No one's sending you Barbies. Glorious things that people have sent, like written notes that people have sent over the yearsNate Erskine-Smith15:38 - 16:33where you're just like, this is the most bizarre thing to have received. And, you know, in 10 years in politics, the scrapbook grows. So speaking of, you mentioned Harper being an inspiration of sorts. You also have said, I'm just a regular person who wanted to make a change. And politics, you also said, I didn't want to be a politician. I want to be an Olympian. But you also document Sheila Copps as someone you looked up to. You mentioned your dad being very political. And Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the person in politics who was a bit of an inspiration for your dad and family. And so Harper, obviously, a motivating force for me as well in the lead up to 2015. I think there's a whole class of us in the lead up to 2015 that wanted a different kind of politics. How did you get on the ballot, though? It was you were a lawyer and you thought, no, this is this particular moment. Were people tapping on the shoulder and saying, come on, Catherine, now's the time?Catherine McKenna16:37 - 18:52Yeah, I mean, it's kind of a funny story because women often have to be asked multiple times. The thing is, I'd already been asked before 2015. And it's kind of funny because I saw my friend last night who's part of the story. So when Stéphane Dion was running, I went back to Hamilton. So that's where my parents, my dad passed away. But that's where my parents lived. And I was walking up my street. And the head of the riding association was like, would you like to run? So the election, I think, was already called. I'm pregnant. I live in Ottawa. And so I was like, oh, maybe I should think about that. So I asked my friend. He's like, well, I guess you won't have to knock on doors. So that was my first time getting asked. I did not run then. But I ran a charity that did human rights, rule of law, and good governance. I'd started this charity after having lived abroad with a friend. And, I mean, it was like banging your head on a wall in the pre-Harper times. We were trying to support human rights. We were working with indigenous youth in Canada focused on reconciliation. I cared about climate change. I was like, all of these things I'm trying to do outside of the system are a complete and utter waste of time. So I thought, OK, we've got to get rid of the government. So that's my theory of change now. My theory of change was create this charitable organization, and it's just not getting the impact. So I decided I was going to run, but I was in Ottawa Centre. So I don't know if many of you know Ottawa Centre. It's actually where Parliament's located, so it's great. It's a bike ride to work. But it was Paul Dewar, who was a really beloved NDP member of parliament. His mother had been mayor. And I really like Paul, too. But the reality is you've got to win, right? So you've got to win enough seats so you can form government. So I ran for two years. And it's interesting because I just decided to run. I canvassed, and so maybe the woman, this will maybe resonate a little bit. So I was like, okay, I really want to run, but I kind of need permission. I don't know why I thought I needed permission, but I did. So I went the rounds. And I like the Liberal Party, but it can be like an inside club. And I wasn't from Ottawa Centre. And so I think people were like a bit perplexed. They're like, we're kind of keeping this riding for a star candidate. And I was like, okay, what the heck? Who's a star?Catherine McKenna18:52 - 18:53Like, what's a star candidate?Catherine McKenna18:53 - 19:07Is that like a male lawyer who gives a lot of money to the Liberal Party? Like, I was like, seriously, what is a star candidate? Yeah, that's what it is. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I don't know. You are a male. I ran when I was 29 and had no money.Nate Erskine-Smith19:07 - 19:09That was a setup. That was a setup.Catherine McKenna19:09 - 20:15No, it wasn't. Okay. Anyway, we'll just blow by that one. You're a little bit unusual. Okay. So we'll take you out of that. But anyway, it's quite funny because then I was like, and then people were like, actually, you should just get the party to go get you another riding that's winnable. So I was like, okay, on the one hand, you need a star candidate here for this great riding that, but on the flip side, no one can win. So I was like, okay, I don't really know. So I looked at, like, you know, I'm not a fool. I was a competitive swimmer. I want to win. So I looked at the numbers, and I realized, like, you know, if Justin Trudeau was then leader, if we did super well, we were in third place, and it was two years out. But if I worked really hard and we did super well, there was a shot at winning. So I just decided I'm going to run. And I got the chapters called The New Girls Club. And then I had men supporting me. It was fine. But I literally had a lot of women who were just like, I don't know if you can win. This is kind of bonkers. You're doing it. But I'm going to step up and give you some money. I'm going to go help sell nominations. And at that point, you had to sell them. And no one wanted to buy a nomination.Catherine McKenna20:15 - 20:20People are like, I don't want to be a party. I want to join a party, especially a liberal party.Catherine McKenna20:22 - 21:04And so those of you who are thinking about politics, how do you win a nomination? I was trying to sell memberships and people weren't buying them. I was like, oh gosh, every night I'm going out, I've got these kids and I'm going out and talking to people. And I'm spending two hours and getting one or two nominations, people signing up. So I actually realized it was my kids' friends' mothers whose names I didn't know. I just knew their kids. And I think they were like, wow, we don't really know anyone that would go into politics. But we actually think you'd be pretty good. And your kids would kind of nice. And I don't know. I'll just sign up. I don't care.Catherine McKenna21:04 - 21:06And so it was actually really heartening.Catherine McKenna21:07 - 23:15And I will say, like, for all the bad of politics, and there is some bad for sure. And you will read about it in my book. That campaign for two years, like, we knocked on more than 100,000 doors. We had the highest voter turnout in the country. We had, I had my own rules. Like, I was like, we're going to do this in the way that I believe in. and you know some like some of it was following the bomb a snowflake model like you know we wanted to run hard but we also engaged kids and it wasn't like we had just like a kid area we would have kid canvases and I just felt important to me and we went to low income parts of the riding where some people said they're not going to vote or we went to university we went to university residents they're like they're not going to vote actually they turned out in strong numbers and I got a ton of volunteers who, and people that knew my name, because like someone who knows someone who knows someone. So it was great. But I will say like, that's the one thing about getting involved in politics. You may be here. I met a couple of you who said younger people who said you'd like to run. You can do it. You don't need permission. You're gonna have to hustle. You're gonna have to build your team. But this isn't an in club. And I do sometimes worry that politics feels like an in club and it shouldn't be that like we need everyone who wants to step up and get involved in however they want to get involved to be able to do that and so that's my lesson read that chapter hopefully you feel quite inspired and when I knocked on the last door I didn't know if I would win or not but I knew we'd left it all on the ice and I felt great like I was like we also have another woman who has run here it's Kelly is it Kelly who's run a couple times you know what it's like like you build a team. Now you were in a super hard riding. I do hope you run again. But it, it's just this feeling of doing something that matters and bringing people together in a common cause that is bigger than yourself. And it's about believing you can improve lives and you can tackle climate change. So that was a great I hope you read it and feel like you can do it too, if you want to run because you can, I will say you got to work hard. That is one of the most important thing doors gotNate Erskine-Smith23:15 - 23:36got a knock on doors well so i want to get back to though you were emphasizing one this idea of an insider culture but at the same time the need to have a really local presence and it was people who who were on the ground in the community who who ultimately helped get you over the finish line the nomination i mean here you know sandy's working the bar i went to high school with his kids andCatherine McKenna23:36 - 23:41he signed up in the nomination you got sandy and he got us a beer and and you got claire and fredNate Erskine-Smith23:41 - 24:44here who again i went i went to high school with their kids and they signed up in the nomination probably for joining the Liberal Party for the first time. And you go down the list, and there are people who are behind you locally. And in part, I think when you get started, now you go, okay, well, I know this person in the party, I know that person in the party, I've lived in the party for 12, 13 years. But I was 29 when I was starting to run the nomination. No one was tapping me on the shoulder and going, like, you're a star candidate, whatever that means, as you say. And so it does require that desire to say, no one has to ask me. I'm going to go do it and I'm going to build my own local team. But it also gets, I think, at another tension of who is your team? Because you say at one point, sometimes you need to be on the outside so you can push the inside to do more. And so you're on the outside now and you can be probably more honest in your assessment of things and more critical. I have tried, though, at times over the 10 years to play that same role in caucus.Catherine McKenna24:46 - 24:49What? Nate? I thought you were always all in on everything. Yeah, all in on everything.Nate Erskine-Smith24:50 - 25:32But it does get to this idea of team. It's like, be a team player, be a team player, be a team player. And the answer back is, well, who's your team? And yeah, sure, of course the team is the Liberal caucus, but the team is also people in Beaches of East York, the people who are knocking doors with the nomination, people who are knocking doors in the election. And they also want accountability. They also want the party and the government to be the best version of itself. And so do you find you were when you think back at the six years that you were in. I mean, cabinet's a different level of solidarity, obviously. But do you think it's possible to navigate that, you know, critical accountability role inside the tent? Or do you think it's essential as you are now to be outside to play that, you know, that that truth function?Catherine McKenna25:34 - 25:46I mean, that's a that's a really hard question because I mean, I'm a team person. I just sound like I was captain of a swim team. But that doesn't team. So it's different. Like, I'll just have to distinguish like being in cabinet.Catherine McKenna25:47 - 25:52Like you do have cabinet solidarity. But in cabinet, let me tell you, like I spoke up.Catherine McKenna25:52 - 26:50I like everyone didn't didn't always like it, but I felt like I had an obligation to just say things. And that was as much to myself as it was to anyone else. But then once you do that, you know, there is this view that then you stand with the team or else you leave cabinet. That is hard. That is hard. But it's probably less hard than being in caucus where you feel like you might have less influence on the issues. The one time I felt this was actually when I was out, but it was hard to do. And this is when I spoke up and I said I felt it was time for Justin Trudeau to step down, like to like have a leadership race to allow someone new to come in. And it was funny because I got like all these texts like and I was out. Right. So you think not such a big deal. But I got texts from people and like saying, who do you think you are? Like, you know, we're a liberal team. And I was like, OK, this is weird because I get team, but team doesn't equal cult.Nate Erskine-Smith26:52 - 26:52Welcome to my world.Catherine McKenna26:56 - 28:06Nate and me, are we exactly the same? Probably not exactly the same, but no, no. but I think it's true because I was like, well, wait a minute. We also owe it to, in that case, it was also like, we got to win. Are we going to just go? Is this the way it's going? We're just going to allow us to go down even though it's clear that the wheels have come off the cart. And that was hard. But I thought about it, and I was just so worried about the other option. Like Pierre Paulyab, that was too much. And I was like, okay, if I can make a bit of a difference, I will take a hit. It's fine. But I like, look, there is it is really hard to navigate that. And I mean, obviously, if it's super chaotic and no one's supporting things, I mean, the government will fall and you can't get agendas through. There does have to be some leeway to say things like that is important. It's that line and the tension. And I know you've you've felt it. And, you know, we haven't always been on the same side of those things, probably. But that is hard. That is hard. And I don't know that there's any easy answer to that because you can't always be in opposition because you can't govern.Catherine McKenna28:07 - 28:09So I would actually put that to you, Nate.Catherine McKenna28:10 - 28:38No, but I think it's an interesting question for you because, as I said, I was in cabinet, so it was a little bit easier. I mean, you literally have to vote with the government. But for you, there were times that you decided to, you know, be your own voice and not necessarily, well, not when I say not necessarily, not support, you know, the government's position. like how did you make decisions on that like how do you decide this is the moment i'm going to do that sometimes i care but i don't care as much or maybe i've done it you know a few times and iNate Erskine-Smith28:38 - 31:51should stay together like how did you how do you make that choice so i i think that uh trudeau and running for his leadership one thing that drew me to him actually he was calling for generational renewal at the time which which appealed to me but he was also talking about doing politics differently and whether that promise was entirely realized or not you know you lived around the cabinet table you you know more than me in some ways but I would say the promise of freer votes was incredibly appealing to me as the kind of politics that I that I want to see because I do think you you want that grassroots politics you want people to be it sounds trite now but that idea of being voices for the community in Ottawa not the other way around but there is a there's a truth to that. And so how do you get there and also maintain unity? And I think they navigated that quite well when in the leadership and then it became part of our platform in 2015, he articulated this idea of, well, we're going to have whipped votes on platform promises. Do I agree with everything in the platform? No, but I'll bite my tongue where I disagree and I'll certainly vote with the government. Two, on charter rights and human rights issues. And then three, and this is more fraught but on confidence matters more fraught i say because there were moments where they made certain things confidence matters that i didn't think they should have but you know that was that was the deal and that was the deal that you know you make with constituents it's the deal that you make with with members of the liberal party beyond that i think it's more about how you go about disagreeing and then it's making sure that you've given notice making sure that you've explained your reasons i i've i've uh i've joked i've been on many different whips couches but uh andy leslie i thought was the best whip in part because he would say why are you doing this and you'd run through the reasons he goes well have you have you engaged with them like do they know yeah well have they tried to convince you otherwise yeah and but here are the reasons okay well sounds like you thought about it kid get in my office and it was a there was a you could tell why he was an effective general because he he built respect as between you uh whereas you know the other approach is you have to vote with us. But that's not the deal, and here's why. And it's a less effective approach from a whip. But I would say how you, you know, I've used the example of electoral reform. I wasn't going and doing media saying Justin Trudeau is an awful person for breaking this promise, and, you know, he's, this is the most cynical thing he could have possibly have done, and what a bait and switch. I wasn't burning bridges and making this personal. I was saying, you know, he doesn't think a referendum is a good idea. Here's why I think there's a better forward and here's why I think we here's a way of us maintaining that promise and here's why I don't think we should have broken the promise and you know different people in the liberal party of different views I think the way we go about disagreeing and creating space for reasonable disagreement within the party outside the party but especially within the party really matters and then sometimes you just have to say there's an old Kurt Vonnegut line it's we are who we pretend to be so be careful who you pretend to be and I think it's double each room politics and so you know you want to wake up after politics and think I did the thing I was supposed to do when I was there. And sometimes that means being a good team player, and other times it means standing up and saying what you think. Okay, but back to questions for you.Catherine McKenna31:52 - 31:57Do you like that one? That was pretty good. Just put Nate on the hot speed for a little bit.Nate Erskine-Smith31:59 - 33:01You can ask me questions, too. Okay, so I was going to ask you why not politics, but you've sort of said, I've heard you say you felt that you were done, and you did what you came to do. But I want to push back on that a little bit, because you did a lot of things, especially around climate. First climate plan, you put carbon pricing in place, a number of measures. I mean, that gets all the attention, and we can talk about the walk back on it. But there's stringent methane rules, there were major investments in public transit, there's clean electricity. You run down the list of different things that we've worked towards in advance. And then we talk about consumer carbon pricing, but the industrial carbon piece is huge. Having said that, do you worry you left at a time when the politics were toxic, but not as toxic as they are today around climate and certainly around carbon pricing? And do you feel like you left before you had made sure the gains were going to be protected?Catherine McKenna33:02 - 33:11I think the lesson I learned, you can never protect gains, right? Like, you're just going to always have to fight. And, like, I can't, like, when am I going to be in politics? So I'm, like, 120?Catherine McKenna33:12 - 33:12Like, sorry.Catherine McKenna33:14 - 34:43And it is really true. Like, when I, the weird thing, when, so I'd been through COVID. I had three teenagers, one who, as I mentioned, is here. And I really thought hard. Like, I turned 50. And, like, I'm not someone who's, like, big birthdays. It's, like, this existential thing. I wasn't sad. It was, like, whatever. But I was, like, okay, I'm 50 now. Like, you know, there's what do I want to do at 50? I really forced myself to do it. And I really felt like, remember, I got into politics to make change. So I just thought, what is the best way to make change? And I really felt it wasn't, I felt personally for myself at this point, it wasn't through politics. I really wanted to work globally on climate because I really felt we'd done a lot. And I did think we kind of landed a carbon price. and we'd gone through two elections and one at the Supreme Court. So I felt like, okay, people will keep it. We will be able to keep it. So I just felt that there were other things I wanted to do, and I'd really come when I – you know, I said I would leave when I had done what I'd come to do, and that was a really important promise to myself. And I really want to spend time with my kids. Like, you give up a lot in politics, and my kids were going off to university, and I'd been through COVID, and if any parents – anyone been through COVID, But if you're a parent of teenage kids, that was a pretty bleak time. I'd be like, do you guys want to play another game? And they're like, oh my God.Audience Q34:43 - 34:44As if, and then they go to their bed.Catherine McKenna34:44 - 35:15They'd be like, I'm doing school. And I'd be like, as if you're doing school, you're online. Probably playing video game. But what am I going to do, right? Let's go for another walk. They're like, okay, we'll go for a walk if we can go get a slushie. And I was like, I'm going to rot their teeth. And my dad was a dentist. So I was like, this is bad. But this is like, we're engaging for 20 minutes. Like it was really hard. And so I actually, when I made the decision, like, but the counter, the funny thing that is so hilarious now to me is I almost, I was like, I'm not going to leave because if I leave, those haters will thinkCatherine McKenna35:15 - 35:16they drove me out.Nate Erskine-Smith35:16 - 35:18So I was like, okay, I'm going to stay.Catherine McKenna35:18 - 35:20And like, it was bizarre. I was like, okay.Nate Erskine-Smith35:20 - 35:21I don't want to stay when I'm staying. I don't want to stay.Catherine McKenna35:21 - 35:46I don't think this is the most useful point of my, like, you know, part of what I, you know, this is this useful, but I'm going to stay because these random people that I don't care about are actually going to say, ha ha, I chased her out. So then I was like, okay, well, let's actually be rational here and, you know, an adult. So I made the decision. And I actually felt really zen. Like, it was quite weird after I did it, where it was actually politicians who would do it to me. They'd be like, are you okay?Catherine McKenna35:47 - 35:49And I'd be like, I'm amazing.Catherine McKenna35:49 - 36:05What are you talking about? And, like, you know, it was as if leaving politics, I would not be okay. And then people would say, like, is it hard not to have stuff? I was like, I'm actually free. I can do whatever I want. I can go to a microphone now and say whatever. Probably people will care a lot less. But I don't.Nate Erskine-Smith36:05 - 36:07You can do that in politics sometimes too.Catherine McKenna36:08 - 36:08Yes, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith36:09 - 36:09Yes, Nate.Catherine McKenna36:09 - 39:32We know about that. Yeah, it was just. So anyway, I left politics. I was not. I do think that what I always worried about more than actually the haters thinking they won. It was that women and women and girls would think I love politics because of all the hate. And once again, I'll just repeat it because it's very important to me. The reason I say the things that happened to me in the book is not because I need sympathy. I don't. We do need change. And I felt when I left, I said I would support women and girls in politics. One of the ways I am doing it is making sure that it is a better place than what I had to put up with. Now, sadly, it's not because it's actually worse now. I hear from counselors. I hear from school board trustees. I hear from all sorts of women in politics, but also men, however you identify. Like, it's bad out there. And it's not just online. It is now offline. People think they can shout at you and scream at you and take a video of it, like put it in the dark web or wherever that goes. So, you know, that's bad. But I feel like, you know, people are like, oh, we got to stop that. And that's what's important. There's a nice letter here. So as I said, I have like random things in here. But there's this lovely gentleman named Luigi. I haven't talked about Luigi yet, have I? So I was at the airport and this gentleman came over to me. And I still get a little nervous when people, because I don't know what people are going to do. Like I probably 99% of them are very nice, but it only takes one percent. So I always get like slightly nervous. And I don't mean to be because I'm actually, as you can see, quite gregarious. I like talking to people, but never exactly sure. And he hands me a note and walks away. And I'm like, oh, God, is this like an exploding letter? Who knows? And I open it and it's in the book. So I'll read you his letter because it actually, I put it towards the end because I think it's really important. because you can see I asked Luigi if I could put his note so his note is here so Ms. McKenna I did not want to disturb you as I thought so I thought I would write this note instead because I identify as a conservative in all likelihood we probably would disagree on many issues I find it quite disturbing the level of abuse that you and many other female politicians must endure. It is unfortunate and unacceptable, and I make a point of speaking out when I see it. I hope that you take consolation in the fact that you and others like you are making it easier for the next generation of women, including my three daughters, Luigi. And I was like, this is like the nicest note. And I think that's also what I hope for my book like I hope people are like yeah we can be we can actually disagree but be normal and you know okay with each other and probably most people are um most people are like Luigi are probably not paying attention but there are people that aren't doing that and I think they're also fed sometimes by politicians themselves um who you know really ratchet things up and attack people personally and And so that's a long answer to I can't even remember the question. But I mean, I left politics and I was done. And that's not related to Luigi, but Luigi is a nice guy.Nate Erskine-Smith39:34 - 41:21It's a I think I've got those are my questions around the book. But I do have a couple of questions on climate policy because you're living and breathing that still. And although it's interesting, you comment about politicians. I mean, there's a deep inauthenticity sometimes where politicians treat it as a game. And there's these attacks for clicks. Or in some cases, especially when the conservatives were riding high in the polls, people were tripping over themselves to try and prove to the center that they could be nasty to and that they could score points and all of that. And so they all want to make cabinet by ratcheting up a certain nastiness. But then cameras get turned off and they turn human beings again to a degree. And so that kind of inauthenticity, I think, sets a real nasty tone for others in politics more generally. But on climate policy, I was in Edmonton for our national caucus meeting. I think I texted you this, but I get scrummed by reporters and they're asking me all climate questions. And I was like, oh, this is nice. I'm getting asked climate questions for a change. this is good. This is put climate back on the radar. And then a reporter says, well, are you concerned about the Carney government backtracking on climate commitments? And I said, well, backtracking on climate commitments. I mean, if you read the book Values, it'd be a very odd thing for us to do. Do you worry that we are backtracking? Do you worry that we're not going to be ambitious enough? Or do you think we're still, we haven't yet seen the climate competitiveness strategy? I mean, you know, here's an opportunity to say we should do much more. I don't know. But are you concerned, just given the dynamic in politics as they're unfolding, that we are not going to get where we need to get?Catherine McKenna41:22 - 42:31I mean, look, I'm like you. You know, first of all, I did get into politics. I wasn't an expert on climate, but I cared about climate because I have kids. Like, we have this truck that's coming for our kids, and I'm a mother, so I'm going to do everything I can. I was in a position that I learned a lot about climate policy, and climate policy is complicated, and you've got to get it right. But look, I mean, you know, Mark Carney knows as much about, you know, climate as an economic issue as anyone. And so, I mean, I'm certainly hopeful that you can take different approaches, but at the end of the day, your climate policy requires you to reduce emissions because climate change isn't a political issue. Of course, it's very political. I'm not going to understate it. I know that as much as anyone. But in the end, the science is the science. We've got to reduce our emissions. And you've probably all heard this rant of mine before, but I will bring up my rant again. I sometimes hear about a grand bargain with oil and gas companies. We did a grand bargain with oil and gas companies.Catherine McKenna42:31 - 42:31How did that work out?Catherine McKenna42:31 - 42:32Yeah.Catherine McKenna42:32 - 42:33How did that work out? Tell us. How did that work out?Catherine McKenna42:33 - 47:27Let me tell you how that worked out. So we were working really hard to get a national climate plan. And I saw it as an obligation of mine to work with provinces to build on the policies they had. The Alberta government had stood, so it was the government of Rachel Notley, but with Murray Edwards, who's the head of one of the oil and gas companies, with environmentalists, with economists, with indigenous peoples, saying, okay, this is the climate plan Alberta's going to do. A cap on emissions from oil and gas. a price on pollution, tough methane regs, and, you know, some other things. And so then we were pushed, and it was really hard. I was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, where we had a climate emergency one day, and then we had a pipeline. The next, I talk about that. That was hard. But the reality is, we felt like that, you know, the Alberta government, we needed to support the NDP Alberta, you know, the NDP government at the time early on. And so then what did we get? Like, where are we right now? We basically, none of the, either those policies are gone or not effective. We got a pipeline at massive taxpayer costs. It's like 500% over. We have oil and gas companies that made historic record profits, largely as a result of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. What did they do with those profits? They said that they were going to invest in climate solutions. They were going to reduce their emissions. They were all in. But instead, they give their CEOs massive, massive historic bonuses. I'm from Hamilton. That's not a thing when you get these massive historic record bonuses. At the same time, they gave the money back to shareholders who were largely Americans. While they demanded more subsidies to clean up their own pollution, while we are in a climate crisis that is a fossil fuel climate crisis. I now feel taken for a fool because I believed that the oil and gas, like in particular, the oil sands would live up to their end of the bargain. You will see in the book also, I don't know, I probably can't find the page fast enough. I did pinky promises with kids because all these kids came up to me all the time and they said, like, I'm really working hard on climate change. You know, I've got a water bottle. I'm riding my bike. I'm doing like a used clothing drive, whatever it was. And I said, you know what? I'm doing my part, too. Let's do a pinky promise like a pinky swear. And we will promise to continue doing our part. Well, we all did our part. By the way, basically everyone in all sectors have done their part except for oil and gas when they had massive historic record profits. And I wrote a report for the UN Secretary General on greenwashing. And they were exhibit A, exhibit A on what greenwashing looks like, like saying you're doing things that you are not doing and while you're lobbying to kill every policy. So I just hope that people aren't taken for fools again. Like the grand bargain should be they should live up with their end of the bargain. Like that is what bargains are. You got to do what you say you were going to do. And they didn't do it. And as a result, it's extremely hard for Canada to meet our target because they are 30% and growing of our emissions. So I also think like, why are we paying? Why would taxpayers pay? So, look, I don't know. Hard things are hard, as my mug says that I was given by my team because I said it every single day, about 12 times a day. You have to make very tough decisions in government. And we're in a trade war. And also defending our we have to absolutely stand up and defend our sovereignty against the Trump regime, which is very dangerous and very destabilizing. but at the same time we can't not act on climate climate is a here and now problem it's not this fire problem like all these people were evacuated from communities the cost of climate change is massive people are not going to be able to be insured that's already happening and so i just think you gotta walk and chew gum you gotta like figure out how to you know build and grow the economy but you also need to figure out how to tackle climate change and reduce your emissions and to be honest, hold the sector that is most responsible for climate change accountable for their actions and also for their words because they said they were going to act on climate and they supported these policies and they are now still fighting to kill all these policies. You almost can't make it up. And I just don't think Canadians should be taken for fools and I think you've got to make a lot of choices with tax dollars. But I'm not in government And I think, you know, we have, you know, Mark Carney, he's very smart. He's doing a great job of defending Canada. You know, I think like everyone, I'm waiting to see what the climate plan is because it's extremely important. And the climate plan is an economic plan as much as anything else.Nate Erskine-Smith47:28 - 48:23And on that, I would say not just an economic plan, but when you talk about national resiliency, there's a promise in our platform to become a clean energy superpower. There's a promise in our platform to create an east-west transmission grid. And just in Ontario, when you look at the fact that not only are they doubling down on natural gas, but they're also importing natural gas from the United States. When solar, wind, storage is actually more cost effective, investments in east-west transmission grid and in clean energy would make a lot more sense, not only for the climate, not only for the economy, but also as a matter of resiliency and energy independence as well. Okay, those are my questions. So thank you for... Give a round of applause for Calvin. Thank you for joining. With the time that we've got left, Christian, we've got, what, 10, 15 minutes? What time is it? Okay, great. Okay, so does anyone have questions for Ms. McKenna?Audience Q48:25 - 49:09It's a question for both of you, actually. You guys have both been trailblazers in your own right, I think, inside and inside of politics. And you talk a lot about building your community and building your team, whether it's swimming or local politics, and also demanding space in those places to be competitive, all the way up from your local team up to the prime minister. But I'm curious on the other side of that, what does it look like to be a good teammate inside and inside of politics, and how do we support more people, for those of us that might not be running, but trying to get more people like you? Or maybe as an example, somebody that supported you in your run?Catherine McKenna49:11 - 49:56well i mean look i'm trying to do my part and so what i did and it's like what most of you did you go support people that you think are good that are running so i in the last election i went and i supported people that i thought were serious about climate including in ridings that we had never won before um and i also well probably especially those writings um and i also supported women candidates that was just a choice I mean but I think everyone getting involved in politics is a great way to do it but also you know when you think there's someone good that might be good to run you know you know talk to them about it and as I said for women they need to be asked often seven times I think is it so like for women maybe just start asking and if we get to the seventh time maybeNate Erskine-Smith49:56 - 51:38really good women will run and I would add I suppose just on locally I have found one, going into schools and talking politics and encouraging people to think about politics as an opportunity has translated into our youth council. It's then translated into our young liberals internship over the summer where we make sure people are able to be paid to knock on doors and just maintain involvement. And then a number of those people come through either our office and then they're working in politics in the minister's office or in the prime minister's office or they're going to law school or they're adjacent to politics and helping other people and just encouraging people to at least be close to politics so that they see politics as a way to make a difference, there will then be people that will want to run from that or help encourage other people to run. The second thing, and I'll use Mark Holland as an example, when I was running the nomination and I didn't have contacts in the party, but I had someone who knew Mark Holland and he gave me advice to think about it like concentric circles when you're running a nomination where you have people who are close to you and then the people who are close to you will have 10 people that are close to them that maybe they can sign them up for you or maybe they just are they open the door and I you know if so if someone opens the door to a conversation with me I feel pretty confident that I can close the sale but if the door is closed in my face I'm not gonna I'm not gonna even have an opportunity to and so just that idea of building out you start with your your home base and you build out from there build out from there so I just think I have in the last week had conversations with two people who want to run for office at some point, they're both under the age of 30, and I've given that same kind of advice of, here's what worked for me. It may work for you, it may not, it depends, but find where your home base is, and then just grow from there. And so I think just spending time, likeAudience Q51:39 - 52:30giving one's time to give advice like that is really important. Yeah. Building on that, that's, I wanted to, because I think that does nicely into what you said earlier, Catherine, about and really encouraging young women in particular to get into politics. But it's not just, it's all the peripheral people, people that are peripheral to politics, your concentric circles, so that you don't necessarily have to run for an office. And I appreciate what you've done for girls. But I also want you to know that, I mean, I'm older than you, and still you are a role model to me. Not only that, though, I have sons in their mid to late 20s. and I've made sure you're a role model and women like you are a role model to them because I think that's how change begins.Nate Erskine-Smith52:32 - 52:34This was entirely planted just for you, by the way.Catherine McKenna52:35 - 52:37No, but I think that's...Nate Erskine-Smith52:37 - 52:40So I do think that's important, right?Catherine McKenna52:40 - 53:26My book is not... Run Like a Girl, I'm a woman, I identify as a woman and there's a story about how I was told I ran like a girl and so it really bugged me. So it's kind of a particular thing. But I think that is important. Like, you know, this isn't exclusive. Although, you know, there are, you know, certain different barriers, at least that I'm aware of, you know, that if you're a woman, if you're LGBTQ2+, if you're racialized or indigenous, there could be different barriers. But I hear you. And I think, you know, we do have to inspire each other in a whole range of ways. So that is very nice. I hope that, I mean, I'm not, you know, looking to, you know, you know, for kudos. I really, but it is nice to hear that you can inspire people in a whole different way, you know, range of ways.Audience Q53:26 - 53:47It's really, yeah, it's really not about kudos. It's about, you know, it's not that my intent is not just to applaud you. It's just, it's to, it's to recognize you. And that's different, like being seen, holding place, holding space for people to be involved. And so I do have one actual question of this.Catherine McKenna53:48 - 53:50You can ask a question after that.Audience Q53:51 - 53:57Regarding pricing, carbon pricing, how would you communicate the rollout differently?Catherine McKenna53:58 - 54:43Well, I would actually fund it. So hard things at heart, I'm like, okay, well, first of all, we know the Conservatives were terrible. They lied about it. They misled. They didn't talk about the money going back. The problem is, like, we hampered ourselves too. And it was really quite weird because I was like, okay, well, we need an advertising budget because clearly this is a bit of a complicated policy. But the most important thing I need people to know is that we're tackling climate change and we're doing it in a way that we're going to leave low income and middle income people better off. You're going to get more money back. That's very, very important. The second part of the message is as important because I knew the conservatives were going to be like, you're just increasing the price of everything. But we were told we couldn't advertise. And I was like, why? And they said, well, because we're not like conservatives because they had done the, what was the plan?Nate Erskine-Smith54:43 - 54:51The economic action plan. The signs everywhere. They basically, what Ford does now, they were doing it.Catherine McKenna54:51 - 57:40So that sounds really good, except if you're me. Because I was like, well, no one really knows about it. So I'm like one person. And we got some caucus members, not all of them. But Nate will go out and talk about it. Some people will talk about it. But I said, people are entitled to know what government policy is, especially in this particular case, where you've literally got to file your taxes to get the rebate. Because that was the second mistake we made. I was told that we couldn't just do quarterly checks, which would be much more obvious to people, even if it was automatically deposited, you actually named it properly, which was another problem. But, you know, all of these things that are just normal things. And instead, we were told, I was told by the folks in the Canada Revenue Agency, there's no way we could possibly do quarterly checks. after COVID, when we did everything, we blew everything up, then they were like, oh, actually, and this was after me, but they were like, we can do quarterly chaps. I was like, well, that's really helpful. Like, that would have been nice, like a little bit longer, you know, like the beginning of this. And so I think like, we do need to be sometimes very tough, like, don't do things that sound great and are not, are really hampering your ability to actually deliver a policy in a way that people understand. So like, it's just a hard policy. Like, you know, people say, would you have done, what would you have done differently? Yes, I would have communicated it differently. I tried. Like, I was out there. I went to H&R Block because I saw a sign, and they were like, climate action incentive. Oh, by the way, we couldn't call it a rebate because the lawyers told us injustice. We couldn't do that, and I'm a lawyer. I was like, what? And so I should have fought that one harder too, right? Like, I mean, there's so many fights you can have internally as well, but, you know, there I am. I was like, oh, H&R Block, they're doing free advertising for us because they wanted people to file their taxes, so then I would make, I said to all caucus members, you need to go to your HR block and get a family. I don't even want to see you necessarily. I want a family to be sitting down being told they're getting money back. And, and so like, look, I think it's just a hard policy. And, and what happened though, I mean, read hard things are hard, but the chapter, but it's, um, and people will be like, I'm definitely not reading that chapter. You can skip chapters. This book is like, go back and forth, rip things out. I don't, you don't have to read it in chronological order or read particular chapters. But was if the price is going to go up every year, every year you better be ready to fight for it because every year you're literally creating this conflict point where conservatives are like, they're on it. They're like spending so much tax dollars to mislead people. Remember the stickers on the pump that fell off? That was quite funny. They actually fell off. But you're going to have to fight for it. And so we just, it's a hard, it's a very hard policy. I did everything I could. And I don't live with life with regrets. I think it was really important. And by the way, it's a case study outside of Canada.Catherine McKenna57:41 - 57:42Everyone's like, Canada.Catherine McKenna57:42 - 57:52I was like, oh, yeah, there is like a little different ending than you might want to know about what happened. But they're like, yes, this is, of course, how we should do it. Should be a price on pollution. Give the money back.Nate Erskine-Smith57:52 - 58:38I went to a movie at the Beach Cinema with my kids. And there was an ad. This is years ago. But there was an ad. So we were advertising. But it was advertising about the environment climate plan. and it was like people in canoes. And I was like, what is this trying to, like we're spending how much money on this to tell me what exactly? And I went to, Stephen was the minister, and I went, Stephen, can we please advertise Carbon Pricing Works, it's 10 plus percent of our overall plan, and 80% of people get more money back or break even. Just tell people those three things, I don't need the canoe. and then he was like oh we can't we we they tell it they tell us we can't do it no no and that'sCatherine McKenna58:38 - 58:55what you're often told like it is kind of weird internally the amount of times you're told no like on advertising it is a particular thing because like and so then you're like having a fight about comms i was like oh my gosh can we don't think the canoe is going to win this carbon and it didn't turns out i love canoeing by the way so maybe it would have convinced me if i wasNate Erskine-Smith58:55 - 59:01i think last question we'll finish with that with maryland hi i'm maryland and i also happen to beAudience Q59:01 - 01

Political leaders in Europe must boost availability of cheap energy and deregulate or risk deeper deindustrialization, according to Peter Huntsman, CEO of Huntsman.  -      AI will require vast amounts of cheap energy, Europe disadvantaged-      EU energy policies have closed access to huge reserves of oil and gas-      Europe has outsourced manufacturing, often to more polluting regions-      CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) does not work, increases costs of imported raw materials-      Tackle climate change through use of innovative materials, nuclear fusion-      Tariffs are hurting any nascent economic recovery-      Don't expect strong economic bounce back in 2026-      US reshoring will drive industrial and chemicals demand -      China-driven overcapacity will persist for several yearsICIS journalist Will Beacham interviews Peter Huntsman, CEO of Huntsman

Is the Green Deal dead or is it just resting? Does it make sense for Europe to create ambitious climate goals without the United States and China? And what should we know about climate-focused industrial partnerships of the European Union? Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Susi Dennison, a Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), where she acts as Chief of Staff to the Director and leads the European Power programme as well as the organizational growth and transformation process. Her topics of focus include strategy, politics and cohesion in European foreign policy; climate and energy, migration, and the toolkit for Europe as a global actor. Tune in for their talk! This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.

Send me a messageIn this week's episode of the Climate Confident Podcast, I sit down with Dr. Gary Yohe, one of the world's leading climate economists, long-time IPCC author, and a member of the Nobel Peace Prize, winning IPCC team of 2007. Gary has spent over four decades shaping how we understand climate change, not just as an environmental issue, but as a fundamental risk management challenge.We explore his powerful framework: abate, adapt, or suffer. These are, he argues, the only three choices humanity has left, and crucially, some level of suffering is now unavoidable. Mitigation slows the pace of warming, adaptation reduces impacts, but neither can eliminate all risks. The insurance crisis unfolding in California and beyond shows what happens when climate risks become uninsurable, raising the threat of financial instability on a global scale.Gary also reminds us that climate decisions must be iterative. Policies cannot be fixed for 100 years; they must evolve as science, technology, and risk tolerance change. He illustrates this with striking examples, from New York's evacuation planning after Hurricane Sandy to San Francisco's flexible approach to sea-level rise.Yet, despite the scale of the challenge, Gary insists on hope, not blind optimism, but the conviction, as Václav Havel wrote, that action makes sense regardless of outcome. It's this perspective that has kept him, and many others, working relentlessly on solutions for over 40 years.If you want to understand why climate change is ultimately a risk management problem, why insurance, finance, and resilience are inseparable, and why hope is a strategy we can't do without, this episode is essential listening.Podcast supportersI'd like to sincerely thank this podcast's amazing subscribers: Ben Gross Jerry Sweeney Andreas Werner Stephen Carroll Roger Arnold And remember you too can Subscribe to the Podcast - it is really easy and hugely important as it will enable me to continue to create more excellent Climate Confident episodes like this one, as well as give you access to the entire back catalog of Climate Confident episodes.ContactIf you have any comments/suggestions or questions for the podcast - get in touch via direct message on Twitter/LinkedIn. If you liked this show, please don't forget to rate and/or review it. It makes a big difference to help new people discover the show. CreditsMusic credits - Intro by Joseph McDade, and Outro music for this podcast was composed, played, and produced by my daughter Luna Juniper

Is “pragmatism” a good principle when it comes to tackling climate change? What does this big buzzword adopted by the Prime Minister and others in his government even mean, anyway? As the Canadian Climate Institute concludes there's no way Canada will meet its emission reduction targets for 2030 or even 2035, our expert panel dives into the disconnect between the country's net-zero targets and the lack of a clear, short-term plan to get there. West of Centre host Kathleen Petty is joined by Bill Whitelaw, executive director of Rextag; climate policy strategist Jeremy van Loon; and Globe and Mail energy reporter Emma Graney. They examine the effectiveness of key initiatives, including the Pathways Alliance carbon capture project, the evolution of industrial carbon pricing, and how the concept of “pragmatism” fits into the politics of it all. Host: Kathleen Petty | Producer & editor: Diane Yanko | Guests: Bill Whitelaw, Emma Graney, Jeremy van Loon

Annika Reynolds, National Climate Policy Advisor with the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), talks about some important recent developments in Australia's climate policy. These include approval for Woodside to extend the life of its North West shelf gas project by 40 years, the release of the national Climate Risk Assessment report, and the setting of Australia's emissions reduction target for 2035.At this point, our federal government is falling short of policies and decisions to avert the worst climate catastrophe for future generations. It is time for the government to act on the scientific evidence, and for us to take collective action to hold it to account. LinksNational Climate Risk AssessmentAustralian Conservation Foundation (ACF)

Kea Nonyana from Scope Prime unpacks Trump's comments at the UN General Assembly. Cassidy Nydahl from Franc introduces a new tool designed to bring financial order to SA's hustlers and gig workers. Old Mutual's Izak Odendaal weighs in on the outlook for US and SA interest rates.

David Gelles, reporter on the New York Times climate team and the Times's Climate Forward newsletter and author of Dirtbag Billionaire: How Yvon Chouinard Built Patagonia, Made a Fortune, and Gave It All Away (Simon & Schuster, 2025), talks about New York City Climate Week and the challenge of several developing nations who are facing the challenges of a changing climate without the support of the United States, since the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement.

Auditors are billed as carbon market watchdogs. But conflicts of interest may undermine their credibility. --- The voluntary carbon market is poised for rapid growth, with airlines soon required to use offsets for international flights and pressure building on other industries to follow suit. But recent studies show many offsets fail to deliver real climate benefits, raising doubts about their credibility. Independent offset auditors are promoted as the guarantors of trust, yet their role is shaped by systemic conflicts of interest that make true accountability difficult. Former EPA enforcement chief Cynthia Giles and Penn Law’s Cary Coglianese explore the flaws at the heart of offset auditing—and what they could mean for the future of the offset industry. Cynthia Giles was the senate-confirmed head of EPA’s enforcement office all eight years of the Obama administration. She wrote a book about making environmental rules more effective, titled Next Generation Compliance: Environmental Regulation for the Modern Era, published by Oxford University Press. During the Biden administration she worked on climate regulations as a senior advisor in the Air office. Cary Coglianese is the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where he is also the founding director of the Penn Program on Regulation. He has taught and studied environmental and regulatory law and policy for more than thirty years, and is a member of the advisory committee for the university’s Penn Climate initiative as well as the Water Center at Penn. Related Content: The Crisis of Confidence in Voluntary Carbon Offsets https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/podcast/the-crisis-of-confidence-in-voluntary-carbon-offsets/ Has Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme Taken Away a Country’s Ability to Reduce Emissions? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/has-europes-emissions-trading-scheme-taken-away-a-countrys-ability-to-reduce-emissions/ Third-Party Auditing Cannot Guarantee Carbon Offset Credibility https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5345783 Auditors Cannot Save Carbon Offsets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ady4864 Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is rolling back climate policies and ramping up oil and gas production, all while experts are warning that Canada isn't going to reach its 2030 emissions targets. We unpack what's going on with Mark Carney's climate policies — and what it means for the future of our economy, and environment.

In this episode, we talk about how changes in the Arctic region are influencing Asian climate patterns, including monsoons, and the effects on communities in some of the world's most populated regions.Moderating the session was Manish Tiwari, Scientist F at the National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research.This conversation was recorded live at the Arctic Circle India Forum, held in New Delhi on May 3–4, 2025, and is part of the Polar Dialogue.Arctic Circle is the largest network of international dialogue and cooperation on the future of the Arctic. It is an open democratic platform with participation from governments, organizations, corporations, universities, think tanks, environmental associations, Indigenous communities, concerned citizens, and others interested in the development of the Arctic and its consequences for the future of the globe. It is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization. Learn more about Arctic Circle at www.ArcticCircle.org or contact us at secretariat@arcticcircle.orgTWITTER:@_Arctic_CircleFACEBOOK:The Arctic CircleINSTAGRAM:arctic_circle_org

In this GARAGE edition of The Court of Public Opinion, Jeremy Cordeaux reflects on the tragic memorial for Charlie Kirk, the rising global threat from Vladimir Putin, and shocking youth violence in Victoria. He tackles Optus’ alleged failures linked to lives lost, Australia’s collapsing fertility rate, and the $23 million national climate risk assessment. Jeremy challenges Labour’s emissions policies, rising energy prices, and the push for renewables, while questioning political accountability. He also shares lighter notes on history, anniversaries, and listener contributions. Topics Covered; Memorial for Charlie Kirk and reflections on his impact. Putin’s aggression with fighter jets in Estonian airspace. Sudanese youth gang violence in Victoria. Optus outage and alleged failure of triple zero call redirection. Corporate responsibility vs. shareholders when companies fail. Australia’s fertility rate falling below replacement level. Criticism of the $23 million national Climate Risk Assessment. Labour’s emissions targets and renewable energy debate. Rising electricity prices and government accountability. Historical anniversaries (The Jetsons, Thomas Cook collapse, Freud, etc.). Light commentary: pub promotion, art auctions, birthdays. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AI slop shownotes as usual. Enjoy! Opening Segment (00:00 - 02:00)Personal catch-up between the hostsHong Kong Jack celebrates a major birthday in Macau with surprise family visitDiscussion of Hong Kong-Macau travel via new bridge/tunnel (1 hour 20 minutes door-to-door)Major Discussion TopicsAustralian Politics - Coalition Crisis (02:00 - 15:30)Key Points:Polling disaster: Coalition at 27% approval rating, Labor leads 58-42 two-party preferredElectoral wipeout: Liberal Party holds minimal metropolitan seats across major citiesParty structure collapse: Lack of grassroots organization compared to historical ALP branchesDemographic breakdown: Libs losing women, young people, multicultural communities (except 65+ voters)Leadership pressure: Susan Ley facing potential challenge, comparisons to "Brendan Nelson months"Policy tensions: Net zero commitments causing internal fracturesNotable Quote: Troy Bramston - "There is no guarantee the Liberal Party will survive"Climate Policy and Net Zero Debate (07:10 - 14:40)Key Points:National Climate Risk Assessment Report findings:400% increase in heat-related mortality in Sydney2.7 million work days lost by 2061 due to heatwaves$600 billion property value losses by 2050$40 billion annual natural disaster costsPublic opinion: 77% of Australians want government climate actionPolitical implications: Andrew Hastie threatens to quit front bench over net zero policyInternational context: UK Tories' experience with climate policy costsVictorian Politics - Liberal Party Internal Struggles (21:00 - 26:00)Key Points:Philip Davis survives challenge from Greg Mirabella for Liberal Party State DirectorDiscussion of Labor government vulnerabilities despite Liberal Party dysfunctionAnalysis of "machete bins" controversy and opposition messaging failuresUnited States - Charlie Kirk Assassination (26:50 - 33:00)Key Points:Tyler Robertson (22) charged with Kirk's murderDiscussion of political discourse breakdown in AmericaSocial media radicalization of young menCriticism of premature political speculation (Barry Cassidy example)International AffairsUS-Korea Relations Crisis (33:15 - 36:50)ICE raid on 300 South Korean workers in Georgia battery facilityOnly one Korean worker chose to stay after offered returnImplications for US foreign investment attractivenessUK Political Upheaval (40:25 - 58:15)Major Topics:Tommy Robinson Rally: 100,000+ protesters in LondonImmigration tensions: 50,000 asylum seekers annuallyStarmer's crisis: Peter Mandelson appointment controversy (Jeffrey Epstein connections)Leadership challenges: Calls for Starmer's resignation from both left and rightConservative Party collapse: Danny Kruger defects to Reform UKFrance - Government Instability (62:30 - 64:00)Sébastien Le Corneau named new PM after confidence voteBudget crisis and spending control issuesMiddle East - Israel-US Tensions (64:00 - 67:30)Netanyahu takes responsibility for Al-Yudid airbase incidentDiscussion of Arab neighbors' role in regional solutionsQatari investment commitments to US ($3.3 trillion over decade)Sports Coverage (67:30 - 79:00)Spring Racing Carnival PreviewDiscussion of Melbourne Cup preparation and "pagan fertility festival" atmosphereNRL Finals AnalysisRaiders vs Broncos "golden point" thriller described as exceptional rugby leagueMelbourne, Sharks, Panthers, and Brisbane assessment for finalsAFL Finals PredictionsPreliminary Finals Preview:Hawthorn vs Geelong (favor Geelong by 20 points)Collingwood vs Brisbane (favor Collingwood)Praise for Josh Weddle (Hawthorn) and Jai Newcombe's finals performancesClosing Segment - Literary Humor (79:00 - 82:30)H.L. Mencken Epitaph: "If after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl"Spike Milligan Epitaph: "See, I told you I wasn't well"Proposed Episode Titles"Coalition Collapse: The Liberal Party's Existential Crisis""From Polls to Protest: Democracy Under Pressure""The Unraveling: Political Upheaval Across Three Continents""27% and Falling: When Political Parties Face Extinction""Net Zero, Net Loss: Climate Politics Reshaping the Right"Contact InformationTwitter: @JacktheInsiderEmail: ConditionerReleaseProgram@gmail.comEpisode Duration: 1 hour 22 minutes

Longtime national political advisor John Podesta shared his insights on climate policy, the challenges of securing bipartisan support, and the global push toward clean energy in this episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.”

The energy expert says Australia's only on track to cut its emissions by around 50% by 2035 – 'so we're going to have to step up the pace' in the next decade.Mentioned in this episode:Sign up to The Conversation's newsletterhttps://theconversation.com/au/newsletters

The government is set to release a new carbon emissions target, dumping the 2030 ambition for a new 2035 goal.But how much of the process is about the climate and how much is pure politics? Today, ABC finance expert Alan Kohler on this week's dire climate risk assessment, and what our new target will really achieve.Featured:Alan Kohler, ABC Finance presenter

From community-led forest conservation in Odisha to negotiating at the United Nations, Archana Soreng embodies how lived experience can reshape global climate policy. An Indigenous climate leader from India's Kharia tribe, Archana served on the UN Secretary-General's Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change (2020–2023), is a Skoll World Forum Fellow (2024), and sits on The Rockefeller Foundation's Climate Advisory Council. She works at the intersection of Indigenous knowledge, youth leadership, and climate governance, advocating for policies that honour land rights, protect biodiversity, and include those most affected in decision-making. In this episode, Archana shares how her community's traditions of forest conservation and sustainable living shaped her vision for climate justice. She explains why free, prior and informed consent and genuine participation are essential, and how poorly designed mitigation like ill-planned plantations or large solar projects can harm adaptation and livelihoods. Drawing on her experience from village gatherings to UN climate negotiations, she reflects on overcoming tokenistic representation, breaking barriers to climate finance for youth and Indigenous groups, and the importance of mental well-being in long struggles for environmental justice. From safeguarding culture and language to influencing national climate commitments, Archana offers a grounded, hopeful blueprint for policymakers, funders, and young leaders working toward an inclusive and sustainable climate future.

Our western (Trauma Culture) economies run on two falsehoods - we might go so far as to call them lies. The first is that economies have to grow to be 'successful'.  The second is that government spending is limited by the tax take.  That is, they need to take money in as taxes in order to spend it out into the economy.  Both of these are untrue, and understanding that they are untrue, and the political forces of ignorance and mendacity that keep them in place, is essential to our moving forward into a future that works. We cannot continue to maintain the death cult of predatory capitalism. We cannot continue with a Zombie economy that extracts, consumes, destroys and pollutes as if there were no consequences.  So what do we do? Both ecological economics and Modern Monetary Theory have been around for a while.  Degrowth theory is more recent, but it's being taken more seriously. What I haven't seen up till now is a fusion of these: a set of policy ideas worked out in which we acknowledge how money actually works, and look at how a national -or global - economy could be structured to lead us forward into a world where people and planet flourish together. I don't think this is the final destination, but it's definitely a step on the way. Our guest this week is someone particularly well positioned to answer these questions.  Colleen Schneider is a Doctoral student in Social-Ecological Economics & Policy in Vienna. Her key research areas: Ecological Economics, Environmental Justice, Monetary and Financial Systems in a Post-Growth Economy, Climate Policy.  She says, "I take a sociological and anthropological approach to understanding money as fundamentally a social relation. Money, and the monetary system (as with our economic system) are things we've created, and can create otherwise. I draw on historical examples to help understand how the institutional structure of the monetary system and our ideas about money came to be what they are, and to challenge those. [I seek to] de-naturalize money and point to ways to structure the monetary system as democratized, and (at least somewhat) localized -to realize money as a public good. I focus more specifically on how monetary and fiscal policy can be directed toward meeting human needs within environmental limits, while maintaining macroeconomic stability."So this is the focus of today's conversation.  This is a field about which I am passionate - I absolutely believe that if everyone understood how money actually works in our current world, a lot of the power inequities that we currently experience would end.  We have endeavoured to minimise the use of jargon, though we did talk about monetary and fiscal policy and I wanted to make it clear that Monetary Policy is about keeping prices stable - about using interest rates to influence inflation, that kind of thing . Fiscal policy is about the spending decisions - do we have austerity or don't we, do we fund social goods or don't we, do we decide to pour money into the military, or don't we… and the nature of taxation - what rates do we levy, what are the bands and what loopholes do we leave wide open so our friends can escape paying taxes altogether - while everyone continues to pretend that government spending is limited by the tax take. Which is nonsense. Taxation is about levelling the playing field. It's not about paying for the NHS. So there we go. Colleen spends her entire life working in this field, producing fascinating papers and a chapter in a forthcoming book that completely blew me away. So she speaks to these things far more eloquently and intelligently than I can.  Enjoy! Colleen on LinkedInColleen's papers: How to Pay for Saving the World - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923002318Democratizing the Monetary Provisioning System - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15487733.2024.2344305On universal public services to end the cost of living crisis - https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/economic-growth/cost-of-living-crisis/2023/01/state-end-cost-of-living-crisis-climate-changePapers by others:The political response to Inflation: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/mexico/governments-survived-inflationWorkshops:Public Money for Public Good: Why MMT Matters | ViennaSeptember 27th and 28th Gleis 21, Bloch-Bauer-Promenade 22, 1100 Wien, Austriahttps://events.humanitix.com/public-money-mmt-vienna Public Money for Public Good: Why MMT Matters | Sheffield(Colleen is not a part of this one, but says that wonderful people are running it!)September 20th and 21st https://events.humanitix.com/public-money-mmt-sheffieldRegenerative Economy Lab - Money and Finance WorkshopVienna, October 23rd and 24thhttps://www.regenecon.eu/Online masters program on which Colleen teaches - grounded jointly in ecological economics and modern monetary theory: https://www.torrens.edu.au/studying-with-us/employability/industry-led-learning/co-delivery-partners/modern-money-labDocumentary 'Finding the Money'. https://findingmoneyfilm.com/MMT group based in the UK : https://modernmoneylab.org.uk/What we offer: Accidental Gods, Dreaming Awake and the Thrutopia Writing Masterclass If you'd like to join our next Open Gathering offered by our Accidental Gods Programme it's  'Dreaming Your Death Awake' (you don't have to be a member) it's on 2nd November - details are here.If you'd like to join us at Accidental Gods, this is the membership where we endeavour to help you to connect fully with the living web of life. If you'd like to train more deeply in the contemporary shamanic work at Dreaming Awake, you'll find us here. If you'd like to explore the recordings from our last Thrutopia Writing Masterclass, the details are here

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act reorients U.S. energy policy, redefining its rivalry with China and the global transition. --- Once, climate and clean energy were common ground between the United States and China, most notably in the lead-up to the 2015 Paris Agreement. In the years since, cooperation has given way to competition. China has emerged as the global leader in clean energy manufacturing, while the U.S.—under the Biden administration—moved to catch up through the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act has set a very different course. The law rolls back many clean energy incentives, puts new emphasis on fossil fuels and emerging technologies like advanced nuclear and certain hydrogen sources, and sharpens trade and supply chain tensions with China through expanded tariffs and Foreign Entity of Concern restrictions. What does this shift mean for U.S.–China relations, American competitiveness, and the global energy transition? Scott Moore, director of China programs and strategic initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania, joins Energy Policy Now to unpack the stakes. A leading expert on U.S.–China relations, Moore offers perspective on how Trump’s policies could reshape the balance of power between the world’s two largest economies. Scott Moore is Practice Professor of Political Science, and Director of China Programs and Strategic Initiatives, at the University of Pennsylvania. Related Content Climate Action in the Age of Great Power Rivalry: What Geopolitics Means for the Climate https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/climate-action-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry-what-geopolitics-means-for-the-climate/ Mitigating Climate Change Through Green Investments https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/mitigating-climate-change-through-green-investments/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Greener Way, host Michelle Baltazar speaks with Frankie Muskovic, the newly appointed Executive Director of Policy at the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC). Frankie shares her unique journey from an engineering background to the forefront of climate policy. She shares key priorities that the IGCC brought to a recent governmental round table discussion, emphasising the need for ambitious climate targets for 2050, the economic benefits of decarbonisation, and effective policy implementation for sustainable investment. Frankie also discusses Australia's role in global climate action and the importance of partnerships in driving impactful reform.IGCC 2025 conference link: https://igcc.org.au/event/igcc-summit-2025-climate-investment-insights-for-the-asia-pacific/Frankie's podcast: https://www.letmesumup.net/and LinkedIn contact infoThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Monday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) Complete Lack of Interest/Defection Season/As for the Other Seasons.../You Don't Have to Be on the Spectrum to Work Here, But.../Nobody Likes a TailgaterSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send me a messageIn this replay episode of the Climate Confident podcast, I revisit one of the most urgent and eye-opening conversations I've hosted - my conversation with Tzeporah Berman, Chair and Founder of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.We dig into the uncomfortable truth: while governments champion renewables and set emissions targets, fossil fuel exploration and extraction are still expanding at a pace that locks in climate chaos. Tzeporah explains why climate policy has largely ignored the supply side of the equation, how subsidies distort markets, and why the Paris Agreement doesn't even mention fossil fuels. Her insight is blunt, what we build today will be what we use tomorrow.Tzeporah outlines the vision for a Fossil Fuel Treaty, modelled on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that could create international rules to phase out production fairly and equitably. We explore the role of debt-for-renewables swaps for the Global South, how equity must be baked into any transition, and why simply building “the good stuff” without constraining “the bad stuff” will never deliver climate safety.We also discuss how to shift public perception, challenge the fossil industry's greenwashing, and confront the false comfort of net zero targets. Tzeporah makes it clear: action is the antidote to despair, and citizens have more power than they think.This is not just a debate about emissions, but about survival, justice, and reshaping the rules of the global economy. If you care about ending fossil fuel expansion, ensuring a just transition, and accelerating real climate solutions, this episode is essential listening.

For the month of August, we’re highlighting episodes from the 2024-2025 season of Energy Policy Now. We’ll be back with new content, and a new season, on September the 9th. Former Republican U.S. congressman Bob Inglis offers a conservative perspective on climate solutions in discussion with Penn climatologist Michael Mann. --- (This episode was recorded on February 13, 2025, during Penn Energy Week) Politically conservative and concerned about climate change? In this special episode of the Energy Policy Now podcast, Penn climatologist Michael Mann talks with Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina and current executive director of RepublicEN.org, about bridging the partisan climate divide. In a wide-ranging conversation recorded live during Energy Week at Penn 2025 at the University of Pennsylvania, Mann and Inglis discuss a conservative view on climate change, how conservative messaging on climate has evolved over time, and how common solutions might be found in an era of partisan climate divide. Inglis also offers his view on carbon pricing and strategies to reign in carbon emissions in the U.S. The conversation is moderated by Sanya Carley, faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Bob Inglis is a former U.S. representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. He is the executive director of RepublicanEn.org at George Mason University. Michael Mann is director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. Sanya Carley is the Mark Alan Hughes faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Important note on the conversation: Due to a technical problem, the first two minutes of Bob Inglis’ conversation are difficult to hear (from 5:40 to 7:40). We’ve transcribed those two minutes in the show notes, below, to make it easier to follow along. A full transcript of this and all Energy Policy Now podcasts is available on the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy website. Bob Inglis (5:40): Yeah, so for my first six years in Congress I said that climate change is nonsense. All I knew was that Al Gore was for it. And as much as I represented Greenville-Spartanburg South Carolina, that was the end of the inquiry. Okay, pretty ignorant. But that’s the way it was my first six years. Out of Congress six years, as you just heard, doing commercial real estate law again and then, had the opportunity to run for the same seat again before, our son had just turned 18, so he was voting for the first time, and he came to me and he said, dad, I’ll vote for you. But you’re going to clean up your act on the environment. His four sisters agreed, his mother agreed. New constituency, you know. So you got to respond to those people who can change the locks on the doors to your house, you know. So, very important to respond to these people. And so that was step one of a three step metamorphosis. Step two was going to Antarctica with the [House of Representatives] Science Committee and seeing the evidence in the iceberg drillings. Step three was another Science Committee trip and, um, really a spiritual awakening which seems improbable, right, on a godless Science Committee trip, because we all know that all scientists are godless. Right? Well, apparently not. Because this Aussie climate scientist was showing me the glories of the Great Barrier Reef. I could see he was worshipping God in what he was showing me. You know, St. Francis of Assisi supposedly said “preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words.” So Scott Heron, this Aussie climate scientist who’s now become a very dear friend was doing that. I could see it in his eyes, it was written all over his face. It was in his excitement about what he was showing me. He was clearly worshipping God. So I knew we shared a world view. Forty words were spoken. Related Content How Identity Politics Shape U.S. Energy Policy https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/podcast/how-identity-politics-shape-u-s-energy-policy/ Climate Action in the Age of Great Power Rivalry: What Geopolitics Means for Climate https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/climate-action-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry-what-geopolitics-means-for-the-climate/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.eduSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Trump administration's effort to repeal EPA's endangerment finding, the legal foundation for federal climate rules, sets up a high-stakes fight that could hinge on the Supreme Court's willingness to overturn a key decision it made in 2007. POLITICO's Zack Colman breaks down the potential legal battle, how today's Supreme Court could reshape federal environmental law, and why Republicans see political upside even if the effort fails. Plus, President Donald Trump nominated Ho Nieh to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of former Democratic Chair Christopher Hanson's term. Zack Colman covers climate change for POLITICO.  Nirmal Mulaikal is the co-host and producer of POLITICO Energy.  Alex Keeney is a senior audio producer at POLITICO.  Gloria Gonzalez is the deputy energy editor for POLITICO.  Matt Daily is the energy editor for POLITICO. For more news on energy and the environment, subscribe to Power Switch, our free evening newsletter: https://www.politico.com/power-switch And for even deeper coverage and analysis, read our Morning Energy newsletter by subscribing to POLITICO Pro: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletter-archive/morning-energy Music courtesy of www.epidemicsound.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A powerful 8.8 magnitude earthquake off Russia's east coast—the sixth strongest ever recorded—sparks mass evacuations and tsunami alerts across the Pacific, including Hawaii, California, and Alaska. As the world watches nature's fury, political tensions rise stateside. In a fiery segment, hosts criticize climate policy and hail Trump's move to repeal the Obama-era “climate holy grail” finding on greenhouse gases. The discussion ties America's declining manufacturing power and energy struggles to foreign influence, claiming U.S. climate science is being steered by China and Russia to undermine national strength.

In this week's episode, host Daniel Rami talks with Heather Zichal, global head of sustainability at JPMorganChase, about the role of financial institutions in the energy transition. Zichal explains how she has advanced climate policy goals from positions in the United States Congress, the executive branch, nonprofits, and the financial sector. From these diverse perspectives, Zichal outlines the opportunities and challenges for climate-policy stakeholders as they navigate an uncertain political environment. Zichal highlights how financial institutions support the energy transition through green finance commitments, supporting clients' sustainability goals, and investing in emerging technologies to support the world's energy needs. Zichal underscores the importance of promoting climate solutions that focus on long-term value in the context of commercial and sustainability goals and that balance environmental and business priorities. References and recommendations: “Ocean” with David Attenborough; https://silverbackfilms.tv/shows/oceanwithdavidattenborough/

In this episode of Hi, Energy! We learn about local clean energy projects and how they support a larger and greener statewide vision for California. He is joined by Heather Repenning, Vice President, Account Manager and Resilience Lead at Jacobs, and the former Executive Officer for Sustainability at LA Metro where she led efforts to support clean transportation and reduce emissions within LA Metro's capital expansion program. Heather and Esteban talk about the way design choices made by local governments impact the choices we make as we travel through southern California. They also discuss the opportunities for sustainable development leading up to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic games, and some of Heather's favorite LA and climate books.  Additional References from the podcast: Books The Day of the Locust by Nathanael West The Disaster Tourist by Yun Ko-Eun  Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster by Mike Davis City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles by Mike Davis  Articles Here is the syllabus to the climate policy course Heather teaches at USC  Podcasts  People mentioned Walter Moseley James Elroy Cyclavia LA 2025 LA Compost New episodes of Hi, Energy are coming out every month. So check out our Instagram and subscribe to the show on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts or visit https://socalren.org/about/podcasts for full episodes and highlight reels coming soon. Follow us at: https://socalren.org/ Instagram Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Send me a messageIs climate doomism stopping us from acting? In this episode, I speak with climate economist Michael Jakob, author of The Case Against Climate Doom, about why despair is not just unhelpful, it's inaccurate.We explore the real economic tipping points that are accelerating decarbonisation: plummeting costs for solar, wind, storage, and EVs. Michael argues that the shift to clean tech isn't about idealism, it's about basic economics. When renewables are cheaper and more reliable, adoption becomes inevitable.We dig into the role of carbon pricing, the importance of framing climate action around opportunity, not sacrific, and the political realities holding back faster policy change. Michael also shares examples from countries like Ethiopia and Vietnam, where rapid transitions are already underway.We talk about the limitations of international climate negotiations, the growing role of culture in shaping climate awareness, and why fear alone doesn't drive actio, agency does.If you're working in business, policy, or sustainability, this conversation offers a critical reframing: the future is still in our hands, and in many places, it's already arriving faster than expected.

Join energy expert Jason Isaac as he reveals how global agreements like the Paris Accords are undermining American prosperity and energy independence. Discover why net-zero pushes are raising utility bills, shifting industry overseas, and even threatening U.S. national security. Isaac argues that energy poverty solutions lie beneath our feet and calls out the dangers of political agendas and “climate lawfare.” Tune in for an eye-opening look at what these policies mean for your wallet, your freedom, and America's future.

It's official. On July 4, President Trump signed the Republican reconciliation bill into law, gutting many of the country's most significant clean energy tax credits. The future of the American solar, wind, battery, and electric vehicle industries looks very different now than it did last year.On this week's episode of Shift Key, we survey the damage and look for bright spots. What did the law, in its final version, actually repeal, and what did it leave intact? How much could still change as the Trump administration implements the law? What does this mean for U.S. economic competitiveness? And how are we feeling about the climate fight today? Jillian Goodman, Heatmap's deputy editor, joins us to discuss all these questions and more. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap's executive editor. Mentioned:The REPEAT Project report on what the OBBBA will mean for the future of American emissionsThe Bipartisan Policy Center's foreign entities of concern explainerThe new White House executive order about renewables tax credits And here's more of Heatmap's coverage from the endgame of OBBBA.--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …The Yale Center for Business and the Environment's online clean energy programs equip you with tangible skills and powerful networks—and you can continue working while learning. In just five hours a week, propel your career and make a difference.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Mark Jacobson is a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere Energy Program at Stanford University, where he's been one of the most vocal advocates for powering the world entirely with wind, water, and solar energy. No nuclear, no carbon capture, no fossil fuels of any kind. His research team has created 100% renewable energy roadmaps for all 50 U.S. states and 149 countries, helping shape policies like New York's clean energy mandate. In this episode, Dr. Jacobson shares his perspective on where we are in the renewables adoption curve and explains why he believes that technologies like nuclear power, carbon capture, and biofuels aren't just unnecessary, they're harmful distractions from the clean energy transition he sees as both achievable and urgent.This conversation may be polarizing. While many will agree with Mark's take on renewables and the grid, his firm rejection of other low-carbon tech challenges mainstream climate thinking. We believe these fault lines are worth exploring, even, or especially, when they make people uncomfortable.Episode recorded on June 30, 2025 (Published on July 15, 2025)In this episode, we cover: ⁠[02:32]⁠ Why proposed tax changes threaten renewables⁠[05:45]⁠ Fossil fuel subsidies vs. renewables support⁠[06:29]⁠ China's rapid clean energy deployment⁠[10:44]⁠ Rooftop solar offsets California's rising demand⁠[12:20]⁠ Home and utility batteries reshaping grid usage⁠[14:40]⁠ Texas grid inefficiencies and renewables progress⁠[18:21]⁠ Combining wind, solar and batteries[19:26]⁠ Land use myths about wind and solar[22:49] Dr. Mark Jacobson's background and research⁠[27:23]⁠ How to phase out existing fossil infrastructure⁠[31:36]⁠ Dr. Jacobson's rejection of carbon capture[36:52] His thoughts on nuclear[42:11] Dr. Jacobson's thoughts on geothermal[46:19] How he sees the next decade unfolding Enjoyed this episode? Please leave us a review! Share feedback or suggest future topics and guests at info@mcj.vc.Connect with MCJ:Cody Simms on LinkedInVisit mcj.vcSubscribe to the MCJ Newsletter*Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant

This week, David Roberts is back on the show to discuss what has happened to the Inflation Reduction Act and what it means to clean energy and the climate movement to have such a major setback. We step back to think through the landscape of climate policy now and also reflect on pivotal moments in the recent history of legislative efforts that have shaped the current state of clean energy in the U.S. From his early days at Grist to his influential work at Vox, David offers a unique perspective on the challenges and triumphs of advocating for climate action. We also discuss the shifting political theories and strategies that have influenced policy decisions over the years and examine the complex interplay between politics and climate policy. David explores the role of public perception in shaping policy outcomes and why waking up to the new media enviornment is critical for the climate movement. He argues that changing the narrative around climate solutions can engage broader audiences and drive meaningful action. We also discuss the U.S. and China dynamic in the global energy transition and what he has made of covering Elon Musk over the years.  David Roberts is a renowned journalist and the author of the "Volts" newsletter and podcast. With a career spanning over two decades, David has been a leading voice in climate and clean energy journalism, specifically offering some of the most in-depth analysis and commentary on energy policy. We are always incredibly lucky to have him on the show. You can become a subscriber to Volts here.  Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter/podcast, The Climate Weekly, to help support this show. Your contributions will make the continuation of this show possible.  Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and more! Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Send me a messageMost climate policies focus on cutting emissions. But what if the real issue is what's being left off the table, fossil fuel production itself?In this week's episode of Climate Confident, I speak with Tzeporah Berman, Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, about why global climate goals are doomed if we keep expanding fossil fuel supply while trying to cut demand.Tzeporah explains how the Paris Agreement never once mentions the words “oil,” “gas,” or “coal”, despite 86% of emissions coming directly from them. She lays out the case for a global treaty to phase out fossil fuel production, how countries like Colombia are already stepping up, and why we need a just transition framework that includes debt relief and international cooperation.We discuss:Why fossil fuel expansion continues despite climate pledgesThe $7 trillion in annual subsidies distorting energy marketsThe role of Global South nations and equity in the energy transitionHow “net zero” has been weaponised as a delay tacticAnd why renewables alone won't solve the crisis unless we stop digging the hole deeperThis is a frank look at what it really takes to deliver on climate targets, and why we can't keep ignoring the supply side of the problem.

In this week's episode, host Daniel Raimi talks with Varun Sivaram, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and founder and CEO of Emerald AI, about how “climate realism” could shape the future of US climate policy. In a recent article for the Council on Foreign Relations, Sivaram lays out the case for climate realism—an approach to US climate policy that both realistically prepares for the consequences of climate change and advances American foreign policy objectives. Sivaram explains and defends his arguments for climate realism, which include contentious claims about the feasibility of reaching global climate targets, US contributions to global emissions, and the economic benefits of the clean energy transition. Sivaram then outlines an alternative vision for US climate policy that promotes investments in clean technology and action in the international arena to mitigate the worst consequences of climate change. References and recommendations: “We Need a Fresh Approach to Climate Policy. It's Time for Climate Realism” by Varun Sivaram; https://www.cfr.org/article/we-need-fresh-approach-climate-policy-its-time-climate-realism “The Most Powerful People You've Never Heard Of” episode of the Freakonomics podcast; https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-most-powerful-people-youve-never-heard-of/ “The World for Sale: Money, Power, and the Traders Who Barter the Earth's Resources” by Javier Blas and Jack Farchy; https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-world-for-sale-9780197651537 “Reflecting on Solar Geoengineering, with David Keith” from the Resources Radio podcast; https://www.resources.org/resources-radio/reflecting-solar-geoengineering-david-keith/

In his first six months back in the Oval Office, President Trump rolled back decades of U.S. climate policy.So far, he's scaled back regulations that help keep our air and water clean, delayed critical protections for endangered species, withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time, and cut staffing and federal spending on critical environmental agencies and programs – among other changes. Trump's commitment to increase oil and gas production will escalate the effects we're already seeing from global warming as humans continue to burn fossil fuels. We discuss what changes to U.S. environmental policy could have the greatest impact on the fight to curb climate change.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Climate policy in the U.S. has taken a wild ride in recent years. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, I speak with Chris Moyer, founder of Echo Communication Advisors, about the turbulent shifts in federal policy—especially during the Trump and Biden administrations, and how these shifts have disrupted progress in renewable energy. We examine the implications of these changes for energy development, environmental protection, and the impact of public messaging on political will to act. Renewable energy isn't just a technological challenge—it's also a communication challenge. Chris breaks down how effective storytelling and smart policy design can turn the tide, even in politically divided landscapes. We also look at what the future might hold for climate action in the U.S. and what it all means for protecting the ocean and accelerating a transition away from fossil fuels. Chris Moyer Website: https://echocomms.com/ Join the Undertow: https://www.speakupforblue.com/jointheundertow Connect with Speak Up For Blue Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube    

In this episode of Climate Positive, host Gil Jenkins sits down with Mike Berners-Lee—author, professor, and leading expert on sustainability—to explore the central message of his latest book, "A Climate of Truth." In a world spiraling deeper into climate, ecological, and social crises, Mike argues that the most powerful lever we have isn't new technology—it's honesty. The conversation unpacks why truth in politics, media, and business is essential to breaking the deadlock on climate action and building a livable future.Links:Purchase “A Climate of Truth: Why We Need It and How To Get It” (Published April 2025)Mike Berners-Lee on LinkedInMike Berners-Lee WebsiteEpisode recorded March 26, 2025 Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, Hilary, and Guy at climatepositive@hasi.com.

As renewable power grows, land use decisions will influence its environmental impact. --- Decarbonizing the electric grid will require a dramatic expansion of renewable energy by mid-century, and significantly more land dedicated to clean power. But where and how that buildout occurs will shape whether the environmental benefits of renewables are fully realized or come at a high cost to ecosystems, farmland, and communities. Grace Wu of the Spatial Climate Solutions Lab at UC Santa Barbara and Jonathan Thompson, research director at Harvard Forest, examine the tension between rapid renewable energy expansion and conscientious land use. Wu, who has co-authored recent reports on the environmental impacts of clean energy siting policies, explores strategies for minimizing impacts while ensuring energy remains reliable and affordable. Thompson, whose research quantifies the effects of land use on forest ecosystems, discusses the push-and-pull dynamic unfolding in Massachusetts, where solar development has resulted in real losses of forests and farmland, and where new siting models are emerging. The two also explore how incentives and regulations influence land use decisions, and how policy can reduce land impacts while supporting clean power development. Grace Wu is an assistant professor in the Environmental Studies program at the University of California Santa Barbara and leads the university’s Spatial Climate Solutions Lab. Jonathan Thompson is senior ecologist and research director at Harvard Forest. Related Content Has Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme Take Away a Country’s Ability to Reduce Emissions? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/has-europes-emissions-trading-scheme-taken-away-a-countrys-ability-to-reduce-emissions/ The Untapped Potential of ‘Repurposed Energy’ https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/the-untapped-potential-of-repurposed-energy/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

About fifty years ago, multiple environmental disasters forced a reckoning with how we care for the Earth. President Richard Nixon signed numerous environmental protection bills into law in the 1970s, including what is considered to be the nation's green Magna Carta: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).   Among many other moves to eliminate or weaken federal environmental regulations and laws, the Trump administration is trying to fundamentally change NEPA, a bedrock rule that requires federal agencies to analyze environmental and cultural impacts of any major development. Critics point out these changes will result in fewer protections for citizens, natural resources and communities. What other regulations are being rolled back and going unnoticed?  Guests:  Sam Wojcicki, Senior Director, Climate Policy, National Audubon Society  Olivia N. Guarna, Climate Justice Fellow, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Jared Huffman, U.S. Representative (D-CA 2nd District) and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee On June 4, Climate One is hosting a special screening of the documentary “Good Grief: The 10 Steps” to be followed by a climate anxiety workshop. Join us for this intimate conversation about the importance of mental health live at The Commonwealth Club. Tickets are available through our website. Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today. For show notes and related links, visit our website. Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CPF Director Bob Shrum joins former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and former U.S. Representative Garret Graves (R-LA) for a discussion on the state of climate policy under the Trump administration and how Democrats and Republicans can cooperate to tackle climate change issues. This conversation is part of the Climate Forward conference in partnership with the USC Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability.