Podcasts about nrdc

While the show is on hiatus, we want to share a few podcasts on the HERO feed that we think you might like. We will release these episodes over the next month.  This first one is from a podcast called The Most Important Question from the Important, Not Important team. When HERO first launched, Important, Not Important featured one of our early episodes. It's a good show, and we've been happy to remain in touch over the years. This episode fits in well with our recent season. It's an interview with Dr. Ticora V. Jones, who served as the chief scientist for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). She's currently the chief science officer at the NRDC.  ----------- Have feedback or questions about the episode? Tweet at the show, or send a message to questions@importantnotimportant.com. Want more? Get started with fan favorite episodes at podcast.importantnotimportant.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doğal Kaynaklar Savunma Konseyi (NRDC), Civic Opera Binası'ndaki ofislerini genişletme kararı alıp ofisi genişletirken, LBC (Living Building Challange) uygulamışlardı. NRDC kurumsal önceliklerini yansıtan bir ofis; küresel ısınmayı sınırlamak, dünyanın okyanuslarını canlandırmak, nesli tükenmekte olan vahşi yaşamı savunmak, kirliliği önleyerek sağlığımızı korumak, güvenli ve yeterli su sağlamak ve sürdürülebilir toplulukları teşvik etmek.  Painters Hall, topluluklara fırsatlar yaratmak için değil, topluluk yaratmak için tasarlanmış. Topluluğun gelişmesi için bir ortam sağlıyor; açık, tarafsız, ulaşılabilir, esnek, sanatsal şeyler yapmak ve paylaşmak üzere bir altyapıya sahip. Bina, Salem'deki daha geniş bölgesel topluluk ve Pringle Creek'teki yerel topluluk için değerli bir kaynak. Davetkar, açık kapı politikası var. Sonuç; etkinlikler ve aktivitelerde karşılaşmalar, buluşmalar, kahkahalar, öğrenme ve neşeyle dolu günler.

Zanagee Artis, Fossil Fuels Policy Advocate at NRDC and co-founder of Zero Hour joins us to discuss the urgent fight for ocean conservation and climate justice. We dive into how young activists shape climate policy, the battle against offshore drilling, and the promise of offshore wind energy. Zanagee shares his journey from youth organizer to national advocate and why the next two years are critical for climate action.

In episode 225 of America Adapts, we explore flood risk disclosure—a simple yet powerful climate adaptation tool that helps homebuyers avoid financial disaster while building more resilient communities. As climate change worsens flooding and federal support for resilience efforts declines, some states are stepping up with smart policies to protect homeowners before disaster strikes. I'm joined by Joel Scata from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to discuss the push for stronger flood disclosure laws, plus a homeowner who learned the hard way what happens when flood risks aren't disclosed. We'll also highlight state success stories and how these policies can be a key part of climate adaptation. Guests/experts in this episode: Joel Scata – Senior Attorney, Environmental Health NRDC (transcript) Larry Baeder – Senior Data Scientist Milliman (transcript) Jackie Jones – Homeowner, Georgia (transcript) Jesse Gourevitch – Economist at Environmental Defense Fund (transcript) Brooks Rainey Pearson - Legislative Counsel, Southern Environmental Law Center (transcript) Tyler Taba – Director of Resilience, Waterfront Alliance (transcript)   Check out the America Adapts Media Kit here! Subscribe to the America Adapts newsletter here. Donate to America Adapts Listen to America Adapts on your favorite app here!   Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter: https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/ @usaadapts https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-parsons-america-adapts/ Links in this episode: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/millimaninc5660-milliman6442-prod27d5-0001/media/Milliman/PDFs/2025-Articles/1-13-25_NRDC_Estimating-Undisclosed-Flood-Risk.pdf https://www.nrdc.org/bio/joel-scata/flooding-can-put-unsuspecting-home-buyers-financially-underwater https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/north-carolina-real-estate-commission-petitioned-to-disclose-flood-history/  https://www.selc.org/press-release/nc-real-estate-commission-to-disclose-flood-history-to-buyers/  https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/south-carolina-real-estate-commission-to-require-disclosure-of-flood-history-to-buyers/   Doug Parsons and Speaking Opportunities: If you are interested in having Doug speak at corporate and conference events, sharing his unique, expert perspective on adaptation in an entertaining and informative way, more information can be found here! Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter: https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/ @usaadapts https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-parsons-america-adapts/ Donate to America Adapts   Follow on Apple Podcasts Follow on Android Now on Spotify! List of Previous Guests on America Adapts Follow/listen to podcast on Apple Podcasts. Donate to America Adapts, we are now a tax deductible charitable organization! Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Strategies to Address Climate Change Risk in Low- and Moderate-income Communities - Volume 14, Issue 1 https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/community-development-investment-review/2019/october/strategies-to-address-climate-change-low-moderate-income-communities/   Podcasts in the Classroom – Discussion guides now available for the latest episode of America Adapts. These guides can be used by educators at all levels. Check them out here! The 10 Best Sustainability Podcasts for Environmental Business Leadershttps://us.anteagroup.com/news-events/blog/10-best-sustainability-podcasts-environmental-business-leaders Join the climate change adaptation movement by supporting America Adapts!  Please consider supporting this podcast by donating through America Adapts fiscal sponsor, the Social Good Fund. All donations are now tax deductible! For more information on this podcast, visit the website at http://www.americaadapts.org and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts.   Podcast Music produce by Richard Haitz Productions Write a review on Apple Podcasts ! America Adapts on Facebook!   Join the America Adapts Facebook Community Group. Check us out, we're also on YouTube! Executive Producer Dr. Jesse Keenan Subscribe to America Adapts on Apple Podcasts Doug can be contacted at americaadapts @ g mail . com

We didn't always call our work science for people who give a shit. But ever since we did, we've welcomed at least two types of people to our flock. The first is people who are deeply invested in science, but are unsure how to tie it into measurable action on the human level. And the second is people already fighting for a healthier, more equitable society, but who are curious about the evolving science behind our complex systems.They all want to know a version of the most important question, what can I do? It's a big question right now. And today, after almost 200 conversations and on this, our newly rebranded show, we're going to confront that question as some of our most vital human and humane systems are being put in the shredder.My guest today is Dr. Ticora Jones. Dr. Jones has spent the last two years leading the efforts to expand the vision for science in the science office at the NRDC, to support the scientific and evidence based nucleus for organizational strategy and advocacy.Before joining the NRDC, Dr. Jones served nearly 15 years at USAID, a little agency you may have heard about recently, in a number of roles, including most recently as Agency Chief Scientist, Executive Director for Innovation, Technology, and Research, and Managing Director for Research. As the Agency Chief Scientist, which is really a hell of a title, Jones chaired the Research and Development Council, which was responsible for revising and instituting science policy.She advocated for process changes to better support scientific integrity and research generation and use. And she led efforts to expand USAID's interagency role with international science and technology cooperation for deeper strategic partnerships with the U.S. government. As of this month, that is all in serious trouble.-----------Have feedback or questions? Tweet us, or send a message to questions@importantnotimportant.comNew here? Get started with our fan favorite episodes at podcast.importantnotimportant.com.-----------INI Book Club:Atlas of AI by Kate CrawfordThe Wild Robot by Peter BrownThe Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by NK JemisinAnita de Monte Laughs Last by Xochitl GonzalezFind all of our guest recommendations at the INI Book Club: https://bookshop.org/lists/important-not-important-book-clubLinks:Support the NRDC's workFollow Dr JonesFind out more about what you can do at WhatCanIDo.EarthFollow us:Subscribe to our newsletter at

Host Philip Berman talks to Maxine Bedat, Executive Director at New Standard Institute, the official sponsor of the Fashion Environmental Accountability Act, a new bill introduced into the California State Assembly at the start of February 2025 which, if enacted, would become the first law in the country to require brands to engage in “environmental due diligence” concerning their products and supply chains.   This Californian Bill is essentially the same as the 'New York Fashion Act' which was introduced into the New York State legislature in 2022 - though it's not yet law - and which is also backed by Maxine, The New Standard Institute and a broad coalition of industry folk including influential names such as, Rothys, Everlane, Reformation, Eileen Fisher, Patagoina, ThredUp, Circ, Vestiaire Collective, Stella McCartney, Ganni, Faherty, Cotopaxi, NRDC, Sierra Club, Canopy, Trove, EVRNU, American Academy of Pediatrics. Full list at thefashionact.org Maxine talks about both bills, their purpose, what stage they have reached in the legislative process. what it's like trying to push through groundbreaking legislation in two states on opposite sides of the US, simultaneously, whether her work has become harder with President Trump in the White House, and how she manages to build broad support with politicians of all persuasions. Subscribe to Ecotextile Talks podcasts on Apple, Spotify and Amazon Music or have a look around our complete podcast archive here.    

Join us for an update on the current state of our public lands and those who protect them!Find us on all the things: http://linktr.ee/bearsandbrewspodcastLinks We Discussed:https://5calls.org/https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/https://www.facebook.com/AltUSNationalParkService/https://www.instagram.com/50501movement/https://www.instagram.com/resistancerangers/https://www.npca.org/Sources Cited:Axelrod, Josh. “Trump Interior Secretary's Orders Make Public Lands Ground Zero for Drilling & Mining.” Nrdc.org, 20 Feb. 2025, www.nrdc.org/media/trump-interior-secretarys-orders-make-public-lands-ground-zero-drilling-mining.Choi, Annette, et al. “Tracking Trump's Overhaul of the Federal Workforce.” CNN, 26 Feb. 2025, www.cnn.com/politics/tracking-federal-workforce-firings-dg/index.html.Crowley, Kinsey, et al.“Tracking Federal Layoffs 2025: Impacted Agencies Include IRS, FAA, TSA and More.” USA TODAY, 21 Feb. 2025, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/21/federal-layoffs-2025-list/79415517007/.Detrow, Scott. “How Is DOGE Funded?” NPR, Mar. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5310562/how-is-doge-funded.Fowler, Stephen . “DOGE's Savings Page Fixed Old Mistakes — and Added New Ones.” NPR, Mar. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5313853/doge-savings-receipts-musk-trump.Haggerty, Mark, and Jenny Rowland-Shea. “Trump Quietly Plans to Liquidate Public Lands to Finance His Sovereign Wealth Fund.” Center for American Progress, 20 Feb. 2025, www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/.Hamilton, Anita. “Mass Firings of Federal Workers Were Done Illegally, Two Judges Rule.” Barron's, 14 Mar. 2025, www.barrons.com/articles/federal-workers-reinstate-court-california-ruling-40c2b920.Mansfield, Erin, and Sarah D Wire. “You're …Rehired? What We Know about Who Is Exempt from Donald Trump's Mass Firings.” USA TODAY, 21 Feb. 2025, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/21/trump-rescinded-layoffs/79188799007/.Noone, Sean. “Is Elon Musk Getting Paid for DOGE?” NewsNation, 5 Mar. 2025, www.newsnationnow.com/politics/is-elon-musk-getting-paid-for-doge/, https://doi.org/10507362.m3u8.The Economic Times. “Is Donald Trump Perfecting His Golf Game on US Taxpayers' Dime? President Reportedly Spent Millions on 13.” The Economic Times, Economic Times, 9 Mar. 2025, economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/is-donald-trump-perfecting-his-golf-game-on-us-taxpayers-dime-president-reportedly-spent-millions-on-13-rounds-in-just-48-days/articleshow/118819582.cms?from=mdr. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Felicia Marcus is one of the most significant public servants in water, having served on the Board of Public Works for the City of LA, served as Regional Administrator for the EPA in Region 9, COO of the Trust for Public Land and Western Director of the NRDC. As if that wasn't enough, she was also the Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board of California during the business end of the 2011-2017 California drought, which was rather scary and is now taking a “breather” as a Fellow at Stanford's “Water in the West Program”. Felicia is delightful, the speed of her mind matched only by the quality of her communication. We're so lucky to have such extraordinarily dedicated people who choose service when they could be doing a lot of different things, and the water sector is so much better off for it. Please enjoy my conversation with the excellent Felicia Marcus.  Subscribe to The Fundamental Molecule here: https://www.burntislandventures.com/the-fundamental-molecule For the full show notes, transcript, and links to mentioned content, check out the episode page here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fundamental-molecule/id1714287205 ----------- Felicia Marcus, a powerhouse in water policy, joins Tom today to discuss California's drought response, elevating water's importance, and the role of communication in public service. Felicia shares insights from her career, including her time as Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board and at the EPA, highlights the need for more support for water technology innovation, and expresses concerns about the current state of the EPA. Geopolitics of water and AI's implications are discussed, and Felicia offers her invaluable advice for water entrepreneurs. 00:00 - Meet Felicia Marcus 02:06 - Why Water Needs a Bigger Spotlight 03:16 - The Hidden Complexity of Water Infrastructure 06:15 - Why Water Lags Behind Energy in Investment and Innovation 07:16 - California's Water Crisis 10:02 - Lessons from Droughts 12:58 - A Career in Water Policy 16:26 - The Future of LA's Water and Infrastructure Challenges 20:47 - How Politics Shapes Water Policy Decisions 22:09 - Lessons from Managing California's Drought 25:04 - Balancing Environmental Protection and Water Use 26:47 - Why Water Tech Innovation Lags Behind Energy 27:07 - The Operator vs. The Visionary 31:13 - The Power of Communication in Water Policy 36:53 - Stanford Water in the West Program 40:15 - The Role of AI in Water Management 42:52 - Water and Global Geopolitics 45:36 - Cybersecurity Risks in the Water Sector 45:58 - Advice for Water Entrepreneurs Links: Burnt Island Ventures: https://www.burntislandventures.com/ Felicia Marcus: https://www.linkedin.com/in/feliciamarcus/ SM Material Key Takeaways: "Water is a necessity for life and economic development. It's amazing how it's just assumed and taken for granted." "Energy is appreciated because people notice when the lights go out. Water is less understood, less appreciated." "California's drought taught us a lot. The public saved nearly 25% when asked. Education was key." "The disparity in funding between water and energy is a self-inflicted wound in California." "I like helping people move. You can't just say, “Do it.” You have to help them see another way." "Know your audience beyond who you want to sell to. Educate yourself on the context in which you sell."

Can AI design a better, greener future?Zak Kostura is the leader of the innovative team using AI and genetic algorithms to rethink sustainable architecture and urban planning at Arup. From designing New York's NRDC headquarters with 3,000+ net-zero options, to optimizing entire transportation networks without building new roads, Zak shares how technology is transforming the built environment.Discover the future of smart, and efficient design - and why the biggest challenge isn't the tech, but changing how people work.To explore more about Zak Kostura and his work, you can follow him on Linkedin, Instagram, Bluesky, or visit his website zakkostura.com.AI Tools recommendation: Autodesk Forma -autodesk.com/products/forma Speckle -speckle.systems Skema -skema.ai ARUP Inform -arup.com/services/digital-solutions-and-tools/informOther tools mentioned: Dynamo - dynamobim.org Grasshopper -simplyrhino.co.uk/3d-modelling-software/grasshopperJoin me, Ladina, on this green journey, and don't forget to subscribe for more insightful conversations about sustainable living and architecture and drop us a review. If you have suggestions for future guests or topics, I'd love to hear from you on my socials!Let's explore the world of green architecture, one conversation at a time.Contact: Ladina ⁠⁠@ladinaschoepf⁠⁠Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠buildinggreenshow.comProduced by: ⁠⁠marketyourarchitecture.com⁠

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Bob Deans, Director of Strategic Engagement at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The two discuss the effects of Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, how the U.S. is trying to unravel a hacking plot that targeted climate activists, climate change and the L.A. fires, and more. Then, Brad is joined by Founder of the 'Cook Political Report.' The two analyze how unpopular Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico have been, whether Trump cares since he won't be on the ballot again, and more. The NRDC works to safeguard the earth—its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. They combine the power of more than 3 million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and other environmental specialists to confront the climate crisis, protect the planet's wildlife and wild places, and to ensure the rights of all people to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities. The website for the NRDC is www.NRDC.org and their handle on X is @NRDC. Charlie's handle is on X is @CharlieCookDC.  Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on X is @BradBannon.

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Bob Deans, Director of Strategic Engagement at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The two discuss the effects of Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, how the U.S. is trying to unravel a hacking plot that targeted climate activists, climate change and the L.A. fires, and more. Then, Brad is joined by Founder of the 'Cook Political Report.' The two analyze how unpopular Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico have been, whether Trump cares since he won't be on the ballot again, and more. The NRDC works to safeguard the earth—its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. They combine the power of more than 3 million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and other environmental specialists to confront the climate crisis, protect the planet's wildlife and wild places, and to ensure the rights of all people to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities. The website for the NRDC is www.NRDC.org and their handle on X is @NRDC. Charlie's handle is on X is @CharlieCookDC.  Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on X is @BradBannon.

The State Legislature has begun their marathon hearings on the state budget, with 12 issue areas spread out over 4 weeks. The Environment and Energy was one of the first hearings on Tuesday Jan. 28. The public had to wait 8 hours before they were allowed to testify for 3 minutes as lawmakers spent hours asking questions - with often vague answers - from state agency heads. Governor Hochul's retreat on climate issues such as cap-and-invest, Build Public Renewables, and NY Heat was a major focus. We hear the testimony of 3 leading environmentalists; Rich Schrader of NRDC; Katherine Nadeau of Environmental Advocates; and Liz Moran of Earth Justice.

This week on Green Street, Patti and Doug talk about the EPA's ban on two toxic chemicals (finally!), the failure of the worldwide plastic treaty in South Korea, and the promise and problems associated with new types of biodegradable plastic. Then Kate Donovan of the NRDC and Dr. Charles Moon of Mount Sinai School of Medicine give an overview of the chemical class known as PFAS and how consumers can reduce their exposure to these toxic “forever” chemicals.

Episode Page The latest episode of the Ecosystem Member podcast is with the amazing interdisciplinary artist and environmental activist, Jenny Kendler. Many of you listening are probably familiar with Kendler's work thanks to her most recent solo project on Governors Island being reviewed and featured on the front page of The New York Times. The exhibition included nine sculptures that used materials from the ocean itself to raise awareness about endangered marine ecosystems. In the episode we talk about the piece “Other of Pearl”, which is made up of 12 oyster half shells where the oyster shell was grown around a bio-based figures of Greek and Roman antiquities. The exhibition is a perfect example of Kendler's work, which aims decenter the human to make space for the full biodiversity of Earth. Some of the other pieces we discuss include 'Birds Watching', which inverts the gaze of birdwatching using the eyes of endangered and/or threatened birds due to climate change, and 'Music for Elephants', which uses a player piano with ivory keys playing music created from data on elephant poaching that is driven by the ivory trade. As a podcast that aims to examine the relationship humans have with nature and the more-than-human world, her work is an incredible example of how art can ask big questions about that relationship. While the conversation focuses on her artistic work - which has been shown around the world at London's Hayward Gallery, Storm King Art Center, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, the MCA Chicago and public locations as diverse as urban riverwalks, remote deserts and tropical forests - we also talk about her own relationship with nature and the more-than-human world. The topic being particularly relevant as she was just named an Artistic Fellow for the Center for Humans and Nature after spending 10 years as the artist-in-residence with the environmental non-profit NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council. She also sits on boards for 350.org and artist residency ACRE, and is a co-founder of Artists Commit, an artist-led effort to raise climate-consciousness in the art world. We talk a lot about specific pieces in this episode, so make sure to visit the podcast episode page at ecosystemmember.com/podcast, or watch the episode on Spotify or YouTube to see the work we're discussing. Thanks to Jenny for taking time to chat openly about her work and background, and thanks to you for listening. If you enjoy this episode, please make sure to subscribe on your preferred podcast platform and if you are so inclined leave us a five star review. These are signals to the platform that the podcast has value and increases its visibility to potential listeners. Links Jenny Kendler's Website Jenny Kendler's Instagram Jenny Kendler in The New York Times Thomas Nagel / What is it like to be a bat? Billion Oyster Project Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson's Climate Action Venn

Why stop emitting when we can just plant a bunch of trees?BONUS EPISODES available on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deniersplaybook) SOCIALS & MORE (https://linktr.ee/deniersplaybook) CREDITS Created by: Rollie Williams, Nicole Conlan & Ben BoultHosts: Rollie Williams & Nicole ConlanExecutive Producer: Ben Boult Post-production: Jubilaria Media Researchers: Carly Rizzuto, Canute Haroldson & James Crugnale Art: Jordan Doll Music: Tony Domenick Special thanks: The Civil Liberties Defense Center, Shelley Vinyard & The National Resources Defense Council, Angeline Robertson & Stand.EarthSOURCESMrBeast. (2019). Planting 20,000,000 Trees, My Biggest Project Ever! YouTube.Charmin. (2022, January 31). Protect Grow Restore | Charmin® Loves Trees. YouTube.CNBC Television. (2020, January 21). Watch President Donald Trump's full speech at the Davos World Economic Forum. YouTube.Carrington, D. (2019, July 4). Tree planting “has mind-blowing potential” to tackle climate crisis. The Guardian.Jordan, A., Vinyard, S., & Skene, J. (2024). Issue with the Tissue. NRDC.Lee, S.-C., & Han, N. (n.d.). Unasylva - Vol. 2, No. 6 - Forestry in China. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.The Green Belt Movement. (2021, March 3). Wangari Maathai on the origins of The Green Belt Movement. Facebook.MacDonald, M. (2005, March 26). The Green Belt Movement, and the Story of Wangari Maathai. YES! Magazine.What We Do. (2024). The Green Belt Movement.Nobel Peace Center. (2022, February 25). Wangari Maathai: the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Who Planted Trees.Campaign to plant a billion trees within a year launched at UN climate change conference. (2006, November 8). UN News: Global Perspective Human Stories.U. N. Environment Programme. (2008, September 10). Plant for the Planet: The Billion Tree Campaign. UNEP.Christophersen, T. (n.d.). The Climate Leadership That Inspires Me: Felix Finkbeiner. UNEP.Plant-for-the-Planet – Trillion Trees for Climate Justice. (2024). Plant-For-The-Planet.Plant-for-the-Planet: Growing A Greener Future. (2011, February 7). Children call at the UN for a common fight for their future - Felix Finkbeiner is speaking(en,fr,de). YouTube.Felix Finkbeiner. (2023, December 30). Wikipedia.Rienhardt, J. (2021, April 28). “Plant for the Planet”: Spendengelder versenkt? Zweifel an Stiftung wachsen. Stern.Lang, C. (2021, October 8). A trillion trees: A backstory featuring Felix Finkbeiner and Thomas Crowther. Substack; REDD-Monitor.Popkin, G. (2019, October 24). Catchy findings have propelled this young ecologist to fame—and enraged his critics. Science.Crowther, T. W., Glick, H. B., Covey, K. R., Bettigole, C., Maynard, D. S., Thomas, S. M., Smith, J. R., Hintler, G., Duguid, M. C., Amatulli, G., Tuanmu, M.-N. ., Jetz, W., Salas, C., Stam, C., Piotto, D., Tavani, R., Green, S., Bruce, G., Williams, S. J., & Wiser, S. K. (2015). Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature, 525(7568), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14967Bastin, J.-F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., Zohner, C. M., & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science, 365(6448), 76–79.St. George, Z. (2022, July 13). Can Planting a Trillion New Trees Save the World? The New York Times.Pomeroy, R. (2020, January 22). One trillion trees - uniting the world to save forests and climate. World Economic Forum.Guarino, B. (2020, January 22). The audacious effort to reforest the planet. Washington Post.FAQs. (2024). 1t.org.The Partnership. (n.d.). Trillion Trees.Ballew, M., Carman, J., Rosenthal, S., Verner, M., Kotcher, J., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2023, October 26). Which Republicans are worried about global warming? Yale Program on Climate Change Communication; Yale School of the Environment.Kennedy, B., & Tyson, A. (2024, March 1). How Republicans view climate change and energy issues. Pew Research Center.Roll Call. (2020, March 11). Is the GOP warming to climate action? Trillion trees plan hopes for growth. YouTube.Speaker Kevin McCarthy. (2023, June 29). Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans Fight For American-Made Energy in Columbiana County, Ohio. YouTube.Sen. Mike Braun - Indiana. (2024). Open SecretsRep. Buddy Carter - Georgia (District 01). (2024). Open Secrets.Rep. Kevin McCarthy - California (District 23). (2024). Open Secrets.Rep. Clay Higgins - Louisiana (District 03). (2024). Open Secrets.Rep. Bruce Westerman - Arkansas (District 04). (2024). Open Secrets.Actions - H.R.2639 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Trillion Trees Act. (n.d.). Congress.gov.2023 National ECongress.govnvironmental Scorecard. (2023). League of Conservation Voters.Heal, A. (2023, April 11). The illusion of a trillion trees. The Financial Times Limited.Veldman, J. W., Aleman, J. C., Alvarado, S. T., Anderson, T. M., Archibald, S., Bond, W. J., Boutton, T. W., Buchmann, N., Buisson, E., Canadell, J. G., Dechoum, M. de S., Diaz-Toribio, M. H., Durigan, G., Ewel, J. J., Fernandes, G. W., Fidelis, A., Fleischman, F., Good, S. P., Griffith, D. M., & Hermann, J.-M. (2019). Comment on “The global tree restoration potential.” Science, 366(6463). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay7976.Erratum for the Report: “The global tree restoration potential” by J.-F. Bastin, Y. Finegold, C. Garcia, D. Mollicone, M. Rezende, D. Routh, C. M. Zohner, T. W. Crowther and for the Technical Response “Response to Comments on ‘The global tree restoration potential'” by J.-F. Bastin, Y. Finegold, C. Garcia, N. Gellie, A. Lowe, D. Mollicone, M. Rezende, D. Routh, M. Sacande, B. Sparrow, C. M. Zohner, T. W. Crowther. (2020). Science, 368(6494). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8905Anderson, T. R., Hawkins, E., & Jones, P. D. (2016). CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models. Endeavour, 40(3), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2016.07.002Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Vanessa Carrasco Denney, Ellis, P. W., Shrestha, S., Terasaki, D. E., Wolff, N. H., Yeo, S., Crowther, T. W., Werden, L. K., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2024). Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration. Nature Communications, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46577-1Viani, R. A. G., Bracale, H., & Taffarello, D. (2019). Lessons Learned from the Water Producer Project in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Forests, 10(11), 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10111031Vadell, E., de-Miguel, S., & Pemán, J. (2016). Large-scale reforestation and afforestation policy in Spain: A historical review of its underlying ecological, socioeconomic and political dynamics. Land Use Policy, 55, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.017TED-Ed. (2023, December 19). Does planting trees actually cool the planet? - Carolyn Beans. YouTube.Howard, S. Q.-I., Emma, & Howard, E. (2022, December 12). “How are we going to live?” Families dispossessed of their land to make way for Total's Congo offsetting project. Unearthed.Garside, R., & Wyn, I. (2021, August 6). Tree-planting: Why are large investment firms buying Welsh farms? BBC News.Gabbatiss, J., & Viisainen, V. (2024, June 26). Analysis: UK misses tree-planting targets by forest the “size of Birmingham.” Carbon Brief.Buller, A. (2022). The Value of a Whale. Manchester University Press.Alexander, S. (2024, May 3). A Billionaire Wanted to Save 1 Trillion Trees by 2030. It's Not Going Great. Bloomberg.No Watermark Clips. (2019, May 21). King of the Hill on Carbon Offsets. YouTube.Choi-Schagrin, W. (2021, August 23). Wildfires are ravaging forests set aside to soak up greenhouse gases. The New York Times.Hodgson, C. (2021, August 4). US Forest Fires Threaten Carbon Offsets as Company-Linked Trees Burn. Inside Climate News.What's the potential of a trillion trees? (2020). Crowther Lab.Luhn, A. (2023, December 13). Stop Planting Trees, Says Guy Who Inspired World to Plant a Trillion Trees. Wired.TED Audio Collective. (2022, July 3). Can planting trees really stop climate change? | Thomas Crowther | The TED Interview. YouTube.Fleischman, F., Basant, S., Chhatre, A., Coleman, E. A., Fischer, H. W., Gupta, D., Güneralp, B., Kashwan, P., Khatri, D., Muscarella, R., Powers, J. S., Ramprasad, V., Rana, P., Solorzano, C. R., & Veldman, J. W. (2020). Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions. BioScience, 70(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa094Oglesby, C. (2021, Feb 9). Republicans want to plant 1 trillion trees — and then log them. GristCORRECTIONSFelix Finkbeiner was 13 years old when he spoke at the United Nations, not 12.The industry that has currently contributed the most to Rep. Bruce Westerman's career campaigns for federal congress is the Forestry & Forest Products industry, as reported by Open Secrets. The Oil & Gas industry is listed as #2.DISCLAIMER: Some media clips have been edited for length and clarity.[For sponsorship inquiries, please contact climatetown@no-logo.co]See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

TOM SOTO BIO Tom has been in the impact investing game for a long time. He  was born and raised in East LA to two of the state's most well-respected Latino Civil Rights leaders. His dad was Assemblyman Phil Soto, the first Latino elected to the state legislature in 1962. His mom  was Nell Soto, she too served the last ten years of her life as a member and leader in the California State Senate. Impact runs through Tom's blood. Tom has owned four PE funds, one of which, Craton Equity Partners,  he sold to T.C.W., and leads his  family investment office, Latimer Partners, LLC with his husband of 19 years, Todd Soto. The focus has been at the intersection of energy, climate tech, carbon monetization, renewable energy, and other Fourth Industrial Revolution driven platforms.  He previously served as  Chairman of the New America Alliance, founding Vice Chairman of the LA Clean Tech Incubator, Trustee of the California Science Center, Trustee of the NRDC, and Board Member of the Los Angeles Dodgers Foundation. Tom is also a former member of the board of trustees of the Redwood Mutual Fund, owned by Aspiration, the neo bank. He is a former appointee of President Clinton and served on Obama's Presidential Transition Team focused on the Council on Environmental Quality.   RELATED LINKS D4IR LA Dodgers Foundation California Hydrogen Convention LA Times OpEd GENERAL INFO| TOP OF THE GAME: Official website: https://topofthegame-thepod.com/ RSS Feed: https://feed.podbean.com/topofthegame-thepod/feed.xml Hosting service show website: https://topofthegame-thepod.podbean.com/ Javier's LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/javiersaade  SUPPORT & CONNECT: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/96934564 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551086203755 Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOPOFGAMEpod Subscribe on Podbean: https://www.podbean.com/site/podcatcher/index/blog/vLKLE1SKjf6G Email us: info@topofthegame-thepod.com   THANK YOU FOR LISTENING – AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PLATFORMS

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Katie Pelch discuss the harmful and pervasive effects of PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals." Found in various consumer and industrial products, contaminating air, water, and soil, they never break down. Dr. Pelch works for the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) and has been studying PFAS throughout her career. Along with their many uses PFAS have been linked to serious health issues, including cancer and reduced vaccine effectiveness. The NRDC advocates for banning non-essential uses of PFAS and encourages public awareness and involvement in regulatory efforts. Dr. Pelch shares with us the prevalence of PFAS, its dangers, and the regulation or lack thereof.    Key Takeaways: When you heat the nonstick cookware above a certain temperature, some of the PFAS can migrate from the pan and into the food you're going to eat, or they could enter the air that you breathe. Exposures from the air that we breathe and from our skin have generally been less well studied, but there is evidence to suggest that PFAS do enter our skin. Per the CDC, at least 98% of people in the United States have PFAS in their bodies.  The EPA stepped up in a big way this year by finalizing the regulation of six PFAS in drinking water. This ban was preceded by many states proactively setting enforceable limits to PFAS in drinking water, some banning the unnecessary use of them entirely by 2032.    "Not only are PFAS persistent in the environment, but they're also persistent in our bodies, and in most cases, we don't have a great way to get PFAS out of our bodies. So the two most highly studied PFAS can last in our bodies for years." —  Dr. Katie Pelch   Episode References:  Dark Waters: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/  The Devil We Know: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/  Environmental Working Group: https://www.ewg.org/  PFAS Exchange: https://pfas-exchange.org/    Connect with Dr. Katie Pelch: Professional Bio: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/katie-pelch  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/katiepelch      Connect with Therese: Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net Threads: @critically_speaking Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net     Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.    

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Bob Deans, Director of Strategic Engagement at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The two discuss the damage that natural disasters are doing to the United States, all accelerated by man made climate change. They also breakdown Project 2025 and the environmental stakes in the presidential race. Then, Kimberly Scott, Publisher of DemList, details the plans for the Democratic National Convention live from Chicago where it's taking place this week. The NRDC works to safeguard the earth—its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. They combine the power of more than 3 million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and other environmental specialists to confront the climate crisis, protect the planet's wildlife and wild places, and to ensure the rights of all people to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities. The website for the NRDC is www.NRDC.org and their handle on X is @NRDC. Kim Scott's 'Demlist' is a free national daily political column, calendar and resource site for Democrats and allies - a unique, central source that connects people to the who, what and where of Democratic events, issues and activism. You can find out more about them at DemList.com and follow them on X at the handle @TheDemList. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on X is @BradBannon.

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

The Question of the Week: Are Bluetooth headphones, or EarPods, a cyber security risk?  The Big Stories: ChatGPT has a tool to prevent cheating , OpenAI will not release it SCOTUS overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, how that affects Big Tech

Your Mentor Moment this week is with Ian Browne. Ian Browne is the MD at NRDC. In this episode, we learn the key secrets to turning ideas to reality by truly understanding your customer problems. --- Thanks to my Partners - Visit them to support the podcast Growing Further: https://bit.ly/3Lia2tn Iconic Offices: https://bit.ly/3vPQAzF

Is ridesharing more sustainable than owning a car? Let's find out together on this episode of your favorite sustainability podcast. Hosts Tiff and Kat explain the (slightly shocking) study results, Uber's "road to zero emissions," and more. Vroom vroom!SourcesHyreCar sustainability claims: https://www.hyrecar.com/environmental-benefits-ridesharing/#how-does-ridesharing-contribute-to-the-improvement-of-the-environment Union of Concerned Scientists: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ride-hailing-problem-climate Yale Environment Review: https://environment-review.yale.edu/ridesharing-part-sustainable-future NRDC: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/rabi-abonour/report-role-uber-and-lyft-sustainable-cities Uber's road to zero emissions: https://www.uber.com/us/en/about/sustainability/ Rideshare Guy: https://therideshareguy.com/uber-statistics/ Patreon: patreon.com/greeningupmyactInstagram: @greeningupmyactFacebook: Greening Up My ActEmail us with questions: greeningupmyact@gmail.comYouTube: Greening Up My Act

Full episode transcript HERE. Welcome to PART TWO of the Feminist Buzzkills LIVE taping from Netroots Nation, AKA the largest gathering of progressive writers, activists, and organizers in America! In part two of this mini-series, Lizz and AAF Programs Director, Kristin Hady, get to share with you more of our shenanigans from earlier this month with a V SPECIAL GUEST! Ever heard of a little thing called Chevron deference? Most peeps didn't hear about it until recently, when the Supreme Cucks threw it on the chopping block. So, what in the fallopian tube is Chevron deference? How does the ixnay of Chevron affect abortion access? And what can WE ALL DO ABOUT IT? Kristin and I brought in an expert who was down to clown with us in a room full of Netrooters to answer all of these questions and more. Sarah Lipton-Lubet, President of Take Back the Court Foundation, is here to decode it all for us with a LIVE AUDIENCE! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our five-part OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead @LizzWinsteadKristin Hady AAF Programs Director SPECIAL GUEST: Sarah Lipton-Lubet TW: @LiptonLubet GUEST LINKS: Take Back The Court Foundation EPISODE LINKS:Supreme Court Ends Chevron DeferenceTICKETS: L'Abortion Variety Hour in Chicago7/30 CALL TO ACTION: ACLU Florida on Florida's Near Total Abortion BanSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActNetroots Nation Website IG: @NetrootsNation TW: @Netroots_NationBUY: Reproductive Rights Wall Art!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontPATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!FIND AN ABORTION PROVIDER NEAR YOU HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

An enormous amount of wood is harvested from forests in the southern US to be burned in Europe as “renewable energy.” Now the industry wants to open more wood-pellet facilities in the Pacific Northwest. In this episode, Rita Frost of NRDC and Brenna Bell of 350 PDX explain why that's a bad idea and why wood pellets aren't as renewable as they look. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA's case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision upholding NOAA's rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate this monumental victory, which will curtail administrative power abuses for years to come!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA's case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision upholding NOAA's rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss this case and celebrate this monumental victory that NCLA has been fighting since the beginning!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas: Friday's SCOTUS move to overturn Chevron v NRDC represents a massive power grab by MAGA courts: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/elena-kagan-dissent-supreme-court-john-roberts-chevron-disaster.html ...SCOTUS also backs the right to criminalize homelessness: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/28/supreme-court-texas-homelessness-camping-bans/ ...While the Texas Supreme Court defends a Waco-area judge's right to refuse to marry same-sex couples: https://www.tpr.org/news/2024-06-29/waco-judge-can-sue-over-reprimand-for-not-marrying-gay-couples-texas-supreme-court-rules ...And a Sherman-based, Trump-appointed federal judge blocks a Biden administrative rule that would have required employers to fairly compensate salaried workers when they put in over 40 hours in a week: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-overtime-pay-ruling/269-236181d7-509f-41bd-a76a-c59c54db2748 A history professor who has correctly predicted 9 of the 10 last Presidential elections advises that replacing President Biden on the Democratic ticket would be "foolhardy nonsense": https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/30/lichtman-dems-replace-biden/74260967007/ Disgraced Gateway Church pastor Robert Morris once offered to pay off his child sex abuse accuser: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/28/robert-morris-gateway-child-abuse-transcript ...While four of Gateway's "elders" are taking a leave of absence while a legal review takes place: https://www.chron.com/culture/religion/article/robert-morris-sexual-abuse-elders-19546307.php Dallas stands to become the largest Texas city to decriminalize small-time marijuana possession: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/inside-politics/texas-politics/dallas-largest-texas-city-to-decriminalize-marijuana/287-0d9cf889-dc1f-4b54-9084-5410a701a907 Instagram users: be sure to enable political content on that platform, which has begun opting users out: https://x.com/ProgressTX/status/1771276124498100667?s=20 Thanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work this election year at https://progresstexas.org/.

Guest Hosts: Adam Gardiner & Greg Skordas In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court's overturning of Chevron v. NRDC has sent ripples through American regulatory policy, challenging assumptions about the balance of power in governance. This pivotal moment deep dives into the intricate relationship between expertise, democratic accountability, and public trust in our institutions. As we reconsider how our government can effectively address complex societal challenges while remaining true to the principles of representative democracy, we are also reminded that the new overturning can change the future of policymaking and the role of expertise in our increasingly complex world.

Is it possible to decarbonize agriculture and make the food system more resilient to climate change? Today, I'm speaking with agricultural policy expert Peter Lehner about his climate neutral agriculture ideas and the science, law and policy needed to achieve these ambitious goals. Lehner is an environmental lawyer at Earthjustice and directs the organization's Sustainable Food and Farming Program. Transcript How does agriculture impact the climate? And I guess as important as that question is why don't more people know about this? It's unfortunate that more people don't know about it because Congress and other policy makers only really respond to public pressure. And there isn't enough public pressure now to address agriculture's contribution to climate change. Where does it come from? Most people think about climate change as a result of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil, and the release of carbon dioxide. And there's some of that in agriculture. Think about tractors and ventilation fans and electricity used for pumps for irrigation. But most of agriculture's contribution to climate change comes from other processes that are not in the fossil fuel or the power sector. Where are those? The first is nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas about 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. And it comes because most farmers around the world and in the U.S. put about twice as much nitrogen fertilizer on their crops, on the land, as the plants can absorb. That extra nitrogen goes somewhere. Some of it goes off into the water. I'm sure your listeners have heard about harmful algae outbreaks or eutrophication of areas like the Chesapeake Bay and other bays where you just get too many nutrients and too much algae and very sick ecosystem. A lot of that nitrogen, though, also goes into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. About 80% of nitrous oxide emissions in the U.S. come from agriculture. Excess fertilization of our hundreds of millions of acres of crop land. Quick question. Why would, because the farmers have to pay money for this, why do they apply twice as much as the plants can absorb? Great question. It's because of several different factors. Partly it is essentially technical or mechanical. A farmer may want to have the fertilizer on the land right at the spring when the crops are growing but the land may be a little muddy then. So they may have put it on in the fall, which is unfortunate because in the United States, in our temperate area, no plants are taking up fertilizers in the fall. Also, a plant is like you or me. They want to eat continually but a farmer may not want to apply fertilizer continuous. Every time you apply it, it takes tractor time and effort and it is more difficult. So they'll put a ton of fertilizer on at one point and then hope it lasts for a while, knowing that some of it will run off, but hopeful that some will remain to satisfy the plant. There's a lot of effort now to try to improve fertilizer application. To make sure it's applied in ways just the right amount at the right time. And perhaps with these what's called extended release fertilizers where you put it on and it will continue to release the nutrients to the plant over the next couple of weeks and not run off. But we have a long way to go. Okay, thanks. I appreciate that discussion and I'm sorry I diverted you from the track you were on talking about the overall impact of agriculture on the climate. I think what's so exciting about this area is that everyone cares about our food. We eat it three times a day or more and yet we know very little about where it comes from and its impacts on the world around us. It's wonderful to be talking about this. The second major source of climate change impact in agriculture is methane. Methane is another greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide. About 30 times more powerful over a hundred years and about 85 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Which is I think the policy relevant time period that we're looking at because we're all trying to achieve climate stability by 2050. And where does methane come from? A little bit comes from rice, but the vast majority of it comes from cows and from manure. Cows are different than you and me. They can eat grass, and their stomachs are different, and release methane. Every time they breathe out, they are essentially breathing out this potent greenhouse gas methane. This is called enteric methane and it's the largest single source of methane in the United States. Bigger than the gas industry or the oil industry. The other major source of methane is manure. Our animals are raised in what are called concentrated animal feeding operations. They're not grazing bucolically on the pasture, they are crammed into buildings where there may be thousands, or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of these animals. Those hundreds of thousands of animals produce a vast amount of manure, whether it be say pigs in North Carolina or dairies in many States, or cattle or chicken. All our meat nowadays is grown in these concentrated areas where you get concentrated manure and that is often stored in these lagoons. These big pits of poop basically. And that, as it decomposes in this liquid environment, what's called anaerobically , releases a tremendous amount of methane. That's the second largest source of methane in the country after the cows belching. So you have nitrous oxide and you have methane. And then the third way agriculture contributes to climate change, which is different say than the fossil fuel sector, is by changing the land itself. Agriculture uses a tremendous amount of land. Think about it. When you go around, what do you see? You see agriculture uses about 62% of the contiguous United States; 800 million acres of land for grazing; or almost 400 million acres of land for cropland. Healthy land before it's been used for agriculture has a tremendous amount of carbon in the soil and in the plants. Just think about a forest with all the rich soil and the rich vegetation. When that is cleared to be a cornfield, all that carbon is lost and essentially it goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. And that soil after that can't absorb any more carbon. Healthy soil is absorbing carbon all the time and most agricultural soils are not. So that release of carbon when you convert land to agriculture and that continuing inability to sequester carbon is another major way that agriculture contributes to climate change. So these three ways: nitrous oxide, methane and carbon from soil are all important contributors to climate change that don't really fit most people's model of what drives climate change - burning coal or oil and releasing carbon dioxide. But the bottom line is if we don't address agriculture's contribution to climate change, no matter how successful we are in reducing our fossil fuel use, we are very likely to face catastrophic climate change. Agriculture's contribution to climate change is so significant. Far more than the indicated by many figures. We can't achieve climate stability without addressing agriculture as well. Agriculture drives about a quarter or a third total green climate change. Given how important this is, why don't people know more about it? And does industry play a role in that? Industry plays a big role, as does politics. Industry - and by industry we mean the food industry. And you've covered this before. It's very concentrated industry where usually two or three or four firms control the market, whether it be for seeds or retail or beef or chicken or pesticides. It's a very, very concentrated industry with tremendous political power. They have done their best to ensure, first of all, the agriculture industry doesn't even have to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Every other industry has to report their greenhouse gas emissions. The big polluters have to report. On the other hand, agriculture was able to obtain a rider in Congress. That's an extra provision on a budget bill starting about a decade ago that prohibits EPA from requiring agricultural facilities to report greenhouse gas emissions. So unlike most areas, agriculture doesn't even have to report their emissions and industry certainly wants to keep it that way. Also, as I was explaining, agriculture contributes to climate change in a way that is different than what we normally think about. I think that added complexity has just meant it is harder for people to understand. And third, there's a tremendous amount of mythology in agriculture. People think or would like to think that their food comes from this nice family farm with a few animals and a few diversified crops on the hillside. And that in some sense was the reality 50 or 100 years ago, but now it's not the reality. While there's still lots of small farms like that by number, those produce very little of our food. Most of our food is produced in these gigantic animal factories that I mentioned earlier or in gigantic monoculture chemical-dependent agricultural operations. So, we have this disconnect between what is the mythology of agriculture and where our food comes from and the reality of it. People really don't want their myths disrupted. Given the importance of these issues, what are some of the main ways that the impact of agriculture on climate can be changed? That's another exciting part of this. That there's a lot of things that can be done to reduce the impact of agriculture's contribution to climate change. And we know this because there are a lot of producers who have piloted these programs, who've implemented these programs and these practices on their own operations to reduce the climate impact. And they've been successful. So these can be, for example, rotating crops instead of having the same crop year after year after year, which really depletes the soil. You can have different crops in different years and each crop puts a little different in the soil and takes a little different from the soil. As a result, very often you end up needing less artificial pesticide and fertilizer, both of which contribute to climate change. You can manage your animals different. You can manage your manure differently. For example, if manure is treated and handled dry, as opposed to in these wet manure lagoons, it produces very, very little methane. Instead of producing tremendous amounts of methane, it produces almost none. So, if we manage manure differently, we can significantly reduce methane emissions. And of course, there's what we think of as the demand side. In the same way that we think about LED light bulbs or more efficient cars as part of our energy transformation, we can use our land and food more efficiently. We waste a tremendous amount of food. Maybe 30-40% of the food we produce is wasted. That's crazy. It's all the effort and the greenhouse gases from producing the food are wasted if the food is wasted. Even worse, the food is dumped into a landfill for the most part where it releases more methane. And it's inefficient. We have a system that very heavily subsidizes meat production, but meat uses, particularly beef, a tremendous amount of land because cows need a lot of land the way their biology requires land and time. So we have almost 800 million or 700 million acres of land devoted to cattle grazing that could be storing carbon. Then it takes about 15 pounds of grain to get a pound of beef where people can eat the grain directly much more efficiently. So there's a lot of practices that we can do at every stage of the process to reduce the climate impact of agriculture. The challenge is that it's only on a couple percent of American cropland or very little portion of our food is produced that way. So Peter, let me ask you a question about that very point you're on. We've recorded a series of podcasts on regenerative agriculture. Some of the most interesting podcasts we've done from my point of view. And they've included scientists who've studied it, policy people who look into it, but also farmers who have done this. I'm thinking particularly, well, three names pop into mind, but there are more. So Nancy Ranney, who ran a ranch in New Mexico for cattle, Gabe Brown, a regenerative farmer in North Dakota, and Will Harris from Georgia were all people we spoke to. I got the sense in each of those cases that these people were converting to this new model of farming because of what they cared about. It was their own passions that led them to do this and belief that a different system of agriculture was going to be important for the future. They were doing it for that reason, rather than any incentives from the government or policies that were encouraging, things like that. So there will be a small number of such people who would do it because they're passionate about it. I'm assuming that number will grow, but never fast enough to really do anything to scale like we really need it. So I'm ultimately you're going to need policies in place to ensure these things happen in more and more farms. Are there particular policies that are oriented this way that you think might be especially helpful? Kelly, you are spot on. I know Nancy and Gabe and Will, and they're terrific. They are pioneers and they are showing that we know this works. We're not looking at ideas that might work. We are looking at practices that we know work because of what they and others like them have done. As you said, they're doing it because they believe it's the right thing. We'll get some farmers that way, but we need policy to move from 2% of American crop land to 92% of American crop land. So, how do we do that? One is the current farm bill is very important. The farm bill is the most important environmental law nobody's ever heard of. It dates back to the depression. It's renewed every five years. Congress is debating it right now. It was supposed to be renewed last year, but they couldn't get their act together. So they may or may not be able to reauthorize it this year. But the farm bill in one section provides a tremendous amount of money for nutrition assistance. And you've probably talked about that, what we call the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In another part of it, it provides tremendous amounts of subsidies to farmers, about $20 billion a year of subsidies to farmers. Right now, those subsidies really are not designed to encourage farmers to adopt the practices that you talked to Nancy or Gabe or Will about. These practices that I was talking about earlier and that sometimes are called regenerative, sometimes agroecological, organic farming is often a part of that. These $20 billion of subsidies though, could be redirected, reshaped somewhat and not necessarily radically, but reshaped and focused on encouraging farmers to adopt these practices that can help mitigate climate change. And importantly, the same practices, and as I'm sure the folks you've talked to said, also help them be more resilient to climate change. They can better help the producer better withstand floods and droughts and temperature extremes. So there is a tremendous upside from this. We are already spending $20 billion a year on farm subsidies. Let's start spending it more intelligently in a way that really addresses our needs. Do you see signs that things are moving in that direction? I wish I did. There are some signs that we're moving in the right direction. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed a couple of years ago, was the first time Congress ever linked agriculture and climate change. In the 2018 Farm Bill, there's no mention of climate change. And when we were working on that with members on the Hill, there was really no overt conversations about climate change. Fortunately, things have changed. So, a step forward is that we're talking about climate change. And in the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress provided $20 billion to go to programs that are established under the Farm Bill. So, 20 extra billion dollars to these Farm Bill conservation programs and required that that money be spent on practices that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, essentially help us mitigate climate change. And that, again, was the first time Congress linked agriculture and climate change. Super important. Part of what's going on now on the Hill is a fight to ensure that money that the Inflation Reduction Act provided stays. There are those in Congress that would like to raid those funds and put them to other purposes, which we think would be a big step backwards. So that was really great opportunity. As to the Farm Bill money itself, there's definitely some conversations, particularly among the Democrats, to ensure that all of the Farm Bill programs are a bit more climate-focused. But we're far from consensus on that. So, we're making a bit of progress, but right now Congress is, I think it's fair to say, not at its most functional. And so the type of policy discussions we need, and an honest discussion of how can we help American farmers shift to practices that are better for them, for the communities, upwind and downwind and around them, better for climate change resilience and climate change mitigation. We're really not yet having that conversation as robustly as we need. Hopefully we'll be able to get to a place where the politics will allow us to have that. And frankly, this podcast and other conversations are really important to educating people so we can have that conversation. When you're trying to make policy advances, having public support for it can be a real asset. Do you see signs that the public is becoming more aware of this, that they're urging their political leaders to move on this front? For sure. The public is very much concerned about climate change. Every poll shows that. And people are concerned about it both as citizens and as consumers. So, if you follow the food marketing world, what you see is that many surveys show that consumers are very interested in the climate impact of their food choices. And far more than was the case a couple of years ago. And they want to know how can I buy food? How can I eat food that is climate friendly, that helps us stabilize the climate? And industry is responding to that. Now, some industry is responding to that by deceptive advertising. You may have seen that the New York Attorney General recently sued JBS, the world's largest beef company, for misleading statements about the climate-friendliness of their beef. So some companies are talking more than they're doing, but others are trying to respond to consumers' interest in more climate-friendly food. You see a growth in plant-based foods, plant-based milks, because plant-based foods have a much, much lower climate impact than meats, particularly beef. And so consumers are interested in that, and that market is responding. And I think you'll see more of that in governmental procurement as well. Governments that are trying to think about how can we, say New York City, reduce our climate footprint while a big part of a city's climate footprint is the food it purchases, say for New York City schools. And a city can take action by trying to buy lower climate impact foods. And that would be foods produced in a way that you've talked about with regenerative practices and also lower climate impact, such as more plant based. So, I think we're seeing a lot of progress on that for sure. So Peter, related to this, what would you think about some kind of labeling system on food products that gives an environmental score, let's say? I personally like the idea of labels. I'm not an expert by any stretch. I do remember that not too long ago, New York City required restaurants to label or have on the menus the calorie content of food. And that provision was later adopted by the Affordable Care Act and now is required of chain restaurants. And Trump tried to roll that back. So we litigated to try to preserve that and get that requirement reinstated in the Affordable Care Act successfully. And during that, I learned that labels really make a difference. Calorie labeling on menus does in fact help people make more informed choices and often better choices. And there's no question, again, I'm not an expert. You probably know much more, but for example, the added sugar labels make a difference and others. So I think as a whole, labels can make a big difference. Now, environmental footprint is a complicated multifaceted issue because something may create harm to water. It may create harm through toxic, say pesticide residue, or it may have a big climate footprint. How do you put all of that into a simple label? It's a complicated question. But I do think there's interest in having particularly climate, the climate impact food be identified on the label. And perhaps we will move in that direction.   Bio Based in New York, Peter Lehner is the managing attorney of Earthjustice's Sustainable Food & Farming Program, developing litigation, administrative, and legislative strategies to promote a more just and environmentally sound agricultural system and to reduce health, environmental, and climate harms from production of our food. Peter is one of the leading experts on the impact of agriculture on climate change and is the author of Farming for Our Future; the Science, Law, and Policy of Climate-Neutral Agriculture. From 2007–2015, Peter was the executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the NRDC Action Fund. Among other new initiatives, Peter shaped a clean food program with food waste, antibiotic-free meat, regional food, and climate mitigation projects. From 1999–2006, Peter served as chief of the Environmental Protection Bureau of the New York State Attorney General's office. He supervised all environmental litigation by and against the state. He developed innovative multi-state strategies targeting global warming and air pollution emissions from the nation's largest electric utilities, spearheaded novel watershed enforcement programs, and led cases addressing invasive species, wildlife protection, and public health. Peter previously served at NRDC for five years directing the clean water program where he brought important attention to stormwater pollution. Before that, he created and led the environmental prosecution unit for New York City. Peter holds an AB in philosophy and mathematics from Harvard College and is an honors graduate of Columbia University Law School. Peter is on the boards of the Rainforest Alliance and Environmental Advocates of New York and a member of the American College of Environmental Lawyers. He helps manage two mid-sized farms and teaches a course on agriculture and environmental law at Columbia Law School.

SB 903 has been introduced to the California legislature and would provide a comprehensive approach to phasing out unnecessary uses of over 14,000 toxic, “forever” chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Today we'll speak with Andria Ventura, CA Legislative and Policy Director, Clean Water Action, and Dr. Anna Reade, Director, PFAS Advocacy, Environmental Health, Natural Resources Defense Council, about the bill and why it is so important to public health.

In this episode of the EPRI Current, host Samantha Gilman discusses EV efficiency with guests Geoff Blandford from EPRI and Luke Tonachel from Natural Resources Defense Council. Listen in as they discuss the findings of a recent report on EV efficiency improvements, highlighting the potential to reduce future electric infrastructure build-out usage. The conversation covers the importance of understanding the impact of electric vehicles on the energy system, insights from using EPRI's REGEN model, and the strategies to improve vehicle efficiency. The conversation also explores the benefits of electrifying transportation, reducing pollution, and the key role of efficiency in shaping the energy transition goals.   Guests: Luke Tonachel, Senior Strategist for Transportation at NRDC; and Geoff Blanford, Principal Technical Executive, Energy Systems and Climate Analysis at EPRI  eRoadMAP https://eroadmap.epri.com/    Learn more at https://www.epri.com/      If you enjoy this podcast, please subscribe and share! And please consider leaving a review and rating on Apple Podcasts/iTunes.    Follow EPRI: LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/epri/  Twitter https://twitter.com/EPRINews    EPRI Current examines key issues and new R&D impacting the energy transition. Each episode features insights from EPRI, the world's preeminent independent, non-profit energy research and development organization, and from other energy industry leaders. We also discuss how innovative technologies are shaping the global energy future. Learn more at www.epri.com 

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Bob Deans, Director of Strategic Engagement at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The two discuss this year's Earth Day theme, 'Planet vs. Plastics,' President Biden's substantial environmental accomplishments, and more. Then, Teresa Purcell of the Rural Strong Network details efforts to build Democratic strength outside of Metro areas. The NRDC works to safeguard the earth—its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. They combine the power of more than 3 million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and other environmental specialists to confront the climate crisis, protect the planet's wildlife and wild places, and to ensure the rights of all people to clean air, clean water, and healthy communities. The website for the NRDC is www.NRDC.org and their handle on X is @NRDC. Teresa Purcell is the founder of the Rural Strong Network LLC, which provides branding, consulting, networking, tools, and training to local leaders to strengthen our communities, advance democratic values, and make government work. She is a seasoned leader renowned for her expertise in amplifying the voices of rural and BIPOC communities nationwide. The website for the Rural Strong Network is www.RuralStrong.us. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.'  He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on X is @BradBannon. You can watch the show's livestream at any of the following three links: X: https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1vOGwjVPAlvKB Facebook: https://fb.watch/rDFVqehd8C/ YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/clqI32CuVNM

As we learned in earlier episodes, phase-out and regulatory efforts for PFAS were not swift, and they certainly are not complete. However, because of the recent regulatory changes on consumer goods, specifically in California, many US-based outdoor brands and chemical companies have finally committed to removing PFAS from their products.  Guests featured in this episode: - Greg Brietmier, ⁠Mystery Ranch⁠ - Mike Schade,⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Toxic Free Future⁠⁠⁠⁠ - Ammi Borenstein, ⁠⁠Snaplinc Consulting⁠ - Alex Lauver, ⁠⁠Outdoor Research⁠ - Kevin Myette, ⁠⁠⁠⁠Bluesign⁠⁠⁠⁠ - Theresa Mckenney, ⁠Nemo Equipment⁠ - Kirsten Blackburn, ⁠⁠Keen Footwear⁠ - Matthew Eshed, Research Fellow If you want to learn more about what PFAS are, where they are found, the proven health effects, how you can limit your exposure, up to date news on PFAS, and how to get involved in PFAS regulatory efforts visit  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Toxicfreefuture.org⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Foodandwaterwatch.org ⁠⁠⁠⁠ Or  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pfascentral.org ⁠⁠⁠⁠ INSTAGRAM:⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/outdoor.minimalist.book/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ WEBSITE:⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theoutdoorminimalist.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YOUTUBE:⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@theoutdoorminimalist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Fund the Forever Chemicals 10-Part Podcast⁠: ⁠⁠⁠https://gofund.me/77aac225⁠⁠⁠ ----------------------- Snaplinc Consulting provided expert fact checking and guidance for the creation of this podcast. Snaplinc Consulting provides corporate sustainability strategies and ESG support across a broad range of industries including apparel, footwear, home furnishings, software, cosmetics, professional services and more. Head to⁠⁠ ⁠⁠snaplincconsulting.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more and contact the experts to guide you through complex topics like CSRD, PFAS, greenhouse gas assessments, SBTi, CDP, EcoVadis, B Corp and many more compliance and certification frameworks. ------------------------- Sources "Balancing Fabric Performance and Sustainability" by Black-Footed Ferret Productions, Outdoor Minimalist, [July 24, 2023], https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/96-balancing-fabric-performance-and-sustainability/id1586174667?i=1000622162915 Bergen, Sujatha. "Columbia Sportswear Eliminate PFAS Campaign Launched Today," NRDC, available at: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/sujatha-bergen/columbia-sportswear-eliminate-pfas-campaign-launched-today Bergen, Sujatha. "North Face and Timberland Recognize PFAS Threat in Apparel," NRDC, available at: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/sujatha-bergen/north-face-and-timberland-recognize-pfas-threat-apparel Patagonia. "Say Goodbye to Forever Chemicals," Patagonia, available at: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/say-goodbye-to-forever-chemicals/story-133800.html --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/outdoor-minimalist/support

Problem: fossil fuels. Solution: different fossil fuels. BONUS EPISODES available on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deniersplaybook) SOCIALS & MORE (https://linktr.ee/deniersplaybook) CREDITS Created by: Rollie Williams, Nicole Conlan & Ben BoultHosts: Rollie Williams & Nicole ConlanExecutive Producer: Ben Boult Producer: Gregory Haddock Editor: Brittany TerrellResearchers: Carly Rizzuto, Canute Haroldson & James CrugnaleArt: Jordan Doll Music: Tony Domenick Special thanks: The Civil Liberties Defense CenterSOURCESThe Obama Whitehouse. (2014). The 2014 State of the Union Address (Enhanced Version). YouTube.NowThis Impact. (2019). Trump Speaks at Natural Gas Plant in Louisiana | NowThis. YouTube.Natural Allies for a Clean Future. (2023) Earth Day 2023. YouTube.Energy Information Administration. (2023). Electricity explained. U.S. Energy Information Administration.DOE. (2006). Mercury Emission Control R&D. U.S. Department of Energy.Palmer, B. (2021, November 15). Natural Gas 101. NRDC.The Oklahoman Video Archive. (2017). Natural Gas Boom (2008-07-30). YouTube.ClimateProgress. (2009). Video 5. YouTube.Alvarez, R. A. et al. Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain. Science, 361(6398). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204Union of Concerned Scientists. (2014, June 19). Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas.EPA. (2013). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2011 (p. 439). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.International Trucks. (2012). President Obama Supports Natural Gas. YouTube.Olano, M. V. (2023, July 14). Chart: The US is now exporting more LNG than ever before. Canary Media.Williams, Curtis. (2024, January 3). US was top LNG exporter in 2023 as hit record levels. Reuters.Energy Information Administration. (2023, November 13). Today in Energy. U.S. Energy Information AdministrationJeremy. (2023, November 14). Report: Status of U.S. LNG Export Permits and Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Symons Public Affair.The White House. (2024, January 26). FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Temporary Pause on Pending Approvals of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports.International Energy Agency. (2022). Outlook for gaseous fuels.Global Energy Monitor Wiki. (2021, May 5). Existing U.S. Coal Plants.Oil Change International. (2019, May). Burning the gas ‘bridge fuel' myth: why gas is not clean, cheap, or necessary.Lazard. (2023, April 12). 2023 Levelized Cost Of Energy+.greenmanbucket. (2016). Mark Z. Jacobson PhD on Natural Gas as a "Bridge Fuel." YouTube.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On January 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases will determine whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, should be overturned.This program will discuss the […]

Our discussion continues with David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney, who notes that flexible market-based emissions cap-and-trade programs have been applied somewhat ubiquitously to address a range of environmental issues, from eliminating lead in gasoline, to combatting acid rain, to phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals – even to allocating catch limits for herring, an issue incidentally connected to cases now pending before the Supreme Court challenging the long-standing legal precedent known as the Chevron doctrine.But Congress and the Supreme Court have rejected attempts to apply this flexible market-based approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Today, few in Washington even attempt to suggest emissions cap-and-trade as a response to greenhouse warming, and instead call for Congress to put a "price" on carbon. But Doniger notes that putting a price on carbon involves establishing a new tax, and he doesn't see a carbon tax gaining traction among Republicans in Congress."I don't think we're going to see carbon taxes because the one whole party has become the anti-tax party. It's a dead letter to one whole party," Doniger says. But he does see merit to cap-and trade, and points to bipartisan congressional agreement in 2017 to employ cap-and-trade in phasing down ozone-depleting HFCs. "There is life in the old cap-and-trade design yet," Doniger says. "There are variations of emissions trading that we continue to promote because the flexibility reduces costs for industry and therefore lets them reach farther for the same total regulatory costs."Support the show

On January 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases will determine whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, should be overturned.This program will discuss the potential effect of the decision on new rulemaking, specifically in labor law. The discussion will cover how deference has been applied in the past and how Loper and Relentless may impact recent rulemaking. The program will focus on a series of recent rulemaking, including the Section 541 Exemption Revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the NLRB's modified Independent Contractor Standard, the NLRB Joint Employer rule, and the FTC proposal to ban Non Compete Clauses.Please join us as an expert panel addresses recent rulemaking and more in pursuit of understanding the potential fallout after Loper and Relentless.To learn more about Loper's potential impact on Labor Law, check out Alex MacDonald's article on the subject here. Featuring:Alexander Thomas MacDonald, Shareholder LittlerHon. Tammy Dee McCutchen, Former Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Bob Deans, Director of Strategic Engagement at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The two detail the potentially historic storm that is currently ravaging California with mudslides, floods and loss of power. They also examine public attitudes on climate change, President Biden's move to pause approvals for pending and future applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from new projects, and a new study revealing that Canadian tar sands pollution is up to 6,300% higher than reported. Then, John Bennett, Editor at Large at Congressional Quarterly and Roll Call, previews right wing hatred of Taylor Swift ahead of the Superbowl. He and Brad also discuss whether improved economic conditions can help President Biden's re-election prospects, funding for Ukraine and Israel, the bipartisan immigration deal that passed the Senate, and more. The website for the NRDC is www.NRDC.org and their handle on X is @NRDC. The website for CQ Roll Call is www.RollCall.com and John's handle on X is @BennettJohnT. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Messenger.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on X is @BradBannon. You can watch a livestream of this broadcast at the following links: X - https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaJbgewXQrxX Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/DeadlineDCWithBradBannon/videos/952042176474976/ YouTube - https://youtube.com/live/yKdQZHtktSA?feature=share

In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will consider whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, should be overturned.Both cases concern attempts of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to promulgate rules requiring industry-funded monitoring of Atlantic herring fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Regulated fisheries contended that the MSA does not allow the NMFS to create a program requiring the industry to pay for monitoring services. The NMFS does not contend there is an explicit grant of this power, but argues its interpretation of the statute is appropriate and due deference under the precedent of Chevron. Oral argument is set to be heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024. Join us for a courthouse steps oral argument webinar featuring John Vecchione, who argued the Relentless case in the lower court, where we will discuss and break down how oral argument went in both cases before the court.Featuring:John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/16/2024): 3:05pm- On Monday night, former president Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus with 51% of his party's vote—with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis earning 21%, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley at 19%, and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy finishing fourth with 8%. Media outlets called Trump the winner roughly 30-minutes after the caucus began and before some votes were cast. 3:15pm- The Wall Street Journal noted that “Donald Trump won the Iowa caucuses Monday night with the largest margin in the history of the first Republican presidential nominating contest.” You can read the full recap from John McCormick, Alex Leary, and Eliza Collins here: https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/iowa-caucus-2024-republican-primary-d55c152a 3:20pm- Following the release of Monday's Iowa caucus results, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced he was suspending his campaign. Ramaswamy finished fourth with roughly 8% of the vote and is now endorsing Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. 3:40pm- After learning he finished a distant second to Donald Trump in Monday's Iowa caucus, Ron DeSantis told a crowd of supporters that “we've got our ticket punched out of Iowa”—calling the result a success as rivals “spent almost $50 million attacking” him and his campaign. 4:05pm- During his Iowa caucus victory speech, Donald Trump joked: “I want to congratulate Ron [DeSantis] and Nikki [Haley] for having a good time” in Iowa. However, MSNBC did not air his speech—host Rachel Maddow explained that the decision was “not out of spite” but because the television station didn't want to broadcast “untrue things.” In the same broadcast, Joy Reid accused white Christians in Iowa of supporting Trump because they believe everyone aside from “white, conservative Christians” are “fraudulent” Americans. She also accused Ron DeSantis of destroying Florida's K-12 education system—however, a quick fact check indicates it's actually ranked #1 in country. 4:20pm- Despite finishing behind former President Donald and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley claimed that the Republican presidential nomination is now a “two-person race” between herself and Trump. According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Trump leads Haley 44% to 29% in New Hampshire and 52% to 22% in her home state of South Carolina. 4:30pm- On a recent episode of The Journal podcast, New Hampshire voters revealed that they are changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican prior to the state's January 23rd primary. Because they can't vote for their preferred candidate—Joe Biden—as he won't appear on the ballot following a Democrat National Committee feud with the state over scheduling dates, many Democrat voters are now registering as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump, supporting rival candidates like Nikki Haley. Democrats have seemingly destroyed their own New Hampshire primary, are they impacting the Republican primary as well? 4:40pm- The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “The Supreme Court has been trying to restore the proper constitutional balance of power, and its next opportunity comes Wednesday when it hears two cases challenging its own landmark Chevron doctrine (Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce). In 1984 in Chevron v. NRDC, the Justices ruled that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretation of laws when the statutory text is silent or ambiguous. In practice this has become a license for Congress to write vague laws that delegate legislative power to administrative agencies. Over the last 40 years the federal register of regulations has grown by tens of thousands of pages. Wednesday's cases are textbook examples of how regulators invoke Chevron to expand their power and impose enormous burdens on Americans. Family-owned herring fisheries and vessel operators are challenging an obscure Commerce rule that requires New England fisheries to pay for on-board monitors.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-the-supreme-court-to-overturn-chevron-deference-e7f762b4?mod=opinion_lead_pos2 5:05pm- On Monday night, former president Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus with 51% of his party's vote—with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis earning 21%, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley at 19%, and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy finishing fourth with 8%. Media outlets called Trump the winner roughly 30-minutes after the caucus began and before some votes were cast. Despite finishing behind former President Donald and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley claimed that the Republican presidential nomination is now a “two-person race” between herself and Trump. According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Trump leads Haley 44% to 29% in New Hampshire and 52% to 22% in her home state of South Carolina. With Trump seemingly well on his way towards winning the Republican nomination, despite Haley's claims to the contrary, who might the former president select to be his Vice President? 5:10pm- On Monday Night Football, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Philadelphia Eagles 32 to 9. The Eagles finished their season losing six of their final seven games. Will head coach Nick Sirianni be fired? According to reports, Eagles All-Pro Center—and future Hall of Famer—Jason Kelce is expected to retire. 5:30pm- In The New York Times podcast Matter of Opinion, hosts Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, and Carlos Lozada discussed the possibility that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, he might run again in 2028—wrongfully claiming he was constitutionally permitted to serve again because his presidential terms weren't consecutive. 5:40pm- While speaking with CNBC, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Ukraine needs an additional $50 billion in aid. He also emphasized that “this is not a forever war.” 5:50pm- Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal reports: “The Biden administration plans to put the Houthi rebel group back on its list of foreign terrorist organizations, days after the U.S. launched strikes on its facilities in Yemen in retaliation for months of attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea.” You can read more here: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-to-put-houthis-back-on-terrorist-list-596a974a# 5:55pm- Following the release of Monday's Iowa caucus results, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced he was suspending his campaign. Ramaswamy finished fourth with roughly 8% of the vote and is now endorsing Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. 6:05pm- Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law writes: “Conservative appellate judges, including three appointed by Donald Trump, decried what they view as an unprecedented search of the former president's social media records as part of the special counsel's election interference investigation. Decisions by two courts blessing a search warrant into Trump's Twitter account “have flipped the presumption” that presidential communications should be privileged, Judge Neomi Rao of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote Tuesday.” 6:10pm-Ryan Binkley shocks the world in Iowa caucus! Wait. Who? No one has ever heard of him, but Binkley somehow won more votes than former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie combined. 6:20pm- In an editorial featured in The Wall Street Journal, Tal Fortgang writes: “The anti-Israel demonstrators who have blocked traffic in major cities across the country know that their victims are decent people. There is little risk that the drivers who can't get to their jobs, families and other obligations will run them over because those drivers are careful to avoid harming others and breaking the law—even as they face down people who flagrantly do both… Those who reacted to Hamas's Oct. 7 attack by doubling down on calls for Israel's elimination emulate Hamas by inflicting suffering on innocent people to achieve their political ends, albeit at a much smaller scale. Seeing their own cause as absolutely righteous, they are blind to the cruelty of their own actions and prey upon those too decent to respond with deterrent force. They think they are engaging in civil disobedience, the tactic that exposed the injustice of racial segregation. But they aren't trying to draw attention to the wrongness of the laws they are breaking; they are trying to draw attention to an unrelated political issue. These demonstrators would more accurately be called civil terrorists.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/blocking-the-road-is-a-hamas-like-strategem-anti-israel-protesters-099787f0?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 6:40pm- Did a half-naked man randomly just walk through Dick Morris' living room during a Newsmax appearance?

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: During his Iowa caucus victory speech, Donald Trump joked: “I want to congratulate Ron [DeSantis] and Nikki [Haley] for having a good time” in Iowa. However, MSNBC did not air his speech—host Rachel Maddow explained that the decision was “not out of spite” but because the television station didn't want to broadcast “untrue things.” In the same broadcast, Joy Reid accused white Christians in Iowa of supporting Trump because they believe everyone aside from “white, conservative Christians” are “fraudulent” Americans. She also accused Ron DeSantis of destroying Florida's K-12 education system—however, a quick fact check indicates it's actually ranked #1 in country. Despite finishing behind former President Donald and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley claimed that the Republican presidential nomination is now a “two-person race” between herself and Trump. According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Trump leads Haley 44% to 29% in New Hampshire and 52% to 22% in her home state of South Carolina. On a recent episode of The Journal podcast, New Hampshire voters revealed that they are changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican prior to the state's January 23rd primary. Because they can't vote for their preferred candidate—Joe Biden—as he won't appear on the ballot following a Democrat National Committee feud with the state over scheduling dates, many Democrat voters are now registering as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump, supporting rival candidates like Nikki Haley. Democrats have seemingly destroyed their own New Hampshire primary, are they impacting the Republican primary as well? The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “The Supreme Court has been trying to restore the proper constitutional balance of power, and its next opportunity comes Wednesday when it hears two cases challenging its own landmark Chevron doctrine (Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce). In 1984 in Chevron v. NRDC, the Justices ruled that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretation of laws when the statutory text is silent or ambiguous. In practice this has become a license for Congress to write vague laws that delegate legislative power to administrative agencies. Over the last 40 years the federal register of regulations has grown by tens of thousands of pages. Wednesday's cases are textbook examples of how regulators invoke Chevron to expand their power and impose enormous burdens on Americans. Family-owned herring fisheries and vessel operators are challenging an obscure Commerce rule that requires New England fisheries to pay for on-board monitors.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-the-supreme-court-to-overturn-chevron-deference-e7f762b4?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. Experts on both sides argue it has implications on the role of judges, judicial independence, separation of powers, stare decisis, governmental accountability, and the rule of law.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward. Featuring:Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties AllianceProf. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

In this episode, Peter Lehner, head of the food and farming sustainability program at Earthjustice, gives his expert perspective on the upcoming Farm Bill and its potential impact on agricultural decarbonization in the US.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsAs longtime subscribers know — indeed, as the name makes plain — Volts is primarily focused on the energy side the climate fight. I haven't paid much attention to agriculture over the years. I understand that agriculture is a huge piece of the puzzle, both for decarbonization and for sustainability more generally. It's just not really been my jam.However! The Farm Bill — which requires reauthorization every five years — is likely to pass in coming months, and it is arguably the most important climate bill Congress will address this session.To talk me through the agriculture/climate nexus and discuss opportunities in the upcoming Farm Bill, I contacted Peter Lehner. He is the head of Earthjustice's food and farming sustainability program, and the author of Farming for Our Future: The Science, Law, and Policy of Climate-Neutral Agriculture.We talked about how US agriculture has evaded environmental laws and become the source of 30 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions, ways that the upcoming Farm Bill can be tweaked to better fight climate change, and what's next for agriculture decarbonization.Peter Lehner of Earthjustice, welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming on.Peter LehnerGreat to be here, Dave.David RobertsAs you may know, if you have read my work over the years or followed me at all, I'm pretty heavily, deeply into the energy world as the source of most of my time and attention in the climate fight. I know on some level, partially because I've been lectured by people numerous times over the years, that agriculture is a big piece of the puzzle — and land use and oceans, which are other things that I also don't spend much time on. And I fully acknowledge that they're important, they're just not my personal passion. However, I've felt vaguely guilty about that for years.And I know the Farm Bill is coming up, which is a significant marker, I think, possibly the source of some significant action. We'll discuss that in a while. But at the very least a good excuse, I think, for me to check in and just sort of see like, what's the state of climate and agriculture, you know, action stuff, what's going on there? So, that's what you're here for, Peter, because you are the expert author of a book on the subject, numerous podcasts, been studying this for a long time. So before we get into the Farm Bill, just maybe — I know that the subject of the ties between agriculture and climate and carbon and methane greenhouse gases is very complicated.You've written entire books on the subject. But I wonder, for people like me who have had their nose mostly in the energy world, if you could just summarize relatively quickly what are the big kind of buckets where agriculture overlaps with carbon and decarbonization and climate generally? What are the big areas of concern that people should have their eyes on?Peter LehnerSure, you know, I should say, Dave, that I came to this really the same as you. I'd been working on energy issues for a very long time. For three decades, I've sued many power plants. I've worked on many different environmental laws dealing with regulation of the power sector. And what happened is, over time, doing general environmental law for New York State, for NRDC, for Earthjustice where I am now, I kept seeing the impact of agriculture as really being enormous and impeding our ability to achieve our environmental and health goals unless it was addressed. So that's why I'm focusing on this now.But like you, I think most environmentalists focus much more on the industrial sector, the power sector, the transportation sector. And part of what I've come to realize is that we all should pay a lot more attention to the agriculture sector. And we'll talk about the Farm Bill coming up. But really the Farm Bill is the biggest environmental law Congress will address that most people have never heard of. Now why is that? So, I'll tell you quickly. First, agriculture uses most of our land. It uses about two thirds of the contiguous U.S.David RobertsCan I pause you there?Peter LehnerSure.David RobertsThat took me two or three seconds to catch up with that before my mind blew. Two thirds of the land of the contiguous United States is devoted to agriculture?Peter Lehner62%, yeah. And that's about using rounder numbers, about 400 million acres of cropland. About half of that is used to grow food that people eat, and about half of that is growing food that animals eat. And close to 800 million acres of grazing land, some of that is federal land, some of that is state land. A lot of that is private land. But all told, it's over a billion acres of land, almost all in the lower 48 is used for agriculture.David RobertsThat is wild.Peter LehnerSo think about it. If you fly anywhere and look out the window, what do you see? You really see agriculture, whether it be the irrigation circles or just the fields or whatever. That's what has transformed our landscape. And part of the result of that, of course, is agriculture is really the biggest driver of biodiversity loss. So much of biodiversity loss is habitat loss. And look, I've spent decades working on issues like grizzly bears and wolves. But what those issues are at bottom is agriculture because we are grazing in grizzly and wolf territory. And so much of habitat loss, whether it be land or polluted waters, is driving other biodiversity loss.So in addition to that, what I was going to mention is the environmental laws that you're probably familiar with, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act have actually done a pretty good job of addressing air and water pollution from industrial sources, from the energy sector. But they really have not done a very good job addressing air and water pollution from agriculture, whether it be these hundreds of millions of acres of row crops. Or these hundreds of million acres of grazing. Or these more industrial scale facilities where thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of animals are crammed together into buildings — those are called concentrated animal feeding operations. Those are now the largest source of water pollution in the country.David RobertsDid the laws pass over them or just inadequately address them?Peter LehnerA little bit of both. What happened was in 1972, say, when the Clean Water Act was passed, Congress really wasn't thinking that much about agriculture. But also agriculture has changed tremendously since then. It has become so much more industrial. So that a small number of facilities that are gargantuan produce, for example, almost all of our meat, but those didn't exist in 1970. And as you probably know, in the Clean Water Act, it did a good job dealing with pollution coming out of a pipe. But pollution, say, coming off of city streets, that's called non-point source pollution.The regulation was much less strong, and they relied more on grants and education and sort of nudges, as we say. And much of agriculture — 400 million acres of cropland, 800 million acres of grazing land — that's not, by and large, water pollution coming out of a pipe. So essentially, the Clean Water Act doesn't cover it. And similarly, the Clean Air Act does a great job of addressing stuff coming out of smokestacks. And while there's some, like from these concentrated animal feeding operations, there's very concentrated air pollution coming out of the vents. But out of all of those acres of cropland and grazing land, those are called area sources under the Clean Air Act and are addressed much, much less.But still, air pollution from agriculture, I bet this would surprise most of your readers, kills about 17,000 people a year. It's a major source of air pollution in this country.And that is mostly methane or other criteria pollutants?Methane is actually one of the ways agriculture drives climate change. It's actually other pollutants, largely ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which come from overfertilization and animal waste. And ammonia is a major precursor to the fine particulate matter that gets into our lungs and causes disease and kills us.David RobertsWhich we're finding out, as I've covered on the pod, is worse. You known, every time a new round of science comes out, we find out it's worse than we thought.Peter LehnerYeah. And in a place like, say, the San Joaquin Valley in central California, which has some of the worst air quality in the country, almost all of that PM, that fine particulate matter, is driven by animal agriculture.David RobertsAnd I'm also going to guess maybe you're going to get to this, but that when you take wild land and make it into agricultural land, the land subsequently captures and holds less carbon.Peter LehnerMuch less carbon. So one of the reasons why I think people don't realize that agriculture drives about as much climate change as our transportation sector is — and think about that for a minute, it drives as much climate change as our transportation sector — and yet most of the time there are conversations about climate change and conversations about agriculture. But until recently, those have been two separate conversations. Say in 2018, when we were working on the Farm Bill then, there was virtually no discussion of climate change in the 2018 Farm Bill.David RobertsI'll admit I don't think of it that way in the mental category in my head when I'm thinking about major sources.Peter LehnerYeah, well, why is that? I think that's because when we think about climate change, most people think about climate change, you think about burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide.David RobertsRight.Peter LehnerAnd that's climate change for most people. Agriculture's contribution to climate change has some of that. Agriculture uses actually a fair amount of energy for, say, irrigation and tractors and of course, food processing later on down the road. But most of agriculture's contribution to climate change is from other sources.David RobertsRight. Which is to say that even if we clean up energy sources, which everybody is working on, and even if the energy inputs to agriculture, you drive the tractors with whatever, electric tractors or electric irrigators, whatever, even if it's zero carbon energy fueling agriculture, that still leaves most of agriculture's contribution to climate change untouched.Peter LehnerExactly, that's true. And even more frightening, even if we do clean up our energy system and our industrial system to a no carbon situation where we hope to of course, that's where we're putting so much effort into, we will still almost certainly face catastrophic climate change because of the contribution of agriculture alone. In other words, if we do everything else perfectly and we don't change our agriculture system and don't address agriculture's contribution to climate change, we are blowing past 1.5 degrees centigrade, blowing past two degrees.David RobertsSo you think just taking the U.S.: The U.S. can't meet its stated Paris climate targets without reforming agriculture?Peter LehnerThat's basically correct. So let me explain a minute why this is the case. Agriculture's contribution to climate change: First, think about methane, which you've mentioned most people think about methane, oil and gas, right?David RobertsYeah.Peter LehnerActually, cows and animal agriculture emit more methane in the U.S. and around the world than the oil and gas sector. Most of that methane is called enteric methane. It's essentially belching and exhaling of cows. And their stomachs are different than ours. That's why they can eat grass in a way that you and I can't. But every time they breathe out, they're breathing out a lot of methane. So that is an enormous source of methane, which I'm sure your listeners know is more than 80 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over 20 years.David RobertsNobody thought they're innovating a better cow, are they? That seems like fewer cows is the only solution to that. I mean, maybe we're going to touch on solutions later so maybe we should save this. But just like that doesn't seem like a technologically solvable problem. You just need fewer cows.Peter LehnerMost studies have shown that fewer cows, and therefore the consequent part of that is shifting diets to less beef-heavy is one of the fastest, most effective and cost-effective climate strategies and really has to be a part of any strategy. There are things you can do. Breeding has reduced the methane emissions per pound of beef. The way you raise the cows can make a difference. The way you graze them can make a difference. How long they live before they're slaughtered can make a difference. There is some research into feed additives that you'd feed cows, and that changes the bacteria in their gut to produce a little less methane.David RobertsOh, interesting.Peter LehnerAnd all of these are important. There's not one solution. But I think what is unfortunate is sometimes it's viewed by industry as only a technical solution. And the reality is it has to be both technical and essentially demand side. So, the other way methane is produced is manure. There's all those animals. We've got about 50 times more waste produced by animals than by humans in the United States.David Roberts50 times more?Peter LehnerYeah. Those animals produce a lot of waste. One dairy cow, for example, can produce about as much waste as 200 people.David RobertsJesus Christ.Peter LehnerSo all that waste, most of it sits in lagoons or essentially is handled in such a way that it creates a lot of methane. So that's another way that methane is produced and agriculture contributes to climate change.David RobertsWhen people talk about lagoons, I just want to clarify here, they just take all the manure and slough it into a giant pond of manure where it then sits. Is that what people are talking about when they talk about lagoons? There's not any fancy technical. It's just a big pool full of crap.Peter LehnerThat's basically correct. And that's the dominant way in both pig farms and dairy farms, we handle our waste. To get technical, when you put the manure into a big pit like this, because it's wet, there's water, it's transported by water, it is anaerobic. That means it doesn't have oxygen. So as it decomposes, it releases methane. And that is a really significant source of methane all around the country and contributes both locally, but also obviously, majorly to climate change. And I should say rice, also, rice production, also, if you think about it again, you have the image of a rice patty, it's flooded. So you have organic matter decomposing in an anaerobic, without oxygen, system releasing methane. But by far, most methane is from cow belching.David RobertsThat's the big source.Peter LehnerYes.David RobertsBigger than manure.Peter LehnerBigger than manure. Although manure is also very big, I don't want to minimize that. And the two together, again, are more than the oil and gas sector.David RobertsThat is wild. There's so much attention going to oil and gas methane right now, EPA rules coming, there's international treaties being signed, like on and on.Peter LehnerYep. And there should be. We obviously need to address those sources of methane. I think that what is often forgotten is we also have to address these other sources of methane. So the other reason it gets confusing is the other two ways agriculture contributes to climate change are also very different than burning fossil fuels. The second is that almost all of that cropland uses a lot of fertilizer. By and large, in the U.S. and around the world, people put on a lot more fertilizer than the plants take up, and a lot of nitrogen is added to the ground that is not absorbed by the plant.So where does that nitrogen go? Some of it runs off into the water, and then it causes eutrophication, algae outbreaks. It causes the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It seeps into groundwater: You have heard of blue baby syndrome, which is too much nitrate in the groundwater. But some of it also goes into the air. And some of it goes into the air as NOx, which is sort of a local smog causing pollution. And some of it goes into the air as nitrous oxide. N2O nitrous oxide, which is about 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and also one of the major drivers of ozone depletion, stratospheric ozone depletion.So this is a major source of climate change, nitrous oxide pollution alone, virtually all of which comes from agriculture, virtually all of which is this overfertilization and some coming from these manure pits that we talked about before. That alone is about 5% or six percent of U.S. greenhouse gases.David RobertsOh, wow.Peter LehnerSo again, it's not burning fossil fuels, but a major contribution to climate change. And then the last way agriculture contributes to climate change is what you alluded to earlier. When you convert land, say, native grasslands or forest in Brazil or forest in the U.S. to cropland, you take this carbon that is in those healthy soils or in the grass or in the trees, and you release it, and that goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. So you get two things: One is you get this slug of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when you convert land, this conversion of land from grassland to forest.But then the second part, which EPA is only beginning to really pay attention to, is what you can think of as the lost sequestration capacity. Healthy land, grassland, forest, land is this very dynamic, wonderful system that is sequestering carbon and storing carbon. And by contrast, cropland is really — the way we treat it often is largely biologically dead. It has very little carbon life in it. And that's why we have to put so many fertilizers in it.David RobertsIs that just because of monocrops? Is that just an inevitable result of monocrops?Peter LehnerI'm not sure it's absolutely inevitable. It's in large part because of the way we grow in these sort of chemical dependent monocultures, for sure. So you have both this slug of carbon when you convert land. But, hey, look, a lot of our cropland in the U.S. was converted 100 years ago. Every year, that is not sequestering nearly as much as it could. So you were losing the sequestration capacity. That 800 million acres of grazing land — think about that, it's about 40% of the contiguous U.S. And it has been overgrazed for decades. There are reports of John Wesley Powell going out west and saying, "Whoa!"He was sent out to look after exploring some more remote areas. But everywhere he saw cattle, he said the land is getting degraded. In 1934, Congress tried to address overgrazing and erosion and soil degradation. And then 1976, they tried to do it again, so far, really not to much avail, with the result that you have hundreds of millions of acres that aren't sequestering the carbon they could.David RobertsYeah, this came up in our Biofuels discussion a few weeks ago, too. A lot of new thinking about biofuels is taking that sort of counterfactual sequestration into account.Peter LehnerExactly. And you did a great podcast with my colleague Dan Lashof, and we're working together on biofuels. That was a great podcast you did there. So if you add all of this up, what you see is that agriculture has this enormous contribution to climate change, but it's so different than the way most people think about climate change. And what happens also is EPA sort of thinks about it differently. So, first of all, their classic greenhouse gas inventory puts, say, on farm energy in a different category. They don't put that in agriculture. They put that in energy, or they put that in the manufacturer fertilizer, which itself is enormously energy intensive and releases a lot of CO2.That's in a different chapter. Land use conversion, that carbon that I was telling you about, they put that in a different chapter, and they don't even think about, in their greenhouse gas inventory about the lost sequestration capacity, this opportunity cost. So if you just look at the inventory, EPA says that agriculture contributes about 11% of U.S. greenhouse gases. But if you actually think of agriculture as a sector all, what really goes into agriculture, and you include the land use impacts, which, as I said, are usually left out, that's where you get that agriculture is basically in a par with transportation and is about a quarter drives about a quarter of climate change.And then, if you include the rest of the food system, the processing, et cetera.David RobertsFood waste.Peter LehnerAnd food waste, of course, rotting in landfills, you've got about a third or more of climate change is driven by our food system. And that's why unless we change our food system, we're not going to address climate change adequately.David RobertsWild, okay. I want to get to the Farm Bill, but one final question, which is just my — and again, this is sort of my impression from the outside over the year — is that the agriculture industry has a level of power and influence in political circles that I think most people don't appreciate. That sort of makes the oil and gas sector look like patty cakes. It's amazing. I will never forget that Oprah — I don't know if other listeners are old enough to remember this — but Oprah said on her show once, basically, "You know, beef's bad, it's not very healthy and it destroys the environment."And got taken to task by the agriculture industry and they basically took her down and forced her to publicly apologize. And if you can take Oprah down, you've got muscle.Peter LehnerYeah. And it is certainly true. There's no question that the conventional or industrial agriculture lobby is very powerful in Congress. I would point out that there's a lot of great farmers who are trying to do things right and are working to produce food, healthy food, in a sustainable way. And we work with groups like the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which is itself a coalition of a lot of these groups, I wish they had the political power that conventional AG does because they do great stuff and they are really examples of what we want to be doing, how we can produce food in a way that doesn't pollute our air and water and that rebuilds soil health.But unfortunately, the political power is with the agrochemical industries, which are very dominant. They say the meat processing companies, four companies control 85% of the beef market. These are enormously politically powerful.David RobertsSo the Farm Bill then, before we get into the details of what the Farm Bill might do or what you want it to do, let's just talk about the Farm Bill as such. This is something that they pass every year or a set number of years because it just like comes up periodically. Is this something they have to do every session?Peter LehnerNo. So, the Farm Bill is so important, and for a long time, really, when it comes up, it's really only the farm community that pays attention to it. And I think what I hope you've heard is that everybody should pay attention to it. And that's why the Farm Bill is far more important than people realize. For all of us who eat, for all of us who breathe, for all of us who drink, the Farm Bill has an enormous impact. So what is the Farm Bill? The Farm Bill was first passed actually in the Depression in 1933. There was the Depression and hunger.There was the Dust Bowl, there was the crisis on farms. And so Congress stepped in. And I can give you a long history and I won't. But basically Congress did two things. One, they tried to address the hunger and they also tried to restrict supply, pay farmers not to produce, to keep prices high. And sometimes also buy some surplus to give that to the hungry also, but as a way of keeping the surplus off the market and keeping prices high.David RobertsThat's why the Farm Bill has this weird structure where it has food subsidies for the poor in it, which I think, on the surface, seems like just an odd artifact.Peter LehnerYeah. And it's also essentially a political marriage. So, the Farm Bill, on one hand, provides nutrition assistance, now called SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, formerly Food SNAP, that helps feed about 45 million Americans every year, and that right now provides about $75-80 billion a year. It also then provides about $20 billion a year in farm subsidies. And ever since it was passed in 1933, it was amended a few times. But basically, it has to get reenacted, reauthorized every five years. And if it doesn't, these programs on which so many people depend basically stop. They won't continue without being reauthorized.So the last Farm Bill that was fully enacted was in 2018, and so it expired September 30, 2023. There was still a little extra money hanging around, so we had a couple of months. But then what Congress just did a couple of weeks ago in the continuing resolution that funded the government up to January 19, they also agreed to extend the Farm Bill until September 30, 2024.David RobertsSuch a rational —Peter LehnerYeah, exactly. We're covered right now. But it ends up being enormously important because it provides this nutrition assistance for, as I said, 45 million Americans. Really important. And it also has a series of different programs that provide enormous subsidies to farmers. And those subsidies, when you put them together, have an enormous impact on what is grown, where it's grown, how it's grown, and all of that for the reasons I was just explaining about how agriculture affects our environment, and climate change has an enormous impact on the environment. And that's why the Farm Bill is actually the most important environmental law Congress is going to address in the next couple of years.And unlike our other environmental laws that haven't been amended for decades, this one is amended every five years.David RobertsI'm so interested in the SNAP thing. I mean, it's a big safety net program, correct? That's been around since 1933, I am assuming, in fact, I know to be the case that conservatives hate social safety programs generally, and I bet they hate SNAP. So what is the magic sauce that has allowed this extremely large subsidy for poor people to survive what I can only assume are repeated conservative attempts to weaken or get rid of it? Is there some reason it has stayed in? How has it survived, I guess, is what I'm asking.Peter LehnerLook, I'm not the super political expert here, but what people have said who know this and have worked with this is, you essentially have a marriage. You have the Democrats that support the Nutrition Assistance Program, and by and large, Republicans support the farmer subsidies and neither has enough support to get either of those through separately. And in some ways there's something good there, which is that the Farm Bill has always been pretty bipartisan. And for example, right now Senator Stabenow, who is the Democratic Chair of the Senate AG Committee, and Senator Boozman who's the Republican ranking member of the Senate AG Committee, are really trying to work together because history is that this Farm Bill doesn't get passed unless it's bipartisan.David RobertsDefinitionally it will have to be this time, right?Peter LehnerExactly.David RobertsIt's going to have to go through a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. I mean, is it viewed is it widely accepted as sort of must pass, like they are going to figure something out or is there any chance at all that it could just lapse?Peter LehnerI don't think there's really any chance it would just lapse because that would largely end these programs on which so many Americans, both the Americans who need it for food — and by the way, it's often thought of as though those are urban Americans and rural Americans are the farmers. That's not the case. There are people all around the country and in many places rural communities at even higher rates that depend on SNAP assistance, on food assistance. So this is really important to everybody. And of course producing food is important. So the farm safety net is important.What could happen is, I suppose, even though I think both the House and the Senate agriculture leaders are saying they're going to work very hard to get a new Farm Bill out in the spring of 2024, if that doesn't happen, potentially they could just extend it for another year the way they just did.David RobertsThat does seem like the way we do things.Peter LehnerRight. It's not ideal, but I don't think, and people who know this area better than I do, I don't think the chances of the law just ending completely is really in the cards.David RobertsSo they're going to figure something out, so they're going to pass something. So this is a chance to get some good things through.Peter LehnerRight. And there's some good things in. And I should say one of the important elements here is the Inflation Reduction Act. And you've probably talked about that a lot and mostly focused on the many billions of dollars that went to clean energy programs. But the Inflation Reduction Act also put $20 billion into essentially Farm Bill programs, preexisting Farm Bill programs, which pay farmers to implement conservation measures. And those have always been oversubscribed, which means more farmers apply for this assistance than can get it. So the Inflation Reduction Act put an extra close to $20 billion over four years into these conservation programs, but with a twist, which we think is terrific.Most of these conservation programs are for a wide range of resource concerns: water quality, air quality, habitat, and others. In the Inflation Reduction Act these have to be conservation practices focused on reducing net greenhouse gases.David RobertsInteresting.Peter LehnerSo this was the first time — in the Inflation Reduction Act — that Congress really, in any way, really linked agriculture and climate change and said, "Here's $20 extra billion, but you got to spend it on climate change."David RobertsRight. So AG did not get completely overlooked then, in this last session, in this last round, because yeah, I hadn't really paid attention to that. I had kind of thought it was like the redheaded stepchild that got passed over. So there is $20 billion is not pocket change either.Peter LehnerNo, it's a lot of money. As I said, right now, the core Farm Bill gives farmers about $20 billion in subsidies every year. But most of those subsidies are not for conservation programs. A lot of that is for what are called either commodity support, where essentially a farmer gets paid, based on what he grew in the past, if the market price or his revenue goes below a certain price. So it's essentially a price guarantee called the reference price.David RobertsIt's an extremely Soviet sector of our economy.Peter LehnerYeah. And it's largely almost three-quarters of that goes to corn and soybean, which of course, is largely used either for animal feed or for ethanol. And then we also have crop insurance, which, again, that makes a lot of sense. We all want to eat. We need food security, there should be crop insurance. In this case, the premiums are very heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. Over 60% subsidized. And again, over about three-quarters of crop insurance went to corn, soy, wheat and cotton, those four big crops. And what happens, the environmental impact of that is it encourages farmers to essentially plant in riskier areas, which tend to be the more ecologically sensitive areas, because if it works out, they get all the benefit, and if it doesn't work out, the taxpayer funded crop insurance pays them off.David RobertsLittle moral hazard there.Peter LehnerRight, exactly. And then the last bit is these conservation programs, which got this big boost in the Inflation Reduction Act.David RobertsIs there any reason to think that that 20 billion is threatened in some way, or is that pretty secure? Is that part of the Farm Bill fight those subsidies?Peter LehnerYou nailed it. Absolutely. Much of what we've been hearing are ideas of how to essentially — we think of it as a raid on that money, that $20 billion. And some would say, well, let's put it to a broader range of conservation issues like irrigation or something, and others would say keep it within agriculture, but instead let's use it to sort of lift, say, the price guarantee that peanut farmers get. And we have been pushing very hard to try to keep this money and keep it climate focused. And fortunately, Senator Stabenow, who, as I said, is the chair of the Senate AG Committee, has been very, very firm.She has repeatedly said that it's not going to happen that we're going to lose this. Because this is really an extraordinary investment. It's big boost in conservation funding and the fact that it is climate focused is really important because this is where there has not been enough attention over the past and where there's really great opportunities. I think it's important just to pause for a moment and just remind there's a lot of things farmers can do, and some farmers are already doing, that can make a big difference in how much nitrous oxide you release, how much methane you release, how much carbon is stored in your soil. And the trouble is most of those practices are only used on about 2% or 3% of American farmland.So we know what we want to do and this is a way to really accelerate the adoption of those practices.David RobertsSo would you say that's the biggest priority here, the biggest fight, the biggest priority for the Farm Bill is preserving that money for its intended purpose?Peter LehnerYes, with a slight caveat. One is we definitely want to save the Inflation Reduction Act money, but the Farm Bill money is separate. The Inflation Reduction Act directed additional money into Farm Bill programs. But the Farm Bill itself provides money. And so we're going to want to be sure that we continue what's called the baseline amount of funding for the conservation programs in the Farm Bill and ideally make sure that those are better targeted, also more closely targeted to climate issues. And actually the federal government itself, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service has studied these practices that they're funding and they themselves have found that some of them are actually counterproductive.Needless to say, we'd like to say let's not have the taxpayer subsidize practices that the government itself recognizes are counterproductive. Let's focus on the best practices, the ones that have the best climate and environmental impact. And since there's a lot of farmer interest in these, let's really put our money where it can make the biggest difference.David RobertsYeah. So fights over the money and you mentioned also in your blogs on this subject, speaking of research, that AG research in general is undercooked, underfunded. Is there a chance to get more of that in the Farm Bill?Peter LehnerWe are certainly hoping. And again, there's two or three elements of that under President Obama, he started these climate hubs which were really areas to focus on climate aspects of agriculture. There's been a lot of research but most of it has been on productivity and what you can think of as just classic conventional agriculture chemicals. So one is to get more research. Unfortunately, publicly funded research has dropped in the U.S. And when that gets its place taken by private funded research; it's not on things like climate change, it's on things like seeds that you can sell.And then the other is that that research — so, we need more, we need it to be better focused on sustainable practices rather than on unsustainable practices. And we need it to be essentially guaranteed because research is a long-term process. If you just do it for a couple of years, you may not, especially in agriculture, things take time. And so, we need a long-term commitment to these climate hubs and to research and sustainable agriculture. There was a study done by, I think it was UC Davis — I'm not sure — that every dollar in agricultural research has over $20 in payback.It's one of the most cost-effective ways we can spend research dollars. So that's a real opportunity for us.David RobertsAnd you also mentioned the crop insurance program, which I think most — even if you just explain that to a person on the street, the opportunities for that to encourage bad behavior seem quite obvious from the structure of the thing. Are substantial reforms to that on the table at all, or is that a subject of discussion?Peter LehnerI think it's a subject of some discussion and a lot of people in different ways want to make sure we get the best benefit. They recognize we do want crop insurance because it's important to recognize crops are sort of different. Most insurance is sort of trying to pool risk. So if my house burns down, I get covered. But if my house burns down, it probably doesn't mean your house is burning down. But with crops, if I have a bad crop, chances are my neighbor does too. That's why I think some amount of government involvement in crop insurance makes sense.You really have to sort of spread the risk around. And of course, food security is really important for our country. So we want to keep crop insurance, but we also want to do it to incentivize behavior that minimizes risk. And in particular, as climate change is affecting farmers more and more with droughts and floods and changing weather patterns and increased pests, we'd like to ensure that our crop insurance system is encouraging farmers to use practices that minimize risk. Unfortunately, right now a lot of the practices that farmers use actually enhance risk. They make them more vulnerable to floods and droughts.And the good news here is that many of the same practices that the Inflation Reduction Act will be funding that will help mitigate or curb climate change will also help farmers adapt or prepare for climate change or better respond and manage climate change. The same ones that mitigate can help build resilience. And that's a real opportunity.David RobertsAnd what about the Rural Energy for America program, REAP as it's called? This came up when I raised the subject on Twitter. This came up a couple of times. Is that on your radar?Peter LehnerIt is not as much. So, I'm not an expert. But there again, there was money in the Inflation Reduction Act to help convert some of the rural energies, which I remember from my time working on energy are some of the dirtiest parts of the power sector and there's great opportunity in rural communities. One thing they have is a lot of land. And so it's a great opportunity to shift from, say, an old dirty coal plant to solar and wind. And I think that's what the Inflation Reduction Act funding will help accelerate.David RobertsAnd the final thing you mentioned in your blogs was transparency. This is another thing where on the energy side I've been following, there's a lot of talk about this, a lot of talk about like California just passed a law that forces large industrial users to report their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. So there's a lot of work on transparency on the energy side, I'm guessing giant AG corporations are not super transparent. What can be done on that front?Peter LehnerWell, we need to keep pushing that. That is a real problem. And I think it's a problem both in the specifics that there's very little transparency and it's not over agriculture's contribution to climate change, but agriculture's conventional air pollution. I mentioned earlier that say these concentrated animal feeding operations are the country's largest sources of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, which are poisonous gases. And EPA for a long time exempted them from reporting under the federal statutes. And we actually sued EPA and said that exemption was illegal and the court agreed with us. And then the industry was powerful enough during the Trump administration to get Congress to amend the environmental laws —David RobertsHoly crap.Peter Lehnerto exempt them from — and again, this is just reporting their poisonous emissions.David RobertsIs there any plausible cover story for that or is that just a pure power play like we don't want to?Peter LehnerIt's hard not to see it as a power play because of course, reporting is, I think, by industry seen as the first step to potential oversight or regulation.David RobertsHeaven forbid.Peter LehnerWe were talking earlier how nobody really understands how much agriculture contributes to climate change. And of course, if they don't understand that, there's going to be no pressure politically to address that contribution. And unfortunately, right now, agriculture doesn't have to report their greenhouse gas emissions. There's been a rider in Congress for almost a decade prohibiting EPA from making industrial agriculture report its greenhouse gas emissions. And there's already proposals in Congress that if the SEC rule requiring reporting ever comes out to try to exempt agriculture from that, there has been pushback in almost every way of having agriculture to report their emissions.And the sad reality is these emissions are real. They're either causing climate change or they're causing local air pollution or both. And not reporting them doesn't mean they don't cause climate change. It just means we're not going to address them as effectively. So it's really important that people begin to understand that this is a sector that has tremendous impact and we've got to be much more open about it so that we can address it in a way that makes sense. And look, we all eat: We need to have a food sector. Nobody is saying that we should get rid of the food sector in any way.Agriculture is super important, not only to the country overall, but to every state. But we also know enough today to be able to produce healthier food in a much more sustainable way.David RobertsYeah, you've laid out some specific stuff that sort of climate aware people are pursuing here. Preserving the IRA money for conservation programs, beefing up those conservation programs, aiming those conservation programs more at climate change, beefing up research, reforming the federal crop insurance program, increasing transparency. Give me a sort of realpolitik assessment. How should we think about the chances of these good things happening? Unlike on the energy side, where nothing passing at all was always an extremely real and looming possibility here, something's got to pass. Right? So what do you think are the chances of this good stuff getting in there?Like what's? Sort of the balance of political forces? And I'm thinking specifically about the House, the Republican House, which is, as you might have heard, insane and incompetent.Peter LehnerSo I think breaking it into two pieces: Senator Stabenow is so strong on protecting the climate focused conservation funding of the Inflation Reduction Act that I would like to feel that we can think that that will remain. And that's really important. And that, of course, is going to be helping. I think it's important to remember this is money that then goes to hundreds of thousands of farmers who want to spend the money in good ways.David RobertsThis is not against farmers. None of this is against farmers.Peter LehnerNot at all. More farmers have applied for these programs than could get it. Two out of three farmers in the past have been turned away because we didn't have enough money. So this is money that is going right to farmers doing exactly what they want and what we as a country want. So that's really great. I think 2018 may be a bit of a lesson for us. In 2018, the House of Representatives passed a Farm Bill with one party. The Republicans passed a very extreme Farm Bill, unlike any before. It had always been bipartisan in both houses.And then the Senate sort of ignored that and passed a bipartisan bill that was really much, much better. And then the House came around and adopted the Senate bill. So I hope something like that may happen again. I think the Senate is going to be working hard to come up with a bipartisan bill that will make some climate improvements along the way. There's also, I should say, a long history of discrimination and of unequal access to Farm Bill programs for farmers of color. And this administration is doing a lot to try to address that, to really make sure the money is getting to farmers that have been underserved in the past.And I think we will see some improvements on that score in the Senate Farm Bill. And my guess is that although there may be some noise at the House beforehand, one can be hopeful that at the end of the day, the House will go in the direction of a more reasonable bill from the Senate.David RobertsYeah, it seems like clowning around and embarrassing themselves for a while and then just sheepishly doing what they should have done all along seems to be the pattern they've set so far. So maybe that'll happen again.Peter LehnerYeah, that happened in 2018.David RobertsYes, I know. It's like the House Republican special. I hate to be in a position where I'm depending on the U.S. Senate for anything good in life, but here we are. So a lot of this seems like I don't want to say small ball, but let's say there's nothing fundamental here on the table in the Farm Bill. We're nibbling around the edges, beefing up existing programs, tweaking existing programs. So I want you to imagine — free yourself from the fetters of politics for a while — imagine some bright future day when Democrats have another trifecta and they have, for whatever reason, power to do big things, another big swing at climate, because there are a lot, I think everybody sort of acknowledges, IRA was a big deal, but there are definitely pieces of the puzzle that IRA did not get to.And so say there's Democratic majorities and Democratic will to do big things on climate in the next Farm Bill. Think big for me here, just for a few minutes. What kind of things would you like to see that would be more transformative?Peter LehnerWell, I would focus on two. One, I mentioned earlier we would have a crop insurance program that really benefits crop risk reducing behavior, which also is climate change mitigating behavior. And so instead of just having the conservation programs encouraging behavior or practices on farms that we want to encourage, you have the much bigger and much more important crop insurance program doing that.David RobertsAnd that's stuff like just rotating crops and —Peter LehnerRotating crops, cover crops, adding trees to pasture land and to crops. Having a diversity. Part of the way you can be more resilient is having a diversity of crops if you have nothing but one crop, if there's any problem there, you're in big trouble. And diversity is both biologically much more stable, but it's also economically a lot more stable.David RobertsAnd we should note and this is, I guess, implied and obvious, but I'm just going to say it explicitly anyway if farmers were not completely insured against the risks of giant monocropping, they would naturally be moving towards more variety just to protect themselves, right? It's only because they are protected entirely by this crop insurance program that they're not buffering themselves more against risk in this way.Peter LehnerThat's certainly what you're seeing, that the farmers that are using more sustainable approaches tend to be growing a much wider range of crops and products. So they have that economic as well as biological diversity. But the other big thing that would be great to change right now, the Farm Bill directly and indirectly, very heavily supports animal agriculture. And for the reasons that I mentioned, that is where most of the climate change contribution from agriculture comes from. It's the animal manure, it's the cows belching, it is the production of animal feed. And it's animal feed is very inefficient.It takes about 15 pounds of grain to get a pound of beef. And corn is the most heavily fertilized with nitrogen fertilizer crop. And all of that nitrogen fertilizer, as I mentioned, not all of it, but a lot of it is running off as nitrous oxide. So all of this animal agriculture, which also uses up that 800 million acres of grazing land and therefore losing carbon, has this huge climate impact. It also, frankly, is unhealthy. It also isn't great for biodiversity.David RobertsYeah, I mean, beef is bad. People hate to hear this and no one wants to say it publicly, but beef is bad down the line. Pick your lens: health, you know, ecology, economics, concentration of wealth. I mean, name it.Peter LehnerWRI has some great charts. They're a great organization that compares the climate, water and land use footprint of different foods. And you will see that beef is just far more than any other food that we have. So right now, the Farm Bill really heavily supports that and provides almost no support to plant-based alternatives to a healthier diet. And if you think of what we've done in the energy system, we tried to clean up coal plants, we tried to switch to inherently clean energy like solar and wind, and we tried to reduce demand by energy efficiency.Right now, most of what we talk about in agriculture is just that first one, just trying to clean up existing production. We have to think about both shifting to inherently cleaner way of getting food and that is, for example, a plant-based diet or plant-based alternatives. And it doesn't have to be going vegan. This is just Americans eat many times more meat than any other culture. We could still have plenty of meat and eat much less than we are now, with much less of an impact. And the Farm Bill can make a big difference there.People love to think that this is all cultural, but it's also economic. Right now, meat is cheap because taxpayers pay for a lot of the bill. And that can be balanced in a Farm Bill where taxpayer subsidies, the subsidies in the farm Bill are supporting a healthier, more climate friendly food system rather than a food system that is so focused on these products that have a very big climate impact.David RobertsYeah, I hate that cultural argument. I just have to say you see that in transportation too. You have decades of public policy supporting automobile infrastructure such that average people just living normal lives have to drive all the time. And then you get a bunch of people saying, "oh, it's just cultural, Americans just like their cars." That's not really it. And I think it's really the same with beef. This whole idea that Americans just have some sort of inherent love of big steaks, big meat, it's so ridiculous. I always find that absurd, although that is a real third rail.Peter LehnerYeah, that's where economics makes a difference. And right now, as I said, we're subsidizing foods that tend to have a larger environmental impact and frankly, are less healthy, and we could and should be subsidizing food that is healthier. For example, good old fruits and vegetables get comparatively much, much less support in the Farm Bill.David RobertsYeah, that's crazy. When do you think, and this will really be the final question, but when I think about all the kind of cultural hot button issues that are involved in climate change and decarbonization, I mean, there are millions. Like, we just went through this gas stove nonsense last year. But no hot button issue is hotter of a button for some reason than diets and meat. Meat in diets is just like — we're talking about Oprah — just like you can't go there. So when do you think we'll reach a point where a mainstream politician will actually broach the subject, "hey, we should encourage Americans to eat less meat" and just say it outright?Is that ever going to happen?Peter LehnerWell, Cory Booker is already saying that to some extent, and he's very aware of this impact. Part of the reason it gets so derailed is people tend to view it as an all or nothing. And we make food choices three times a day. There are a lot of chances to just slightly shift to a diet with more fruits and vegetables. And it doesn't have to mean you're going 100% vegan and just in the same way that we can shift our transportation system — and maybe you drive a little less and you take mass transit a little more — it doesn't mean you will never, ever get into a car again.So I think the conversation about diets has been, unfortunately, torqued, and actually it makes even less sense. You will only buy a car maybe once every ten years, but, as I said, you make dietary choices three times a day, and you also have the health benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables. So it's a great opportunity. But again, I think it's important in terms of what policy can do is partly it's what foods say, for example, the federal government itself buys. But it's also in the farm Bill, which is so important to every environmental matter that we care about.It can also be supporting healthier foods and more so than it does today. That way you'd have a farm Bill that is encouraging farmers to grow different foods in places with less environmental impact in a way that is more sustainable. And that's, again, it's why this Farm Bill, most people don't think about, has this environmental impact far in excess of virtually anything else that Congress will be addressing.David RobertsAwesome. Well, Peter, thanks so much for coming on. I've been meaning to do this for ages, and it sounds like this was the right time to do it. So thank you so much for clarifying this whole subject matter for me more. As you could tell, I wandered into it more or less ignorant. So this has been absolutely fascinating. Thank you for taking the time.Peter LehnerThank you for your interest. It's great to spread the word on this; it's so important.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf. So that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Today's guest is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He is an author, activist, environmental lawyer, and 2024 independent presidential candidate.  RFK Jr. built his law career on protecting the environment from pollution, lobbying, and litigating for marginalized communities and indigenous people. With the nonprofit Riverkeeper, he is credited with leading the fight to restore the Hudson River and the New York City watershed. He is the founder of the nonprofit organization Waterkeeper Alliance, the largest clean water organization in the world. He led the development of the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) program to help domestic and international indigenous tribes protect their homelands from large-scale energy and extractive projects. He is also the chairman and chief legal counsel of the nonprofit Children's Health Defense, which helped lobby against the pharmaceutical industry to remove mercury from most childhood vaccines and restore the standard product liability and placebo testing requirements for vaccine manufacturers. RFK Jr. is The New York Times bestselling author of books: Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr, The Riverkeepers, Thimerosal, American Values, Crimes Against Nature, Framed, A Letter to Liberals, Climate in Crisis, The Real Anthony Fauci, and Vax-Unvax.  His writing has also appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and other major publications.  His new book, The Wuhan Cover-Up, will be released on Dec. 5. He also hosts the RFK Jr. Podcast. You can follow him on Instagram @robertfkennedyjr and visit kennedy24.com for more information on his campaign.   SPONSORS: Navy Federal Credit Union: Today's episode is presented by Navy Federal Credit Union. Learn more about them at navyfederal.org 1st Phorm: Go to 1stphorm.com/jackcarr and receive free shipping on any orders over $75.  Black Rifle Coffee Company: Today's episode is also brought to you by Black Rifle. Purchase at http://www.blackriflecoffee.com/dangerclose and use code: dangerclose20 at checkout for 20% off your purchase and your first coffee club order! Danger Close Apparel: Check out the new Danger Close apparel.  Featured Gear SIG: Today's featured gear segment is sponsored by SIG Sauer. You can learn more about SIG here. Vaultek Safe  Doc Shiffer Knives  Montana Knife Company  SIG P210 Schnee's Boots Duckworth Socks RWatchCo. Bondurant Brothers Whiskey Gothic Serpent by Black Rifle Coffee Company  Dynamis Combat Flat-head Watches of Espionage Ransomed Daughter by Eric Bishop The Year of the Locust by Terry Hayes  The Wrong Wolf by Christian Craighead  History of G-Shock Book

Some questions fall far outside the scope of what governments are designed to answer. How will we explain ourselves to extraterrestrials? What can we say to warn humans 10,000 years in the future about the nuclear waste we're leaving behind? Assuming we develop the proper technology, would it be beneficial to breed glowing cats?Two decades after NASA shot a message to aliens into deep space, one of its authors joined an eclectic group of experts and went down a similar rabbit hole regarding nuclear waste. The result was one of the most outlandish, mind-bending, and heartfelt reports ever commissioned by the US government. This episode features artist Jon Lomberg, former NRDC lawyer Dan Reicher, and futurist Ted Gordon.

This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the […]

You can be forgiven for not thinking of Vermont as a place prone to catastrophic flooding. But as the climate changes, we have update our expectations—and our floodplain maps.  Guest: Anna Weber, senior policy analyst focused on the current and future effects of flooding and sea level rise at the NRDC. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You can be forgiven for not thinking of Vermont as a place prone to catastrophic flooding. But as the climate changes, we have update our expectations—and our floodplain maps.  Guest: Anna Weber, senior policy analyst focused on the current and future effects of flooding and sea level rise at the NRDC. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get benefits like zero ads on any Slate podcast, bonus episodes of shows like Slow Burn and Dear Prudence—and you'll be supporting the work we do here on What Next. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to help support our work. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Noah Feldman is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University where he focuses on constitutional law. He joins Preet to discuss recent laws that test the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state in the U.S., his experience helping craft Iraq's first democratic constitution two decades ago, and the urgency of regulating AI tools like Chat GPT.       Plus, why is Rep. Jim Jordan compelling Mark Pomerantz to testify before Congress? And why is there so much concern over the Supreme Court potentially overturning an 1984 decision called Chevron v. NRDC? Don't miss the Insider bonus, where Preet and Feldman discuss his experience testifying at the public hearings for Donald Trump's first impeachment. To listen, try the membership for just $1 for one month: cafe.com/insider. For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/the-changing-state-of-church-and-state-with-noah-feldman/ Tweet your questions to @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet, email us your questions and comments at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices