All right, let's jump right in.
Today we're diving deep into a topic that's,
well, it's generating a lot of buzz, that's for sure.
Climate change, and specifically some
recent political appointments that are raising eyebrows,
to say the least.
We're talking about Chris Wright nominated
for energy secretary, and Lee Zeldin for EPA administrator.
Two very, very significant nominations.
Absolutely, and these nominations are happening
against a backdrop of, well,
those devastating wildfires in Los Angeles.
Yeah, a real tragedy.
Absolutely, over 40,000 acres burned, 25 lives lost,
and the fight to contain them is still ongoing.
It really brings the issue of climate change
front and center, wouldn't you say?
Oh, absolutely, and it really underscores
the urgency of the situation,
the need for decisive action.
Couldn't agree more.
Before we get too far into it though,
a quick shout out to all the weather geeks out there.
If you're looking for some seriously cool
meteorological content, check out meteorologist Rob Jones.
Instagram at meteorologist,
TikTok at TV meteorologist,
and on YouTube, follow at Rob Jones' hurricane.
Wow, that's a lot of platforms.
He's everywhere, hurricanes, forecasting, climate,
you name it, he covers it.
Oh, and his podcast meteorology matters
is definitely worth a listen.
He's even got videos from Hurricane Chasing
and samples of his own on air work in television.
Sounds impressive.
He's the real deal.
Okay, now back to our deep dive.
So these nominations, they're happening
at such a crucial time,
with climate change becoming more and more,
well, impossible to ignore.
What's your take on the significance
of these nominations, especially given,
like we said, the current situation?
Well, I think they offer a kind of a window
into how the new Trump administration
might approach climate change policy.
Interesting.
We're seeing a shift, I think,
from outright denial to a more nuanced stance.
Both nominees, they acknowledge
that climate change is happening,
but they have different views on how serious it is
and what the right response should be.
That's fascinating.
So let's unpack that a bit.
Let's start with Chris Wright,
the energy secretary nominee.
He's made some pretty provocative statements
about the connection between climate change
and those wildfires we were just talking about.
What's the gist of his argument?
Well, he's downplayed the link,
even gone as far as calling it hype.
Hmm, that's a strong word.
It is.
And he points to declining global acreage
burned by wildfires as evidence for his position.
Okay, so he's basically saying
that climate change isn't the main driver.
Right.
He's suggesting that other factors are more significant.
Hmm, interesting.
But hype.
I mean, that's pretty dismissive,
especially considering the overwhelming consensus
in the scientific community that climate change is,
well, it's fueling these wildfires.
Yes, and particularly in places
like the Western US and Australia.
Exactly.
So why use that kind of language, do you think?
Well, it seems like he's trying to frame the issue
in a way that downplays the urgency,
the need for drastic changes.
So not outright denial,
but maybe a way to shift the narrative a bit.
Exactly.
Okay.
What about his argument
about the declining global acreage?
How does that square with the scientific evidence?
Well, scientists argue that just looking
at the total acreage burned, it's misleading.
Uh-uh, okay.
This is the bigger picture.
While some areas might be experiencing fewer wildfires,
other regions are seeing unprecedented fire activity,
and that activity is directly linked to climate change.
You know, it's like saying,
crime is down overall,
but ignoring a spike in specific neighborhoods,
you can't just look at the big picture, right?
You have to understand the regional variations
and the underlying causes.
That's a great analogy.
And in the Western US, for instance,
we're seeing hotter, drier conditions,
and this phenomenon called weather whiplash,
you know, periods of heavy rain
followed by intense dryness.
It's creating perfect conditions
for these massive fires to ignite and spread.
Wow, weather whiplash, that sounds intense.
It is, and it's making these fires
much more difficult to control.
So is that all right has to support his position,
or is there more?
Well, he's also argued that cold temperatures
are more deadly than heat.
Hmm, interesting tactic.
Trying to downplay the risks of a warning planet.
It seems that way.
But scientists, they point out that attributing
lower cold related deaths solely to climate change,
it ignores other factors like better housing,
healthcare, you know, things like that.
Right, so improvements in living conditions
and technology might also be playing a role.
It's more complex than just saying,
oh, it's warmer so fewer people are dying from the cold.
Exactly, and you can't ignore the projections
which show that climate change could lead
to a significant increase in heat related deaths
in the future.
So it seems like he's cherry picking data points
to support his view without really addressing
the broader context.
That's fair assessment.
Okay, so we have this clear clash of opinions, right?
What are the potential consequences
of having an energy secretary who holds these views?
I mean, what does that mean for policy?
It raises serious questions about how the Department
of Energy will approach climate change mitigation
and energy policy in general.
Will the focus be on promoting fossil fuels
or investing in renewable energy?
Big question.
And how will his stance on climate change affect funding
for things like wildfire prevention
and research into the link between climate change
and these devastating events?
It seems like his position could have a ripple effect
across the entire energy sector.
Now let's shift gears a bit and talk about Lee Zeldin,
Trump's pick for EPA administrator.
What's notable about his nomination
and where are some of the potential controversies
surrounding him?
Well, his nomination is interesting
because unlike some figures
in the previous Trump administration,
he acknowledges that climate change is real
and that it poses a threat.
Okay, so he's not a climate denier.
That's something at least.
Right, but he's also stated that he believes
the EPA is authorized, not required,
to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
Wait, so he acknowledges the problem,
but maybe doesn't feel obligated to act on it?
That's a bit of a head scratcher.
It is, and it's raising concerns about how committed
he'll be to tackling CO2 emissions,
which are of course a major driver of climate change.
Can you unpack that distinction a little bit?
Authorized versus required.
What does that actually mean in practical terms?
Sure, he's referring to a 2007 Supreme Court decision
that gave the EPA the authority
to regulate greenhouse gases like CO2,
but he seems to be interpreting that ruling as,
well, not necessarily mandating such regulation.
So he has the power, but might choose not to use it?
Potentially. Hmm, that's a bit concerning.
Is there anything in his track record
that gives us any clues about how he might approach
environmental issues?
Well, his voting record has been under scrutiny,
and he has a pretty low score
from the League of Conservation Voters.
Ah, so not exactly a champion
of environmental protection then.
Not based on that score, no.
But wait, you said earlier that he does acknowledge
climate change is a threat.
How does he reconcile that with his,
well, his seemingly hesitant stance on regulation?
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
It's possible he believes other approaches
are more effective than government regulation,
things like technological innovation
or market-based solutions.
So maybe he's more of a
let the free market handle it kind of guy.
Possibly.
Or maybe he sees a stronger need
to balance environmental protection with economic growth.
Ah, yes, that age-old tension.
Jobs versus the environment.
It'll be fascinating to see how he navigates that
if he is confirmed as EPA administrator.
Definitely.
Yeah, it's a tricky balance for sure.
And it raises some really fundamental questions about,
well, about the role of government, right?
And how we balance economic growth
with environmental protection.
And even I think about how we have these debates
about science itself.
Absolutely, it's not just about wildfires or emissions.
It's about how we, as a society,
how we make these tough decisions,
especially when you're dealing with such complex issues,
like climate change.
And one thing that really jumped out at me
was how both Wright and Zeldin,
they seemed to really emphasize this idea
of American innovation, right?
Like technology as a solution.
Yes, exactly.
Wright talks about relentless U.S. innovation
and technology solutions.
And Zeldin, he seems to believe that,
well, that economic growth can actually lead
to environmental progress.
Interesting.
But it makes you wonder,
what specific technologies are they talking about?
I mean, are we talking about things like carbon capture
or maybe advanced nuclear reactors?
Or even like geoengineering.
Yeah, those are all possibilities.
And then the question becomes,
how do we actually develop and deploy these technologies?
Is it primarily through government-funded research
or does the private sector take the lead?
Right, because it makes you think,
could this focus on technology,
could it actually delay other measures that we need to take?
Reducing our use of fossil fuels
or promoting energy efficiency,
could it be a way to kind of stall
while appearing to address the problem?
That's a valid concern.
And it really highlights the need for a more,
I guess a more holistic approach to climate change.
Yeah, like we need to be tackling it from all angles.
Exactly, we need technological innovation for sure,
but we also need policy changes,
behavioral shifts and investments
in adaptation and resilience.
Right, it's like we need this all of the above strategy.
And it needs to be informed by science,
but also it has to consider the economic, social
and political realities, it's a tall order.
It is, but as we've seen,
the stakes are well, incredibly high.
No doubt about it.
And that brings us back to this tension
between economic growth and environmental protection.
It's often framed as this zero-sum game,
we have to choose one or the other.
But is that really true?
Like do we really have to sacrifice
economic prosperity to be sustainable?
Or can we actually achieve both?
That's the question, isn't it?
And it's one that Zeldin, he seems to be grappling with,
he talks about protecting the environment
without suffocating the economy.
So he's suggesting that there's a way
to find that middle ground to kind of have our cake
and eat it too.
It seems that way,
but how do you actually balance those interests,
especially when they seem so fundamentally opposed?
Yeah, because, I mean, his background
is kind of interesting, right?
Representing that coastal district on Long Island,
an area that's very vulnerable to sea level rise
and other climate impacts.
So maybe that shapes his views, right?
Possibly.
He's probably seen firsthand
how environmental degradation
can really threaten livelihoods,
especially in industries that depend
on a healthy environment, like tourism and fishing.
Right, so maybe his focus on economic growth
isn't just about profits for businesses,
but also about making sure that communities can thrive,
that industries can be sustainable in the long run.
Exactly, and it highlights the fact that a healthy economy,
it really depends on a healthy environment,
and vice versa.
It's like they're intertwined, right?
But how do we make that connection clear to people,
especially those who might see environmental protection
as an obstacle to economic growth?
Well, I think that's where the role of science
and really public discourse become so important.
We need to make sure our policies are grounded
in the best available science,
but we also need to be flexible and adapt
as we learn more,
and we need to create spaces where we can have
these thoughtful, respectful conversations,
even when we disagree.
It's about fostering this culture of curiosity,
and critical thinking,
where we're constantly questioning our assumptions
and looking at the evidence
and trying to understand different perspectives,
but how do we do that in a world
that often seems so polarized,
so resistant to nuanced conversations?
It's not easy, but it's absolutely essential,
and I think it starts with the commitment
to listening to each other,
even when we hold different views,
trying to find that common ground
while still acknowledging that we might have differences,
recognizing that at the end of the day,
we're all in this together.
Right, and the best solutions,
they're probably gonna come from collaboration,
from tapping into that collective wisdom.
It's a powerful message,
and one that I think resonates with people,
regardless of their politics
or their views on climate change,
because at the end of the day,
we all want a future where our kids and grandkids can thrive,
and we all have a role to play
in making that future a reality.
Absolutely, but it's important to acknowledge
that we're at a, well, at a critical juncture.
The decisions we make now, in the coming years,
they're gonna have a profound impact
on the trajectory of climate change
and the future of our planet.
So as we wrap up this part of our deep dive,
what are some key questions
that our listeners should be thinking about
as they consider these nominations
and really the broader issue of climate change?
Well, I think it's worth asking ourselves,
what role should the US play
in addressing climate change on a global scale?
Right, because we are a global leader.
Exactly, and given our historical contribution
to greenhouse gas emissions,
what responsibility do we have to help mitigate the impacts
and to support developing countries
as they transition to cleaner energy sources?
Welcome back to our deep dive.
We've been really digging into these nominations.
Chris Wright for Energy Secretary,
Lee Zeldin for EPA Administrator,
their views on everything from wildfires to CO2 emissions
and that whole struggle between growing the economy
and protecting the environment.
Yeah, some really key issues.
Absolutely, but let's step back from it a big picture time.
What are the big trends that are shaping
the whole climate landscape?
Both here in the US and globally?
Well, I think one of the most striking trends is just,
well, the sheer urgency of the climate crisis.
We're seeing the impacts happening right now all around us.
Yeah, absolutely.
Extreme weather events, sea levels rising,
loss of biodiversity, it's alarming.
And the science is clear, we need to act
and we need to act decisively
to mitigate these impacts and to avoid
those worst case scenarios.
And yet, here we are still debating,
still disagreeing about what to do, how to move forward.
Some folks are pushing for a rapid shift to renewables.
Others are banking on technology
or market-based solutions.
It's a lot to navigate.
How do we even begin to find a path forward
with so many different opinions,
so many different approaches?
It's definitely a challenge,
but I think what's encouraging is that these discussions,
they're not just happening in scientific journals anymore,
they're happening everywhere.
In our communities, in businesses, in government.
We're seeing young people demanding action, businesses,
even investors are putting pressure on governments
to be more ambitious with their climate policies.
It's almost like it's gone from this knee scientific debate
to a much broader conversation about our values,
our priorities, what kind of future do we want?
Exactly, and I think that shift is reflected
in how we talk about climate change now.
It's not just an environmental issue anymore,
it's a social justice issue.
It's an economic issue.
It's a national security issue.
It touches everything.
It does, and that reframing,
I think it's crucial because it brings more people
to the table.
Faith-based organizations, labor unions,
healthcare professionals, everyone's starting to see
how climate change will impact their lives,
their communities, their work.
It's like we're finally starting to connect the dots.
Right, and that's key,
because to really tackle climate change,
we need everyone on board.
It can't just be scientists or activists,
it has to be a collective effort.
A global effort.
Absolutely, it's a global challenge
that demands global cooperation.
So where do we start?
Where's that collaboration most critical?
Well, one of the most urgent areas is reducing emissions,
right, greenhouse gas emissions.
We need a global framework that sets ambitious targets
and supports developing countries
as they transition to cleaner energy.
And that framework, it needs to be fair, right?
It can't just benefit those who have historically,
contributed the most to the problem.
You're absolutely right, equity is paramount.
And it needs to be flexible too.
The science is always evolving, technology's changing,
we have to be adaptable and willing to adjust
as we learn more.
Well, it can't get stuck in our ways.
Exactly, and then there's the whole issue
of adaptation and resilience.
As the impacts of climate change become more intense,
we need to invest in infrastructure,
early warning systems, disaster preparedness,
helping communities cope with what's coming.
And that investment needs to be targeted, right?
Making sure those who are most vulnerable,
those who are often least equipped to deal
with these changes, that they get the support they need.
Absolutely, it's about making sure
that no one is left behind as we navigate this,
well, this unprecedented challenge.
We're all in this together.
We are, but you know, amid all these challenges,
there are also opportunities.
Oh, okay.
The transition to a cleaner, more sustainable economy,
it has the potential to create jobs,
to drive innovation, to improve public health.
It could lead to greater energy independence,
less reliance on fossil fuels,
a more resilient and equitable society.
So it's not just about avoiding disaster,
it's about building a better world.
Exactly, it's about reframing the narrative,
seeing climate action not as a burden,
but as a chance to create a world that's more just,
more sustainable, more prosperous for all.
And that's a message that's resonating
with more and more people around the world.
It's a message of hope, of possibility,
of human ingenuity and resilience.
It's a powerful message,
and one that we need to keep shouting from the rooftops,
especially when we're facing these daunting challenges,
these political headwinds.
We have to remember that we have the power
to shape our own future.
We can create a world where both people
and the planet can thrive,
but it takes courage, it takes commitment,
and a shared vision for a better future.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
As we wrap up this deep dive,
what's one final thought you wanna leave our listeners with?
Engage with this issue, stay informed,
have those tough conversations, and make your voice heard.
Whether it's through voting, advocating for policy changes,
or just making more sustainable choices in your own life,
every action, no matter how small it counts,
the future is in our hands.
Those are words to live by.
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive
into climate change and these pivotal political appointments.
We hope you found this conversation insightful,
and maybe even a little bit inspiring.
Remember, knowledge is power.
The more we understand these challenges,
the better equipped we'll be to find solutions.
Keep learning, keep asking questions, and keep diving deep.