We have to open with some breaking news. It's
about Hurricane Melissa, which has just exhibited
explosive intensification overnight. It's really
something to see. Yeah, this is not the storm
we were tracking yesterday. It has surged to
a powerful category four, and it's showing that
really frightening, rapid intensification cycle
that meteorologists are identifying far too frequently
now. Especially in these increasingly warm waters
in the Atlantic. Exactly. The latest trajectory
update suggests potential devastating impacts
up and down the coast, and the urgency of this
rapidly worsening storm is really what frames
our discussion today. Welcome to Meteorology
Matters, the podcast that dives deep into the
science, chaos, and stories behind the weather
that shapes our world. This show was created
by meteorologist Rob Jones, and we're doing something
new this season, offering every episode in English
and Spanish. Yeah, that's right. Same stories,
two languages. Why? Because weather impacts everyone,
and science should speak to all of us. But here's
where you come in. We want to know what you think.
Is this bilingual setup awesome? Confusing. Totally
unnecessary. Tell us straight up on social media.
Comment, like, share, or DM us and let it rip.
Make sure to follow meteorologist Rob Jones on
Instagram at Meteorologist, on TikTok at TVMeteorologist,
and on YouTube, follow Rob Jones Hurricane, where
you can also find the Meteorology Matters podcast
playlist. Be sure to like, follow, comment, and
rate the podcast. Now let's get into today's
episode of Meteorology Matters. We are calling
this one the invisible storm. We're going to
be examining the twin threats. of climate change
and chemical pollution. And the research we've
been looking at really shows that these two massive
crises are, well, they're fundamentally driven
by our enduring dependence on fossil fuels. Right.
We can't analyze the rapid intensification of
a storm like Melissa without first understanding
the decades of political history and you know,
the subsequent inertia that allowed this crisis
to accelerate in the first place. It's absolutely
essential to begin there. It really is because
the meteorological crises we face now, the storms,
the droughts, the record heat, it's all deeply
intertwined with policy choices made almost 40
years ago. So to address the severity of what
we're seeing today, you have to go back. You
have to understand the history of the climate
debate and how it became so, so fractured. Exactly.
Okay, so let's unpack that political history.
Let's focus on what a lot of people call the
what -if moment of 1988. We've been immersed
in some deep archival research for this, including
analysis of footage from this really powerful
documentary called The White House Effect. And
that documentary, it uses primary source material
to map out the evolution of the climate perspective
in U .S. politics. And what that archival footage
shows is, I mean, it's a political landscape
that feels entirely alien to us today. It really
does. 1988 was such a pivotal year because the
U .S. was grappling with its worst drought since
the infamous Dust Bowl of the 1930s. I mean,
the damage was immediate. It was widespread and
financially just catastrophic. We're talking
about an estimated one hundred and sixty billion
dollars in damage. And that's when you adjust
it to twenty twenty five dollars. So this wasn't
some, you know, theoretical future problem. This
was an existential threat hitting the American
heartland right then and there. And the political
response, at least initially, was surprisingly.
Right. George H .W. Bush, he was campaigning
for president at the time, and he traveled to
the drought -stricken areas. He met with farmers
whose livelihoods were literally drying up right
in front of them. And he responded to the science.
He openly acknowledged the greenhouse effect,
which was the term scientists were using then.
He specifically stated that the burning of fossil
fuels was contributing excess carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere, and that that was leading
to global warming. He said it. He didn't just
acknowledge it. He tied it directly to a political
mission. He promised to be the environmental
president. And he coined that phrase, right?
Yeah, he coined a phrase, the White House effect.
And that phrase, it was meant to embody this
idea that sound policy coming from the most powerful
office in the world. and the nation leading in
fossil fuel consumption at the time. Exactly.
That that policy could effectively tackle what
seemed like this overwhelming environmental problem.
He presented curbing emissions as, quote, the
common agenda of the future. It was a moment
just brimming with optimistic possibility. It
really felt like something could happen. And
what's so important to remember is that this
wasn't just some political gimmick. The public
was primed for this discussion. Research into
that era showed that ordinary Americans particularly
those who remember the energy crises in the 70s,
they were actually ready to make sacrifices to
address this looming threat. It's incredible
to think about. They viewed it almost as a patriotic
duty, a nonpartisan issue that transcended political
lines. They were ready for leadership. It truly
was a potential point of bipartisan consensus
where the science was largely accepted across
the board. But here's where it gets really interesting.
That consensus was, well, it was systematically
dismantled. And the research traces a responsibility
for that back to powerful corporate interests.
They were the ones who first framed the problem
not as a scientific imperative, but as an economic
conflict. That economic conflict is laid out
so chillingly in an internal Exxon document from
1984 that was unearthed. It provided this stark
binary choice for the fossil fuel industry. And
the quote is just. It's stunning. We can either
adapt our civilization to a warmer planet or
avoid the problem by sharply curtailing the use
of fossil fuels. Right there. And that internal
dialogue shows that the industry absolutely understood
the science, but their primary focus was avoiding
the curtailing part. That was the part that threatened
their very business model. And that document
really set the stage for the political will to
just slowly erode. And this erosion was driven
internally by influential political figures,
most notably the White House chief of staff at
the time, John Sununu. Sununu was a powerful
figure known to be highly skeptical of environmental
regulations, and he acted as an ally to corporate
lobbyists who were fighting against any kind
of climate action. He didn't just disagree with
the environmental movement. He systematically
outmaneuvered those trying to enact policy, specifically
the then head of the Environmental Protection
Agency, William Riley. And he did this right
in the wake of... major visible environmental
catastrophes. I mean, think about the immense
coastal devastation from Hurricane Hugo and then
the disastrous oil spill from the Exxon Valdez
tanker. You would expect those events to galvanize
action, to push things forward. But Sununu used
them to inject skepticism and delay policy. And
we have the evidence of this tactic laid out
in detail. We do. The research uncovered a confidential
memo detailing a global warming scientific skeptics
meeting that Sununu convened in 1991. entire
strategy behind this meeting, it wasn't to genuinely
debate the science, was it? Not at all. The goal
was to actively recruit and empower climate contrarians
to make sure they were articulate and ready for
media appearances. So this created the false
public impression of a robust and balanced scientific
debate. When in reality, among the vast majority
of accredited climate scientists, that debate
simply did not exist. It was a strategy designed
purely to manufacture doubt. And the effect of
this campaign of manufactured doubt on President
Bush. was palpable. By 1990, just two years after
his inspiring campaign promise, he's equivocating
at a White House climate conference. He publicly
stated that two scientists had, quote, diametrically
opposed points of view. And then he just threw
his hands up and asked the public, now, where
does that leave us? And that question, where
does it leave us? It provided the perfect justification
for political inaction and for division. And
that division solidified on the international
stage at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This huge
United Nations conference was intended to set
international emissions targets. But despite
Bush's original commitment to being the environmental
president, the U .S. delegation, following Sununu's
influence, advocated aggressively against setting
any mandatory international emissions targets.
And that, according to the sources, that was
the single pivotal missed opportunity in the
entire modern climate movement. William Reilly,
the former EPA head who witnessed all this firsthand,
he later lamented that this failure essentially
removed any chance to keep the climate dialogue
nonpartisan. So once the U .S. decided to actively
oppose global targets, it became a political
football. And that set the definitive stage for
the hyperpartisanship that has characterized
every environmental discussion ever since. If
we connect this failure directly to the present
day. We can see that the political inaction of
the early 90s directly fueled the meteorological
crisis we have now. Absolutely. That delay allowed
fossil fuel consumption to surge for three decades,
fueling the precise climate mechanisms, the warmer
oceans, the warmer atmosphere. That are now intensifying
weather events, turning routine tropical storms
into monsters like Hurricane Melissa in a matter
of hours. The research offers a pretty sobering
final note on this. It says, we are now in another
what if moment, but the cost of an action is
exponentially higher. The choice of future action,
it says, remains in our hands. It's a challenging
and detailed look at how a visible atmospheric
crisis transitioned into a political crisis,
which then delayed any meaningful response for
a generation. So now we need to pivot. We need
to move from that global atmospheric crisis,
the excess carbon dioxide, to something microscopic,
something that affects every single person listening
on a deeply personal level. The invisible storm
of chemical pollution. Right. And we have to
emphasize that this microscopic threat is absolutely
linked to the macroeconomic failure we just detailed.
plastic and the complex cocktail of chemicals
used to make it is a direct product of the same
fossil fuel supply chain that's driving climate
change. So as we move away from burning fossil
fuels for energy The industry is looking to plastics
as the new massive consumer of their product.
We are literally moving from discussing atmospheric
carbon to discussing foreign chemicals infiltrating
our own bodies. This is where we get into a truly
fascinating recent experiment that was designed
to make this invisible problem shockingly visible.
It involved three reporters, one in New York
City, one in London and one in Hong Kong, who
participated in a chemical tracking exercise.
They wore these specialized wristbands for five
days. And these aren't your typical fitness trackers?
No. Not at all. They are passive sampling devices.
They're made of black silicone, and they were
provided by a research organization called the
International Pollutants Elimination Network,
or IPN, strictly for scientific purposes. And
the silicone is engineered to mimic human skin,
right? Exactly, which means it effectively absorbs
volatile organic compounds and other chemicals
that we encounter in our daily lives. The genius
of this approach is just its simplicity and its
non -invasiveness. were calibrated to detect
73 chemicals commonly associated with plastics
spanning six different groups. Though it's important
to note they do not detect the notorious PFAS,
those forever chemicals we hear so much about.
But the method is proven. Scientists have confirmed
that the exposures detected by these wristbands
correlate directly with the presence of the same
chemicals found inside people's bodies through
blood and urine tests. It's essentially a portable
five -day map of the toxic landscape we all inhabit.
The air we breathe, the dust in our homes, the
objects we touch. And the reporters, they wore
these bands while living completely normalized
for five days. They commuted through their cities,
they cooked, they cleaned their homes, they applied
lotions and perfumes. They just lived, they interacted
with their children and their environment. It
sounds like a completely unremarkable week. But
the results, when they were analyzed, they detailed
a systemic global infiltration of these chemicals.
The sheer scale of the challenge becomes so apparent
when you just look at the numbers. According
to the extensive chemical research that's been
cited, there are more than 16 ,000 plastic chemicals
in existence globally. And even though one industry
body, the International Council of Chemical Associations,
verifies a smaller number in its public databases,
the complexity is just astronomical. And what's
really alarming is the hazard profile of this
huge inventory. The research indicates that at
least 4 ,200 of these identified plastic chemicals
pose known hazards to human health and the environment.
That's a massive percentage of the known total,
but maybe even more concerning is the knowledge
gap. There are roughly 10 ,000 other chemicals
that have not yet undergone sufficient testing
to determine their potential hazardous impacts.
We just don't know what the consequences of using
them are. We don't. And why are these chemicals
added in the first place? They're additives.
They're used to improve the material. So to make
plastics stronger or more flexible or make them
last longer, give them color, fire resistance.
Right. The industry argues these additives help
optimize materials for specific uses and reduce
waste by extending product life. They're seen
as necessary components for modern efficiency.
But the reality, as the research clearly shows,
is that these chemical additives do not stay
bound inside the plastic. And this is the cradle
-to -grave impact, or as one physician termed
it, the womb -to -tomb infiltration. The chemicals
leach out at every single stage of the plastic
life cycle. During production in factories, during
use, especially when it's heated, during recycling
processes, and then during eventual disposal
in landfills or the environment. And they don't
just luch into the ground, they infiltrate us.
We inhale them from the dust in our homes, we
absorb them from personal care products, and
we ingest them from food and drink packaged in
plastic. A professor of pediatrics and population
health emphasized that the chemicals are, quote,
extremely well known to contribute to disease
and disability that cuts across the lifespan.
And they often do this by acting as powerful
endocrine disruptors, which means they alter
the way our hormones and our regulatory systems
function, even at very, very low levels. So let's
look specifically at the cocktail that was detected
by these wristbands. What were the reporters
in New York, London, and Hong Kong actually breathing
in and touching? The results showed a remarkable
similarity across continents, which suggests
this is a truly global, pervasive exposure. And
the most common exposure, far and away, for all
three reporters, related to one specific group
of chemicals. Phthalates. They're often called
the everywhere -everyone chemicals because experts
say every single time they run a test on any
person, they detect them. We really need to understand
phthalates because they are so pervasive. They're
the additives used primarily to make hard plastics
flexible or soft or stretchy. So think about
them in children's toys, in food storage containers,
shower curtains, clothing, flexible tubing. But
also, crucially, in personal care products. They're
often listed simply as fragrance because they
act as carriers for scents and improve product
textures in lotions and perfumes. And the health
concerns linked to phthalates are profound. They're
consistently connected to fertility problems,
premature birth, neurological and behavioral
disorders in children, including ADHD, obesity,
depression and terrifyingly cancer and cardiovascular
disease. The chemical that was detected at the
highest levels across all three reporters was
DEHP, a particularly common phthalate. And I
found a statistic related to DEHP in the research
that should really stop every listener in their
tracks. A recent scientific paper estimated that
this single common phthalate was responsible
for approximately 13 % of all cardiovascular
deaths among people aged 55 to 64 globally in
2018. 13 % of heart disease deaths in that age
group tied back to a single chemical additive
in our everyday products. That is not just alarming.
That suggests a fundamental systemic failure
of public health protection. And that's just
one chemical group. All three reporters were
also consistently exposed to bisphenols. The
most famous one is BPA, but it includes many
related replacement chemicals. Right. Bisphenols
are used to make plastics hard and resilient.
So you'll find them in electronics, casings,
car parts, the protective lining inside metal
food and frink cans. Water tapes and even the
thermal paper receipts that we handle every single
day. And like phthalates, bisphenols are powerful
endocrine disruptors. They mimic our hormones
and are linked to a whole host of developmental
issues. Things like fetal abnormal abnormalities,
low birth weight, neurodevelopmental disorders,
and disruptions to puberty timing. Often resulting
in earlier puberty in girls and delayed puberty
in boys. And they are also tied to an increased
risk of developing diabetes and heart disease.
So if we look at the collective impact. A separate
study that spanned 38 countries linked over 160
,000 deaths and more than 5 million cases of
heart disease, specifically to exposure to just
three substances. BPA, DEHP, and one type of
common flame retardant. The real danger isn't
one chemical, it is the synergistic effect, the
cumulative impact of being exposed to this complex
cocktail of substances. This is that idea that's
often expressed as 1 plus 1 equals 3. Exactly.
The collective biological impact of these various
chemical groups interacting inside the human
body is greater and often far more unpredictable
than the sum of their individual parts. And who
is the most vulnerable to this cumulative effect?
Children. They're exposed not only post -birth
but often in the womb. Children take up many
more chemicals, have fewer defenses because their
systems are so rapidly developing. Which means
the health effects can play out over decades,
resulting in chronic disease later in life. When
you grasp the sheer unavoidable pervasiveness
of this exposure, the chilling metaphor offered
by one scientist is hard to shake. He said, we
are the canary. Everyone's a canary. That really
reframes the whole crisis. So we've established
that the climate crisis was delayed by political
failure stemming from the fossil fuel industry.
And now we see that the chemical crisis is driven
by that same industry's focus on plastic expansion.
Which brings us squarely to the question of regulatory
failure. Why have our governments not protected
the common canary? We run directly into what
is often called the chemical whack -a -mole problem.
Explain that. So scientists successfully identify
a specific chemical as hazardous, let's say BPA,
and they push for a ban. The industry removes
that chemical but they replace it with a structurally
similar compound like BPS or BPF. Which then
turns out to be just as harmful if not worse
at disrupting the endocrine system. And this
substitution cycle forces scientists to just
start all over again. They have to spend years
gathering evidence and building a case against
the replacement chemical. While the industry
continues to innovate, creating yet another chemically
similar substitute, it's a perpetual, expensive
chase that severely lags behind the pace of production.
We do have some safeguards, but they're incredibly
patchy. For example, the use of several phthalates
is banned in children's toys in the US, the UK,
and Hong Kong. the U .S. Food and Drug Administration,
the FDA, they stopped authorizing BPA in baby
bottles and infant formula packaging more than
a decade ago. And Europe has had similar bans
since 2011. But the regulation is incomplete.
It's inconsistent. So while the FDA banned BPA
in infant packaging, they still consider current
approved levels of BPA safe in other food contact
products. Right. So it's regulated when a baby
drinks formula. But it may still be lining the
metal can that contains the adult soup or beans.
The chemical exposure just shifts. It doesn't
disappear. And this is why experts are calling
for a fundamental shift in regulatory policy.
They're demanding that companies invest heavily
in designing and manufacturing demonstrably safer
chemicals, what's known as green chemistry. They
also demand producers provide total radical transparency
on all product ingredients so consumers and public
health officials can actually make informed choices.
Yet the research indicates that this push for
transparency and substitution is actively hampered
by powerful lobby groups. Scientists accuse the
industry of having, quote, refused to make any
kind of progress towards safer alternatives,
instead using their lobbying power to slow down
and complicate the regulatory process at every
turn. And what's fascinating here is the industry's
structured counter narrative to this. The American
Chemistry Council asserts that robust toxicological
data already exists and is sufficient to guide
policy. And similarly, the International Council
of Chemical Associations claims its database
provides easily accessible toxicological data
for 90 % of the chemicals it lists. So they challenge
the whole idea of unknown hazards, asserting
the issue isn't a lack of data, but how that
data is interpreted and applied. So the divide
is stark. You have scientists demanding safer
substitutions and transparency, while the industry
argues the necessary safety data is already available
and challenges the narrative that these compounds
are largely unregulated or unknown. It's a regulatory
impasse, and it's tragic. But you can't fully
understand it without connecting it back to the
macroeconomics of the climate crisis. That is
the key intersection. When we discussed the political
maneuvering of the late 80s, we saw the fossil
fuel industry defending its core business of
fuel production. Now, as the global energy market
rapidly shifts toward renewables, the industry
has to find a new massive consumer for its product.
And that consumer is plastic. The economic incentive
driving this pollution is just immense. If current
policies remain unchanged, plastic production
is predicted to soar by 70 % by the year 2040.
Which means a guaranteed massive increase in
demand for petrochemicals and consequently a
massive increase in the very chemical exposure
we've just detailed, the phthalates, the bisphenols
and all those untested replacement compounds.
And this prioritization of fossil fuel expansion
over environmental concerns is playing out on
the international trade stage right now. We've
seen significant pushback from major exporters
of liquefied natural gas or LNG, specifically
the U .S. and Qatar. who are actively demanding
that the European Union roll back its new climate
and human rights rules. They're essentially warning
the EU that these new environmental rules pose
an, quote, existential threat to the European
economy because they would complicate and hinder
greater imports of LNG. It's a clear demand to
prioritize trade and export expansion over new
stricter climate and human rights standards that
would regulate the source and production of the
fuel. This raises a really important question.
What happens when profit and expansion strategy
clash with stated climate goals? Even domestically,
the commitment to expanding fossil fuel exports
is undeniable. We saw the approval of a controversial
gas export hub along the coast of the Gulf of
Mexico. A decision made despite clear warnings
from the scientific community regarding climate
impacts. It illustrates a continued, powerful
administrative push for expanded fossil fuel
infrastructure. So let's tie this all together.
The same supply chain, the same petrochemical
dependence that caused the political inertia
of the 1990s and is now driving climate crisis
acceleration, intensifying storms like Melissa,
is simultaneously guaranteeing widespread microscopic
chemical exposure within every single one of
us. The climate crisis and the chemical pollution
crisis are not separate issues. They are two
interconnected sides of the petrochemical coin.
It's a comprehensive systems failure. The system
that creates massive visible weather volatility
is simultaneously flooding our environment and
our bodies with thousands of often hazardous,
largely unregulated, and poorly tested substances.
So the urgency we face is twofold. We have to
address the atmosphere and we have to drastically
overhaul the chemistry of our daily lives. Given
that immense, daunting landscape, let's pivot
now to our final section, navigating the landscape.
Since the scale of the systemic failure is so
vast, what meaningful steps can we, as individuals,
take to reduce our personal exposure? And how
can communities begin building the structural
resilience necessary to weather these increasingly
intense climate -driven disasters? Let's start
with the good news regarding chemical exposure.
Right, phthalates and bisphenols are not like
PFAS. They have relatively short lives in the
body. We're talking about days. So that means
if you implement lifestyle changes, you can have
a measurable, speedy effect on reducing the concentration
of these endocrine disruptors in your system.
And thus reduce your chronic disease risk. Okay,
so let's get into the specifics. What are those
actionable steps for personal exposure reduction?
These are straightforward ways to disrupt the
pathway of chemicals entering your body. The
most direct intervention involves heat. You have
to avoid microwaving plastics and placing them
in the dishwasher. Because heat significantly
accelerates the leaching of chemicals into your
food and water. They're identified as straightforward
ways chemicals enter the body. Instead, use non
-plastic containers, glass, ceramic, stainless
steel, for all food storage and reheating. We
should also be acutely aware of what we bring
into the home, especially for our children. The
recommendation is to give children toys made
from materials like certified wood or silicone.
Rather than those softer, flexible plastics,
which are often loaded with phthalates. And be
mindful of processed foods. They have far more
contact with various layers of plastic packaging,
which increases the opportunity for leaching.
And don't forget your personal care routine.
Phthalates are often hidden under that umbrella
term, fragrance, in makeup, lotions, and skincare.
Consciously checking those ingredient lists is
a crucial reduction step. And finally, and maybe
less obviously, you have to address chemical
-laden dust. That's a key point on dust. Chemicals
leach out into our household dust, which we then
inhale. So we need to ensure good air circulation
in our homes and workplaces to reduce that buildup.
Using a HEPA filter vacuum cleaner, dusting frequently
with a damp cloth, because wet cleaning traps
the chemicals. And even installing high -efficiency
air filters can significantly reduce the internal
exposure risk. These simple measures can really
break the cycle of absorption. OK, now let's
shift to the other side of the resilience coin.
Structural adaptation against the very visible
climate -driven disasters. the floods, the heat
waves, the forest fires. The research we looked
at offers some fascinating commentary on alternative
living styles and how communities can adapt,
using regions like West Virginia as a kind of
case study for resilience and self -reliance.
The underlying philosophy really centers on finding
personal independence and happiness by minimizing
economic overhead and relying more heavily on
communal support and the land itself. That commentary
highlighted the immense long -term value of acquiring
and holding country land. It's described as a
key to independence and happiness. By engaging
in a low overhead life, focusing on skills like
gardening, canning, fishing, hunting, and minimizing
necessary expenses, families can build a financial
and logistical buffer against instability. Against
supply chain shocks. It's about combining traditional,
almost pre -industrial survival skills with selective
modern conveniences. The goal is to build a life
that's less tethered to these massive complex
systems that are proving to be increasingly vulnerable
to climate upheaval and economic volatility.
And specifically, the sources address structural
resilience against the physical impacts of intensified
weather. For those building or renovating, the
recommendation is clear. Future proof your home.
Which means building structures that are specifically
fire resistant and flood resistant. So using
fire resistant materials like cement or masonry
for the exterior and strategically using steel
girders or reinforced concrete to attach houses
firmly to hillsides or perch them on high ridges.
To get them safely above known or predicted flood
zones, simple structures built to withstand extreme
wind and water are now seen not as an expense,
but as a necessary investment in long term survival.
And this concept of resilient lower cost living
also creates an economic draw. If an area addresses
quality of life, access to Internet, decent education,
community support. It naturally attracts people
escaping costly, disaster -prone cities, whether
they're retirees or remote workers looking for
scenic views and stability. But resilience can't
just be about individual property ownership.
The research really underscores the immense need
for communal solutions. Especially for those
struggling economically or dealing with addiction
or needing specialized care. These arrangements
often echo the historical traditions of sharing
and mutual moral support you see in many rural
communities. And we can see models of this success
all re -thriving. The research highlighted the
impressive network of well -run drug and alcohol
rehab centers that had developed in West Virginia.
And they're often uniquely staffed by people
actively in recovery themselves. This shows the
success of communal efforts where shared, lived
experience drives healing and support. It proves
that community structure works when it's built
around mutual aid. And the research advocates
for expanding this model into more permanent,
diversified communal arrangements. Things like
long -term homes for autistic adults, community
farms, or co -ops that allow residents to share
resources and labor. employee -owned businesses
that keep capital local, or retirement centers
that are owned and run by the seniors who live
there. The overarching goal is to create structures
where people share equally, socialize, and support
one another in the face of both economic uncertainty
and environmental change. And if the political
system remains incapable of providing a nonpartisan,
proactive response to climate and pollution,
then robust, adaptable, and self -reliant community
structures become the essential survival mechanism
for the common person. That brings us to the
end of this deep dive into the invisible storm.
We began with the shocking reality of a rapidly
intensifying hurricane, tracing that immediate
threat back through decades of political history.
Where a critical bipartisan opportunity to address
the greenhouse effect was systematically dismantled
by political maneuvering influenced by corporate
interests. We connected that historical failure
of fossil fuel regulation directly to the pervasive
and invisible threat of chemical pollution. Revealing
how a simple experiment showed that everyone
is exposed to a pervasive cocktail of chemicals,
specifically phthalates and disphenols, linked
to widespread cardiovascular deaths and neurodevelopmental
issues. And the common thread from the $160 billion
drought of 1988 to the ongoing political fight
over global LNG exports is the enduring pressure
placed upon us by systems built around continued
fossil fuel expansion. driving both atmosphere
crisis acceleration and microscopic health risks
inside our bodies. So we want to leave you with
one final thought. Given the extensive, long
-standing research that has been done regarding
both chemical hazards and climate impacts, and
the fact that experts have repeatedly identified
simple substitutions for harmful chemicals, what
is the moral imperative for governments and corporations
to prioritize public health and environmental
integrity over continued exponential production
expansion, especially when the costs are borne
by the most vulnerable? That is the question
we leave you with to consider this week. That
is certainly a thought worth mulling over. Thank
you for joining us for this intense exploration
of the hidden costs of our dependence on fossil
fuels. Remember to follow meteorologist Rob Jones
on Instagram at Meteorologist, on TikTok at TV
Meteorologist, and on YouTube follow Rob Jones
Hurricane, where you can also find the Meteorology
Matters podcast playlist. We'd also love to hear
your thoughts on our new English and Spanish
bilingual episodes. Let us know on social media.
You've been listening to Meteorology Matters
created by meteorologist Rob Jones.