169: Do The Work

Tom: [00:31:47] Yeah, it was quite amazing. 

Catherine McKenna: [00:31:47] On the super high. 

Christiana: [00:31:49] That would have been a very short career in climate change if you retired right after your very first appearance in.

Tom: [00:31:54] Canada is back. Thank you very much.

Catherine McKenna: [00:31:56] Actually, I did do something, though, like actually Canada back. Obviously, it was not in my notes. I mean, our negotiators were living under like the dark regime, the previous government where it was like obstructionist, probably in coded language. But I looked at the comms and I was like, what is anyone saying here? And I just actually rewrote it. And in a way I was like, We believe in the science. We need ambition, we need a deal, we need to like. And then I just say, Canada's back. And then everyone cheered and I realized, Oh, okay, if you talk, that was easy. People like it will react, people around the table. Then we went back to mitigation, adaptation and. I was like, okay, this is really getting.

Tom: [00:32:34] At a long road to the HLEG. Exactly.

Tom: [00:32:37] A long and winding road.

Catherine McKenna: [00:32:41] It really hasn't gotten better. Right. That's right. We try. So, Kathryn, what is the.

Tom: [00:32:46] To come on to task? Okay, Well.

Catherine McKenna: [00:32:48] Okay, So do you want to know what the HLEG is? Give us a talk to the high level. Well, I mean, the guy has been clear. He's really worried about greenwashing and. And, like, you know what? So, of course, there are voluntary standards. Like people would know race to zero. So on space target initiative G fans, part of race to zero. So maybe they've heard of that, although once again, we're in a lot of acronyms like G fans. But the reality is if you go to a store, they're like net zero bacon, Your regular person is like, is that really net zero? I don't know. Or we've got the net zero Oil sands Alliance. Like there's just like a lot said, net zero going around and different versions like net zero, it's like carbon neutral. There's like, like millions of ways to say all of this. And the reality is I just want us to be less dramatic and less like and more real. So everyone's making these commitments, but we need to just be real. The science is the science. So saying net zero is easy. Yeah, I mean, look, you know, when Canada came out with the new target, that's the easy part. It's doing the work. And so having clear standards and criteria, a price of admission, if you are going to say you were a net zero or like you know now which very few people are or net zero aligned, that's got to mean things. And so it's a whole range of things that have come up, like what does it mean to be net zero? So obviously we need to be based on the science, the science of 1.5 and there are different pathways.

Catherine McKenna: [00:34:18] You need to be on a low to no overshoot pathway once again, not super accessible language, but you need to deliver, you need to deliver on that. You can't say you're going to do this and the pathway is going to take you nowhere near what you need to be on the science. And then there's the idea of net. What is the net of zero? Once again?, and sometimes I'm like, Do people know what we're talking about? But, you know, the idea is you can't just buy cheap offsets and not do the work. You can't we're not offsetting our way to climate, to saving the planet. And so really there's a big discussion around credits and offsets, and there's a lot of other bodies that are working on this. So this is kind of the weird thing in this space. So like, we've got to deal with everything related to net zero. But then you have once again, I'm going to use acronyms, so kill us all. Now, VCMI and ICVCM, who are working on the supply side of credits like our credits, do they have high integrity? Are you actually like, are they real? Are they additional? Are they permanent? Are you working with indigenous communities and local communities? All of that? And then the demand side, when can you use credits? And I think that there's a general principle there that you got to do the hard work yourself. Like that's just the reality. We need everyone to reduce their own emissions. You can't buy your way.

Catherine McKenna: [00:35:26] And there's real concerns around both what kind of credits people are using and whether you're just buying credits instead of reducing emissions. So that's a big piece. Transition plans. You know, there's a good story. I mean, the Australians are actually really good on climate as opposed to other people. And they have this story of a an Australian man who lives in Sydney and he's like, I've decided to stop drinking, but I'm going to do it in an ambitious but orderly way, so I'm going to stop drinking at 2049, I will be 101 and, and by the way, I didn't drink on Tuesdays for a long time, so maybe it will give me an extra ten years and then I'm going to have a beer fridge called carbon Capture and Storage boom. So but I think the point on that, I think it's a good story because it just points like we can't just wait till 2049. The pathway between now and 2049, whether you reduce emissions and they actually we actually save the planet is huge. And so that's really, really key seeing early action, covering all your emissions, making sure that you're delivering. And then there's a little transparency and integrity piece. Like right now, actually it's not very transparent, so we can't even tell who is actually making progress or not, and it's not comparable data. So we should be able to see that you should be required to actually provide this in an annual way for the large corporates financials. It should be audited, it should be like financial statements or corporate what we're doing on climate.

Tom: [00:36:54] And that's definitely coming. Right. And we know that that's coming in the regulations. So, Catherine, I want to ask you a question. So the science is the science, right? And we know that we know where we need to be in that kind of as you roll up to a global level, it's kind of clear. But I want to ask you a sort of almost a more philosophical question and a slight anecdote. So years ago, I was much more on the activist end of the spectrum, and I started something you might enjoy with a friend called Cheat Neutral. The idea that you could cheat on your partner if you paid someone else to be faithful to theirs, you know, you offset infidelity as a way of poking fun at the offset concept, right?

Christiana: [00:37:21] Tom, we will not tell Natasha that!

Tom: [00:37:26] This is an idea that tried to poke fun at the idea that they're not equivalent. And through that, I actually spent a long. Time with other activists in 2007, 2008, trying to tear down the concept of carbon neutrality, because I felt it was this moral outrage that people would claim this equivalence. And with many other people, we tore it down. And then I looked at it like a few years later and thought, Oh, it's gone. And it wasn't that everybody suddenly started doing it perfectly. It was that all of these people inside corporations have been trying to do something. And it had hit my sense of moral outrage that it wasn't what I thought it was going to be. And then once we made it sort of shameful for them to do that, they just sort of stopped and went back to their day jobs. And then years later, I looked at it and thought, did I do a good thing or did I not? So that's the precursor to a question I want to ask you, which is you are understandably concerned about greenwashing. And that's absolutely right. If people are saying one thing and not being genuine about what they're doing, we should call that out. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those in companies and others who are imperfect, but trying and really trying to do their best. But they don't have all the answers and they don't have all the resources. And as we raise the criteria and as we put more and more scrutiny on them, we say you've got to get this right. It's consequential. If you don't, there's going to be consequences. There's also then a moment of like, Oh my God, this is actually a bit scary, you know, should I really do this? And some of them will then scuttle back into their little holes and say, this is all too much. So I just want to also recognise that we have a lot of people listening inside corporations who really are genuine about trying to make change.

Catherine McKenna: [00:38:56] Yes.

Tom: [00:38:56] They're not perfect and they don't have all the resources and some of them are a bit scared that they're going to be asked to do something that's beyond their capability. So how do we do both? How do we do both meet the greenwashing but not go sort of like down the road of perfection to the point where we stop the momentum and we kill something that we want to see thrive?

Catherine McKenna: [00:39:15] So it sounds like you tried to kill it, but thanks.

Tom: [00:39:18] It's. It's bad Two years later.

Catherine McKenna: [00:39:20] I'm joking. No, no, but, like, look, I mean, you can't just say you're a net zero or, you know, or carbon neutral not do the work. As I say, I mean, part of it is just taking the drama out of this and just actually saying, okay, what do you need to do? But I hear you right. Like you can't make the criteria so tough that you can't make it. But the science is the science, right? It's a journey. It's called net zero by 2050. Although to step back because that's a bit misleading, it's global net zero by 2050. So we actually need folks in in developed countries that can go faster to go faster. Right? That's just the reality. But I think, you know, there are there are is a lot of good action out there. And some of it is really hard depending on what you're, you know, what you do. Scope three Emissions are hard. I think we're well aware of that. I mean, you know, for some folks, for some folks, let's be clear, oil and gas companies, you know what your scope three is just say. But if you have a long value chain with a million with a ton of different companies in your value chain and and for financial institutions, asset managers, it is harder. But we all need to do this.

Catherine McKenna: [00:40:28] And you're seeing so much progress. I was talking to the German minister who's really amazing. She's a firecracker and she was talking about how, you know, they're using blockchain and she is like, you know, this new company that's doing these things. So, look, we all are on this journey, but there is a price of admission, right? So that doesn't mean you can do nothing and say you're not zero and then say it's really hard and then there are no consequences. These are voluntary. You're literally standing up and saying, I want to be recognized in net zero. Why? I think a lot of folks are doing it because it's the right thing to do, but because they see it's good for business, right? So you have to you have to deliver. So I think, of course, But this is why just be having to show your homework. I say to my kids like you want to get an A? Oh, okay, well, go do some work. Like, you know, stop playing video games. And when you do your math, could you show all of your work so we can, you know, the teacher can see it and it may not be perfect. You're going to get better marks. So I think that's that's part of the logic behind this.

Paul: [00:41:25] No video games on the way to net zero makes a lot of sense. You've got to focus on this. But isn't it the case, Catherine, in a sense, it's right and proper for big companies, supermarkets, Wal-Mart, steel companies to commit to net zero. But actually some of the underlying factors here are beyond the company's control or maybe the companies need to lobby. I mean, if you think about something like we were all in New York at Climate Week and there are these enormous cars that weigh four tons, you come over to Europe and the cars are small. It's because we have massive gasoline taxes in Europe and very little gasoline tax in the US. So isn't this ultimately about everyone recognizing that basically the government's got to take some action now? Isn't that the thing?

Catherine McKenna: [00:42:00] Yeah, I mean, we deal with that head on. I mean, part of it is the race or it's the pathway to regulation. So we acknowledge that we also need to have a pathway to regulation. But let me tell you how you get to regulation. Actually, you get the support by the by the business world, how we got carbon pricing. I know you love talking about carbon pricing.

Paul: [00:42:21] I do. I do right now, particularly with you, because you're the superstar, you're the global star. We've got a carbon price. Tell us how you did it.

Catherine McKenna: [00:42:28] I mean, there's well, there's a number of stories. There's a number of lessons, I think, with how we got a carbon price in Canada. But one of them was like, yeah, I mean, the environmental supported carbon pricing that that will get you not that far. I mean it'll get you like they support it. That's good. But I knew that we needed the support of business, so I literally went knocking on doors. Knock, knock, knock. Hi. Do you want to join our Carbon Pricing Coalition and Leadership Coalition? And some people are like, well, I don't know, maybe just to know what you're doing, but but then there were people like, Yeah, we actually want that. So we got two banks. Then that was like the tipping point. We got five all five major banks in Canada. We got we got, we got consumer goods companies, telcos, and we got an oil and gas company. And that really helped because it really showed that we we had the support. And one thing we will deal with, like the reality is businesses can either support climate action or they can thwart it. I mean, I guess they can be neutral too. But if you need climate action to meet your goals, like you need a carbon price, you should say that you should then lobby for it. But what you shouldn't do and I saw this like, you know, people would say, Oh yeah, yeah, we really support what you're doing in climate. When I was Minister for Environment, Climate Change, and then they go next door, the Finance Minister Knock, knock.

Catherine McKenna: [00:43:41] I don't do it all bad. And so we can't have that. We can't have misalignment. And within business they need to also at the highest levels be aligned because sometimes I feel sad for, you know, the ESG people or sustainable people. They were trying really hard, but then there's no alignment within the you know, within the business. You need to have alignment. And there's a number of ways like you can look at executive compensation. There's a number of tools. So I think part of what I'm just a practical person, as you probably know. And so the recommendation we're trying to make are just like practical things many that are out there with the top voluntary initiative. So they say these things and I think but remember, we're dealing with like net zero bacon or carbon positive milk, apparently. Carbon positive milk. That's an interesting I don't know. Apparently, Clay, that's something you know about. But yeah, so I mean, I think that there's we just need to actually just say, okay, this is what needs to be done. And then, then it's up to shareholders, consumers, environmentalists and others to actually look at this, say whether it's real. We are on the pathway to regulation. And looking at the verification piece is still hard because if you're not regulated, it's you know, a lot of this is, you know, on the voluntary side, although you're seeing TCFD principles, disclosure coming into place. So there is a movement there.

Paul: [00:45:02] And there is a big price. No, that's a great answer. If there is a big price on it, it all goes gets audited in the accounts anyway. So that's that's a great thing, you know, So we can, we can, we can get that, that way.

Catherine McKenna: [00:45:11] But I would just say like the one thing that we also can't forget because sometimes people like this is a drag, like we don't really like doing this, but climate change isn't going away. Yeah, we just like had this massive hurricane hit Canada and, you know, the water is hotter, so it accelerates, supposed to absorb the ocean, supposed to absorb the energy, but it isn't. And so everyone like this is a real risk to business. It's a risk that, yes, you might get sued because you're not doing stuff. It's a risk that but it's a risk that Mark Carney calls it the Minsky moment. Whatever. We're like, everyone's like, Whoa, we have massive climate events and everyone's like, Oh my God, we have to adjust right now. So, you know, our friend Faki, a lot of, you know, Faki you always talked about we got a futureproof your company. Yeah. And that's what this is also about. It's understanding risk. Like I feel sometimes we're a little bit weird still in the business world where people should really understand risk better. The risks are clear, like climate change. Even under the best scenarios, it's going to get worse. We know that. And so how are you dealing with the risk? How are you doing things that are sensible and really doing the work and looking at the opportunities, massive opportunities. This is the biggest economic opportunity ever, $3 trillion a year that needs to go to clean. So you can look at it as a risk you're going to reward, but just actually get on the path and do it.

Christiana: [00:46:32] Catherine, It seems to me that one of the challenges that you and your group face is how do you report? Because there is a lot of self reporting right now. Everybody is self reporting. Yes. Based on science, but still a lot of interpretation space there. So how do you really know that apples are apples if you compare? And the second piece that is dangerous about the self reporting is governments are also reporting. And so there is a non-zero chance that what companies are reporting for themselves is actually going to be duplicated, if you will, in the government's reporting, because they're not under any nested approach that I think needs to be developed, which is tech supported, let's call it blockchain for the time being, tech supported standardized accounting that nests the what government, what corporations are reporting, what cities, what regions, what governments are reporting, so that we actually have a good sense of where we are going. Next year we have the stocktake and frankly, with the with those with the very, very lax technologies that we have right now for reporting emissions or emission reductions, we're not going to know in the stocktake if we're actually on track or not. So don't we need actually some much more third party standardized accounting that can tell us where are we going and integrate it with government reporting as well?

Catherine McKenna: [00:48:05] So there's a lot there. But the answer is yes. I mean, I think that you will see in the report, a recognition of that. So I think that we need to make sure, like especially the large emitters right there are like the multinationals, there are very large they have capacity, right. Like some people are like, of course, they're capacity issues. The good thing about my group is like I have a, you know, a businesswoman from Columbia. She's like, you know, small, medium sized enterprises in Columbia. You make this too, like, you know, it's very hard to do. But with the large multinationals or the large emitters, we need them to really do this, this reporting in a standardised way. There are some really good initiatives. You probably saw Michael Bloomberg working together with the UN, which is great to to really have some platform where you actually have rigor and you have comparable data and so that there is a lot of good progress. Like I think it started, it was announced, but sometimes it announcement you're not sure where it's going to go, but they're working with the Global Climate Action Portal. I know Paul is CDP. You guys are part like that's really important. And the Global Climate Action portal can be there. And it's the nexus with the UN though. A question that you're also talking about. That's really important because when I was a minister, like you're doing top down as opposed to you don't have the bottom up. So actually you'll announce policies. But what if businesses are doing more ambitious stuff in the best case or it's not having the impact? So you kind of have to do both.

Catherine McKenna: [00:49:32] And this is where part of our mandate will be talking about the link with the global stocktake. Also not really accessible language, but really how do you how do you bring together what businesses, non-state actors, businesses, financial institutions, cities and regions is a little bit different and probably easier. But how do you bring that into what the UN is doing to actually understand where is the world going and and really see, in the best case scenario, you see more ambition, right? You see corporates, financial institutions really stepping up where governments have not regulated and so that they're pushing that the money is flowing on scale to clean, although we're still seeing flowing on scale to fossil fuels. So that has to change. That's also an equity and justice issue, which we haven't talked really about yet, but we need to see that emissions just have to. I say to people, it's actually not all that complicated Missions need to go down very quickly and the scale of money to clean has to go up very quickly. Of course, equity and justice is across that, but it's not unrelated because those most impacted are the ones who've done the least to cause it. And on the flip side, they're not getting the money they need to go to clean. So but but rigor and detail and step by step. But I'm with a group. I have a very good group. I think we're really trying to be practical, not have 100 recommendations, write them in English. That's really important. People can understand what we're saying and say real things on the areas where there are real concerns about greenwashing but also real opportunities.

Christiana: [00:51:03] So, Catherine, you're in the middle of this. We take it that that report is due before COP27, as in.

Catherine McKenna: [00:51:10] Apparently well before. Well before.

Christiana: [00:51:12] Apparently well before. Okay.

Catherine McKenna: [00:51:15] Just of now in the history. History of the UN, the fastest group ever to get our work. We actually are well advanced in our work. We've had really great submissions. We've done consultations. So and we've had help from a lot, lots of folks. So I'm feeling pretty confident.

Christiana: [00:51:30] Excellent. So with that context and what you have learned, what are you still outraged by and what makes you the optimist that you always have been?

Catherine McKenna: [00:51:44] So I'm one of my average. Okay. I'm just going to take like the most recent one I think I saw you were a bit outraged Christiana Figueres. So there was an interview with the president of the World Bank. Oh, saying the dodgyness. Well, I'm not a scientist on the climate and science, so as I say to folks, yeah, that's a problem. If you're not clear that that climate change is manmade and like we're in a massive pickle right now. But it's a bigger problem because you're the World Bank, that we need you to flow money to actually get the clean solutions at scale. And I was having conversations with many folks that that's a massive problem right now with the World Bank because they there seems to be a view that it's how much money you spend that's actually not that's not the success. The success in the context of the World Bank is how much are you able to leverage from the private sector and how much are you able to get built? That is the measure that we need. And so guess what? As I tell folks, we know who the shareholders are. So there are shareholders. Those are called countries. The countries need to step up us, buy Canada, other countries, they can actually change this. So I think that's key. I think I'm also worried. I'm a bit outraged, a bit worried. People are using some folks are using the illegal Russian war to defer action or to scale investments in fossil fuels. And often they say, well, that's because we need to support folks like in less developed countries, in particular Africa, that don't have electricity. Yes, we do need to do that. But I mean, often that is not the focus. These folks are off the grid. I've seen many amazing companies that are actually working on solar solutions at scale for folks that are off the grid. Like, that's not often when I hear from oil and gas companies, their first thing isn't like, how do they solve the problem of folks that don't have electricity? When I lived in Indonesia.

Christiana: [00:53:39] Thank you! That is one of my pet peeves right now. So thank you for that.

Catherine McKenna: [00:53:43] But I will say there is a quid pro quo and we are well aware of this because I have really smart members that are from Africa, that are from Latin America, that are from India, and they are saying, yes, we need the money though, stop telling us we can't do things, fine. We get that we need to go to renewables. But where's the money? Yeah, show us the money. $3 trillion. So we need a whole new deal. Mia Mottley. So many great leaders from developing countries have said this and we need to show the money. Folks need to do this, and it also does that. Reach me. Honestly, the fossil fuel companies are making massive, massive profits and in Canada are demanding even more subsidies to do solutions that they should be investing in while they're giving the money back to their through shared share buybacks and executive compensation. So, like, let's have some alignment on the positive side here. There's been a big shift. Like, I actually think I meet a lot of corporates that are figuring this out, working hard and the impact they can have on their value on their supply chain. That's massive because they can support smaller companies, they can look for innovation. And so I think that is really, really important. But one foot in front of the other, right? Like everyone needs to be picking up the slack.

Catherine McKenna: [00:54:58] Sometimes governments are not going to be great. And I think we're going into a period of governments not being great. So we're going to need real leadership from the private sector and we're going to need the young people out every single day. But we need regular people who, like in Cape Breton, Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, was hit super hard and I was listening to interviews and folks there are like we now understand these one in 100 year storms are happening every few years. This is like my house may go in the water, we need action. And that's really it. It comes back to carbon pricing like regular people. We gave we gave the money back to regular people when we put a price on pollution because you need people to be part of the solution. But people are smart. People know climate change is real. They know that there's a real cost and they want leadership. So I think real people are also what are going to drive this. But to do that, maybe just start at the very beginning. We have to talk like real people to real people. And so, yeah, like global stocktake and even net zero, to be honest, like most people are, no, no idea what we're all talking about. So certainly not HLEG. They don't know what an HLEG is.

Christiana: [00:56:07] Well, we look forward to the report from HLEG. And here's the thing. Why don't you put it out under a different name? Catherine? That would certainly get a couple of people.

Catherine McKenna: [00:56:18] That is good. I have to have some negotiations with the UN there a little bit wedged with the language.

Christiana: [00:56:23] Yes, I know that. I know that.

Catherine McKenna: [00:56:25] We could have like a little thing underneath. Don't worry. I am very, very focused on this.

Christiana: [00:56:30] Subtitle it so that it's understood.

Paul: [00:56:32] What about the world's back?

Catherine McKenna: [00:56:35] The world is back, or actually do the work, do the homework, do the work, do something catchy, do the right thing. Okay. Okay, great.

Christiana: [00:56:43] Catherine, thank you so much.

Tom: [00:56:44] Thank you so much.

Clay: [00:56:46] Thank you.

Paul: [00:56:47] Bye bye. Bye, Catherine.

Clay: [00:56:51] All good.

Tom: [00:56:52] So Catherine McKenna is such a fantastic leader for such a long time on this issue now clearly just as focused and determined.

Christiana: [00:56:59] She has not lost her spunk, that's for sure. 

Tom: [00:57:00] My God, she hasn't. Has she? Absolutely. What do you leave the conversation with?

Paul: [00:57:07] Well, a couple of points. One thing I'm just going to say one thing about blockchain is that it it's amazing for for what you call it, Bitcoin and various currencies. You can just use normal databases. It doesn't have to be blockchain. But the key point is we need to record and verify what's happening and progress whatever technology we're using. I think it is very exciting. She mentioned this initiative from Bloomberg and Macron, the world and the governments and the OECD and the IMF and everyone's coming together around this need. Mark Carney is doing a great bit of convening there along with Michael Bloomberg. But I also want to point out some of the other things Catherine said. Like, for example, she was talking about supply chains are important and, you know, companies, by the way. Do you know who plays your suppliers energy bills? You do. So there's such a strong incentive to manage energy consumption of greenhouse gas emissions through supply chains. And then the final thing I want to really salute Catherine. She got that carbon tax in in Canada and she made a reference to it. But for anyone who missed it, the secret was that the government didn't keep the money. They took the carbon tax in and they paid it straight out to the people. Almost kind of like a wealth transfer from the high emitters to to to the public. And that's where you can get tax in and change the rules of the game. Hmm.

Christiana: [00:58:16] Well, a lot there, but I'm just grateful that it is Catherine who has been given this task, because you can imagine that if we had a highly bureaucratic mind behind this, we would never get out of the rabbit hole. And she is so practical and so clear that I think she's going to make huge efforts to cut through all of that bureaucracy and just put out something that is practical, that is to the point, and that can be used by corporations as as guidance for doing the right thing. And and and to those who are doing greenwashing to be able to differentiate. So I'm grateful for her attitude of of just being incredibly practical and let's get it done.

Paul: [00:59:12] Yeah. Yeah.

Tom: [00:59:13] What did you think, Christiana, about that issue that that I raised that you and I have talked about so much about the balance between momentum and perfection, Did you think that she feels like she's got that kind of in her crosshairs and she's going to deliver something that fits that need of a balance that won't slow our momentum, but increases the integrity. And she's got to balance lots of stakeholders.

Christiana: [00:59:35] Well, that balance between rigor and and broad participation or between integrity and momentum, you know, we we've talked about it ad nauseam. It's always been a part of the major challenges of the climate regime. I remember having these discussions 20, 25 years ago. Right. And it's not going we're not going to solve it with this. It's just that it's an ever occurring challenge that we have to face every time. And I do think that she is well aware of it and she will do her darndest to put something out that, as she says, is separating the chaff from the wheat. Yeah. Without cutting down on those who are really very sincerely trying and still don't know how to do it. There's one thing between trying and don't know how to do it and keep on trying. There's another. There is a completely different scenario if you're gaming the system. I think what she's trying to do here is to cut out those who are gaming the system and open up the possibilities for those who are sincerely committed to doing the emission reductions but are still in the learning curve.

Tom: [01:00:48] Yeah, that's the balance, right? It's to sort of like make it all right to try and not know everything, but that you have to make a sincere effort and you're not actually just being disingenuous and lying. So like threading that needle is a really complicated thing to do. But I agree with you. I felt like she had a real sense of the necessity of doing that. Of course, the implementation of it is difficult and no doubt, you know, everybody will be very unhappy with the outcome, but that probably is a marker of success to some degree, Right, of having found a compromise. Right. Okay. Anything else to add or should we go?

Paul: [01:01:19] We figure these things out? I'm going to give the last word to my my friend, someone I greatly admire, Lois Guthrie, who's been a carbon accountant for for 25 years. And she's an absolute genius. And and people say to her, you know, how are we ever going to calculate all this carbon? She says, Well, we calculate the tax and we've got inter-governmental tax agreements and, you know, we've got frameworks. We can do this. Humans are clever.

Tom: [01:01:40] There's all sorts of things that occur to me in response to that. And I do agree the Lois Guthrie is a genius. But isn't it true that a profit in the US is not the same as a profit in Europe into today's taxation rules? And we haven't really sorted that out. We can't do that.

Paul: [01:01:52] And to be honest, Lois hasn't been doing it 25 years. She's been doing it 15 years. But but we.

Tom: [01:01:55] Know she's a genius. She is a genius. Yeah.

Paul: [01:01:58] She is a genius. She is genius, Right?

Tom: [01:02:00] Finnegan Tui, we've got some music for you. Thanks for joining us this week, everybody. Really appreciate it. What a fun episode. Be back next week. Bye bye.

Finnegan Tui: [01:02:10] I think the thing I miss most is feeling curious. Like, why do I not shout anymore or leap up and down with excitement about the way that sunlight reflects in a puddle? Exclaim about how the clouds look like stingrays or witches again. Or how the sunset reminds me of home and how lucky I am to be here. I remember I used to, But all of a sudden I seem to be flirting with the idea of being an adult for the first time. And whilst I want to be excited about joining the real world, I'm not. And I think it's because as these new responsibilities have fallen on me and pressure has arisen like things. They are not as beautiful as they were. You know, things are right and wrong and true and false and left and right. Everything has its place, its name, its ingredients, and because of this miracle, seem to have become more rare. And so this song is about wanting to let go of that cold but rational skepticism that's kind of grown up in me. My desire to let my guard down and be vulnerable. Vulnerable for someone else. Vulnerable for myself. And just to be able to be and take something in and see something as it is, as opposed to kind of dissecting it. And this song is about a time where that did happen for me, a time where these shackles were kind of ripped off. It involved the ocean. It involved the beginning of love. The song is called The Guard and I hope you like it.

Clay: [01:08:11] Wow. So there you go. Another episode of Outrage + Optimism. Finnegan Tai, folks. That was amazing. The Guard is the name of this song. I am so impressed by this sound that Finnegan has captured on his latest record, Zephyr, and which The Guard is the opening track. So yeah, that's just the start of the album. So much more for you to hear as it plays. And I know you like audio because you're listening to a podcast, but my Weekend Listen recommendation to all you listeners is to go to Finnegan's YouTube and watch the full audio visual journey of the record. I just watched it. It's beautifully shot. It's in 4k, so hey, dim the lights, put it on the biggest screen you have. It's phenomenal. Finnegan Toohey has a Bandcamp, a Patreon. I'm a big fan of Patreon and his own subreddit. He's on the Internet, He's making amazing things and he's 22 year old composing and performing genius and prolific. So this is a great artist to start following now, especially if you want more than just a song to listen to all the links to his socials, music, YouTube are in the show notes. Thank you to Finnegan Tui. Oh, I haven't said my name yet. My name is Clay. I'm the producer of Outrage + Optimism and welcome to the wrap up of episode three. You know, I was thinking about it earlier and I'm kind of like a doorman for the podcast, you know, as you exit the podcast, making sure you don't forget your hat, your umbrella, your goodie bag, you know, everything you need on the way out into the world.

Clay: [01:09:54] So here we go. Thank you to our guests this week, Helen Clarkson and Catherine McKenna. Now Climate Week is over, but did you miss a session? Do you want to share an inspiring quote with colleagues? You know, are you considering attending next year? Do you watch YouTube videos at night instead of sleeping? Helen Clarkson and the wonderful people at the Climate Group have got you covered. ClimateWeekNYC.org. You can go watch all of the sessions from last week on demand. So links in the show notes to that and Helen's socials. Thank you Helen. And Catherine McKenna, friend of the POD, one of our favorite Canadians. Katherine Hayhoe Definitely being in that cohort, actually that kind of brings up an interesting thought, which is maybe, maybe Canadians hold the secrets on how to talk about climate like normal, in a way that makes sense. Anyway, I live near Canada, I like Canada, and we actually have a pretty sizable audience in Canada. So shout out to our Canadian listeners and thank you to Catherine for taking our call. Links to her social media in the show notes. She's really fun to follow, so check her out over there now, Christiana, Tom, Paul and Outrage + Optimism are on social media, posting and sharing all things stubbornly optimistic.

Clay: [01:11:15] And if Twitter were like an urban heat island, stay with me. Which, I mean, it really is. You know, all of our social accounts would be like a beautiful neighborhood park with trees providing shade and like a cool river you can swim in. That's a nice image. I like that. At OutrageOptimism is our tag. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn. Linkedin is hot right now. Don't know why. I can't figure it out. But anyway, we'll see you there. And last but certainly not least, shoutout to our colleague Freya Newman for getting her work published in Nature Communications of her master's research. Freya, congratulations. I'm pulling up the title here. The title of her research that was published is Nocturnal Plant Respiration is Under Strong Non-temperature Control, which to me sounds good. I only understood like half the words. So, Freya, we would love to have you come on at the end of the podcast and explain what this research is all about. And hey, if you're not feeling up for it, totally understand you don't have to do it. You actually could nominate one Canadian to explain this research because they know how to talk about science. And it's my new theory that something is going on in the Canadian education system. That is just the answer to my new theory. Okay. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening. Another episode of Outrage + Optimism in your feed next week. See you then.