164: The US Supreme Court's EPA Ruling: Is the Crisis of Climate a Crisis of Democracy?
About this episode
With the US Supreme Courts ruling on the EPA still sending shockwaves through some quarters of the climate community, we ask in our second special episode this week: is this a sign that the tide is turning against environmental regulation, or should we not mistake this tide for the stronger current of climate progress?
In this episode, co-hosts Christiana Figueres, Tom Rivett-Carnac, and Paul Dickinson take leave of UK politics (in the most part) and take a look across the ‘puddle’ at what many have described as the devastating ruling delivered by the US Supreme Court on the EPA’s power to regulate green house gas emissions.
We hear from two very special guests, Gina McCarthy former EPA administrator and now the first National Climate Advisor to the White House, and John Podesta, the founder and chair of the Board of Directors for the Center for American Progress, and former counselor to President Barack Obama.
The incredible Gina McCarthy brings her blend of energy and defiance to the conversation declaring that the Supreme Court’s intent behind this ruling was “ to look at the law in ways that that are so narrow that they they take away opportunities of government to fundamentally protect people in ways that I believe each and every one of these laws intended to do”.
She asserts that President Biden, while disappointed, remains umoved by this decision and undeterred in his aim to double down on his ambiton to do more, safe in the knowledge that he has the legal authority to do so.
Her belief that despite efforts on the part of certain actors, the trajectory moving us away from the use of fossil fuels, especially in the private sector, cannot be knocked off course by blips in the road like this recent ruling.
She concludes: “ Our job now isn't to bemoan that we don't have all the tools we need. It's to drive those tools into the agenda of every single private sector entity and working with states and and cities to drive this moving forward. So I still remain very bullish on our ability to make these things happen.”
John Podesta joins the hosts to deliver his insightful analysis through a political lens offering us an alternative reading of the ruling and the political landscape of US environemental policy, asking an important question:"is the crisis of climate a crisis of democracy?"
John notes how the Supreme Court was purposefully stacked to deliver an anti majoritarian outcome in cases such as West Virginia vs EPA and Roe vs Wade, outcomes which 2/3rds of the US population disagree with. He states, in the case of the EPA ruling:”it creates a context in which the court is protecting polluters against future generations. And this case in particular doesn't end the ability of the EPA, as I'm sure Gina McCarthy noted, to be able to regulate CO2 and greenhouse gases. But it certainly makes it more difficult, more costly to do what the country absolutely needs to do, which is to change its power system to to clean energy.”
While John agrees with Gina that this ruling is not a death blow to Biden’s power and momentum towards clean energy, he states the ruling is: “an indication that the forces that really want to maintain the status quo in the face of the absolute critical need to change, reform, innovate, build out a new economy that's based on clean rather than dirty, are alive well. And they're going to do everything they can to resist change. So Democratic forces can still overcome that. But I think everybody should be concerned and I think outraged, quite frankly.”
NOTES AND RESOURCES
Have you enjoyed listening to this new format of Outrage + Optimism? We have had great fun making these last two episodes so as Tom suggests in the show, let us know what you think by dropping us an email at contact@globaloptimism.com.
Christiana + Tom’s book ‘The Future We Choose’ is available now!
Gina McCarthy
Biog
Gina McCarthy is the first National Climate Advisor—the president’s chief advisor on domestic climate policy—and leads the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy focused on mobilizing a whole-of- government approach to tackling the climate crisis, creating good-paying, union jobs, and securing environmental justice.
Previously, she served as 13th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and then as President and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). One of the nation’s most trusted and accomplished voices on climate issues, she has been at the forefront of environmental and public health progress in a variety of leading roles for over three decades.
In her time leading the EPA, McCarthy oversaw successful efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, mitigate air pollution, conserve critical water sources, and safeguard vulnerable communities from chemical hazards. She spearheaded the Obama-Biden Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which set America’s first-ever national standards for lowering carbon emissions from power plants, and helped pave the way for the Paris Climate Agreement.
Throughout her career, McCarthy has advised five administrations of both Democratic and Republican Massachusetts governors on environmental matters, and she served as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection prior to being appointed by President Obama to head up the EPA’s Air Office. As EPA administrator, she pursued innovative global collaborations with the United Nations and the World Health Organization, and on global efforts to address pollution. Born and raised in Boston, McCarthy graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston and earned a master of science at Tufts University.
John Podesta
Biog
John Podesta is the founder and chair of the Board of Directors for the Center for American Progress. Podesta served as counselor to President Barack Obama, where he was responsible for coordinating the administration’s climate policy and initiatives. In 2008, he served as co-chair of President Obama’s transition team. He was a member of the U.N. Secretary General’s High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Podesta previously served as White House chief of staff to President William J. Clinton. He chaired Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president in 2016.
To learn more about the climate emergency and how you can translate outrage into action, subscribe to the podcast here.
Full Transcript
Transcript generated by AI. While we aim for accuracy, errors may still occur. Please refer to the episode’s audio for the definitive version
00:00:12.682 --> 00:00:14.582
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Hello, and welcome to Outrage and Optimism. I'm Tom Rivett-Carnac.
00:00:15.982 --> 00:00:17.462
Christiana Figueres: I'm Christiana Figueres.
00:00:17.462 --> 00:00:18.642
Paul Dickinson: And I'm Paul Dickinson.
00:00:18.642 --> 00:00:25.962
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Today, we discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling removing the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. We speak to two amazing guests. First, Gina McCarthy, the first National Climate Advisor, formerly the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and President and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. And we speak to John Podesta, Founder and Chair of the Center for American Progress, former Counselor to President Barack Obama, and former White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. Thanks for being here. So, this is the second of our two special episodes this week, and the last one was fairly somber, given the chances of the next conservative government in the UK not having climate and energy in the same level of precedence as the previous one. But this conversation is even more cause for outrage, because as all listeners to this podcast will know, the Supreme Court has gone and done that thing that we have been afraid for years that it would do. And that is to curb the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States to regulate and limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. This came from a landmark ruling on June the 30th. And it was a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts in the case of West Virginia versus the EPA. Now this deals a major blow to the Biden administration in its attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at a critical moment when honestly confidence that the US was going to meet its commitments was already at a low ebb. So I'd love to just start there and hear how did the two of you receive this news.
00:02:03.123 --> 00:02:03.383
Christiana Figueres: Yes. So honestly, quite a blow, quite a blow to the soul, I would say. But I also really wonder, and that's why I'm really, really excited about our conversation with Gina to understand, yes, from a political point of view, this has been quite a blow. We will go into the interpretation that has come from the right side of politics in the United States. But there is something that is a little bit odd, which is that the ruling was based on the Clean Power Plan, which is an Obama strategy that never came into effect. So it's a little bit odd to see something like this on something that actually wasn't moving forward anyway. So it is sort of, is it a double negative? Not only is the Clean Power Plan not moving forward, but in addition to that, we have this ruling. Or is the ruling actually a pretty narrow decision that is not really going to affect the course of greenhouse gas emissions in part because the regulation is not quite that much of a break, but also because companies, as we know from Trump years, companies and cities and states will continue to move forward on decarbonization out of their own self-interest. So it's a little bit strange, and I'm very, very interested in how Gina is going to interpret this for us.
00:03:55.843 --> 00:03:57.543
Tom Rivett-Carnac: And commentators seem split, right? I mean, I've heard people say this is the end of the world, and others say this kind of doesn't matter, which is what you're pointing to. So yeah, that's going to be really fascinating. Mr. Paul?
00:04:06.463 --> 00:04:11.323
Paul Dickinson: Yeah, I think it's really sort of dark and crazy, frankly. I think the US Supreme Court has been filled with Trumpites from a kind of ideological corporate nightmare, darkness world. And look, I actually see it as, to some degree, linked to Roe vs. Wade. You think back to, I don't know, was it August 2021, when the US pulled out of Afghanistan? Actually, I think the US did more than just pull out of Afghanistan. I think they made some kind of decision at the level of the highest court to turn into Afghanistan. Just this morning, I was reading through the Afghan Penal Code. Article 402 says, as you do, as abortion leads to long imprisonment, not exceeding seven years. If a doctor performs an abortion, a medical doctor, they also get the maximum punishment for the crime. So there's something really strange going on. There is some notion, I think, by the court of the sense of purity. And there is a theoretical case that the US EPA doesn't have a specific specified duty in its Constitution to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Well, guess what? When the EPA was formed, people were not worried about climate change, didn't really know of it as a significant force in society. What's happened is another piece of dogmatic architecture of the US Constitution saying that the cities shouldn't rule the countryside, means that voters in Wyoming get 80 times as much influence over the US Senate as voters in California. Quite frankly, money and the influences of coal companies have found a way to stop the Senate from passing laws to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. When the government tries to use the Environmental Protection Agency, go look at the name, and then the Supreme Court says, oh, we're not, you know, by some dogmatic detail, you can't use the Environmental Protection Agency. You've got to deduce that the US is not really a functioning democracy at the moment because it is not supporting the will of the people. And the fact that the Supreme Court will endanger the national security of the United States and the national security of the world to promote dogmatic interpretation of law, which must constantly evolve in our society, is an outrage. And, you know, I kind of think of the great threats to the world. And I'm afraid to say the US Senate and the US Supreme Court are looking like those threats when I always thought of them as our saviour.
00:06:41.083 --> 00:06:42.043
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, particularly when this report...
00:06:42.043 --> 00:06:43.583
Christiana Figueres: Well, tell us what you really think.
00:06:45.003 --> 00:06:54.063
Tom Rivett-Carnac: And particularly when this report comes out from Dartmouth that points out that the US climate pollution has caused two trillion dollars worth of damage to other countries. That was an astonishing piece of research that came out just the other day as well. And Paul, I'll just go back to it. I mean, you're right, of course, that the Founding Fathers didn't enshrine the law for government.
00:07:05.463 --> 00:07:06.723
Paul Dickinson: Founding Mothers would have done, by the way.
00:07:06.723 --> 00:07:08.063
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, Founding Mothers maybe would have done. But where that came from is maybe worth explaining to listeners is that what the Clean Air Act does do is it provides the executive branch of government with the ability to find that other gases are dangerous and to create what's called an endangerment finding. And therefore, those new gases that science now says with new science are dangerous can then subsequently also be regulated under existing legislation. And this was the plan that Barack Obama put in place. I remember I was there in 2013. I was invited as I was running CDP North America to go and meet President Obama and sit there on this very hot day as he gave this brilliant speech with Gina McCarthy sitting to one side explaining this legal mechanism that he was going to utilize, which was this endangerment finding. They had been very careful and science had found that carbon dioxide was dangerous to human health, so therefore they were going to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. It is not an unmanned unmandated piece of work. I actually remember that I nearly didn't go to that day because my wife was due to have my son two weeks later, and we thought, oh my God, it's too scary. It's too close to the due date. I can't go on the train from New York down to Washington. And I was sitting very generously, ushered into the front row, and I stopped getting messages back from my wife about 20 minutes into the talk. And I thought, there's a couple of scenarios here, but one of them is that she's gone into labor and she's no longer looking at her phone. So I was like, I've got to get out of here. So I got down on my hands and knees about two thirds of the way through the speech and crawled along to the edge of the aisle past Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, a couple of other people, got to the edge and started legging it down the road out front. And of course, my wife texted me 10 minutes later, she said, oh, hi, sorry, I was in the shower. So that was my experience of the endangerment finding day in 2013.
00:08:52.103 --> 00:08:55.903
Christiana Figueres: I so wish I had a video of you crawling through.
00:08:55.903 --> 00:08:56.483
Paul Dickinson: You got to do it. But Tom, you sound like a bit of a... Well, nice, sweet Tom. You sound like a bit of an expert here. So is the Supreme Court saying that, and I've heard this before, I think, that greenhouse gases, because they don't immediately poison you or immediately cause your lung problems, they're not dangerous and therefore that they rule against the brilliant case that Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, they find that Obama was wrong. Is that the idea?
00:09:23.483 --> 00:09:36.743
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, this is why I'm fascinated to talk to Gina, it's what I don't understand, because there's a clear provision in the Clean Air Act that you can have an endangerment process to find that a new gas is dangerous, and then that endangerment finding allows you to regulate it. So my understanding is that what's happened is that the Supreme Court has said you can no longer do that, you need to go back to the House and the Senate to get this new authority to now regulate these other gases.
00:09:47.803 --> 00:09:52.343
Christiana Figueres: Yeah, but it's important to understand why they did that, right? Why did Chief Justice John Roberts pen this ruling? And what legal ground is he standing on to do that? And what he has done is he has reached way back into his back pocket into something that is called the Major Questions Doctrine in the United States, which posits that courts must look to Congress rather than agencies, specialized agencies like the EPA, when considering regulations that would carry quote unquote economic and political significance.
00:10:27.523 --> 00:10:28.023
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I see.
00:10:28.023 --> 00:10:35.183
Christiana Figueres: So there is no questioning that there's economic and political significance, which is the weird thing about this. So yes, there is economic and political significance of climate change. But because of the Major Questions Doctrine, and then it should not be EPA, it should be Congress. So that's sort of a back pocket card that he put on the table in order to come forward with the ruling that he wrote and for which he got six votes on the Supreme Court. Now this also means that it's actually very, very linked to November elections. Because that is now going to stand and it's going to very much depend now on the new Congress that the United States will have in November. So it's an interesting question whether that was surely a legal interpretation that he took that card out, or is there any space, any scenario for someone who could have thought, hmm, in November, we're going to have Congress back, and therefore, this is the way to do it. Sorry, but that has been a nagging little thought.
00:11:47.843 --> 00:11:52.123
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I mean, that's a question for both of them, but particularly for John, who's such a deep thinker on these issues. Also, I point out, thank you for clarifying that on the major questions. I had heard that, and that's really helpful to have that clarification from you. But interestingly, what that legal ruling doesn't do is question the endangerment finding. No one's saying that greenhouse gases aren't dangerous. It's just saying, we need to find a different source of authority to regulate from them.
00:12:08.263 --> 00:12:08.983
Christiana Figueres: Yes. But not only does it not question the endangerment, but ironically, it actually confirms that climate change and that greenhouse gas concentrations, growing concentrations is and does have economic and political significance, which frankly, they have not been wanting to accept. So it's such an odd ruling.
00:12:33.023 --> 00:12:34.063
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER — please verify (likely Gina McCarthy's sign-off or a host reaction, mistagged onto Podesta's slot before he'd joined): Yeah.
00:12:34.063 --> 00:12:36.103
Paul Dickinson: Well, but is it odd? I mean, the January 6th hearings and the extraordinary leadership of surprising politicians, and I cannot help particularly highlighting the extraordinary bravery of Liz Cheney, for example, demonstrates the vast cynicism of Donald Trump. Now, I mention that because we remember on the campaign trail, you know, Trump digs coal, and we know that fossil fuel backers, particularly in the coal industry, have given enormous support to Donald Trump. He put Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court. He led to this legal trickery. And, you know, there are people arguing that, oh, well, you know, democracy is being served by this because we'll go back to the Congress. But we know the Congress is gridlock and controlled by sectional interests through the Senate. So, you know, it's very clever to come up with these sort of legal strategies. And thank you once again for describing them, Christiana. But these people are very brave. And I call them brave because they're also very stupid. These brave, stupid people are exposing themselves to the eye of the entire F asterisks, asterisks, asterisks in world. And, you know, woe betide them as extreme weather becomes ever more present. Because I think, you know, the next couple of decades are going to be about looking for who was responsible for this asinine crime against humanity.
00:14:04.583 --> 00:14:05.063
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Right. On that bombshell, I think we should give Gina a call. And let's bear in mind, the last time we talked to Gina, she was sitting in a car park, driving from Boston to Washington, full of enthusiasm and excitement for her role as the first ever National Climate Advisor. And of course, she's done many things, but the big climate deal has been elusive. And now, we're faced with this enormous roadblock, or potentially not, she'll tell us, in the form of the Supreme Court ruling. So, should we try and reach her?
00:14:35.683 --> 00:14:36.543
Christiana Figueres: Well, hold on. Tom, if you were crawling through that major public event, I hope that was broadcast by...
00:14:44.263 --> 00:14:45.583
Tom Rivett-Carnac: There must be a video of it somewhere.
00:14:45.603 --> 00:14:47.863
Paul Dickinson: I'm trying to find some film of him crawling under the...
00:14:47.863 --> 00:14:53.423
Christiana Figueres: Gina McCarthy, you say, Gina McCarthy, you say, was sitting there because she was the EPA administrator, right?
00:14:53.423 --> 00:14:54.583
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Administrator, yeah, exactly, yeah.
00:14:54.923 --> 00:14:58.943
Christiana Figueres: Yeah, so, you know, this is absolutely... Well, let's see what she says, but is this really a dagger in her heart personally? Because she was the EPA administrator when Obama announced the...
00:15:09.143 --> 00:15:12.243
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Oh, yeah, she led the science that led to the engagement finding. That was absolutely... She is... No one is more intrinsically connected to this than Gina.
00:15:16.183 --> 00:15:17.323
Christiana Figueres: So let's talk to her.
00:15:17.323 --> 00:15:18.183
Paul Dickinson: Let's get her on the phone. But before we do, because I think we have like two minutes or something. Didn't you say, Tom, that you had some response from Chris Skidmore? Is that right?
00:15:25.443 --> 00:15:26.303
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yes, that's true. Thanks, Paul. Let's just turn to that for a second before we call Gina. So regular listeners will know that we put out a podcast two days ago in which we had Chris Skidmore MP on, and he talked about the...
00:15:37.763 --> 00:15:41.623
Christiana Figueres: Sorry, sorry, Chris, MP of the UK, which switched countries.
00:15:41.743 --> 00:15:42.683
Tom Rivett-Carnac: A global podcast. Slap, slap, slap. Code switching, please, everybody. We're going back to the Conservative Party leadership race, which is unfolding on the other side of the puddle, as Christiana calls it, and everyone else calls it the pond, where we are looking at who the next leader of the Conservative Party, and therefore Prime Minister of the UK, will be. And he told us that he was going to ask all of the candidates in public whether or not they would endorse the UK's Net Zero 2050 goal. He duly did that 24 hours later, and interestingly, what we found is that Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, and Penny Mordent, the three front runners, all did come out and say that they would support the Net Zero 2050 target. The others, Tom Tuggenhatt said he would push the Net Zero target back, and Kemi Badenoch said she...
00:16:31.623 --> 00:16:32.583
Paul Dickinson: And he got knocked out?
00:16:32.583 --> 00:16:35.023
Tom Rivett-Carnac: No, no, he's still in it, Tom Tuggenhatt. But Sveta Bravaman has been knocked out. But Kemi Badenoch, who is another leadership hopeful, said she wanted a completely new approach to tackling climate change that was not based on targets, which is a bit bizarre. So anyway, Chris Gidmore, if you didn't listen to that episode, do go back and listen to it. It was very insightful. Chris was brilliant. He was as good as his word. He asked all the candidates. And now we have much more visibility.
00:16:54.683 --> 00:16:56.583
Paul Dickinson: And the three front runners are all in favor.
00:16:56.583 --> 00:16:58.063
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Three front runners are all in favor, yeah. So that's pretty good.
00:16:59.743 --> 00:17:03.723
Paul Dickinson: OK, now let us go to the USA and get hold of Gina McCarthy.
00:17:04.283 --> 00:17:05.663
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Clay, can we give her a ring? Yeah. Back across the puddle.
00:17:07.803 --> 00:17:09.223
Christiana Figueres: Across the puddle. There she is. Hello.
00:17:18.543 --> 00:17:19.583
Gina McCarthy (guest): How are you, Christiana? How are you?
00:17:20.603 --> 00:17:22.383
Christiana Figueres: I'm doing fine. I'm doing well. I'm personally doing fine. And the world is completely crazy, Gina, as I'm sure you will agree.
00:17:29.383 --> 00:17:34.063
Gina McCarthy (guest): I feel like it's just a bizarre world right now. Let me just put it that way. What could go wrong seems to be.
00:17:39.063 --> 00:17:40.463
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Is going wrong.
00:17:40.463 --> 00:17:43.303
Gina McCarthy (guest): It's just holy smokes. But there's lots of good things happening, so we just have to motivate ourselves to recognize what we can't do and to run as fast as we can where we can.
00:17:52.163 --> 00:17:53.103
Christiana Figueres: Absolutely. Absolutely. Gina, I'm sure you have an absolutely crazy day. Thank you very much for taking our call so abruptly. Gina, on this episode of the podcast, we're trying to understand what on earth happened at the Supreme Court with respect to EPA. Honestly, we feel like we're dancing around this, so we wanted to get you as being the most authoritative person since you were the EPA Administrator when the Obama Clean Power Plan came through. Gina, here is our big question. From what we have read, some people are saying that this is absolutely devastating and that this is going to severely curtail anything that the Biden Administration would want to do on emissions and on climate change. Other people are saying, well, yeah, it's a sweeping political pronouncement, but it's a rather narrow decision and it only addresses the EPA authority under one provision of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Power Plan, which is the Obama strategy to cut emissions that never came into effect. So could you please explain, should we be panicked or not?
00:19:15.223 --> 00:19:15.903
Gina McCarthy (guest): Or both.
00:19:15.903 --> 00:19:16.663
Christiana Figueres: Or both.
00:19:16.663 --> 00:19:21.483
Gina McCarthy (guest): Wow, that's a range of emotions, isn't it? You know, let's just be really clear. This was a very narrow decision. You know, we were all very worried about the potential on this decision to actually take away the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, or to take away any ability even to use Section 111, which is the section that we used to develop the Clean Power Plan. That did not happen. You know, EPA still has broad authority to regulate. EPA still can regulate under 111D, which was the exact way in which we chose to regulate. But it sent a signal that is more broadly a signal that the Supreme Court is sending. And about basically, it was sort of like a shot across the bow, not hitting our issue directly, but just saying we're going to be on the watch for decisions like the Clean Power Plan, because we think that the agency took too much latitude in interpreting Congress's intent, and you should go back to Congress. Now rest assured, I realize, as do many others, that that kind of analysis, should we have to apply it, is an effort to bring us backwards in time, not forwards and build momentum. So we're going to have to be careful to make the case. But Christiana, the amazing thing about the Clean Power Plan is that, that it was challenged in the DC. Circuit, and before the DC. Circuit could even speak to it, it was stayed by the Supreme Court, which is unprecedented from being implemented. But the DC. Circuit continued and said it was a legitimate action to take. It did not exceed the agency's authority, and then the Supreme Court made this decision. But in the meantime, the Clean Power Plan, its goal was to get 32% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and it actually achieved those reductions, even not being in place, by simply sending a strong signal that looked at the way the world is moving. And so the best thing I can say to you is that we were disappointed with it, but it doesn't change the reality of where the world is heading. We are not going backwards to invest in coal in the United States of America. We are moving and running to clean energy because frankly, the private sector knows that that's where we're heading and where they need to head. So people can be disappointed and upset and worry about the next shoe dropping. But frankly, the history of where we've been and where we're heading tells us that with President Biden's clarity of where we want to go, by his being absolutely unmoved by the Supreme Court decision, he's actually doubling down and saying, we can do more, we can move forward because we know we have legal authority under a variety of regulations, both EPAs, the Department of the Interior, the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA. We have all kinds of authority and we're going to use every lever, every creativity and we're going to keep moving in the boldest way that we possibly can.
00:23:13.203 --> 00:23:42.383
Christiana Figueres: Gina, are we in, with respect to maturity on climate action, are we tiptoeing our way to the point where, I hate to say this, please excuse me and please love me despite what I'm going to say, are we tiptoeing our way to the point where regulation is becoming less important and where the market is picking up the forces of advancement? Because honestly, if we are at that point, that would actually be a very, very interesting lever of transformation because regulations are always going to become going left, right, left, right, left, right, right? Because most of us live in democracies. But if the force of the market is actually has more strength, then we actually might be getting somewhere. Is that where we are
00:24:10.283 --> 00:24:14.803
Gina McCarthy (guest): Well, Christiana, you know, I've been this nerdy regulator for decades.
00:24:14.803 --> 00:24:18.663
Christiana Figueres: And that's why I asked you to please love me despite my question. Yes.
00:24:19.503 --> 00:24:22.603
Gina McCarthy (guest): I think I think it's a really great question. And it's something that I hope people will really start embracing. Number one is that regulations have always driven reductions to be able to protect clean air and clean water. Traditional, absolutely essential needs of the public. That's what they're designed for. And how we did do that is to look at the newest opportunities, the newest technologies you have available. We have to look at cost in almost every decision that gets made on regulation. So we have to argue to a great extent that the market can and should move in a particular direction without exceeding cost parameters that would make it burdensome for the very communities we're trying to serve, right? That's how regulations work. And EPA has reams of regulations that can continue to push and will continue to push as hard as we can to actually restore the kind of faith people have in government that we can run contrary to fossil fuels, which is the folks, the special interest folks who have been trying to take us backwards and preserve their spot. We can move forward and make new demands on the market because we know that for the first time in history, we have technologies that can work and work cheaper than fossil fuels. So the breadth of opportunities on just the pure regulatory side are gigantic. You match that with things like the bipartisan infrastructure law, which are investments that keep sparking new. You take a look at what we're doing in the transportation sector just with EVs alone. The auto industry itself says we're going there most 100 percent by 2035, right? When you look at solar, it is winning, hands down. Billions of private dollars are being invested. Every single week, we are talking about work that we can do in the market today that we've never had the opportunity before. And we can do it and push it with investments, as well as regulation, in ways that is going to save people money, grow lots of jobs, and instead of going backwards to hang out with the fossil fuel industry, we're going to outrun them because the market has changed. The market is now billions of dollars in investment in this stuff. So we are no longer going to be front running everything. We're going to be underpinning so it can never go backwards. While we front run those things that continue to be essential to our public health safety and our kids' future.
Load More
00:27:19.823 --> 00:27:33.523
Paul Dickinson: Gina, if I may say, you express perfectly, to me anyway, the spirit of the leadership of the United States on climate change, which is a global issue of enormous importance. I have two questions for you. I mean, you partially answered one of them.
00:27:36.603 --> 00:27:37.023
Gina McCarthy (guest): Yes.
00:27:37.023 --> 00:27:39.643
Paul Dickinson: Who benefits from this Supreme Court ruling? Who wanted it and made it happen? And are they without consequences? Is it possible to interfere with something of this global scale without consequence?
00:27:51.703 --> 00:28:19.163
Gina McCarthy (guest): You know, it's clear that this decision, its intent and its outcome was to look at the law in ways that are so narrow that they take away opportunities of government to fundamentally protect people in ways that I believe each and every one of these laws intended to do. You know, they intended to tell EPA, you have to protect people from fundamental pollution. Mass versus EPA, which was when greenhouse gases were officially regulated or are required to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. We passed that threshold long ago. So, it is no question that this is an intent to bring us backwards. It is no question about who the winners are here. It's the fossil fuel companies or the folks who make money or get donations from the fossil fuel companies who are holding this back. But I think that the Supreme Court is going to have a huge challenge on its hands if that majority thinks that what they did a few weeks ago is going to stop the avalanche of movement to clean energy. That will not necessarily rely on regulation, but needs regulation to accelerate it at the pace and scope we need. Our job now isn't to be moaned that we don't have all the tools we need. It's to drive those tools into the agenda of every single private sector entity and working with states and cities to drive this moving forward. I still remain very bullish on our ability to make these things happen. It's going to be very challenging in the short run. It still remains difficult to get to the aggressive levels that we needed in 2030. We need Congress to act on investments that are actually going to make that change and make those reductions and more possible. But even if we don't get it, Paul, you're looking at, I think, what I'm looking at. I was just reading yesterday about battery technology and where they think that's heading and how quickly. And I'm sitting there going, man, these are game changers. These are the things that I think we need to rely on when we balance all the emotions of the give-and-takes of life. You know, I just, you know, I'm seeing solar like I have never seen before. We wanted 30 gigawatts by 2030. I'm telling you that the world has changed. We need to set our sights on going further than that. And it's because it's the way people want to do business now. They're going to make money. They know they're going to make money. And as soon as that threshold has passed, it does become a struggle to make it go fast and fast and fast because that's what we need. But there's no question that the world is changing. It's going in the direction that we would all want to address and tackle our climate crisis.
00:31:14.743 --> 00:31:19.183
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Gina, I love the way you described that and the speed of the unfolding technology and capital deployment. And really that's the big change since you were EPA Administrator, right? And since Christiana and I were at the UN, this is a different world that we're in. But as you said, just then, we still need regulation to accelerate it. And you've said since the Supreme Court ruling that the Biden administration is now going to have to get creative to find ways to make this happen. Can you give us some examples of the types of creative solutions that are going to need to be deployed by the administration?
00:31:41.523 --> 00:31:44.803
Gina McCarthy (guest): Yeah, let me let me give you a couple of them. You know, one is obviously the bipartisan infrastructure law gave us a lot of resources. You know, one clear example is the 7.5 billion that's now drawn additional billions of investment. And the infrastructure we need for electric vehicles, you know, all of the charging stations, you know, as recently as I think yesterday or the day before GM announced that they're working with other manufacturers to actually add many more, you know, stations, getting them out there so that you can get a really build the kind of infrastructure you need. That's important. That has to happen. But one of the most creative efforts that President Biden took was when he saw that the the import of solar panels was falling short in terms of the demand we have in the United States for solar. And what that means for our ability to achieve greenhouse gas reductions, he used the Defense Production Act there and he used the Defense Production Act on critical minerals, which are going to be necessary for battery manufacturing, which means he's using every authority available to him so that we can rearrange budgets to basically start demanding the kind of investments where we need it most. And he basically said, OK, federal government, if we have a problem with solar, we're going to go after manufacturing tax credits that are going to actually continue to drive more domestic manufacturing. And we just saw last week an announcement of a manufacturing facility being opened up that are going to start filling the supply chain gap for domestic solar here. And he told the federal government that if we're asking for solar, I want every single building in the federal government to go electric, to go clean energy. So we have tools. And the president is not stopping at regulation. He's starting there and demanding it, but he's really using every creativity he has and his availability to address climate like the crisis that it is.
00:34:01.183 --> 00:34:10.383
Christiana Figueres: Gina, are you concerned as the court closes one regulation possibility? Are you concerned that there will be even more orchestrated attempts or in fact even successes at closing successive, successfully closing successive regulation capacity to, as you say, accelerate? Because yes, we all agree that there is momentum, but we also agree that that momentum can and needs to be accelerated by regulation. Are you worried that there is a concerted effort here to close all those regulation possibilities?
00:34:44.583 --> 00:34:52.003
Gina McCarthy (guest): I think, I mean, every single regulation that EPA does, speaking from experience, is challenged in court. I mean, we have a pretty big legal force there. But let me tell you about the range of sort of regulations that are available and going to be used. And this is just over the first term of the Biden administration, right? We're talking about moving forward with regulations already on methane. We're going after that big time. We're going after HFCs. We got another regulation coming out on that. Both of those are high super polluting pollutants that we can start going after big time directly. But indirectly, we're going after another mercury and air toxic standard. Because we know that when you drive mercury down, you actually reduce greenhouse gases because you're making it less competitive for heavy mercury fossil fuel technologies to be acceptable in the marketplace. We're looking at a new cross state air pollution rule that is traditional regulations. We're looking at a particulate matter, national ambient air quality standard. We're looking at everything from coal combustion residuals to go back again, so that we can attack coal ash once and for all. We're looking at effluent limitation guidelines, which is specifically going to challenge more technology innovation in the system. These are all traditional regulations that have well documented guide reels on what to do. They are not 111, which has only been used a few times. These are ones that have been used endlessly. Good luck if you think you can get past the 30 year history of case studies on this and examples of litigation that actually showed us how strong these are. And so we're going to keep moving forward. And frankly, we're not done at all with 111. Not at all. It didn't close us off from going back and using that on industrial sources, manufacturers and others. We have abilities to keep pushing forward and we're going to use them all. And that can include, you know, systems that have, you know, carbon capture, systems that look at shifts to green hydrogen. These are all well within the bailiwick of what EPA has been doing for decades. It will not fall prey to this major questions doctrine that was the authority of the US to make that last decision. The standard operating practices.
00:37:35.063 --> 00:37:45.483
Paul Dickinson: If I can borrow a phrase, they are doing their worst, and you are doing your best, and thank you so much on behalf of the great majority of citizens across the world.
00:37:45.483 --> 00:37:46.163
Gina McCarthy (guest): Thanks, Paul. And the fun thing is that, you know, it's no longer just EPA or the Department of the Interior in this game now. You know, every single agency can contribute. Look to what housing and urban development can do there on how to get more efficient and effectively electrify homes every step of the way. We're looking at how we use agriculture to change our agriculture practices, not just to reduce water use, but to get rid of the fertilizers, to actually start using the best techniques possible. We have every single agency gets together all the time under the banner of our Climate Policy Office to think about climate as a core component of everything they do. Like the work that the SEC is doing to actually stop the greenwashing of the finance community and to start telling the truth about your greenhouse gas emissions. So that you and me, if we had a couple of extra bucks and invest it, which none of, probably neither of us do cause we all do work in the same kind of...
00:38:55.443 --> 00:38:56.743
Christiana Figueres: We do God's work.
00:38:56.743 --> 00:38:57.683
Gina McCarthy (guest): Exactly. And God doesn't pay that well immediately. It's a sort of down payment on our future.
00:39:03.143 --> 00:39:05.663
Paul Dickinson: She pays in a different way.
00:39:05.663 --> 00:39:10.703
Gina McCarthy (guest): But we could really know then who we're going to invest in, who we're going to buy from. These are going to be the questions that we can bring to the table and actually make a big difference on.
00:39:17.303 --> 00:39:26.883
Christiana Figueres: Gina, you know, the last time we had the honor of having you on the podcast, you were driving from Boston down to Washington to take up your office. And you warned us that you weren't going to lose any of your personality or any of your spunkiness when you joined the White House. And I am so delighted to see you have not. So how, if you remember quickly, you know, back to that drive, how do you feel today with respect to how you were feeling when you were driving down to DC?
00:39:50.463 --> 00:39:54.103
Gina McCarthy (guest): That's a, you know, Christiana, that's a really good question. You know, President Biden has pulled together a really terrific team of people. And honestly, I, in all honesty, I can say this now, I had my doubts about this whole of government approach, mainly because when I was at EPA, I seemed to be the only ones at times running in that direction of looking at climate and everything I did. But, but it's working, you know, so I feel really good about that. And I think what I try to tell young people a lot is that these blips in the road, like the Supreme Court decision, which I legitimately think of as a blip in this long term effort, you know, I just feel like what we really need to do most is to stay hopeful and to recognize that the world is changing. It's going in the direction we want it. We're not any more rowing up upstream. What we're trying to do is make sure that we row as fast as we can to make change continue. And change happens in leaps and bounds. It's never a tiny shift. And what I'm seeing right now are leaps and bounds that I just never thought would exist right now. And so I'm excited about the future and I'm more grateful than ever that I've been part of this administration and a president who's not going to be weak on this stuff and not going to cower when he gets a decision he doesn't like. He calls it out and he says, we're going to find another way. And he drives it. I love that. I don't think it's as obnoxious as I am, but close to it.
00:41:35.383 --> 00:41:39.863
Christiana Figueres: Well, it is wonderful to be obnoxious about those things these days. God bless. God bless you. Thank you so much. Thank you really, really for coming at the spur of the moment. And above all, thank you for your spunkiness and not sacrificing it at all.
00:41:52.063 --> 00:41:53.243
Gina McCarthy (guest): Back at you. The only person spunkier than me could possibly be you.
00:41:57.783 --> 00:41:59.383
Christiana Figueres: That's quite a competition.
00:42:01.263 --> 00:42:01.923
Gina McCarthy (guest): Thanks so much.
00:42:01.923 --> 00:42:02.743
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Thanks, Gina.
00:42:03.423 --> 00:42:03.763
Christiana Figueres: Bye.
00:42:03.763 --> 00:42:04.503
Paul Dickinson: Thank you, Gina.
00:42:04.503 --> 00:42:08.203
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER — please verify (likely Gina McCarthy's sign-off or a host reaction, mistagged onto Podesta's slot before he'd joined): Bye.
00:42:08.203 --> 00:42:08.803
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Holy cow. She is astonishing as ever and so full of energy in that role. It's amazing to see how she brings that energy and dynamism to it. What do you think, both of you?
00:42:18.383 --> 00:42:31.563
Paul Dickinson: It kind of breaks my heart how someone with that good a heart and that finer mind is playing some stupid chess game with her own government. She clearly has the interests of the people, the scientific community, the public consensus, the desperate need. She's marching with history to try and protect our civilization, and she's in a stupid chess game with some very reckless people who have no sense of the stakes that they're playing with. But anyway, I just love it. When you speak to her, you just brighten up. I felt like a sunflower that had come out and smiling.
00:43:03.363 --> 00:43:03.703
Christiana Figueres: Yeah. I mean, she is just so fantastic, right? And as I said there at the end, so good to see that she hasn't lost any of her nerve on this and her valor and her courage just to continue to plow forward no matter what. But her explanation of the impact of the court ruling or the lack of impact or the measured small impact was very reassuring to me. It was. I come back to one of my favorite images, which is we really have to make sure that we are not confusing the tide for the current.
00:43:42.363 --> 00:43:42.923
Paul Dickinson: Yes.
00:43:42.923 --> 00:43:55.163
Christiana Figueres: Because, you know, the tides go up and down, in and out, and I know because I sit here right in front of them, and every time that the tide goes either up or down, we tend to panic. And the fact is that what is really important is the underwater current. And so we should not confuse those two things. And I thought she did a brilliant job of explaining how they are very, very different and how the current continues to move in the right direction.
00:44:12.703 --> 00:44:24.023
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I love that metaphor, Christiana, because that's exactly what I felt listening to her, is that what she did such a good job of is immediately zooming up to the most important level, which is this transformation is happening, it is unfolding at an accelerating pace. There are thousands and millions of data points that can evidence that, and there are myriad ways in which the government is utilizing its authority to accelerate that process and regulate in order to move it forward. Now, if one ruling has come down, and that has obviously for understandable reasons gone to the front page of the paper, that is unfortunate and we can't hide from the reality of that, but it doesn't stop the transformation that we're going through at the moment and can't stop it. I agree with you. My kids' school are frequently saying to them, the only failure is when you stop trying, and my God, they haven't stopped trying. It's very impressive. The tenacity is the other value I would point to. They just keep holding on and finding a way. It's very impressive.
00:45:07.843 --> 00:45:09.403
Christiana Figueres: Otherwise known as stubbornness.
00:45:09.403 --> 00:45:10.403
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Stubbornness.
00:45:10.403 --> 00:45:30.083
Paul Dickinson: Christiana, you may or may not remember, you once gave a speech, which you said you wrote very quickly just beforehand in London, but I saw a room of about a thousand people in the Guildhall in London actually electrified by what you said, and you talked about the noise and the signal and the noise and the signal, and you drew their attention to the difference. So thank you for doing that again.
00:45:31.443 --> 00:45:32.323
Christiana Figueres: Yeah, true, true. I do remember that. Well, what a wonderful conversation. And now we should turn our attention to the next layer down.
00:45:41.663 --> 00:45:43.103
Paul Dickinson: The political sphere, right?
00:45:43.103 --> 00:45:44.283
Christiana Figueres: Yeah, the political sphere. What is going on politically? How does this affect or not affect the November elections? And above all, I would love to get John Podesta, who we'll talk to now, John Podesta's view on what's happening in the public airwaves, because it does seem like the Republicans have completely swamped the airwaves in order to taint the public's opinion about this. So let's talk to John about the political implications of this.
00:46:18.503 --> 00:46:19.123
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Great. Clay, can we give him a call?
00:46:20.663 --> 00:46:21.823
Clay (podcast producer, live in studio): Yes. I got the line open.
00:46:22.703 --> 00:46:23.323
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Okay.
00:46:23.323 --> 00:46:24.643
Clay (podcast producer, live in studio): One second. Are you recording?
00:46:26.683 --> 00:46:27.323
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Recording, yeah.
00:46:27.323 --> 00:46:30.083
John Podesta (guest): Okay.
00:46:30.083 --> 00:46:30.483
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Do you know what? I like Paul's techno DJ look with one ear over and one ear out. Do you remember the line?
00:46:34.623 --> 00:46:36.603
Clay (podcast producer, live in studio): Christiana, you recording?
00:46:36.603 --> 00:46:38.323
Christiana Figueres: Yes, I'm recording in AirPods.
00:46:38.323 --> 00:46:38.723
Clay (podcast producer, live in studio): Okay.
00:46:38.723 --> 00:46:40.103
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Do you remember this?
00:46:41.323 --> 00:46:41.683
Christiana Figueres: Hey. John, hi. Well, we're good. We're good. John, thanks so much for taking our call on the spur of the moment. Really appreciate that. So, we are looking into this Supreme Court ruling against EPA's authority. And we just spoke to Gina McCarthy, who gave us an excellent interpretation from a legal and from a policy perspective. So, that was very helpful. We wanted to ask you, John, on the political side of this, especially, how does this affect the prospects for November elections? Do you think Republicans are digging in? Are Democrats going to come out of the woodwork on this one as well as on Roe v. Wade? You know, is this going to actually wake up the sleeping Democrats or not?
00:47:40.263 --> 00:47:42.283
John Podesta (guest): Are we rolling?
00:47:42.283 --> 00:47:45.703
Clay (podcast producer, live in studio): Yes, yeah, we're rolling, go ahead.
00:47:45.703 --> 00:47:55.603
John Podesta (guest): Look, I think this triple whammy of the end of the Supreme Court term has certainly changed the dynamic going into the election. The reversal of Roe v. Wade, the decision that, for example, the state of New York can't regulate carrying a concealed weapon on the New York City subway, combined with this decision, which I think is part of the outrage part of your program, not the optimistic part of your program. Oh, yes.
00:48:18.843 --> 00:48:20.023
Tom Rivett-Carnac: You spent a lot of time on that.
00:48:22.623 --> 00:48:24.823
Christiana Figueres: Well identified, John.
00:48:24.823 --> 00:48:38.783
John Podesta (guest): That hobbles the administration's ability to, as Justice Kagan said in dissent, address the most pressing environmental challenge of our time. The combination of those, I think, has woken people up to the fact that this is a court that's both out of control, careening to the right, and that this was the result of politics. This wasn't a curiosity of unique views of these justices. This is a court that was purposely stacked to create these outcomes.
00:49:16.003 --> 00:49:17.423
Christiana Figueres: By Trump?
00:49:17.423 --> 00:49:21.343
John Podesta (guest): By Trump and by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader. Remember, the Justice Gorsuch, who wrote a concurrence, which was even more radical than the opinion of the majority, was put out on the court because McConnell effectively, and in an unprecedented way, blocked the appointment that President Obama made of Merrick Garland. Then he forced through Trump's nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, in the very last days before the election of 2020, when it was clear that there was at least a likelihood that they would lose control of the White House. Also, unprecedented to push a nomination through that late. They created this super conservative majority on the court with malice of forethought, as they say, and then this is what we got. This is the result that we got. It's anti-majoritarian. These are opinions that two-thirds of the American public disagree with. It creates a context in which the court is protecting polluters against future generations. This case in particular doesn't end the ability of the EPA, as I'm sure Gina McCarthy noted, to be able to regulate CO2 and greenhouse gases. But it certainly makes it more difficult, more costly, to do what the country absolutely needs to do, which is to change its power system to clean energy.
00:51:11.243 --> 00:51:26.043
Christiana Figueres: And impact of this, when you look at your crystal ball, and granted it is only July, and a thousand things will happen from now until November, but what are you seeing in your crystal ball in November?
00:51:26.083 --> 00:51:52.503
John Podesta (guest): I think, again, if you take these two opinions, particularly the abortion opinion and this opinion together, they will have, and we've seen that a little bit in the polling already, have a tendency to mobilize suburban women who are concerned about abortion rights and people across the country, really, who are concerned about abortion rights. And young voters, I think, with respect to this decision, West Virginia versus EPA. Now, that still means a lot of work has to happen. And I think that we're also in a context where the investments that the president has proposed are still, haven't been enacted in the Senate. And that's the result, really, of basically one or two senators, particularly Joe Manchin, who has blocked forward progress on that. And so I think young people were going into this election saying, you know, does it matter? Does politics matter? We went out and voted in 2020. Nothing kind of changed. Things are stalled. And this is a proof point that things do matter. Politics does matter.
00:52:44.023 --> 00:52:45.183
Christiana Figueres: Politics does matter. Voting does matter.
00:52:47.083 --> 00:52:48.723
John Podesta (guest): Voting absolutely does matter. But, you know, they'll also, I think, be influenced by whether, in the end of the day, they could, the Congress is able to step up to the plate and do its job and enact these critical climate investment for, in the power sector and transportation and buildings.
00:53:09.163 --> 00:53:16.163
Tom Rivett-Carnac: John, this is, I mean, it's so interesting that right now, you know, that the last month the conversation has been about abortion guns and climate, right? And because that's what we've been talking about in the US, then actually, you've seen some interesting swings that have suggested, and, you know, people like Nate Cohen have suggested, maybe the midterms won't be as bad as people think for the Democrats. But November is a long time away, and no doubt they will try and swing the topic back to immigration and crime and other things that are more favorable to them. What can be done between now and then to kind of keep the narrative and the conversation on these absolutely outrageous outcomes that have been driven by this court, supermajority and other different elements, so that they do get punished at the polls in the way that right now it looked like they would do, but it might well not happen six months from now?
00:53:52.983 --> 00:53:54.203
John Podesta (guest): Well, I think a couple of things. One is organize, organize, organize. There's plenty of interest and advocacy and passion that's being generated in reaction to these decisions. There's a few months left before the election, but it means that people really need at the grassroots level to organize for the critical races. The other thing I think that needs to happen, I think, is that the president needs to clearly articulate what we've been talking about. That this was a culmination of a system at the court that essentially rigged the results that we're seeing. Rolling back of individual rights, strengthening of corporate power. Who funded all this? The Koch Network. The people who make a living off of polluting in America are the people who funded the infrastructure that built the support to focus on the courts as a principal lever of power to thwart the will of the majority and support the interests of special interests in the case of fossil fuel and the anti-abortion movement in the US. But if you look at the actors who have played a significant role in the fight around the courts, a lot of that money has come from fossil fuel interests.
00:55:50.523 --> 00:55:50.863
Paul Dickinson: Yes. So John, this is kind of treason, actually. And I've read Jane Mayer's wonderful book, Dark Money, I mean, wonderful, terrible book. Here's two questions really for you. One is, this is so serious in terms of national and global security. Will there not be consequences for the people who are identified as supporting this kind of radical irresponsibility? My second question is about corporate power in the positive, if we do have a global corporate movement, a global investment movement that's taking climate change extremely seriously, how can those better spirits of the global business system assert themselves to oppose this dangerous activity?
00:56:40.223 --> 00:57:01.843
John Podesta (guest): Well, I think to take the second part first, I think it is really critical that business voices that understand where the future lies, understand that their success is going to be built on having a stable world, a stable economy, both domestically and globally. They need to speak up. Now you notice the right-wing attacks on so-called woke capitalism. They know that if the business community does speak up, that their minority view, the view of the few as opposed to the many, will be affected by that. And so they have found a new, and made up a new villain in this saga. That's why you see Ron DeSantis taking so much pleasure in Florida of going ahead and attacking Disney and others attacking corporations that kind of want to do the right thing and have stood up to it. But I think they also have to put their, in addition to what they're saying, I think they have to put their money where their mouth is. And they still, a lot of their lobbying dollars still go to organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce that are on the wrong side of these issues. So they have to have a reckoning with the fact that they're making serious commitments. And I think they're trying in many cases to live up to those commitments. But they're still, in the Washington context, they're still supplying and fueling lobbying activities that are against the interests of the public. Your question about whether people will be held to account maybe takes me to the question of what's going on on Capitol Hill right now in terms of the June 6th committee hearings. You know, that remains an open question whether we see the most radical fringe being indicted, but what's going to happen to the people who sat in the White House and planned an insurrection? Whether the Justice Department feels like it has enough evidence to take those people to court? I think they should do, if they believe they do, then they should proceed. They shouldn't try to discount for what the politics of that might look like. If people broke the law, they should be held to account, including and up to the former president.
00:59:27.983 --> 00:59:39.483
Christiana Figueres: You know, John, the tone of you, what you have just shared with us is in striking contrast to the tone of Gina. Gina basically said to us, look, yes, this is a ruling, but it's a narrow decision. It is not going to stop what the United States is doing on climate change because we have many other leavers, let alone what the world is doing on climate change. Your tone, John, is one that actually, so that gave us some optimism. Your tone is one that gives us actually much more concern because you're here looking at it, not just from the climate perspective, but from the political perspective in the United States, and I dare say beyond the United States. This move to what we stupidly call the right is one that we're seeing in many other countries with huge ramifications. Do I end a conversation here being more concerned than before I talk to you?
01:00:28.603 --> 01:00:32.143
John Podesta (guest): Probably, because it's not just a move to the right. It's an anti-democratic move.
01:00:36.343 --> 01:00:38.183
Paul Dickinson: Anti-democratic.
01:00:38.463 --> 01:00:54.283
John Podesta (guest): It's a move towards using authoritarianism and levels of power to entrench power and deny the will of the majority. I think that is in fact happening not just in the United States. I think our democratic crisis and our climate crisis today are really linked. Well, I at one level agree with Gina that they're still... and that the president has to do everything he can to try to use the authority that was retained essentially by the court. They didn't go so far as to say the EPA can't regulate CO2. They largely were arguing about and making more difficult and more expensive the prospect and the context of the way CO2 is regulated. But it's an indication that the forces that really want to maintain the status quo in the face of the absolute critical need to change, reform, innovate, build out a new economy that's based on clean rather than dirty are alive well, and they're going to do everything they can to resist change. Democratic forces can still overcome that, but I think everybody should be concerned. And I think outraged, quite frankly.
01:02:28.803 --> 01:02:30.903
Christiana Figueres: Yes, absolutely. Well, thank you for that sobering thought, John. Thanks very much. And we would love if you would allow us to have you back on as we get closer to the November elections. As we've said, many things can happen from now until then, but we're all keeping a very watchful eye and would love to have your insight as we get, I would say, dangerously close to the November election.
01:03:02.743 --> 01:03:04.123
John Podesta (guest): Okay. Love to do it.
01:03:05.463 --> 01:03:06.763
Christiana Figueres: Thanks very much, John.
01:03:06.763 --> 01:03:07.063
John Podesta (guest): Thank you.
01:03:07.063 --> 01:03:08.323
Paul Dickinson: Thank you.
01:03:11.723 --> 01:03:13.363
Tom Rivett-Carnac: How great to talk to John Podesta. I mean, as last time, he just is such an insightful analyst on the existing situation of the politics and what a concerning conversation. Where are you both now?
01:03:22.143 --> 01:03:25.003
Christiana Figueres: Well, very sobering, right? But I think also very realistic, very realistic to see it that way. And just to underline it even further, as I was doing some reading, preparing for this conversation, I chanced upon a study of Facebook use between June 30 and July 5, the six days after the ruling. And very interesting, I mean, Facebook is not everything, social media is not everything, but we do know that there is a very deliberate use of public airwaves. And fascinating to learn that the right-leaning pages produced almost 60% more posts about the case, and you can imagine how they interpreted it, not the way Gina interpreted it, but 60% more than the left-leaning pages. And those right-leaning posts received more than 70% more interactions in total. That's an interesting statistic, right? A, they, just to put us in they here, which I hesitate to do, but in this case, I think quite warranted, they are more eloquent, and they are more interconnected with each other, and supporting each other's voices than those on the left, than those who share the political views on climate and other things that we share. And so, to add to John's very sobering thoughts there, we're up against a much better organized social impression or social manipulation, social thinking manipulation than we actually think there is.
01:05:24.463 --> 01:05:28.983
Paul Dickinson: And I mean, on that exact point, there's an obvious reason for that. And that is, it's so much harder for them. They actually have to go against a global scientific consensus. They have to go against millions of striking children. They have to go against the majority of the citizens of the world. So they have to organize themselves ruthlessly using a lot of money, as John said, and a kind of a set of military strategy. But I actually took some comfort from one of the more striking things John just said, which is the crisis of climate is also a crisis of democracy. And I think that when the citizens of the OECD, the powerful economies, I mean, of course, the citizens of the world, great countries like India and Brazil, these are marvellous democracies. But when all the democratic nations of the world are united to protect their governing system, the separation of powers, the rule of law, the freedom of the press, those critical bits of infrastructure are part of this struggle. And some of the autocratic states, some in the Middle East where they don't have elections, or Mr. Putin blowing up half of Europe with his artillery, this is what the fossil fuel producers look like. We have to combine a rigid defence, both of our climate, but also of our principles of our way of life, if I can use a time-honoured phrase. So I think that that's something we can build around. So I felt positive about that.
01:07:11.283 --> 01:07:15.783
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Christiana, that's fascinating what you just came up with there about Facebook and the engagement after the ruling. It reminds me also a little bit, I've mentioned on this podcast before, when Putin invaded Ukraine, the US public was more or less evenly split between blaming Putin, the oil companies and the president. X many millions spelt by the oil companies later, pretty much everyone blamed the president, and then they've been very thoughtful about doing it. And I like your analysis, Paul, but the other thing I would point out, having observed this happen over years, is that there is a much stronger instinct towards message discipline on that side of the ledger. There's much less, I want the future, but I want it in my particular way, and I'm going to argue about exactly what form it comes in, and what are the rules and is it ethical. It's much more, we're all going in this direction. Actually, you've got to admire it in some ways, that you're right, Paul, they have a higher mountain to climb. They don't have truth on their side. Actually, there's a lot of money on our side of the debate now as well, but the instinct to message discipline and consistency, it's amazing. And nobody's controlling that, that's just how they work. And so that is a difficult thing for us to go up against and be successful, which is why we keep losing these narrative battles over and over again. And that's why what I was afraid of in the conversation with John is that there's been this outrageous stacking of the court, there's been this reduction of civil liberties in the US with Roe v. Wade, there's been the expansion of gun ownership all across the country. Gun ownership, when you look at what's happened in the last few years, and now there's been the removal of the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And it's not clear they're going to pay a political price for that. Because we haven't successfully consistently landed the message about what's really happened with enough people. And that's actually a wake up call to all of us. That should be the easiest goal to land to move forward, and it's not clear we're going to do it. And you heard that in John's voice. So we need to move through this and find a better way to advance. Anything else to add before we end the episode? This has been a thoughtful conversation, I think. Amazing to have both Gina and John on today.
01:09:13.483 --> 01:09:26.323
Paul Dickinson: In these struggles in history, because of what you've just said, Tom, the kind of baddies do tend to do very well at the start, but over time, the more creative, looser federation of allies do tend to unite and win. So we have to remember that confidence drives us.
01:09:29.123 --> 01:09:31.703
Tom Rivett-Carnac: The trouble is, the thing we don't have anymore is any time.
01:09:31.703 --> 01:09:33.163
Christiana Figueres: It's time.
01:09:33.163 --> 01:09:34.163
Tom Rivett-Carnac: That's the problem.
01:09:34.163 --> 01:09:35.683
Paul Dickinson: Christiana swallowed an alarm clock. It's a concern.
01:09:38.103 --> 01:09:38.363
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Right.
01:09:38.363 --> 01:09:39.383
Christiana Figueres: Time, time, time.
01:09:39.383 --> 01:09:41.763
Tom Rivett-Carnac: What a privilege to have both these brilliant people on the podcast. And it's been a real roller coaster from the sort of the opportunities of regulation and innovation to the challenges of politics. I hope you have enjoyed this episode and come with us.
01:09:49.583 --> 01:09:51.543
Christiana Figueres: This was not Outrage and Optimism. This was Optimism and Outrage in that direction.
01:09:56.663 --> 01:09:57.843
Tom Rivett-Carnac: It was, yeah. But we know they're always finely balanced, whichever order they come in. And I hope you've enjoyed these last two episodes. It's been an experiment for us to kind of run these long conversations and be on the phone and call friends. We'd love to know what you think. If you have enjoyed this new format, maybe we'll make a habit of it. Let us know. Clay will put links in terms of how to reach us in the show notes. Thanks as ever. We'll see you next week. Bye. Bye.
01:10:24.443 --> 01:10:25.383
Clay (podcast producer, live in studio): So there you go. Another episode of Outrage and Optimism. This is Clay, producer of the show, and I am here with some very short credits this week and no music. So be sure to stay tuned. More music coming your way next week. Thank you so much to Gina McCarthy and John Podesta for joining us on the show. And as Tom said, we would love to know what you think of this different format we're trying out. You know, a little bit longer conversation, calling up friends and colleagues as we move through a topic. You can email us at contact at globaloptimism.com. We've done two episodes this week in this format. So if you haven't heard, the first one we did came out on Tuesday, and it's just one episode back in our podcast feed. Thank you in advance for emailing us. Okay, before I go, I need to let you know, there's only two more weeks left of podcasts until we take our little summer break. And I don't want you to miss anything that we're planning for next season, because we're already planning it. I can't tell you everything that's going out, but there's some really exciting things coming up. If I keep talking, I'm going to tell you, I got to stop. The best way for you to hear what is coming up is to hit subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon, Stitcher, anywhere. And then when we post episode one of season six, you'll be right there. You won't miss a thing. Okay. Thanks for listening. Enjoy the weekend and we'll see you next week.
.jpg)
