246: Trump’s Oily Offer, Mobilizing Young Climate Voters, and The State of Scientists

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:01:56] It's like, you know, I'm a former academic or something, so, that's actually.

Paul: [00:02:01] Well, we were warned, go for it.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:02:02] So I'm very much a decision scientist that uses the field of understanding human behavior and decision making to encourage better, better behaviors that align to the science. And that's what I've been doing for the last 20 some years.

Paul: [00:02:20] Not bad. Super succinct.

Christiana: [00:02:22] Do you encourage better behaviour or better decisions? Where is the decision part? When you say decision science, where is that part?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:02:31] So how is it that people make decisions, that's fundamentally what it comes down to. And it turns out that we are influenced by by cognitive triggers that may not even be related to the decision on hand. So human beings are influenced by how much they hear about something in the news, how salient is something. And because of those kinds of triggers, we systematically overestimate risks that are actually not that serious. A good example of that is plane crashes. We hear a lot about different plane crashes because they're just so salient, they're so dramatic, and the media covers them. Not to say that it's not a risk, not to say that it's not terrifying, but it's really minor in the grand scheme of things. And then we under-react to risks that are really deserve more time and attention and allocation of resources like climate and its impacts. One example of climate risk that is really just attenuated in the media, not reported enough on is sea level rise and ensuing floods that come from sea level rise because it's perceived by human, the human brain, as slow moving and far in the future. And that combination is ultimately really deadly for humans because we are inaccurately perceiving real risk. And so once you understand that those are the different triggers that influence decision making, then we can think about, okay, how do we close that gap, how do we close the gap between perception and the real risk, what we refer to as base rate statistics. So then we encourage decisions to align more to the data, to the facts, to the science.

Christiana: [00:04:08] Fantastic Sweta. Thank you so much for setting that up. That is such a good context for the three topics that we want to bring today. Paul will bring his favourite. You will bring a really interesting topic and I will, I will come in at the end. But Paul, would you like to bring your topic in the in the fantastic context that, Sweta has actually set up for us.

Paul: [00:04:35] The analysis of risk indeed, that was very succinct, actually for an academic. So thank you. And by the way, I'm going to say one point, I'm going to pick up on something from last week where I was talking about limited liability of directors. We do have lawyers who listen to this program. They contact me and they say that strictly speaking, the the, the directors are limited by, their, their responsibility to the company. And actually when something bad happens with the company, it's the company that's held liable and not the directors, okay, enough of this small legalistic correction. I am full of absolute outrage this week. I'm sorry. I've got to tell you, I'm falling off my chair with outrage, and let me tell you why. The Washington Post, followed by the New York Times, AP, Reuters, have all been writing about, The Politico, The Hill, everyone has been writing about the fact that two independent sources have said that in a room with 20 people at, Donald Trump's Mar a Lago estate, there was a meeting with the presidential candidate, Donald Trump. And in the room, who do we know was there. Well, we know that, oil gas companies, Venture Global, EQT, Cheniere, Chesapeake, I can never pronounce that one, Continental Resources, Exxon, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute. And in this meeting, the two independent sources say that Donald Trump offered to pull back, on electric vehicles, to pull back on limitations on oil and gas, to kind of remove restrictions the oil and gas industry were operating under, and then suggested that they should donate $1 billion to his campaign to help get him elected, now.

Christiana: [00:06:21] I think, Paul, isn't it the other way around? Didn't he say contribute to my campaign, and as a thank you note for that contribution, I shall pull back climate policies that have been instated by the Biden administration, wasn't wasn't that the quid pro quo?

Paul: [00:06:39] Well, it turns out another very brilliant lawyer I spoke to just before this said the precise wording of Trump's request is going to be important. Legal problems arise if Trump promised specific policy actions explicitly in exchange for a specific amount of campaign contribution above $5,000. And he was asking for a billion. So I think we're safely above $5,000. But I mean, essentially the link between those two, it's despicable, everyone agrees. The question is, did he really break the law? There are different House committees looking into it.

Christiana: [00:07:09] Okay, good differentiation.

Paul: [00:07:12] I think, it looks, to me personally, it looks like makes Watergate look like, you know, stealing somebody's pen or something off their desk. You know, I mean, doing a little bit of spying on another political party, and the president resigned. Here you have an existential risk to our species. And the prospective presidential candidate is saying to the industry that must be curtailed, give me $1 billion and and we'll let the world go to hell. As far as I'm concerned, this is a national security risk. It's crossed a line. I think it's time for like, I don't know what the CIA, FBI, James Bond, someone's got to intervene now and try and protect us. Global security is the theme as Clay so correctly put in the in the in the notes. And I've got more to say about this, but Christiana, Sweta what do you think about this extraordinary bit of news?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:08:06] Okay, well, go ahead Christiana, please.

Christiana: [00:08:09] Go for it, go for it, Sweta. This is totally within your, within your field.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:08:14] Well, yes. And I would I would add to this outrage a little bit. It doesn't just end here. So API we know is has been systematically collaborating with its organizations, with its companies to, to really, come up with a systematic plan to dismantle all things that are pro transitioning to clean energy right. And this has been a decades long playbook. But to add to what you just said, I, I just learned that the Rolling Stones, based on their reporting, is saying is describing how.

Paul: [00:08:50] This is the magazine, The Rolling Stone, right?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:08:52] The magazine, The Rolling Stones has just reported that pro-oil propaganda is being, propagated in US classrooms. And this is like, this is right out of the Nazi propaganda playbook, right. It's how to indoctrinate children to really not learn at all about the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change, but rather or anything about the benefits, about renewable energy. But rather, can you imagine, and this is actually what they're doing is they're creating these lesson plans, that are encouraging children to think about, quote unquote, a day without. So imagine a day without energy. And by energy, the only thing that they explain as energy is oil and gas. And so it's the whole point and purpose is to encourage children under this fake, STEM pursuit to learn the skills to become oil engineers and gas engineers. This is this is a real collective effort that API is putting forward, with its with its existing companies right, Chevron, all the ones that you just named. So it goes so much deeper. What you just described is just kind of like the icing on the cake of just how deep into how deep of a plan is being rolled out by API and all of its collaborators. It's like outrageous absolutely.

Paul: [00:10:11] Sweta, I'm my blood is boiling, the steam is coming out my ears. One of my headphones has fallen off because of the steam. You mentioned STEM just a minute ago, which I know is something you support, but can you help our listeners just with that acronym if they're not familiar with it, because you called it fake STEM?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:10:24] Of course. So STEM is science, technology, engineering and math right. And we need we we have a dearth of young people pursuing those careers, especially women and especially women of colour. And so the irony of this is so much of what the Biden administration is doing is to support getting young people into these fields and supporting women of colour getting into these fields. And that's actually I might be skipping ahead a little bit, but that's what brings me optimism, right. Is that there's a little bit of fighting fire with fire. So while we see this concerted effort of lobby group for oil and gas like API encouraging young people to pursue STEM, but in the most nefarious of ways, it's really just to keep the oil and gas businesses usual agenda going. We we are seeing a real effort by the Biden administration to create a what is being referred to as a coalition for clean energy. And that's really exciting right, they're looking at a, actual American climate corpse that's really about training young people. We know from science that happiness comes from purpose. That's there's a strong correlation there. And young people are looking to pursue careers that have a purpose. And so to get them excited about pursuing STEM careers that really are going that is going to create the 9 million plus workforce of Americans in clean energy by the end of this decade. That's really exciting. So that, to me is really combating this effort of API and this collective to keep business as usual and to trick young people into pursuing careers in STEM that are actually harming the planet. So as outrageous as it is, there's also finally an understanding from the the good guys, honestly, because this really is coming down to like a battle of bad versus good in terms of what's going to keep this planet alive. We're seeing a real recognition that we have to fight fire with fire. We need to reach young people. But what we have on our side is that social science that we know is going to encourage young people to pursue STEM careers with purpose.

Paul: [00:12:28] And, API, American Petroleum Institute. Christiana?

Christiana: [00:12:31] Yeah, I think it's, fascinating what, is being done there that you have shared with us Sweta, because for a long time the oil and gas industry has really suffered with attracting the the best and the brightest brains. And, they have been very vocal about the fact that that has been one of their weakest, weakest points because, young people are realizing that they do not want to sell their brains to an industry that puts us into, what did you call it, Paul, into global security risks. So it's fascinating that what we have now, according to what you have just shared with us, Sweta, that we have a competition for young brains, that on the one hand, we have, the American Petroleum Institute and I'm sure many other oil and gas companies putting out these campaigns to attract brains. And on the other hand, it's very clear that, that young people, the more they learn about science, and the more they learn about earth science, the more they learn about social science, the more they want to be on the right side of history.

Christiana: [00:13:53] So a very interesting competition that, I would say underpins the topic that you've been working on primarily, Sweta, about how do we how how do we win hearts and minds of young people specifically, specifically for the election that is coming up, which is exactly what Trump is trying to do with Paul's question right. All of this is interrelated. We see how all of this is is woven out of the same threads where Trump on one, on the one hand, is wanting, his, his oil and gas companies to be with him. There not just conceptually but financially. And, and I say his oil and gas, not because he owns them, but because they are his allies and they call him an ally.

Paul: [00:14:49] They own him.

Christiana: [00:14:52] Well, that's true. That is very true. And on the other hand Sweta, very interesting, and I would invite you to bring your topic about the information that you have about young, young people and how they are, tending to think about the elections this year.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:15:14] Of course. So what we know about young voters, it's actually true of all voters, right, is that they can be influenced by cognitive triggers that don't even apply, which is what I was explaining kind of in the beginning of this, of this conversation. And that's valuable information to have. We know our brains can play tricks on us. We know that we can be easily, manipulated. And those who know how to manipulate take advantage of the knowledge of how our brains respond to different stimuli. And having that knowledge and being on the side of the good guys again, that's powerful. And we need to take advantage of that right. We need to use what marketers and advertisers have been using for decades to get consumers to buy various goods, what they know about the human emotional state. We know that people buy more goods when they're in a heightened state of sadness or anger, for example. And so how can we. 

Paul: [00:16:10] Really?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:16:10] Yeah, that's a whole other podcast, though.

Paul: [00:16:12] That's so scary. I realize we haven't got another whole podcast, but I just kind of I'm letting that sink in. People buy more when they're sad or when they're scared?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:16:20] People buy more, it's one of those, if you can create an affect state of a certain emotion, then you can encourage them towards a behavioural outcome, a decision, and then ultimately a behavioural outcome. And so there's that's one example. But that's no, this knowledge can work in our favour. So the knowledge that we can we can actually influence decision making. And ultimately behavioural outcomes is really powerful. And the number one there's many things that we can do. But the number one, if I had to pick one, influencer for behavioural outcome, it is trust. And I don't think this will surprise either of you or anyone listening that the role of the trusted spokesperson to communicate how somebody should vote, how somebody should, think about how they how they show up in November comes down to who is communicating to them, is the communicator to a particular demographic trusted by that demographic and up to 50% of the variance in a voter's decision making will come down to who is telling them what to do. And we know that the most trusted spokespeople tend to be within one's close network. But we can we can actually get to influencers, various spokespeople from different organizations and companies, and identifying those trusted spokespeople to come out with a clear message of what to do to override any sort of cognitive triggers or manipulations or misperceptions to align voters decisions to the to the, facts, to the truth, to the statistics.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:17:55] That is absolutely critical. And that's what Climate Power, where I am proud to serve on the board, really does that's what they are, something that I'm really proud to advise them on and that they really take into consideration and that they do. And then me and the organization that I represent as well is We Don't Have Time. I'm hoping many of your listeners will be familiar with my company. Our whole the whole point of what we do is to identify those trusted spokespeople and communicate, again, very consistently to different audiences. And so Climate Power has been able to, with its partners, like We Don't Have Time and various other organizations, been able to come up with really strong campaigns, which we are then using to target these various audiences through trusted spokespeople, to encourage them to go to the polls come November. And there couldn't be a more critical year for that. We know that. So we need young people to come out and vote. The good news is that young people, 85% of them can be moved to come out and vote with climate as their top issue. And we know that those who care about climate are 20 points more likely to come out and vote. So it really makes a case for not giving up on young people, really reaching young people, identifying trusted people to reach them and then continuing to make climate the top issue.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:19:10] So it's really about voting with climate. All of this is entrenched in communication science, behavioural science, the science of changing behavioural outcomes. And so these are examples of campaigns that work because it creates those trusted voices, and it reaches those young voters that we can't give up on. We we're hearing this is an important point. This is what's driving me to do what I do every day. We're hearing that voters are not coming to the polls because of the current geopolitics that are going on in the US. Biden's politics. And not to say that that isn't a priority and it doesn't deserve respect, but to say that we can prioritize climate, we can bring climate to the forefront of the voters decision to actually go and vote versus to abstain because of current geopolitics. And that will be key in swinging the election in the direction of Biden. Biden has done more than any president in US history for accelerating the transition to clean energy, and it would be an absolute devastation if anybody but Biden was elected into office come November. So we have to use all the power we have to ensure that these young people go and vote and vote climate as top of mind.

Christiana: [00:20:20] Well, Sweta, we obviously we agree with you about, what Biden legislation has done, but, here's here's my conundrum. A poll that was admittedly done last year by Tufts University agrees with you that the fact is that many US voters have no idea about the historic climate legislation that President Biden has enacted and about its benefits in creating jobs, etc., etc.. So that's the first problem that that that has not been communicated, as forcefully or as convincingly as it should. The second problem, however, is one I think that is even more dangerous because at least according to this poll, and I would love to hear your reaction to it. Young people, specifically young people, are not terribly excited by climate change. Let's let's just first of all say there are some people, young and old, who will always vote for Trump no matter what. There are also some people, young and old, who will also vote against Trump, no matter what or no matter who the Democratic candidate is right. I think we have here an election this year. Are you for, are you for him or are you against him. Basically that is the election going to be.

Christiana: [00:21:45] So there's there's a chunk of people on either side of that continuum that are not going to be swayed at all. More importantly is the movable middle, because that is the largest part, and that is definitely the swing vote that will determine who, who wins. Now, the concern of this poll, is that young people don't put climate change way up there, which is exactly what you've just said, that it is it is there, it is a potential issue, but has not risen to the top because most of them are saying that it is the cost of living, the inflation that is at the top of their mind, or their capacity to get a job. And that climate comes as issue number three. So how how does the Biden administration, or rather, how does the Biden campaign, work with those three issues cost of living, jobs and climate change, to put a convincing package in front of young people and win their hearts and minds?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:22:52] Yeah, great question. I mean, this is quite literally the work that's being done on the ground as we speak, and it really is identifying those issues that matter and tailoring the communication as much as possible. None of this is expensive, but it does take time. It's tedious right. But we have technology. What's amazing about where we are today is that we can actually reach pretty much anyone in the United States via some form of communication, and we can we can hit them with a message that resonates, that also takes into account their top three priorities and what they care about, to not to acknowledge and recognize that there are issues that that prevail for them, but to really bring to the forefront what would happen if they didn't come to the polls and vote with climate as top of mind. So that's actually what we are working on right now, which is what is it, who who cares about what, right. And so we know young, young, certain demographics are more likely to care about climate. We know women care more than men. We know those minorities and historically disenfranchised communities care more than white communities in the United States about climate. So is there a way to target those voters so that we can actually move the vote, right, so that we can actually move the potential end outcome. And that's what we're doing. We're identifying where those demographics are. We're identifying exactly what issues matter to them. And we're coming up with very custom tailored communications that are being delivered through trusted spokespeople to those particular audiences. And again, it's not expensive. It's not rocket science. It is social science. It's the case I've been making for 20 years that we are just at the tip of the iceberg of disseminating decision science, behavioral science, you know, sociology, all of these various things to really move human behavioral outcomes, being able and allow them to be better predicted and allow them to be better aligned to climate science. So I'm with you, Christiana. This is the challenge.

Paul: [00:24:55] Honestly Sweta, the the the media analyst, Marshall McLuhan a long time ago said the medium is the message, but maybe, maybe the medium is the messenger. And I really applaud you for finding both the messages and the people who can carry this message. It is a source for enormous, optimism and one we should celebrate. And I think on behalf of all of our listeners, wishing you well with that work. We are also in a context, that context is the science. And we we need to move on, to our third topic, which is Christiana's. Can you talk a little bit, Christiana, about where you're finding we are with the science?

Christiana: [00:25:38] Well, yes. This actually has to do with, what we've been talking about, about having trusted voices, because it is very clear that these days politicians are not trusted. CEOs are not trusted. There is a very small group of people who continue to be trusted by young and not so young people, and those are scientists. And, what has been quite, quite sobering is the conclusion that was reached just last week after a poll of so many climate scientists who have actually reached the conclusion that we are already pushing through the 1.5 safeguard ceiling, and that we have actually lost that anchor point or that safeguard. And it was a very sobering article, that was brought by, by The Guardian. Now, the the question for me about that is, first of all, scientists are doing their job. That is exactly their job. Their job is to climb up to the rooftops. And with all the megaphones that they can find to alert us to the fact of what we're not, or the alert us to the consequences of what we're not doing. So this is not something to blame scientists. This is to thank scientists for doing their job. Now, the ones who are not doing their job is the rest of us, right. Because we are not responding in a timely fashion, either at speed or scale to the warnings that they have done. And my point, which I have now published is, we cannot just sit back and take that scream, that visceral scream that comes from the science community as a stop sign, as simply signifying that therefore, now it's not worth doing anything anymore. Quite to the contrary, for me, this is a sign of alert and a call to action to double or triple down on our efforts. But I would be fascinated to hear Sweta from you. How how do we transform this call, this this warning from very trusted scientists into action rather than into, despair and grief, because the very same scientists are already in despair. How do we transform it into action, into more determination, into what we call on this podcast, stubborn optimism?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:28:36] So, you know, I've heard this quote now a few times from a few different, friends and colleagues, influencers. So I don't know who to attribute it to. And I also I also change it up each time, but it's basically this, antidote to the depression that comes with working on or thinking about or even, what what, you know, getting motivated to even do something related to climate. What is the antidote to the depression around all of that, all of that, barrier to taking action. And so the antidote is actually taking action, right. So the antidote to depression on climate is taking action. That's the quote roughly. So I hope somebody, I hope somebody is able to finesse that, right.

Christiana: [00:29:23] Correct, it's not just a quote, it's actually true.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:29:26] Yeah, it's it's it's absolutely true, and so that's that's it right. I mean, I think the reason that we have all of this fear is because we should be scared. And that's actually okay. So again, from a behavioural science perspective, fear is good in terms of getting people cutting through a saturated information landscape and bringing in attention to the forefront of our minds, making it salient right. It's the reason we think about plane crashes so damn much. So, fear on the climate crisis is actually a good thing. It brings it brings attention to the issue. Now, we don't want to mobilize, post fear. We want to act post fear. And that requires hope. So it's this critical combination of fear to cut through the saturated landscape, followed by hope and hopeful messaging to encourage action. And so that to me is the formula. Now, once we get to that hope portion of this, we need to make it very easy for people to get engaged right. And we know that people want to get engaged. The data that we're finding coming out of Climate Power and the various collaborators on this research is that most people don't know, they just don't know, they care. Very few like you were saying, Christiana, actually deny climate or aren't completely uninterested. Most people care and they just need better, very clear calls to action, and simple ways to plug in. And so we do that through my company, We Don't Have Time.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:30:56] We make it really easy. There's no barriers to getting involved. You literally sign up and you join a campaign. You identify one other person that's doing something interesting. Now you're a team. You identify a third person, you're a group. You join a virtual campaign that's global. You're part of 20 million people all of a sudden. There's a campaign that we've seen just completely take off on our platform, and in partnership with the UN and it's called Move The Money, it's with the Fossil Proliferation Treaty, and it's with the Exponential Roadmap. And the idea is that we are encouraging pledges from individuals, organizations, companies to move certain amount of money from the 7 trillion that is being subsidized to the fossil fuel industry. Move that to the 4.5 trillion that needs to be, spent on the transition to clean energy. It's significantly less. And if we can move the money from the fossil fuel industry to the clean energy sectors, now we're talking about acceleration of this transition. And so this is how I think about it right. So yes it's scary. Yes it can cause depression. But there's a lot of ways to plug in. Now there's really no excuse to not take action. Action is the antidepressant. And then the action is really easy to do now. So there's really no excuses whether you want to get involved locally, whether you want to get involved globally at these global level campaigns, there's something for everybody.

Paul: [00:32:21] Okay. Well look that's that's a that's a pretty rousing speech. I agree with you. I don't never get depressed about the climate, but I work, you know, 24/7 7 days a week for 25 years on climate change, so there's other problems, but I totally get it. I agree with you, action. Sweta, thank you so much for your insight, your work. We do, whether it's a guest or a special co-presenter guest such as yourself, always ask one question and that is, can you try and leave us with a thought about something that outrages you and something that is particularly making you optimistic?

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:32:59] It outrages me that we spend $7 trillion subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, and that Trump has the audacity to ask for $1 billion from these these, executives from all the various oil and gas companies at a dinner in this lavish, you know, estate that we know is Mar-A-Lago.

Paul: [00:33:21] Chopped steak I think it was.

Christiana: [00:33:21] Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:33:23] That's outrageous that we've been talking about that. What what makes me optimistic is it's actually a simple transition away actually, it seems it's complex, of course, to completely change how we power this planet. And everybody deserves energy. I'm Indian. my family, there's members of my family in the Bihar state that, distant relatives that have maybe never flipped a light switch right. So I think we deserve energy rich futures. That's something that's that's something to be proud of, that we've been able to to experience energy. It's just we have to change how we do it. And there's no reason we can't shift that 7 trillion to 4.5 trillion and enjoy cleaner air in the process, enjoy healthier outcomes, watch our children play outside without being worried that they've passed that five minute mark. So I'm extremely optimistic that it's really just about moving the money. It's about mobilizing the planet, to recognize that they are empowered and to quite literally shift our finances to transition that is win win, win, win. It's jobs for millions of people. Some people are going to suffer in the process, but they'll be okay. There's money to go around.

Paul: [00:34:37] Very good advice indeed. Very good advice indeed. And one other thing. As we as we as we know that the smart young people are not necessarily going into the oil and gas industry, we have to continue to persuade the AI also not to go too much into that industry, or they'll end up running it with machines. Thank you so much for that. We, really and I mean, I certainly have learned a great deal about how to get a movement going, particularly with younger people. Can I, end the show before we say goodbye with just a quick reminder, we're after all your climate conundrums for a new series we're putting together with the working title of How to Live a Good Life in a Climate Crisis. And maybe you're wondering whether you should shift to a green job, or maybe you're grappling with whether flying for your holiday is actually okay or not. Certainly, I feel much safer in an airplane after your comments today Sweta, so thank you for that. We don't have the answers, but we'd love to hear your questions. Please email us at podcast@globaloptimism.com, or send us a voicemail to speakpipe.com/outrageandoptimism, links will be in the show notes or any of our social media channels, so thank you. Christiana, Sweta, thank you very much for today.

Christiana: [00:35:46] Thank you Sweta, thank you so much.

Sweta Chakraborty: [00:35:48] My pleasure, thank you.

Paul: [00:35:50] The union makes the force, together we'll win. Thank you. Bye for now. See you next week.

Clay: [00:35:58] There you go, another episode of Outrage + optimism. This is Clay, producer of Outrage + Optimism. Here to say thank you to climate behavioural scientist and CEO of We Don't Have Time North America Dr Sweta Chakraborty, for joining us on this week's episode. Check the show notes to follow Sweta and We Don't Have Time on socials. We have some great stuff on there so check the show notes for that. Thank you Sweta. And Paul said it, but it's worth repeating. The window is closing on being able to send in your questions that you're wrestling about with how to live a good life during a climate crisis. You can send those in at speakpipe.com/outrageandoptimism. Also, you can email them if you prefer writing it out, podcast@globaloptimism.com. We've had some great submissions already, but we still need more and we're keeping the door open for as long as we can until we hit the record button. So I know you're thinking about it. You've got a question, you've got a thing you're wrestling with. You're wondering, how am I going to do this during a climate crisis? How am I going to resolve this? How am I going to square that circle? How am I going to figure this out? Well, send us your dilemma, your question, can't wait to wrestle with it, with you. Wrestle with it with you. We can't wait to wrestle it with you. Some days I wonder why they give me a microphone. Anyway, thank you to everyone who sent in your questions already looking forward to the new ones. Thank you for joining us this week on the podcast. You can give us a follow online. All of our socials are below. Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn. Please hit subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss next week's episode. All right, thanks for listening. We'll see you right back here next week.