307: Trump’s War on Climate - and Maggie Baird on food justice and plant-based touring with Billie Eilish
This week, we break down Trump’s devastating climate backslide in the US and we talk to the brilliant Maggie Baird - actor, producer, climate activist, and mother of Billie Eilish and Finneas.
About this episode
As record heat scorches the US, Trump’s government is making things dramatically worse. We break down the devastating implications of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the reversal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, and a potential US withdrawal from all UN agencies. It’s a full-blown climate backslide with global consequences.
Then, we bring you a conversation with the brilliant Maggie Baird - actor, producer, climate activist, and mother of Billie Eilish and Finneas. Maggie joins us backstage at the Co-op Live Arena in Manchester, where Billie’s shows are going plant-based, thanks to Maggie’s food justice initiative Support + Feed. We talk food, parenting, the power of culture to shift climate narratives, and how to stay hopeful - even when it feels like the world is falling apart.
Learn more
⛽ ‘How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate’ in The Conversation
🎶 See Billie Eilish talk about cleaning up the music industry’s environmental practices, or watch the full documentary (for CNN subscribers)
⏳ Listen back to our episodes Momentum vs Perfection, where we explore different theories of change within the climate movement and the tension between urgency, impact, and doing things the ‘right’ way.
🎤 Leave us your voice notes and questions for upcoming episodes on SpeakPipe
Follow us on social media for behind the scenes moments and to watch our videos:
Instagram @outrageoptimism
LinkedIn @outrageoptimism
Or get in touch with us via this form.
Producer: Ben Weaver-Hincks
Video Producer: Caitlin Hanrahan
Assistant Producer: Caillin McDaid
Assistant Producer: Eve Jones
Exec Producer: Ellie Clifford
Commissioning Editor: Sarah Thomas
This is a Persephonica production for Global Optimism and is part of the Acast Creator Network.
Full Transcript
Tom : [00:00:02] Hello welcome to Outrage and Optimism. I'm Tom Rivett-Carnac.Christiana : [00:00:05] I'm Christiana Figueres.
Paul: [00:00:07] I'm Paul Dickinson. Wondering what Christiane has done with her introductory comment. It's changed.
Tom : [00:00:13] I think she's still giddy from the ICJ opinion from last year.
Paul: [00:00:16] So I think that was going to be a oh, so it's a kind of okay ecstatic trauma.
Christiana : [00:00:21] Yeah. And last week. Last week.
Tom : [00:00:22] Last week. Sorry.
Christiana : [00:00:23] Yeah I was going to say I'm Christiana Figueres barely coming down from the cloud here.
Tom : [00:00:30] Well we can help you because this week we're talking about the latest climate news from the US. So that should help you come down from it. Plus, we have an exclusive conversation with actress and singer songwriter Maggie Baird from backstage at her daughter Billie Eilish's plant based music tour. Thanks for being here. Okay, so last week was an amazing episode, and what an incredible piece of reaction to a world changing news item on the ICJ. But we are, sadly.
Paul: [00:00:58] Even though there's no global police force to enforce it, even though we have to recognize that there's a you know, it's a it's not the answer to everything, but it's the platform for an answer to.
Tom : [00:01:07] It. It's the platform for an answer. And we've got to start somewhere. So it was huge progress. But this week we are going to turn back to, sadly, one of the countries that is creating most of the friction in our collective attempt to deal with the climate crisis. And that is the United States under President Donald Trump, who right now, as we're recording this, is at his golf courses in Scotland, continuing to work away on these transatlantic trade deals.
Paul: [00:01:30] Can I just say one thing about him being in Scotland? Did you see our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, sort of saying this is such a lovely golf course and this is such a wonderful room. I've seen more and more sort of kind of world leaders just looking kind of weirdly sort of frightened of the child with a machine gun. That is the US president. Anyway, I digress.
Tom : [00:01:47] I do agree with that. Although I was and maybe I have to set the bar too low, but I did. I was watching the press conference where Trump was going off about what a terrible person Sadiq Khan, former guest on this podcast is and Keir Starmer said she said actually that guy is my friend and he's all right. So you know, maybe that's too low to be impressed.
Paul: [00:02:01] With something no good fit for Keir Starmer. Just before we come onto the actual sort of big climate change related news, you know, I'm not a vampire, but some kind of stake went through my heart when Stephen Colbert said that The Late Show was ending in the US in ten months time. He carried me through. Trump won. Unfortunately, I didn't stop watching him during Biden. And so the as I said, the meds don't work so well, but he's been carrying me through Trump, too. You know, there is apparently a plausible case that the economics of the show didn't work very well, but it was also little doubt that.
Christiana : [00:02:35] Carry on.
Paul: [00:02:36] Well, I agree with you, Christiane, but I'm I'm forced to and there was a sort of reasonably independent analysis. Somebody said that that could be a reason. I agree with you. The real question is why weren't the cuts made earlier and all the rest of it all could have been fixed? But the the point is, the character of the United States of America that I love is being able to talk truth to power. Stephen Colbert embodied that for me, and the fact that he moves out of that public position is a tragedy in the current form. But I think that, you know, the power of comic insight to challenge power is like the Hydra. And although Trump was crowing about Stephen Colbert going in a post, you cut the head off that, and I believe he will come back a hundred times stronger through other media and other forces. So I hope the long arc is just as Doctor King said. But a very sad day in ten months time. And boy is he going to grill Trump for the next ten months.
Christiana : [00:03:30] Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. He is set loose on that one from here until May.
Paul: [00:03:37] But I mean, there's just the last serious point. There is this notion of a of a sort of an increasingly chill atmosphere in public media and whether news organizations are feeling more fearful of reporting the truth in the USA. But, Tom, bring us to the proper issue.
Tom : [00:03:48] No, no, no. I mean, that's very much is that is appropriate. That is the proper issue. And and I hope you're right, though, Paul. I mean, in today's very different media landscape to what it would have been even under Trump one, I sort of don't have any serious doubts that actually Stephen Colbert is going to find ways to get his voice out there, whether it's via The Late Show or not. But, you know, I don't have any inside information, but I hope and trust that he will not be disappearing from our our ears and our eyes as an as an analyst for the moment we're living through. But we need to turn our attention back to the climate issue in the US. And to just remind listeners every year is a make or break year on climate, of course, but this year is particularly critical. This is the third round of nationally determined commitments are supposed to be submitted by the end of this year or by September, so that we can close the gap back down to 1.5 degrees. And we'll talk about this in a future episode. But many countries are working away to look at their trajectory. What can they offer? How can we close the gap? But going in completely the opposite direction is the United States. And we're going to come at this in a few different pieces. But first of all, we're going to look at the recent legislation, the so-called one big beautiful bill.
Christiana : [00:04:59] Oh, no. Please, please.
Tom : [00:05:00] Terribly well named. Do you want to rename it Christiana?
Christiana : [00:05:04] Thank. Well, Ben, thank you to Ben, who has offered two other interpretations of 0BBB. So Ben suggests either oil barons bonanza bill.
Tom : [00:05:16] Okay, which.
Paul: [00:05:17] Is the correct one. Technically that's exactly what this is.
Christiana : [00:05:20] Or the other one that he suggests is also technically correct. Only billionaires benefit. Bill, seriously, have you ever heard anything more ridiculous than one big, beautiful bill? It just makes you want to, I don't know, roll your eyes as small.
Paul: [00:05:36] Yeah, I mean, a serious point on this. It is a sort of profoundly childish child naming convention. And I think that it characterizes the US policy, particularly with regard to climate change. It's, you know, I'm not going to engage on this topic. I'm not going to talk about it. No one's going to talk about it. There is no climate change. No one's talking about that. Everyone's talking about Jeffrey Epstein, but they shouldn't talk about that. And then this crazy legislation goes through with its childish name, and with the assumption that the public just are not capable of responding anymore.
Tom : [00:06:04] And the climate piece, which we'll get to is what we want to talk about is obviously profoundly concerning for us leadership, for global ability to deal with these issues, but also, as many media outlets have been reported, this is an incredibly irresponsible bill just in terms of public spending. I mean, it adds trillions of dollars to the national debt in the US. It's completely unfunded. They have used creative accounting principles to try to baseline how they are calculating it, to try and claim that it's beneficial to the economy. But the reputation that the Republican Party and the center right historically has had for fiscal prudence and managing the economy well is out the window with this. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Christiana : [00:06:43] But meanwhile, in the real world, about half the country is under active heat advisory again as we speak. Affecting more than 168 million citizens, according to the National Weather Service. And this extreme heat continues in the Midwest, the southeast, some parts of the northeast. I mean, the heat alerts are.
Tom : [00:07:06] Just just so shocking.
Christiana : [00:07:09] So shocking. Well, over 100 degrees, it actually feeling like 110 degrees or higher. It is just crazy heat, health related illnesses, people actually not being able to find water, stay in air conditioned rooms on and on and on. It is completely crazy. So the real world is in one reality. And the white House is in a completely different reality.
Tom : [00:07:37] Yeah. So the bill itself, I mean, as we said, it gives enormous tax breaks across the across the board, mainly to very wealthy individuals. But what it does do is it removes clean energy tax credits that have been created to support the climate provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act, that we talked about so much in the last couple of years, particularly for solar, wind, electric vehicles, batteries and storage. And these things are difficult to calculate, but the best analysis suggests that this could increase total US emissions by 7 billion metric tons of CO2 by 2050 and slash the clean power build out by 50 to 60%. So the US was not on track necessarily to meet where it needed to be under Paris. This completely blows that out of the water. This is a desperate case, right? Do we see any any glimmers of hope or possibility coming from the US after this bill?
Christiana : [00:08:25] Well, can we just go deeper into the hole before we try to find some glimmers of hope? Yeah. I mean, the the fact that the EPA is rescinding the endangerment finding is breathtaking. I mean, you can't even find words.
Tom : [00:08:41] To just remind any listeners back in 2009, President Obama took the Clean Air Act of 1973, which sets a framework for the executive part of the US government to determine which pollutants are harmful for humanity and for nature. And in that ruling in 2009, this so-called endangerment finding, they found that greenhouse gases are harmful to humans and nature and so therefore could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Christiana : [00:09:10] How is it possible that after there has been a very clear statement ruling that greenhouse gas pollution is not just global, but local as well, and that the EPA has the regulatory responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases. And that was way back in 2009. And now all of a sudden, they nullify EPA's authority to regulate vehicles, power plants, industrial emissions. Yeah. I mean.
Tom : [00:09:46] I mean, that endangerment finding was so scientifically based. I remember in 2009, I was living in New York, and there was all this rumor that Obama was going to deliver this endangerment finding so that greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean, Clean Air Act, which, of course, had been signed in 1973. And actually, when the day came, I was issued an invite. I was working with CDP at the time, with Paul to go to the white House and to meet with the president and then to go to the speech. But it was scheduled for the day before my wife was due to give birth to our second child. So I was like, oh, there's no way I can go to Washington and do this. But we spoke to the midwife and she said, oh yeah, no, it'll be fine. You can go. The child's not going to come for a few more days. So I went to Washington and met the president and then went to the speech. And I was sitting in Georgetown University on this very hot day. Many listeners might remember it. And halfway through the speech, my wife stopped responding to her texts. And I was like, well, there's various possible solutions to this. One is she's had a nap, but another is she's gone into labor. So as Obama kept speaking, I was out in the front row. I got down on my hands and knees and crawled along.
Paul: [00:10:47] That became an international incident in.
Tom : [00:10:50] Front of all the TV cameras, got to the aisle and ran out to the back, came out of the university and started running for Union Station. At which point, of course, I got a text from my wife saying I just had a nap and now I've woken up. So that was my experience of the endangerment finding, which we can leave in or take out.
Christiana : [00:11:06] Well, you were very attentive to this historic event.
Tom : [00:11:10] I really.
Speaker4: [00:11:10] Remember it.
Christiana : [00:11:11] Well. You had two historic events in your life. I, I will take that.
Paul: [00:11:16] Paul. I mean, look, it's not a mystery what's going on here. It is commercial interest, overpowering science, logic and national security. I mean, I listened to a great podcast from MSCI, which is a, you know, a leading financial services research house, and they kind of pointed out a few things. The bill goes really against all of these subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act. It actually offers new tax credits to only gas companies. Demand for electricity is really increasing because we're electrifying vehicles. We're electrifying many end users. And where's that demand going to come from? With this chokehold now being put on the development of solar and wind. Nuclear takes 5 to 7 years. Geothermal is regional. So where is the energy going to come from? It's going to it's going to pull the oil and gas industry back into financial health for a short period of time. This is a bill designed to financially advantage the oil and gas industry. But I think we have to recognize why the oil and gas industry would sort of hold its nose and back. Somebody is completely random as Trump. It's because they face an existential threat. You know, renewable energy stops gas, kills gas. Eventually electric vehicles kill oil eventually.
Paul: [00:12:28] And they felt that they had to take some kind of action. I think the good news, if you want to call it that, is that the three very ghastly powerful forces that were aligned. Namely Donald Trump, Elon Musk with his X platform and Rupert Murdoch with his Wall Street Journal and his Fox News, have now constipated into oppositional forces. Now Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion for for the Epstein files and revelations. And Musk is planning to start a new political party because he is himself so irritated with the irresponsible trillions of new government debt being created by this crazy bill giving huge tax cuts to the the. Really the only people you can be completely sure don't need them and can't spend them, which is not doing anything for the economy really. It's just more ridiculous money piling up in crazy palaces. So yeah, an absolute disaster. I think the technical economic term is shit show. But the good news is that it will pass and the forces of kind of power that allowed this authoritarian coup are hopefully configuring to end it quickly. But, you know, that's just my optimistic nature.
Christiana : [00:13:39] Well, what gets me is what is the bottom of all of this? It is absolutely ideological, dogmatic. It has nothing to do with the forces of the market, with competitiveness, with efficiency. Nothing. I remember at the beginning, if anybody can remember at the beginning of his second presidency that the oil and gas industry had already said that in the United States that they actually can't pump anymore because they have pumped out everything that is financially viable, and that in order to explore and pump more, they would have to incur costs that are way beyond the competitive costs of other countries, such as Saudi Arabia. So they really couldn't compete on the market no matter what Trump had said during the campaign. And so now what we see is this crazy bill? That is, as you've both pointed out, giving completely unfair, immoral, honestly immoral advantages and preferences to the oil and gas industry so that they will drill and pump more, putting subsidy on top of tax cut on top of subsidy on top of tax cut. It is it is just indescribable what he's doing.
Paul: [00:15:01] But just a little bright spot. I mean, you look around the world things look very different.
Christiana : [00:15:04] Thank you. Thank you Paul.
Paul: [00:15:05] Another thing for this podcast. I just want to share it with people because it cheer you up. Look at two countries Pakistan and Turkey. Pakistan added 15GW of solar in the last year, Turkey seven gigawatts of solar in the last year. So, you know, we may have gone to crazy town in the USA, but, you know, relatively large countries are adding just enormous amounts of energy, you know, incredibly well.
Tom : [00:15:27] And I mean, another point I would make to that which is comparable is and we know these statistics. Right. But China of course is adding, you know, enormous amounts of renewable energy. And by most assessments, 40% of growth in China comes from the clean tech and green economy sector. So the fact that Trump is pivoting the US economy away from these opportunities. Yes, it's terrible for climate, but I mean, it's completely immoral from the perspective of trying to capture the benefits of growth for U.S. citizens. And the fact they vote against that is something I think we need to try to elevate and focus on more. Should we? I know we need to sort of go to our interview in a little bit, but I wonder if we should just touch for a moment on the international side. And we've talked already, of course, on this podcast about Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement when he came back in, and of course, now has also withdrawn from Unesco. I would point out listeners may remember, but possibly unaware that in early February there was an executive order on withdrawing the US from and ending certain funding to United Nations organizations, and that had a six month lead time. With the assessment that six months later, the US would come back and determine whether or not they would include and continue any funding to UN agencies at all. And we should not forget about Unesco in this conversation. But my conversations with folks in Washington suggest that all funding for any UN agency has been removed from draft State Department budgets, so that could suggest that the US, which has been the major funder of multilateral institutions, including the United Nations since the Second World War, is on the cusp of withdrawing either very significantly or potentially even completely from that support.
Christiana : [00:17:07] Yeah. I mean, sadly, that is so consistent with what they're doing, right? They don't believe in collaboration. They don't believe in international solidarity. That's what Unesco is all about at a global, multilateral level. They don't believe in that. They don't believe in education. They don't certainly don't believe in science. It is very deeply, terribly sad, but very consistent with what they have been doing since they took over.
Paul: [00:17:33] They being because, you know, we certainly don't want to kind of paint the 330 plus million people of the USA with that particular.
Christiana : [00:17:41] They being the current administration in the United States.
Paul: [00:17:44] The only country in the world, the only country in the world to have pulled out the Paris Agreement. I mean, just think about that for a minute. And if I'm not mistaken, Christiane, you would say they were a country that truly helped to bring the Paris Agreement into force. So the irony, it's just it's crazy town. I can't think of another name for it.
Tom : [00:18:01] And what does that do? Christiana to I mean, people who are in similar positions to the one you used to hold in the United Nations. I mean, US currently provides between 22 and 25% of all funding to the UN. Of course, the UN is underfunded already. I mean, if we really do see as much as a quarter cut. What's that? What's that going to do to the UN system?
Christiana : [00:18:21] Well, obviously they're going to have to make cuts. They will probably have to do program cuts, staff cuts across the board, etc. etc. and it is a crime. I actually think that just for closing down aid and for defunding so many of the UN agencies, I think they're setting themselves up for a case in the International Court of crimes against humanity, because that is what they are. That is where they're going. Having said all of that, ironically, Tom, just to come back to climate, the fact that they are no longer in the Paris Agreement means they cannot speak at this upcoming Cop, for example, as a party to the Paris Agreement. So, you know, they will have to speak as an observer, which denotes whatever they say, they will not be able to participate in party meetings. Et cetera, etc.. So there is a weird scenario in which Conversations without them might be able to move forward faster. But of course, the universe of those parties, countries that agree with those decisions is substantially smaller because the US isn't there. So, you know, which which way do you cut it? It has advantages and disadvantages. It is not only terrible news. It means, certainly in the climate space, that maybe some decisions can be taken without them.
Paul: [00:19:51] Right. And I think you actually know more about this than me, Tom. So before I make an assertion, I'm going to pose instead as a question to you, will you both do? Would we expect to see greater participation by China in the Cop process in Brazil? And would we expect to see China using its growing diplomatic might around the world to support policies that accelerate decarbonization?
Tom : [00:20:11] I think that what we are certainly seeing is a realization from the Chinese leadership that there is a vacuum on climate leadership, a desire to step forward. And we know that there is the preparation of an NDC. Happening right now in China. It remains to be seen exactly where that falls and whether or not XI Jinping comes to the Secretary General Summit on the 24th of September in order to announce that NDC trying to claim global leadership. What I think we will not see from them and Christiana will tell me if I'm wrong. Is [00:20:41] the US [00:20:42] played such a critical, active, engaged, cajoling diplomacy in Paris and at other times where they were out in the world, John Kerry [00:20:51] played [00:20:52] the role Brian displayed. You know, when the US wants something to happen, they are so energetic and proactive in their diplomacy to bring the world around to an ambitious outcome. And my sense is that's not really how Chinese diplomacy works. They might lead themselves, they might do some bilateral deals, but they're not going to try to pull the world together towards a shared vision and way forward that they have come up with.
Christiana : [00:21:14] I mean, it's interesting to think about the two very different characteristics of international diplomacy between those two countries. I would say the United States, when it wants something at the international level, it uses in-your-face diplomacy. It deploys people, you know, they are front and center. They use the microphone. They use the podium there like in-your-face diplomacy. That is not what China does. It doesn't mean that the Chinese are less effective in their diplomacy. They're much more discreet. They're much more discreet, could be just as effective, or maybe even more so, but they're not in your face. So I think that in order to assess Chinese leadership outside of China, because inside China, there's no doubt that they are reveling at this opportunity to move into global leadership on all of these technologies, where they were leading anyway, but this affords them even increased space. But in international relations, I actually think that one has to look more carefully to see what their bilateral conversations are, what kinds of deals they'll be cutting, what kinds of countries they're going to be supporting. Much, much more discreet than the United States that, you know, uses very loud microphones to announce what it wants.
Tom : [00:22:47] That's very helpful. Right. Well, we wanted to bring you a conversation this week that looks broadly at what's happening in the United States and how it's landing with people.
Paul: [00:22:56] So you had that conversation, Tom. Right. Tell us about it. Load More
Maggie Baird: [00:24:25] [00:24:25]Thanks for [00:24:25] having.
Tom : [00:24:25] Me. We're here in Manchester. It's the opening night of Billy's tour here at the Co-op Live Arena this evening. And I'd love to just kick off by asking you to reflect a little bit about this moment. I mean, in many ways, it's the best of times and the worst of times, right? With technology, many of the solution costs have come down. We've seen awareness rise. Politics has lagged to sort of, say the least, in terms of where we are. And also we now have all these other existential crises that are clamoring for our attention. So you are so many things, but you're a storyteller as much as your other things. I'd love to hear you reflect on what kind of stories do we need to tell at this moment to help us come together and meet the big challenges?
Maggie Baird: [00:25:07] Well, that is a large Question.
Tom: [00:25:10] I told you we were starting.
Maggie Baird: [00:25:11] But it was a large time. I think it's a really overwhelming time, and I think we're kind of all struggling with what kind of stories we tell. You know, I, I think we do have to keep telling the positive stories and the story of the fact that we know the solutions, that we literally have all the answers so that if we can turn the tide in other ways, people understand there's somewhere to go. So I think we really have to keep telling that story. I do think we have to keep hope alive. But I do think it's important for people to understand the severity of the situation. And I think we have possibly the last few years, gone a little further into the hope and a little less into the potential nightmare. And now it's a little bit. We have to we have to get people to really connect the dots, understand that all the extreme weather events, how they're you know, I think one thing that's interesting to me is that for so many years when we talked about climate change. We had to explain to people that we weren't just talking about weather because they'd be like, well, so what? Hot weather. So what? It's cold today. You know, they never. And so you'd say, well, climate change, the climate crisis isn't about weather today. Today. But now, of course, it is about weather because it has created the extreme weather. And so now we have to change the storytelling a little bit to say, connect this and understand what why it's happening.
Maggie Baird: [00:26:35] So I think we have to be better about that. We have to be better about supporting people through these moments. You know, what are we offering them? Because we're not prepared, you know, we're not prepared. And also what I've seen is that while we're dealing with the major events that are happening, fires, floods, tornadoes, we're kind of answering sometimes with the same strategies, instead of adapting our emergency response strategies as well, which we can get to when we talk about support and feed. But for example, if you're you're suddenly have to feed tens or hundreds of thousands of people and now you're feeding them the same food that has gotten us part of the reason we've gotten there in the same place, you know. So we have to adapt to our emergency strategies as well. So and then for all the other major conflicts in the world, I think we have to keep also connecting the dots, right? Connecting the dots to war and conflict and how that affects our climate, how migration affects our climate. You know, every issue we have has a tie in to it, you know, and how can we help people understand that? And, you know, understand the real serious threat we're facing, but how we have to keep that alive through all the other issues because it is affecting all those issues. There's a lot of storytelling. It's really a lot of storytelling. And I think we have to get better at trying to learn how behaviors change. You know how we tell our stories.
Tom : [00:28:09] You mentioned that the impact of extreme weather. I mean, I know that you nearly lost your home this year.
Maggie Baird: [00:28:14] Well, we were in the area, we were evacuated. We were on evacuation warning. Some of our family members were evacuated for the week. And many, many, many, many of our friends lost their homes.
Tom : [00:28:25] Okay, so you lived through that and looking at it from here, right from 9000 miles away, it certainly felt like this could be one of the moments when the penny drops for the US and we realize, and yet the story is about how die means there's no water in the fire trucks. I mean, how how did we lose that so badly at that moment? Because it feels like those extreme weather events that come along. Many of us thought when that happened, then we would realize right all the way back to Katrina. But it doesn't seem to be happening. Is that just because we're not telling the right stories? Is there something else going on?
Maggie Baird: [00:28:58] I think what happens in the moment, it's a little bit like the, See, I hate to say the mass shootings in the US, you know, and the thoughts and prayers. You know, I think there's this attitude that in the moment of a tragedy, you must only talk about the personal toll, and you must only talk about, like, what those people are going through and what help they might need. And it's not the time to talk about what caused it, what went wrong, what we could do. Same thing with the floods in Texas. You know, very, very similar. Like really just deal with the human tragedy. But it's like if we only deal with human tragedy every time, we never address the change. It's been extremely frustrating in Los Angeles, honestly, to obviously there's always people talking about climate crisis and how that played into the nightmarish scenario, but it's definitely not enough and it's definitely not on the forefront. It's definitely not the main thing people talk about, but I think because humans have a like tendency to, like, overcome in a good way. Right? We survived this. We got through it. And you know, when you see the giant storm, sometimes the next day, it looks completely fine.
Maggie Baird: [00:30:07] And so human nature is designed to overcome and come back, but we have to get people to go like that's going to come back. It's going to be very soon. There's a reason it happened, not just have that kind of will of fortitude, you know, to survive, but understand that could have been avoidable and it will happen again. And that's the message I think we're missing. And you know, that saying, which everyone quotes is just so right. And I don't want to misquote it, but about, you know, it will be story told in a series of stories from your phone until you're the one holding the phone. You know, that's the best analogy you can give because it's true. It's like it's happening somewhere in the world, right? As we speak right now, someone is experiencing it and potentially losing their life or their family or their home. And eventually it will be us. But if we, you know, always keep it as a like, we will survive, then we're never going to fix it.
Tom : [00:31:06] It's such a good point. I wonder also if there's like a threat response takes us in the wrong direction. Yeah. Previously, an army comes over the hill and we, like arm ourselves for a response. Maybe, but now the best. You know, when you get an extreme weather event, most people don't say, well, I better change my diet and elect better public servants. Right. They say, let's build a wall and protect what I still have.
Maggie Baird: [00:31:26] That is so true. That's such a good point. Yeah. And also, I think when you are the survivor or let's say even the family of a victim, your immediate response is, yeah, to kind of protect yourself and do whatever. You're certainly not going to go in that state like, oh, today is the day I changed my diet. And, you know, get solar put on my remaining house, you know. But that's what we need to do.
Tom : [00:31:48] So that brings us to how you connect those different issues and the ways in which you reach out. And I have to say, whenever I talk to somebody like this, particularly from the US, but from wherever. What they often say at some point is we need a liberal Joe Rogan, or we need like that side of things. Do you buy that argument?
Maggie Baird: [00:32:04] Oh gosh, that's a good question. I mean, what does Joe Rogan do? He pushes people's buttons, right? And he preys on their secret thoughts or suspicions. Right. And so yeah, maybe we do. I mean, you know, one thing I think is really baffles me. And I've had, you know, people explain it to me maybe some ways. But, you know, why are people so much more willing to buy into a crazy conspiracy theory then the things that are actually happening that are so much more dramatic, in fact. So Joe Rogan prays on that. So I don't know if that's translatable, like if you're. But I do think if we did have somebody who was so compelling, but there are compelling people, you know, there's so many climate activists are super compelling. So what is it missing? Is it the anger factor? Because I feel like there's plenty to be angry about.
Tom : [00:32:56] Or is it the fact that there's more fragmentation on that side of the argument? There's little buckets, there's purity testing, there's all these different things. So it's harder for something to cut across. No one can meet all of those needs in the subcultures.
Maggie Baird: [00:33:10] Well, I would not be the first to say that, you know, the circular firing squad of the left is the worst thing that we have. You know, the purity test, it's it's the worst thing we have. But, you know, I had a discussion with somebody else the other day because he accused me of a purity test, and I was like, well, I think you were spreading disinformation. So that's quite tricky because. Because in the climate space there's a lot of greenwashing, right? And people buy into a lot of things that are like, maybe there's a kernel of truth in there, but is that really where we should be spending our money and time? And people will fully go to that because whatever that theory is, they're like, oh, I love that one. And you're like, yeah, but there's a lot of misinformation in there, right? So is it a purity test to call out that misinformation? Or is it like we have to call it out? So, you know.
Tom : [00:33:57] But what you've highlighted there is the difficulty of building something that feels coherent and big, right? Because there's all of these different sub bits. And, and in your work, both in the music industry and others, you have been really working out. How do you speak to big audiences? I would say, what would you say you've learned around how you speak to big audiences, particularly young people?
Maggie Baird: [00:34:19] It certainly helps when the artist is is authentic, right? But we don't want every artist to have to be the perfect model to be able to help their fans get somewhere. You know, I think the small steps kind of thing is really effective. I mean, I have definitely learned, you know, it's it's hard to get people to have one plant based meal a day, right? So for us who are like, well, you know, if everyone of privilege, everyone who has access to food could make the choice to eat more plant based food, less animal agriculture. That would make a huge difference. But it also makes a huge difference if even a larger number of people, you know, everyone just ate one meal a day. So I've, I've definitely learned that it's way more effective to give people actual strategies they can use that are not too hard for them, and then you have to give them the tools to do it. And of course, we have to not put so much pressure on individuals when we know the big corporations and the government have so much bigger impact. But we also know they're part of the story. So like it's a balancing. But I think meeting people and making them feel empowered, like say we do know the strategies. We do know that scientists tell us without equivocation that this is an effective thing to do. And here's how you can be a part of it and then give them the tools and make it doable.
Tom : [00:35:39] But also, I think what you're talking around there with people is around a sense of agency. And I think that's one of the big killers in climate actions. We all feel we all we'll feel hopeless, like we can't do anything. And much of the narrative takes our power away right where we're expected to engage. But we're told we're powerless. And those two different things end up being very confusing. So you've given the example there of like, give people something they can do, and plant based diets is a really good one. Would you say agency is that keen? What else have you seen that makes people feel empowered?
Maggie Baird: [00:36:10] Well, I think that I think you hit on something with the agency of making them even know and then arming them with the whys. And I think why the disinformation part is really important to talk about is because we have an entire culture that is being bombarded with mis and disinformation, and it's really hard to sort it out, and it comes into your feed and comes into your world. And so you have to help people have find trusted sources, I think, where you go. And that's why an artist can be important, because they're like, I'm pretty sure Billy's mom won't lie to me, you know what I mean? And then I have a lot of responsibility.
Tom : [00:36:49] All right. Yeah.
Maggie Baird: [00:36:50] Yeah. You have a lot of responsibility because you have to go. Like, we really have to be careful what we say. And and we have to temper it a little bit. And by the way, if we go a little wrong, it's a headline. Literally a headline. Not just a headline if we go wrong, but like a headline, even if you're doing the right thing, which can be a little bit overwhelming because then how do you keep saying things without when you know everything is a headline? But I think giving people I think people really want opportunity to be involved. You know, this idea that we have this epidemic of loneliness and, you know, I think people with support and feed one of the great things and I think our eco villages that really show the volunteer factor is so important. I think if we had many, many more volunteer opportunities for people and people to kind of get together and do positive action, that not only makes you feel empowered, obviously you're doing a great thing at the same time. But we have to overcome this epidemic of loneliness and this disconnected feeling, and there's nothing that makes you feel better than doing something for a bigger cause.
Tom : [00:37:56] So I'd love to talk about support and feed. I mean, we'll be at the show tonight and it'll all be plant based. We came to the show four years ago in London with all plant based. Then just tell us a bit about that, where it came from and what you're trying to achieve with it.
Maggie Baird: [00:38:07] Well, we started way back in 2020. That was our first tour where we really had a lot of buy in for not only what we fed our crew, but with the arenas. And one thing I'll say is that we've really been a strategy that I think other people can take is that when I started with Billie in the music industry, there was a lot of shocking things to me, you know, and, and obviously there's been amazing people working on sustainability for decades. But the general overall kind of thing you were fed was not great. Of course, we were in small little clubs, you know, she was playing 100 cap room, 200 cap room. So I kind of saw it all. So I think what we did was we just constantly asked questions like, why is it like this? Why can't we do this? Could we do this? Could we make this happen? And of course, we got a lot of no's for a while. But then you start to get yeses and then you get hooked up with people who have the answers. And, you know, we work with this place called reverb. They help us on our touring. But even everyone, our agents and booking agents started to get it. And so our booking agents and our and our Live Nation, everyone just started to reach out and say they want plant based food in the arenas. And we kind of made a requirement, I think, in 2020, 22 or never. We came home after three days because you know why? Um, 2022 we really succeeded.
Maggie Baird: [00:39:28] Oh two went fully plant based. It was amazing. But every arena had to have at least one fully plant based main item. So not peanuts. Not popcorn. Right. And but the O2, by the way, in 2022 had an 8% increase in their sales, which was during Billy's shows. So that was really good. And so on this tour we required at least three mains, but many, many arenas really took up the challenge themselves, went fully plant based and not just really plant based, but had amazing local specialties and like really creative food. Like I was like, wow, that's like going to a restaurant, you know, all over the arena. So I think if we were trying to give people like hope, which we certainly need some of. Well, I think what's hopeful to me is that we have a lot of power on our own without government. Right, because corporations can do it. And if an artist can do it and a venue can do it. And part of our mission was important. Feed. Well, really our primary mission is to address intersectionality, food, climate, social justice. Right. And so if you're going to feed 100,000 people, 10,000 to 100,000, in an arena or stadium. If you make that food delicious, but also largely, if not entirely, plant based. You can make this huge climate impact that is even more important than like everyone. You know, there's your one meal a day for everyone in that arena.
Tom : [00:40:58] 800,000 people then understand that it's delicious food. I mean, who knows the change that makes in their lives?
Maggie Baird: [00:41:04] You're opening a door. You're making it. You're just changing culture. One of the things that gives me the most hope is the fact that places like arenas, stadium conferences. Now, let's be honest, they're really slow to do it, right. But we're seeing people do it. And that kind of impact is really, really, really big.
Tom : [00:41:25] And you've really hit on this. Food is one of the primary ways into people's experience with the world in general. And if you can connect that to broader issues, you make a lot of progress.
Maggie Baird: [00:41:33] Every day we eat, we eat whether we want to eat, we have to eat every day, right?
Tom : [00:41:39] So we get a lot of questions on our original optimism from parents not knowing how to talk to their kids about climate. And it's obviously a difficult issue. One of the interesting things about your journey is you've raised two kids who've then gone into the music industry, where a lot of people kind of lose themselves, and they haven't, and they've remained true to their values and they prioritize these things. What do you say when you're asked that question about how do you talk to kids and help them feel to go back to that issue of agency, to help them feel a sense of agency, to grow up in a world and use their platform, whatever it is, to make a change.
Maggie Baird: [00:42:12] Yes. And by the way, it can be any platform. You know, I think it's important for people to go, where do you work? Where do you work out? Where do you, you know, where do you go to at night? You could take agency on any of those places, you know, and you could make your world more sustainable. It doesn't have to be an arena or whatever. I think parents have to model it. I think that makes a lot of difference and model that these I mean, you know, I mean, my kids still roll their eyes at me because I'm forever, like boycotting this company or you know what I mean? Like, you know, I'm like, I'm not doing that anymore. I'm, you know, and they're like, yeah, you're going to make a difference. I go, I, I have to live with myself, you know?
Tom : [00:42:55] Right. Yeah.
Maggie Baird: [00:42:56] And so I think, you know, I mean, if I could tell the funny thing to me is like, people are like, oh, you're filming me. This sounds cool. You know how many eye rolls I've gotten for literally decades about all of the things we do, you know, I mean, my kids, first of all, love our Christmas. But the first few years when I was like, we have no more paper wrapping, everything is in these beautiful cloth bags that I sewed with ribbons. We use them every year now. They're magical to them and they love them. But in the beginning they're like, we can't shred the paper, you know? And these sounds so small and insignificant. But when you multiply these.
Christiana and Paul: [00:43:33] You inherently want to provide things to your kids. It's a it's a journey for yourself as well.
Maggie Baird: [00:43:37] It is and so I think first of all, modeling like we can make these changes in our life and these when when added up with everyone else will make a difference. I think it's really scary right now. It's really scary to talk about kids because, you know, used to be, you know, if we don't change by blank, if we reach 1.5, you know, all those kind of like in the future things, well, they're all here. So now how do you talk about it? Because I think now you have to talk about preparedness. I think the mental gymnastics we're all having to do now to learn to be able to be here, and then it's modeling it, maybe doing family activity. We have a lot of people who volunteer for support and feed with their kids, even if it's just delivering meals to people. But I think modeling in your own house, talking about it, talking about the power of numbers, going to protests, honestly, like, you know, No writing signs about it. Watching documentaries.
Tom : [00:44:33] Right. And it's that pathway to agency as well that you talk about that.
Tom : [00:44:36] Yeah. Maggie, I'm going to let you go in a second. I just want to, um, we've had a really interesting conversation about agency and engagement, and I would love to hear you speak, particularly as you look at storytelling and the groups that you reach out to. Tell us something that makes you outraged and something that makes you optimistic.
Maggie Baird: [00:44:53] Something that makes me outraged, to be honest, is that the climate movement itself has been slow, so slow to address animal agriculture. That enrages me. You know, when people, people always say, what gives you hope? And I want to go, do you want to want to know what does not give me hope to go to a climate event and see beef and lobster? And on the menu I'm like, well, we are doomed. We are literally doomed. If the people who care the most and are spending their entire lives working on it, are not willing to make a simple change about what they eat. That drives me mad because we are almost all activists of privilege. Obviously, there's many activists who are not, but the fact that we can't change our own diets at a climate event enrages me to the point I can barely go on. But what gives me hope is that the other question, the famous look is optimistic. Yeah, well, it is a little hard to be optimistic right now about the world, I think, because of all the you know, and I'm from the United States, this is a really bad time in the US. It is. I never dreamed in my wildest dreams that we would be in this nightmare that we're in, in the US. I mean, it is shameful and horrific and we don't know what to do, and we don't know how to make it stop. And, you know, and so we plug along. And the beautiful part of for my life is I have this amazing family and, and they have, you know, not only used their platform but helped me have a platform. And that really makes me feel optimistic meeting all these fans, you know. Seeing them take the change that make the change that does make me feel, you know, like we have a chance. I think learning about all the things that do exist, how, you know, we all I think I wonder about the tipping point, you know, knowing the fact that the tipping point is one of those things you kind of can't know if you're almost there, right?
Tom: [00:46:46] Yeah. Yeah.
Maggie Baird: [00:46:47] Well, that's a weird thing about it, right? Like, you don't know that you could actually be there, even though it really feels like you're nowhere near it. So I have this kind of hope that, you know, when I see the arena here or the O2 go fully plant based and all the fans and I, I see no plastic water bottles in the venue and I see, you know, single use, let's say I feel optimistic about that. I mean, I think I am deeply an optimist, but I would say the fact that what we do is support and feed is also direct action, right? So we're addressing the climate crisis by providing nourishing plant based meals to community organizations, primarily in food apartheid. So we're trying to address a cultural idea about feeding people that we can do more with a meal. We can also address the climate. We can address human health. We can give someone a soul enriching meal. We can address local economy by paying a fair wage. So we're trying to address that intersectionality. But at the heart of what we do, we feed people and we provide cooking classes and education. But when you feed people every day, you make someone's life better. And that direct action and how many volunteers, how many people want to volunteer? And just that is the thing that I feel optimistic about, because I know that our human hearts are generous and people want to do something. And it's really more and more, again, about providing people with the tools and the ability to be a part of the solutions and strategies that I think is going to make the difference.
Tom : [00:48:17] Maggie, thank you so much. That's a lovely message.
Maggie Baird: [00:48:20] I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me.
Tom : [00:48:26] We were very sorry not to have the two of you with us in Manchester for this conversation, but it was lovely to, uh, to sit and talk to to Maggie. What did you both take from listening to that interview?
Christiana : [00:48:35] I was delighted by two things. First, the fact that this family as a whole has decided to use its public facing platform for these kinds of environmental, not just messaging, but actually role modeling, because they perfectly well could not have done that. So I think it is really fantastic to see that the whole family is doing this. And I was also really taken by the fact that she is just so down to earth, so humble. I mean, yeah, she is the mother of of Billie and Finneas, but she could be, you know, the fantastic woman walking down the street in front of my house. There is no sense of arrogance. There's no sense of, I don't know, supreme positioning there at all. It's just such a down to earth conversation from a very sincere, honest person. I was delighted with the tone of the conversation in addition to the content.
Paul: [00:49:39] It reminds me, actually, Christiane, a little bit of the Stella McCartney thing in reverse, where you know somebody in their own right who has a big career, Stella McCartney, and is very interested in sort of, you know, reducing use of animal products in clothing. And I think it was during the interview towards the end or afterwards that you discovered that she had a famous father, you know. So there are these there are these. It's really interesting to think about that. But there was another thing where great people were talking about trust, you know, in social media. That was a great conversation and how trust comes about. And that phrase, I'm pretty sure Billy's mum wouldn't lie to me. You know, this idea.
Tom: [00:50:12] That that was so powerful that.
Paul: [00:50:13] We sort of know it's a really sweet phrase. There is also, separately, another mentioned two eco villages, which is kind of close to my heart concept within the context of a sort of epidemic of loneliness that people are sort of suffering and thinking about, not just food. As this absolutely critical, foundational aspect of how we respond to climate change and, you know, reducing meat from diets, reducing the land area that's allocated to agriculture, thereby because it's so inefficient, but then also thinking about, well, you know, how people eat together and how we build community around what we eat is all extremely interesting. I had a delightful dinner in a vegetarian restaurant last night, and there is a slightly different vibe, to be honest, in a vegetarian restaurant I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's rather magical. So yeah, there's so much that she expresses and just this idea of using your, your platform, your family's platform to obviously do the incredible thing that you do. You know, she's an actress, a daughter, you know, a musician, entertainers of massive scale. To to touch upon another. Theme that's close to the heart. So it's almost kind of like. Rather than like you do activity A and then at the weekends you use a bit of money and fame to do activity Z, you kind of link them. And I think that's the genius really that I got from point.
Christiana : [00:51:29] Good point. Yeah.
Paul: [00:51:30] What about you, Tom? How did you know? I mean, you seem to have a wonderful chemistry.
Tom : [00:51:33] Yeah. No, I've known her for a while, and I have a lot of a lot of respect for her. And that authenticity that you talked about, Cristiano, I think is very much an evident and is is very impressive. I think that one of the things that it always makes me think about, when you see people who are willing to use their platforms in the way that they are, is why that's not more common in the world, and how different we could be if actually there were more people with culturally relevant platforms really using them with authenticity and integrity to try to create a better future. And it was interesting to hear her talk about, you know, the circular firing squad of the left, the fact that you need to kind of have these kinds of purity testing of, do you have the right to have a voice and all these other different pieces, and I think they've worked really hard to ensure, you know, the plant based concerts, the travelling with, with limited emissions as best they can, the merchandise they provide. But of course, it's always going to be imperfect. And I think one of the things that she was talking around there is I don't quite mean this, but in a way the least interesting thing about Billie Eilish and Finneas and that whole process is the emissions that come from the concerts. The most interesting thing is the 200 million people that follow and the ability to create a moment of cultural change. And yet we've gotten ourselves into a position where, even though they are willing to step in and lead, most artists are not. If you speak to most musicians, I mean, we talked to Ellie Goulding ages ago, she said. Every time I tweet about climate change, I lose 10,000 followers. And actually we haven't created a context in which, you know, culturally relevant figures can speak out and feel like it builds their identity and it builds their relevance in the world. And I would love to think more deeply about how we can change that, because I think it's a missed opportunity for all of us.
Christiana : [00:53:15] And it brings me back, Tom, to your fantastic momentum versus perfection episodes, because it is such a missed opportunity, as you say, for so many people to just throw themselves into the perfection bucket. Either it's perfect or it's terrible. Without pausing for a second and doing some self-reflection and honestly answering this question. Am I perfect, right? Yeah. It is simply a physical fact that just by being a human being, we have emissions. It's simply a fact. And of course, there are many who have so much more emissions than the average person, and they have therefore much more opportunity to reduce their emissions. But nobody is perfect. No one. And what we should all be called to and committed to, is to be on a constant improvement path with regard to our environmental responsibility from wherever we start.
Paul: [00:54:25] And culture changes. And I have said this before, so if people would like to complain, I'll stop repeating things. But 50 years ago, in 1974, there were 200 people on the Gay pride march in London, and it was on the front page of every newspaper. And in 2025, there were 200,000 people on the Gay pride march in London. And it's not reported in any newspaper. So things change. And leadership involves different stages and and changing a culture that is a painful process. And I think so much of Ellie Goulding losing her 10,000 followers. But there's a part of me believes she'll get 100,000 more when the when the music has changed a little.
Tom : [00:55:05] I agree with all of that. I also think the other thing which strikes me about it is the sort of what did you do to give you the right to have a platform is, first of all, a very reductionist narrative. And it's always about what did you do in the past? Whereas what can we do to change the future is a forward looking conversation. And I think the interesting thing becomes the forward looking. How do we build momentum? What can we do now rather than how do we pick apart what's happened until this point, and which is why it feels more generative and exciting when you can look further forward?
Paul: [00:55:34] I mean, there was a very old conflict that I'm not even going to bother talking about, but I heard two people each arguing with each other, saying they knew more about the history of the conflict. And I and I knew that that was never going to go anywhere. We have to look towards the future and the opportunities rather than argue over the past and and what's gone wrong.
Tom: [00:55:53] Yeah.
Tom : [00:55:54] Wonderful. All right. Lovely to be back with you. Nice to see you both. We will be back next week. Thanks for joining us this week. See you soon.
Christiana and Paul: [00:56:01] Bye. See you next week.
Your hosts

