0:00

And although there are Peter Mans bridge

0:02

here, this is your encore Wednesday edition

0:04

of The Bridge. We go back more

0:06

than a year to March of Twenty

0:08

Twenty Three, when Catherine Hey Ho was

0:11

our guest. Professor. Catherine

0:13

Hey Ho as a Canadian

0:15

atmospheric scientist living in Texas

0:17

and is one of North

0:20

America's leading academics talking about

0:22

climate change. She's com reasonable.

0:25

But. Still passionate about what she

0:27

does. So. Why?

0:29

Don't We listen To this? Enjoy!

0:38

A rumor

0:41

aluminum alloy.

0:44

They're welcome to another new week

0:46

where we're headed towards April will

0:48

be in April by the end

0:50

of the week. We

0:53

can talk about climate change. Today Last

0:55

week that new report came down. I

0:58

was pretty pessimistic. Final

1:00

warning was the kind of headline come

1:02

on out of that new report from

1:04

the you when. I

1:07

was frustrated by it all on sort of throughout

1:09

my and so I'm tired of talking about this.

1:14

I'm. A believer on climate change,

1:17

Have been for twenty years. And

1:20

damn, I don't have room for.

1:23

Denialism. On. That

1:26

I was frustrated. I've

1:28

talked about it, I've done documentaries on the

1:31

written articles on it. I don't a lotta

1:33

different things on. And

1:35

that report just said to me. Ah,

1:39

The. Start limits on mouse. Will

1:41

you didn't like that idea He said

1:43

no, no no no no, we're gonna

1:45

talk about it. Oh.

1:48

And he wanted me to find somebody new to talk

1:50

to about it. So that's what I've done. And

1:53

a couple of minutes time. i

1:56

will bring up person on board and have a

1:58

good little conversation But

2:01

I want to talk about something else, in a

2:03

way it's kind of related, just as an opener

2:05

for today, something to provoke

2:09

some thought. I

2:11

can tell you when I travel a country,

2:13

either physically

2:16

or virtually, one

2:18

of the most common questions I get in the

2:21

talks that I give is,

2:26

why is the news so negative? Why

2:30

is negative news always news? Why

2:33

the bad things always the

2:35

news stories? And

2:37

that's a pretty common question and

2:39

a lot of journalists get

2:41

that. And

2:44

there's kind of two common

2:47

answers. There's

2:50

the one where

2:52

you say, listen, most

2:54

news is bad news. That's why

2:56

it's news. Things go

2:58

wrong. Our world has changed. That's

3:05

news. And

3:07

the other point of view is, we

3:10

don't just cover negative news, we don't just

3:12

cover bad news. Sure, there's good

3:14

news as well. We do good news. It's

3:17

usually lower in the program, in

3:19

a newscast or in the

3:21

back pages of a paper. But

3:23

sometimes it's the story, it's the

3:25

main story. It's

3:28

the wins at something. Those

3:33

stories happen too. But listen, let's

3:36

be real, most news is

3:38

bad news because it is news. It's

3:41

what's different. It's what's changed about the day. Well,

3:49

the other thing is, is that what people

3:51

actually want to hear? In spite of what

3:54

is happening when

3:56

I travel the country, and

3:59

the question is, I Yeah. Do.

4:01

People actually want to be driven

4:03

by. Negative. News. Well.

4:07

As a new study out by the name and lot. Now

4:12

nina name is a big word

4:14

in journalism. They. Are

4:17

associate with Harvard University of

4:19

Massachusetts and. Name.

4:21

And Studies Journalism and

4:24

Studies Journalists. And

4:27

journalist Take. Courses

4:29

with the name and school at Harvard.

4:34

Well. They've got

4:36

a greater website am I encourage you

4:39

to look. If you're interested

4:41

in the story to look for the

4:43

full details on it but you can

4:45

reach the name and lab. At

4:47

In I E M A N. Lab.

4:51

Dot. Org. And.

4:53

Travel through that. Site

4:56

and you'll find this story

4:58

headlined negative words in news

5:00

headlines. Generate

5:02

more clicks, But

5:05

sad words are more effective than

5:07

angry or scary wants. Us

5:11

to see was going. This is

5:13

calling shifting the blame not a

5:15

journalist Wall is that this is

5:17

what you want. Are.

5:21

You a couple interesting. Points.

5:24

In this before I get to the.

5:27

The main part. It starts

5:29

off with a couple of sentences like

5:32

this may be as big as journalists

5:34

are naturally drawn to aberrations, and those

5:36

tend to be more bad than good.

5:38

After all, a flight landing safely isn't

5:40

a story, but one crashing into the

5:42

ocean serious as the old. The

5:45

old argument, right? There

5:48

are lots of. Planes. Taking off

5:50

and landing everyday. Thousands. tens of

5:52

thousands. Hundreds of thousands around

5:54

the world. just look at you know

5:56

one of those serve. apps

5:58

plane live is a good one. It'll show

6:00

you all the planes in the air at

6:03

any one time around the world. And you

6:06

can zero in on individual planes, find out what they are

6:09

so when you're looking up in the sky you see a

6:11

plane go over and go wonder where that's going you can

6:13

find it easy. Anyway there are

6:15

thousands of planes in the sky and you know 99.9999% of

6:18

them take off from land without event.

6:27

Anyway the story goes on. Maybe it's

6:29

because reporters see themselves as watchdogs tasked

6:32

with identifying malfeasance, corruption,

6:35

discrimination and other social

6:37

problems that need fixing. A

6:41

government program working well isn't

6:43

as exciting as a mayor taking

6:45

money under the table. Heck

6:49

maybe it's because the world is just

6:51

inherently a dark and depressing place, a

6:54

theory that past decade or

6:56

so seems to endorse. Anyway

7:00

this study actually gets to the numbers and

7:05

I'm not gonna read it all obviously because it's quite

7:07

detailed but I've pointed you in the

7:10

direction if you want to. But

7:14

here's what it kind of concludes. Add

7:16

a negative word to your headline, words

7:19

like harm, heartbroken,

7:22

ugly, troubling, angry

7:24

and you get 2.3% more

7:27

clicks on average.

7:30

Okay people clicking into your

7:32

story. Adding

7:34

a positive word like

7:37

benefit, laughed, pretty, favorite,

7:39

kind does the opposite

7:43

and keeps people from clicking.

7:48

You buy into that? I think

7:52

it's probably true. I'm

7:55

sure it's true. Listen they've got the data. They

7:58

studied all kinds of stories. thousands of

8:02

stories and that's what they found. So

8:07

there's a new answer for me

8:10

to go beyond just the,

8:12

hey, bad news is news or

8:15

we also cover good news. So

8:18

now I also, as I said, I can

8:21

shift the blame a little bit. This is

8:23

what you want. Say

8:26

what you will, but you're

8:29

attracted to those stories that

8:31

have some kind of negative pitch to them.

8:36

Okay. We're

8:41

going to talk climate change for a bit. I'm

8:45

trying to understand kind of where we

8:47

are, what we can do. Lots

8:52

of you sent in all

8:55

kinds of ideas on how to pursue this. I'm

8:58

looking for a general conversation, kind

9:01

of a starter. I'm toying

9:03

with the idea of doing some kind of regular thing

9:05

every once in a while. I

9:08

find it frustrating because progress

9:10

is so slow and that's

9:12

inherent in an issue like

9:14

this. It

9:18

does take time clearly. We're

9:21

talking decades, if not centuries

9:24

to get us to this position and

9:26

it's going to take us decades and perhaps

9:30

much longer to get us out of this

9:32

position. So

9:35

I was looking for that kind

9:38

of general discussion first of all, and

9:40

we're going to have it. But

9:42

first of all, let's

9:45

take a quick break and come back on

9:48

climate change. Thank

9:54

you. And

10:03

welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge,

10:05

the Monday episode on SiriusXM,

10:07

Channel 167, Canada Talks,

10:09

or on your favorite podcast platform. We're

10:11

launching a new week of The Bridge

10:13

this week and

10:16

are really happy to have you with

10:18

us. Okay. So

10:21

the topic, climate change.

10:24

The reason we're talking about it today is

10:26

just last week, there was a big UN

10:28

sponsored report, one

10:30

of a regular series of reports from

10:34

the Intergovernmental Panel

10:36

on Climate Change. And

10:38

it was, well,

10:41

it was depressing. You know,

10:43

it had this kind of, it's your

10:45

final warning, you better do something, you better do

10:47

it now, or we're all cooked, literally.

10:54

Which after many,

10:56

I think this was the seventh report over the last

10:59

few years, after

11:02

six of them that had been

11:04

heading us, you know, telling us, hey,

11:06

we got to do something. Here are the

11:08

targets and let's apply them. Well,

11:12

clearly this report says we

11:15

haven't. And it may be too late. So

11:21

I thought, okay, I got to find somebody

11:24

who can talk about this. It was recognized,

11:26

you know, around the world and the kind

11:28

of climate community as somebody

11:30

who's reasonable, somebody who's thoughtful,

11:33

somebody who isn't deep in the

11:37

negative side of all this, this still

11:39

has some optimism. And

11:43

so I talked to a number of people,

11:45

I came up with a

11:47

name and I had the world

11:49

at my, you know,

11:52

my beck and call. I'm not going

11:54

to call anybody. It doesn't mean they

11:56

do it, but I could call anybody.

11:59

But this is the person and I was pointed towards.

12:03

Her name is Catherine Hayhoe. She's a

12:05

professor at

12:08

Texas Tech University in,

12:11

that's right, Texas. She's

12:14

a Canadian. She

12:17

was educated

12:21

first at the University of Toronto, but then went

12:23

on to other

12:25

universities and courses in the United States.

12:28

She's recognized literally around the world.

12:31

She's often talked to by,

12:35

well, everybody, including

12:38

the, you know,

12:40

so-called power elite about

12:42

her thoughts on where we are and what needs

12:44

to be done. She

12:47

also has a successful newsletter. She

12:50

appears on everything from Jimmy

12:52

Kimmel to The Bridge. So

12:56

she's working her way up, you know, she went from

12:58

Kimmel to The Bridge. Anyway,

13:01

I reached out to her the

13:04

other day and she immediately said, you

13:07

know, she'd absolutely love to do it. Watched

13:11

you when I was a kid, you know, that line, that

13:16

always makes me, one feel old,

13:18

but one feel grateful for the opportunity. So

13:21

enough of a setup. Let's

13:23

get to Professor

13:26

Catherine Hayhoe and

13:28

our discussion that's generated, first of all, out

13:30

of, you know, last week's report. So

13:34

here we go. Professor

13:37

Catherine Hayhoe. How

13:40

surprised were you? I guess you probably weren't

13:43

surprised. You must have known what was coming

13:45

when the latest IPCC report came out, but

13:47

nevertheless, were you

13:49

surprised in a way that it sounded

13:51

so frustrating that we're really not getting

13:53

anywhere on climate change? I wasn't

13:57

surprised by the content of the report because

13:59

we scientists... have known these facts for a

14:01

very long time. And I

14:03

wasn't surprised, but I definitely noticed the

14:05

tone of the report because it

14:08

reflected how all of us have been feeling the

14:10

last few years. We

14:12

feel like we've just been tapping the

14:14

microphone asking, is it on? Because

14:16

no one has been listening to the warnings that

14:18

we have been issuing for over 30 years. So

14:22

when you say no one's listening, you're talking about every year,

14:25

you're these kind of generic everyone,

14:27

whether it's governments or individuals, is

14:29

that what you're saying? Well, that is

14:31

changing. The way that

14:33

we feel is not necessarily reflected

14:35

in public opinion. So it turns

14:38

out that the majority of people in Canada and

14:40

the United States and most other countries in the

14:42

world are indeed worried

14:44

about climate change. But

14:46

they also feel helpless and hopeless and

14:49

don't know what to do in a

14:51

world where our continued dependence on fossil

14:53

fuels means our carbon emissions just continue

14:56

to grow thanks to the choices of

14:58

folks who have the ability to make

15:00

that decision and the fact that

15:02

we have so many things competing for our attention that even

15:04

though most of us are worried about climate change, we're

15:06

also worried about so many other things that just

15:09

isn't getting the traction it needs to

15:12

make the changes that we have to today. So

15:14

how do we make it sound

15:17

more immediate? Because what we do

15:19

with these various reports that come

15:21

out is it saying,

15:23

if we haven't fixed this by 2030 or by 2050 or by the

15:25

end of the century,

15:29

all hell's going to break loose. How

15:32

do we make that sound more

15:34

immediate? Because that seems to be part of

15:36

the problem, right? Generation after generation sort of

15:38

says, well, I really worried

15:41

about this and I don't want to hand this

15:43

to my grandchildren, but quite frankly, it's not going

15:45

to impact me that much. Exactly.

15:48

And what you're describing is something

15:50

known as psychological distance. And

15:52

we humans are very prone to psychological distance

15:55

in many different areas. We don't

15:57

eat what we should, we don't say what we're told

15:59

to, we don't stand up and walk around every

16:01

30 minutes like we know that we should. With

16:04

climate change, every aspect of psychological

16:06

distance comes into play. Polling

16:09

shows that we view it as a future issue,

16:11

not a present issue. We view it as something

16:13

that affects people who live over there, not

16:15

people who live here. We view

16:17

it as an abstract issue, global average

16:19

temperature rather than what's happening where I

16:21

live. We don't even

16:24

view it as a relevant issue. We think it's

16:26

something that David Suzuki cares about and David Suzuki's

16:28

going to fix with some help from Greta and

16:30

maybe Al Gore, but it's not my

16:32

issue. How do we talk about it?

16:34

We have to talk about it now. We

16:37

have to talk about it here and we have to talk

16:39

about it in a way that's relevant to people. That's

16:42

a lot of what I do. I study

16:44

climate change where we live. If

16:47

I live in Toronto or if I live

16:49

in Dallas like I do now or in

16:51

Vancouver or Halifax or Yellowknife, what

16:54

has already happened where I live? How

16:56

is climate change making the heat waves or

16:58

the wildfires or the heavy rainfall events that

17:01

I have lived through worse? What

17:04

is something tangible that I can do with

17:07

my family, with my school, with my place

17:09

of work, with my city, with my church?

17:11

What's something tangible I could do to make

17:13

a difference? That's how

17:15

we start to catalyze change. How

17:18

do you convince people? We've all

17:20

seen the awful natural disasters that

17:22

have happened on our continent. That's

17:24

in the last couple of years,

17:27

whether it's forest fires or

17:29

tornadoes or storms or flooding or you name

17:31

it. There's been lots of it. How

17:34

do you convince people that, hey,

17:37

this is because you're

17:40

putting gas in your car or whatever

17:42

the fossil fuel equivalent

17:44

is of your own

17:46

particular lifestyle. How do you

17:48

convince them of that when they say, well,

17:51

there have always been floods? The

17:54

way to convince people to start with what they say.

17:56

Whenever I talk about extreme events, I say, well, I'm

17:58

going to do this. So I always

18:01

start by saying, of course, we've

18:03

always had sleds, waves,

18:05

droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, and other

18:07

disasters. You know, there was Hurricane

18:09

Hazel that hit Toronto in the 1950s. We've

18:13

always had these events before, but today

18:15

they're getting worse. And

18:17

climate change is making them worse at super

18:20

sizing them, like a baseball

18:22

player on steroids. And often at

18:24

this point today, I would stop and ask people, what

18:26

have you noticed? How long have you lived in the

18:29

place you've lived? Oh, not that long. Well, where did you live

18:31

before? So what have you noticed

18:33

in that place? How have things changed? And today,

18:36

almost everyone has a story

18:38

about how they have seen things changing. So

18:41

what's the best story you've heard on

18:45

that particular front? Oh

18:47

my goodness. So I live in

18:49

Texas now, and Texas has the

18:51

most climate and weather disasters of

18:53

any US state. So

18:55

when I ask my students or when I'm speaking

18:58

to a group, you know, at the Rotary

19:00

Club or Women's Club here in Texas, I

19:02

typically ask them, what's your weather story? And

19:05

I hear stories of dust

19:07

storms so dark that you

19:09

couldn't even see two feet in

19:11

front of your face, or hurricanes

19:13

so severe that people were sitting on

19:15

their roofs, or droughts

19:17

so terrible that they had to sell off

19:19

their entire herd of cattle. And

19:22

even though people have lived through this in

19:24

the past, when I ask, do you feel

19:26

like things are changing? Are they getting weirder?

19:29

People often say, yes, that's

19:31

exactly what's happening. There's

19:33

something different today, and that opens the door

19:35

to talk about what's happening here and now,

19:37

not over there, and talking about

19:40

what we can do in terms of building resilience,

19:43

as well as reducing our impact on the actual

19:45

problem. Well, talk to

19:47

me about what we can do as

19:49

individuals. You know, I

19:52

remember when you were on Jimmy Kimmel, it

19:54

was a year or two years ago, and

19:56

you said, talk about it. So that's been

19:58

happening, and you just gave. us an indication

20:00

of how people talk about it when you

20:03

speak with them. But beyond

20:05

talking about it, what do we

20:07

do? So

20:09

this is something that I had to ask myself because

20:12

when I started to speak to people

20:14

about climate change who were interested

20:17

and curious, and when I started

20:19

to explain how it's affecting us here and now,

20:21

then the next obvious question was, well, what should I do

20:24

about it? So I thought, well, you know, obviously I've changed

20:26

my light bulbs. You can too. I drive

20:28

a plug-in car. You could consider that too.

20:30

But I crunched the numbers and I realized that

20:33

I'm individual choices, I can ask. Because

20:36

so much of this power is in

20:38

the hands of corporations. You

20:41

know, 90 corporations are responsible for

20:43

70% of our cumulative carbon

20:45

emissions since the dawn of the industrial

20:47

era. This past year, all the

20:50

major oil and gas companies from Ramco to

20:52

BP to Shell made record profits. Fossil

20:55

fuel subsidies increased from $11 million per minute in

20:57

2021 to $16 million per minute in

21:02

2022. And so our deciding

21:05

even to put solar panels on our roof and to

21:07

drive a plug-in car and to, you

21:09

know, eat more plants, that is not going

21:11

to fix the problem. So then

21:14

I thought, well, is there any way we can?

21:16

And I started to look back in history and I realized

21:18

our society has changed. It's

21:21

changed in some very significant ways. When

21:23

you look at what ended slavery, how women

21:25

got the vote, civil rights

21:28

in the US, the end of apartheid in

21:30

South Africa, it was

21:32

never because the wealthy

21:34

influential people, the presidents or prime

21:37

ministers or CEOs just woke up

21:39

one morning and decided that things had

21:41

to be different. It was because

21:43

very ordinary people did something very powerful.

21:45

And that is that they painted a

21:48

vision of a better future and they

21:50

called for the action we need to

21:52

achieve that future. And I'm convinced that

21:54

we can do that again today. And

21:56

that does truly begin with the conversation,

21:58

not just about how bad it is

22:00

or why it matters, but about what we

22:02

together collectively can do. Okay,

22:05

I've got a couple of questions

22:07

on that. I mean, I hear

22:10

what you're saying, but at the same

22:12

time, I'm hearing you recite numbers that

22:14

haven't changed, right? Even

22:17

though people are speaking the way you're saying

22:19

they need to speak and,

22:21

you know, to demand change. They

22:25

aren't though. I don't think they are. You

22:27

don't think they are? No,

22:29

in fact, going further into the

22:32

public opinion information, most people are

22:34

worried about climate change, but polling

22:36

they've done in the United States

22:39

shows that most people are silent

22:41

on the issue. They're

22:43

worried that they don't know what to

22:45

do. And if we don't know what to do, why

22:47

would you want to talk about something that just depresses

22:49

you out of your mind? So nobody's talking about it.

22:51

And when the media talks about it, the

22:53

media is talking about the big global goals,

22:56

which are abstract rather than concrete.

22:59

They're talking about the polar bears over there.

23:01

They're talking about the floods over there in that

23:03

other place. And they're not talking about what we

23:05

can do to fix it. The vast majority of

23:07

media coverage is all about the doom filled

23:09

stories that make people worried and people are

23:11

worried, mission accomplished. But there's

23:14

not nearly as much connecting what I think

23:16

of as our head to our heart, how

23:18

it matters to me here and now. And

23:20

there's almost nothing connecting our heart to our

23:22

hands talking about, hey, these people over there,

23:24

they're already doing this. Maybe we could do

23:26

this too. What about that school or that

23:29

business? They're already doing that. What about our

23:31

family? What about our city? Really

23:33

understanding what we could do. Those conversations

23:35

are not happening as though

23:38

they're just starting to. I feel like this last

23:40

year I have seen evidence they're starting, but we

23:42

need them more and we need them everywhere. A

23:45

couple of my listeners have written

23:47

to me suggesting that I

23:50

should use my podcast for every week or

23:52

every couple of weeks to do a sort

23:54

of what can you do to affect

23:57

change. And I think about that.

24:00

think how long would that

24:02

last? Like how many things

24:04

are there that we could talk about that can affect

24:06

change on the kind of scale that's going to be

24:08

needed? I asked

24:11

myself that question too and last April

24:13

I started a newsletter, I've

24:15

never done that before, that has

24:18

three sections and of

24:20

course it's about climate change. The first section

24:22

is good news and I was worried I was going

24:24

to run out of good news. The second section is

24:26

not so good news because we do need

24:28

to know what's happening, we can't hide our

24:30

heads in the sand and then the last

24:32

section was what we as individuals can do and

24:34

I can tell you I have good news piled

24:36

up so high I'm thinking of doubling and tripling up

24:39

on it and in terms of what

24:41

we can do it's been every week since April, last April

24:43

and I haven't run out yet. That's

24:46

impressive, you must have quite

24:49

the global listening audience or reading

24:51

audience to what it is you

24:53

have to say. What do you say to those who

24:57

think they

24:59

believe, okay? They believe that we

25:01

have a huge issue that has

25:04

to be addressed and

25:06

they're willing to do things and yet they see

25:08

their governments who talk a good game failing

25:13

year after year to meet their targets,

25:15

in some cases come anywhere near their targets

25:18

and they say well if they aren't doing it why

25:21

should I do it? I'm just a small cog in

25:23

the wheel, they're the big ones. So

25:28

during the Trump years in the United States, as you

25:31

know, he announced that he was

25:33

going to be pulling out of the Paris agreement and he

25:35

did so as soon as he could, not that it mattered

25:37

when he actually did it because the government wasn't doing anything

25:39

in the meantime and during

25:41

that time a number of

25:43

businesses, cities, states,

25:46

tribal nations, universities got together

25:48

and they said we are still in on the

25:50

Paris agreement and that included

25:52

cities like Houston which is the center of the oil and

25:54

gas industry in the United States and

25:56

so they set their own goals and they reduced

25:58

their own emissions. And by the end of

26:00

the Trump administration, 60% of the

26:04

US emissions were

26:07

controlled by or people were responsible

26:09

for, 60% of those emissions were

26:12

on track to be reduced to the

26:14

Paris goals. So it is not

26:16

only what happens at the national level. In fact, in

26:18

my opinion, I think in many cases what happens at the

26:20

national level is the last change. That

26:22

change has to occur at every level. And how

26:24

do we change a system, a system made of

26:26

people? Speaking

26:29

of that, I don't know whether it's

26:31

true, you'd know whether it's true, but

26:34

let's talk about Alberta and Texas, right?

26:37

Considered the big oil producing areas

26:39

and surely they are. But

26:42

they're also pretty big on alternative

26:44

energy programs. Doesn't Texas have a

26:46

huge wind farm area? Big

26:49

on windmills? Oh yes, Texas

26:52

has double the wind and solar

26:54

energy of any other state, including

26:56

California. They've been number one in

26:58

wind production for well over

27:00

a decade. They weren't even on

27:02

the top 10 list for solar 10 years ago

27:04

and now they're going to overtake California I think

27:07

during this year, probably sometime this summer.

27:10

What's driving that? What's driving that? Is

27:12

that people or is that state

27:14

legislators or legislators who feel

27:16

they got to do something? No,

27:19

it's not state legislators who want to address climate

27:21

change who are driving wind in Texas. I

27:23

can tell you that. So who is? But what

27:26

is it? It's a combination of a

27:28

couple of things. First of all, Texas

27:30

has its own power grid and it

27:32

will build out to your installation rather

27:34

than forcing a new wind or solar farm

27:36

to build into the grid. So that was

27:38

already set up long ago and then

27:41

you have a lot of entrepreneurs who realize

27:43

that this situation was ideal for bringing solar

27:45

and wind onto the grid in a state

27:47

that has a lot of sun and a lot

27:50

of wind all the time. So there are

27:52

certainly people, and I know quite a few

27:54

of these people, who are deliberately investing in

27:57

solar and wind because they know it's a clean energy

27:59

source. There are also people who are investing

28:01

it because they know it's the energy of the future and there's

28:03

nothing wrong with that. But no,

28:05

the state is going to be the last to change

28:07

in my opinion in Texas. In

28:09

Alberta, you know, there are huge wind

28:11

farms in Alberta too, especially in the

28:14

kind of southwest area. And

28:17

they dominate in some areas of

28:19

energy production in Alberta, which, you

28:21

know, most Canadians go, are you

28:23

kidding, really? But it is

28:26

happening or it has happened already. Talk

28:28

to me about the corporations because

28:30

obviously you have a B in

28:33

your bonnet, as they say, about

28:35

what corporations have been doing on

28:37

this front. And yet at the

28:39

same time, they push out, or at least some of them

28:41

push out, communications

28:43

that suggest they're

28:45

coming around. And in some cases, they've come

28:48

around quite a bit on this. They

28:50

understand what's at stake and

28:52

they're trying to make change. You

28:55

buy that? There are some

28:57

corporations that are definitely doing that. And

29:00

why I mention companies is because much of

29:02

the world runs today, our economy runs on

29:04

money. And often

29:07

government policies reflect what large

29:09

corporations, not just in

29:11

the energy sector, but in ag and manufacturing,

29:13

what they lobby for. That's just the reality

29:15

of the world we live in. So

29:18

on the other end of the spectrum, we

29:20

do see companies who are taking this issue

29:22

very seriously, who are setting what's called science-based

29:24

targets. Which is

29:27

a science-based analysis of their emissions

29:29

and what they need to do

29:31

to reduce them in order to meet the targets

29:33

of the Paris Agreement. So it's

29:36

not just companies like Patagonia,

29:38

which famously gave

29:40

their entire corporation to the planet,

29:42

but these

29:44

like Netflix, companies

29:47

like Unilever.

29:50

I've talked to companies like, and certainly these companies

29:52

have a long way to go in terms of

29:54

water usage and things like that, but companies

29:57

like Nestle, for example, are taking this very

29:59

seriously. They're hiring. and sustainability people at

30:01

all kinds of different organizations and

30:03

companies to really recognize that there's

30:05

no profit on a dead planet.

30:08

That penny is starting to drop. And so the

30:11

societal change we need is starting. And

30:13

the reason it's starting is because people have

30:15

started to talk about not only why this matters

30:17

but what we can do about it, but we

30:19

need those conversations to be happening everywhere. What

30:23

about companies like Shell or Exxon

30:25

or the big energy, the big

30:27

oil and gas companies? Are

30:29

you seeing any movement there? They

30:32

have been talking and they

30:34

have been acknowledging the problem, but

30:36

they're doing things like Shell

30:39

and BP made record profits this past

30:41

year, but in

30:44

Exxon and Aramco too, but they're slashing

30:46

their biofuel and

30:49

green energy programs. They

30:51

are changing their 2030 carbon

30:54

emission goals to make

30:56

them. They're slashing them in half. They're

30:59

saying this matters, but they're not

31:01

actually taking the actions that

31:03

would speak louder than words. And

31:05

that is really the problem that we have. And

31:08

ultimately, change has to happen. It has to

31:10

happen at every level. And I don't know how

31:12

else it's going to change other than people putting

31:14

that influence on the

31:16

organizations that need to change. And that influence can be exerted

31:18

in many ways. People who work

31:21

for companies, people who hold shares in

31:23

the companies, people who develop the policy

31:25

for those companies and even the general public,

31:28

things have changed before. And when we

31:30

change ourselves, I feel

31:33

like that's where often we just don't have a sense

31:35

of efficacy. That's a word I've run into a lot,

31:37

a sense that I don't think

31:39

that what I do can make a difference. And I don't

31:41

think that what we do can make a difference. And so

31:44

when we talk about what we can do, I found

31:46

that the best way to talk about that is not

31:48

to talk about what we could do in the future, but

31:51

to talk about what somebody else

31:53

is already doing and

31:56

in a relatable way. They're not like a

31:58

major social media. the influencer

32:00

with millions of followers, they're not the

32:02

CEO of a huge major international corporation,

32:05

they're just a person that

32:07

we can relate to and here's what they're doing. If they're

32:09

doing that, I could do that too. Here's

32:12

one for you. I

32:14

got a couple of letters last week after

32:17

I talked about the frustrations of the IPCC

32:20

report where I admitted,

32:22

you know, listen, I'm in Scotland right now

32:24

as we talk because one of the reasons

32:27

I come here is I write my books,

32:29

I feel, you know, it's

32:31

kind of a remote area where I am

32:33

and it's just easier for me. Plus, I

32:35

have a connection to the

32:38

British office, I was born here. But

32:41

I didn't swim here, you know, I

32:43

got on a plane and came here. I

32:47

assumed that when you go home

32:49

to, is it Holmes, BC? Is

32:51

that fair? No, Toronto. Toronto?

32:54

I assume if you go from Texas to Toronto, you're

32:58

not walking, you're not driving,

33:00

you're flying. Not biking.

33:03

So how do you feel about that? I

33:05

mean, because that is one of the criticisms

33:07

we get, right? When we're talking about

33:09

climate change and say, well, you're still getting on a

33:12

plane, you're still, you know, burning oil

33:15

and it's, you know, and what have you,

33:17

it's going into the atmosphere. You're

33:19

an atmosphere scientist. How

33:22

do you respond to that when somebody says that to you? Well,

33:26

about 15 years ago, I stepped on the carbon

33:28

scale because I figured I was starting to tell people

33:31

they should measure their carbon footprint, so I should too.

33:34

And that was where I discovered that flying was

33:36

the biggest part of my personal carbon

33:38

footprint. And

33:40

not flying to see family,

33:42

but flying to scientific conferences,

33:45

flying to events to talk about climate

33:47

change, the irony was

33:49

inescapable. So I

33:51

decided back then, and this is long

33:53

before COVID, that I was going

33:55

to deliberately try to transition at least

33:58

80% of the events that I did. did

34:00

to online events. And

34:02

back then, I figured out, OK,

34:05

where do I find a microphone? What programs

34:07

do I use? This is not COVID time.

34:09

This is long before. Zoom didn't even exist

34:11

in those days. It was Skype and maybe

34:13

a couple of other programs. And

34:15

people didn't do virtual talks back in those days. And

34:17

so when I would get an invitation to give a

34:19

seminar at a university, and I would say, I'm sorry,

34:22

I cannot fly to give a

34:24

single hour-long presentation. And

34:26

could I give it virtually? There would be a

34:28

lot of head scratching and a few

34:30

no's. But a lot of people would say, well, we've

34:33

never done it before. We'll give it a try once

34:35

with the idea that I'm sure it's just going to fall flat

34:37

in its face. And we're never going to do this again, but we could say

34:39

that we tried. And I

34:41

would explain why, too. I would say, as a

34:43

climate scientist, I cannot fly somewhere for a single

34:45

hour. So I successfully

34:48

started to do that. And I started to

34:50

get great comments like, wow, I thought it

34:52

was going to be horrible. And it was actually just

34:54

fine. And

34:56

I used tools like Poll Everywhere to poll

34:58

my audience and incorporate their feedback into my

35:01

presentation. So we felt like we were interacting

35:03

with each other. And then when

35:05

I do travel in person, I started

35:07

to bundle. I

35:09

did the math on how much

35:12

carbon I would burn if I drove about one

35:14

or two hours from where I lived in my

35:16

little hatchback, which is a hybrid at that time.

35:19

And I figured, OK, if I'm going to fly to Washington,

35:21

DC, I need these many

35:23

events to be the

35:26

equivalent of just taking a day drive

35:28

to go do that event. And

35:30

bundling takes quite a lot of time. When I went

35:33

to Alaska, it took about a year and a half

35:35

to create the bundle to go to Alaska. And I

35:38

ended up doing 29 events in six

35:40

and a half days. I'm

35:43

telling you, every ounce of that carbon counted. And

35:45

I even did the math. If

35:47

only eight people that I spoke to on that

35:49

trip, and I spoke to hundreds of people, probably

35:51

thousands, because I spoke at every major university, I

35:53

spoke to city council, community groups. If

35:56

only eight people decided to personally

35:58

cut their carbon emissions. 10%

36:01

of the result of hearing me, that would cover the

36:03

carbon of my flight. So

36:06

it isn't about

36:08

living like a hermit if I want to change

36:10

the world. I have to interact with people, but

36:12

I want to make everything count. So even when

36:14

I go see family, which I do, I make

36:16

sure that I make the most of that. And

36:19

I've become increasingly convinced actually in the last few

36:21

years that for those of us

36:23

who spend most of our time focusing on

36:25

the climate crisis, spending

36:27

time with people we

36:29

love in the places we love, doing

36:31

the things that we love is absolutely

36:34

essential because that's what we're fighting for. Last

36:38

question. You've been extremely generous with your

36:40

time and I really appreciate it. But here's the last

36:42

question and it's sort of pointing

36:44

towards or hoping for some kind of

36:47

hope or optimism out of this conversation.

36:49

Tell me about a country

36:52

or an area in the world that

36:55

we could look at and say, you know, if

36:58

we did that, you know, if

37:00

our governments or our city councils

37:02

or what have you and we

37:04

as individuals were like that, it

37:07

would make a difference. Is

37:09

there somewhere that you can look at and say that? Yes,

37:13

absolutely. And you're sitting in one

37:15

of those places. So

37:17

Scotland is already and has been

37:20

for a number of years almost

37:22

entirely powered by clean energy in

37:24

terms of electricity. Costa

37:27

Rica hit that goal before Scotland

37:29

did. The country of

37:31

Bhutan is actually carbon negative because

37:34

they planted so many trees they take up more carbon

37:36

than the citizens produce. We've

37:40

seen changes already happening that make

37:42

big metro areas easier for people

37:44

to navigate on foot or on

37:46

bicycle instead of on car. We've

37:50

seen changes in regenerative agriculture

37:52

where farmers can grow the

37:54

food and the crops that we need while

37:57

putting carbon back in the ground instead

37:59

of producing carbon. When we

38:01

look around, there is actually hope everywhere

38:03

when we take the time to go

38:06

find it, track it down, collect

38:08

it, and share it. And

38:10

when we realize the changes that are already happening

38:12

in this world, the only question I have at

38:14

this point is, what are we waiting for? Well,

38:19

you know, I was frustrated last

38:21

week and I was frustrated up until the time

38:23

we talked. I'm a little less

38:25

frustrated now, especially with that last answer. It gives

38:27

us something to shoot for, so let's hope we

38:29

can. Catherine

38:32

Hale, it's really been great to talk to

38:34

you. I appreciate your time and take care.

38:36

I'm sure we'll talk again. Thank

38:39

you so much, Peter. So

38:42

there you go. There was our

38:45

promised conversation and I know for some of

38:47

you it won't be enough. For

38:50

others it'll be too much. But

38:53

for me, it felt just right.

38:55

That's a nice starter if we're going

38:57

to do more on climate change in

38:59

the weeks and months ahead.

39:02

And that was this week's Encore edition

39:05

of The Bridge. Catherine Hale, our guest

39:07

from March of last year on the

39:09

subject of climate change. Hope

39:12

you enjoyed it. We'll see you

39:14

tomorrow for your turn. Remember, your

39:16

turn tomorrow is your favorite teacher,

39:18

the one who had the most

39:21

impact on your life. Plus the

39:23

Random Rantor, as always, on Thursdays.

39:26

Bye for now.