Julia Pyper and Shane Skelton are two of the three cohosts of Political Climate, a bipartisan podcast on energy and environmental politics in America. Today, Julia and Shane join Ross to discuss how their show is working to normalize the conversation on climate change (on both sides of the aisle) and explore what’s behind the increasing polarization in DC and what role the media plays in perpetuating our political divisions.
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Hey everyone, welcome to season two of Reversing Climate Change. We are doing that podcast thing now and launching a Patreon. You can find it at patreon.com slash nori podcast. There are various tiers with different types of goodies available. Do you want to receive a special newsletter digest of what nori knots are reading that week? Be a part of a nori book club, get special access to nori events. Go take a look at patreon.com slash nori podcast for what we’re offering. And in that spirit of being lean in that startup kind of way that, you know, we like to do, this list of goodies is subject to change and we’d very much like your feedback.
Is there something that you’d really like to see but it isn’t listed here? Honest feedback does a lot to help us shape what we offer to you. You can send an email to podcast. nori.com or fill out our podcast survey anonymously in our newsletter which you can find at nori.com slash subscribe. And thank you so much for listening to another season of Reversing Climate Change. Hello and welcome to the Reversing Climate Change podcast. I’m Ross Kenyon. Today I have with me the co-host of the Political Climate podcast, Julia Piper and Shane Skelton.
No Brandon, though. We left him off. Do you think he’s going to be sad, Julia?
Julia Pyper: I do. I do. We are a bit of a trio, but I know that it’s a lot of voices to have on a single podcast, so we’ll do our best in representing him while he’s not here.
Ross Kenyon: There’s something about the latency of recording remotely like this. And the more voices you add, it becomes chaos. They require a lot of editing. So sorry, Brandon. Maybe we’ll have you on some other time. And hopefully your co-hosts do you well in your stead. Julia is co-host and producer of Political Climate, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and contributing editor at Greentech Media covering the global energy transition. And Shane is a co-founder and partner at S2C Pacific, an energy and environmental consultancy firm. Shane also previously worked with Paul Ryan as a counsel and policy advisor on the House Budget Committee.
So thanks both for being Thank you.
Shane Skelton: Thanks for having us. It’s kind of cool being on someone else’s pod. I’m excited to see where this goes.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, well, I like the show, Political Climate. I think it’s a unique type of show in this space. I don’t think there’s anyone else doing podcasting within the climate sector quite like you are. So what exactly is Political Climate supposed to achieve? What is it? How do you view this project that you’re working on together?
Julia Pyper: I’ll jump in and give a little overview and then Shane, of course, add your thoughts. But, you know, this podcast kind of started organically. We all knew each other out here in Los Angeles, having all previously lived in D. C. , not knowing each other at that point in time and having different experiences, me covering climate and energy policy on the Hill and around town. You know, Shane working on the Hill and Brandon in the administration as chief of staff the Department of Energy. And then, you know, people kind of find each other as they move to new cities.
And we started it as a Facebook Live video, which we now lovingly refer to as the hostage video. And now we’re continuing on that journey.
Shane Skelton: Yeah, it’s been really cool. I think, you know, part of the reason that I do it, I would say most of the reason that I do it is that I want to normalize this conversation on the right and the left. I mean, some feedback that we get is or that I get specifically is you don’t have a vote in the Senate. You’re not. Mitch McConnell. So your opinion doesn’t matter. It is true that I can’t generate an outcome amongst Republicans, but what I do think I can do is work with other like-minded people and just normalize this.
Once things become part of the common vernacular, you’re going to see people more willing to address climate to talk about it. Because if you recall 10 years ago, Republicans weren’t even willing to talk about climate. Even saying it made you a persona non grata. Now they’re having daily conversations about it, even if the policies they’re proposing Indeed. And the Schwarzenegger Institute, we’ve had Conyers Davis on the podcast before, and they’ve been very kind to us. When I think about Arnold Schwarzenegger and his sort of intellectual and political legacy, it is just trying to cross the aisle and be transpartisan.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I guess that kind of makes sense. I can see it fitting. Yeah. So that’s a useful project. I can see people reacting against this pretty strongly to where, Shane, as you were alluding to, even talking about climate change a decade ago in conservative circles might have written you off as a wacko. And the stakes seemingly have gone up on a number of issues such that it’s hard to even talk to one another. I’m sure you’ve faced this criticism before. What are you doing with it?
Shane Skelton: It’s absurd to me about platforming. I mean, I cannot possibly understand how if you as a community view an issue as incredibly important and worthy of extreme government action, that you would think that same important issue shouldn’t be subject. We talk offline a lot. I’ll have client issues. And call Brandon and say, Hey, I really, you know, I want to understand this. I don’t view the world this way, but here’s what I’m hearing. Can you help me make sense of that? I think the discussion is not just for entertainment purposes.
There’s actually a lot we can all learn from one another because I do think people are hardwired a certain way. There’s nature versus nurture, but I think people ultimately think the way they think, and it’s very difficult to change that. But if we can learn and understand why, maybe we can have a more productive discussion on how to reach solutions, even if it requires some compromise. So I think silencing people are saying that Republicans shouldn’t have a voice in this discussion. I don’t understand that at all, and I’m proud of what our show does, and I’m grateful for the Schwarzenegger Institute wanting to prop us up to do that.
Julia Pyper: Yeah. And if I’ll just add, you know, we don’t want to participate in balances bias when it comes to climate issues where you’re sort of giving undue weight to an opinion that is totally unfounded in, say, science, like climate denialism. And we don’t do that. Like both of our... Co-host Brandon and Shane acknowledge that there is a threat from climate change. The discussion comes down to how do you want to address it? And that’s where I think a variety of perspectives can be valid. Like we are about to have a show coming up where we speak to the top labor organizations.
And you can put that lower or higher on your list, but it is a valid topic. And by just saying it doesn’t fit into a certain set of So we’re trying to lean into those tricky and sticky elements of this dialogue and give them a platform, but not denialism and not ideas that are really harmful.
Ross Kenyon: I think that’s a very useful distinction. Do you think that you and your co-hosts share the same values and what you spend a lot of time discussing are maybe means of getting there? Or do you find that there are more substantive values-based discussions about what a society should look like that somehow get in the way?
Shane Skelton: I think we definitely, I can’t speak for Julia specifically because she does a pretty good job of staying moderator and not pushing too hard on any specific point of view. But I think for Brandon and I, we have very different values insofar as what we think. I think what we do really well and what I wish more people did well is we can accept that each other views the world differently and still try to have practical conversations about action that can be taken now and then action that’s aspirational. And you may get to the aspirational, you may not.
I mean, Brandon wants to get there much more quickly than I do on some of the stuff, not on all of it, of course. But I think that if you asked me, you know, King for a day to build the economy, it’d look a heck of a lot like it does right now. If you ask Brandon, it’d look a heck of a So certainly a big gap in what we think the world should look like, but a lot of overlap in at least steps that we think we can take based on the current construct to make climate change less of a threat or at least mitigate it to the extent possible with aggressive action.
Julia Pyper: I think the tension ultimately comes down to this pressure that I think we all feel to act swiftly based on climate science. And that’s where this tension comes down to is people saying that you cannot do half measures right now. You can’t take moderate steps. There’s just no space and no time for that. But that comes in conflict with just the way we’re seeing U. S. politics work right now, where it’s so hard to get anything passed. And so you have this tradeoff where do you risk doing nothing for another 10 years, nothing at all because half measures were not palatable?
Or do you take some of those early wins and see maybe clean energy markets grow, companies have stronger balance sheets, the economic case becomes stronger? And five years from now, you can have a bolder discussion about Because you set that groundwork earlier on. I understand that tension. And I think that tension is playing out into this media realm and who makes sense to talk to and what points are valid. But I don’t know, I just propose to be able to think that through of what they think the action should be.
And, you know, What’s valid to discuss right now? In our view, I think it’s all valid to at least discuss. And we can’t say what people should ultimately do. We are not policymakers. But our view is like, let’s bring it all to the table and figure it out from there and not shut anything down for not being the perfect solution because we don’t live in that world, unfortunately.
Ross Kenyon: That makes sense to me. I guess the mere image of this deplatforming phenomenon that has happened on the left is the right has, and Shane, correct me if you think I’m wrong about this, is that there has been solution aversion about climate change within conservative circles where the solutions that are Yeah.
Unknown speaker: She gets brought up in this every time it comes up.
Ross Kenyon: But I think there’s a tendency on the right to view climate action on the left as a Trojan horse for all the policies they always wanted. And look, it just so happens to also be very good at addressing climate change. It isn’t that convenient. And that’s sort of this. And then second of all, like what is happening now?
Shane Skelton: I think what you said is accurate. I mean, one thing that I like to talk about when people say, you know, you can’t take half measures and all that sort of stuff is, you know, there’s like a basic communication skill, which we’ve all learned at some point in our life was like, you can say yes, but or yes, and, and I just don’t get when even, you know, some of these Republican proposals aren’t enough to solve the problem. Why not just say yes, and rather than like, Yes, but we’re actually not going to do that because it’s not enough.
Why not? Yes, that’s a great idea. And also, you know, we could do some additional things as well. I do think that- Well, depending on what the solution is. Well, I mean, I don’t think anyone should ever disagree with getting carbon out of the atmosphere. You know, even if that’s not carbon capture or, you know, atmosphere capture is not the most likely outcome. Like there’s no reason to be against it, in my opinion. But I would say on the Trojan horse issue- I think that’s always sort of been a fear in conservative circles and one that I’ve shared in the past.
I think that was starting to subside. The Green New Deal, as I’ve talked about a lot on our show, I think is dangerous because it makes plain what was hidden before, Ross, is that for some people, it is a Trojan horse. For some people, they’re saying, we just need to rebuild the economy from scratch. The current system of American exceptionalism or whatever you want to call it, it doesn’t work. It’s no good. And we got to start over. And do something totally different. I think they said out loud what people feared was true, but actually it might have helped in a way because some Democrats have differentiated themselves from that.
And now you’re having Republicans making comments too. So maybe one of the benefits of the Green New Deal and that sort of economic reconstruction will be that people are able to differentiate between an entire new form of government and some targeted climate policy solution. So it may be a backdoor to having more productive discussions in the long run.
Ross Kenyon: Well, I hope you’re right about that. Is this maybe symptomatic of something bigger of just how we speak with one another about politics? It seems like during the course of my lifetime, the stakes for everything have felt higher and higher. And that could be an accurate representation of reality. The stakes are perhaps objectively higher than they have been in the past, especially for things like climate change. So like one of the things that I’m really, okay, this is a double-edged sword. So for me, I try to read a lot and I try to read stuff that I don’t always agree with.
I try to find the best in it and be charitable. I don’t always do this. That’s the standard. I try to apply it to myself. The double-edged part of it though is oftentimes I’m willing to see nuance and be fair, even in cases where I’m like, this guy’s a jerk. Why am I spending so much time trying to find this golden nugget in here? So that’s a downside of being perhaps too civil or too fair. But what exactly are the contours of where we should be having these conversations in order to get back to a place where we can respect one another and actually make productive progress?
Or is this just no longer a thing? How do we get back to that place? Or would it ever even exist? Because I’m also looking back to the times of... Growing up and hearing Rush Limbaugh on AM radio, was that really that much more uncivil than it is now?
Julia Pyper: I mean, I think we would point to some things that actually happened in Washington, D. C. that made it more partisan. It does feel like, and I think there’s studies pointing to this, that we are living in a more divided and polarized time. Some things on the policymaking side was, and I’ll note for arguably good reason, the removal of earmarks in making legislation so you couldn’t get special, you know, Local favors put into a bigger bill. And then there were some ethics rules changes, which I’ll let Shane speak to. But some of those did make it harder for staffers and for lawmakers to actually work together.
So yes, the media landscape has been divided. I would say one of the more damaging things is just the way people used to do business in DC, I think has become more difficult. And those are the people that you really do need to sit down and come up with solutions at the end of the day that are palpable to Americans. Like we’re seeing right now in this coronavirus scare, you want people to actually get something done. And if we don’t have any language or any appetite for that kind of cooperation, I feel like the country could end up worse off.
But Shane, I’ll let you chime in there too.
Shane Skelton: Yeah, I mean, I think two things that I think really hurt, and I’m going to get a lot of flack for saying this because it’s very unpopular, but is ethics rules and government transparency, I think made things really, really difficult. Members used to could go like the Motion Pictures Association of America. You used to fly members out and staff and let them walk the red carpet and do things together. And when you share those kinds of experiences, you’re friendly. You just are, right? Like you sit on a plane together, you go do something fun together.
It’s really hard to be a jerk to that person the next day on the House floor or the Senate floor. There just used to be more sort of cool, exciting, memorable opportunities for members and staff. They’re no longer permissible. Transparency too, and I don’t mean in the regulated form, I mean like having 10 different cable news channels. I remember during the Tea Party days, people would get lambasted for quote unquote living in Washington. They never come home. They never go to their district. You can’t do ballroom. You can’t be at home in your district all the time and be getting big things done in Washington and building relationships.
I don’t think it helps because I think you’re giving people so many pressure points that it just becomes convenient and smart to avoid your political opponents and not look like you’re even close to being friendly or agreeing or you’re going to get primaried. Transparency is really hurt. Members really aren’t close friends for the most part. And I think they used to be long before I was there, but I’ve heard plenty of stories about fun poker games where you couldn’t show up if you didn’t have a member from the other party.
So it was always 50-50. It’s just cool stuff that used to happen. And it just doesn’t seem like that stuff happens anymore.
Julia Pyper: To be sure, we’re not trying to advocate for getting rid of ethics rules, but I think there’s some things having. OK, but having come from D. C. , seeing how things like could work and seeing some of that social fabric erode, I think, has implications for policymaking and ultimately polarization.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I read some article recently. I can’t remember. Maybe it was the Atlantic or somewhere about the rise of cheap commercial air travel and representatives being able to fly home to their districts means that you’re not really spending as much time in D. C. with your neighbors and your peers, many of whom may disagree with you and are members of other parties or the opposite party, I should say. And that’s a good elite theory for why it’s harder to work together. So I buy that at that one level. But then there’s also this popular level of the rest of us here.
And okay, this is kind of an old hat explanation, but I think it makes sense. At least it makes sense to me. And that’s just social media and the economics of news as a moneymaking business, I think just feed off of people constantly being angry.
Julia Pyper: It’s not a moneymaking business. Let’s just clarify that. News is not that moneymaking.
Ross Kenyon: Okay. Aspirationally profitable. That’s the goal of news. But the way to do so is like crises, high listenership, viewership. People want to turn on the news when that’s happening. There’s a tendency to make crises out of everything because I think that’s halfway plausible. It makes most sense to me. Is there anything I’m missing there about the civility at the popular level there?
Julia Pyper: Well, I’ll just rewind and offer a thought that I think the cardinal sin was that the news media started giving away content for free. I know when the internet really became mainstream. So unfortunately, that happened. It caused a complete devaluation of news and information. And it hollowed out. And so we lost those local voices. And now it does kind of get wound up into these big national ones and cliques dominate. And certainly when we see Especially conspiracy groups and stuff like that, having a platform that’s very unnerving. On the flip side, we’re sort of starting to settle, I would posit.
Outfits like Vox rely on clicks to stay free. But a lot of people like Vox. I read Vox all the time. So I think people are starting to get a little conditioned to knowing what a publication is all about and keeping that in mind. The trickier part is making sure that there’s not also sponsored content that appears to be editorially independent. We are supported by universities, so we say that every single show, we make that clear. They have zero editorial oversight on what we do. So, yes, for sure, the information landscape is difficult right now.
And we can’t rewind the clock, unfortunately. But I don’t know that I would just blame it all on... I feel like that’s such an easy scapegoat. Arguably, I think personal profiles and individual platforms that we have through Facebook and Twitter, etc. , are driving more of this and people are taking advantage of those tools. And that’s where we’re seeing a robust growth. Robust dialogue around how information should be shared on those platforms that are not news media, that are other types of groups, interest groups, separate from the media. So again, I want to make some distinctions here about media because I think there’s different players and I think there’s different missions and we should just talk about them in a little more nuanced way.
Shane Skelton: I tend to probably take a different point of view than Julia Ross. I tend to agree with you. I watch news for entertainment value purely. I don’t watch it to learn anything. I don’t watch it to become aware of anything. I watch it because it’s hilarious. And if I want to learn, I read. There’s still a lot of good content out there, as Julia mentioned, that smart people are working hard on and producing. But most people, I think, get their news from television. And that is a TV show. That is nothing more in my view.
And so I do think That’s part of the problem. I also think that outrage is in vogue right now. Like if you’re not outraged, then you don’t care. You’re not even a good person. You have to be outraged because everything is awful and Trump is awful and the world’s unfair. And I don’t think that feeds positive narratives. I think, as you said, it leads to pylons. Yeah, that person is awful. Let’s all tell them how terrible they are. And I’m with you. I just don’t think that’s helpful at all.
Julia Pyper: I don’t disagree with that. I don’t feel like the piling on is helpful. I just wanted to make a distinction around what kind of media we’re talking about. And I think that there are some newsrooms out there that are really striving to do good work in this time. And I’d be more worried about what kind of television. Are you, Shane, talking about talk shows, like the news talk shows versus, say, Fox News’ nightly news program? Because even that’s a distinction that people aren’t appreciating anymore. And they are different.
Shane Skelton: But yeah, it ultimately all gets bundled up together and creates a bit of I mean, even Julia, and I’ll be quick on this point, but even the hard news on any of these stations, like I remember when I worked on Capitol Hill, you always had a TV on, right? And you’d flip around from different, you know, whether it’s MSNBC, Fox News, so on and so forth, CNN, and you’d be watching. Reversing coverage about something you’re actually working on and it’s just patently false, which means either they’re lying or they’re not well sourced.
But either way, you just go, all right, now when I don’t know whether or not something’s true, I certainly can’t trust it just because I hear it on TV because I happen to know. You are right, though, that people do not distinguish between opinion shows and news programs, and that is a problem as well.
Julia Pyper: And we should note that podcasts are a great source of information too. We always do our best to get the facts.
Shane Skelton: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed. And outrage is bipartisan too. It goes both directions, left to right, right to left. Everyone likes it these days. It’s a popular thing all over the place. And also, Julia, I do agree. Whenever I hear the phrase, the media, it sounds immediately conspiratorial to me.
Julia Pyper: Like the Yeah. The media is so many things.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah. So I agree. It’s useful to unpack that.
Julia Pyper: My biggest fear is that it just hurts people trying to do the most transparent, best forms of media when we lump it all together. And that ultimately does a disservice to everyone because I can tell you reporters don’t get into this for the money. They get into it out of a sense of trying to do a social service. You know, it’s a pillar of democracy, the media writ large, or at least what used to be like the traditional media. And even traditional media is now getting slammed. Right. So we do have to be better.
I just it is a pain point for me thinking that they’re all outlets are the same because I think it could hurt us in the end.
Ross Kenyon: Well, I really wanted a specific recipe that was recommended to me by a very experienced baker friend on New York Times. So I paid to subscribe to New York Times to get that banana bread recipe. And so I’m part of the solution, Julia. I’m bringing it back.
Julia Pyper: And the New York Times has some great climate reporting.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, indeed. They sure do. Well, we covered a fair amount of this broad communication topics about climate change, but maybe we should get into the policy since you guys are both, you’re wonks, you’re nerds, right? I can apply this to you. How much common ground We see movement on the right happening. It seems like conservatives now realize whether they have had a change of heart or maybe just the politics have changed around them and it’s okay for them to advocate for more conservative solutions to climate change and to start crossing the aisle and trying to figure out either how to make the Green New Deal less scary or to advocate for their own solutions instead of the Green New Deal.
What’s happening? What’s likely to happen? How do you view this as a whole?
Shane Skelton: I think the ground is shifting. I think there’s a lot more agreement than people think.
Unknown speaker: Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We’ll catch up.
Shane Skelton: I just don’t think they fully understand how much of a public appetite there is and how even people who are aligned with them ideologically just see this as a practical problem to be solved rather than a huge sort of ideological wedge issue. And so, you know, I don’t think we’re all that far apart, but I do think that people are going to have to learn at the ballot box and in other ways or their donors or Robbyists are going to have to get members up to speed, but I think we’re a lot closer than it looks when you watch television.
Again, not to beat up on the media. I know we just cleared that error, but I don’t think it’s as bad as people think it is because I have conversations every day with people all over the ideological spectrum and they’re about how do we solve this problem? Not about is there a problem and should we talk about it publicly?
Ross Kenyon: Julie, do you agree? Do you think there is a lot of common ground that people maybe are not seeing?
Julia Pyper: I think there’s some meaningful stuff happening that we can point to, like in the Senate energy bill that came up recently, but was ultimately derailed, but hopefully will come back. But there were things in there around, you know, improving the electricity system transmission. Emission distribution, energy storage. My background in recent years is covering the energy sector, the clean tech sector, entrepreneurs, startups who have ultimately gone on to grow their companies and get acquired. And that is a lot of hard work. And they are the... And so I do think that there is broad bipartisan agreement on some of those wonky policies.
I don’t think that conflict goes away that I think you alluded to earlier about how do we structure economies. And those are some valid questions. In us discussing the validity of near-term solutions, I don’t think it takes away or eliminates that broader discussion about how we structure economies. How we build our societies in more sustainable ways. And so you can two track it. You can talk about all those things at the same time, which is honestly, I think my biggest message as a communicator and a reporter is like, let’s just keep multiple things in our minds at the same time.
We can do that. And they don’t have to be antithetical. So yes, to both Shane’s point that there is common ground. No, there’s a lot of division also. And that’s not going away. The question is, can we be smart enough to do multiple things at the same time?
Shane Skelton: Okay. And Ross, on your bigger comment about the Green New Deal, how do we make it less scary? I think it’s impossible. I think why conservatives are often skeptical of programs, whether it’s healthcare or anything else, is when it feels like a very big government solution. We saw that with Obamacare. We saw that with the Green New Deal. Conservatives by nature hate huge government programs. They think it’s too much, right? Like why not just find the targeted solution? So as long as it’s called the Green New Deal and as long as it’s about remaking the economy, there’s no way to make it less scary.
Like Republicans just don’t want that. And they never will, in my view.
Julia Pyper: And also some Democrats may never go for that. I mean, short of Democrats winning the House, the Senate and the White House and then prioritizing climate over, say, health care, which could be a huge pressure even if, say, a Democrat wins in the 2020 election. They will certainly in the era of coronavirus be pressured to fix the health care system and come up with some broader economic solutions. What happens to climate and how how is there is there even agreement there on what to do? Because we’re already seeing divisions just purely among Democrats on how bold to be or not.
So, again, that’s why it’s not even just about Democrat or Republican issues. And we should avoid just that trap because there’s a lot of different perspectives here that are worth discussing and that are at odds and will have to ultimately be reconciled.
Ross Kenyon: Listener, if you’re enjoying this level of nuance, you will definitely enjoy political climate and should check it out in your podcast app of choice. Okay, so we’re optimistic about carbon removal’s chances to cross the aisle in this sort of way. We like it because there’s less counterfactuality, it’s less We need to do it anyways, because even if we stopped emitting, it’s too late. We have to start pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. And we think that... The way that we’ve gone about it is because Norway is a marketplace and we’re trying to motivate people who maybe don’t care about climate change, but know that they could make money by pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Maybe we could motivate them to do so. And we’re hoping that the end of addressing climate change. Climate change appeals to people who maybe don’t like markets so much or don’t trust them nearly as much as other people do. So there’s something in there for everyone. But of course, there’s a risk that actually this appeals to no one because it is market-based and it’s climate change. It’s something for everyone to like and everyone to dislike. I think carbon removal could overcome that little objection that I’m giving to it and be something that can be uniting.
But maybe I’m biased because this is Nori and I work in the industry and I want that to be the case.
Shane Skelton: I certainly agree with you. I think carbon removal should be the most popular and easy to wrap our head around. I think on the left, there’s some belief that it’s a red herring and that it’s conservatives’ way of trying to do nothing. I also think that people say, well, if you actually figured out carbon removal or get super efficient with carbon capture, you’re then... Basically permitting fossil fuels to be used in perpetuity because they don’t have a climate threat and that comes with other environmental issues. I don’t share that point of view.
I’m a big fan of carbon removal, but I think that’s some of what I’ve heard is discomfort with focusing on that as the primary solution. I don’t share that view and I think more people are going to catch up to you, Ross, where it doesn’t even matter. You can shut down the economy. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are too high. So carbon removal has to be part of the solution.
Julia Pyper: Yeah, I think the IPCC report, the UN Climate Report, highlighted the need ultimately for carbon removal. I think they focus largely on nature-based solutions, but it has prompted a big discussion around technological solutions to this issue as well. But to the point that you referenced there, Shane, until something like methane is really fully understood and we have mitigation methods for it, I think it will inevitably be controversial carbon capture and sequestration because we don’t know what other kind of damage is being done in the process of allowing fossil fuel production to continue.
Same goes for waterways. I think this will immediately have to branch out. From a climate discussion into a broader environmental one. But if there’s a way to have that and come up with some valid solutions, then I think it would be harder to have anyone argue against CCS. But until that happens in an honest and transparent way, I don’t think the opposition will go away.
Ross Kenyon: I should unpack my statement He thought this was Pollyanna. You guys had him on.
Unknown speaker: Yeah, that’s right.
Ross Kenyon: Is a way of preserving the longevity and the political economic dominance of oil and gas companies. So this is trying to make climate action less scary to the people who he believes are responsible for it. So is this a criticism that you’re able to grapple with? Because I think there is a chance that I might be naive about it. I want to think that big ag is going to switch to regenerative practices and start pulling it into the soil. I want to see oil and gas become direct air capture and storage companies.
I want to see stuff like that. I wonder if it’s actually going to happen that way. Or as David suggests, are we just empowering them to live longer and to influence our politics further?
Shane Skelton: I wouldn’t even think about the question that way. I look at it as not just oil and gas companies, but for example, there are states like Wyoming and New Mexico who get such a large share of their revenue, especially Wyoming where there’s no income tax, from production of natural resources. And so it’s not just about, oh, we have to save an oil company. I think for a lot of these states, you look at Wyoming senators specifically are very big fans of carbon capture. And that’s because How do we continue to keep our economic vitality going, but also not continue to exponentially create a problem?
And so carbon capture becomes a solution. So I don’t think people are hiding the ball that they’re saying we want to do carbon capture because it allows us to continue to use fossil fuels. I think that’s just a fact of life. I think there are people who want to continue to use fossil fuels, whether for practical reasons or budget reasons or otherwise.
Julia Pyper: And carbon capture is obviously the only way to continue to do that I’ll add one other twist here is, you know, through events and things that I’ve done with the Atlantic Council, which is inherently looking at energy issues from a global perspective, U. S. dominance in oil and gas has been a huge geopolitical bargaining system. And it has allowed the US to be bolder in many other aspects of its foreign policy, not necessarily in good ways or ways we all agree with, but it has been a huge impact. And we’re actually seeing plummeting oil prices now and some battles between Saudi Arabia and Russia and others because of US dominance in this space.
And arguably the country is... Safer because it has its own supply, because right now we do currently rely on this fuel. And so I’m not a deep expert in this topic, but I will say there are some geopolitical advantages to having these resources here, at least in our current system. So that does create a discussion around, OK, let’s at least make it clean. So I do think there’s going to be pressure from the geopolitical perspective to maintain oil and gas here, in addition to the jobs point that Shane pointed out.
And so, yeah, how do we then do that in a sustainable manner? And then you could also be challenging these These companies to boost their investments in clean energy and clean technology as they are doing. Shell recently became an actual electricity utility in the United Kingdom, and they’re really the leading investor in some of these clean tech solutions. The question is, how much are they investing? Are they being genuine in this transition from oil company to energy company? I think that could be an interesting avenue for these big corporations going forward, but it will only happen with continued public pressure and policy.
But I think there could be a medium ground here where these companies do continue to play a key role in our economies, but they are transitioning to green at the same time. Certainly any company that’s big and has a lot of money will influence politics. So I do agree with David Roberts on that. That comes down to how do we make sure that the money stays out of politics? That’s a separate line of discussion. But I don’t know, a few different points to consider there at the very least.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, it’s not a simple question. So it was not a simple answer. Fair enough. Yeah. What do you think people can do to help make progress on climate change and work together? What are some steps they can do either on a policy level or a personal level to have productive conversations and to not feel nearly so helpless that we’re headed into the oblivion?
Julia Pyper: Oh, just give up. No, I’m kidding.
Ross Kenyon: Start reading apocalyptic literature like a lot of articles I’ve been suggesting lately. It does not seem like a good idea right now, but yeah.
Julia Pyper: I mean, I have found, at least through this podcast and in other elements of life, when you meet someone face to face, it is really hard to see your differences first rather than your similarities. Like I did a road trip through Mississippi and going to visit small shops and artists and stuff like that. You’re just reminded that we all would like to live together. Lives with clean air, fresh water, entertainment, beautiful things and creativity. And we forget then for just a minute that our politics might be different. So sometimes I think returning to that most basic human level can help us then build a foundation for going forward.
Like as a journalist, I view myself as trying to tell stories of people on that level and trying to find more avenues to do so just so we can, yeah, remind ourselves that we’re not living in Facebook all the time. We are living in the real world and we have a lot more in common than we do that’s different and if we can remember that a little bit more, we might actually find some solutions to these really tough questions. I’m not trying to be overly Pollyannish about this, but I do think that little dose of reality and the good can help us move forward in a bolder and more happy way.
Shane Skelton: Yeah, I think, too, you know, what can people do? I think you asked. I really think people underestimate the value of reaching out to your elected leaders. And I don’t mean protesting outside their office. I don’t mean sending them a chain email that you got from someone else. I don’t mean saying you’re awful and you’re killing the planet, but I’ve worked for members of Congress. And one of the things that comes up in every weekly meeting is what are we getting the most mail on? What are we getting the most calls on?
Members want to understand not what the Washington news cycle is telling them, but what people back home. And so if they hear from their staff assistant at every meeting, like 80 of people from our district called about climate change. Oh, liberals? No, no. People who support you. That kind of stuff adds up. It goes back to the tail wagging the dog. But if people think that their constituents really want this, they’ll eventually, policymaking will move because you ultimately have to be responsive to your voters and your supporters.
Julia Pyper: Yeah, that’s something you often say, right, Shane, is like you have to, you know, give some cover, I guess, to lawmakers to engage on this. And once, you know, the media cycle shifts, you think things will shift. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I’ve heard you use phrases like that before.
Shane Skelton: Things become normalized. So like I used to work for a congressman named Bob Alatta, who’s a wonderful guy, and he really wanted to always, you know, be in touch with his constituents. So he would go to, you know, Walmarts or other church popular places and just hang out and make himself available and want to learn and hear about what’s going on. And if someone said, hey, I’m I’m a farmer. I’m really concerned about climate change. Our crop yields have been down or something like that. He would take that very seriously, which is different than saying, hey, we got, you know, 8,000 of the same emails forwarded from an advocacy group.
I think when people actually hear that the people they represent care about an issue, they start to think about it less. Less as like, how is this going to play in the Washington news cycle? And more as, okay, this is something that I need to address. And then you direct your staff, start thinking about where we can be helpful here. And I know that’s a long run and I know people say we need solutions yesterday, but something is better than nothing. And I do think that continued attention to this will drive a different mindset.
Julia Pyper: And I think policymakers getting exposure to this is helping. We forget because we work on these issues all the time that lawmakers have a lot of issues on their plate. And honestly, climate may not even be front of mind. This goes for lawmakers across the aisle. And I know that there are some And so there are groups like that doing work that I think is having an impact.
Ross Kenyon: That’s all great advice. I think the only thing that I would add is having these conversations in person and not online. It will probably serve listeners better. And also I’ve found that if I’ve ever used a label to describe my beliefs or someone has used a label to describe So that’s... I’ve often had really productive conversations with people that I don’t agree with on everything, but I think they’re smart, interesting people that are worth talking to. But almost never online or never via text. It’s always in person. I don’t know if that’s been your experience too, but it’s definitely mine.
Julia Pyper: Yeah, we promote drinking buddies. We’re very pro getting together in person. But we do try to have those conversations digitally here through our podcast to sort of give a shameless plug. So there are ways to have the conversations. They’re tricky to do, but we strive to have them and create some Yours is at least, you know, with voice.
Ross Kenyon: So maybe I could say digitally is okay, but it has to be voice. And I think the more body language and eye contact and stuff like that you have, probably the less reactive I think people would be. But at least for sure. Yeah, there’s something about text that even your significant other or colleagues or whatever, there’s something about text messages that I think just doesn’t work well at the brain. I think makes people a little bit crazy. I don’t know.
Julia Pyper: If I ever get that solo K text message, I go berserk. I’m like, K, what does that mean? Are you pro the decision we’ve just made? What does just a solo K mean? Can we at least write OK?
Ross Kenyon: Wow, what a great example. Personal gripe. It’s there to get under your skin, Julia, and nail you. I know. It sounds like they got you.
Julia Pyper: Maybe it’s just me.
Shane Skelton: It’s also Ross, you hit on this. It’s easy to disagree with an idea. It’s hard to be disagreeable with a person. So in 140 characters, I can say this bill is garbage. And then you can say you’re garbage. Like the bill is great because we’re talking about a bill. And we disagree about the bill. Whereas like you sit down. I remember the first time Brandon and I really hung out outside of like work. We were at the solar summit, GTM solar summit in San Diego. And I was sitting at the bar by myself watching the basketball playoffs, I think it Brandon came up and we just like talked about sports and I didn’t even know he was a huge sports junkie.
And then you like the person and now you’re not disagreeing over an idea. You’re talking to someone you like about an issue and then you can share ideas. But it’s true. The 140 characters or whatever your text messages are directed at an issue rather than a person are almost never going to be productive.
Julia Pyper: And it goes for all kinds of content out there. It is hard to carve out a space for nuance and have nuance be your brand and your label in a world, like we’re saying, really rewards clickable content and it rewards a strong opinion. So that’s why I think All the more reason for having conversations like this and hopefully ours. And we are finding people have been thankful for that, which is really heartening. We’re not saying this is the one and only model and do away with other types of content. Obviously not.
But it is heartening to know that people are game to have this kind of dialogue. And hopefully we have more of it because it could, you know, could help. Could help with some of the biggest issues of our time, including climate.
Ross Kenyon: That’s one of the things that we’ve gotten comments about too from listener feedback is they like the feeling of independence that we try to have and of being fair. We get a lot of comments about that. Although the nastiest criticisms we ever get on the show is we’ve had a couple of guests on who were sort of hard to wrangle and had very strong opinions and we did not adequately challenge them. And that is a failure of mine as a co-host of the show. I don’t know if you’ve had guests on where you’re like, wow, that was unmanageable and we did not do a very good job.
Julia Pyper: Mostly just Shane every episode. Shane, do you have strong opinions?
Ross Kenyon: Is that a true statement?
Shane Skelton: I don’t think we’ve had any guests go too far in any direction that made me uncomfortable. What I will say is I get feedback from listeners, conservative ones, of course, that I don’t sufficiently challenge everything that Brandon and Julie And I have to remind people, I’m not there to win. I’m there to have a conversation about points of view. So if a guest says something that I think is terribly off base, I don’t need to beat them. I just need to provide context of what they’re saying through my view. And Julia will do the same and Brandon will do the same.
So I don’t worry so much about pushing back on the narrative of guests. But I do think that people need to understand that part of the reason our show is productive is because every time you say something that I don’t think is true, I don’t interrupt you and say, no, no, no, that’s garbage. I’m not a live fact checker. It’s not a real time fact check. It’s a discussion. And so I think if you treat it as a discussion, then I don’t worry about it. If you’re treating it as like if you’re telling people, here’s information from the government on how you stay safe, then you better make sure it’s accurate, obviously.
Ross Kenyon: Well, that feeds very nicely into one of the last questions I want to ask here. It’s a Nori favorite. We’ve asked this on Reversing Climate Change a number of times. It’s a hard one, though. So I didn’t prep you for this one. I hope it’s not too big of a surprise. But for both of you, Julia and Shane, who is the smartest person you disagree with? Who’s someone that you don’t see eye to eye with, but still respect and think they have interesting things to say? Obviously, Brandon is an easy choice for you, Shane.
I’ll allow it if you must.
Shane Skelton: Ooh, that’s tough. I don’t want to take the easy way out. I do have a great deal of respect and admiration for Brandon and learn a lot from him, but I’d like to at least try to be a little more expansive. One person that I’ve always admired is Nancy Pelosi because of her sort of I don’t see that as much. I’m going to go with Harry Reid. Absolutely underappreciated by the common person and probably with good reason. Senators don’t need to be famous for being tacticians, but that guy had very strong control of a chamber that is nearly uncontrollable and did more under the Obama administration than I think could have even almost got done without him.
And frankly, I don’t agree with any of those things. So I’m not saying I admire him because he did great things. I just admire his ability to do the things that I didn’t like. So hopefully that’s a reach.
Ross Kenyon: What about you, Julia?
Julia Pyper: Okay. Hmm. This is tough.
Ross Kenyon: You had like a minute or two to decide. You had a little grace period.
Julia Pyper: Yeah. Well, hopefully this answers your question. I would say one of my uncles who is an executive, was an executive at a fossil fuel company in Canada. And growing up studying poli sci and ultimately learning about the energy sector and climate change, etc. , It really bothered me like how that industry could work and exist. But in learning from him, I’ve also come to understand, you know, some other elements specific to Canada around like how the economy relies on the industry worker issues. And so that really helped inform myself. And so my idealistic undergrad self, I think, kind of evolved into like, okay, how can I maybe use my skills as to be the communicator and platform so everyone can kind of learn together?
The good, the bad. I’m not trying to say, oh, the Canadian oil and gas industry is great because my uncle worked in it. I’m saying it was a challenge. And learning from someone directly, though, I have found helpful and just helps us have these nuanced conversations that we’ve been talking about this whole show. So I guess that would be a person that I respect and appreciate, even though I took some learning.
Ross Kenyon: Okay. I think those are good answers. But meanwhile, for our listeners here, they like what you have brought to the show. They want to follow up. How do they listen to political climate? Do you have any ideas for good episodes you might steer people? We have a hundred plus episodes of this show. So people oftentimes are overwhelmed and don’t know where to start. How would you get someone new into your show?
Julia Pyper: Great. Yeah. Well, please just look up Political Climate, two words, on pretty much any podcasting platform. Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Play, all of the above. And subscribe there. You can also find all of our episodes. You can go to www. politicalclimatepodcast.com. And go to the episodes page and find some episodes there as well. You’ll also find other ways to listen. And we’re on Twitter at poly, P-O-L-I underscore climate. And so we like to have a good discussion there. We share other kinds of news articles, have discussions with listeners.
So hopefully you’ll check us out there as well. And for episodes to start with, you mentioned our episode Dave Roberts, David Roberts. Check that one out. It’s just from the end of December. We have one with Arnold Schwarzenegger from the beginning of this year on why he supported Greta Thunberg, the teen climate activist. We are now well into our series with the think tank Third Way, looking at the fastest path to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, if not sooner. So we looked at the climate science underpinning that. We then had on former Department of Energy.
Then we had on former Energy Secretary Stephen Chu to discuss technologies and our technology toolkit. And now we’ve gone on to talking policies and ultimately labor, how people of color are affected by climate change and the energy transition. So check that out. The Path to Zero series airs monthly on political climate.
Ross Kenyon: Shane, you got any favorites you want to share with the listeners and also your Twitter handle if anyone wants to come on and continue the noble tradition of yelling at you online?
Shane Skelton: Absolutely. So our Twitter handle is at Shane Skelton, just my name, S-H-A-N-E-S-K-E-L-T-O-N. I think there are a lot of fun episodes to listen to. I think, you know, I would sort of divide our episodes into two buckets. One is, you know, commentary where it’s Brandon, Julia, and I personally like all those. Some people like those. What policies would you start to execute that you think are achievable politically and technically? So that’s a good one. I think that was last December. And again, I like sort of the news cycle friendly episodes, but there’s something for anyone to choose from.
If you’re interested in what’s happening in the Arctic, there’s an expert talking about that. If you’re interested in how the news covers it, there’s David Roberts talking about that. So I think it’s sort of a pick your poison, but my favorite episode is the solutions one.
Ross Kenyon: Great. Well, all those links are in the show notes if you’d like to follow up and listen to Political Climate. Our guests, Julia Piper and Shane Skelton, co-hosts of Political Climate. Thank you so much for being here.
Unknown speaker: Thank you, Ross.
Ross Kenyon: Well, thank you so much for listening. If you like the show, please rate and review it in Apple Podcasts and or Stitcher. It really helps us a lot to get this content to a wider audience. If you think what we’re doing is useful, interesting, fun, hopefully all three, we’d certainly appreciate your rating and review. You can keep up We are also now on Patreon at patreon.com slash noripodcasts if you’d like more content, engagement, and community. And thank you so much for your support.
