>> Peterson Toscano: Welcome to the eighth and final episode of Hot Mess, How Climate Consensus Turned into Political Chaos. I'm, um, Peterson Toscano, host of Citizens Climate Radio. Over the past episodes, we've unpacked how unified concern about global warming unraveled into decades of political stalling, misinformation, and missed opportunities. Today, we're wrapping things up with a roundtable discussion featuring voices that span generations, experiences and perspectives within the
conservative climate movement. You'll hear from Bob Inglis, former Republican congressman and executive director of republican.org Very. >> Bob Inglis: Few people really are still arguing with thermometers. >> Peterson Toscano: Chelsea Henderson, director of editorial content@republican.org and host of Ecowright Speaks. >> Chelsea Henderson: I think that one thing we have seen, if you look over time, is how important it is that one side not have a monopoly.
>> Peterson Toscano: Katie Zirkreski, journalist and co host of Green Tea Party Radio. >> Katie: This is an economic issue. This is a national security issue. This is a pro life issue. >> Peterson Toscano: And Zach Torpy, environmental engineer and fellow co host of Green Tea Party Radio. >> Zach: With Trump in the office, there has to be an emphasis on
tariffs. You could talk about the border adjustment being a carbon tariff on foreign countries and foreign soldiers like China and India. >> Peterson Toscano: Together, we'll reflect on key takeaways from this series, dive into the cultural and political factors that shape the conservative climate movement, and explore where what lies
ahead. After the panel, I sit down with Drew Irely, Citizens Climate Lobby's conservative outreach director, to hear how conservatives are shaping a, uh, path forward for climate action. Let's begin our roundtable Guests are no strangers to the challenges and triumphs of advancing climate solutions in conservative spaces. Representative Bob Inglis knows firsthand what it's like to challenge the status
quo. As a former congressman, he's championed conservative climate action, earning recognition with the 2015 John F. Kennedy Profile and Courage Award. Bob also appears in the documentary Merchants of Doubt, which exposes the dark side of misinformation campaigns. Chelsea Henderson has spent nearly 25 years striking bipartisan compromises on climate policy. From her work on Capitol Hill to her role as host of Ecorite Speaks podcast, Chelsea continues to bring Republicans and Democrats
to the table for real solutions. She's also author of the book Glacial, which is a, uh, deep dive into the history of climate politics. Katie Sarkresky is a journalist, environmental advocate, and co host of Green Tea Party Radio, where she and Zach Torpy highlight climate solutions that resonate with young conservatives. Zach is an environmental engineer and a strong voice for pragmatic climate solutions.
His vision, an America that leads the way in addressing climate change while preserving its natural beauty. Before we begin the roundtable, I want to give you a heads up about a name that comes up later in our discussion. Mark Marano. Um, Bob will mention him as part of the climate misinformation machine. Mark Morano is a well known figure in climate skepticism. He's the founder of Climate Depot and a frequent guest on conservative media
outlets. In the film Merchants of Doubt, Bob recalls how the filmmakers captured Marano admitting to his role in spreading, uh, industry driven climate misinformation. Marano's tactics, which include amplifying disinformation and attacking climate scientists, have played a significant role in fueling doubt about climate change. His admissions in Merchants of Doubt reveal how deeply the fossil fuel industry has influenced public discourse.
M as you listen to the roundtable, keep this context in mind when Bob mentions Murano's contributions to the climate skepticism movement. Now we hear from Chelsea Henderson, Katie Zarkreski, Zach Torpy, and representative Bob Inglis. >> Peterson Toscano: I am thrilled to be with this illustrious group of people. Uh, we have some young conservatives and some folks who are a little bit older who've been working on conservative issues for a long time. Welcome everyone.
>> Chelsea Henderson: I was actually just going to thank you for not calling me and Bob old, seasoned, experienced. >> Bob Inglis: Yeah, that was nice. And Peterson, just, uh, congratulations on the series and this, uh, is the eighth and final of your eighth of eight. So, uh, thank you for all the work you've done in the, all those episodes.
>> Peterson Toscano: It's been such a learning experience. And I have to say, reading Chelsea's wonderful book, Felicia, reading that and doing this research and talking with, with you all has really been sobering. In looking at the past 50 years, it's been sad, the many missed opportunities and it's been, I don't know, inspiring. The many people like you, Bob, who have pushed against the tide and gotten the conversation started with conservatives.
After spending all this time, many, many hours on this, we clearly in the United States have had a problem with addressing climate change in any serious way. So who do you think bears the most responsibility for 50 years of denial, delay and doubt? >> Chelsea Henderson: You know, when you first were heading in the direction of this question, I was going to say the oil and gas industry. But I'm going to dial back on that and say that it is the apathy
of regular citizens. And I think part of that is it took a long time for climate change to be something that was happening to people in their daily lives. So if you contrast climate change with something like acid rain or the hole in the ozone, which posed real immediate threats to people. At the same time, the scientists were raising the alarms about climate change, but it didn't feel like it was happening. It was all projected to be in the
future. And so while we're kind of triaging what we have to deal with on a daily basis, our own personal stresses, work stresses, family stresses, there's something bigger level that we're going to worry about and it isn't even happening yet. Yeah, we're going to shelf it. And so maybe it is that combined with some of the disinformation campaigns that told people, well, if we do do something about it, it's going to raise your energy prices. And it's. We're not even sure this
is really the problem we need to address. And so I think that was maybe like a, uh, very lethal combination of things that have led us to this point where 60 plus years of attempts to enact a solution have kind of fallen by the wayside. >> Bob Inglis: Yeah, I agree that it's really, it's, it's the human condition to, you know, when faced with a global problem, and I'm just one person, I just gotta accept it the way it is. It's like death and taxes.
In order to be successful, we have to overcome that. We have to say, no, no, there really, there's things we can do, we can overcome this, there's solutions. You know, problem is like on healthcare, healthcare is an impossible problem to solve. M. There's 100% death rate, there's a lot of suffering between here and there's. So all you can do in healthcare is just hope to alleviate the suffering. The difference between that and climate is you can actually solve climate, you can actually fix this.
But it's a worldwide problem and I'm just one person. So we gotta give, uh, people a sense that they can have some influence on this and particularly have leaders that are courageous enough to tell us, hey, you know what, there's solutions. >> Zach: You need everyone rowing in the same direction. And it's hard to get different political parties, different nations and different groups with different
vested interests going the same direction. So it's hard to unite everyone to solve this issue, Especially when people are concerned about the economics and how we're going to fund things. A lot of it's just getting mutual buy in from all groups. >> Chelsea Henderson: What Zach was saying. Oh, sorry, Katie, go ahead, Chelsea, go ahead. I was just going to say Zach's point about getting alignment with
different parties and constituencies and stuff. I think that one thing we have seen, if you look over time is how important it is that one side not have a monopoly, either the solutions that are enacted or the ideas that are on the table. Because then you do end up in a lopsided sort of mess, or you end up in a situation where there's no long term certainties. You know, what one Congress does, another Congress can undo. And if one Congress does something in a, um, hyper partisan way, then
next Congress can undo that. Yet if we work together, then you have solutions that are more durable. >> Katie: I won't beat around the bush about who I think is responsible. I realized, and I looked for a way to word this, but when you're in your 20s, like Zach and I, you might not be as familiar with the origins of a lot of this as maybe some of the folks who've been doing this work for a few
decades. And so even as I was going back and doing a deep dive into research, I was like, man, Exxon really did put a number on everybody. When you look back at the oil and gas industry, yeah, I'm going to initially blame them, but as a journalist, I'm, um, also going to blame the media because it was really alarming to read how a lot of these newspapers would write editorials and publish op EDS that were like, oh my goodness, the fossil fuel industry is
so bad, so terrible. And then in poor economic times, they're running a full page ad for Exxon on the next page because they need the advertising money. So it was, you know, yeah, we acknowledge this is bad, but we got no problem promoting
it when we need the cash. So I feel like a lot of different groups and organizations really need to be able to put their money where their mouth is in terms of, you know, if something's wrong, even if we need the money, we're not going to accept money from these individuals that, that we clearly don't agree with, that we acknowledge have done some sort of wrongdoing. For me as a journalist at
least, it's twofold. You've got the oil and gas industry, but then you've also got the media that I don't think did enough to shine the light not only on the truth in those early decades in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but also kind of turned a blind eye to it in the years and decades after that.
>> Peterson Toscano: Well, I think this is such an important point though, about the role of the fossil fuel industry, particularly when we look at episode seven, which is about how climate skepticism has been very much a US thing compared to the rest of the world. And Bob, I love that you were in the film Merchants of Doubt. I wish you had been in the book as well, because the book, you know, is very discouraging. But with you in the film, it, like, show, like, there's a
movement forward. But how did that experience of being in. In that film Merchants of Doubt, how did that shape your understanding of the role of misinformation in. In this debate? >> Bob Inglis: Wow. If you haven't seen it, it's really worth seeing. Merchants of Gout. It's a film by Robbie Kenner, uh, based on the book by Naomi Oreskes. And I asked Robbie, how did you get Mark Morano to say all that to you? Did you think out of a date? What did you do? And Robbie is
just such a. Such a great interviewer. He says, well, you just ask people and they'll tell you their story. He just got Mark Morano to hang himself. I mean, it's just really. Anyway, it's really worth watching. And also just to celebrate, uh, what Robbie does, you know, he doesn't pick up the microphone and do a voiceover when he wants to transition between one thing and another. He actually puts only voices in there, the people that he
interviews. So it's an enormously difficult, challenging way that he does a documentary. Watch how the producer or whatever, the director just picks up a microphone and does the voiceover to get from one to another. That's not what Robbie does. It's really hard work. So it's really well done. He told me that the main thing you want to do is get some, um, emotion in the film. He called me up, Peterson. He asked me, you know, he's going on and on about, how will you get
on this film? Love me or you do this? And I'm like, robbie, if you take a breath, I'd say yes. Because the kids had come home with Food Inc. Which is his film too. And it sort of changed the way that they were eating. We were eating. And so I knew that my polling numbers would go up with my kids if I were on this. Rob, you know, did a film with Robert Kenneth. And so I said, ravi, yes, of course. He said that he had seen dozens of climate films.
He said, I can't remember any of them. He said, what he wants to do in this film is have some lasting reaction. And the reaction is, you know what? Fool me once, shame, um, on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Robbie has produced a film that really shows. You kidding me? The same people who doubted the causal connection between smoking and cancer actually moved on to other things. Where
they introduced doubt. And the great thing about Naomi Oreskes is I told her, naomi, you didn't do the easy thing, which is say, oh, it's just the money. That's thereafter. No, she said, no, it's not that. What happened is these people got out of sync with the whole body of science and the whole body of their colleagues in the scientific world. And then they were out there on their own and they needed to create a new, new tribe. And so the tribe they created was Merchants of doubt.
>> Peterson Toscano: Yeah, it is eye opening and definitely worth watching. I think it's one of the most important climate films out there. And it makes me wonder though, clearly the fossil fuel industry, as you talked about Chelsea in your book and on the show, poured millions and millions of dollars into taking advantage of our emotions and our culture. And so I'm wondering, were lawmakers and the public truly duped by this? And that's what delay things were, some complicit
in allowing the doubt to fester. Have we all been gaslit for a long time by fossil fuel industry, as. >> Chelsea Henderson: Bob was saying about the human condition? Right. Everyone's going about their day and they have a bunch of things to worry about. So if a really flashy ad is telling you you don't have to worry about this one thing, then you're just going to take it out of your mindset. But we are still in a place where people still don't
believe. And I'm sure that Zach and Katie get this, but Bob and I get the republican.org social media or responses back to the weekly newsletter that I put out for republican.org that sometimes if we've had a membership push and somebody maybe doesn't understand exactly what they've signed up for and they respond back with climate change is fake and it's not real and it's a hoax, there are those moments where that happens. So we still wrestle today
with that doubt. Though I think on the political level, denialism is not as prevalent as it once was. There is an understanding from many policymakers and as evidenced by John Curtis's when he was in the House, his conservative climate caucus had over 80 people. It was one of
the largest caucuses in the House, if not the largest. I'm not saying that each one of those members of that caucus was like dying to go out and introduce a bill, but they were in the caucus to try to learn and to not be shamed about the fact that they might not know as much as some of their peers in the House. We do have this weird disconnect, right, where maybe most Americans haven't been
engaged on a daily basis. And then you had lawmakers that were, as Bob likes to say, the elected officials are not the leaders, right? They are following what their constituents or what the tidal wave is sort of moving toward. But at the same time, if you just look at polling, the polling shows overwhelmingly that people support climate action. The politics hasn't caught up with the polling, but then the people aren't driving
the politics enough either. And it might come down to the fact that there are just other priorities that people have. And, and the one thing that I keep trying, a point I guess I keep trying to make, is that we can't think about climate change as an environmental issue, right? This isn't just a tree hugging issue. It is so much an economic issue. Right now, at the time that we're sitting and recording
this, California is on fire. So, um, in California, probably the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. While the scientists have not yet come out to say that this fire was caused by climate change, we know that wildfires can be more intense and can happen off season, et cetera, et cetera, because of the conditions that are created by climate
change. And sort of going back a few months ago to Hurricane Helene, the scientists were pretty quick on that one to say, yes, the conditions that have been caused by climate change caused helene to drop 50% more water or whatever the percentage was than a normal hurricane would have. So, you know, these have real economic costs. It's loss of business, I mean, obviously loss of life. So human, the human loss is devastating.
And then loss of homes, and the loss of those homes causing the insurance industry to flee. Some of these states that are on the front lines of climate change, loss of property and loss of business. I mean, the mental health toll that's going to take on people, the health impacts, I mean those are real things you can put price tags on
that are going to add up. So for people that are either voting or thinking the economy comes first, they need to see the connection between the economy and climate change or economic prosperity and climate change. >> Zach: Chelsea I think as the generations have gotten younger, we've experienced a, uh, reduction in denialism and more of just a. We're completely overwhelmed by
how chaotic the world is. There's too many issues to focus on and people just shut down and go on TikTok reels and disengage from the world and just disassociate. And now people just don't want to deal with the issues that they're facing. They just want to focus on what they can manage in their own lives. And it's becoming difficult to, like, get people to care again. Why should they care about the Amazon when they're struggling day to day with their, uh, paychecks and
having to make their own living? I really do think the best argument for climate change is arguing about the economics of it and talking about the localized cost of energy, of solar and wind versus oil and natural gas, and talking about the impacts that we're going to have. I would just like to live in a better society where it's easy to walk to a supermarket and I can go out to a bar and get a drink and see people in walking distance from where I live. That's how I like to argue it.
>> Chelsea Henderson: I think when you look at the six Americas, the study that George Mason University's Climate Changed Communication center and the Yale center for Climate Communication put out together, and they update periodically, the category disengaged to me is more troubling than the category dismissive. Because, uh, that category of people that dismiss or don't, the non believers, is so small now,
it's single digits. But what you were just saying, Zach, about the, uh, disengagement and the role that social media plays in that disengagement. Yeah. You're just gonna wake up and start scrolling because you wanna see something that makes you laugh or you wanna see something that feels worse than what you're going through, or something you can empathize with. Yeah. The disengaged portion of our society is where we need to light that spark and to
show that what is possible. Right? What is possible with bipartisanship, what is possible with leadership, the economic prosperity that we could see if we were innovating to the extent that the US can, because we are one of the most innovative countries in the world and a leader on the global stage. We could have that life that you are envisioning. We need more attention. We need more engagement. >> Peterson Toscano: Chelsea, I'm glad you puppies and kittens are very
engaging. I wish they would talk about climate change. >> Katie: Yeah, more puppies, kittens, bunnies, baby skunks. We need some more input from them. Um, but, Chelsea, I'm really glad that you said what you did. I think Zach hears me say at least twice a week, every week when we record for Green Tea Party Radio, that I'm an optimistic pessimist. So I always try to look for some
sort of silver lining to give me hope. I've been hearing a lot of conservatives talk about, okay, well, you know, the economy is going to be our primary issue. That's why the election went the way that it did. We only care about the economy. Everything else takes a backseat to the economy. But for me, what that means is we are in a prime position over the next four years to sell conservatives on. This is an economic issue. This is a national security issue. This is a pro
life issue. This is an issue that conservatives have touted the values of for decades. And it's time that we sit at the table and address it for the issue that it is. If we don't like what our counterparts on the left are saying, okay, then let's play ball. What do we propose? This is our opportunity to show, you know, if we don't like the economy the way that it is, okay, let's make more manufacturing jobs here in the US let's create more of those jobs that don't need four year
degrees. Let's um, open that up for low income and blue collar and working class families. Let's keep it here. Let's start working on things that won't completely flood our naval bases. The next four years are going to be the key for really making this environmental issue a conservative one. >> Peterson Toscano: Perfect segue because we're coming to the end. So what are the next steps? I mean economically, a C ban is going to come into place with the European Union in
2026. And this podcast has been focusing on, um, conservatives and conservative voices. And now we have a very conservative government in the United States. For those doing climate work, for you doing climate work, what's next? >> Bob Inglis: I think the most likely path forward is the um, uh, Senator Cassidy's Foreign Pollution FIA act, which gets the conversation going about how do you, how do you get the world in
on this? Because you know Peterson, back when I was getting tossed out of Congress in 2010, it was very much aggressive disbelief. You know, it's basically people saying, I don't believe in climate change. You shouldn't either. That's all changed now. Uh, as Chelsea was just pointing out, very few people really are still arguing with thermometers. That dismissive group has just gone down. What it is now is. Yeah, but
how do you get the world in on this? Well, it might be that people like um, Senator Cassidy has a solution which is, um, let's attach those costs to products when they're sent to us from China and then let's see what it looks like, um, compared to the cleaner American stuff. And so it creates incentives
that really work. So I think that may be a step toward a full blown carbon border adjustment mechanism and hopefully, ah, later, a domestic price on carbon dioxide, which when paired with either a dividend back to the people to, uh, taxpayers or with a reduction in payroll taxes, results in no growth of government. And pretty exciting for conservatives to solve a problem without growing government.
>> Peterson Toscano: What do you have to say? What's next for you all in your next year of broadcasting and what issues you're going to focus on?
>> Katie: Honestly, I think for us, I think it'll be, it's convincing more young people that people like us exist, that you're not alone if you feel this way and that the onus is on you as a young person to contact your member of Congress and let them know that you exist, that as somebody who's getting ready to hopefully buy a house, start a family, work a job, travel to work, these are your concerns about whether or not you
can do it in a way that's affordable and environmentally friendly. And Zach, I cut you off. What were you going to say? I'm so sorry. >> Zach: I'll say I totally agree with Bob and I also think it's a lot of how you market what you're proposing. With Trump in office. There has to be an emphasis on tariffs. You could talk about the border adjustment being a carbon tariff on foreign countries
and foreign polluters like China and India. The climate community needs to focus on marketing and how we can better sell our ideas and convince other groups that this is a path forward economically to benefit
our country. It'll also be interesting to see if the benefits of the Inflation Reduction act in conservative areas are bought into by the local representatives and if they're interested in keeping those manufacturing jobs and the money they're getting from the federal government to invest in their communities, if that will be protected by them, or if they're going to want to tear it up and restart with something else.
>> Chelsea Henderson: I was just going to say to what Zach was just saying too, that our. I, uh, just keep tag teaming on everything Zach said today.
Our friend also in the conservative carbon pricing world, Alex Flint, who is the executive director at alliance for Market Solutions, made a point recently that if you give the ira, the Inflation Reduction Act a few more years to, uh, do what it's supposed to do, given how much investment is being made in Republican districts from that bill, that then the Republicans that lead those districts can take the credit for all of the great economic prosperity that their Congressional
district is reaping. Was it Reagan that said, or somebody in the old, old timey days, I'll say. Said it doesn't matter who takes the credit as long as the work gets done. Yeah, let's let people take credit and feel good about clean energy and innovation and economic prosperity that comes from those. Yes, we have to get over that hump of that was a partisan process that passed that bill, so we should repeal it now. Again, points to the need for bipartisan cooperation.
>> Zach: Total agree and great minds think alike. Chelsea. >> Peterson Toscano: That was Chelsea Henderson and Representative Bob Inglis from republican.org. you also heard Katie Zirkreski and Zach Torpy, the hosts of Green Tea Party Radio. After our panel discussion, I sat down with Drew Irely. He's CCL's conservative outreach director. Drew's journey into climate advocacy began with a personal realization. Uh, he wanted to create a better future for his daughter.
Since then, Drew has worked tirelessly to bring conservative voices into climate conversations emphasizing the economic and national security benefits of action. We'll hear his perspective on how conservatives can lead the way in addressing climate change, the importance of m bipartisan cooperation, and what opportunities exist for right of center advocates and organizations like Citizens Climate Lobby. >> Drew Ireley: I'm Drew Irely, CCL's Conservative
Outreach Director. My job is to lend a conservative face and perspective to CCL's mission in showing that Republicans and those right of center do care about climate change and want to be involved in the discussions around climate policy. You know, it's like Chelsea said in the very first episode of this podcast, policies are more successful when they're
bipartisan. So if we want this to be successful, we have to have a seat at that table, having the discussion with everybody else to make sure that our values and morals are represented on this issue. Why climate? For me, I won't lie. You know, it wasn't too long ago that I was on the opposite side of this debate
discussion. It took a lot of life changing things for me, one being my daughter being born, for me to realize that this is an issue that's going to affect either my lifetime or my daughter's lifetime. I want to make sure that I'm involved in the discussion, in finding solutions for this issue for her. >> Peterson Toscano: And how long have you been doing this and what are some changes that you've seen as a result of it? >> Drew Ireley: I really got invested in climate
in 2016. The changes that I've seen, it is a much more palatable discussion with those that are right of center. The science around climate change isn't really so controversial anymore. At least not, uh, in my own peer social circles and networks. What really comes down to more is trusting the government to enact policies that are going to do more good than harm. To which I say, well, that's why you should be involved in the discussion. Make sure the policies that you want get put in place.
>> Peterson Toscano: Yeah, absolutely. And we have a whole new world politically happening. We have a very conservative Republican government. So for those conservatives that you know of and that you're going to get to know over the next year, what's your message for them? As we begin the, the new year, the new administration, what, uh, message do you have?
>> Drew Ireley: Keep grinding. Hold the line. Let your elected officials know that this is an issue that you want to see addressed in a manner that represents your values. Every issue is also an opportunity. We have an opportunity here to stimulate the economy, creating new jobs, decrease unnecessary spending, increase our, uh, national security. Like there's tons of opportunity that can come out of this issue. Keep raising those flags.
>> Peterson Toscano: And for someone interested in ccl, uh, conservatives, what will they experience there and what are the opportunities that exist in a year of being in ccl? Conservatives. >> Drew Ireley: So we have the whole new set of action teams coming out. There is an opportunity to come and work on this issue from a space that piques your interest, be it business, economy, armed forces, you name it, or just right of center.
Tons of opportunity to get involved in a manner that suits you, not so much that you have to fit a particular mold. When you join ccl, there's ways to do it that'll perfectly align with your interests. You're going to be a hero. Every CCL event I walk into being a Republican who is going against the stereotypical societal norm of Republicans don't care about this. You walk in the room and people are real glad to see you.
>> Peterson Toscano: And I know in years past there's been conference and lobby day in D.C. is this something that people can look forward to as well? >> Drew Ireley: Absolutely. March 4th. This is our right of
center only conference. So once a year we all meet up in Washington D.C. it is strictly for right of center individuals do a day of conference and trainings and then the following day we go on the Hill as nothing but right of center individuals meet with nothing but right of center offices and have right of center discussions on the issue of climate change and climate policy.
>> Peterson Toscano: I've been twice to cover it for Citizens Climate Radio and I was amazed both times at how incredibly warmly these conservative volunteers were received in Republican lawmakers, uh, offices. It was such a totally different experience that I saw when it was progressives talking about climate change. They talked about it differently, and they also were listened to and received differently.
>> Drew Ireley: It's a completely different discussion from our normal lobby days when everybody's in D.C. if I'm going to speak blunt, that's the difference between meeting with somebody who wants to have discussion on what they can do versus meeting with somebody who wants to have a discussion around yelling at you for what you're not doing. So when we show up and meet with these offices, we just want to talk about. All right, how do we move forward?
>> Peterson Toscano: I'm thrilled to hear that you've heard Hot Mess. You mentioned the first episode. I never get to talk often with listeners, so I'm just so curious. What has the experience been like for you? Is there any. Anything new and fresh that you heard in it?
>> Drew Ireley: There was all kinds of information in there, or just things that remind you of discussion points, like, you know, going back to that first episode with talking about Ford and how he was directly responsible for emissions reductions, things like that. Things that you learned so many years ago, but you tend to, you know, really forget about.
It was definitely a nice walk down, um, kind of. I don't want to say memory lane, but a good history lesson to remind you that at one point, conservatives were right there leading the charge on how to fix this issue. And if we were there, we can get back there. >> Peterson Toscano: Yeah, absolutely. And every major legislation that is passed about clean air and clean water and all that has always been under a Republican president. There's been virtually nothing
passed with Democrats. We recently had the Inflation Reduction act, of course, which, uh, is benefiting lots of red states. But that wasn't a bipartisan legislation and it may be challenged, but Republicans seem to get the work done. >> Drew Ireley: The climate provisions of the IRA are great. I'll,
uh, be empathetic in saying that. I can understand some of the points of contention in other parts of the ira, but the climate provisions and what they've done for local economies and even individuals such as myself who want to look into cleaner, more affordable renewable technologies. The IRA is great. It's absolutely outstanding. >> Peterson Toscano: Anything else you want to add about CCL conservatives, about how people can get involved?
>> Drew Ireley: Go to CCL website, uh, sign up, join our info session, learn about the organization. If you think it's a great fit for you, we'd be more than happy to have you come and join one of our action teams and go out there and advocate and pull those levers of political will. >> Peterson Toscano: That was Drew Ireley, Citizens Climate Lobbies, Conservative Activities Outreach Director.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Hot Mess How Climate Consensus Turned into Political Chaos this episode and this series comes to you from Citizens Climate Radio, which is a project of Citizens Climate Education. You can find our full catalog of over 100 episodes@cclusa.org radio or look for Citizens Climate Radio wherever you get podcasts. We produce a show every two weeks and this season you will hear from voices on the right and the
left. These include poets, pastors, politicians and public health experts. Many thanks to our roundtable guests Bob Inglis, Chelsea Henderson, Katie Zakreski and Zach Torpy, and to Drew Irely. Learn more about Bob and Chelsea by visiting republician.org Chelsea hosts the Egoright Speaks podcast and she is the author of the excellent book the Inside Story of Climate Politics. It is published by Turner Publishing and available
wherever you get books. You can hear Zach and Katie every week on Green Tea Party Radio, which is available wherever you get podcasts. To connect with Drew Irely and his fellow conservatives at Citizens climate lobby, visit cclusa.org conservatives every March they hold a conference and Lobby Day in Washington, dc. >> Katie: Hot Mess is made possible through Citizens Climate Education. The show has been researched by Horace Moe, Lily Rushin and
Peterson Toscano. Editorial assistants from Flannery Winchester, Elie Silvestri and Brett Cease production by Peterson Toscano with assistance from Elie Silvestri. Music for this episode comes from Epidemic Sound and Elise Silvestri. >> Peterson Toscano: The views expressed by our guests do not necessarily reflect those of Citizens Climate Education. Special thanks to you, our listeners, for joining us on this
journey. I'm um, Peterson Toscano and this has been Hot Mess How Climate Consensus Turned into Political Chaos. >> Peterson Toscano: Mhm. >> Chelsea Henderson: It.