Hello, and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Ami Westervelt. This week a new report came out from the Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change, often referred to as the IPCC Report. It's actually three main reports plus some smaller special focused reports, and this was the third of the big ones. It's on mitigation, so it focuses on what do we do
about this crisis and why haven't we done it yet. Crucially, this round of IPCC reports included social scientists and their research a lot more than previous assessments have, and you
really see it in this report. In particular, there are new chapters on things like demand, which sounds like demand for fossil fuel, but in fact it questions that whole notion altogether and asks how we can deliver the services that people need, getting to work, having lights on in their house, being able to cook, these sorts of needs, while also reducing emissions. So it really tackles the question
of how do we mitigate climate and poverty. There are also new mentions of various things in here, including the role that colonization played in driving the climate crisis in the first place and the role that it plays in perpetuating the problem. This is the first time that we've seen the media mentioned in an IPCC report. Kind of wild given how much of a role the media has played in both informing and not informing the public. It's also the first mention of litigation as something that can
influence policy one way or the other. There's a lot in this report, and because of the way that these reports are put together, a lot of media coverage tends to not get past this summary for policy makers that appears at the front of the report. It's a sixty five page ish summary of the report, but it's also the one part of the report that government representatives get
to weigh in on and have to approve altogether. So we're talking about representatives from the governments of one hundred and ninety five countries having to agree on the language and content of a document, which you can imagine does not produce the most straightforward, clearly worded document. In this case,
several things were removed and or watered down. So for that reason, and because this report is particularly important given the timing of it, I am going to spend the month of April reading all three thousand pages and bringing you information and analysis from them. Both here on the podcast and on our website at drill podcast dot com. Today, I'm looking at particularly chapter five. This is this totally new chapter that's never been included in an IPCC report before.
I also spoke with Catherine Mitchell, one of the coordinating lead authors, on chapter thirteen, which is focused on policy. Super interesting chapter. Obstructionism comes up a lot in this chapter, as it should, and it also looks at the need
for what Mitchell calls enabling conditions. So this idea that you could have all the amazing policies you want, but if you don't have sort of a functional government, if you don't have the ability to foster behavioral change, if you don't have finance all of these things, then those policies won't actually do anything. Unfortunately, my laptop totally ate the audio of that interview, but I did manage to catch one of the contributing authors to that chapter, Max Boycoff.
I should say right up front that there is, as expected, some pretty dire news in this report, starting with the fact that we've all but lost our shot at one point five degrees of warming, and in fact, this report makes it clear that even keeping it to two degrees or less is a stretch on the current trajectory. In the last ten years, so the decade in which we've known the most about climate change, what it's going to do, what it's already doing, and what we can and should
do to blunt those impacts, emissions have increased. So we're going not just not the right direction, but precisely the wrong direction. This is very bad news. It's very scary news. However, I do want to draw people's attention to all of the many ways of this report says we can and
actually do something about this. Here's how. So today I'm going to start with Chapter five, which is this totally new chapter in the report that really looks at economics in a different way and upends the ways that we talk about energy demand. It incorporates some really new and interesting thinking from the field of economics as well as social science and questions this kind of long held belief
that the energy market is entirely demand driven. So we're going to hear from a couple of folks who worked on that chapter that's coming up right after this quick break. Okay, so each chapter of the IPCC report has two coordinating lead authors, and they purposely choose one person from the Global South and one person from the Global North to fill those positions. The coordinating lead author from the Global South on chapter five is a woman named Joyashri Roi.
She's an Indian economist who specializes in the fields of environmental economics, energy economics, and climate change mitigation. She's currently the inaugural Bangabandhu Chair Professor at the Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand, as well as a Professor of economics
at Jadavpur University in India. I've been requesting interviews with Professor Roy and I haven't been able to reach her yet, but I did find some great talks that she's given online, so I'm going to pull some audio in from one of those.
Here.
She's talking here about CDR or carbon dioxide removal, which is something that was mentioned a lot in the IPCC report, and the author specifically made the point of saying that just capturing carbon and as it's being emitted is not the same as carbon dioxide removal, and they specifically called
out the potential need for carbon dioxide removal. What's interesting about Professor Roy's take on this here is that she makes the point that, hey, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface on what we could do to mitigate emissions and to reduce the demand for energy in ways
that also actually improve quality of life for people. So while she's not arguing against carbon dioxide removal or CDR, she's saying, hey, let's do all the other things first, so that we don't necessarily have to spend a large amount of money on this, and we might not have to go so far as these technological solutions that aren't even really available yet. We might be able to do this with reforestation, a forestation and stopping deforts station.
All the reports are clearly showing that we have to look at the portfolio of action, the whole bunch of actions together, and from that point of view, even one point five report also shows that it is possible to mitigate in such a way so that you might not need to go beyond just the reforestation or air forestations. So there is a pathway for the whole world to decide whether they want to go for high cost technological intervention more and more for CDR, or they want to
mitigate more which are less costly. So when we talk of finance, we need to be really looking for where lies the list cost option where lies the most benefit. And from that point of view, you just cannot look into the CDR and how we can get the money for but we should look at as a whole group of actions with mitigation and the CDR and what kind of CDR and in what timescale and how the money
will be flowing, because we must remember that. And in one point five report we could show it very clearly that even by looking into the mitigation options in the supply side and add to it the demand side responses ener deficiency and many other demand reduction, waste reduction and many of those behavioral measures which you can include in the societal scale and where you can generate more action and which are less costly, and then you reduce the
demand for CDR more and more. We are now seeing even in the six assessment cycle that from the demand side intervention you can reduce the need for CDR a lot. So because unless we make these choices the societal's scale, we will not be able to say that how much money need to go to for CDR, right, so this is very important. I don't think we have done those
research well. So it might be that we might be putting in money in something which we could easily do more list cost option way and more benefit.
I did manage to speak to environmental economists Julia Steinberger, who was a contributing author for the chapter and whose group at the University of Lausanne and Switzerland has done quite a bit of research on some of the economic models underpenning parts of this chapter. Here's a bit from
our conversation. Okay, I would like to ask for your opinion on the fact that there are authors and review editors and whatnot who are employees of oil companies, and whether that creates a conflict of interest, and you know what could or should be done about that?
Just running how I'm just wondering how many bridges to turn here.
I know that's why I was like that there comes up. Yeah, I think question I think it is.
I think it does create a conflict of interest. I I know that there is a conflict of interest policy in place, so everybody has to fill out forms regarding
their affiliation and obviously none of this was secret. But just because that person fills out forms does not mean that they don't have other interests at heart that are not reflective of the science and the public interest, but more reflective than their employer, and I think that that you know, at this late stage, and given what we know, and especially the kinds of things that your research has been uncovering prints since that conflict of interest is not
tenable in a scientific report that is examining these industries and their role in what are past, present in future is I guess. The other thing that I would point out is that a lot of climate scientists, both on the physical science side but also on the sort of more mitigation side, social science side, are quite naive and ignorant about the role of the fossil hill industry in
terms of disinformation attacking the science. And really there's sort of long interest, long history in successfully shaping public perception of the problem, and so a lot of people are quite naive about it, and I think that that is by itself a problem. So the fact that IPCC reports did not include that interest in understanding that aspect of the role of industry, not just emissions, but how they've intervened in politics and economics and consumption patterns and so
on over decades. Is that's a topic of science, and I don't think that it's a topic of science that has been sufficiently reflected within IPCC reports or within the climate community at large.
Yeah, that's really interesting. I did see. I mean, I do feel like both in Working Group two and in this report. I haven't made it all the way through, of course, but I'm getting there, but that there was more reference to sort of entrenched interests and obstruction and misinformation in those kinds of things that I've seen in
the past. But yeah, that's interesting to hear. Okay, So I want to talk about your chapter in particular, and was hoping that you could tell me, you know, what areas you focused on in particular in this chapter.
Okay.
So there were two chapters where I stuck my grabby little nose. So chapter three, which is when I was assigned to as a lead author, responsible for section three point seven and the box on inequality and poverty in there. So it's the chapter. It's the section that basically says, what are the long term trends in terms of what are consequences of long term trajectories of mitigation and sustainable development?
And so that's that's what that section does. And the other chapter I was quite involved in terms of my actual my research expertise. So in chapter three it was more like, you know, do your job of reviewing the literature basically, but chapter five is the one that reflects my research more. And so I was a contributing author on chapter five, and a lot of my research and my PhD students and sort of general group's research is pretty much all over chapter five. I think we did good there.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I was like, wait, I thought, I thought, Julia wie, Yeah it was five. And I looked at the list and I was like, wait, how did I confuse this? But okay, that makes sense now.
I mean I signed up for chapter five, and then they didn't choose me for it because, like you know, they had to choose a whole bunch of people, and everybody wanted to be on chapter five. It's the new sexy chapter, so.
There wasn't really right.
Then I was like, oh, well, never mind. I went to the IPCC of this fand and then I was convinced to stay on in chapter three. They thought I could be useful there, so and I ended up my I think my section ended up being okay.
Yeah. I wanted to ask you about this because I feel like I'm seeing a real resurgence recently of the sort of energy poverty argument for fossil fuels, and I know that you've done a significant amount of research that sort of debunks the idea that you know that the only way out of poverty is paved by fossil fuels.
Yeah, but in fact, what we found, what we were able to demonstrate, is actually the contrary that I mean, that's one of the statements that's very clearly in the supplement, in the summary for policy makers is that there is
no sustainable development or development full stop. But you know, sustainable development is not possible with that climate medication, Like unless you mitigate climate the impacts are get to catch you every step of the way and just make like people's lives increasingly hard and miserable, especially in global seth countries. And so this pathway of fossil field development is really a myth, it's not there is no substance there because of the destructive power that it comes with, as well
as the negatives. I mean, you have negatives in terms of air pollution, and air pollution gets even you know, localize the air pollution on climate emissions, and that gets even worse with heating and heat waves.
You know what I mean.
It's just it's just a mess. So yeah, so that was that was actually quite interesting that it was that we were able to make that that statement quite so clearly.
Yeah. Yeah. When I saw that in the in the summary, I was like, this will be very helpful in this because I just it's like the zombie that will never die that that argument. Okay, great, And then for chapter five, can you walk me through some of the pieces that either you or your students can try atributed most to in that?
Okay, So, actually there's one thing that we contributed to that's quite We're basically all over the chapter five from the sort of concept aspect to the results. There's one nice thing that So there's one piece that we contributed which is the first decent living global decent living energy model. So decent living energy is a framework that was put together. I mean, I don't want to pretend like we're the
only research group here, absolutely not. So living energy is something that was a research effort by Narasima Rao and his group at Yale. But we did the first global model as part of my group as in collaboration with Nausima. And so that's one of the things. And we also did so basically, Millward Hopkins, that's us so the first decent and that's reflected in the summary for policy makers that says that it's possible to have decent living conditions
for everybody at half of current energy use. So that's a pretty big result because it basically puts together a lot of the things that we're talking about in chapter five. It says all we need is services, we don't need the energy use itself. Hey, let's think about how we deliver those services in a more efficient way. But when we can demonstrate exists already and you get to these results that are really quite staggering, that you can really
do things very, very differently. Oh yeah, So if you look on page twenty five of chapter five, so that figure that basically highlights factors socioeconomic factors that allow societies to have better living so hiring needs satisfaction at lower energy use. That's the paper that comes from my groups as for my PhD student. If h'm Fogel, And that's
a pretty cool result. I think it came in just under the wire in terms of the IPCC deadline, and it basically shows that things like equality and public services and infrastructure help a lot and extractivism, and you can on the growth not so much.
Right, So yeah, right, I feel like this whole chapter is a really helpful rebuttal to the like poor people need fossil fuels yip story.
Yeah, because the funny thing is, so there are lots of myths about the way we understand the economy. One of the myths is that it's demand driven. When it's not, it's supply driven. So you can imagine that a phase of the economy is sort of like, you know, when everybody's in poverty, then you know there's going to be a lot of demand that drives production. But after a certain phase, basically have an over productive industry that's constantly
driving productivity and competitiveness through competition. And so at that point you start having overproduction and you need to find an outlet for that otherwise you cant economic crisis. And the outlet for that is various kinds of overconsumption or things like you know, find out's lessons, Like you have all these basic mechanisms for the economic production consumptions system to not have a crisis due to overproduction.
We totally see with fossil fuels. I mean you see it in the in just the plastics move right now exactly.
So it's basically like production is looking for outlets. And this was identified and termed the treadmill of production by Schneiberg and Gold, who are very famous American so environmental sociologists. And so this idea of the treadmill of production is basically the fossil fuel industries is using the narrative of demand, sort of this safe story of demand driven production to sort of excuse their activities. But as soon as you
look at demand, the story crumbles. That's what's really interesting. This is the first time we've ever had a chapter on demand because there was just this really sort of basic idea that demand will increase with economic growth. Everybody wants economic growth, so everybody wants demand to increase, so that's untouchable. So and as soon as you start questioning it, you realize that it's a it's a god with clay feet that you just can you can do a lot
better with a lot less. There's nothing preventing us from doing a lot better and using a lot less, including resolving poverty and deprivation around the world, like material poverty and deprivation around the world.
Max Boycoff is a longtime researcher in this realm. He has specifically looked at media and climate and that's something that made its way into the report for the very first time in this mitigation report in chapter thirteen, which is focused on policy role of media, not only in helping to create the conditions for passing policy, but also how it has been used as a weapon to spread disinformation and how various forces like the fossil fuel industry
and various trade groups have tried to use the media to block policy. Boycoff runs the Media and Climate Change Observatory at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and I asked him for his take on this report and his work in it and what he would like to see people do with it. So I was hoping you could
start with telling me. I know, I've heard from a couple of people that there was a push in the last I don't know, five six plus years to really get more social science and social scientists involved in the IPCC process, not that they weren't involved before, but just kind of like involved in a more serious way. And I wonder if that holds true to your experience and kind of what you've seen that sort of look like.
Yeah, I think that's right. I think you know, it's happened for several reasons, But I think that's what led to the invitation that I received back in twenty nineteen to start to get involved. I just think there's a great understanding that there's much more work to be done in the social sciences and even humanities than simply more
and more in the natural physical sciences. And so I said yes to the invitation to see what I could do to try to push things forward from a social sciences perspective.
And what was the experience, Like, how did it go? Do you feel like you succeeded in that effort?
Yeah, I have mixed feelings, But overall, I really do still believe in the power of doing this work collectively. I do think that it was worth it. Although it did take a considerable amount of time. I took the job seriously. I was kind of a second wave of contributing authors. There's the two hundred and seventy eight main authors, and then I was one of the three hundred and
fifty four contributing authors. But nonetheless, I spent a lot of time scouring literature trying to put together some koj and contributions across a few different areas of the report, and I think that it was successful in that a couple of statements appeared that I had written and contributed to that I hadn't seen before in IPCC reports. I was kind of amazed at how much heavy editing it really does go on. But to the point the pieces
that I'm glad are in. There are a few statements about climate conturing counter movements, and then also around media and media representational practices, and so I had been asked to, you know, but by I think some forward thinking lead authors to put together some language. It was heavily scrutinized. I had really pushed for a particular passage to get into the summary for policy makers that ended up on
page up one and eleven of the technical document. I can get into that if you'd like, but it didn't. And I should have known better, just knowing that summaries for policymakers is the one that's subject to line by line scrutiny from government delegates about one hundred and ninety five countries. I think that it was a little bit difficult for them to probably take it on board my
best guess is they just struck it. But the technical summary is one that's prepared by authors of the report, so it does go through the review process by governments and experts, but ultimately the authors have a say there. So that's where I'm actually, you know, I feel a little bit optimistic that some of those statements made their way through.
Would you be willing to read that passage for me?
Yeah? Yeah.
As I read through it so far, I've probably found like seven places where I think my fingerprints are keyboard print is on them. But there's two that I'll highlight. The first is on page eleven of the technical report. There was just this passage at the end of a sort of a table about sciences progress on the left
and continuing challenges on the right. And one of the continuing challenges was the statement accurate transference of the climate science has been undermined significantly by climate change counter movements in both legacy and new social media environments through misinformation. So that was the first one that I think could be of interest to you and your audience. And the second one is on page one eleven. In my pagination,
it's a little bit longer. Here go is a letter rip the media shape the public discourse about climate mitigation. This can usefully build public support to accelerate mitigation action, but can also be used to impede decarbonization. Global media coverage across a study of fifty nine countries has been growing from about forty seven thousand articles in twenty sixteen seventeen to about eighty seven thousand articles in twenty twenty
to twenty twenty one. Generally, the media representation of climate science has increased and has become more accurate over time. On occasion, the propagation of scientifically misleading information by organized counter movements has fueled polarization with negative implications for climate policy. So the reference to those numbers comes from the work that I do based here with a group of two
dozen researchers called Art Media and Climate Change Observatory. The second one that I read to you on page one hundred and eleven was the one that we were pushing for to get into the summary for policy makers but failed.
Yeah, the other I mean, I saw an earlier draft of the summary for policy Makers that did include reference to you know, invested interest and things like that, but it seems like all of that got summary.
Reading through the summary, he'd be interesting, who you think. It's just that there's no responsibility really garnered on anyone on that.
The summary to me feels a lot like talking around the key issues, which is weird because the rest of the report actually really does a pretty great job of not doing that. I think it's like one of the most direct IPCC reports I want, you.
Know, yeah, sort of, but SPM is like saying, my car hit your car, and then I take a responsibility or I hit it. You know, it's just a real striking.
Right right, It's very yeah to me, Yeah, there was like a real start contrast between the summary for policymakers and the rest of the report. And you know, I talked to Katherine Mitchell and a couple of other folks who were kind of like, well, people get too hung up on the summary for policy makers, and you know, at the end of the day, like sure, government officials can you know, kind of neuter the language, but they
can't do anything to change the underlying argument. Yeah, and you know that's still very strong in all the chapters, which I think is true. But unfortunately I also think that because of the way that the IPCC release schedule is the vast majority of media are probably not going to make it much past the summary for policy.
Means, Oh, absolutely agreed.
So it's still important. Other I mean, I think if it wasn't important, the government representatives probably wouldn't fight so hard for certain things in it.
Yeah, I just think it's sort of a bummer because it turns out to be a bit of a smoke screen for what's really the important part, which is hope summary. Because you know, like the process has been fraught since its inception in nineteen eighty eight and the first import in nineteen ninety. The fact that one hundred and ninety five government representatives have to sign off on it is
you know, it's it's just super problematic. It's a scientific body, then, is that were the s M Center for Policymakers is captured by governments? And so the distinction that I that I pointed out about how the technical summary is controlled by the authors of the report is it actually a lot more important than I think people ever really talk about. And so I'd rather people just skip the summary and go right into the technical reports. We've got the stomach for it.
Yeah, it's not that much longer and it's like it's much I don't know, just more more robust.
Yeah, well that's where you can hear the voices of those of us who have written on.
It well, and they did put that out along with the summary for policymakers. As someone who studies, you know in part and you study lots of things, but I know one of the things is media and coverage and all that. So I'm curious to hear what you think about how the IPCC sort of handles its relationship with media. I saw a lot of what I'm assuming is your stuff after thirteen around the role that the media plays in all of this, but also just in terms of
the kind of the process for releasing these reports. I'll just tell you that I heard from a lot of authors that like, well, we don't really expect journalists to cover this the day it comes out, so it doesn't really matter what time it comes out or how much time they have to read the report, because obviously it's a three thousand page report they're not going to cover the day of. And I was like, that is so cute,
but that's not how media actually works anymore. So I just I feel like there's this giant disconnect between you know, Yeah, I don't know. One person put it to me that they felt like that in a way, that there's more attention paid to sort of protecting the process than the report having impact. And I'm curious what you think about that.
Yeah, that's interesting. The process is really fascinating and I think troubling in some ways. I think the IPCC bank on just being a legitimate, legitimate and high profile scientific body, and so when they got the report coming out, they could release it whenever they feel like it, and they know that media will cover it, and so, you know, I've heard from some journalists that are frustrated, I think quite understandably by just how opaque that final Plenary negotiation
sessions are. I to myself and really unclear. I've just happened to get inside, you know, insights from people who are involved. Otherwise it's just not well described. And so they have a fairly untransparent process. Doesn't really, you know, bode well for the IPCC really getting out what it wants to get out. And so it's kind of living by these fictions that we've you know, critiqued so much over time, is that good work will find itself to the right people that we know that doesn't work. That
sounds a little bit unfair. I do know that there are actually there is an increasing group, a media group, and they do good work with the capacity that they've got, and so I don't mean to disparage that at all.
No, I know, I know that there's a huge capacity issue and a resourcing issue too. So I think there's basically like one person handling all the press.
It is wild and that person is doing heroic work.
I mean, honestly, to me, that just it's like it's similar to the fact that like all of the authors are just putting in tremendous amounts of work for free, you know, Like I don't know. I'm like, this is a really important thing. It seems like maybe it's time to actually fund it appropriately.
Yeah, it's a funny thing, isn't it. Yeah, But then.
It's funny because I was I was talking to someone else who was like, there are a lot of issues that I would like to see addressed, but I also like, don't like to talk about the issues publicly because you know, the IPCC is so vulnerable and people are always wanting to like take funding away from it rather than you know, yeah, put resources towards actually solving these things. So it's just a it's a funny thing.
I agree, I agree, there is there's a balancing act, right, Like I mean, I said it already and I'll say it again, like, I support it's work. I see the value of it.
That's why I just dedicated the time I did to it. However, I think any good relationship involves honesty about what's good and what can improve, and so I'm also sharing that with you, and it's not hopefully not to be taken out of context because I think everybody recognizes.
That there's more and better, more effective work that can be done through this process.
Yeah.
Yeah, I believe this was the first time that the report really included media in this way. Is that is that true? Yeah? So that's I mean, that's pretty exciting that you know that it was included and that you were able to get in the stuff about how it can be weaponized so easily too. It's good.
Yeah, and that's why I said yes to it. That's why I still think it was worth worth taking part, and I really I do also appreciate the work of the lead authors on that chapter that you refer to that that is where I was contributing mostly, and they too had vision and commitment to seeing that through, and so I really think the lead authors did good work.
I mean, I do think that it's noticeable just to me as someone who reads these reports. I think there's a very noticeable difference between AR five and AR six, specific to like greater inclusion of social scientists and like a more kind of interdisciplinary approach in general. There was a bunch of stuff in this report that I've never seen.
We're just in a really different place than we were back then, even at AR five, and I think that's led partly to this. I mean, the shift to renewables, the clean energy revolution, the fact that solar wind batteries have come down, you know, eighty five percent in the last decade. All that stuff tributes to I think more of an appetite, more recognition of inclusion of these important pieces.
Is there anything in particular in this report that you really want to draw people's attention to, because you know, it is a three thousand page roughly, and there's a lot of detail in it. I think there's a lot of things that can get missed. So yeah, I'm curious, what are the things that you particularly want people to know.
Yeah, there's several. If I had to just pick, I think the recognition that politics and status quo interests, not science, money, or technology, are now the primary barriers to meeting climate targets. The fact that the IPCC can say that, even in a guarded manner, shows where we are, I mean, walking
that tightrope of policy relevant but noticy prescripted. The mantra of the IPCC for all these years can't get away from the fact that the politics and status coal interests play a part, and you know, hand in hand with that. I think there were some fascinating moments in the news conference this morning. Did you get a chance to watch that I did. I mean two things stuck out. One
is you and Secretary General Antonio Uterres. His I mean, it was very striking just how straightforward his comments were.
The jury has reached the verdict and it is damning. This report of the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of broken climate promises. It is a file of shame, cataloging the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world. We are on a fast track to climate disaster. This is a climate emergency. Climate scientists sworn that we are already perilously close to tipping points that could lead to cass skating and irreversible
climate impacts. But high meeting governments and corporations are not just turning a blind eye. They are adding fool to the flames. They are choking our planet based on their invested interests and historic investments in fossing fools. When cheaper renewable solutions provide green jobs, energy security, and greater price stability. Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals, but the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the
production of fossil fools. Investing in new fossing fool infrastructure is moral and economic madness.
And then at the end of the press conference, I think it was a question from Sarah Capran from the Washington Post Jim Ski about you know, okay, this politics and status coincious. What are you going to do about it? Then? What should we do? And he went so far as to say that he was deliberately skirting the issue, and it just demonstrates that there is there are limits to the A PCC is an organization that can really address
political corporate power. And so it's waking to me that while the i PCC has taken these steps, and I'm really glad that this the passages that I shared with you're in there, it shows that we can't, yeah, expect too much of this body. This is something that provides a foundation for further and ongoing work, and so that that's one thing that I just sort of came away
with as I've been digesting it just today. There's certainly a lot of language within the report that is that is fascinating and into ternisting, but that kind of larger, that larger kind of yeah, way in which it was presented through the press conference, I thought was striking.
That's it for this time again. You can find more about this on our website at Drilled podcast dot com, and I will be bringing you more on the IPCC report as I slowly make my way through all of it. If there's some part of the report that you would like us to focus on, feel free to shoot me a note either at Amy at Critical Frequency dot org or you can do that via Twitter. I'm on there at Amy Westervelt. We're making all of these IPCC episodes
and write ups free to everyone. That is supported entirely by our paying members, So if you do want to support more of our work, you can do that by signing up either at drilled podcast dot com or at Patreon dot com slash drilled. Thanks for listening and we'll see you next time. Back back back back