The Supreme Court was expected to rule this morning in the case West Virginia versus EPA. They did not issue ruling. They may issue one tomorrow. It might be Wednesday, or maybe later in the week. Nobody knows. Complicating matters further, given that it's been held to the end of this current Supreme Court session, folks were speculating that it will either be a remarkably terrible ruling or that they'll decide that actually, they really shouldn't be ruling at all in
this case. I spoke with Richard Revez, a law professor at NYU School of Law and director of the Institute for Policy Integrity there about that option earlier this year, well.
Before the oral argument, I had the very strong and that the right thing for the Court to do was not to decide this case and to dismiss it. Supreme cord as a mechanism for dismissing cases is improvidently, granted, and it's not something it does frequently, but on average it's been doing it about twice a year in recent years. In this case seems like an excellent candidate for that disposition because there is no regulation in place. The Clean Power Plan is not in place, and the Affordable Clean
Energy Rule is not in place. A clean power plant, of course, was the Abomba administration regulation of the greenhouse gas emissions of existing power plans, and the Affordable Clean Energy Rule was the Trump administration's toothless and potentially counterproductive replacement. But neither are in place, and neither would go back into effect no matter what the Court does. So essentially, no matter what the Court does, there's not going to be a clean power plant in place. There's not going
to be an Affordable Energy rule in place. So all the court could do is give EPA advice. This is known in this lingo as an advisory opinion on what its future rule might look like. But the federal courts don't have the authority to issue advisory opinions. That's been clear since essentially the beginning of the Republic. So going into the case, I was, you know, the strong sense that this was the right thing for the court to.
Do, and what was your sense of the oral arguments and where this seems to be headed.
Well, I mean, coming out of the case, I still think that that is the right I think for the Court to do, for exactly the same reason that I thought about that before the argument. But I have to say that while these issues were discussed, it's not clear to me that five justices would find that approach compelling.
You never know, you can be surprised. You can't read too much from the questions in oral argument, but it didn't look like that way of thinking about the case was foremost in the minds of five of the justices.
Attorney Jason Rylander from the Center for Biological Diversity expanded on this idea.
Yeah, it's really interesting. Back when the Clean Power Plan was originally developed by the Obama administration, industry groups sued over it, and the litigation was ongoing, but the Supreme Court reached out and issued an unprecedented stay without even allowing the DC Circuit to complete oral arguments or issue or ruling. So, for whatever reason, the contours of EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act seemed to be of
interest to this court. And here again they've taken a case that they really don't have to take because the Biden administration has pledged that it's going to develop its own rules for regulating stationary power plant missions and that those rules may not look anything like either the Clean Power Plan or the Affordable Clean Energy Plan that the
Trump administration developed, which is also not in effect. So the real concern here is that this Court is basically issuing an advisory opinion about EPA's authority in the absence of an actual rule in front of it for it to review. Court has already ruled in a couple of different cases that EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases. They said so first in Massachusetts vi. EPA. They said so in AP versus Connecticut case, and they also said so in another case that came a couple years later.
And so you know, to the extent that the Court wants to get into these sort of major questions about what Congress has spoken clearly to in terms of authority for agencies to regulate, that big question has already been addressed. What we're really getting into now is sort of the weeds of whether Section one eleven allows EPA to create a best system of emissions reduction that would lead to the most effective and efficient reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.
And that's the kind of question that is usually left to agency discretion.
Like Revez explained, there is precedent for the Court to opt not to rule in cases where it really makes no sense for it too. But given all the other norms these justices are breaking, it's hard to believe they'll go that route, especially given that Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett consistently brought up something called the major questions doctrine during oral arguments. Here's Rylander again.
I think, to put it simply, there's clearly an anti rede regulatory appetite among certain justices of this Court, and we've seen that in a number of different cases dealing with the extent of agency authority. And this idea that they can use this major Questions doctrine to kind of look at a regulation and decide in the abstract whether Congress granted authority to address that issue without even really
looking at an actual rule is bizarre. It is an expansion of judicial power in a way that is really pretty inappropriate. And we've seen commentators kind of across the political spectrum warning against this expanded use of the Major Questions doctrine to attack agency rulemaking, but that seems to be where a few of the justices want to go.
This is part of the general right wing project to attack the so called administrative state. If you spend any time at all online, you might hear conservatives say things like, well, actually, regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. In other words, the Constitution doesn't allow for Congress to hand over its powers to agencies.
The argument for agencies, of course, has historically been that legislators can't possibly be experts on everything, and it makes a certain amount of sense to keep the nuts and bolts of applying legislation free of the sort of grandstanding and influence peddling that has been a hallmark of American politics. But for many conservatives, not only is there no need for the EPA to develop an emissions reduction plan absent explicit instructions to do so from Congress, but also there's
really no need for an EPA at all. You might recall an episode we put out earlier this year with Lisa Greeves. She's a former Senate investigator who went on to run the Center for Media and Democracy for several years before starting her own research firm, True North. Lisa has been tracking the right wing project to take over the judiciary almost since its inception. Here she is explaining some of these structural changes that cases like West Virginia versus EPA are driving towards Yeah.
I mean, they've declared, you know, this war on the so called administrative state. Obviously there's roots of that in Reagan, and some of the lawyers who were active then, who became judges, and some of the people who are in the judiciary have been you know, in my view, very partisan, very right wing, you know, sort of politicians and rogues who are attempting to restructure the modern American state through
judicial rulings. But you know, eighty percent of the of the Supreme Court has been appointed by Republicans, and they just haven't been doctrinaire enough for these you know, very elite reactionaries like Leonard Leo.
Leonard Leo of course, ran the Federalist Society for decades. It's a group of conservative lawyers and justices who have been integral to the project to use the judicial system to further a conservative agenda. Leo himself hand picked many of the justices on the Supreme Court bench today. Lisa Graves helped to make the general public more aware of the Federalist Society's role in picking justices when they began
telling Trump who to nominate. Leo and the Federalist Society are also deeply entwined with another key component of the right wing legal machine, RAGA, the Republican Attorney's General Association. That organization was created as a reaction to the tobacco litigation in the nineteen nineties, which was kicked off by a Democratic attorneys general. At the time, Democrats outnumbered Republicans
in state attorneys general offices almost two to one. The Republican attorneys general in Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas decided to form a group that would dedicate itself to getting more Republican attorneys general elected and working together to advance it's a conservative legal agenda. The Texas Attorney General at that time was now Senator John Cornyn. His second in command was Ted Cruz, two guys who come up over and over again in the context of these big Supreme
Court cases. At any rate, in its first decade, RAGA was just focused on winning elections. Then in twenty.
Ten, mister Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance.
What the Court has said in the First Amendment context New York Times US is Sullivan, Gross Chain versus Associated Press, and over and over again as a corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
That was the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg questioning Attorney Ted Olsen during the landmark Citizens United case in which the Court ultimately ruled that corporations have the same free speech protections as individuals and that money, in this case, money spent on a movie length political attack ad is speech. That ruling opened up a flood of dark money into politics, billions of dollars coming from who knows where, to further who knows what agenda, and suddenly RAGA became a key
political tool. Here's Graves again.
Something has happened over the last twenty years. And I had looked at this back when I was working on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In terms of this, the rise of RAGA, the Republican Attorney's General Association in where we know that it's a pay to play operation, we know that it has had enormously distorting effect on US law.
It provides a mechanism for corporations to pass money through to help attorneys general in ways that they would not be able to individually solicit for their own campaigns given
their role, their regulatory role over those very industries. And that's been going on since RAGA was created, back more than twenty years ago now, and it has accelerated under some of the attorneys general who have led it, like Scott Crewe was who was, you know, in my view, another corrupt individual, someone who was lacks on ethical rules to say the least, and who was willing to do the bidding of the oil industry in attacking climate legislation
and climate rules, even the very modest CPP the Clean Power Plan rules, to advance the interests of the funders of RAGA.
Here's where we come back to West Virginia versus e PA. It's a RAGA case, so might even say the RAGA case. It was the jewel of Scott Prewitt's reign as the head of RAGA. You might remember that Prewitt went on from there to run the EPA, an agency he very much wanted to get rid.
Of these Republican attorneys general behave in general, they are operating most often we've seen at the behest of the
industries that they're soliciting funds for to fund RAGA. That's interesting beyond RAGA is funding the corporate funders of RAGA, we know that it now is receiving a substantial amount of money from one of the emerging big dark money operations, which is Leonard Leo's operation, which was funded, you know, funded through a group that's now defunct that has subsequently you know, basically been rebranded or renamed as Leo has has re uh launched his his operations after it was
exposed by The Washington Post last year. So RAGA now is not just a recipient of of donations from big oil and big huge corporations, but it's also a major recipient of funds in which the source is completely unknown, and they've particularly targeted states in state AG's offices to advance Leonard's longer term agenda, which he described to the Council of National Policy, and this was documented in that Washington Post story, but he described in that in a speech to c n P last year that his that
America stands at the precipice of what he called the revival of what he described as the quote structural constitution, and he told the CNP audience that no one alive in that room had seen the type of legal revolution that America was about to see based on the appointments to the Supreme Court and other courts to revive this so called structural constitution to the law as it existed pre New Deal. And you know, that affects a whole
host of laws. It affects civil rights laws, that it will affect labor laws and labor rights, environmental regulation and more.
And it's an attempt, in my view, to really limit the ability of Congress to pass laws, to limit the ability of agencies to regulate corporations, and to you know, sort of change the whole modern structure of government basically in terms of the administrative agencies, but also the rights of citizens and the relationships between the United States as a government and other governments.
That is the master plan that West Virginia versus EPA is just one part of.
It.
Would be an extreme, radical, reactionary agenda to change our rights and limit our powers in our democracy through our representatives in ways that serve a very elite agenda, the agenda of the people who fund Leonard Leo and Leo's operations and fund the RAGA, the Republican Coturney General's Association, and have been really attempting to work a legal revolution through offices that we would otherwise consider to be independent.
It would be nice to have Attorneys general of states who were not so captive to advancing the interests of Charles Koch, but unfortunately we are in an era in which those interests have been dominating.
The EPA is, of course not the only regulatory agency that these interests would like to see peer, but we don't have to just stand by and watch it happen. I'm going to spend the second half of this episode talking about what might be up ahead and some of the tools still available to us even if all of the worst case scenario predictions about West Virginia versus EPA
come true this week. It's coming up after this quick break. Okay, So when it comes to West Virginia versus EPA, first, I think it's important to be clear about what is and isn't actually being argued here, because even with this Supreme Court, they can't just rule on stuff that's not even vaguely mentioned in the case. I've been seeing a lot of overstatements about what's at stake here, everything from the Court making it illegal to regulate CO two to
it shutting the EPA down altogether. And look, I'm not saying that either or both of those is out of the realm of possibility. At some point. There're certainly targets. They just wouldn't happen as a result of this case. What the justices can do in this particular case is say that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA does not have the authority to create an emissions reduction system or plan or policies that would in effect overturn the
precedent set by Massachusetts versus EPA. That was the case a few years ago when the Court said the EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Here's Jason Rylander again to explain.
I think the worst case scenario here is that they have an EPA's authority in a way that is going to make it more difficult for the Biden administration and future administrations to regulate effectively under Section one eleven of the Clean Air Act. The good news is Clean Air Act is broader than that, and there are a lot of other ways that we can get at greenhouse gas pollutions. And we also know that greenhouse gas pollutions emerge from things other than stationary coal and.
Power plants.
In fact, the market alone has already produced greater emissions reductions than had been predicted if the clean power plant had gone into effect.
One way to get at greenhouse gases, especially if your top concern is CO two, is through an authority. The EPA already very much has, which is regulating air pollution under the Clean Air Act more broadly, specifically particulate matter. So this is the stuff that comes from combusting fossil fuels, it's what comes out of exhaust pipes, it's what is released at factories, power plants, all of that stuff, and the EPA already regulates that and has already moved to
tighten those regulations. Another way to get at greenhouse gases is an approach we talked about in a recent episode invoking the Toxic Substances Control Act or TOSCA.
EPA aware of all of these things, and they're worried about it, and all the staff is running around wishing that they could do something. The problem is they felt that they didn't have the authority and that none of the laws gave the authority. In fact, the authority has been hiding in plain sight the entire time under the Toxic Substances Act. But there was sort of a perceived wisdom that the Toxic Substances Control Act didn't work based
on how the Agency got hammered over asbestos. And it was actually the agency's full because they didn't do their due diligence, but they thought they had a slam dunk there. It didn't work. They kind of threw up their hands and say, we have to work under the Clean Air Act, which is an abysmal law.
That is former EPA scientist Don Viviani, speaking at a press conference earlier this month, he says climate advocates have been sleeping on TOSCA, which provides a much stronger basis for the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
This sort of problem is exactly the thing the TUSK was designed for. Congress knew that there were problems out there that were multimedia multiprogram that a single media Act couldn't handle, and that we needed something more expansive. It was designed to take care of things that the other laws weren't properly taken care of, and if you look back at the history of climate it's quite clear that none of the other laws are taking care of this. So this is exactly what TOSCO was designed to do.
Viviani has signed on to a petition filed with the EPA requesting that the agency made a determination under TOSCA that greenhouse gas emissions pose a risk to human health and the environment, and then regulated as such. Other petitioners include climate scientists doctor James Hanson and climate accountability expert Richard Heaty, who authored the themed Carbon Major's Report which pinpointed the seventy companies most responsible for climate change.
OSCAR actually was used in nineteen seventy eight for just this purpose with respect to CFCs on the ground in the rule that CFCs were endangering the ozone layer and presented a serious risk with respect to global warming. CFC's are also a gas and therefore you know there actually is strong precedent in EPA's own actions and utilizing this statute to kickstart in the effort to get rid of that potent pollutant that has very strong greenhouse gats forcing effect as.
Well, it also has deep benefit of clear language around the EPA's authority, language that was strengthened with bipartisan support in twenty sixteen.
They just reauthorized the Act in twenty sixteen was a bipartisan a reauthorization. So clearly this is the the language that the TOSK is supposed to deal with. Unreasonable risk is recent and it was a bipartisan It was a bipartisan passage.
Doctor James Hansen says he hopes this effort will give the agency the authority to act before it's too late.
We're so far off and that just hasn't hasn't sunk in. And you know, even though we have international organization, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the conferences of the parties, some of the stuff that they're coming out with is pretty nonsensical. The last cop the head said, well, we've kept within the possibility to stay under one point five degrees warming. That's absolute bullshit. There's too much inertia in the energy system and in the warming that's in the pipeline.
Just because the planet is now out of balance by an enormous amount doesn't sound like much a little more than a one walt per meter square, but that contains more than one degree celsius additional warming, and we're already at one point too. So yeah, we've passed the point of being dangerous. But we can still deal with the situation if we begin to make fossil fuels pay their cost to society.
Multiple climate cases all over the world more than eighteen hundred and in fact A trying to do that as well, all of which will continue irrespective of the outcome of West Virginia versus EPA. Dan Gilburn, Executive Director and General Counsel for the Climate Protection and Restoration Initiative, is the lawyer spiritheading the TOSCA EPA petition, and he says the outcome of West Virginia Versus EPA shouldn't have any impact on that effort at all.
One eleven D of the Clean Air Act has nothing to do with our petition. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
One eleven D of the Clean Air Act confers authority on EPA to compel emissions controls from existing power plants, and there is a specific question as to whether the Obama EPA, in fashioning the now dormant Clean Power Plan over stepped its bounds and read into that provision of law authority to restrict emissions outside the fence line of power plants rather than just inside the fence line of power plants. So that's a specific, fairly narrow technical issue.
Those including West Virginia and a number of other conservative states and a portion of the fossil fuel industry are urging the Supreme Court in that case to rule much more broadly, to say that without express language in this statute, no federal agency can really do much to restrict economic activity at the center of industrial policy, within a sector
of the economy. And so to have a very broad prohibition against not only the EPA but other agencies attempts to restrict activity that even where it presents a significant risk to human health or the environment. But you know, it's very unclear to me whether the Supreme Court will take up that invitation. I'm not saying it's impossible.
We will see.
But the language at issue in section one to eleven D I think, while the EPA did construe it correctly, is far more vague or ambiguous than the language that we're relying on under the Toxic Substance of Control Act in our petition. All that is to say therefore that I think that even if the Supreme Court rules very broadly in wass Universus EPA, the legal basis for our petition under the Toxic Substance Control Act should be unaffected.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that a case about the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under TOSCA wouldn't also land at the Supreme Court. But Scalprin says he's ready. Can you walk through some of the potential outcomes here? I know you're expecting legal challenges. What might those be?
Well, we're in a retigious society. This is a industry, the fossil fuel industry, the predominant source of greenhouse gas emissions in this country, that is used to getting its way. On the other hand, there have been a series of successful regulatory programs that have limited the industry's unfettered right to treat the atmosphere as an open sewer, and it has adjusted well, and we believe that it would adjust well to this type of regulation. That is to say,
the industry would be transformed into an energy industry. Just last week, the United Nations General Secretary called for the phase out of fossil fuels worldwide. They don't have to go to court and challenges. They could participate in good faith in the rulemaking process and we come up with a reasonable pathway to get from a disaster to safety.
In the alternative, they could challenge EPA's decision. That would I think be legal insanity for them to argue that greenhouse gas emissions do not present the risk of injury to health for the environment. I think that they would
certainly lose on that. We are prepared to go to court to defend a favorable agency determination, and we will do what's necessary, you know, going from one end of this country to another, to galvanize the public to ensure that the administration has the political support it needs to do what is right here, and that is to take strong action to preserve our nation from the continuing threat
of devastating climate change. It's within reach because of this petition and pointing out, you know, this strong tool that has been hiding in plain view. It's a tool that therefore should be used to address what the President has called an existential risk, an existential threat.
And then there are these short term economic levers, particularly in the form of financial incentives to move quickly away from fossil fuels. Biden's recent use of the Defense Production Act to ramp production of both heat pumps and solar panels and lift the tariff on imports for a couple of years is a key example. Climate advocates have been asking Biden for years to declare a climate emergency in
order to make moves exactly like this. Here's the President's Climate advisor, Gina McCarthy explaining more about it on CBS News.
The President actually took three very decisive action yesterday, and that was done in response to an urgent need to grow the domestic energy economy and strengthen our energy security. We were seeing the potential to significant layoffs solar projects not coming online, grid instability as a result, we wanted to protect those jobs who wanted to grow and spurred
the domestic economy. So we provided a small window of opportunity really, which is a twenty four month bridge that's going to jumpstart ours solar imports while we reinforce the integrity about trade laws in those processes by taking action to really spur the domestic production of solar right here in the United States of America.
Now, climate advocates want Biden to do more invoking the Defense Production Act, and it could be a way to mitigate some of the damage of a bad ruling in West Virginia versus EPA. So there is some hope that if the West Virginia versus EPA ruling really does dramatically curb the government's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, these
short term economic levers could go a long way. Meanwhile, Lisa Graves says, those who want to see climate action need to be as imaginative and ruthless as those who have sought to block it for decades.
You know, people are cynical or whatever. And you know, maybe there's some cause for cynicism, given the political landscape we've inherited, particularly in the Senate with so much so many coke back senators there.
But the fact is.
Is that, you know, the right is almost unbound in its imagination of where it wants to take America in terms of how far they're willing to, you know, basically roll back the twentieth century, you know, and it and and yet and yet it's not you know, it's not described as radical or reactionary. It is described as you know, these ideas we're just debating these ideas. In fact, they're seeking to implement them, and they've been they've been having success really since the Reagan administration.
Sweeping and restrictive ruling in West Virginia versus EPA. Also doesn't rule out the possibility of Congress passing a law that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but that has not worked to date, even when Democrats had a much stronger majority in the government. So there's not a ton of optimism around that path. At the farthest left end of the spectrum, some progressives are saying, look, it's time to think past our existing structures, particularly as we see them
failing all around US. I spoke with Max Berger, one of the founders of Momentum, a movement incubator that helped launch the Sunrise Movement, to get his take on this a few months ago.
If you just were to step back and look at the US as a country, it would be very clear. You know, the current constitutional arrangement is not long for this world. You know, you have a significant subset of the population, particularly the white population, although not only that, is really terrified about the transition away from a white majority population to a multi racial majority and that's happening
in the context of you know, world historic inequality. Right, so you really do have the conditions for ethno nationalist authoritarian politics, right like, call it fascist, call it ethno nationalist authoritarian, call it white supremacist politics, in which there is a significant number of people that are willing to use violence and do not really subscribe to the beliefs that are required of participating in a democracy because they're
afraid of losing power within that democracy to other ethnic groups.
That's the kind of beginning of my analysis here. And if you take that, you know, as a kind of skeleton key for what's going on, you're a lot becomes more clear in that you know, that group of people, that kind of white supremacist plurality is not big enough to govern the country, but it is big enough to take over the Republican Party, as Trump showed, and through their control of the Republican Party, are able to take control of state and federal governments because we have a
very anti democratic political system, because you know, our political system is the result of a compromise with slaveholders, and so vastly over represents small rural states.
That white people have more power, and so.
That white supremacist plurality can take over the federal government, state governments with a minority of votes. And you know, because of other aspects of our anti democratic political system, the Senate as we're seeing now, the electoral college, as you know, we are kind of threatened with every four years that there's going to be another instance in which the.
Winner of the popular vote does not become president.
And you know that has happened recently a number of times. In the two party system, which allows for that, you know, let's say twenty five to forty percent.
Of the population to govern, we are not.
We're not going to see the multi racial majority have an opportunity to turn its will into law in the next ten to fifteen years. And I think the amount of tension that that will generate will break the political system. I don't think that, you know, I don't think that the amount.
Of friction that will be created in the.
In the in the popular will being stymied in that way, particularly when the people in power are taking active steps to move us away from competitive elections and limit people's rights. I cannot imagine a situation in which the multiracial majority takes that lying down. And I also don't think that the white nationalists plurality is going to become less vociferous
in their opposition to multiracial democracy. So you know, and if you were to talk about this with a comparative political scientist, they would tell you, you know, if you have.
This kind of.
Demographic transition happening the worst case scenario, our political system is basically designed as poorly as possible to manage that kind of a demographic transition because the two party system collapses all divisions in society into a zero, all or nothing competitive existential.
Conflict.
And you know, when that gets racialized or ethnicized, it can become dangerous very quickly. You know, we're as polarized as any time since before the Civil War. And in addition, you know, the with the with the separately elected presidency and a bi cameral system, we have what ca what a political scientists referred to as a profusion of veto points right, So it's very very difficult for bills to become law as we see with you know, anything, But the example I always use is is gun control.
And you know, after name a massacre.
People always ask if this stuff is eighty five percent approval rating?
Why can't it pass?
And the truth of the matter is that very little can pass, you know, very little, very few laws make it through the our system. And you know, there's a
stat that I think does not bode well. I tweeted this the other day and people thought I was saying this not in jest, but you know that there's a there's a stat that the United States is the only system that has a separately elected executive branch that is not at some point collapsed into dictatorship because in presidential systems, systems with a separate, separately elected executive, what happens is there's a conflict between the president and the Congress and
there's some external crisis that requires action, and the Congress is incapable of or unwilling to respond, and then the executive takes the authority to do so without the approval of the legislature. And once that is broken, it's very hard to take back. And I think some version of that is more or less inevitable in the next five years.
So I.
The way I say it is like, look, we're going to get a new political system. The question is does it happen before authoritarian authoritarianism and civil war or after, and I would love for it to be before. You know, as an American, I would love to not have to experience those things, But don't. I don't think we're going to. So I think we're looking more at a you know, post dictatorship, post conflict situation and less at like, how do we organize a political revolution before?
So there you have it, a few potential avenues for climate action even in the face of a worst case scenario ruling. One thing I want to emphasize here it's not that the ruling in West Virginia versus EPA doesn't matter, or that it's not justifiably anxiety inducing it is. It's more that it doesn't make the political reality of tackling client in the US that much worse than it has been for years, which isn't good news. It just means
that a lot of the same fights will continue. And of course I'll be back with an update and a deep dive on that ruling as soon as it's out. That's it for this week. To read or endorse the petition and track its progress, check out cprclimate dot org. We'll bring you an update when the EPA makes a decision too. Before you exit, out of your podcast app. If you could just take a moment to rate or review the podcast, I'd really appreciate it. It helps the
show reach more listeners. Thanks for that, and thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time. Drilled is an original production of the Critical Frequency Podcast Network. Our producer is Jules Bradley, our editor is Jude Joffy Block, mixing sound design and scoring by Peter Dye, and I am your host and creator and us gilt. If you would like to get bonus content at free episodes and access to exclusive merchandise, please check out our Patreon at Patreon dot
com slash drilled. You can also sign up for our newsletter at drilled podcast dot com and you can follow us on Twitter at we are Drilled