Welcome to A Climate Change, the show where we talk with change makers and thought leaders who are taking action to stop the existential threat of climate change. I’m your host, Matt Mattern. Today on the show, we have Shara Mohtadi. Shara is a former chief of staff at the U. S. Department of Energy.

She has a long career in state and federal climate policy, and recently she co founded S2 Strategies, where she helps governments and philanthropies maximize the climate and economic benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act.

We talked about the role of state governments in advancing clean energy initiatives, the impact of federal policies like the IRA, and the need for community driven solutions to climate challenges. Without further ado, welcome to the program, Shara Mohtadi. Welcome to the program, Shara.

Thanks, Matt. I’m delighted to be with you here.

Well, uh, tell us a little bit about your journey. Let’s kind of go back before you were, uh You know, fabulously successful professional and, uh, you know, maybe to childhood and say, Hey, what, what kind of drew you in this direction to begin with?

That’s a, that’s a nice question to reflect on, you know, I think, uh, growing up, uh, I was a daughter of immigrants, uh, from the middle East and the real world impacts the humanitarian crises.

In my childhood and my high school years, um, led me to then read more and understand more about the impacts that climate change was starting to already have, especially in parts of Africa and the Middle East and the relationship between climate change and migration and conflict. And, um, I went off to undergrad and spent a lot of my free time, uh, doing research and going out into the field, um, kind of looking at the relationship between climate change and human impact, um, and ultimately led me into clean energy policy work, uh, which I think is really one of the root solutions we hope to the climate crisis.

Um, so it’s, it’s, it’s a very both, um, fulfilling and, and meaningful place to work, but of course we’re always, you know, it always feels like, uh, those of us, uh, including yourself working on climate issues, it’s kind of like this uphill climb that we hope that we can just make more progress, um, till, till certain tipping points might be reached.
So. Um, it’s been, it’s been a, quite the journey and I’m glad to, glad to be on it with, with you and a lot of others here in the field.

Well, I think that that is something that has heartened me through this process of interviewing lots of people over the last three and a half years is just how many amazing people are working on these problems and, and the incredible work that is being done literally around the.

The world to help solve the climate crisis. Uh, you raised one thing, uh, that I think I don’t read that much about. And I think needs to be talked about more, which is migration and conflict related to climate change and the potential disaster scenarios that, uh, we’re going to have to face if we don’t solve the climate problems, the Massive migrations talking about not millions of people, but tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people, uh, you know, having to move because.

Potentially there, where they live right now might become uninhabitable, like in the Sahel region in Africa. If there are major droughts, which are being predicted will occur because of climate change, um, you’re talking hundreds of millions of people, uh, having to move out of that area. So I, I feel like that those costs are not being.
Accounted for by average citizens of like, this is this is what climate change looks like. It’s not just a modest increase in rainfall or a few more wildfires to deal with. It could be really cataclysmic.

That’s right. I mean, I think we’re already. Uh, already, if you look over the past, let’s say 30 years, let’s take maybe drought as an example, you raised the Sahel region and, um, uh, Northern Africa, also, uh, parts of what used to be known as the Fertile Crescent, historically of the Middle East, um, really agricultural hubs that over the past 20, 30 years.

Um, the data has shown that climate change has made the severe droughts that these areas have started to experience much more likely than if climate change had not been a variable, um, which, you know, which, which is currently on the table. And so there are examples, and the research that I worked on, and we published published when I was a student at Columbia, looked specifically at the example of.

Migration in Syria prior to now, it feels like, um, a long time ago, but prior right around the time of the Arab spring, when you had, um, you had a very severe drought that lasted, uh, three, four years in Syria and. Um, families had made the decision to permanently migrate from many of these, you know, what used to be breadbasket regions to cities within Syria.

And that, um, we were able to show was one of the pressure points, uh, leading to some of the initial uprising and unrest, um, that started with the Arab Spring protests, um, in that country, which, um, You know, a lot has changed and not changed since then. Um, with, with, uh, Bashar al Assad still in power. Um, but that’s right.

I mean, in a way, whether it’s the movement of millions of people, or it doesn’t, I think even necessarily have to be tens of millions, but even Um, families in mass deciding to that the life that they currently live where they are is no longer tenable, um, those kind of that that can be, you know, destabilizing not only about uprooting their communities and and their history and culture and where they may have come from, um, but also to the receiving house communities on the other end.

And we’re seeing more examples than, as you said, Matt, we’ll see even more, I think, in the future.
Well, tell us a bit more about S2 Strategies, why you founded it, and, uh, what, what is exactly the type of work that, uh, you’ve been doing and plan to do in the future?

Yes, so at S2 Strategies, uh, my co founder, uh, Sam Ricketts and I, Are both former state government, um, employees and policy advisors.

And when these, uh, legislative bills were passed, including the inflation reduction act, which all of a sudden opened up a whole new slate of clean energy investments in the U S one thing we realized was that state governments. Had pretty large differences in the resources they had to actually access these resources or access these clean energy incentives.

What I mean by that is that, um, you know, for every, let’s call it 500 people in New York state that work on clean energy. Within the state government, uh, many other states only have one, two, three people focused and they’re all trying to access the same resources, whether it’s educating the residents that live in their state, um, whether it’s, you know, accessing all the grant dollars that were for the first time available, um, to the state.

So it began as thinking about how do we. Kind of, um, help provide technical assistance and support to states of all political stripes of all sizes to help them have the most ambitious and successful clean energy agenda they could have. And we’ve expanded from there and we now help, um, NGOs, companies, um, cities and tribes.

Uh, as well in, in kind of building and implementing their own clean energy agenda and future.

Well, I’ve, I’ve read a little bit about, uh, the rollout of the IRA and, and one particular example was governor, uh, Tim Walz in Minnesota has, I guess, accessed a lot of those funds effectively. And I’m not sure if you’re familiar with what he’s done and maybe how he’s done it.

And, uh, is that, um, a role model for other states?

Absolutely. Well, I’m glad you asked because I’m from Minnesota and a proud Minnesotan, so I could certainly speak about, um, Uh, I have some familiarity with Governor Walz’s leadership. I would say, um, Minnesota has certainly been one of the nation’s leaders, um, in understanding how they could take all these new federal incentives unlocked, as you said, Matt, by the IRA, uh, and make them go as far as possible for every Minnesotan resident.

So for example, um, just a year or two ago, Minnesota passed its own really historic legislation. With leadership by the governor and with the state legislature, um, to set much more ambitious climate goals themselves and put state dollars to match federal dollars to really create the most comprehensive package of solutions for, for residents.

Um, you know, just to give you an example, Minnesota set up a new, um, green bank and. What they’re able to do is provide really affordable subsidized loans to communities, especially to cities and nonprofits across the state who are looking to build, you know, solar panels or solar and storage on their, on their properties.

Um, they just funded. A affordable housing unit in Minnesota, um, that’s going to build geothermal to be heated, heated and cooled by by geothermal solution. And that’s all thanks to, um, the leadership of of the governor and his team. Um, and we really think it’s, it’s. Minnesota has been one of the leaders, um, for the climate agenda of really most states we’ve seen.

Well, I was questioning whether you’re really from Minnesota cause I didn’t hear a, you betcha or anything.

I know it’s kind of diluted now over the years. I left when I was 18, but once I landed at, you know, Minneapolis airport, I see that caribou coffee, it starts going back.

Okay. Well, yeah, I heard a little Minnesotan, you know, Pintiest little touch there, but, uh, it’s all good.

Yeah, I’m a kind of a neighbor state and coming from Illinois. Originally, I, I think I may still have a little bit, my Chicago accident, it’s coming out of it.

now. Um, so. Are you, who are you working with currently? Can you say what are the types of projects that you’re working on? Uh, can you tell us a little bit about some of the victories you’ve had in, in working with them to get IRA monies into the hands of, uh, you know, worthy projects?

Yeah, absolutely. So at S2 strategies, we run a initiative called the state support center, which is, um, philanthropically funded. And so we’re able to that’s. That’s our nonprofit work. So we are able to provide pro bono support to state governments in particular, um, to help them with their clean energy policy agendas.

I can give you an example of 1 really cool thing. We’re working on right now. You know, states play a really important role in educating their residents. About how they can take advantage of all these clean energy incentives that are available. Often the federal government has a harder time communicating to their residents in their states.

And so, um, we’re working with a number of states again, of different political stripes, um, and across the country, um, to set up round tables, um, specifically. Trying to bring together churches, school districts, and other non large nonprofit landowners in certain regions of these states, because there’s a, uh, new tax incentive in which, um, I’m going to get a little wonky, but this might be of interest to folks who work in the space.

Um, there’s a new tax characteristic called elective pay. Uh, which means that if you previously were, you know, worked in an organization like a city, a church, a school that never had to pay taxes, you could never take an advantage of any of these tax breaks, um, that a lot of companies get to when, you know, a company, um, puts up solar panels or, um, installs geothermal units.

And so for the first time, elective pay has the IRS. And so for the first time, elective pay has the IRS. You cash back, um, on what to, to any of these non taxable project owners. And so, um, that’s the wonky part of it, but what’s really cool is we’re, we’re going to see more again, churches, schools. City government, city buildings, again, folks who’ve never had to deal with the IRS, the tax system gets up to from anywhere from 30 percent up to 70 percent off there.

Any sort of, um, or many sorts of clean energy projects that they choose to build. So we’re helping through the state governments, um, develop these kind of round tables and outreach and education. Um, um, to these sorts of, you know, organizations across their states where they’re interested, and that’s really an example of the power of the state in partnership with, um, with NGOs and other, other advocates on the ground.

Well, that’s great. I mean, uh, obviously all those different organizations like schools and churches. Uh, have rooftops and could access using solar and things like that and, and, uh, reduce their energy footprint by, by installing it and giving them the incentive to, to do so benefits all of us to have more.

Power capacity, um, particularly now that we’ve got AI coming online, that’s going to be taking even more power. It just seems like, um, that is a little bit of a sissy fuss and a journey is that once we seem to install a lot of solar and wind, then they figure out a way to use even more power than we’re currently generating.

So, um, I guess that goes back to your experience in the federal government working in this Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Certainly, there’s a lot of gains that we can make in terms of energy efficiency. Is that anything that you’re working on at S2 Strategies?

Certainly. I mean, um, you know, when I was in the Department of Energy, one of the main focus areas is, As responsibly as possible using taxpayer dollars to make investment, government investments in those innovations that the private market just wouldn’t have an at risk appetite for.

And what’s really exciting, what we’re seeing now is Thanks to this larger injection of taxpayer dollars through, for example, the inflation production act or IRA, we are seeing the cost curve come down more quickly and the marketplace, you know, companies being more interested in kind of doing the handoff from.

Government subsidized innovations to to the private marketplace. I’ll just give you an example. Um, the Department of Energy, and this is also a place that, uh, we are, we are somewhat involved. The Department of Energy had a, um, 8 billion dollar hydrogen hub program, um, through one of the recent infrastructure laws.

And the idea is that you have. A hub, an area where clean energy producers and customers, such as, let’s say, hydrogen powered trucks, and, and, you know, maybe Amazon trucks might might be part of a hydrogen 1 day could use this hydrogen system and fuel input in this hub center. Um, and the government is putting up half the cost for that, and the private sector is putting up the other half.

In some case, states are also partnering with the private sector. Um, we hope that. That will kind of cross this, um, innovation, um, cliff that sometimes happens and in the next 10, 15 years, we’ll see hydrogen uptake, both the distribution of it and the use of it, uh, be a lot more common and be in the way that we see, you know, gasoline and now.

We’re starting to see more electric vehicle chargers across the country.

Well, I’m a big fan of that as I’ve had now two hydrogen cars over the last six years. So, uh, California is, I think the only state that really has the infrastructure for the hydrogen, uh, cars. And it started back with governor Schwarzenegger and he had a very innovative head of the California EPA.

And they were. Visionaries starting that to build out those stations and Toyota and, and Honda and believe a couple of other manufacturers, uh, manufacturer cars that that are using hydrogen. And, and quite frankly, we’ve spent so much money. Building infrastructure for the gas, the oil and gas industry that is much dirtier.

Why don’t we spend the money on a hydrogen economy, which the emissions from my car are H2O. So that’s, that’s a heck of a lot cleaner than the, um, burning with an internal combustion engine.

So, um, that’s right. We just have to make sure that hydrogen is produced. Using renewables, and then then we can have it be as, uh, as clean as possible.

We are seeing some cases where hydrogen is being produced. We call it sometimes gray hydrogen where it might be. Produced using gas or even, you know, God forbid coal. Um, but we are, uh, you know, the government has set certain rules around, um, ensuring that as much of the hydrant they’re helping fund is renewable powered.

I know that one of the goals of the. administration early on was to bring the cost of hydrogen down to like 1 a kilogram. Um, do you know where we’re at in terms of that process? Are we anywhere close to that? Are we miles away?
No, that’s a good question. I have not checked in the latest numbers. Um, but that’s a good question.

I think, I mean, definitely The Department of energy has keeps an eye very regularly on those goals. Um, so we should check in with those colleagues and see where how it’s going.

Yeah. Well, I, I think that, uh, that’s price is the big thing is that if we make it. Price cost competitive than manufacturers and consumers will move in that direction and, and probably the government needs to give a little bit of a push to, to go in that direction.

But it’s also kind of, we also have to look at is from a national security standpoint, and that, uh, having cleaner energy and not being dependent upon fossil fuels makes us, um, less subject to the whims of governments that are not too friendly to us. Um, such as Russia and, um, Iran and, and others that are big player, Venezuela, who are big players in the energy business, aren’t, aren’t fans of the U S and aren’t fans of our allies either.

So that is, to me, that’s one of the biggest, um, kind of utilitarian ways to look at the, the energy. World is that getting off of fossil fuels puts us in a much better national security position as well as all of our allies that, you know, are relying upon it, like Japan and Germany and the rest of Europe.

So, like, we should be looking at those costs as well.

Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. I think, um, that is exactly right. I mean, I think that historically, I think the, the energy security. Reasons for investing more in clean energy are critical. And I hope that no matter who’s elected in November, and I know we’ll get to that, but no matter who’s left in November, that that really becomes one of the top kind of forces.

In addition to all the humanitarian reasons, just the quality of life that we all want to have, uh, in mitigating climate change, the energy security is very much a top reason. And. Um, that should be even more of a bipartisan issue and reason than it is. Um, and, you know, I’d be happy to talk about, uh, the risks of a Trump administration in reaching some of these energy security goals.

Um, but, uh, yes, . Let’s talk about that.

Uh, let’s talk about first, uh, your work with red states and the S two strategies, uh, and building out, uh, or helping, uh, states that, um, have been historically red states to, to access these IRA funds and to, uh, generate green businesses in, in there. In their states.

Yeah, I mean, absolutely.

It’s been amazing to see that, um, you know, every month or so there’s kind of a tally up that some of the NGOs do of which states have been able to access. Uh, the most IRA or other federal energy incentives than others. And, um, it’s very much, you know, red states are at the top of the list. You know, states like Georgia, for example, are really showing a lot of leadership and how you can take clean energy as an economy builder and the amount of.

Foreign companies committing committing and not only now committing, but two, two years after the inflation reduction act building factories, um, in places like Georgia is really outstanding to see. So, um, you know, in addition, I would say there’s programs like there was a grant program, um, called the climate pollution reduction grant program.

And you had almost every single state. Um, again, no matter their politics, uh, applying to that program, uh, and all they, you know, what they had to do was show how they plan to reduce emissions overall. Um, and those funds could be used to, to reduce those emissions based on the strategies they put forth that program was.

Completely oversubscribed. Um, they got over 330 state and local government grant applications. Again, almost 50 states did submit, uh, they were six to 10 times oversubscribed. Um, so really phenomenal to see, uh, deep bipartisan interest, uh, from states because they, you know, they know it’s a, um, they know for economic reasons, for their own economic development and own interests, uh, It’s smart to, to bet off the energy and bring those investments into your own state.

I saw recently that there were 18 Republican congressmen who were saying they would not vote to repeal the IRA. So that was a hopeful sign that, uh, you know, even though there have been a lot of rumblings, uh, from Trump and others, that they would vote work to repeal the IRA, uh, if 18 Republican congressmen weren’t willing to vote for it, then even if they had control of both the house and the Senate and the presidency, that it wouldn’t be repealed.

That’s right. Yeah. I think that. I, you know, if there’s a scenario as you said in which, um, you know, president Trump is reelected and you have Republican control of both the House and Senate, I think we’d see my hope. My hope is we would see even more than 18, um, congressmen.

You know, be approached by their own governors and their own state representatives and the companies that have now made investments in these various states, um, to not repeal the inflation reduction act or other clean energy incentives.

Um, at the same time, um, there are some, would that, yeah, please, would that, um, affect the cashflow? Stream that these companies have expected based upon their investments. Uh, so it’s not just a, like a one time, um, cash, uh, or tax credit that the IRA offers, but it’s a, it’s a stream of income that occurs over a period of years for any company that is kind of making a major investment under the IRA.

That’s right. Exactly. A number of the tax incentives. Are, um, for example, the production tax incentive is 1. that is based on how much energy you’re producing. And that is more on a year by year basis. Um, even some of these, um, what we call grant programs, which means kind of large injections of, um, funding by the by taxpayers to help offset the capital costs of a project, like hydrogen hub.

Those are not just, you know, one time payments and one and done, but those are released, you know, to make sure that the projects being responsibly built, those are released by the government over years. And so, um, there are definitely actions that we’ve heard from the Trump campaign and Trump himself, um, that they’d be, they would want to be taking unilaterally, even without Congress to try to slow down.

Um, those dollars to maybe put some of those programs into question. Um, there’s a lot of damage that could be done, you know, even without a Republican led. Or, uh, let’s say, uh, the Congress that wants to repeal the IRA, um, to, to slow things down, um, and to cause a lot of, of uncertainty that we could see a lot of these investments, um, leaving, leaving our shores.

Well, I guess that segues into our, the next question, which is, uh, as we approach the 2024 election, what do you see as the most significant differences between, um, Trump and Kamala Harris and, uh, as far as climate policy and how that will impact the country going forward.

I think that the differences in this election cycle could not be more stark.

Uh, you know, on the one hand you have, uh, Kamala Harris who cast the tie breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in the first place. Um, and then you have former president Trump who has. About to dismantle the inflation reduction access, talk publicly about how he plans to do that. Um, how much you could actually accomplish unilaterally still up for debate, but a lot would a lot would be at risk.

Um, and I think Trump has made it very clear that even if the market would dictate it, it’s almost as if he has a. Feels like a personal vendetta, uh, against climate forward policies that are also good for the economy and good for keeping jobs that have recently started to come.

Being built, uh, in, in places across the country, um, to keeping those, those here, uh, in this, he certainly made a number of comments, uh, about being against electric cars over the, over the years, which, uh, now is a big, you know, a big, uh, part of all of our major car companies here in the U S are making electric cars.

That’s right. I mean, you know, and, and. But again, it’s kind of, it’s kind of, uh, up to his whims in a way, because now, of course, Elon Musk as an advisor is maybe having him call into question his thoughts even about that. But, um, yeah, that’s right. I mean, I think it’s really not, I think what’s concerning and, you know, we’ve even heard, um, their concerns from oil executives about, um, The uncertainty around, um, certain tariffs that he might place, um, on, um, you know, crude oil that they import to then refine.

And it’s like, it. It’s the uncertainty unpredictability and chaos, um, and the, the lack of using, you know, even if you use market based principles and logic rationale, um, that I think is really concerning to, to many of us, including again, um, executives in these major companies. We’re having to make business decisions.

Well, it’s very striking when the major oil companies are admitting that they have an impact on climate change, yet Donald Trump is denying that, uh, any of them do so it’s, it’s flying. It’s just flying in the face of reality. Do you think that the chairman of Exxon and Shell and all these other majors would admit that there was climate change if, uh, They didn’t have to, if it wasn’t, you know, extreme, extremely obvious that it was occurring.

And of course, we’ve come to learn over the last, uh, number of years that Exxon and their, um, compatriots. knew of this back going into the seventies and eighties that, that, uh, the emissions and the CO2 levels were going to rise and that we’re going to cause extraordinary, extraordinary problems. Um, and they, they went ahead with it regardless.

So it’s a great point, Matt. And I think, um, I do think that Trump has, you know, as opposed to maybe where Republican politics was. Even 10, 15, 20 years ago, heck, even 30, I mean, where it’s always been, it feels like the, the far, far swing to the right of, Where we are now, um, hearing from the Republican party about the clean energy and the climate crisis and the kind of attacking of it.

Um, it, it’s causing, it’s causing, you know, the exons and other majors, as you said, to be able to have decades longer of this. You know, playing around with like, you know, renewable solutions, but really being, uh, but on the other hand funding. Um, pro oil, uh, advocates and anti climate lobbyists, um, uh, for, for longer than they should, because it means that the country remains on these kind of polar sides of things, artificially polar.

Instead of us all moving in the natural direction of, um, seeing the crises unfold, environmental crises unfold in our own backyards. Um, so it’s, it’s really unfortunate. I mean, I hope. Um, of course that Trump is, is, is not, uh, reelected and that politics in general, this country can go back to being a little bit more reasonable and based on, on ration, rationale and logic.

Yeah. It wasn’t that long ago when, um, Republicans unanimously backed clean air and clean water in the seventies.
And. George H. W. Bush backed clean air to in the late eighties, early nineties. Um, and you know, protecting the environment was more bipartisan. I don’t think they were doing a perfect or a great job at it, but they They were making some strides, and there was some degree of recognition of this was a problem.

And quite frankly, the oil companies probably had bought and sold both political parties in, you know, burying their heads in the sand for the last 50 years, um, in many ways. So, um, I, I, I would say it’s up to us as voters and consumers to say, Hey, enough is enough. We are no longer going to listen to the oil companies and what they want because they don’t have our best interest at heart.

They have the interest of making the most money with the asset that they have, which is oil. And if it hurts us, they’re kind of willing to, to risk the planet for their current profits, which is detestable, but it is what they’re doing.

Totally. And I think, you know, the ultimately, um, if you were to ask me, what can folks, Listening at home due to positively impact the environment.

It’s, it’s, it’s what you said, Matt, it’s, it’s vote. It’s, uh, go vote, you know, go to the polls, um, get involved, um, in campaign work, if that’s, what’s interesting, or talk to friends that live in the states that if, uh, how they’re planning to vote, or if they’d like to talk about. Where they are on their issues, but voting could not be more powerful for the environment than it is in the next.

What is it? 40 something days we have left.

Yeah, it’s pretty remarkable that it’s getting that close and yet more more can be done and it needs to be done to elect officials that are going to protect the environment and really care about it because it is the most important issue facing the planet. If we don’t.

We don’t have a planet B, as they say, tell us a little bit about your next strategies for us to, and, uh, what projects or initiatives you’re particularly excited about going forward.

Yeah, well, we have, you know, we are thinking a lot about, um, you know, election kind of planning, if you will, how can. State governments, if need be, try to, um, have backstop solutions ready or make up for the leadership vacuum on climate if Trump is elected.

You know, part of it is that they really, they can do what they can, but it pales in comparison to what the federal government can do. So, uh, let’s not kind of rest, rest on that necessarily in peace, but we are thinking about, um, you know, what that looks like for state leadership, um, taking advantage of state leadership, bipartisan state leadership, that thanks to the inflation reduction act has now been built up, uh, if Trump were elected.

Um, and we are on the flip side, um, much more, um, excitedly and hopefully looking at if, uh, president, uh, vice president Harris, uh, it’s a bit premature for president Harris yet, but, uh, if, if, if she were elected, Um, the next slate of climate legislation, and, you know, we’re working with a number of NGOs, uh, in Washington and across the country, um, thinking about and putting forward policy proposals.

I just, just as an example, 1 of the areas that the inflation reduction act did not, um, did not cover as well as it could have was industrial. Emissions, so, um, you know, we have a lot of cement manufacturing and steel manufacturing in this country. They’re really important industries to much of the heartland.

Um, and there are ways to make those processes more energy efficient. Um, there’s new fuels, right? Green hydrogen certainly could be 1, but it’s really costly, especially these are, you know, small margin mom often run. Factories in rural America that need more government support to, um, become more efficient or have inputs like hydrogen.

So that transition is 1 that we hope just as an example, future legislation could address. Um, and, you know, we have, we have a lot of hope for what the future brings.

So if you could change one thing about the public’s perception of climate change, uh, what would it be?
I think that the, you know, you know how we, we see these, um, more and more people are talking about how Americans are more lonely than ever.

And we are less community oriented than ever, um, whether by choice or not, but we’ve become much more of an individualist society. I think. To me, the solution set to climate change also comes with how we think about ourselves as a community, that maybe we can, um, make one small change in each of our lives today, um, to really kind of better, better all of us tomorrow.

And I, I think if we can have. That shifted mentality and almost think about, we need to solve the loneliness crisis and the individual kind of, um, life of the individual that, that more and more, I think as Americans, uh, we tend to lead as a society. Um, I think it’s, it’s going to be a collective solution that’s needed.

And I think ultimately we’ll, we’ll be happier as a result if we can really have that kind of community. I
think that kind of dovetails into what I’ve been hearing and talking about a little bit more as stewardship.

And that was a concept that some of the early philosophers that influenced American politics, like John Locke, talked about stewardship and stewardship of the land and, and that that concept kind of got cooked out of capitalism because it was more like, Hey, we, we didn’t take care of the land as much because it seemed like it was Forever, you know, like there was a quantity which we could never despoil all of America in the early going, you know, like there were endless amounts of forests, endless amounts of coal, endless amounts of oil and gas.

So, like, we just kind of, oh, well, we don’t have to worry about stewardship because we just like. Make more and burn down whatever and, you know, move on to the next thing. So we kind of have to get back to that concept of, Hey, we need to be good stewards of the planet. Yes, um, that is that’s something that I’m hoping gets it as in economics.

We talk about it as externalities and, and, um, essentially the oil companies didn’t have to pay the price of their externalities that they were Creating the pollution problems that they were creating. They didn’t pay the true cost. We weren’t paying the true cost as consumers for those externalities.

Like we’re consuming it without considering the downstream costs to our, um, you know, future generations of like forever chemicals and things of that nature. Um, those things have enormous downstream costs. It’s not the 10 cents for the plastic bag. It’s whatever the health costs of having cancer or some other disease that relates to, for those pollution, pollutants.

So, um, Exactly. And now we’re, we’re, like you said, Matt, we as individuals and as communities and society are, are bearing the cost of it. Because they chose not to, right? Yeah. We weren’t, we weren’t really looking at it as cold. Uh, you know, coldhearted economists really should look at those things and say, Hey, we, we, we need to look at the true cost.

And the true cost include pollution. It, it doesn’t, uh, and we didn’t do that. But what’s your go-to source for the latest climate news and research these days?

Yeah. Sources. Well, um. I’m really impressed by how some of the major publications are dedicating entire sections now to climate, energy, environmental news so that you don’t necessarily have to go, you know, to 6 different websites when you just chat with your coffee, try to read in the morning.

Um, this is kind of funny one, but, uh, or, or, but financial times actually has a really nice. Every day, a new section of anywhere from 5 to 15 articles on what’s happening in climate and the environment, um, you know, shorter pieces. It’s easy to digest. Um, and I like how they, they tend to cover, um, all different sorts of beats within climate environment.

So that’s, that’s a nice one. Um, I think that there, there’s a number of others, but we’re happy to see, you know, even. If you’re really interested in, um, you know, Washington, U. S. politics, Politico has, uh, now that they’ve, um, taken over E& E, they have a really strong section. So I’m really glad to see it coming more into the mainstream so that we don’t have to, um, again, kind of sift through a bunch of different sites, uh in the, in the mornings, we just want to, uh, see what’s going on in the world.

Yeah, those are two great, uh, sources. I hadn’t really looked at the financial times much to get that information, but it’s hard to say that you’re a complete lefty when you’re getting your, uh, your environmental news from the financial time.

It is my go to. I really, I do enjoy it.

Well, tell us who would you put on your Mount Rushmore of environmental heroes?

Ooh, that’s an excellent question. How many, how many get, do I get to choose?

Uh, no limit, you know, we don’t like to limit people here.

That’s a fantastic question. You know, what I would do is probably choose and I’ll give specific names, but maybe someone representative of leadership and in different kind of industries or fields, because this is really a collective problem as, as you’ve said yourself, Matt, this is.

Not something that just one industry can solve. Um, I think that when you look at the government, you have leaders like John Podesta who’ve spent much of their careers, um, you know, on, on a government salary when they could have, could have chosen to go the other way. Um, but I’ve been really like John Podesta has been one of the instrumental architects, uh, behind.

Um, much of the clean energy policies we’ve seen, you know, his, uh, protege, who’s now the assistant to the president, Ali Zadi, um, who’s, you know, just in his thirties, he’s a, he’s a young guy. Um, and. It’s a, I’d say like, to, to kind of government focused leaders, I think that seeing someone having one of those, uh, monuments be someone I don’t, you know, Greta, uh, uh, Thornburg, of course, kind of represents.

And as represented for so many young people, the youth movement, but there’s so many of those leaders. Like even if we look at our kids schools and seeing the kids involved and building their energy environmental clubs. Um, so having someone represent kind of the youth and young people. Um, so just a few examples of, of the types of people that are so critical to.
Changing the narrative around this being a community. We can come together as a community and I’ll be closer as a result. If we think of the solutions collectively. Great answers. So what is your favorite echo friendly habit that you do? Most days or every day.

Eco friendly habit. You know, we love, uh, we love our composting and our, our garden.

Um, uh, composting has become kind of like a fun family activity for us. I think also our consciousness about airline emissions. I have a lot of guilt over flying emissions. I’m married to someone from Germany. He’s, you know, amongst his friends, it’s much more common to just not take vacations that require a plane purely because of the admissions, um, associated with the flight with that flight.

Um, I feel like I could do better. Um, but I do try to factor in. Um, taking the train, uh, or, you know, taking our electric vehicle where we could or biking or not take, honestly, not taking the trip at all. If you, if you can, um, instead of incurring, you know, the, the airplane missions, well, I, I like to walk to places and, and my New home.

Uh, I’ve lived here for five years. Uh, you know, there’s a lot of places I can walk to and that seems like a, a luxury, I think that’s a new luxury. That’s fantastic. And I feel like I, I highly encourage people to take up that habit. It’s really nice to not have to drive everywhere. And, uh, stepping away from that.

I, I got to work on the composting thing. That’s, that hasn’t been a, a thing yet for me. I don’t have a big yard, so I’m a little yardless, but, uh, um, there’s gotta be a way, or there’s a will. There’s gotta be a way.

Well, I, That’s awesome that you, you, uh, walk in many places, Matt. And, um, I mean, on the composting thing, we’re seeing more and more towns and cities start pilot projects that, you know, along with your garbage, they give you a little can to put, um, your compost in.

So, you know, I hope the listeners might. Look up if they have compost programs that their cities, and if not, there are private companies in those cities that will pick up compost. Um, but, you know, you could also petition your city, write a letter, um, get 3 friends to write that letter with you and sign it.

All 4 of you, um, to get a compost program going because it’s been really successful in a number of towns.

That’s a great idea. And, uh, since food waste and the emissions that comes from food waste would be the third largest polluter country wise right behind China and the U. S. Uh, it’s a very, very big problem that all of us can help solve in, in, in various ways, like not buying food that we’re not going to eat is being a good one.

Um, absolutely.

So it’s been great having you on the show. I appreciate your time and the great work that you’re doing out there in the world and keep it up and we’ll have to stay in touch to see how, uh, this progresses going forward.

Thanks, Matt. Thanks for everything you’re doing with the podcast and the diversity of guests and perspectives you bring.

And. Um, it’s been a lot of fun this past hour. Thank you.

And that was Shara Moti. Hope you enjoyed our conversation. If you want to learn more about her work and S two strategies, visit s the number two strategies.org to learn more about our work at a climate change and how you can help us reach our goal planting 30,000 trees in the Amazon this year, visit aclimatechange.com.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast. on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you like this episode, please share it with a friend. See you next time.