A Climate Change with Matt Matern Climate Podcast

The 2,500 wind and solar projects are at risk because of what Trump is doing. These projects have the energy equivalent of 383 nuclear reactors. Your electric bill goes from from hurting to feeling like held your income for that month. Climate Risk is financial risk. The big loser is U.S. manufacturing.

They were investments in, typically, communities that are vulnerable, disproportionately affected by the climate change.

Welcome to A Climate Change with Matt Matern. This is a special live stream edition, our very first and we’re digging into one of the most significant and controversial climate policy shifts in recent memory. We’re talking about the Trump’s administration’s newly passed One Big Beautiful Bill. I think it’s got a truth in labeling issue, but on paper, it promises economic growth and energy independence. But when you dig deeper, it’s clear this bill could fundamentally alter America’s Climate trajectory, affecting everything from clean energy investment to environmental protections and communities most impacted by pollution.

To unpack this, we’ve assembled a powerhouse panel, first Dr. Gernot Wagner, climate economist at Columbia Business School, also faculty director of climate Knowledge Initiative and author of six books, including climate shock and geo engineering, the gamble.

And Dr. Wagner’s research focuses on the risks, technologies and policies shaping climate future. Next we have Lucero Marquez, associate director of federal climate policy at the Center for American Progress. She’s a trained meteorologist and policy expert who’s worked extensively on renewable energy development, building decarbonization and environmental justice at a national level. And finally, Dan Garino, an award winning reporter at inside climate news, where he covers the business and politics of clean energy. Dan has a sharp eye for connecting the dots between policy decisions in Washington and their real world impacts. We’re going to break down exactly what’s in the bill, who wins, who loses, and what it means for the US clean energy transition and for the planet. All right, let’s set the table here.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act now, despite a nice sounding name, is essentially a major shift away from the clean energy momentum that we’d seen over the last several years. At its core, it rolls back a number of federal incentives for renewable energy like wind and solar, instead of direct instead directs more subsidies and Regulatory Flexibility towards oil, gas and coal, it loosens some environmental protections, which means companies will have an easier time building or Expanding fossil fuel projects, even if that increases pollution. So it also scales back things like clean energy grants, environmental justice initiatives that were designed to help vulnerable communities to adapt it to climate impacts. In plain English, it takes the foot off the gas pedal for clean energy and puts it back on the gas pedal for fossil fuels. Did I miss anything or not?

That summarizes it pretty well. And I think what you missed is the good luck part at the end on, you know, pushing fossil fuels in an environment where, frankly, the world is moving in the other direction fast. So, yeah, you know, if Trump thought he could revive coal last time around in 2016 and failed miserably. It’s even tougher this time around.

Oh, you know one thing I was struck by. It was an article in Bloomberg today, and it was saying that 2500 wind and solar projects are at risk because of what Trump is doing, in addition to the language in the big, beautiful bill, he’s taken executive action to make it even harder to get these wind and solar projects off the ground, and these 2500 projects have the energy equivalent of 383 nuclear reactors. So, I mean, that’s a lot of power that we need, and electricity bills are going up, from what I understand. So this is not going to help his constituents or anybody. Dan, what’s your thought on this, given that it affects your home state of Iowa, and you’ve investigated this and written about this. What are your thoughts?

You look at where wind energy is, where it is the most common, and it’s this band of States goes from North Dakota and Minnesota in the north all the way down to Texas. It’s where I grew up, and it’s places where wind energy has. Been an essential part of supporting the power grid, not only in those regions, but also shipping power to other parts of the country. I’ve been doing this long enough. I remember when wind energy was bipartisan. Actually, it wasn’t that long ago. But the danger in making wind development in particular, and it also applies to solar development, although the specifics of the markets. There are different in some ways this. This hurts Republican states. It hurts rural Republican counties.

And I think that you can, as an elected official, have policies that hurt some of your constituents, but eventually, if I’m a county government, if I’m a property taxpayer, if I’m a landowner in one of these places, at some point, difficulty developing projects on land you own is a problem, and there is a real concern. Now, some of the talk about how much capacity and its equivalent and other kinds of power plants, it’s like that gets to be challenging, because it’s really tough to say how much of that capacity would actually get built, but I think we can safely say we’re talking about a lot, a lot of capacity in terms of granular effect on individual farmers.

I looked it up and it said that an average farmer receives eight to $35,000 in revenue from these wind turbines on their land. So this is real money. This is every year. So you’re talking about 10 years to 35,000 that’s $350,000 in revenue that a farmer would be losing. And then also the tax base that Iowa counties receive tons of money from, from this wind development that is not going to be there. And the state of Utah, the senator from Utah, John Curtis, joined Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa in kind of holding up Trump nominations to stop this. What are your thoughts, and what do you think the likelihood of Grassley and Curtis, kind of winning on this front are negotiating something that’s, you know, halfway reasonable.

It’s kind of like this attempt to do it without anyone really noticing. I mean, this is the way, this is the world in which we live, where, if these kind of Midwestern Republicans who would like to have some more flexibility in terms of wind energy, if they can actually get what they want, they kind of need to do it without the proponents of the One Big Beautiful Bill realizing it, without the administration realizing it. If it can be some sort of quiet thing, then it has a much greater chance. And that quiet thing is just flexibility in terms of the safe harbor period for these tax credits and in terms of just kind of the fine print stuff.

And I think a lot of the people who are backing these policies are not necessarily fine print kind of guys, you know. So if it’s but it is, I don’t know how it’s going to go. You get into kind of how it works in the rule making process, how these agencies are going to treat this. And I wonder if this is the point where, and it’s not just Grassley and Curtis. You look at, if you’re a senator in Kansas, if you’re a senator in the Dakotas, you’re a senator in Texas.

This, this matters. This is a lot of this is a lot of economic activity. So yeah, it’ll be fascinating. And I think if, if we, if the wind industry and its supporters, are successful, you will probably hear very little about it, because I think part of that success is just kind success is just kind of having it fly under the radar. So Lucero, what’s your take on this from kind of the place that you sit and environmental justice, how is this big, beautiful Bill kind of playing out and and what are some of the negative impacts that you’re expecting to see?

Yeah, thank you, Matt. Thank you so much for allowing me to be here, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this just piggybacking off of Dan, because I think it was insinuated there is in the economic activity is this is jobs, right? Not just revenue, but these are jobs that, you know, we’re losing out now because projects are being canceled, and then, you know, potentially might be canceled with the new restrictions and rollbacks and repeals from the One Big Beautiful Bill, oftentimes, these are union jobs, you know, great, high quality, high paying jobs that are not going to be realized because of all the things that the Trump administration.

And, of course, the impacts from the One Big Beautiful Bill are doing, from the environmental standpoint, from the One Big Beautiful Bill we haven’t even mentioned, and we won’t get into, you know, the impacts that come from big cuts to basic needs programs like Medicaid, about $1 trillion I think, over the next decade, is going to be slashed from Medicaid, leaving approximately 50 million people losing, you know, affordable health care and insurance coverage and things like that.

You also have cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. These are some of the largest cuts to snap in history, putting about three point million people at risk of losing some SNAP benefits. These are parents with children older work. Workers, veterans, those experiencing homelessness, and youth aging out of foster care. And so you have these underlying impacts from the One Big Beautiful Bill due to, you know, these cuts from all these basic needs programs going to fund tax breaks that primarily benefit the ultra wealthy, fossil fuels, et cetera. So you have all these underlying things. Now let’s add about those environmental provisions in this bill.

Right? You already mentioned them, Matt. We are talking about including rolling back and repealing clean energy tax credits that are meant to help get more clean energy online, specifically for solar and wind projects. Here too, tax credits that help Americans who you know want to switch over to use a cleaner vehicle for themselves, like an electric vehicle, or to install rooftop solar on their solar on their homes, I mean, and then also funding for climate and clean energy programs that are meant to clean our environment, get more clean energy online and to make us a lot more environmentally resilient.

And so when you bring in these impacts from the environmental provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill, you get a pretty much a rapid elimination of solar and wind incentives right from these projects in comp, to add context, the energy sector is such a large source of domestic greenhouse gas emissions, I think about 60% of electricity comes from fossil fuels. And that number comes from 2022, so you were going to add a lot more clean energy to the grid, right to help, you know, offset some of this that you know, leads to climate change. And these climate change impacts, you know, rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes, things like that, that reduced.

That’s slowing down because of what’s in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And so now we’re going to get, like, about 600 gigawatts less of clean energy added to the grid over the next year, which then results in a emissions increase, greenhouse gas emissions increase of IB, I believe, about almost 600 million metric tons over the next decade. That still doesn’t help us meet our Paris Agreement goals, our nationally determined contributions, for example. So what that means is we’re going to be a lot less you know, climate change is happening. We’re not tackling meeting the moment as much as we need to. We’re getting more vulnerable to hurricanes, wildfires, etc.

And then that also repealed the funding for a bunch of resilience climate resilience programs and some fundings and improvements for research at NOAA, for modeling, forecasting, assessments, things like that. So you have the climate angle there. You also have a lot of the programs within the inflation Reduction Act were for environmental, you know, Justice reasons. They were a bunch of investments in typically, historically left behind communities, communities that are vulnerable, communities that are disproportionately affected by the by climate change.

And now we’re seeing, you know, I think about two weeks ago, Administrator Zeldin said that, you know, we’re gonna stop with a solar for all program, which is, I think, $7 billion worth of an investment to, you know, help historically left behind communities to promote energy independence, lower energy costs, reduce pollution in these communities that is being taken away.

So what you see is, you know, greater climate impacts. You see greater costs. You see more pollution rising, and just overall, a lot of not great environmental impacts because of this bill. Well, that really covers the waterfront Lucero. I just went for it. Well, you know, I think it’s important, because it does list out just a tremendous amount of harms that are likely to result from from this bill gurnat, I kind of like to pivot to you and say, well, just from a hard headed economic perspective, what are the losses, even if you take, you know, climate change and put it on the back burner and say, oh, let’s not even look at that.

What are the losses to consumers from taking away potentially 2,500 different wind and solar projects just in, for instance, and throw in any other aspects you’d like. But it particularly is like related to the AI industry that we’re trying to power, and this is going to put a roadblock in the way of us kind of leading the charge on this, or certainly as efficiently and effectively as we might like to.

Oh, absolutely. And let me start with saying that when you say economic impact, right, climate risk is financial risk. Climate Risk does cause. Cause direct economic harm, not just in the distant future, right, today. So, of course, right? None of this is good news, okay, on the other hand, right? It’s always, always difficult to to say that on the other hand. So let me try to squeeze out ever so slightly, you know, sort of good news out of the whole morals, which is to say what has happened, not for solar and wind, not for electric vehicles, not for us, manufacturing, which, by the way, gets most hurt by all of this, right?

The big winner is China. The big loser is us, manufacturing. What we now have, ironically, is bipartisan consensus for some, not all, some low carbon technologies, right? So the IRA was a solely Democratic bill. The obbpa is a solely Republican. And now both parties with, you know, large majorities within the respective party have basically said that, for example, geothermal and yes, nuclear power too, deserve the kind of subsidies that the IRA had provided and the obppa now enshrines.

Now, again, not good news overall, geothermal and nuclear, however important they may or may not be, to the clean the low carbon future, not anywhere close to the impact the positive impact of solar, wind, batteries and so on. But still, right now, that’s not exactly a question you asked, because the direct economic impact is very much negative. Certain clean energy investments are now taking off as a result of the passage of obpa. And you know, that’s lemons lemonade, of course, on the other hand, there are certain investments that now look a lot better than they did before, just due to the IRA.

Does solar and wind, when, even with the kind of hurdles that Trump is throwing in front of them, can these, many of these projects, still be built, because we’ve been talking about solar and wind being the cheapest forms of power, can they get around all the roadblocks Trump is throwing up in part, right?

So, okay, so, you know, let me try this in three parts. So economics, 101, this is bad news, right? So, price up, demand down. That’s the one law we have in economics. And yeah, if you increase the cost of solar PV, less solar PV will be built. Economics, 102, is about the trajectories, the learning by doing, right? Yet you add some more complicated, complicating factors to things, and honestly, the trajectories all point in the right direction, right?

So there’s not much Trump can do, Or put differently, yeah, solar PV just got ever so slightly more expensive to build in this country. Okay? What add 30% to the cost of solar now we are back to where solar was in 2022 right? It’s gotten so cheap so quickly that making it more expensive today. You know, doubling the cost of solar would mean we set ourselves back by five years, when solar PV was already the cheapest source of electricity right now, not good news, but not much Trump can do.

Which is the third part, which is, I know this is hard to sort of look at the positives here, but the fact that it is necessary to throw all these other wrenches in The way, right? The fact that it’s necessary for the Secretary of the Interior to come out and say things like wind turbines built near rail lines will somehow muck with the communication on our trains, and therefore we can’t build wind turbines, right? Like sort of insanities like that, is, you know, is a good sign, right?

I mean, good. It’s horrible, but it’s a good sign in the sense that, look, they’ve got to go down those rabbit holes to throw these additional wrenches in the way and road blocks for solar, wind batteries, because economically, they would win on their own. So if you want to hand some money to your buddies in the oil industry. That’s basically the only way to do it these days. You basically have to declare wind turbines to, you know, turn whales Batty, and therefore we can’t build offshore wind because otherwise we just would.

So, Dan, where does this break down? I mean, you know, obviously it’s a tough question in terms of the political coalition that elected Trump and the Republicans, you can only kind of anger so many of your constituencies before you start to lose. And if he increase, if he takes away, you know, wind revenues that goes to farmers, he increases power costs to people across the spectrum. Them and throws down all kinds of hurdles in the way of manufacturers. Doesn’t that begin to erode his coalition, and isn’t it likely that in 2026 the Republicans lose in a landslide the House of Representatives?

Some of the things to pay attention to are inflation, and especially inflation of utility bills. Utility bills are one of those things that people really notice. Like, if your electric bill goes from being going from hurting to feeling like it pretty much just killed your income for that for that month, there’s a gap there that is important, where people are thinking about the utility bills, and they’re thinking about actively using less electricity because utility bills become so onerous.

And a lot of the things in this bill are going to be inflationary for power, for wholesale power, and for and you look at what was already happening, which is power prices were going up anyway, For a whole bunch of different reasons so and President Trump talked about reducing power prices, making energy less expensive, and this energy abundance agenda, yet this bill puts up all of these challenges for certain types of energy, and it increases our reliance on some of the most volatile energy sources in terms of cost.

So in terms of what could affect the 2026 election, I think if you have large swaths of people, regardless of the voting history of a state, who are upset about really high electric bills, really high gas bills, and then just inflation in general, because this is part of a larger picture with tariffs and with other things, tariffs are contributing to higher energy costs as well. But if groceries get more expensive, and they are, this is all. These are the kinds of things that really hurt, especially if a core part of your message was that you could handle the economy more effectively. So yeah, that’s that’s and in marginal House seats that matters, yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.

And it’s just the costs. Like you look at the typical bills, just what do you how much money do you have left at the end of the month to do fun stuff? If that’s going down a lot, and you can with the insurance bills, it gets a little bit harder to directly attribute that to policy. I don’t know people necessarily, other than you know us and people who who closely watch this stuff, but yeah, it’s, it’s a real kind of pocketbook issues are where a lot of the 26 election in marginal House seats could could be about. Do people feel economically stressed?

Let’s throw in one more thing, which is insurance premiums that are going up because of all these natural disasters. I think they’re going up even faster than utility bills and groceries. They’re like insane. They’re like a hockey puck curve. Lucera, do you see that in the work that you’re doing, as far as the the insurance premiums, people complaining about that? Do you think that’s going to be an issue?

And I guess maybe, how to connect the dots so that people see it as an issue. Certainly, people in Florida who’ve gotten hammered by hurricane after Hurricane after Hurricane, and many of their properties are just like uninsurable. I can’t imagine why they could still vote for an administration that just closes their eyes to the risks that they created, right?

And I think a couple of years ago, the climate change was one of the, if not the number one, indicator of where you’re politically affiliated. And I think it was in February. If I’m misremembering, I apologize, but I think I read a study in February where that’s specifically not becoming the case anymore in Florida, because they are getting impacted by, you know, recent hurricanes, the ones that just totally has have devastated many communities in Florida and has taken time to rebuild.

And they’re, they’re facing these, these impacts, these economic impacts, you know, loss of jobs because they can’t get to work there, things like that, so that that is certainly becoming the case. I do think affordability will be a top issue in the coming elections. What else would be on the forefront of Americans when they go to the polls? I think is something that we are very much interested in and and trying to make sure that we get it right.

Because I think something like climate change, something like, you know, environmental any, anything related to, you know, the environment, I think we can very much put it in whatever issue frame that you know, the voters do want to know affordability your main concern. You got it those insurance prices are going up. Your I my car insurance prices.

I lived in the state of Texas for a while. It went up substantially the last couple of years because of hail, the risk of hail, and I can’t you have to pay at some locations a lot more money because of the hail risks during. Certain times of months in the year that, you know, rebuilding a home, things like that. We totally can frame it in that way. If public health, if health is your number one issue, again, we have, we have ways to be able to match that, and it’s just going to be absolutely crucial for folks to really talk to, you know, the voters, the people in power, to see what’s most important for them and make these issue and make an issue like climate change so salient to them moving forward, that’s the question.

In terms of health, I don’t see that the environmental movement had, has made a really good argument on that front in, you know, certainly in the last election cycle, I think it did. In the initial environmental, you know, flourishing in the early 70s, people could see Love Canal, or they could see environmental disasters. They could see, you know, Los Angeles, where you couldn’t breathe. And people acted, and Congress acted. Why? How do we connect the dots for people to see that this really causes problems for people in in real life, from a health perspective? Because I think that that’s a visceral reaction when people do connect it, I think they would vote for their health?

Yeah, I, I agree, and it’s, it’s, and I agree with your point that it’s something that we need to make a lot more salient. This administration, you know, they’re doing a lot of things that a lot of rollbacks, specifically that do endanger public health. We have these permissions, if you will, for coal plants to, you know, not meet certain standards and pollution. You know, get these exemptions to apply for exemptions.

And many, I think, 4050, somewhere in that number, some, you know, power plant companies have gotten exemptions coal plants for 20 years. There’s a statistic that from 20 years a coal plants were directly associated with 460,000 deaths in the United States, and that’s a lot of loss of life because of the association with the burning of coal and its associated pollutants there too. And that’s just not, not the one example. That’s just one example of what this administration is doing right now that, you know, coal is one of the worst pollutants for, you know, climate once you burn it, it’s one of the worst emitters of greenhouse gasses that, you know, obviously contribute to climate change.

So that’s just one example of what this administration is doing, and there’s going to be a lot more examples in the coming years, in the coming months, that you know, we can really hold this administration anyone responsible and accountable for what they’re doing and for the impacts, and try to make those impacts as realistic and hard home hitting For Americans as possible.

Well, I think that in part, We have to win the battle of dollars and cents, as well as hearts and minds. And that is the fortunate thing, as you alluded to earlier, is that the technology of wind and solar does win on dollars and cents. And I think the elephant in the room is that Trump wants to kill clean energy because he sees it as an opponent to the his ideas, his constituencies in terms of political power, and he sees clean energy and clean power as associated with the Democratic Party, and so he wants to kill it. Is that? Is that wrong, Dan, or am I being delusional?

Well, I think it’s even it’s almost a little narrower than that in terms of so wind and solar and batteries. They make it they make fossil fuel power less profitable. They affect energy markets in ways where the days where a fossil fuel power plant owner is going to make the most money, and the way, especially like a natural gas peaker plant, they make most of their money on just a couple days a year. So this the rapid growth of wind and solar.

It’s not even a question as much of market share and things like that. It’s that you are taking the very most lucrative days, the days that oil and gas company, it’s like, makes their year, and you are creating this more competitive grid where it’s just less necessary to use these the most inefficient and the most expensive power sources. So it’s about, there’s a lot of this is about profit margins and about profit and about you look at some of the people who were supporting this campaign.

They’re people who are directly tied to their companies that are on the the winning end. Whenever we have an excruciatingly hot day in which every single one of those gas peaker plants is going full out and it’s and if you add a ton. Of wind and solar. There’s less need for that. If you have batteries that can replicate some of that, there’s less need for that.

Yeah, it seems like Trump hates the battery companies too, because the battery companies have made wind and solar even more viable because they can store the power during the cloudy days and the during the evening. So you know, he’s after them too, because they’re an evil very quickly on this.

So, So Matt, you’re in California, right? So, so California, like four years or so ago? Yeah, there was already plenty of solar PV in the system. And to Dan’s point, when was it most profitable to run the gas plants? Well, it was when the sun went down on a daily basis and Californians went home, right? Well, electricity demand went up, and suddenly these gas plants were pumping at full power in just three years. So this is data from last year, actually.

So in just three years, batteries are now accounting for half of that peak in the evening hours on a daily basis. And then right there’s the annual circles were cycles were on a hot August afternoon when, yeah, you were gas utility, and you’re really making money and news flash utilities hate that, right? Gas utilities hate that fact. So, yeah, I’m completely with Dan on this one. And I think all of us would agree, of course, that, of course, this is about profit margins of fossil fuel utilities. They are among the most profitable companies on the planet. Fossil fuel companies more broadly, and they will do everything in their power to argue against this low carbon transition.

Well, the I heard it that the Koch Industries had like a trillion dollars of fossil fuels trapped in the ground, and so naturally, they have an incentive to back an administration that allows them to burn that trillion dollars worth of investment. They’d hate to have that captured in the ground and not be able to make money off of it. So they’re going to do everything in their power to back this, I was going to ask esclare What role do you see public mobilization and political engagement playing in pushing back against the provisions of this bill and advocating for stronger climate action?

Yeah, no, it’s, it’s a huge role. I just want to highlight one particular fight during the One Big Beautiful Bill when it was going through or, you know, so called, but when it was going through Congress, particularly throughout the life of the one big beautiful Bill reconciliation process in Congress, there were proposals and language requiring the sell off of millions of acres of public lands. There were different variations of this effort, from congressional Republicans to really try to make this language stick in the final version. But I want to highlight there.

There was a lot of public mobilization against it. You have grassroots organizations, you have environmental nonprofits, you have hunters, you have hikers. The public really rallied together to make their voices heard, to call their all their representatives, to ultimately, you know, organize together and put pressure on congressional Republicans to just not to vote for this. And ultimately, there were no direct public land sell offs that were included in the vinyl bill. I do want to say that, you know, they did manage to include, like other terrible provisions that do, in fact, open up our public lands for oil and gas leasing and drilling drilling.

But you know, it was our public lands that you know would be in a much, much more place if we didn’t have that bipartisan support, that community mobilization that we really saw in those last couple of weeks of this fight. So I just want to state that power does, in fact, lie with the people. Climate and extreme weather impacts us all. It’s important to recognize who is trying to fight for stronger climate action, to protect, you know, our wallets, our health, our families and communities, and to also recognize who’s not doing that, and rather, would prioritize, you know, the profits for fossil fuel companies over American families.

So it is absolutely important to stay informed, to stay active and to mobilize. When you you see something that will negatively impact your communities and states, much like a lot of the provisions that we saw from the One Big Beautiful Bill. Do you see any opportunities for for action? You know, kind of what’s on the immediate horizon that you see that people should be turning their into and calling their representatives about?

Yeah, I mean, the the big one that I’m working on this week is EPA has announced its intention to roll back the endangerment finding. The endangerment finding is, you know what holds the EPA responsible under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide and methane from sources like vehicles and power plants, because they do, in fact, in. Danger public health and the welfare from Americans. So they are going to they’re in the middle.

I think hearings start next week, but I think you can submit comments until maybe the first of September, something like that. But that’s the first step, is making sure your voice is heard, that this fundamental climate ruling that you know holds the EPA responsible to regulate these greenhouse gasses, that that’s at stake here. And this is, this is the first, this is the first and most immediate thing that’s I feel like is on my mind.

So what can listeners do? Where would they go? Who should they talk to? And what are the chances of getting the ear of the Trump EPA?

I hope that they’re they’re finding on what they’re basing their ruling off, is a doe report that came out a couple weeks ago that is written by climate skepticists, and that that report is like, obviously, like, false, Not based in science, things like that.

And so I’m hoping that, you know, you know, lawyers and people can band together right now. You can submit comments, you can let your representative know that this is not something that you want to see, and things like that. And hopefully, hopefully, in you know, in some way, we can make sure that this does not get rolled back.

Well, thank you so much Lucero and Gernot and Dan for being on the program, and we appreciate the lively discussion, and we hope that all of you listeners found this valuable and subscribe to our YouTube channel. Tap the notification button so you don’t miss our next live broadcast and share the episode with friends and family.

You can also follow A Climate Change with Matt Matern on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. So leave us review. It really helps us reach more people. And remember every time you follow us on Apple or Spotify, we’ll plant a tree in the Amazon rainforest. So let’s keep growing the community and a forest. I’m Matt Matern, and we’ll see you next time.

Thanks so much. Thank you guys.

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 liked this episode, please share it with a friend. See you next time.