Economics, Environment, and the Trump Effect: A Climate Crisis Conversation with Michael Mezzatesta

Tom: 00:00:11

Hello and welcome to the podcast. I'm your host, Thomas Schuenemann.

I'm a global info worker, climate content creator, audio producer, and founder of globalwarmingisreal.com I have a knack for making the incomprehensible a little digestible, which is a good thing because my mission is to help people understand climate change and to reach as wide an audience as possible as soon as possible. In the podcast, I speak with activists, authors, policy experts, entrepreneurs, and NGO heads.

The people doing the work on the ground to slow climate change, teaching others how to adapt, and helping create a climate narrative that works. They shape our living story as we move forward day by day. We'll also review books and tell stories using sound and the imagination.

It's all to help spread awareness and understanding of climate, human development, psychology, sociology, and how we can learn to live in the Anthropocene. It's been said that hope is when we stop thinking, fooling ourselves.

On this show, we don't doom scroll, but we don't paint a Pollyanna picture of our current situation either. We explore what's doable. Can we bring back what's lost? No. But we sure can defend what remains in this make or break decade.

We must fix our broken relationship with nature, ourselves, and each other. So let's get started.

I recently had a discussion with Michael Mezzatesta about climate change, energy, economics, and how we can respond to the climate crisis in the upcoming Trump administration. Michael is the founder of Better Future Media and has a degree in economics from Stanford University.

His popular Instagram video span the intersection of economics, climate, finance, and culture. And we take a look at all these things in our upcoming discussion, and we hope you enjoy. Here's my discussion with Michael Mezzatesta.

Tom: 00:02:29

I was just listening to some of your Instagram videos.

Michael: 00:02:32

Cool.

Tom: 00:02:32

I. I take note of your. Your encouragement to, you know, now that we're at another four years in Trump. This will be.

This will be a galvanizing moment for the column, will.

Michael: 00:02:43

I think so. I mean, it's a sad moment. It's a sad moment. A falvanizing moment. It's. It's a roller coaster of emotions. Yes, indeed, definitely.

Frustration, anger, excitement, you know, and I think it will strengthen some of the resistance movements and the protests and the, you know, the political effort to stop Trump. So I think there's a silver lining there that I was trying to highlight.

Tom: 00:03:07

Yeah, yeah. Um, so in regard to, like, COP 29, which is going on now, of course he's gonna pull out of Paris Right. That's kind of beginning.

But what do you think the impact of that will be? And I'll preface this question with. With kind of mocking my bias toward the cop at this point.

I've been to two cops, 15 and 21, and I'm really disappointed in a way. I feel like the cop has jumped the shark, Penny. You know, it's all these oil and fossil fuel interests that are there.

And of course it's going to make a difference of him pulling out a Paris.

But how much in your assessment, how much of a difference do you think that's going to make at this point as far as meeting the goals of the Paris breathing?

Michael: 00:03:57

Yeah, I think sharing your assessor that COP isn't a very effective form and my faith in the process has dwindled, especially in the last few years.

Tom: 00:04:06

Why?

Michael: 00:04:07

That said, as you know, climate change is a global issue and there needs to be some sort of global approach to solving it.

Tom: 00:04:18

Yeah.

Michael: 00:04:18

And so I think that pulling out an Paris agreement would really be what feels like, if not the final nail, an up nail, international collaboration on planet Solutions. I think that it erodes trust in the international diplomacy in general and in the ability of nation states to get along and solve big problems.

And if anything, I think it'll. It'll cause that.

I think my biggest fear is that it will cause the people who, the good people who are going to cop and doing their darndest to remake and agree and it happened. I think it'll take a lot of wind out of their sails and make them feel like, what's the point of this? Right.

And so that's the concern, is that the best parts of COP might be really stamped out. They must just fully leave in.

Tom: 00:05:13

Yeah, I suppose in a way it can do that, what you just said, and then kind of embolden the falsehood interests. They're lobbying for their own interest.

Michael: 00:05:23

Absolutely. I think they will be emboldened, as if they needed more reasons to be emboldened and see how much running their foe at this point.

Tom: 00:05:30

Right. What other impacts do you think My question is going to be what other impacts of him pulling up Paris will have an international collaboration.

now. It's not like it was in: 2016

It's like the train is out of the station and that's where we're headed. Just if we're going to get there in time is the question this morning.

Michael: 00:06:06

Yeah. So do you want me to speak a little bit to renewable energy bid in the US or more to the effects of global diplomacy or about.

Tom: 00:06:14

Let's do both. Let's start with global and then go domestic.

Michael: 00:06:19

Yeah, the global picture, I think, and this is going to veer away from climate for a moment, but it will come back. I think the global tension we're seeing is a shift towards a more multipolar world.

That's the phrase everyone likes to use, from a unipolar US Led international world order to a more multipolar world. And traditionally US Presidents have done their best to stem that tide and try to keep it a unipolar world.

But Donald Trump seems to be willing to fan the flame and say, look, we don't want to be leaders of the free world. We're not going to fill that role.

And there are some benefits to that shift, I think, but I think that when it comes to, again, solving global problems through cooperation, we think that's going to get a lot harder. And I think COP and then the Paris Agreement are just examples of how that's going to affect the climate situation.

But I do think that in a more multipolar world where you have more influence going to other countries, whether that's the big, obviously China is the main one, I think, you know, you're seeing a bit more of the EU floating away from the US sphere of influence. You're seeing Russia kind of doing its own thing and allying with its own sort of axis of countries, including Iran.

It, it's, you know, it leads to a bit of a less predictable state of affairs for foreign policy. And I think that, that, you know, again, sitting here in the US like, oh no, this might be destabilizing, this might be bad.

Well, in some ways it's what everyone who's been, who has been criticizing the American empire has been wanting for many decades. And so we'll see how it goes.

But I do think that what we're seeing, and another, you know, something I dig into a lot on my channel and just in my work is the kind of economic side of things. I mentioned how it relates to climate change. And what we're seeing is a lot more kind of economic regionalism.

So instead of, instead of this globalized economy where everything we consume might have parts that come from Indonesia and China and maybe assemble in Europe and that sort of model, I think we're going to see less and less of that. We're going to see more Close alliances between regional trade partners in the U.S.

you know, I think that looks like Mexico and Canada, obviously, and probably a little bit less of China, especially If we have 100% tariffs on a lot of their goods. Those threats are real.

Tom: 00:08:49

Yeah.

Michael: 00:08:49

And so I think what it means is, you know, in some ways a bit, you know, a less stable, predictable economic system. But at the same time I think it means hopefully, and again, this is where I try to stay optimistic here.

Hopefully a little bit more power shifting back into the hands of domestic labor and less of a sense that like these big international multi conglomerate corporations are just getting the cheapest labor and the cheapest materials from everywhere they can at this, keeping the profits for themselves. And so that's the silver lining on the, on the foreign policy front. But the question is, does this increase the risk of nuclear war?

Because that, that is the ultimate. Yeah, that is the ultimate like trump card, so to speak, like using that term anymore.

That's, that's the ultimate like red flag or risk of a more multipolar system is we lose, we lose the kind of deterrent effect that the US Military has had in the last few decades. And you know, the war would change everything. It would everything. And it's like, well, at what cost?

Tom: 00:09:57

Right. And I, I assume it was just save a rattling where you just had problems today. Was it that changing his. Yeah, he might use nincarbong or whatever.

Michael: 00:10:08

Yeah, it's lowering the, lowering, lowering the area. Yeah. For which the Russia can use nuclear weapons at least in according to their internal decision making. And so yes, that's not good. Yeah, yeah.

And Biden. Yeah, that's in response to Biden approving the use of U. S fade long range missiles in Russian territory. So yeah, it's, it's scary.

I will say that the unpredictability of Trump from a foreign policy perspective in his first term seemed to play a relatively stabilizing role in the sense that a lot of foreign adversaries seem to be on their best behavior because we were kind of at least canon and he, and he may.

I don't know if you saw his interview about John Bolton where he was like, I don't like John Bolton, but he, he was great to have in the room next to me because he really wanted to go to war with. And so they were looking at him like, oh my God, I think this guy wants to go to war with me. Things like that.

You know, it's, it's a little bit of a, of a aggressive and an unpredictable approach, but we I cannot say that foreign policy has gone well during the Biden administration. Things seem to have gotten, you know.

Tom: 00:11:16

Yeah, there's a lot of conflict in.

Michael: 00:11:18

The world slowly closer to international conflict and war. And we've seen what happen, what's happening in the Middle East.

So again, I do try to keep optimism around the hopeful effect of the Trump corn policy as being a little bit less conflict oriented. But I know we're here to talk about climate.

Tom: 00:11:39

Well, it all ties in, I think climate change, it's a symptom of where we're at. Another thing that interested me from some of the videos I saw were your. What is it? The well being economy.

Michael: 00:11:56

Yeah.

Tom: 00:11:57

Post Growth alliance. I think it was the post growth lens. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm really interested in how capitalism is feeding all these tensions, the climate change, the hyper consumerism, the globalization like you were just talking about and how we can get from here, from the economy we have now, the capitalism growth rules to something else. Because you kind of mentioned not you, but the big. You he mentioned that the growth might not be a good thing and you're.

And you kind of feel like you're an outcast. What do you mean growth and good. What kind of a communist are you or something like that?

Michael: 00:12:40

I did a lot of that.

Tom: 00:12:41

Yeah. Yeah. So I'm really curious in your thoughts about how. Well, okay, so what are some examples you mentioned Iceland and New Zealand.

What are they doing specifically toward that end? Toward.

Michael: 00:12:56

Yeah, yeah. And Finland and Wales are two other examples.

So what they've done in partnership with the Wellbeing Economy alliance, which is a great organization I work closely with, to make media and educate folks about their work.

They are, those countries are taking some of these new frameworks, new economic frameworks that are basically saying, okay, let's stop using the traditional model where growth is the goal of every single economic policy and start thinking, okay, what are other social objectives that we have?

Whether that's increasing well being, increasing certain health standards, improving mental health, improving happiness, like just stuff that's like seems obvious but it had never been the focus of economic economists and saying what if we made those the goal of our, of our economic policies or, or even in a less extreme way, what if we added those to the list so it said economic growth is part of the goal and also happiness, well being, mental health are all our co objectives. And all of those countries have landed in different places on how they implement these things.

But to use the example of Wales, they set up something called a future generations coalition where they are using the lens of how will this policy affect future generations? So not just this one, but what will be the effect on one, two, three generations out from now?

And if we use that lens, it becomes less about making the economy bigger for them and more about, hey, maybe we shouldn't like degrade the quality of land or pollute, you know, cause some sort of irreparable resource loss or biodiversity loss and things like that. And so when they start using these other objectives around well being as the objective for economic policy, new types of decisions start to get made.

And the initial research is showing that it's working like these, these policies are actually having improved, are actually improving some of the indicators like happiness and well being. The question is, are we willing to make those trade offs between well being and growth?

And if not, and this is what I get into in my videos, a lot is like, if not, why not?

Because if you look at the amount of wealth we've created in a lot of these highly advanced economies, which is where this conversation is happening, it's not happening in, in, you know, the developing world as much because for them it's really about actually improving just the standard of living and bringing gently wealth to lift people out of poverty.

But when you look at these more developed economies, it's like, well, we, we have generated all this wealth, but we still have homelessness, we still have the mental health crisis, we still have rent inequality. Maybe it's time to actually address those things and stop pretending like that growing the size of the economy is the, is the only goal here.

Tom: 00:15:57

The be all, end all. Yeah, yeah, that's the other thing, the culture war.

It is frustrating to try to deal with people that are here in the United States have the advantage of the most advanced economy in the world having the most impact because it's the most. How can you not have the most impact if you have the most advanced economy in the world? You know, so.

And yet unable to connect the dots and in fact just push against it. And I wonder if it's willful ignorance or if it's fear of losing what they've got.

In some ways it's more refreshing to talk to people in the developing world because they're more on the ground, they're more grounded. Does that make any sense to you?

Michael: 00:16:39

Yeah, it does, it does. There's a lot of cultural resistance to these types of debates.

And yeah, I think that what, what Trump was able to do this year is what he and was really effective in doing.

Tom: 00:16:49

Yeah.

Michael: 00:16:50

Was tapping into some of that frustration that I think Working class people feel around a government that tells them what to do or what to think or, or, or, or, you know, tells them that it's their fault that some of these problems are happening when they're just like, hey, I'm just trying to survive out here.

And the truth is that there's a ton of people, despite all of the wealth regenerated and a ton of people in the US living in Harvard, who as true, are not, who are not in a super strong position financially, are really able to feel like they are, you know, in a better place than maybe their, their parents were. And so that's, I think, I mean, that's ultimately the biggest challenge around climate communication.

Right, is that this is a, this is a huge problem, but it feels like something that only people who, who are not thinking about their day to day survival are able to think about because it kind of requires a level of, of privilege to sit back and say, oh my gosh, there's this global problem we need to solve.

Tom: 00:17:52

Right, right.

Michael: 00:17:52

I think Trump really like muddied the water there and pulled out this really effective message of, you know, it's these bureaucrats in Washington, it's these coastal elites, they want to tell you what to do. Don't listen to them.

I'll make sure that it's just America first and you first, and blaming all of these other forces, the elites, the immigrants, the global. He has a rotund, passive character, a host of enemies. Yeah, exactly.

But hey, you know, I do think that there's something there around, around whatever a climate positive message is, whatever that political platform is, it needs to feel abundant. It needs to feel like it is a positive future that we're building towards, something we all will benefit from.

And I worry that the kind of movement now, and especially the way Trump has painted it, it's a politics of less, it's a politics of friction. Less consumption, less wealth, less energy. And I don't think he's true, I don't think he's right about that.

Excuse me, I don't think that's true, but I think that we kind of walked into his trap a little bit in some of the rhetoric coming out of a lot of green think tanks and policy, politicians and stuff. It's all about the everyday man consuming less. And look, I get it, we do need to consume less. I talk about that a lot.

But I think that we need to talk more about the benefits than we.

Tom: 00:19:23

Do about the astrix and telling people, you've got to consume us or being made to feel Guilty.

If you get on an airplane, of course it's better if you don't fly, but sometimes life means you have to get on an airplane and visit your ailing parents or whatever it is.

Michael: 00:19:42

Absolutely. And this is where the class stem comes in, too. Right. I talk about that a lot.

And I think that's resonant on my social media videos, is like, if you tell someone, hey, don't fly.

Maybe someone who's like, just maybe one of the first people to get on a plane and their family, like, yeah, they're excited about it and they're like, I get to travel the world. And then you have people who are clearly elite members of society who are traveling to, to political meetings and planning conferences international.

And they're. And they're like, telling you not to do something that they're already doing it. There's a disconnect there and it's frustrating.

I would be angry, too. I get it.

Tom: 00:20:17

Yeah.

Michael: 00:20:17

I am angry sometime.

And that's where, that's where I think there's this important element of like, yes, on average, the consumption needs to come down, but can we start with the people who are consuming the most and put restrictions on them to show that we're all in. It is a societal problem.

Whereas instead, a lot of those people avoid not only restrictions, but they also avoid paying taxes and they avoid a lot of the red tape that the rest of us have to walk through. And then they say, hey, you know, I think it's just a really. It's the opposite of populist.

And Akiva Crom had very effective populist message around a climate that is basically just like, don't worry about it. We're going to drill the drill. We're going to make the energy cheaper for you, and this is not your problem.

And people love to hear to get a whole problem taken off of their list, off of their confidence. Right. And he was able to deal with climate this year. It's very frustrating because it means we're just going to kick the can down the road.

Tom: 00:21:21

Yeah.

Michael: 00:21:22

But it, but it works. And I get why it worked.

Tom: 00:21:24

It did work. And it seems like from everything I've been hearing the past few years, this is have a make or break decade. We're into climate change.

That's unavoidable, but the worst consequences of it, you know, we needed to, we need to act this decade to get a handle on it. And we're already halfway through the decade. The last half of the decade is going to be dominated by Trump.

So sometimes These rhetoric, the make or break decade, for instance, or with the election, we have to save democracy and who knows, the jury's still on the mat.

Maybe we, I won't get into that, but maybe we need to back off on the scare tactics a little bit or just balance it with like you were saying, offer an optimistic alternative to we're all gonna die.

Michael: 00:22:15

Yeah, that's, that's what I think is, is so, so important.

I think when it comes to like the critique, I think that if it's infused with a, with a class angle that is like really a critique of this elite lifestyle, then I think people can. That's a more populous version of that. But ultimately I think we need to critique less. We have to go. I like that too.

Paint a positive picture of what the world could look like if we come together and solve this problem. Yeah.

And I think that is things like cleaner air, cleaner water, better health, more well being, better mental health, more public transportation, more affordable housing. Like all of these things that people actually want.

Like we should be talking about that and not, oh, like, you know, it's over if we don't get Trump out of office, then the client is done, democracy's finished. It's.

I think that's the, that's the pitfall the left, or you could say the Democratic Party has fallen into in the US is it's a politics of reacting to things that don't like.

Tom: 00:23:21

Yeah.

Michael: 00:23:21

As opposed to the politics of shining a light on like the future that we do want to build.

Tom: 00:23:26

Yeah, that's good.

Michael: 00:23:27

I like that.

Tom: 00:23:28

Politico's reaction.

So getting back into the trop and what he's promised to do, what I suppose he will do, what do you see the impacts will be for us Americans when he pulls whatever he's going to do to NOAA, NASA, the U.S. weather Service, all that sort of thing. I mean, a weather service. What's his beef with the weather service or NASA for that matter? I guess they do.

NASA does climate research is what I guess. Is that it? So that anything tangentially related to climate he's going to go after does that.

Michael: 00:24:06

ad a good chunk of that prior: 2025

They talked about the climate change alarm industry as it. Course, as it. The only real problem is that people are complaining about climate change. There is no real climate change.

It's very freaky it's quite backwards in their understanding of the climate science or lack thereof.

But I think, I think when it comes to weather service, it's just like these are noaa, these are government funded climate research institutions basically, right?

Like, these are scientists who are looking at weather patterns, they're looking at global temperatures, they're looking at hurricanes and frequency and doing, doing research into the effect of the warming ocean on the intensity of hurricanes and things like that. And I think they just produce a lot of science that makes climate change look real. And for the Trump administration, that's a threat.

ry. It's very like, you know,: 1984

Now, I think, you know, on a very cynical level, if we can't check the weather easily, we might not be able to see patterns in the weather, like the fact that it's 80 degrees in November or something like that. Right? I mean, how stupid do they really think we are?

I don't know, but it's, it's scary how, like that would be implied, the implied view of the American people and some of these policies is quite condescending.

But I think that ultimately it's more about finding parts of the government that seem to be working with climate scientists and defunding them and trying to remove that link so that the US Government is less influenced by and less collaborative with the climate scientists of the world, who are a big thorn in the Trump administration side because they're constantly saying, hey, we need to do something about this. Right? I think that's what's happening here. And I will say just briefly about what's actually going to happen.

Thankfully, these agencies have strong institutional foundations and in some cases bipartisan support. And so they will get funding cuts. I'm sure they're going to try to replace the leadership.

But I also think there's a chance, and I'm hopeful that even Republican senators and Congress people will temper the cuts and the destruction of these departments, because these are benefits to the American people.

And I think a really good example of this, and I think a big part of the way that we're going to see the climate issue play out is like the, the way that the Inflation Reduction act or the IRA funding is working, which Trump says he's going to repeal. I think he just said he's going to repeal it because it's associated with Biden and Biden is bad and this narrative. Right.

But ultimately, if you look at the IRA and These renewable energy rebates and the funding that's actually gone out, which is billions and billions of dollars, most of it has gone to Republican thing.

And so I foresee that when push really comes to shove on, quote, defunding the ira, I think a lot of energy companies in Texas are going to be like, hey, don't do that, please, because this is free money for us as long as we hit these objectives that the IRA has laid out around renewable energy. And by the way, Texas is a great place for solar energy and it's a great place for renewable energy.

So in some ways, I think you made the point at the beginning of the interview like the train has left the station on renewable energy. I think the ira, IRA was really brilliant policy. It's actually the main reason why I was supporting the Harris campaign this year.

I don't agree with everything in her platform, that's for sure, but I think the IRA was fantastic legislation to incentivize the renewable energy transition. And the fact that Republican states are driving that, I think is going to eventually get to Trump.

I don't know if he even knows that yet, but I think he's going to hear about it from his constituents and people, his inner circle.

Tom: 00:28:32

Yeah, that. And that's, that's good to hear. Yeah.

When I hear that he's going to defund all this and he's going to do away with these foundational scientific research institutions. It's like, oh, my. You know, that's when you start to get that pessimistic vibe, you know, start to spiral. Yeah, yeah.

Michael: 00:28:52

Look, I'm not saying it's all going to be okay, but, but I do think that it is. The beauty of our, of our legislative process is that things have to happen somewhat slowly.

And I think as they move through the halls of Congress, people are going to real like, hey, wait, I don't want this program cut. Right. Actually, the NOAA is, is helpful for me and my state for this reason. Right.

I think that type of thing will come up, but there certainly will be, will be damage. I think it's just a matter of whether it's as big of a. Of a hit as the threats imply.

And my guess is that no, the threats are much bigger than the actual, the actual damages they do.

Tom: 00:29:27

He's a bully, and so he's more bullying bark than what it can actually pull off.

Michael: 00:29:33

My favorite example is the border wall. Nothing built. Yeah. But we heard about it constantly for four years.

Tom: 00:29:40

Yeah. Mexico's going to pay for it, too. Yeah.

I just Read an article before the interview about how drought in Mexico is driving immigration in the United States. Some farmers can withstand what they're dealing with in Mexico is others can't.

They get the economic desperation they have to do something so they migrate.

So this irony that Trump is going to have all these mass deportations and deny climate change, yet climate change, yet climate migration is the thing. It is going to just get worse. And of course, I would wager he's not making that connection whatsoever.

One problem he's ignoring is fueling the problem that he swept into the presidency on. You know, so.

Michael: 00:30:26

Absolutely.

And this, this right here you're touching on is, is to me the scariest thing about the Trump administration and Trump's presidency is general, in general is he discounts the future so heavily. He doesn't seem to care about what happens after the four years he's in office. And he's not going to be a ramp down.

He's getting up there and he, I think he's, he's fully happy of doing everything he can to bring oil prices down and make himself seem like the greatest president of all time because the gas price is coming down and then just have no accounting at all for what happens as a result of that. And what does it look like in 30 years? And I mean, he built his business by going into massive debt and filing for bankruptcy multiple times.

His entire understanding of how to succeed in the world is like running up debt and not being afraid of the consequences and knowing he's going to get out of it by just short term wheeling and dealing. And that just seems to be the way he's going to run the country.

But we're all going to be here still when he's gone and we're going to have to deal with the consequences of cleaning up his mess. And that's the scary part. I'm all for chief energy. I'm not trying to raise.

I would not like to see the cost of living go up any further for US Citizens or for anyone in the world. Drilling is good for that. Increasing oil supply will bring costs down.

I get short term, it makes sense, but if you look medium, long term, it's a huge cost for future generations. And that's again where some of the well being economy stuff comes in is like, what if we accounted for that? What if we looked at that?

How would that change current policy? I mean, it's the opposite of the way Trump views the world.

Tom: 00:32:20

How much longer can they. I guess, yeah, increased gas supply, especially in the fossil fuel based Economy, prices will come down.

But renewable energy, the cost of renewable energy is plummeted in the past, like.

Michael: 00:32:34

Say 10 years or so, and it's.

Tom: 00:32:36

On par with a fossil energy.

So at some point that argument, especially given the environmental impact of fossil fuel, not that there's not an environmental impact to any sort of energy source, but you know, fossil fuels are pretty bad. So, you know, it's not even that. Is it even that long term a thing?

I mean, how much longer will it be before it's just too expensive to continue to drill through every last drop of false energy? This could have been a rhetorical question, but if you have.

Michael: 00:33:09

Yeah, if you have something, I mean, longer than four years, unfortunately.

Tom: 00:33:14

Yeah, longer than four years. Yeah, yeah.

Michael: 00:33:16

I mean it's, it's inevitable that, that the, the cost, the social cost of carbon is currently very high. He doesn't care about that.

Yeah, the, the, the actual cost of carbon I think can come down quite a bit more if we just hand a car blanch to all of the fracking companies and let them everything that we've got.

But even that, I mean, I don't know if you listen to a podcast called the Very Simplification by Nick Higgins, but he has a really cool view of all of this energy stuff. And he, he talks about how like, even fracking has its natural endpoint.

Like we will have fracked all of the shale in Kansas and New Mexico, you know, and he doesn't give a hard timeline on that, but it's like in the next couple of decades and so three sprif. But then what? You know, then, then cost of fossil fuels will inevitably go up.

By then it might be too late for the economic forces to, to slow down climate change. But fossil fuel is a limited resource. It's not unlimited. We have, we have only so much of it in the ground.

And so again, I don't think Trump wants to think about that because he's just thinking if I get more of it, I will a bid and I will have more power. And that's all he really seems to care about. But it's inevitable that we're going somewhere else for fv.

The carbon age that we're living in has an end date and it's coming soon. Again, I just don't think it's happening in the next four years.

And so unfortunately, it's going to be up to future administrations to clean up this mess.

Tom: 00:34:47

Yeah, yeah. There have been energy transitions throughout history, and to think that we could just stick with the status quo forever is not wise thinking.

Michael: 00:34:57

Right.

Tom: 00:34:58

So do you think 1.5 is dead?

Michael: 00:35:02

This. We're gonna, I have no reason to believe that we will stop war making at 1.5. So is it, is it dead? If the yes or no question, I gotta say yes.

Yeah, it's, it's dead. It's maybe very, very small chance of yeah being 5, but I think that the Trump win what they were of my, the last, the last breath of 1.5.

I hope, I hope two to, you know, truth is better than 1.7 is better than 1.8 isn't.

I think 1.5 is always a, a bit of an arbitrary distinction and I know there was some scientific thinking behind the fact that 1.5 would limit a lot of the downstream consequences of warming and it would prevent the potential tipping points in, in the climate from, from getting triggered. So I get it, it is, it is a, it is sad. But I just hope that we can stop it before 2 degrees now or, you know, go after 2.5 or 3. The lower the better.

Tom: 00:36:02

So I just. What are the alternatives other than the cough process at the international level that can rein this in? Anything come to mind for you?

Michael: 00:36:16

Yeah, yeah. Well, two main things come to mind and there might be a third once you get down on the road here.

I think that this grassroots activism and protests are going to get a lot louder and a lot more disruptive. So ultimately it's a disruption of business as usual that is necessary.

And if policymakers aren't going to do it and aren't going to pay the political price of some of these unpopular policies or, or build the positive vision that we were talking about to make them popular and make them actually like palatable for people, then I think folks are going to have to start getting in the way and disrupting, disrupting the development and operations of fossil fuel infrastructure. I really do think that that is going to become a major force in politics over the course of the next decade.

And I do think that I was being sincere in that video when I said I think that the climate movement is going to get a big, is going to get a big boost from the Trump presidency because we're going to have to, it's going to be necessary. I think people are going to stop believing that simply showing up to the voting booth every couple years is going to do it, really solve the problem.

But that's more of a local movement answer. I think from an economic standpoint, there's a lot of money to be made in renewable energy.

And I think that despite The Trump administration willingness to look away from the problem.

I think we're seeing other countries, China most notably, who are actually trying to get ahead of this issue and become the market leader in solar, especially for them, solar farm development. And so I see to some extent the market forces that play to say it's simply good business to solve climate change.

And you'll see in my videos there's a bit of an anti sort of business streak only because I think that I'm trying to pressure people, I'm trying to pressure policymakers and citizens to actually acknowledge their role in solving the problem because we can't just wait for companies to do it. But I do think that, like, there's a ton of money going into green technology in the US it's happening even faster in China.

And that's all really positive.

And to your point, you made it, you made the point earlier that the cost of a, of a gigawatt of energy from, from solar panels is like, lower than it's ever been. And there's a chance that in the arc of development that some of these countries in the developing world.

I think you mentioned Kenya earlier, it's easier to get folks onto solar energy earlier in that process. And so there's reasons to believe that countries will not have to pollute as much to get to the level of wealth that they're trying to reach.

And all of these things are very positive. And so I think that the progress is going to happen in other countries.

It's going to happen in the US at the state level, at the local level, at the regional level, at the city level, municipal level. I just don't think we can expect too much support from the federal government of the United States in the next four years.

And that's, that's a bummer. But, you know, it's not like all the levers have been taken from us.

Tom: 00:39:45

That's true. That, that kind of was the case, but the, the action at the subnational level, when comp was in office before, there was a lot of movement.

Yeah, cities and states.

Michael: 00:39:57

Exactly. I mean, California made a ton of progress in Texas, and a few red states made a ton of progress too.

And that's, that gives me a lot of hope because it's not a, it's not a purely left versus right political divide. I think it's actually this issue. Energy transcends politics in some way. I mean, folks just want cheap energy. Right?

And the clean stuff is cheaper than the dirty stuff. They're going to go with the clean stuff and that's that's great to see.

Tom: 00:40:23

Yeah.

Michael: 00:40:23

That folks aren't just ideologically choosing where to get their energy. I think folks are actually realize that there's not only cheap energy in the renewable energy transition, but there's also a ton of jobs.

And so I think this is another thing that give me optimism is there's more jobs opening now in renewable energy than in oil and gas. So it's this big economic shift that's happening.

People are learning the skills and I think that ultimately it's going to be a economic asset for the states that get ahead of it and their countries.

Tom: 00:41:03

Yeah, that's another positive aspect. It's funny, I've been following a subreddit. It's called Real Tesla and they're anti Musk.

And so many people, at least from what I'm reading on the subway, are kind of to dump their Teslas because they bought into it for maybe not purely ideological reasons, but maybe a little bit of that and wanted to get the EV and get ahead of it. Now Musk has shown his true colors and everybody's kind of dumped, dumped their Tesla at a huge loss.

Michael: 00:41:46

I'm seeing that. I'm curious, I'm, I'm, I'm quietly sharing when I see that.

But I also, you know, I think that unfortunately, Elon Musk's power doesn't seem to be something that a few of us ethical consumers can really dented at this point. He's, he's really been running very fast towards global domination or whatever you want to call it.

I mean, it's really been a villain, like a hero to villain story of the most comic book. Like such an arc, a character arc that he's gone through. And it's very scary to see.

But hey, the guy really helped out the solar industry for a while. And to some extent he still, from what I can tell what he says publicly, he still believes deeply that the US Needs to get off of fossil fuels.

Needs to get off fossil fuel and shift to harnessing the power of the sun, he says. And so, hey, maybe, maybe that amount of renewable energy optimism and knowledge in the Trump administration is like again, a silver lining.

Maybe he did so tell Trump, hey, you know what? Actually, like, you're wrong about solar energy.

But yeah, I used to really kind of think that he was a great hope for humanity, and now I'm just like, yeah, what happened?

Tom: 00:43:16

It's sad, I guess. What is it, $250 billion happened or whatever it is.

Michael: 00:43:23

Yeah, I mean, people are calling it the best investment of the year we put like a couple hundred million into the Trump campaign and then, yeah, his net worth has gone up like I think multiple tens of billions since the election. So, yeah, it's, it's sad, it's self interested.

It's an example of why this kind of super hyper individualist mindset doesn't seem to be compatible with actually solving the climate crisis. It just, ultimately the incentives are unmisaligned.

But yeah, I respect the people who are deleting their Twitter accounts and returning to Tesla then think resistance is cool.

But I also think, you know, all, like, all I can really do is be optimistic that he will recognize that he's kind of done as much as he can do in terms of his own political shift and maybe he can be a horse for good. I say that with a big grin of song for administration. It feels like wishful thinking, man to counterbalance.

Tom: 00:44:28

Anyway.

Michael: 00:44:29

Yeah.

Tom: 00:44:31

Well, sir, I appreciate your time. Any other notes of optimism? Leave me with notes of optimism. Tough assignment there.

Michael: 00:44:45

That is a tough assignment right now. Yeah. I will just say this. I think that. I think that maybe two things.

Some of the anti corporate rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration I actually find very positive.

Tom: 00:45:06

Okay.

Michael: 00:45:07

A lot of it's coming from folks like rfk, who I know freak a lot of people out because of the alternative medicine and anti vax stuff, which I, I've also been creeped out by. But. Or at least the vaccine stuff I think is a little, A little weird.

But also, you know, some of his openness to alternate, like Eastern medicine traditions, I'm like, oh, maybe we need a little bit of that in our society. Yeah.

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing him up is he's talking about the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence on American politics and we need to restrict their ability to lobby and we need to restrict their ability to advertise. And when I hear things like that, I'm like, oh, wow, this is a very progressive idea coming from someone who's apparently right wing.

And I think, and I hope that people who consider themselves part of the left, consider themselves part of the progressive environmental movement, can find the kind of diamonds in the rough in the Trump platform where there are actually some progressive ideas in there that are deeply anti corporate and antitrust. And even Gideon Vance has come out in support Lina Khan, the head of the ftc, who has been paraded for antitrust legislation.

And so when I see things like that, I'm like, okay.

In some ways, there's a common enemy between the progressives and the triple MAGA movement, which is like corporate elites who don't care about anything except their own profit and their own stock price.

And that is that thread in the MAGA movement that I hope we can all sort of try and support while they're in power, because I do think that there's benefit in actually calling out the problem and addressing it, which is something the Democrats didn't seem willing to do. So that is my one. Kind of like, okay, here's some silver lining of the Trump administration winning, and then that's good. That's that.

And I'm trying to remember the other one. Oh, the only other one is something we lightly touched on, which is Trump is a lot of talk and not as much action.

And so I will remind people about the border wall, which never got built. I will note that, you know, he's talking about mass deportations.

But if his goal is really to keep costs low in this country, he's not going to torment the people, because those are people who do a lot of the. The unwanted jobs in this country. Right. And keep food prices low by working on farms and in slaughterhouses and in food processing facilities.

And so I don't think he's gonna deport nearly as many people as he says he is. He's just. He just. They're a convenient scapegoat for him. They rile people up.

But I think he talks a lot more than he actually does, and so don't take him for his word at all. Take him for what he does. And obviously, we need fight like hell to prevent him from taking serious actions that are bad for our cause.

But try not to get distracted by all the bluster because it's. A lot of it is BS and a lot of it is just him. Him controlling the media. Right.

And I really hope that we're in a better situation than we think we'll be in four years when. When he passes the baton.

Tom: 00:47:58

That's good. How about that?

Michael: 00:48:00

All right, sir.

Tom: 00:48:01

Thanks, Michael. I appreciate your time.

Michael: 00:48:03

Yeah, of course. So nice to meet you and talk. This was fun. I hope. Useful. Let me know.

Let's definitely find ways to work together or at least commiserate as we try to hold on tight for the next few years.

Tom: 00:48:13

All right, sounds good. Thanks, Michael.

Michael: 00:48:15

Appreciate it. All right, have a good one. You too. Bye.

Tom: 00:48:17

Bye.

Tom: 00:48:18

There's always more can do to stop climate change. No amount of engagement is too little. And now more than ever, your involvement matters.

To learn more and do more, visit globalwarmingisreal.com thanks. For listening. I'm your host, Tom Schueneman. We'll see you next time on Global Warming is Real.