Ci Emily Atkin Final Mixdown.mp3 transcript powered by Sonix—the best audio to text transcription service
Ci Emily Atkin Final Mixdown.mp3 was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the latest audio-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors. Sonix is the best way to convert your audio to text in 2019.
Eric Levai:
Welcome to counterintelligence. This is Eric Levai.. Today's guest is climate journalist Emily ATKIN, forensic news. Thanks. Our patrons Andrei Dunka, Angela Jackson, Zacharias Z-Score Kaminsky, Sacha Millstone, Craig Pierce, Jim Rice and Greg Schneider. This is Eric Levai. and this is counterintelligence. Emily ATKIN, welcome to counterintelligence.
Emily Atkin:
Hey, thanks for having me.
Emily Atkin:
Emily, thank you so much. And as I was just saying to you, I know this is a very big week in your career. So I just want to thank you for taking a half hour out and, you know, talking to us here at a forensic news think. Thank you so much for doing that. Of course.
Emily Atkin:
I mean, I appreciate that you wanted to talk to me about it. Yeah,
Eric Levai:
Well, you know, we've done this is probably our tenth show. And, you know, it's like we have to do a show on climate science. Obviously, the most important issue of our time. So I was thrilled that you had a little time to talk to us. You know what I'd ask you first as a climate reporter. I know you've, you know, work for Newsweek, The New Republic, and now you're out on your own with your new newsletter, Heated, which I can't wait to talk about. What I actually just kind of had a professional question. How do you how do you fuse sort of climate science with journalism if if you could.
Emily Atkin:
I mean, they're really easy topics to fuse together. I mean, basically, every time a new study comes out about what's happening in the climate, it's news. I mean, it's journalism. I mean, this is this is basically that climate science represents information about our potential future that we need to deal with. You know, as a society and that we need to decide what we want our politicians to do about it. And so one of the scientific study comes out, say, about sea level rise or about desertification or about extreme weather that has implications for our entire political system. And it's honestly to me, it's a super easy topic to report on.
Eric Levai:
Yeah. A, I agree. And I know I like I know on this show, I think one of the challenges with maybe with climate science, obviously, you know, you this is what you do. So you're an expert. But I think one of the things that's been a little bit of a crutch for the general public is just that. I mean, maybe the fundamentals are simple, but it's it's not like you can just sit down and watch two people yelling at each other on CNN. I mean, you have to really have some kind of understanding of of just off the topic. And that's why I think it's so important that what you and other reporters do is translating it from, you know, into a language that people can understand. Yeah.
I mean, I will tell you, it took a long time, probably for the first six months of my climate journalism career. I was just reading scientific studies and calling up the authors and trying to figure out what exactly they meant in layman's terms. And then because I started doing this in 2013 and there was a lot of false balanced coverage out there, which sort of just means that there was a lot of both sides. You know, maybe climate change is real, maybe it's not. Then I would take the information in that in the studies and I'll call other scientists or other experts and try and, you know, basically fact check it and fact check it against these claims that other people were saying that, you know, that it was exaggerated or that it was a hoax and stuff like that. And so, yeah, I mean, I would say that the first pretty much the first six months to a year of my career was just doing that until it became pretty clear to me, just as a journalist trained to study, you know, what is objective fact and what is. What is misinformation that the vast, vast majority of the climate sceptic community was peddling lies and misinformation, then tried to mislead the culture, promote it. So it's it's been a it's been a journey.
Yeah. I feel like the last two years have been a journey in other ways. If you know what I mean. It's been. Oh, God. You know it. And that's so true. And you know, the the both sides thing, we could do a whole another show on that. But that's it's been so corrosive in so many ways. And it's just that whole thing is a fascinating history. You know, it's like the idea that like 99 percent are, you know, correct me if I'm wrong of the world's best. Scientists know that there is an approved, that there's climate change going on and that's negatively affecting us. And then there's like whatever three other people that that's the same thing is just unbelievable to some people.
I mean, there's also like 10 percent of the population that believes the Holocaust didn't happen. And that's far more than the amount of climate scientists that think that climate change isn't real. And we don't give those people as much credit as we do to climate deniers in our society. So let's just. Yeah. I just don't think about.
I wonder what the crossover is. There are the the Venn diagrams, if that's the right terminology.
Maybe another I mean, some people are just some people just, you know, like conspiracy theory. And sometimes conspiracies are real. It's just that this one isn't.
Yeah, right. It's very real. And, you know, I look at my role in this show, too, in a similar way. You know, some a lot of the national security stuff we do is, you know, as you know, not everyone has time. Everyone's busy to even sometimes sit down and read. So I look at my role as is similar just to explain things to people who may be had, just put it a little more into I don't know. If they don't have much, much time, they can listen to me in the car or whatever. And hopefully, you know, learn something.
Speaking of which, I wanted to ask you so. So last night, actually, you know, at first. Could we get a status update on just the general global climate change right now?
And just just in your own words, where are we as of right today and our efforts to combat it?
Well, we're not doing fantastic.
I mean, listen, the IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is this body of over a thousand planet scientists from all over the world to come together and basically assess the body of research that exists throughout the world on climate change and its impacts. You know, they put out this report this year that said that what we really want to do is limit global warming to one point five degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels before the industrial revolution. We want to prevent the world from warming one point five degrees Celsius above that. Right. Because that's the point at which irreversible catastrophic impacts start to occur. The sea level such rising a lot. You know, 70 to 90 percent of all coral reefs start to die or die. You know, it becomes much harder to grow food. Extreme weather gets much, much worse, more than what we're seeing now. And right now, we're at this point where we've already warmed about one degree Celsius. If we do nothing, if we just keep on the current track that we're on now, the entire world will reach the one point five degree mark by about 2035, 2040. And what we really don't want is to reach two degrees Celsius. That is just everything I just talked about with one point five degrees just gets much, much worse. And our current trajectory were there, you know, by about 2060, 2070 by 20 by the end of the century. You know, we're anywhere from three to four degrees Celsius of warming, which is just unthinkable, unthinkable catastrophe all over the world. So what we need to do, what the IPCC tells us, this large body of science is that we need to rapidly decarbonise.
So everything that produces carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas emissions on a huge level, you know, our fossil fuel industry, our agricultural industry. We need, you know, just basic industries, cement making buildings, concrete, all that. We need to find ways to produce energy, to make food and to build buildings in ways that don't emit greenhouse gases. And we need to basically wipe out 50 percent of all of our greenhouse gas emissions by by 2030. So that's what half that's when you hear people say, we have 11 years to do something. That's what they're talking about. They're talking about cutting emissions in half by 2030 to make sure we're still able to get to that one point five degree mark. And so right now, we're not deeper on that trajectory, at least in the United States. Other countries are doing better, but not all of them. And that's why, you know, the next election is so important, because the next president here will really decide whether or not we hit that target, because that's say exactly.
Because that's this is a global effort. Although is the United States the most important in terms of reaching this goal? Are we are we the the leader?
I would argue that we are. There are some people that would argue that China is because of China right now emits the most carbon per year. But the United States has admitted the most carbon dioxide historically like so since its existence. We as a country have admitted we have put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than any other country. We've seen it's far, far more than trying on a historical basis. And we we really benefited from that. It's because of our carbon emissions that we now have such a rich, prosperous society. And we are still the number two. Carbon emitter behind China or at least number three. I'll have to. I would have to check that. But, you know, we're still we're still really, really high up there. And we represent we represent 15 percent of the entire world's carbon emissions. So not only do we have a big role to play in reducing emissions, we also have a big leadership role. Because if we don't reduce carbon emissions, then it's really hard to make the moral case to other countries that they should do it, too, when we're basically saying to them, you know, we got all the benefits of carbon emission, but we're not going to reduce ours until you reduce yours while you're still trying to get the benefits of them. So I think the leadership role is really important showing other countries how how you can rapidly reduce your emissions and still remain on an economic growth trajectory trajectory. I think that's really the responsibility of the United States.
I love our number one. And also like the worst things like that just kinda hit my funny bone a little bit like, you know. That's you know, it's a very United States thing to be brag about being number one and including, you know, the worst polluter.
But yeah, we're the worst polluter. I think we're like we're like the fattest or something. That's not the only one that people normally say.
Yes. Yes. And it's interesting because I absolutely never thought about that. I mean, you're right. The what made us a global superpower was part of this. Like you said, carbon emissions. I never thought about it like that. We wouldn't be who we were without the I guess. Was that from the industrial age?
Yeah, from the industrial revolution. I mean, that's it. You know? How did we power our factories? How did we start? As you know, the automobile manufacturing industry is an internal combustion engine, right? We mined coal and we drilled for oil and we made a lot of money burning fossil fuels. We bowled over trees to make way for a vast. Vast areas of crop land and an other industry, right? All of that industry is fossil fuel power. And we got rich as hell.
And at the same time, climate scientists started warning us that if that by doing this, we were actually were potentially altering the earth's atmosphere and the livability of the planet and the people who are making a bunch of money. You saw that thought as a risk and decided instead of doing something about it, that they would do everything they could to prevent that information from them, from being seen as credible so that they could continue getting rich and. So now we're sort of at a point where. The misinformation campaign that they waged in order to get rich, to get rich has been fully exposed. But we're still kind of dealing with it here and across the world. So that's another big problem we have to deal with before we are able to take action and find other ways to get rich. Because, I mean, it's pretty clear that there are other ways to get rich that don't involve screwing the climate.
Yeah, I mean, we we owe we owe a debt. Well, I mean, mildly to the world. If if this is what put us in, number one, we need to make things right. And I just you know, it is sobering. It's hard to imagine. I mean, this is your your specialty. You ever have to just decompress left? I mean, I'm sure you do after being in this stuff all day. It must be kind of. It's heavy.
Yeah, it's heavy. But I mean, one of the things that keep me really motivated on it. It's not it's it's focusing in on the outrage and the anger of the fact that. You know, this is so bad because of the continued misinformation campaign on the part of greedy people and powerful people. And I have, you know, personally, I have hope every day because I have a great community of readers and people like on Twitter and who who recognize that and want to do something about it. Also, I mean, I tend to be you know, I'm able to compartmentalize things and it feels good to me to, you know, recognize what a problem is. Give voice to that problem and do whatever I can to inform people about it. So even though it is really heavy, you know, at the end of the day, as long as I'm doing everything I can to do that, I tend to feel pretty, pretty, OK. And then the other thing is that I don't know, man.
Sometimes climate change is so ridiculously depressing that it's almost funny.
You know, it helps to have a if you are like me and you have a dark sense of humor, sometimes you just look at the stuff, you're like, OK. All right. So that ice cube melting too.
Cool. Yeah. Yeah. You're like, all right. Well, we had a good run. And, you know. Yeah. I'm the same way.
You're not you're not useful as a as a depressed person, right? No, you're just not useful. So I try not to. I try not to let it get to me too much because I to be useful.
Well, I guess I have a comedy background, but also I just I left every day since at least November 9th, 2016. I even left a lot. I'm just like you. I laugh every day no matter how serious it is, because you can't make this stuff up.
Well, you know, I to tell you like a quick story. Sure.
You know, when Trump was inaugurated as January 27. Right. Twenty seventh of 2017. And my mentor, who is an investigative journalist named Wayne Barrett. And he's actually the inspiration for the newsletter. You know, his approach to injustice was to be really frickin angry about it all the time. And he was one of the first journalists to investigate Donald Trump. He wrote an investigative biography of Trump in the 80s called Trump The Deal's the Downfall about his real estate career. And so Wayne became this like during the election, this expert on all things Donald Trump and, you know, exposing all this awful stuff that he was doing in the 80s. And, you know, he has his whole life, long career going head to head with Trump, really just hated the guy, thought that he was the most corrupt person in the world. And Wayne died on January 26, 2017, the day before Trump was inaugurated. Like he just couldn't see it. Right. And I laughed when I heard it. Yeah.
So I was just like, you, you son of a bitch.
You did it.
You left me here. You left me with this loose list, the craziness.
Well, yeah, like, how dare you.
That's very funny. You know, I actually I think it was yesterday. I'm pretty sure this was in his book. I was doing a little research on a convicted narcotics trafficker name. Wexler about things. What are Waxman, who was Trump's helicopter pilot? And I'm not sure if you know the name, but. But anyway, I'm pretty sure Mr. Barrett wrote about him and he might have been the first one.
That sounds like line. I mean, yeah. Bound to be found.
These crazy characters and people who, you know, exposed to all these web of connections between people and, you know, that that type of stuff that he did is what I really want to try and do with climate change. You know, in way in later years, he he wrote in a few columns that, you know, he always had research assistants, you know, young people helping him with his work. And he was like, you know, I try to teach them. I also learned a lot from them, too. And he often said that one thing he learned, you know, with the urgency of the climate crisis, which he called the climate crisis before before it was super mainstream. So to try and take, you know, some of that dogged reporting and put it in into the climate change apparatus, and I I'm going to at least try to do can't make any promises.
You know, how this stuff goes.
I sure do. You know, so last night there was a there was a massive CNN townhall. I know you're a. Tweeting about it on climate science, I really just want to kind of get your thoughts on that. What did you think of the first, you know, global or at least this big? No, no one's ever done this before. What did you think of it?
I got so many thought I Levai. wrote, I wrote about them all on the first sort of pre launch issue of my newsletter, but I guess the thought of some the mob, I would say that for the most part I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the questions, especially in the area holding the candidates accountable for decisions they'd made in the past or a questionable position they'd taken in the past with regard to climate change, you know. Each candidate had at least one uncomfortable moment where they had to explain something to somebody who didn't think that what their position was. Right. You know, Joe Biden had to explain why the next day, if he was this serious about the climate crisis, why the next day was he having a fundraiser hosted by an executive of the liquefied natural gas company? Ed Biden was fine, but he's not he's not he's not a fossil fuel executive like he doesn't do that. And then Anderson Cooper clarified that he indeed was. And Biden had to say had to say, oh, well, I didn't know that. My staff told me that he wasn't. And then, you know, Anderson Cooper said, well, if he is, are you going to cancel the fundraiser? And Biden said, yes. So I'm not sure whether that stands as of today. But, you know, just moments like that that are just so important to making climate change relevant to people. It's not just, you know, how are we going to die? It's what are you going to do to make sure we don't die because we can do something about it. And, you know, it's up to you. You are political leaders to decide whether or not you're going to stand up to power or not. So I was really sick. I was really pleasantly surprised at that. I hated that it was seven hours long.
I thought that was I thought that was torture. Honestly, like who?
How is that accessible to any American, especially? You know, the most vulnerable Americans are going to be most impacted by climate change. You know, they have to work. They have kids. They might not have cable. Like you couldn't even live. Stream it for free online, anywhere. It was so difficult to find. So, you know, I felt like there's still so much we need to do. So far, we need to go.
But it was definitely I mean, it's definitely the best climate journalism I've seen on CNN ever. Well, so I'll get that.
That's that's actually fascinating. You know, I was gonna say so less on the on the comedic tip.
So I like you like you were saying, I I was quite busy last night. I didn't realize it was gonna be last night. So anyway, when I found out, I'm like, oh, so I I DVR it or I thought I woke up all or no, after after I got home, I go home from work. I was very excited. So I'm like.
I pull it up and. I'm not seeing anything.
And long story short, I didn't realize it was seven hours, so I had recorded like 35 minutes of it.
Oh, my God. Yeah. Because why would it be seven hours? What kind of torture demon would subject anyone, even me? I do practice for a living. Right. Why is no one wants that? Yeah.
I don't want to highlight something at this moment. I also want to say Emily's newsletter is called Heated. It is. Is this the first newsletter devoted to climate journalism? Sy. Is this the only one?
There definitely are other newsletters. The only climate journalism newsletter on sub stack, which is a newsletter platform. But you know, New York Times as their newsletter, a lot of publications have newsletters that send out sort of summations of their daily news every day. But I definitely I definitely saw a space lacking for account of original accountability, journalism explained and like a human way every single day.
So, yes.
As you say, everyone needs to subscribe to heated. And I tell you why it goes back to the story. I was just I was just telling you, Sy. I completely DVR the wrong thing. I miss it. I woke up this morning. You had a pre newsletter, like a preview of what we're gonna be doing. And I learned something. This is why you guys have to subscribe to Heated. You correct me if I'm wrong. The reason there was a seven hour CNN town hall is because they were getting her, because Tom Perez and the DNC will not allow the candidates to participate in one. So they basically just shirk the format. Do I have that correct? Yeah.
So the DNC is under pressure for a long time from activists to hold a climate change focus debate where all the candidates are on stage together debating climate change. The normal format, two hours talking about this one subject, all that the DNC refused repeated interviews.
Not only that, but said that they would bar any candidate from participating in their official debates if they participated in an outside organization's climate change debate. So the only thing that outlet like CNN, MSNBC can do if they want the candidates to talk about climate change is do this individual one by one town hall format because candidates are not allowed to appear on stage together to debate subjects per the DNC rules. So it's not CNN fault that this was seven hours long. It's the DNC fault.
I as a person who generally has used his words for a living, I don't really have any words to describe that.
I'm just sort of at a loss for words, actually.
Yeah, I mean, it's it's it's a complete failure on the venture Dem mainstream Democratic Party's part to recognize the importance, severity and complexity of this issue. One of the reasons that Tom Perez said that he didn't that he wasn't gonna allow a climate debate is because if he allowed a single issue debate, then he would have to allow other single issues, debate like debates on health care and, you know, abortion and immigration and the economy and which is just such a flawed it's such a demonstration of a failed understanding of climate change, because every single one of those issues was talked about in the CNN Climate Forum.
You know, literally every single one of those issues, because climate change is not a single issue. It is every single issue.
And if I could. By the way, also that also sounds like awesome to me. Like I have no problem with a single debate on health care or immigration or like like like he says it like it's that's a bad thing.
I know. It's like, why not? Let's do it. Why can't we have our presidential candidates debate the things that are important?
Yeah. You know. Yeah. I don't know what to say about the the party establishment there, but that is really this is the most important issue because none of those other things are even possible if there's no planet.
You know, it's it's a reluctance on the DNC part, I think, to challenge the status quo. Right. That they don't want to do something that they've never done before. And Natasha Garling wrote for TNR for The New Republic. She wrote something about this. And she basically said that she said, you know, that the DNC is failure to allow the climate debate. You know, it reflects their their desire not to change the status quo. And it's in my butt. But if the DNC is that hesitant to change the status quo, that it doesn't bode well for its effort to solve the climate crisis, because that's exactly what's going to be needed to do it. So, you know something? In my opinion, something has to change with the DNC. If the Democrats are going to be the party that that actually we can depend on to solve climate change yet again, that there seems to be this this is some sort of cognitive dissonance where we talk about the status quo.
Well, there is no deal. Like, again, I'm going back to basics. There is no DNC. If the planet is a raging hailstorm of a red ball, like there's no parties. There's no nothing. There's no.
Well, it's just you know what, though? In a way that's not true, because there's nobody that's gonna be better protected from the worst effects of the climate crisis than the privileged, you know? Well, dudes of the DNC, right?
They'll be fine. Well, Sy fine for one hundred years, you know. So rest of us that are lucky.
I see. So even as things go that way, of course, with money, they'll still be able to live at least for for a while.
Yeah. I mean, I don't think that I think that humans will continue to live even if climate change gets really, really bad. Four degrees Celsius, 5 degrees Celsius, six degrees Celsius.
No human will find a way. But but millions of people will die. And it won't be the time. Tom, powerhouses of the world that die.
Yeah, I'm thinking of. I'm kind of picturing Tom Perez or Perez. I know Paris is a Paris. Well, either way, I'm kind of picturing him in some bunker talking about civility as everyone else is just outside trying to, you know, in that voice. Oh, yeah, I know.
I don't know the pronunciation either. That is the problem with people like us who spend all day just never talking. Yeah.
I think we have maybe more important things. So you I'm not even going to maybe discuss the Republicans because they obviously don't care about this issue or if we all die or whatever.
But in terms of the candidates, who do you see? What what what do you who do you think has the best climate change plan? In general, I would do it.
I'm impressed with like the majority of the candidates climate change plans. Actually, this has been a shocking presidential cycle, campaign cycle so far in that I basically have huge climate plans. So look over from every major viable candidate, which has never happened before. A lot of that is due to Washington Governor Jay Inslee candidacy. He really provided a blueprint for a lot of these candidates to sort of take from and incorporate into their climate policies, which is, you know, a lot of candidates are doing that. Elizabeth Warren in particular is doing that. I think that, you know, I was with Warren has a really strong and detailed climate plan. Bernie Sanders does as well. Even Joe Biden has a pretty highly rated climate change plan. It's just that a lot of people don't really trust him to execute on it because of his past relationships with with oil and trade. But I do think that one. I think Kamala Harris has a pretty strong plan as well. And one great thing about her plan is how much it focuses on accountability for polluters and taking polluters to court and changing laws to be able to get. To be so that communities affected by pollution are directly able to sue polluters for damages. I think that is going to be really important. And then also Cory Booker has one of the strongest climate plants and he often gets overlooked because, you know, CNN 7, our climate forum. He was the last person to speak.
And it was you know, I was basically falling asleep at that point, an eleven 20 at night. If Corey Booker hadn't had such a good plan and had been so eloquent about it, then I probably would have fallen asleep.
So, yeah, I just let you know. Actually, it's it's still going. They just got to laugh. Just kidding. It's like Jerry's telethon. I really like, you know, they're all hopped up on speed by the end of whatever. Did you.
So how did they come up with these plans? I mean, do they have their own experts who. Who's responsible for each candidate's plan? I'm just curious.
Well, I'm sure that each that each campaign has different ways if they come up with their plan.
You know, I'm not in the room with them as they're putting them together. But, you know, most campaigns have a have teams of policy experts that that put these things together. A lot of candidates like like Elizabeth Warren, for example, have put out. Sort of step by step.
Smaller parts of their climate plan, like she put out a green manufacturing plan a month or two ago. That was just about how to transition manufacturing over to. Renewable sources, you know, transportation plan. Right.
So a lot of times they come out in and sort of little increments and then they get put together into one big plan. Bernie Sanders, though, did it separately. You know, just a few days ago, he released this 16 trillion dollar green New Deal plan that would but before he had released it. Everyone was saying, where the hell is Bernie Sanders plan for, you know?
So said everyone is everyone is different. But one thing I can say is that there is no precedent for a campaign cycle like this with this many candidates, with this many detailed, specific climate plans that are really in line with the science, what the science says we need to do in order to avoid catastrophe. I mean, there's a lot to be angry about and be potentially despondent about that. But there's also stuff was happening. You know, things are happening.
No, I agree. No, go ahead. You're saying I was just saying we just have to keep pushing. You know you know, this is the time. I mean, not just because we have to. But you're right. Something is happening. Every every one of those candidates is putting forth an unbelievable a great plan.
I did want to maybe I just wanted two more questions on the other side of things. This might be more of a political question, but the GOP clearly, you know, they couldn't care less. I'm just curious, do you have any insight into the mindset of of why they just don't care about this issue at all?
I mean, I am of the mindset that.
They don't care because they can't care and still have a political career. The Koch brothers vast political network made that possible. They ensured that that would happen and that it would be impossible to have a political career as a Republican and support any kind of action that would be detrimental potentially to the fossil fuel industry. There's a lot of literature on that, but I encourage your listeners to look into it.
And I honestly think the misinformation campaign run by the part of moneyed interests has been going on for so long that some of it really just does seep into the consciousness of of a lot of politicians who really do believe that this is just some exaggerated thing on the part of Democrats and that, you know, that fossil fuels are what keeps the economy going because you know what was for a long time they they did and they and they do, but they don't have to. And Republicans have chosen. To that, they don't want that to change, that they want to know that they want. The economy to stay powered in this way. And, you know, I can't look at the mind or heart any one of these individual people. But if I just had to make a guess, based on my career and what I've seen, it's just it's about money and power and always has been.
Yeah. Yeah, it sure is. Just my final question. What can what can people listening to this show do to do their part in stopping this? What can the individual do?
So, you know, a lot of attention gets gets through to, you know, oh, I should eat less meat or maybe I should have one to your kid or maybe I should recycle more or something like that.
And that's all fine and good. And I think that consumers have a lot of power to change the behavior of corporations. You know, corporations, obviously, they buy stuff from you, the consumer. So if you demand a certain thing and say you're not going to buy from them. And if that tough enough, that happens. Those corporations can change. And, you know, there's a history of that happening. And because we're in a system where corporations have so much influence, political power, I do believe that the individual consumer has more power than they think. However, I also think that, you know, I honestly believe that the biggest thing that you can do is to prioritize climate change in your political life, sit in your edit your vote. And to really do that, because we we haven't done that as. As a citizenry for the entirety of political history in America. Climate change has always been a really, really low voter priority and that will change if we demand. If we demand more from our politicians, you know, nothing's going to change unless we have a political system that will change it. So you can if your choice is between not eating a hamburger and, you know, voting for the candidate with the best climate plan. I would say vote for a candidate with the best climate plan. And that's way more if the biggest. I think that's the biggest thing you can do is just prioritize and be smart and conscious with your with your vote.
And the newsletter heated comes out Monday, right, September 9th.
It does.
Awesome. Well, how do people subscribe? How did it. How did they find you?
It's super easy. I picked a great. You are ill. Yes, you do that.
It's heated dot world. So keep a dot com was going to cost me eight thousand dollars to buy it from some dude. So I just did. He did that world. And I think it's I think it's pretty self-explanatory from there. This little thing where you put your e-mail in and it's free.
Yeah. We had the same thing happen. Forensic news, forensic news.com was gonna be about, I think, fifteen thousand dollars. So we're like just starting it. Sounds good.
Yeah. It's gotten it like, hey, I have.
I don't have any money. I have seven dollars. Yeah. Emily, I really want to thank you for talking to us on this show. And you know, just I'm looking forward to reading the newsletter. Everybody, you need to sign up and just, you know, have a great weekend. And the show will come out on Monday, actually the same day. So perfect. Yeah. I thank you so much. And I look forward to doing this again soon.
Thank you for listening. Follow forensic news on Twitter at forensic NEWSNIGHT. Counterintelligence is an intel pod. My personal account is Eric Levai. support forensic news on Patriot subscribed to counterintelligence. Everywhere you listen to podcasts, this is Eric Levai. and this is counterintelligence.
Quickly and accurately convert audio to text with Sonix.
Sonix uses cutting-edge artificial intelligence to convert your mp3 files to text.
Thousands of researchers and podcasters use Sonix to automatically transcribe their audio files (*.mp3). Easily convert your mp3 file to text or docx to make your media content more accessible to listeners.
Sonix is the best online audio transcription software in 2019—it’s fast, easy, and affordable.
If you are looking for a great way to convert your mp3 to text, try Sonix today.