September 18, 2025 • 15 mins
Having released the National Climate Risk Assessment – a report full of apocalyptic climate warnings – earlier this week, the government has now announced its 2035 emissions reduction target.
It’s a range, not a single number: 62–70 per cent below 2005 levels. The government says it’s achievable and ambitious, backed by more renewables and industry support.
Critics say it adds little beyond what the states are already on track to deliver, the modelling leans on technology that doesn't exist yet, and it avoids difficult choices – such as stopping new coal and gas projects.
Today, contributing editor of The New Daily Amy Remeikis, on how ambitious this target really is, whether it can keep global warming to 1.5 degrees.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Contributing editor of The New Daily, Amy Remeikis
Photo: AAP Image/Dan Himbrechts
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And today I'm joined by the two ministers, the Minister
for Climate Change and Energy the Treasurer, but also by
Matt Kean, the Chair of the Climate Change Authority.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Having released the National Climate Risk Assessment, a report full
of apocalyptic climate warnings, earlier this week, the government has
now announced its twenty thirty five emissions target. Although it's
not a target exactly, it's a target range.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Today I announced that we have accepted their advice at
Australia's twenty thirty five emissions target be sixty two to
seventy percent. This is a responsible target, back by the science,
back by a practical plan to get there, and built
on proven technology.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
The government says the target is both achievable and ambitious,
but there are others who say the government has set
themselves a target that means they don't have to do
or change anything.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
These states, the collective action from the States would already
each that target range by twenty thirty five, so nationally
we are adding absolutely nothing. And they know that what
they're doing is not enough on the science, on the modeling,
on what we're being told from every serious climate agency,
(01:17):
and so they don't want to set themselves a target
that they will fail into the future. So what we
have is a target range that will mean no change
to anything that they're doing and no drastic action.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven AM today
contributing editor of The New Daily and Euymicus on how
ambitious Australia's missions target really is and whether it's enough
to keep global warming below one point five degrees. It's Friday,
(01:56):
September nineteen.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Alongside our twenty thirty five target today and the release
of this report here Australia's net zero plan going forward,
we're announcing significant new measures that build on our existing plans.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Amy the Abbadezy government has just announced its updated emissions
reduction target, committing to a reduction of somewhere between sixty
two and seventy percent by twenty thirty five. And along
with the target, they've announced some measures to help get there,
including a five billion dollar a zero fund and two
billion dollars to drive down electricity prices.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
This will help to accelerate long term renewable projects right
across our nation. In addition to that, we know that
getting emissions down in the resources sector and heavy industry
is the next major area and will help heavy industry
to do the heavy lifting.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
So tell me what you make of these announcements.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, I mean all of these things are basically just
expanding on existing programs and existing targets. They're basically saying,
we're going to expand the amount of renewable energy that
we're putting into the grid, which is something that they've
been doing since the first time that they were elected.
And we're going to start funding other projects and other
technologies that we think are going to help us get
(03:21):
to the point that we need to get to. But
the one thing that they're not doing, the absolute crucial
thing they are not doing, is stopping new coal and
gas expansion. And if they just did that, we could
meet our climate targets. We could actually plan for a
future where we would have the technology on top of
(03:43):
building upon the cut from admissions from not having new
coal and gas. But they won't do that. And so
all of these announcements that they're making in terms of oh,
we're going to expand this renewables program, Oh, we're going
to fund green hydrogen, we're going to start funding green steel,
none of that really matters because we're not doing the
(04:03):
one thing the science, the UN, every climate agency is
telling us we need to do, which is stop new
coal and gas projects.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And the big question in regards to the target range,
obviously is how does this range of sixty two to
seventy percent stack up in terms of being able to
limit global warming to one point five degrees? Can that
be achieved?
Speaker 3 (04:28):
No, it can't. We've already passed that. I mean, I
think the Climate Risk Assessment Report, which was released quite
recently also showed that we're already past that.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment is warning one and
a half million Australians are at risk from sea level
rises by twenty to fifty unless climate change can be limited.
The assessment also warns climate related hazards will increase, heat
related deaths will soar, and the cost of disaster recovery.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Will jump to more than forty billion dollars a year.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
The minimum we needed to do was about seventy five percent.
That was the bare minimum we needed to commit to
by twenty thirty five, and instead we're saying, oh, you know,
we can be somewhere in the low sixties and that'll
still get us there. I mean, the entire Furfee around.
How the Albanezy government is framing its climate emissions reduction
(05:21):
plan is that there is going to be technology that
doesn't exist yet that is going to save us in
the future, that we don't need to do too much
because this technology is going to come at some point
between twenty fifty and that's going to make everything better,
so we don't actually need to rush. That is not
what the science is telling us. And I don't know
(05:45):
how many people have actually read the Climate Risk Assessment Report.
It didn't get as much coverage as it should, and
that's probably because I think we all have a bit
of fatigue, and I think when we're looking at modeling,
we're just like, oh, well, you can model anything, but
this is some serious modeling. And one of the things
that was so striking to me was it basically said
(06:07):
we are going to have one and a half million
people have unlivable homes by twenty fifty.
Speaker 5 (06:14):
By twenty fifty, the number of coastal communities located in
high and very high risk areas will increase substantially, and
if current population remains the same, that will represent an
increase to one point five million people impacted in coastal
areas by civil rise, corrosion and other impacts.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
If you are currently twenty, that is when you're in
your midlife, your super is still going to be another
two or three decades away. From that point, you will
be just starting to pay off your mortgage, if indeed
you've managed to have one, you still have decades and
decades of your life to live. And essentially, what the
(06:53):
government is saying with this this target range that it's
set is we don't have to rush to do anything
about that, because we'll eventually work it out sometime in
the future, just not now.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
And when you say the government is waiting on technology
that doesn't really exist yet, you're talking about things like
carbon capture and storage and what else.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Yeah, I mean carbon capture and storage is probably the
one that we know the most about, which is this
idea that you can basically capture the carbon bombs and
then bury them in the ground or under the sea.
Australia recently is changing laws to allow you to bury
carbon bombs within the ocean seabed. We don't know if
it works or not, but it's like this idea of
(07:38):
offsets as well, which is the idea that you can
choose not to burn a forest or cut down a
forest and not get rid of the sea grass, or
basically just get land put aside and you're not going
to touch that, and that's going to offset any of
the emissions that your project is generating. But this idea
(08:00):
that you can just offset it by not cutting down
those trees and that's going to allow you to continue
emitting or in some cases increasing emitting, depending on how
much you're offsetting with your project, that that is going
to be what saves us doesn't even make sense on
the mass. But this is the sort of technology, the
(08:22):
sort of ideas that we're being sold as the solutions
to the climate crisis. So people aren't even really being
able to have faith that this technology is going to
come down the line and save us because what we're
being told so far doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Coming up why climate targets aren't just an environmental problem
but a diplomatic one too.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
This is a range that I'm hopeful that we can
overachieve on our range positions Australia as a global leader
on climate ambition. In fact, we are presenting a higher
ambition than most other advanced economies.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
The Chair of the Climate Change authorities. Matt Kean. He
says that this target it positions Australia as a global
leader in terms of climate ambition. The government will take
this target to the UN General Assembly alongside other world leaders.
So how do our targets compare to what other countries
are promising?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Well, not great And I mean we don't even have
to go that far to find people who are going
to be very upset with us. The specific is going
to be very, very upset with this target. They're already
very upset with what Australia is doing and continuing to
approve colon gas, and they've made that eminently clear in
all sorts of forums.
Speaker 7 (09:52):
Fossil fuel production expansion is an internationally wrongful act under
international law.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
We know from the ip PCC reports that Australia needs
to do more in stopping new coal and new gas.
That has been made very very clear. Even if we
switch to renewables, we do all of the things that
the Albanezy government is doing, and those are good things.
But even if we do all of that, if we
continue to open up coal and gas which is burned
(10:20):
in other countries which you know aren't as far along
the line of the renewable transition, or their economies haven't
managed to transition to what we're all trying to do
by twenty fifty. We're still responsible for that. And it's
things like that that are brought up at the UN
meetings that we conveniently just kind of push to the
(10:40):
side whenever we talk about climate action, because we're trying
to pretend that what we export and what we send
out doesn't count to what we are doing. Of course
it does. And I'm not saying we stop or coal
and gas that we currently have. I'm saying that we
don't need to open up up any more.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
And as you mentioned, our emissions targets are not just
an environmental or economic issue, they're a diplomatic one. Australia
has been trying to strengthen its security ties with the
Pacific island nations. We've recently seen more than one agreement
fail to get over the line, in particular with Papua
New Guinea. So how much was climate policy a sticking
point in terms of that defense agreement.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, we know it's a sticking point not just for
that defense agreement but with all of our relations with
the Pacific.
Speaker 8 (11:30):
The government hope to emerge from the Pacific over the
last two weeks, holding aloft two documents or two treaties,
one from Vanuuatu, the Nakamal Agreement that it hoped to
sign last week, and this defense treaty that has been
talked about so widely and so broadly for the last
three or four weeks in particular, and in the end
it's emerging with none.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
So we have had Vaniwatu also say no to an agreement.
It's the second time in two years where Vdiwatu has said, actually, no,
we're not willing to sign away our strategic sovereignty for
whatever you're offering us Australia.
Speaker 7 (12:06):
Some of my ministers and my mbs, they feel that
it requires more discussions through particularly on some of the
specific wordings in the agreement.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
We know from the Pacific Island Forum, from the multiple
statements that have been put out by Pacific Region leaders
that they want Australia to actually act seriously on this.
It's because Pacific Islands know better than any of us
the impacts of climate change. They are already living it.
They know what it's like to see your home start
(12:40):
to disappear underwater. Australia knows what that's like too, because
we've started working on refugee deals climate refugee deals with
some Pacific island regions, where basically we're saying, well, you
can migrate to Australia because your home is no longer
going to exist. So all of these things do count
(13:01):
in terms of how the Pacific views us. So when
we go to them and we say, oh, hey, guys,
we'd really like you to make us the security partner
of choice, they're increasingly saying, actually, we're not sure that
that works for us, because you're not listening to what
we're saying when it comes to climate, when it comes
to how you treat us, when it comes to these
(13:22):
agreements that you make with us, Why should you only
ever view us through the lens of defense when you
can't actually see that our entire lives, culture and nations
are at risk and you're not actually doing anything about that.
And it comes to a shock to a lot of people.
But I speak to quite a lot of people in
(13:44):
the Pacific or who work in the Pacific trying to
get agreement from the government, and we are not popular
in the Pacific, and you can see the reasons for that.
So it is going to have further repercussion. So everybody
who worries about China getting inroads into the Pacific, These
sorts of decisions that Australia makes when it comes to climate,
(14:05):
when it comes to the environment, when it comes to
proper action, all impact on that and we're not exactly
telling them that they can count on us.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Well, Amy, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Also in the news today, reactions are trickling in after
the Prime Minister's emissions productions announcement yesterday. Opposition leader Susan
Lee says the target quote fails on both counts, on
both cost and credibility, with National's leader David Little Proud
also adding they will not support the target. Meanwhile, Independent
Senator David Pocock has criticized the Prime Minister for not
being ambitious enough, saying the government is not listening to
(14:55):
the science and that quote. We cannot give up on this.
And Alan Jones has pleaded not guilty to twenty seven
charges of indecent assault and some alleged victims have withdrawn
from the case. In the first hearing for the disgraced
former broadcaster held yesterday. Jones had been charged with a
number of offenses in New South Wales between twenty one
and twenty nineteen. Yesterday, eleven of his charges of aggravated
(15:18):
indecent assault were downgraded and the number of victims involved
in the case dropped from eleven to nine. The case
will go to trial in front of a magistrate next month.
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.
And today I'm joined by the two ministers, the Minister
for Climate Change and Energy the Treasurer, but also by
Matt Kean, the Chair of the Climate Change Authority.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Having released the National Climate Risk Assessment, a report full
of apocalyptic climate warnings, earlier this week, the government has
now announced its twenty thirty five emissions target. Although it's
not a target exactly, it's a target range.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Today I announced that we have accepted their advice at
Australia's twenty thirty five emissions target be sixty two to
seventy percent. This is a responsible target, back by the science,
back by a practical plan to get there, and built
on proven technology.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
The government says the target is both achievable and ambitious,
but there are others who say the government has set
themselves a target that means they don't have to do
or change anything.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
These states, the collective action from the States would already
each that target range by twenty thirty five, so nationally
we are adding absolutely nothing. And they know that what
they're doing is not enough on the science, on the modeling,
on what we're being told from every serious climate agency,
(01:17):
and so they don't want to set themselves a target
that they will fail into the future. So what we
have is a target range that will mean no change
to anything that they're doing and no drastic action.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven AM today
contributing editor of The New Daily and Euymicus on how
ambitious Australia's missions target really is and whether it's enough
to keep global warming below one point five degrees. It's Friday,
(01:56):
September nineteen.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Alongside our twenty thirty five target today and the release
of this report here Australia's net zero plan going forward,
we're announcing significant new measures that build on our existing plans.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Amy the Abbadezy government has just announced its updated emissions
reduction target, committing to a reduction of somewhere between sixty
two and seventy percent by twenty thirty five. And along
with the target, they've announced some measures to help get there,
including a five billion dollar a zero fund and two
billion dollars to drive down electricity prices.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
This will help to accelerate long term renewable projects right
across our nation. In addition to that, we know that
getting emissions down in the resources sector and heavy industry
is the next major area and will help heavy industry
to do the heavy lifting.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
So tell me what you make of these announcements.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Yeah, I mean all of these things are basically just
expanding on existing programs and existing targets. They're basically saying,
we're going to expand the amount of renewable energy that
we're putting into the grid, which is something that they've
been doing since the first time that they were elected.
And we're going to start funding other projects and other
technologies that we think are going to help us get
(03:21):
to the point that we need to get to. But
the one thing that they're not doing, the absolute crucial
thing they are not doing, is stopping new coal and
gas expansion. And if they just did that, we could
meet our climate targets. We could actually plan for a
future where we would have the technology on top of
(03:43):
building upon the cut from admissions from not having new
coal and gas. But they won't do that. And so
all of these announcements that they're making in terms of oh,
we're going to expand this renewables program, Oh, we're going
to fund green hydrogen, we're going to start funding green steel,
none of that really matters because we're not doing the
(04:03):
one thing the science, the UN, every climate agency is
telling us we need to do, which is stop new
coal and gas projects.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And the big question in regards to the target range,
obviously is how does this range of sixty two to
seventy percent stack up in terms of being able to
limit global warming to one point five degrees? Can that
be achieved?
Speaker 3 (04:28):
No, it can't. We've already passed that. I mean, I
think the Climate Risk Assessment Report, which was released quite
recently also showed that we're already past that.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment is warning one and
a half million Australians are at risk from sea level
rises by twenty to fifty unless climate change can be limited.
The assessment also warns climate related hazards will increase, heat
related deaths will soar, and the cost of disaster recovery.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Will jump to more than forty billion dollars a year.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
The minimum we needed to do was about seventy five percent.
That was the bare minimum we needed to commit to
by twenty thirty five, and instead we're saying, oh, you know,
we can be somewhere in the low sixties and that'll
still get us there. I mean, the entire Furfee around.
How the Albanezy government is framing its climate emissions reduction
(05:21):
plan is that there is going to be technology that
doesn't exist yet that is going to save us in
the future, that we don't need to do too much
because this technology is going to come at some point
between twenty fifty and that's going to make everything better,
so we don't actually need to rush. That is not
what the science is telling us. And I don't know
(05:45):
how many people have actually read the Climate Risk Assessment Report.
It didn't get as much coverage as it should, and
that's probably because I think we all have a bit
of fatigue, and I think when we're looking at modeling,
we're just like, oh, well, you can model anything, but
this is some serious modeling. And one of the things
that was so striking to me was it basically said
(06:07):
we are going to have one and a half million
people have unlivable homes by twenty fifty.
Speaker 5 (06:14):
By twenty fifty, the number of coastal communities located in
high and very high risk areas will increase substantially, and
if current population remains the same, that will represent an
increase to one point five million people impacted in coastal
areas by civil rise, corrosion and other impacts.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
If you are currently twenty, that is when you're in
your midlife, your super is still going to be another
two or three decades away. From that point, you will
be just starting to pay off your mortgage, if indeed
you've managed to have one, you still have decades and
decades of your life to live. And essentially, what the
(06:53):
government is saying with this this target range that it's
set is we don't have to rush to do anything
about that, because we'll eventually work it out sometime in
the future, just not now.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
And when you say the government is waiting on technology
that doesn't really exist yet, you're talking about things like
carbon capture and storage and what else.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Yeah, I mean carbon capture and storage is probably the
one that we know the most about, which is this
idea that you can basically capture the carbon bombs and
then bury them in the ground or under the sea.
Australia recently is changing laws to allow you to bury
carbon bombs within the ocean seabed. We don't know if
it works or not, but it's like this idea of
(07:38):
offsets as well, which is the idea that you can
choose not to burn a forest or cut down a
forest and not get rid of the sea grass, or
basically just get land put aside and you're not going
to touch that, and that's going to offset any of
the emissions that your project is generating. But this idea
(08:00):
that you can just offset it by not cutting down
those trees and that's going to allow you to continue
emitting or in some cases increasing emitting, depending on how
much you're offsetting with your project, that that is going
to be what saves us doesn't even make sense on
the mass. But this is the sort of technology, the
(08:22):
sort of ideas that we're being sold as the solutions
to the climate crisis. So people aren't even really being
able to have faith that this technology is going to
come down the line and save us because what we're
being told so far doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Coming up why climate targets aren't just an environmental problem
but a diplomatic one too.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
This is a range that I'm hopeful that we can
overachieve on our range positions Australia as a global leader
on climate ambition. In fact, we are presenting a higher
ambition than most other advanced economies.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
The Chair of the Climate Change authorities. Matt Kean. He
says that this target it positions Australia as a global
leader in terms of climate ambition. The government will take
this target to the UN General Assembly alongside other world leaders.
So how do our targets compare to what other countries
are promising?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Well, not great And I mean we don't even have
to go that far to find people who are going
to be very upset with us. The specific is going
to be very, very upset with this target. They're already
very upset with what Australia is doing and continuing to
approve colon gas, and they've made that eminently clear in
all sorts of forums.
Speaker 7 (09:52):
Fossil fuel production expansion is an internationally wrongful act under
international law.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
We know from the ip PCC reports that Australia needs
to do more in stopping new coal and new gas.
That has been made very very clear. Even if we
switch to renewables, we do all of the things that
the Albanezy government is doing, and those are good things.
But even if we do all of that, if we
continue to open up coal and gas which is burned
(10:20):
in other countries which you know aren't as far along
the line of the renewable transition, or their economies haven't
managed to transition to what we're all trying to do
by twenty fifty. We're still responsible for that. And it's
things like that that are brought up at the UN
meetings that we conveniently just kind of push to the
(10:40):
side whenever we talk about climate action, because we're trying
to pretend that what we export and what we send
out doesn't count to what we are doing. Of course
it does. And I'm not saying we stop or coal
and gas that we currently have. I'm saying that we
don't need to open up up any more.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
And as you mentioned, our emissions targets are not just
an environmental or economic issue, they're a diplomatic one. Australia
has been trying to strengthen its security ties with the
Pacific island nations. We've recently seen more than one agreement
fail to get over the line, in particular with Papua
New Guinea. So how much was climate policy a sticking
point in terms of that defense agreement.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, we know it's a sticking point not just for
that defense agreement but with all of our relations with
the Pacific.
Speaker 8 (11:30):
The government hope to emerge from the Pacific over the
last two weeks, holding aloft two documents or two treaties,
one from Vanuuatu, the Nakamal Agreement that it hoped to
sign last week, and this defense treaty that has been
talked about so widely and so broadly for the last
three or four weeks in particular, and in the end
it's emerging with none.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
So we have had Vaniwatu also say no to an agreement.
It's the second time in two years where Vdiwatu has said, actually, no,
we're not willing to sign away our strategic sovereignty for
whatever you're offering us Australia.
Speaker 7 (12:06):
Some of my ministers and my mbs, they feel that
it requires more discussions through particularly on some of the
specific wordings in the agreement.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
We know from the Pacific Island Forum, from the multiple
statements that have been put out by Pacific Region leaders
that they want Australia to actually act seriously on this.
It's because Pacific Islands know better than any of us
the impacts of climate change. They are already living it.
They know what it's like to see your home start
(12:40):
to disappear underwater. Australia knows what that's like too, because
we've started working on refugee deals climate refugee deals with
some Pacific island regions, where basically we're saying, well, you
can migrate to Australia because your home is no longer
going to exist. So all of these things do count
(13:01):
in terms of how the Pacific views us. So when
we go to them and we say, oh, hey, guys,
we'd really like you to make us the security partner
of choice, they're increasingly saying, actually, we're not sure that
that works for us, because you're not listening to what
we're saying when it comes to climate, when it comes
to how you treat us, when it comes to these
(13:22):
agreements that you make with us, Why should you only
ever view us through the lens of defense when you
can't actually see that our entire lives, culture and nations
are at risk and you're not actually doing anything about that.
And it comes to a shock to a lot of people.
But I speak to quite a lot of people in
(13:44):
the Pacific or who work in the Pacific trying to
get agreement from the government, and we are not popular
in the Pacific, and you can see the reasons for that.
So it is going to have further repercussion. So everybody
who worries about China getting inroads into the Pacific, These
sorts of decisions that Australia makes when it comes to climate,
(14:05):
when it comes to the environment, when it comes to
proper action, all impact on that and we're not exactly
telling them that they can count on us.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Well, Amy, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Also in the news today, reactions are trickling in after
the Prime Minister's emissions productions announcement yesterday. Opposition leader Susan
Lee says the target quote fails on both counts, on
both cost and credibility, with National's leader David Little Proud
also adding they will not support the target. Meanwhile, Independent
Senator David Pocock has criticized the Prime Minister for not
being ambitious enough, saying the government is not listening to
(14:55):
the science and that quote. We cannot give up on this.
And Alan Jones has pleaded not guilty to twenty seven
charges of indecent assault and some alleged victims have withdrawn
from the case. In the first hearing for the disgraced
former broadcaster held yesterday. Jones had been charged with a
number of offenses in New South Wales between twenty one
and twenty nineteen. Yesterday, eleven of his charges of aggravated
(15:18):
indecent assault were downgraded and the number of victims involved
in the case dropped from eleven to nine. The case
will go to trial in front of a magistrate next month.
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.