Unnatural Disasters: Climate Change in the Trump Era (Featuring Jonathan Mingle)

Can rising insurance premiums finally make climate change a reality for everyone? And, what does it mean for the world that climate change denier Donald Trump has returned to the American presidency? Jonathan Mingle, journalist and author of "Fire and Ice," joins the podcast to explore the tangible impacts of climate change on everyday life. We discuss the disturbing projections of a world three degrees warmer and the looming crisis of insurability in the U.S. We also examine political challenges and the potential impacts of a second Trump presidency on global climate action, highlighting the stark choices and immediate actions needed to address these issues amidst seeming federal inaction.

There is an urgent need to break free from our fossil fuel dependency and rethink our energy, agriculture, and land use systems for a climate-stable future. So, we discuss the current impacts of climate change, such as wildfires, hurricanes, and heatwaves, which are not just future threats but present realities. Our discussion spans from the tangible effects on regions like New England and Vermont to the broader socio-political implications, including mass migrations, rising nationalism, and xenophobia, drawing parallels with historical events like the Arab Spring.

Messaging plays a critical role in the climate change debate, and we examine the challenges of crafting a universally compelling narrative that transcends political divides. Despite widespread support for climate initiatives, political messaging remains contentious, and Jonathan highlights the importance of building coalitions to advance meaningful action. Finally, we highlight the environmental and health impacts of black carbon, the pressing need to rethink democratic structures for better climate outcomes, and the importance of both individual and corporate responsibility in addressing these urgent environmental challenges.

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube

Email: [e-mail]

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock

Episode Transcript

Jonathan Mingle (00:00):
This coming crisis in insurability of homes
in the United States.
That is about to make climatechange very real for almost
everybody, because it's going totouch If you have a homeowner's
insurance premium.
It's going to, it's going toaffect it, so like that's
already playing out right nowand so, in a sense, we don't

(00:23):
need to time travel, you know,to mid century or the end of the
century.
Although if you do do that, andagain, if you talk to climate
scientists, you know they willpaint some pretty grim picture
for you of what it's like tolive in a world that is three
degrees warmer, and that's whatwe're on track for right now.

(00:46):
I don't know if it's reallywidely understood just how bad
that is.
Like you don't, you don't wantto live in that world.
That's a world in which we havehundreds of millions of people
migrating because it's too hotwhere they live, they don't have
enough water.

Shawn (01:07):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
Climate change isn't a distantthreat.
It's here now, reshaping ourworld in ways that scientists
have long warned about Fromrecord-breaking heat waves to
devastating wildfires, risingsea levels to extreme weather
events.

(01:28):
We are experiencing theconsequences of decades of
inaction.
And yet, despite theoverwhelming scientific
consensus and clear warningsfrom experts, meaningful climate
policy remains a politicalbattleground rather than a
global priority.
What happens if policymakerscontinue to ignore the crisis?
What are the long-termconsequences if political

(01:51):
leaders refuse to act?
And that begs the question whatdoes a second Trump presidency
mean for climate action in theUnited States and, frankly, the
rest of the world?
With Trump picking up where heleft off from his first term,
which was marked byenvironmental deregulation,
withdrawal from the ParisAgreement and an embrace of
fossil fuels, the stakes for ourplanet in 2024 could not be

(02:15):
higher.
In today's episode, I'm joinedby Jonathan Mingle, journalist
and author of Fire and Ice, whohas written extensively about
climate change.
Author of Fire and Ice, who haswritten extensively about
climate change, pollution andthe human cost of inaction.
We discuss the science, thepolicies, the real potential
consequences of this secondTrump presidency and the urgent

(02:35):
choices that we need to make now.
That will determine the futureof the planet.
All right, if you liked thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom

(02:58):
.
Let's do a deep dive.

Jonathan Mingle (03:12):
Jonathan, thanks for being here.
How are you?

Shawn (03:13):
I'm doing well.
Shawn, thank you for invitingme.
Yeah, absolutely, I'm actually.
I'm really glad to have youhere, because I think that one
of the real threats to well, Iguess, our future, our democracy
, our way of life, etc.
Is climate change, and when wetalk about climate change, I
think the average person myselfincluded if they believe in it
and if they care, I supposeconceptualize it as something
that you know might require someadjustment to our daily lives,

(03:35):
how we live, some changes wemight have to make.
You know the cost of thingslike insurance, etc.
But it's actually a biggerthreat than that.
It's more serious than that.
The impacts of climate changewill dramatically impact
probably every aspect of ourlives, and it will lead to mass
migration, some of which we maybe feeling in the United States
right now, as climate changeleads to things like droughts

(03:58):
and floods and inhospitable landfor farming, etc.
People are leaving for morestable areas.
So policy, then, is incrediblyimportant.
It both impacts how we addressthese issues, but is also
impacted by the consequence ofclimate change, and some of the
policy coming out of the WhiteHouse now, especially related to
immigration, could very well bedirectly linked to climate

(04:20):
change, even if we don'tunderstand that or even know
that.
That's the underlying factor.
So this is something youresearch and you write about
quite extensively, so Iappreciate you being here to
discuss this.

Jonathan Mingle (04:31):
I'm happy to do it.
And you're right, I mean, it'sa subject that I think for a lot
of people just feelsoverwhelming.
And, you know, for a long timeit's felt abstract, I think, for
a lot of people who just kindof casually keep up with the
news and try to figure out howit fits into their lives.
And even for someone like meI'm a reporter who focuses on

(04:54):
climate change and energypolitics.
You know, even for me it canfeel a little too big to wrap my
arms around on any given day.
So you're absolutely rightabout that.
And in this moment inparticular, we're undergoing
some rapid policy shifts in thelast couple of weeks, so that

(05:16):
makes it even harder to orientyourself.

Shawn (05:20):
Yeah, and I don't want to oversimplify it, but I think in
a lot of areas but climatechange, germane to the
conversation that we're havingspecifically, you know, it feels
like we're on the precipice ofmake it or break it, and it
feels like the last two weekshas pretty much almost ensured
that we're going to break it.
And, like I said, in a lot ofways and I don't want to sound

(05:43):
histrionic, but it does soundlike we are at that moment in
history where something dramatichas to be done and that
requires thoughtful leadershipand I feel like we missed the
boat on that one.
And how do you feel about that?

Jonathan Mingle (05:55):
Well, I think it's fair to say that, with the
new administration that's takingcharge, we're going to see a
wholesale retreat of the federalgovernment from climate action.
Right, I think we should alljust assume we're not going to
see the federal governmentreally do anything with the
words climate change and in factthey're scrubbing those words

(06:18):
from the websites of federalagencies as we speak.
Um so so, thinking about thisstuff at this moment, early
February 2025, it kind ofrequires us to get comfortable
with some cognitive dissonance.
Because, you know, the bigpicture on climate at the moment

(06:38):
is, you know, on the one hand,clean energy, you know, solar,
wind, electric vehicles,batteries have never been
cheaper.
They've never been deployedfaster or more widely.
You know, if you just look atthat side of the coin, there's a
lot of progress being made towean our economies off of fossil

(07:03):
fuels, which, you know, burningfossil fuels that's the primary
driver of climate change.
But at the same time, you know,in terms of the actual climate
itself, things are warming upand destabilizing faster than
even the experts expected, ifyou talk to them.

(07:23):
A few years ago, you know, wehit over 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels.
Last year, 2024, was thewarmest year ever on record, at

(07:47):
1.75 degrees above thepre-industrial average.
So you know the trends in termsof the climate not looking good
, right, but you know you canlook for glimmers of hope in
terms of policy, market shiftstowards renewable energy in
certain parts of the world.

(08:08):
And so what is the averageperson who's not steeped in this
stuff every day left?
To conclude, especially, youknow, in the wake of the change
in power in Washington DC, it'sall a little disorienting when
you add it up, and that is whatwe're called upon to do, though.

(08:30):
You're called to reconcilethese truths that are in tension
, right, which is that there isreal momentum behind the clean
energy transition, and yet we'renot doing nearly enough, and
we're not doing it fast enoughto keep pace with, you know, the
changes in the climate itselfand to meet the targets that

(08:53):
have been agreed upon bygovernments and industry actors.
Um, you know, you look aroundthere's we're in a moment where
there's kind of generalizedretreat by major institutions
from climate action, whetherit's corporations or, now, the
US federal government.

Shawn (09:11):
So there are some good actors on the world stage or
better actors, let's say, on theworld stage that, at least for
now, at the nation state level,acknowledge that climate change
is a real thing, are takingsteps to meet some targets, are
investing in that and, as weboth have said, the new
administration suggests that wemight be, in the United States,
taking a completely differentdirection.

(09:33):
And so, like brass tacks let'ssay the rest of the world, or at
least the part of the worldthat is the highest polluting if
they were to take thisseriously and the United States
were to completely reverse andnot only dismantle any climate
change initiatives but alsocontribute to climate change in
a much more escalated way, is itpossible that the United States

(09:55):
alone?

Jonathan Mingle (10:03):
accounts for something like, I want to say,
13 percent of global greenhousegas emissions, so we're the
second biggest polluter afterChina.
But, historically, we are thebiggest Right, we have
contributed the most toanthropogenic climate change

(10:27):
over the past couple ofcenturies, and so you know that
that means we have a certainmoral responsibility, especially
to parts of the world that arestill pulling people out of
poverty.
You know, like in India,indonesia, these are fast
growing economies.
Indonesia, these are fastgrowing economies.

(11:06):
They are trying to bringelectricity access to millions
of people still right, and theargument you hear from their
governments is why should wehave to?
You know, balance the climateledger on our backs if you're
not pulling your own weight,united States?
So there's a risk in terms ofglobal climate diplomacy and
governance.
You know we just withdrew fromthe Paris Climate Agreement.
That now you could say, well,it doesn't make a big difference
because it's a voluntaryagreement and there are no
enforcement mechanisms and thereare a lot of other countries
that aren't following through ontheir pledges, you know, to the

(11:27):
, to the climate treatyframework anyway.
So what difference does thatmake?
And it's hard to quantify.
I think there are serious risksthat the US withdrawing from
that arena both, you know, innuts and bolts terms, but also

(11:49):
symbolic terms, is very damagingRight, there's a risk that it
takes wind out of sales of theirclimate pledges and their own
ambition right to transitiontheir economies away from fossil

(12:10):
fuels to tackle deforestation.
You know, in India they burn alot of coal and they have state
subsidized coal companies.
You know this is all stuff thatit's going to be a heavy lift.
You know this is all stuff thatit's going to be a heavy lift.
And if the US isn't there, tobe a leader symbolically.

(12:35):
But also, you know, financelike climate finance, from north
to the global south, if we'reretreating from those
obligations and if we'reretreating, you know, in terms
of doing our own work todecarbonize our economy, yeah, I
think it's very damaging.
It destroys trust and trust isthe fuel on which that whole
framework was supposed tooperate right, like Paris was

(12:56):
designed to be.
This race to the top, you knowpeer pressure driven ratcheting
of climate ambition system andnow it's there's a risk that it
ratchets in the other direction.

Shawn (13:09):
So it strikes me that one of the things that we really
struggle with is justunderstanding what climate
change is, and one of thenarratives that you hear
increasingly, at least incontemporary times, from climate
change deniers.
Well, there's a handful ofthings you hear.
One is beyond logic to me,which is that, well, you know,
this is all biblical anyway andthere's just no logically

(13:32):
debating that.
But the others are that youknow, this is cyclical Climate's
always changing, yeah, theclimate is always changing and
also there's snow on my frontyard, you know.
so like what are we talkingabout here?
It's not warm.
So I guess I'm wondering canyou bumper sticker, maybe as
best you can, what climatechange is and then what the
biggest threats are?

Jonathan Mingle (13:51):
Yeah, I don't.
I've never been good at writingbumper stickers, but you know
basically what what's going onis.
We're dumping greenhouse gasesinto the atmosphere faster than
natural sinks can absorb themand that traps more heat, which
causes rising temperatures,which destabilizes the global

(14:12):
climate system, ocean currents,monsoons melts ice caps, that
drives up sea level.
You know, and on and on and on.
We could, we could go oncataloging all the impacts.
But basically, humanity has hada nearly three century long
habit of burning coal, oil andgas, and we can't kick it.

(14:34):
And when you burn that stuff itdumps carbon in the atmosphere
and that just is trapping toomuch heat and causing all kinds
of chaos.
And so you know, basically theproject is weaning ourselves off
of our long-standing relianceon these fossil fuels as fast as
we can.
And you know that is anunprecedented project in human

(14:58):
history, right, um, so it shouldbe bumpy and challenging and
politically fraught.
But, um, what you know, whenyou talk to climate scientists
which I do as a journalist youknow they are getting pretty
worried, right, like the changesare happening faster and harder
than many of them expected.

(15:21):
The rate of warming, you know,seems to be increasing and
they're trying to explain it.
And there's a risk if there arethese feedback mechanisms.
You can think of permafrost inthe arctic, thawing and coughing
, co2 and methane in vastquantities of the atmosphere, as
an example, or wetlands areexpanding, and more wetlands

(15:42):
means more methane.
When those things kick in, theytake on a momentum of their own
that we can't control, so thereis a sense that we may be on
the cusp of some.
You know, to use a phrase,scientists are fond of
non-linear changes, right, likestep changes, uh, that make, you
know, think of a runaway train,make the project even harder,

(16:07):
right?
If the goal is to keep a stableclimate, a climate that is
familiar to us or recognizableto us, you know, one that
encouraged human civilization todevelop, then you know we have
to basically remake our energysystem, but also, like you know,

(16:27):
tackle things like the way wegrow food.
And, you know, stop cuttingdown the tropical forests and
boreal forests.
Um, you know it's, uh, it's amassive undertaking right but,
like but, but, if there is abumper sticker for me, as
someone who reports on this.
Like energy is driving most ofthis problem, right, like so?
Burning fossil fuels fortransportation make electricity

(16:52):
industrial uses to heatbuildings, that's.
That's like three quarters ofthe problem, right, and the rest
is deforestation, agriculture,land use.
But if you want to boil it down, burning coal, oil and gas is
the reason we're boiling theatmosphere.

Shawn (17:12):
I think there are a lot of apocalyptic scenarios as to
what the world looks like ifclimate change wins, but I don't
know that it's clear to me orto my neighbors or to the
average person what life lookslike if we continue down this
path in 10, 20, 30 years.
So, like, what are some thingsthat you would expect and you've

(17:34):
already touched on some of thisbut I think a lot of people
kind of dismiss it out of handas being something that's not
going to impact them.
Yeah, which is interesting,right, because you have people
in you know, I live in Seattlepeople in Seattle saying some of
the stuff that's happening inhurricanes, increased intensity
of hurricanes that's not goingto happen to me, right.
And then you have people inFlorida that's like, well, we
don't really have to worry toomuch about things like tornadoes

(17:56):
, right, which is untrue,actually.
So I think there's this weirdkind of relationship where
everybody's feeling something,but they're looking at everyone
else and saying, well, that'snot going to happen here, right.
So I guess I'm wondering whatcould we just generally expect
to be happening over the nextcouple of decades?

Jonathan Mingle (18:14):
You know before I tackle that.
I mean we can just look atwhat's happening now or in the
last couple of years, arrivingahead of schedule, right?
Whether you're talking aboutthe wildfires that just hit LA
or Hurricane Helene innorthwestern North Carolina or
even here in Vermont, where Ilive, we had terrible floods in

(18:36):
the summer of 2023, 2024.
And when you read news coverageof these events or talk to
people who experienced them, youoften hear this pattern People
say, oh, this is surreal.
I didn't.
You know they're grappling withthe surreality of it, right,
and we're all used to readingabout disasters and extreme

(18:58):
weather events happening toother people Increasingly.
They're happening to me too,and you too, and your neighbor
too.
And so some of the examples youknow.
You mentioned some of them.
You know why should you beworried about how climate change
is going to affect you or yourfamily?
It kind of looks like somethingdifferent depending where you

(19:19):
live.
You know, maybe out West you'reworried about wildfires where
you know California, like fireseason used to be a few months
of the year, now it's almostyear round, right?
Maybe you live in coastal NorthCarolina, you know, you go to
parts of the Outer Banks and youcan watch houses collapsing
into the sea.
Every week in places likeRodanthe north carolina, sea

(19:43):
level rise, you know, a normalstorm surge is just clawing
these houses into the ocean.
But even less dramatic examplesthan that, if you go to norfolk,
virginia or miami on a sunnyday, there they have flooding
just because you know sea levelscreeping up and it pushes ocean
water through their stormdrains and floods busy

(20:05):
intersections, heat waves, rightLike Phoenix two summers ago, I
think they had 40 days in a rowover 110 degrees.
I mean that's the kind of impactthat you extrapolate that out a
few decades.
I saw a study the other day inEurope later this century, you
know they're projecting like twoto three million deaths from

(20:28):
heat waves.
You know there are parts ofNorth Africa and South Asia If
this, you know, if we keep onthe track we're going, it'll be
too hot to work outside for muchof the year, right, and so
these things can seem abstractor distant in time and space.
But I think what we're seeingis, you know, let's just keep it

(20:50):
here in the US, you're seeingthese impacts kind of hit home
in lots of different corners ofthe country in ways that people
aren't prepared for, and likeanother example is I live in New
England.
You know, in a city like Boston,historically you didn't need
air conditioning, right In yourschool.
And there are all these schoolsthat were built, you know, in

(21:12):
the 60s.
Well, increasingly they havethese heat waves and without air
conditioning, kids get dizzy,nauseous, they have to go home,
they have to close school forthe day, right, and so we have
all these systems that weren'tbuilt for the climate.
We have now, right, and youknow, the last example I'll give

(21:32):
is like here in vermont, we Ijust did a story about this,
actually about planning forflood resilience here in vermont
, small state 650 000.
But one of the experts I talkedto said like, this is a $30
billion problem to get peopleout of harm's way because we

(21:52):
built so many homes andbusinesses in floodplains.
And we, you know we've beendoing that for a long time here
and we're finally getting thememo, some of us, that oh,
actually you are in harm's way,right.
Like you know, vermont is oftencited as one of these climate
havens.
These recent floods havedisabused a lot of people of

(22:15):
that notion here, right, andwe've got forecasts of heavy
precipitation events increasingby 50% in the coming decades
here.
So you know, this problem isonly going to ratchet in one
direction and I think indifferent parts of the country
people are waking up to thatfact at different rates, but

(22:36):
these changes are comingeverywhere.
And you mentioned insurance.
I mean to me this coming crisisin insurability of homes in the
United States that is about tomake climate change very real
for almost everybody, becauseit's going to touch If you have
a homeowner's insurance premium.

(22:58):
It's going to, it's going toaffect it, so like that's
already playing out right now,and so, in a sense, we don't
need to time travel, you know,to mid century or the end of the
century, although if you do dothat, and again, if you talk to
climate scientists, you knowthey will paint some pretty grim

(23:19):
picture for you of what it'slike to live in a world that is
three degrees warmer, and that'swhat we're on track for right
now.
I don't know if it's reallywidely understood just how bad
that is.
Like you don't.
You don't want to live in thatworld.
That's a world in which we havehundreds of millions of people
migrating because it's too hotwhere they live or they don't

(23:40):
have enough water where theylive.
So you know, the question ishow do we, how do we avert those
grim scenarios by acting rightnow, and part of part of what's
required to trigger that actionis is just people becoming alert
to the ways this seemingly vastand diffuse problem is actually

(24:04):
going to affect your life invery concrete ways.

Shawn (24:09):
To go back to the comment about the three degrees, I
think what most people end updoing and I think you know where
I'm going to go with this isyou tell them the planet's going
to be three degrees warmer iswhat they do is well, it's 72 in
summer at my house, so yeah, soit's going to be 75.
So what?
Right, Because they're notgrasping what a three degree
increase in temperature for theplanet means, Even if it does

(24:30):
mean for some of us that thatthe impacts of climate change
are going to be a little bitslower on us than it is in other
places.
If this does lead to like acascading impact wherein people
can't live and it triggersmigration and I think we're
starting to see this my fear isthat the knee-jerk initial
reaction is going to beultra-nationalism across the

(24:51):
planet.
That's, I guess, a secondaryimpact of climate change that
leads to another dire outcomefor the planet.

Jonathan Mingle (24:58):
Yeah, I mean absolutely.
I feel like this is one of thegreat under-discussed risks in
the climate world, climatediscourse, and you know you can
argue that we've seen that playout over the last decade, right
Like climate change by someanalyses, played a role in
driving up food prices in Syriaand parts of the Middle East and

(25:21):
that, you know, may have hadsomething to do with the wave of
discontent connected to theArab Spring and then the Civil
War.
And then there's migration intothe EU, and then now the EU is
seeing this kind of backlash,right driven by these
immigration patterns that mayhave been somewhat driven by

(25:46):
climate shifts.
And you could say the same thingabout migration from Central
America, where people in certainparts of that region have
experienced food price pressuresand climate-driven scarcity,
right, and so, again, we don'tneed to forecast too far into

(26:10):
the future.
You can see evidence of whatyou're describing playing out
around the world in differentways, but this larger.
You know to what extent we'reseeing a rightward shift in a
lot of countries, um, and a risein kind of xenophobia.
You know how implicated isclimate change in that.

(26:31):
I don't know future futurehistorians will tackle that one,
but it's definitely political.
Scientists, I know, arestarting to kind of really dig
into this question of well, ofwell, if you don't manage this
transition in a careful wayright now, what are the risks

(26:55):
that the dominant governingresponse to these accelerating
climate impacts, these shocks,is more, as you said, more
nationalistic kind of platforms,right, like keeping people out
or blaming other people for yourproblems.
You know, it's a real, it's areal concern and I don't have

(27:17):
any, I don't have any answers tothat one, but I do think, like
that is that is a story thatwe're going to have to just keep
an eye on, you know, like thisinsurance story.
You know, as a journalist I tendto think of, I try to sort all
this fire hose of informationinto.
You know what are the storieshere, and I really do think that

(27:40):
one you just kind of spelledout is going to be a big one in
climate migration, writ large.
And you know what I wasalluding to earlier.
This insurance issue isbecoming a huge story now,
especially and I think the LAwildfires has elevated it
somewhat given more attention tothis.

(28:01):
You know there were maybe $30billion in insured losses in LA
from that one event.
I mean, it's a staggeringnumber.
And you have insurancecompanies already pulling out of
California and Florida andLouisiana and these vulnerable
parts of the country where maybeit's hurricane path country or

(28:27):
wildfire country.
And then you know what does thatdo to drive?
You know these climatemigration patterns, right?
We're going to see people whoget priced out of certain places
because they can't affordinsurance, and if you don't get
insurance you can't get amortgage, and that is that is

(28:47):
going to contribute to some, youknow, not just flows of capital
but of human beings.
You know the currentadministration wants to erase
the words climate change fromall their policy guidance.

(29:11):
Doesn't make these problems goaway.
Right, I mean just today therewas a report that came out from
the first street foundation.
It's a nonprofit group thatlooks at climate risk on the
housing market and they'rewarning that, like by mid
century, the U?
S could see $1.5 trillion inreal estate value just wiped out

(29:32):
because of climate risksgetting priced into insurance
markets and then the migrationthat kind of results from people
responding to these increasingrisks wildfire, flood, drought,
storms.
I mean that is again as ajournalist that's a huge story,

(29:56):
but it's also something thatcould blow up on the current
administration's watch, whetherthey think it's a real problem
or not.

Shawn (30:05):
So in the equation of action.
So if we wanted to consider allof the things that might spur
action to tackle climate change,I think one of the big
components of that is themessage right, like how is this,
how is this being sold topeople?
And you have a message comingfrom people that deny climate

(30:26):
change and then on the otherside you have climate scientists
and people that believe thatclimate change is a real thing
and needs to be addressed, andunfortunately, in a lot of
places, including the UnitedStates, that breaks on a
right-left spectrum right.
So the right is more denial andthe left is not.
And I think that the right hasa better message right now, and
by that I mean it's moreeffective message, whether it be

(30:48):
that it's a hoax or that we'llsomehow iterate and innovate and
we'll just learn to live withit, or climate change policies
killing jobs for no reason, etcetera.
That's working better than themessage that whatever the left
is selling or climate scientistsare selling not that those two
are interchangeable.
You know you mentioned thestory about insurance and how
that's going to impact our lives, but I guess in your reporting,

(31:09):
or you know, in your ownthinking, what do you think are
some effective messages or waysto sell a story that might
actually land with people thatare adamantly opposed to the
idea of climate change as beinga real thing.

Jonathan Mingle (31:24):
Yeah, boy, I, if I had the answer to that one,
I would.
I would.
I would be in a different lineof work.
Whatever magical force you'relooking for, political will, uh,
you know, bipartisan supportfor aggressive climate action.

(31:54):
I mean, I'm just thinking.
During the campaign, you know,donald trump at a rally said,
hey, you know, you notice theydon't talk about the environment
anymore.
It's because the environmentdoesn't play.
You know, and he's a guy youknow, whatever you think of him,
he knows he's.
He's good at reading thepolitical winds and testing out

(32:14):
messages and seeing whatresonates with people and he's
right.
He's right.
And and if you look at surveysof what um were the salient
issues during the election,climate ranked pretty low.
And yet you look at othersurveys and you see broad-based
support you know, north of 70%among registered voters for the

(32:37):
government doing more on climatechange and clean energy Like
these are very popular with thebroad public, even among
Republican voters.
If, depending on how you wordit, there is support for some of
these things.
I think people who in theclimate advocacy world, you know
there's been so much handwringing and debate over, oh,

(33:01):
what message, you know, shouldwe use what's going to stick and
move people.
Should we use what's going tostick and move people?
And I just don't know if thereis some, you know, skeleton key
message that is going to unlockthat.
I don't think there's asubstitute for, just like
building the slow, boring workof building coalitions and, you

(33:23):
know, organizing and clawingback political power, and I
guess you know what kind offrames are conducive to that.
I mean, again, as a journalist,I can tell you what doesn't
work right.
And if you put it, if theframing puts climate action or,

(33:44):
you know, any policy that'sfocused on reducing emissions up
against, say, affordability,it's going to lose.
Right, and I just saw thathappen here in Vermont during
the election here.
You know, we had a proposedpolicy called a clean heat
standard which is basically justtrying to.
It's a big source of emissionshere in Vermont.

(34:04):
Is heating fuel right?
It's cold place.
People burn a lot of oil andpropane to heat their homes in
the winter.
And we have climate targets thatare enshrined in law that we
have to meet, and so legislatorsput forward a proposal to as
complicated as kind of a RubeGoldberg thing, but and that was

(34:25):
part of the problem theycouldn't communicate it simply
how it would work and what itwould do, and it was used as a
battering ram by Republicancandidates on Democrats and a
lot of Democrats lost theirseats, I think because of it.
Because of this, a lot ofvoters who are feeling really
pressured right now becauseeverything is getting less

(34:48):
affordable housing, child care,health care, and it's true
around the country, right?
And so, if you know, all I cansay is any framing or messaging
or policy design that doesn'treckon with that reality, that
affordability.
We're in a moment whereaffordability is top of mind and

(35:09):
, of course, you know,republicans have been very
effective at turning any newproposal into a culture war
issue.
You know, um, they're coming totake your hamburgers and gas
stoves and you know, even if alot of the stuff is just made up
, that's very effective, and Idon't think people who are

(35:37):
pushing for climate action havea good countervailing kind of
strategy to that yet, right, andwe're kind of living in the
wreckage of 10, 15, 20 years ofscattershot approaches to
framing the climate problem aslike oh, it's green jobs or no,
it's going to be about, you know, saving homeowners money if
they transition to electricvehicles, although they're more

(35:58):
costly up front, but hey, usethis tax credit.
You know, it's like it all getsso convoluted for the typical
person who doesn't follow thisfor a living that unless you can
both design and communicateyour policy in really simple,
accessible, digestible terms,you invite these attacks right?

(36:21):
So it's not a satisfying answer, but I mean, those are some of
the dynamics that I see at play.

Shawn (36:26):
Well, I think another dimension to this is that, in a
lot of ways, outside of theobjective either immediate or
eventual impact that climatechange will have on all of us,
the argument to invest in cleanenergy and climate saving
initiatives and proposals andpolicies is really moral to a

(36:47):
lot of people, more so than itis economic.
It's becoming economic and itwill become economic, but I
wonder if part of the reasonthat it's been framed
economically like this will saveyou money, et cetera is because
it's a bigger punch than themoral argument, which is you
know, this is about saving theplanet and it might not be
touching you right now, but itis definitely touching other
people and it will touch youeventually.

(37:08):
And I'm a little concerned thatwe might be entering a
post-moral era, which could be abit of a death knell for
progress that we're making.

Jonathan Mingle (37:19):
I think you're right that historically, the way
this has been framed is as amoral imperative, right, and
that's clearly hasn't workedright.
I mean, look around.
I won't say everyone is inretreat.
I mean there are plenty ofactors you know around the world
, but also cities and statesthat are not retreating from

(37:43):
action on climate change.
But we're in a moment where thegeneral zeitgeist is one of
retrenchment, like you know.
You see major banks and evenutilities you know that I've
covered basically abandoningtheir net zero pledges and it's
easy to be cynical and say, well, they weren't worth much to
begin with.
But that rhetorical shiftmatters right.

(38:04):
That rhetorical shift mattersright Because money will start
flowing behind it and, yeah, Ithink maybe that points to an
opportunity.
I think there are a lot ofthings missing from these
dominant narratives that, as ajournalist and storyteller.
I'm really interested in tryingto kind of fill in some of those
gaps, and the big narrative isuh oh, you know, doing this is

(38:32):
going to be so expensive, right,and it'll be cheaper to just
adapt, you know to, to theclimate change that's coming,
than to totally remake ourenergy system and food systems
and the way we make cement andsteel and everything.
And what often fails to make itinto that conversation is the

(38:53):
fact that I mean, you know, Italked to a lot of energy
experts and they painted a verydifferent picture that somehow
doesn't percolate up into thegeneral consciousness.
It's actually backwards to saythat clean energy will be more
expensive and that dealing witha hotter, chaotic climate will

(39:14):
be manageable, not as expensive,as you know, decarbonizing
that's backwards.
It's actually the reverse.
Adapting to climate change isgoing to be way more expensive
than we think.
Uh is kind of the consensus andelectrifying stuff that
currently runs on fossil fuels,and building out renewable

(39:37):
energy is actually going togenerate efficiencies and
savings that are far greaterthan, um, most people appreciate
, right, you know?
Just to give you an example, Ithink something like 40% of
global bulk shipping is justcoal, oil and gas right.
So the less you you know, theless you depend on coal, oil and

(39:58):
gas to move cars around andmake electricity.
You know that's 40% of shippingthat starts to evaporate If you
electrify home heating vehicles.
The more you do that you unlockthese huge efficiencies right.
You just don't need as muchenergy input to heat a house or

(40:20):
to move, you know, a vehiclearound and you start realizing
these efficiencies that multiplyand suddenly you know, at least
at the macro scale, you'regenerating these savings.
And that's to say nothing oflike the health benefits which

(40:42):
to me, as someone who's writtena lot about this, you know the
health impacts of air pollutionare so enormous and they never
enter the ledger on these policyconversations, which is
remarkable to me.
Because you know the less coal,oil and gas you burn, fewer
asthma attacks andhospitalizations and

(41:04):
cardiovascular disease I meanhospitalizations and
cardiovascular disease.
I mean you know that's settingeven that enormous health and
cost savings aside, I guess whatI'm trying to say is, like this
narrative that's taken hold,that like acting to prevent
catastrophic climate change isgoing to be very expensive but

(41:25):
you know getting used to it willbe cheaper.
Flipping that script and makingthis an issue of oh no, you
know, the more we dawdle and letthis just accelerate, the
costlier it will be to youhomeowner, you local government,
city government that can'tfinance a bond to upgrade your

(41:46):
sewer drain system anymorebecause you have whole
neighborhoods that can't financea bond to upgrade your sewer
drain system anymore because youhave whole neighborhoods that
can't be insured Like.
The sooner you get out of theproblem, you know, the cheaper
it's going to be, and so I thinkthere might be an avenue for
the right people, who know howto be more succinct and bumper
stickery than me, to make thecase that you know ambitious

(42:10):
action on this transition isactually about affordability at
the micro and macro scales.
I don't know.

Shawn (42:20):
And actually it's interesting that you mentioned
health insurance, because, aslong as we're talking about
insurance, that's another formof insurance that's probably
going to be directly impacted bythis.

Jonathan Mingle (42:28):
Oh, absolutely, I mean yeah, I mean there in so
many ways respiratory illness,lyme disease, infectious
diseases that we're not used toseeing, that are spreading, like
dengue, like there are.
These things are going to showup right in the health care cost
side of the ledger as time goeson, more and more, even in

(42:52):
places where people aren't usedto thinking that they're
vulnerable to climate drivenvectors and heat waves.
You know is like that's going tobe a huge issue to parts of the
country that don't.
That's going to be a huge issueto parts of the country that

(43:16):
don't have as much airconditioning or cooling centers
for lower income people toretreat to during a heat wave.
These are incredibly costlythings to deal with, you know,
for a health care system, for acity, and they were just not
used to thinking of them ascosts you have to account for
and budget for.
And conversely, as we're notused to thinking of clean energy
as like an investment, that ora hedge against that or

(43:40):
something that will unlock hugesavings, and so maybe, you know,
maybe we'll see that kind ofcome to the fore more and more
as the moral framing isincreasingly out of fashion,
given current political windsbecause I live in a part of the

(44:10):
country where, for pretty muchall of the winter, it's pretty
common for most people to, atleast in part, heat their house
with firewood in a fireplace.

Shawn (44:16):
I am one of those people and I'm ashamed to say that.
And I'm especially ashamed tosay that because I read your
book Fire and Ice which talksabout how bad soot is, about
black carbon.
I think in the back, like in mylizard brain every year, I'm
like I don't think this is great, but I didn't really dig into
it and now I really had to kindof reckon with this.
So can you maybe tell me whatblack carbon is, what this is

(44:39):
all about and uh how we, andmyself included, might be
contributing to it and how wecould get off of it?

Jonathan Mingle (44:46):
I, yes.
So I wrote a book called Fireand Ice.
It is a nonfiction narrativeabout the health and climate
impacts of black carbon, whichis what scientists call soot,
basically.
And you know, when I gotstarted reporting that book,
look, I had no idea it was sucha bad actor either, Right, and

(45:09):
it was very eye opening to spendfour or five years reporting
that book.
And on the far side of thatjourney I'm I'm pretty careful
about avoiding air pollution andnot having my kids, you know,
breathe too much of it either,because I now know far too much
about how dangerous it is tobreathe that soot.

(45:32):
But at the same time, look, Imean, I have a wood stove in my
house here in Vermont and I lovesplitting wood and burning wood
.
I'm pretty careful to only burndry fuel because of what I know
.
And what I know is that blackcarbon is one of the great
overlooked health risks in theworld.

(45:55):
I mean, it's so it's a majorconstituent of this fine
particle pollution that kills,you know, over three million
people a year who are exposed toit from household air pollution
and even more, over 4 millionfrom outdoor air pollution, and
there are higher estimates outthere too.

(46:16):
And so I started working on thatbook thinking that this was an
overlooked health story, and itstill is.
I mean, it's still a hugekiller globally, more than
tuberculosis, malariaiv aidscombined, people who die from
breathing so and otherpollutants.
But there's a climate piece tothat story too, and and it turns

(46:39):
out that black carbon if youpicture, you know, these tiny
little black rocks basicallysuspended in the atmosphere,
they're super efficient solarheat absorbers, right.
And if you live near snow andice in particular, you should
worry a little bit about likethe soot coming out of your
diesel truck tailpipe or yourwood stove chimney or your coal

(47:05):
power plant, Because when thatsoot lands on snow and ice, it
darkens it and it reduces thelight reflected off it and it
heats it up and it acceleratesthe melt and you see that
playing out across the Himalaya,see it in Greenland somewhat
and other icy parts of the world.
And so I wrote that bookthinking you know this, wow, no

(47:29):
one's talking about this.
Wrote that book thinking youknow this, wow, no one's talking
about this.
And I got I would get messagesfrom readers kind of like what
you were saying, Shawn, like ohall this time I've been burning
wood, thinking I was virtuousand I'll never do it again, and
I'd write back to him and say,no, no, no, I still burn wood
too.
That's okay, just don't do it.
You know, if you're in a denseneighborhood where you have like

(47:55):
kids with asthma downwindbreathing your wood smoke, uh,
or if you live right next to aglacier, you know, but it's, you
know, it's a, it's a trickyproblem because the solution to
it is, uh, burning less stuff.
Right, like, burning stuff,especially burning stuff in
inefficient ways, makes soot andwe breathe a lot of that soot

(48:16):
and over time it can damage ourhealth and even kill us.
And you know, I'm like everyoneelse, I smell wood smoke and
I'm like, oh, that is a cozy,wholesome smell.

Shawn (48:28):
It's a connection to our ancestors, right it is yeah,
absolutely.

Jonathan Mingle (48:32):
That's true in every culture pretty much.
But there's also part of mybrain that's like oh, danger,
danger, because there's somereal toxic stuff in there.
So it's like the same pointsyou in the same direction, like
get beyond combustion as much asyou can.
I have heat pumps in my house,right, but we still every now

(48:53):
and then.
We like the wood stove becauseit's you know, it's nice to sit
in front of the fire, but it isa super efficient wood stove, I
should add.

Shawn (49:01):
I don't think mine is.
So.
One of the things I hear from alot of people, when you know
they're being asked to takemeasures in their lives to do
their part, is that there's alot of cynicism looking at
billionaires and looking at, youknow, government officials that
are all contributing much moredamage to the environment than

(49:24):
you know any individual is, andyet there is stuff that we all
can be doing and should be doingin our daily lives.
So what are some things thatyou would suggest that we could
all be doing, including maybeburning less wood fires?

Jonathan Mingle (49:36):
Yeah.

Shawn (49:36):
To maybe just do our part , as minimal as it might feel.

Jonathan Mingle (49:40):
Yeah, you know it's interesting.
You know, over time the answerto this question has kind of
whipsawed back and forth.
Kind of whipsawed back andforth and for a while there's
this idea oh, your individualcarbon footprint, you know,
consume less and think about howmuch you drive.

(50:02):
And it turned out that BP, theoil company, was, you know, one
of the originators of thefocusing on the individual
consumer footprint as a way todeflect attention from these big
fossil fuel companies, morekind of systemic role in keeping
us dependent on fossil fuels.
But then you know, and thenthere's a backlash to that as

(50:23):
more people kind of get cluedinto that.
It's like no, the mostimportant thing you can do is
organize and elect people whotake climate change seriously to
office.
Right, like, that is where yourpower is if you care about
climate change.
But now I mean, like I thinkyou need to recognize that if

(50:45):
you care about this and you'reworried about where things are
heading and and I would suggestyou should be worried you can do
both.
Right, like, you don't have todefault to your role as a
consumer, which is kind of inthe US how people often default
like what should I buy more orless of?
And that's important, right,like you know, if you can, if

(51:05):
you have the means and theresources to buy an electric
vehicle or put solar panels onyour roof or get a heat pump,
like good for you, go for it.
But I would.
I would emphasize to people thatthere is so much opportunity at
the local government scale.
You know we're in addition todefaulting to our roles as

(51:37):
consumers.
We're often we default to likeour roles as consumers of
national news and politics andwe overlook what's going around
and happening in our owncommunities.
And go to your local zoningmeeting, you know, like where
they're figuring out where tobuild dense housing out of a
floodplain, or like yourplanning commission meeting.
Go to town and countygovernment hearings.
You'd be surprised like you canmake a lot of noise and have an

(51:57):
outsized impact if you justshow up and be kind of the
person you're waiting for.
And one opportunity that Iremind people about and this is
born out of, you know, my morerecent book.
I wrote about this fightagainst a gas pipeline in
Appalachia that was being putforward by these two big energy
utilities in Virginia and SouthCarolina, and I learned a lot

(52:20):
about public utility commissions.
Every state has one and thereare like four or five people on
it, and these people wieldimmense power.
They have billions of dollarsat their command.
They can tell these huge energyutilities what they can and
cannot build and what they cancharge you as someone who pays
your monthly energy, you knowelectricity bill, you can go

(52:43):
show up to these meetings wherethese things get decided and you
know the legal term isintervene you know you you can.
You can be an intervener andcombat, and that is a lever that
is overlooked, even though it'sa lever in all 50 states.

(53:03):
Um, just waiting for people tograb so those are I mean, those
are just a few things that cometo mind there.
You'd be surprised.
You start looking around.
They're like there are moreways to get a handhold on this
huge boulder rolling downhilltowards your city or your
village than you might think,right, like there are more

(53:25):
things you could grab, pick oneor two if you care about this
stuff.
But I think all of that isdownstream of just talking about
it.
Right, it's like I think thereare a lot of people out there
who are concerned about climatechange and you know the future
their kids will inherit, uh, andthe way things are trending

(53:46):
these days, and they just assumethat you know I'm guilty of
this too.
Like people don't want to talkabout, but like, yeah, just the
more, the more you talk aboutyour concerns or hopes, or that
starts to snowball, and I'veseen that happen in my reporting
I do fear that in retrospect,the next few years will be

(54:09):
revealed to us, as you know usjust going down in a blaze of
silver linings.

Shawn (54:13):
But I do think one potential silver lining here is
what you're talking about, andthat is that we might be seeing
an opportunity for much morelocal and state action on things
and potential for people andopportunity for people to
participate.
So that is a good thing.
But final question you readyfor it?

Jonathan Mingle (54:30):
Yeah.

Shawn (54:32):
What's something interesting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately, and it doesn't have to
be related to this topic, but itcan be Okay.

Jonathan Mingle (54:39):
I, you know, I've spent the last couple of
months narrowing my focus uh toreporting a couple of stories
here in Vermont.
One was about flooding, uhpreparing for floods in the
future, and the other was aboutforests.
And I live out in thecountryside, I'm surrounded by
forests, and it's been very fun,you know, to get up from my

(55:02):
laptop and stomp around in thesnow with foresters and see how
they see the world, like, put on, you know, bird habitat and in
this kind of tree, and and here,you know, over here was a tree
that's 200 years old, a sugarmaple, and, you know, just being
out in the woods and trying tothink about some of the issues

(55:28):
we've been talking about for thelast hour, like what is this
going to look like 40, 50 yearsfrom now?
I found that to be therapeuticthese last couple months, taking
the long view.
And what else have I been doingwhen I muster the willpower to
look away from the news reports,uh, coming out of dc, uh about,

(55:52):
uh, various actors takingcontrol of the treasury
department or federal agencies,uh, which is what's happening as
we speak, when I do that, um,and sit down with a book a book,
I'm a huge book I'm trying toslowly make my way through is um
, it's called the dawn ofeverything by the late david

(56:14):
graber anthropologist and davidwingrow, and it's pretty
fascinating tour through humanhistory that is trying to remind
you.
There there are other ways toorganize ourselves as human
beings.
People have tried lots ofdifferent ways of balancing

(56:36):
personal freedom andhierarchical civilizational
structures than we've beentaught, and I'm in the early
part of the book.
But it's pretty interestingstuff and again, I find it nice
to kind of take the long viewback in time too.
It's helpful to do thatsometimes.

Shawn (57:01):
One of the things that I've been thinking about for a
little bit now.
Admittedly I'm a progressive,so the direction that the
country is going in right now iscatastrophic to me.
I'm also a pessimist, so thosetwo things are married together.
But one of the things that I'vebeen thinking is some of the
stuff that's really challengingfor me is just these broad sides
against, like theconstitutional order and our

(57:22):
system of norms, and to me thatjust suggests that democracy is
under attack.
But then I was thinking as aprogressive.
I haven't been particularlyhappy with the way American
democracy has kind of played outin the last couple of decades.
I mean, you could probably goback to the dawn of our
democracy, to be completelyhonest.
So I'm wondering if it's just agood opportunity or this is an

(57:43):
opportunity for progressives tobe thinking about.
To go back to what you werejust saying about how we
structure ourselves.
If we were to revisit thestructure of our democracy, what
would we do differently?
That would be hopefully better.
As long as we're weakening thesystem, why not have our shot at
it, you know?

Jonathan Mingle (58:01):
I, you know, I've been thinking of this in
terms of here in, I keep talkingabout Vermont, but it's where I
live, so you know I'm going totalk about it one more time.
Vermont, but it's where I live.
So you know I'm going to talkabout it one more time.
It's town meeting season soonhere, and we are very proud of
our tradition of town meetings,where we all get into a room and
vote on different issues likedo we buy a new road grader?

(58:23):
Do we hire another, you know,part-time clerk at the town
office?
How much do we want to spend onour school?
Every March across Vermont,these town meetings happen and
there's something lovely aboutit, right?
You're shoulder to shoulderwith your neighbor and seeing

(58:44):
what they think about theseissues, and then you take these
voice votes but you have thisdebate, anyone can get up and
say whatever they want, andthere's a tension I've been
thinking about lately.
You know there's a lot of talkin climate energy policy circles
about permitting reform and weneed to make it easier to build
stuff.
In America we don't build stuffanymore, whether it's high

(59:05):
speed rail, which we neverreally built, but transmission
lines to get solar and windpower to where people use it, or
even nuclear power plants,which we're going to need more
of if you care aboutdecarbonization, and so there's
a tension there between thisidea that, oh, local communities

(59:25):
have too much input in whatgets permitted and what gets
built and what decisions getmade and they can slow down
anything and they will, whetherit's affordable housing in their
neighborhood or a power line ora pipeline, for that matter.
And yet you know, I think you goto any part of the country and

(59:45):
if you frame the question acertain way, like, you'll hear a
lot of people say, oh, localinput's good, I should have
input in what gets built in mybackyard or my county or my
state or my town.
Frame the question a certain way, like, you'll hear a lot of
people say, oh, local input'sgood, I should have input and
what gets built in my backyardor my county or my state or my
town, and that is a tension thatwe're gonna keep butting into
more and more, just in in thecontext of this clean energy

(01:00:05):
transition.
We're gonna have to build a lotof stuff really fast and
Trump's executive orders theselast two weeks just made that a
lot harder.
In some ways he's pausedpermitting of wind and wind
turbines and he's made it easier, by the way, to produce oil and
gas on federal lands and buildpipelines and build pipelines.

(01:00:35):
But in terms of this questionof like, can we reboot kind of
the way we approach democraticgovernance in this country?
I mean, I think a lot is goingto hinge on how we navigate this
question of how much local,grassroots kind of input and
control and engagement Is theregoing to be an involvement?
And with climate change, likewe talked, about this earlier.

(01:00:59):
There's just not a hugebroad-based coalition for rapid
climate action in this country,and there are a lot of smart
people who've thought for yearsabout how to build one, a
constituency for that.
Maybe we'll start to see thatoverlap more and more with these
fundamental questions of how doyou rejuvenate democracy, given

(01:01:20):
the attacks underway, I don'tknow.
It'll be interesting Again, asa journalist, I'll be.
It'll be interesting to see howthat plays out.
Yeah, silver linings.

Shawn (01:01:30):
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how that
plays out, yeah silver linings.

Jonathan Mingle (01:01:32):
Yeah, it'll be a great story, but you know I
don't want to end on that.
I mean, yeah, I guess the lastthing I'll say is that I think
we're seeing more and morepeople, I think, slowly waking
up to the fact not only thatclimate change is going to touch
their lives, it already is.
It'll show up in your insurancepremiums, your health care bill

(01:01:57):
.
It's going to, it's going totrickle and then flow into every
corner of your life soonerrather than later.
Sorry, everyone, but this ideathat democracy is a verb right
Like democracy, isn't you votingonce a?
year like democracy.
Is you going to your local townmeetings, zoning, zoning
planning meetings, publicutility commission meeting, sure
, protests, rallies, whatever, Imean it is an active verb and

(01:02:21):
maybe we'll see kind of azeitgeist shift in that
direction in the months andyears to come.

Shawn (01:02:30):
Jonathan, thanks for the conversation, and here's to a
brighter and cleaner future.

Jonathan Mingle (01:02:36):
Shawn, here's to that and thanks so much.
This was fun.

Shawn (01:02:45):
The science is clear.
There's no disputing it.
Logically, anyway, Climatechange is not just an
environmental issue.
It's a political, economic andhumanitarian crisis that demands
urgent action, and it willtouch all of us in profound ways
in the very near future, if ithasn't already.
As Jonathan Mingle said, theconsequences of inaction are

(01:03:08):
dire and, with political leaderslike Trump poised to dismantle
climate policy, the planetcouldn't be in a more vulnerable
position.
So, again, on yet another issue, we are at a crossroads.
Either we act boldly now or weface a future of worsening
disasters, displacement andeconomic and political

(01:03:29):
instability.
This is a serious moment thatrequires serious people to make
serious choices, because theplanet can't afford we literally
can't afford another four yearsof climate denial.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat.
Soon, folks, Thank you, Thankyou.