January 15, 2025 • 30 mins
In this episode of Green Tea Party Radio, host Katie Zakrzewski discusses the ongoing series "Hot Mess" in collaboration with Citizens Climate Radio. As the series continues to unravel the history of climate politics, Katie shares exciting news about the future of Green Tea Party Radio, including plans for a bigger social media presence, updated website, and new merchandise. Dive into the complex web of politics, culture, and economics that led to the shift from climate consensus to skepticism and inaction. Featuring insights from Chelsea Henderson, Director of Editorial Content at RepublicEn, and Katie herself, this episode examines the disinformation campaigns and political strategies that fueled climate denial. Discover how both Republican and Democratic parties contributed to the growing climate skepticism and explore the role of influential figures and media in shaping public perception. Join us as we navigate the tangled history of climate politics and learn how to be part of a bipartisan effort for meaningful climate action.
- The Rise of Climate Skepticism and Disinformation Campaigns
- Political Shifts and Partisan Divide in the 1990s
- Influence of Fossil Fuel Industry and Political Strategies
- The Role of Media and Influential Figures
Contact Information:
- Email: info@greenteapartyradio.com
- Website: Green Tea Party Radio
- Social Media: Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok.
Support Us: If you enjoy our content and want to support our work, consider becoming a patron for early access to episodes and exclusive merchandise. Visit our website for more details.
Disclaimer: Green Tea Party Radio is an independent project and does not represent the views of the Diocese of Little Rock, Catholic Climate Covenant, or any of our employers.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
>> Katie (00:05):
Hello, and welcome to the Green Tea Party, where we
discuss conservative solutions to environmental
problems. My name is Katie Zachreski, and today I'm going
to guide you through complex issues and provide strategies to
address them, um, all while remaining faithful to my
conservative values. So it'll be a good
time. Grab your mugs and I'll pour the
tea.
>> Peterson Toscano (00:27):
Foreign.
>> Katie (00:33):
Welcome back to the show, everybody. I know for the last few weeks
we've been listening to different episodes of Hot Mess,
uh, made by the folks over at Citizens Climate
Radio. Well, guess what, we're doing more of the same this
week. Um, except I did want to let you know that we've got some big
changes on the horizon for Green Tea Party Radio as we get ready to move
into the new year. I promise you,
on my salary, however little that may
(00:55):
be, we are going to have a much bigger presence on social
media. Our website's going to be up to date. We're going to come out
with merch. We're kind of doing a little bit of a
rebranding. We'll have more contributors, we'll have
more rotating folks who come on, uh,
new interviews, all sorts of new stuff coming down the pike.
I think we've been out there long enough now it's time that we get in front
of the right people. I know we've got a ton of content. It's just
(01:18):
making sure that you can find it in as many places as possible and that you're
getting our thoughts even more than you already do.
I, uh, look forward to what the new year brings, and I
hope you guys will join us for the ride and then hopefully someday when we're,
like, on the same level as Joe Rogan, you can say, hey,
I remember when those guys had like, 10 followers or 10
listeners, and I was one of them. So you get the gold
(01:38):
star. But in the meantime, we're gonna do, uh, some more
episodes of Hot Mess. I hope you've been enjoy enjoying
the show, um, and getting to hear all about the history
of a lot of the climate politics here in the US and
it provides a really great backdrop for a lot of the stuff that we talk
about on this show. So sit back,
relax, grab a drink and
(01:58):
enjoy.
>> Peterson Toscano (02:03):
Welcome to Hot Mess. How Climate
Consensus Turned into Political Chaos.
We explore how the united concern about
global warming unraveled and
stalled climate change solutions.
This special series is brought to you by by
Citizens Climate Radio. I'm your host,
Peterson Centoscano. In
(02:26):
our first two episodes, we explored the early
bipartisan efforts to address climate change
and the emergence of the Citizens Climate
Volunteer movement. Today,
we pull back the curtain to reveal
pivotal moments, people and
institutions that initiated a terrible
shift away from climate concern
(02:48):
to skepticism and and inaction.
By the early 1990s, the momentum for climate
action was growing, but so was the
opposition. Fossil fuel interest, political
strategies and cultural influences
changed the tide.
(03:09):
One of the first significant setbacks came from
disinformation campaigns
funded by fossil fuel interests
and companies. These campaigns aim
to cast doubt on, um, the science of climate
change and slow down any potential
legislation. Joining us
(03:31):
once again is Chelsea Henderson. Chelsea is the
director of Editorial content at Republic
en, a conservative group focused on
climate solutions. With over 25
years in federal climate policy, Chelsea's
career spans roles on and off
Capitol Hill. She also hosts the EcoRight
Speaks podcast and shares climate news
(03:53):
in her Week in Review E
newsletter. Recently, Chelsea published
the Inside Story of Climate Politics. It's
a deep dive into the challenges of crafting climate
policy in Washington.
Chelsea, how did the shift away
from climate change consensus to political
(04:14):
contention happen?
>> Chelsea Henderson (04:16):
This is such an easy question. Basically, the, uh,
fossil fuel industry had one
very simple playbook that they've been employing since the
early 90s. Cast doubt on the science and
stoke fear that energy prices will increase. And
backed with the millions of dollars into ad
campaigns, focus on those two messages
(04:36):
they actually haven't really needed to evolve their
campaigns. Over time, they've stoked the fear,
the fear that we don't know exactly how
to solve climate change, or maybe that the science
isn't exactly right. They've had a very,
very effective playbook that they haven't had to
update.
>> Peterson Toscano (04:59):
The seeds of doubt were planted, and over the next few
decades, they flourished, creating a deeply
polarized political landscape.
Joining Chelsea is Katie
Zarkreski, one of the hosts of Green Tea Party
Radio. Katie is a
communications professional and environmental
advocate dedicated to integrating faith
(05:20):
and environmental stewardship. As
communications manager at the Catholic Climate Covenant,
she utilizes her background in advocacy and
communications to promote the organization's mission of caring
for creation. Her personal journey from
climate skepticism to environmental activism
underscores her commitment to addressing climate
change's impact on vulnerable communities.
(05:43):
Katie co hosts Green Tea Party Radio, a UH podcast
that approaches environmental issues from a conservative
perspective. Alongside co hosts Hannah Rogers and
Zach Torpy, Katie explores conservative
approaches to climate action, emphasizing that
environmental conservation, uh, aligns with with their
conservative values. Katie holds a bachelor's
(06:03):
degree in criminal justice and anthropology from the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock and a master's degree
in public service from the Clinton School of Public service.
Her diverse educational background and personal
experiences inform her work, enabling her
to engage effectively with various audiences
on the importance of environmental
stewardship. Katie, welcome to the
(06:25):
show.
Tell me, what were some of the most
effective tactics used by
disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about
climate science?
>> Katie (06:36):
So, Peterson, the fossil fuel industry has been
using really pivotal means of spreading
misinformation all the way back to the late
1950s. Um, you might remember here, a couple of years ago,
there was this groundbreaking story that came out,
um, about how Exxon oil
executives, and particularly their scientists,
knew about the devastating effects of climate change
(06:58):
decades before that science was ever really
made public. And they saw, okay, well, if we're the ones
doing this, if the fossil fuel industry is the one that's quite
literally putting the planet in a microwave,
um, we need to make sure for the sake of our
jobs and our business and our
business's success that this doesn't reach the general
(07:18):
public. And so, so many scientists at,
uh, Exxon ended up burying a lot of this
research. And a lot of other fossil fuel industries started to
follow suit as well. I mean, gm,
Ford motor companies, Total, uh, oil
company. These were just a few all the
way from the late 1950s, all the way through the 60s
and 70s that their scientists saw, uh,
(07:41):
okay, there's clearly a correlation between what
we're doing as fossil fuel industries and a heating
planet on a level that we've never seen before, ever.
And for the sake of being able to be profitable as a company, we
can't let it get out that we're quite literally destroying the
planet. So a lot of these different
fossil fuel companies, um,
ended up taking out ads and publications
(08:03):
and newspapers. It really subliminally promoted their
business. They buried all this information, and they
continued to double down on a lot of their efforts.
Soon, so many of these fossil fuel industries had
their slimy and oily little tentacles wrapped all
around the most pivotal parts of the, uh,
American economy and the global industry
that people were scared to defy them. I mean,
(08:26):
you've got Exxon investing over a million dollars
in tanker projects that are aimed at, uh,
you know, studying greenhouse gas effects and
things of that nature, getting the results that they get, and then
burying it. It's almost like they're double,
triple, and quadruple checking that what they're doing is having
the impact that they think it is they're seeing. Oh, my gosh, yes, it
(08:47):
is. Quickly, we have to bury it. And so when that
article broke here several years ago, a lot
of people were like, wow, we could have been doing something about
this for 50, 60, 70 years.
But these wealthy companies didn't want
to jeopardize their bottom line, and now the planet's on
fire.
>> Peterson Toscano (09:05):
As these disinformation campaigns took hold, the political
landscape began to shift. The mid-1990s saw a
dramatic change with the Republican revolution
and the rise of more conservative forces within the
party. This period marked the beginning of a
deeper partisan divide on environmental
issues.
>> Chelsea Henderson (09:24):
The partisan machinations of
Washington D.C. in the early 90s started to kick in,
especially after Clinton and Gore were elected
in 1992. And then, uh, by 1994, you had the
Republican revolution, where Republicans
took both chambers of Congress for the first time since the
1950s. There was a
(09:44):
very strong sentiment at that time that we needed to
priority needed to be on rolling back regulations, not
putting new regulations on the books. And that was when the partisanship
really started to take root.
>> Peterson Toscano (09:56):
As public trust in climate science waned,
political will to address the issue weakened. The
fossil fuel industry wasn't alone in this
effort. Other influential groups like the Koch
brothers and ALEC use their
resources to sway politicians and
shape policy.
>> Chelsea Henderson (10:14):
I mean, really, money talks, right? And with Koch
Industries, which is the second largest privately
held company in the country, uh, they own
a number of oil refineries and pipelines. So, uh,
they also market crude oil and coal and chemicals,
and they, uh, have annual revenues of
$115 billion.
(10:34):
They are also one of the top 25
US corporate water and carbon polluters.
So, uh, if you take their money
plus their level of pollution,
and then with those profits, they're spending
about $150 million a year funding a
network of 90 think tanks and advocacy
groups. That time period, from the
(10:57):
Kyoto protocol in 1997
through, um, the last reporting in 2018,
they've used that money to disparage climate science to
do what I, you know, to do that, um,
casting that doubt of climate science
and to block efforts to address climate change
a lot through political donations.
And in the process, they really conned millions of
(11:19):
people into believing that they themselves, the
polluters, should not be held accountable for their pollution.
When everyday Americans, as part of our local
taxes, we pay, right? We pay for our
garbage pickup, we pay if we have to take something to the dump.
The Koch brothers don't pay for the pollution that they
make. That has been a very effective
strategy with
(11:41):
an organization like alec, which works at the state
level and provides templates, legislative
templates, you know, and on a variety of issues, not just climate
change, it really becomes a one size fits
all. So you might have multiple states that are
taking a template from ALEC and
enacting it. Even if you're a state that is a
heavily fossil fuel state or a manufacturing state and you're not quite
(12:03):
there to enact something on climate
change, the idea that we're just going to take these cookie
cutter approaches doesn't really work for anyone
except for alec who is then flexing their
political strength.
You know, these are climate movements
that are really rooted in wanting to maintain
(12:25):
profits, not be held accountable for
pollution and controlling the
narrative. And they've been highly successful.
>> Peterson Toscano (12:35):
These campaigns were not just about
spreading misinformation. They were carefully
crafted to create a sense of economic fear
and uncertainty.
The Global Climate Coalition, funded by
some of the biggest, biggest names in the fossil fuel industry,
spearheaded these efforts.
>> Chelsea Henderson (12:54):
You know, they got the playbook from the
1993 or
1994 vote on
the BTU tax. This was
a carbon tax essentially. Al Gore really believed in a
carbon tax as a market mechanism.
You tax the behaviors that you don't want
people to do, right? So they tax cigarettes, you tax
(13:17):
alcohol, you tax it, the behaviors that you
want to disincentivize. And so
he convinced Clinton, who needed some
pay fors in his annual budget. So for
listeners that are not steeped in
legislative processes, every year
the White House administration sends to Congress their
dream budget. This is how they would fund everything
(13:39):
if they just had the power to do that. They don't have the power to do that.
Congress has the power to appropriate. So Congress
considers the president's budget,
makes some decisions. Sometimes they, you
know, uh, if all the powers are the same party, then there is a
little bit more of a rubber stamping. But of course Congress always has
to put their stamp on it. But in this case
1994, Al Gore
(14:02):
convinced, or uh, maybe it was 93, Al Gore convinced
Clinton that because we were running in a deficit,
that to help pay for some of the administration's
priorities, you could tax carbon and use the proceeds from that
tax, the revenue from that tax, to help
defray the deficit. And so the BTU
tax, BTU British thermal units was a
(14:22):
tax that was basically on the energy
that is used to create heat. It was going to be
assigned, um, what we say is upstream,
so processor level, not consumer level. So you weren't paying the
BTU tax if you flipped on your light. But the
pass through impact of charging the people that
were combusting at the highest level, consumers
(14:42):
would see um, an increase in their power bills.
So when this proposal came down
the pike. A bunch of industry leaders, under
the guise of an organization called the Global Climate
Coalition, which is very, uh,
misleadingly innocuous sounding,
came together. These are very heavy emitters, heavy
manufacturers, and decided that they needed
(15:05):
to stop it. They had three different priorities on
how, how they were going to stop
this BTU tax or any sort of, um,
carbon tax or carbon emissions cap. And that
was their number one, um, tactic was
to cast out on the science.
They have successfully done that. The other was
(15:25):
to prevent any international treaty from going forward.
They've, you know, we've had treaties, but
nothing that is binding.
>> Katie (15:33):
Right.
>> Chelsea Henderson (15:33):
Everything is voluntary. So
they started hitting
airwaves in vulnerable member states
that greatly exaggerated what the cost of
consumers was going to be of this BTU tax.
It worked so that the House actually took
a vote on this BTU tax. It
(15:54):
passed narrowly the Senate. In the
meantime, you know, all these ads are running,
people are getting constituent complaints, you're getting letters, you're getting
phone calls. Don't support this, don't support this, don't support this. And
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was chairman of
the Finance Committee, which in the Senate is the
tax writing committee, called Clinton and said, I, um, don't have the
(16:15):
votes for it here. But what had already happened
is the House had already taken that vote. So those members
were then vulnerable. And
in the 1994 election,
many Democrats lost their seat. Now, it is not
uncommon for a midterm election to see a big flip in
parties. And there was more than just the BTU tax.
(16:35):
You had the failed attempt to revamp health
care. Um, also another
issue that, you know, you look back and just times have
changed so much. But the don't ask, don't tell
policy was something that had come out around that
time that was also spun as something negative. So there was a lot of
negative spinning of the work that Clinton had done in those first two
years that contributed to the election in
(16:56):
1994. But that BTU tax, the way the House
voted and the Senate didn't, uh, people today are still,
they still call being BTU'd. This
phenomenon where one House is asked, one chamber
is asked to take a tough vote without assurance that the other chamber
is going to take it as well.
>> Peterson Toscano (17:13):
It wasn't just Republicans who contributed to
the growing climate skepticism. Democrats also played
a role in the shifting political landscape. The
failed BTU tax and other legislative
efforts showed that even with a, ah, Democratic
president and a Democratic majority,
passing meaningful climate legislation was a, ah,
(17:33):
formidable challenge.
Katie Zarkreski sheds light on how
both parties contributed to the growing climate
skepticism during this period.
>> Katie (17:44):
So after all of this information from the fossil fuel
industry percolates through society for the next couple of
decades, we really start to see Republicans
and Democrats both contribute to
this shift of climate skepticism. And a lot of people
like to blame Republicans. But it's important to
say that it goes both ways. One thing that I've always
(18:04):
been concerned about as a young conservative that catches flak from both
sides, not just from the opposing party, but within my own party as
well, is taking a step back and looking
at, okay, who's responsible for what, who played what
role. It's something that I've always done, not only as a young
conservative, but as a journalist. So I think it's important to get the facts
straight. And in the 90s, that's when we
(18:25):
really start to see the climate skepticism that we see
here in 2024 and in the 21st century
start to begin to form and take
shape. So a lot of Republicans at that time
began to, whether uh, they did it intentionally or not,
they began aligning themselves with fossil fuel industries. I think
the fossil fuel industry saw the writing on the wall
and figured, okay, you know, if the
(18:47):
news gets out about the damage that we do to the environment,
we're toast. We've got to find a way to align with
somebody who will keep us in power. And so a lot of
Republicans had started, um,
making I guess, relationships with the fossil fuel
industries. The fossil fuel industries ended up being significant
donors and influencers. It's almost like this never
(19:08):
ending cycle, this strange slippery slope. The fossil
fuel industry doesn't want it to get out that what they're doing
is destroying the planet so that they continue to benefit. They bury
the data and they grow exponentially economically. They
take these economic exponential benefits and they pour it
back into disinformation campaigns and, and
supporting, uh, politicians who are going to support them.
(19:28):
And so then they're even more likely to stay around because the truth is
getting buried. And so it's this, this back and forth cycle of almost
the chicken and the egg of you know, the
fossil fuel industry protecting their bottom line and hiding
the truth. So during the 90s, that's when a
lot of Republicans start to align themselves with fossil fuel
industries. And the fossil fuel industry pitched this
(19:48):
in a way that they knew would repeal to repo that would appeal to
Republicans by saying, hey, you guys like small
government? Hey, you guys like economic growth?
Hey, well guess what, we like small government. We
like economic Growth. We like tax incentives, we
like growing business interests, we like foreign dependence on
us for economic support, stability and uh,
fuel and things of that nature. And uh, they made it
(20:11):
really sexy to a lot of Republicans at that time.
But it's important to note that Republicans, uh,
weren't the only ones that were contributing to this problem at
the time. Even though Democrats
had been known for supporting the environment,
some of their policies were getting kind of iffy. There was
waffling back and forth. You got to keep in mind during the
(20:31):
90s, you know, coming off the Reagan era,
the Democrats are able to get Bill Clinton elected. And Bill Clinton
has his own cult of personality. I would almost say that he
was the Democrats response to Ronald Reagan. I mean
the guy was untouchable. And nobody really wanted to
go against Bill Clinton because you know, if Bill Clinton's in power,
that means stability for the party. So you
(20:52):
start seeing Bill Clinton maybe have some other priorities
that aren't explicitly environmental. That's when a lot
of the inconsistencies begin to emerge in the 90s.
So Democrats who had previously supported environmental
policy are kind of back and forth on it
now. They're not strictly pro environment. If they're able to
concede a point on environment in favor of a point of the economy,
(21:12):
that's what they're going to do. The, um, Clinton administration
was really big on promoting market based solutions at that
time. Um, and some of them were being criticized
by folks even further on the left for not
being effective enough when it came to addressing climate change. I think because
the fossil fuel industry really
amped up this image of
(21:33):
energy dependence on the US from other
countries and economic growth, a
booming market that Republicans were like, hey, we're the
party of economics. Just look at us and our friends, the fossil
fuel industry. And a lot of Democrats were like, well, we can't take that
land down. We've got to have an economic response as
well. For, uh, both parties,
they reached a point where it was, well, we're willing to concede on
(21:56):
climate in order to win big on
economics that appealed to voters. Like it or not,
when you look back in history that appealed to voters.
That's also when you start to see the rise of conservative
media that really starts to dunk on
things like environment as being, oh,
this is just a left wing excuse to, to be big
(22:16):
government and to tax you even more. That's where
our, our modern rabbit hole begins. I think we can
trace a lot of the division that we see
on climate politics today back to the early.
>> Peterson Toscano (22:27):
90S as we
continue to explore the forces behind climate
denial, it's clear that this issue
is deeply rooted in a complex web
of, uh, politics, culture, and
economics. Understanding these factors
is crucial in our fight for meaningful climate
action.
(22:50):
Thank you for joining us on this journey through the tangled
web of climate politics.
I'm Peterson Toscano and this is Hot Mess. How
Climate Consensus Turns Turned into Political
Chaos. In the next episode, we'll examine
the role of media and influential figures in
shaping how we see and respond to climate
change today.
>> Chelsea Henderson (23:15):
And the guy was like, what are you going to do about climate change?
McCain was like, you know, I don't know. I
honestly don't know. But I'm going to go learn about it and I'm going to come back
and give you an answer. If something needs
unanimous consent, it really just means one senator can
muck it up.
>> Katie (23:30):
Hey, what if this is a much bigger issue than
we're willing to admit that it is, and we've covered it up
for the sake of being able to say, yeah, well, we've got an incredible
economy, so who cares if the planet is about to explode? Who
cares if things are about to burn down?
>> Chelsea Henderson (23:44):
There are heroes on both sides of the
aisle. There are people that, I won't want to say
villains, but they're. There are some villains, and then there are some people that
just made dumb decisions on both sides of the aisle
too.
>> Peterson Toscano (23:57):
In this episode you heard from Chelsea Henderson, host
of Ecorite Speaks, the podcast by
Republic. Ian, you can listen to Ecorite
Speaks wherever you get your podcast.
Chelsea also recently authored
the Inside Story of Climate Politics, a
uh, compelling look into the complex
dynamics of, of climate policy in
(24:19):
Washington. If you're interested in learning how
principled solutions driven approaches can help shape
climate policy, visit
republicen.org
we also heard from Katie Zerkreski, one of the co hosts of
Green Tea Party Radio. Tune in to Green Tea Party
Radio wherever you get your podcast.
Katie Zarkreski is an independent climate advocate
(24:41):
and her words on this episode do not
reflect the views of the Diocese of Little
Rock Catholic Climate Covenant, or any of its
employees.
Chelsea and Katie will join us for the next
episode of Hot Mess, How Climate
Consensus Led to Political Chaos.
(25:01):
Learn how you can be part of a, uh, bipartisan
effort to pass meaningful legislation that
addresses climate pollution. Visit
cclusa.org
action that is
cclusa.org
action.
>> Katie (25:18):
Hot mess is made possible through Citizens Climate Education.
The show has been researched by Horace Moe, Lily Rushin and
Peterson Toscano, editorial assistants from FLANNERY
Winchester, Eli Silvestri and Brett Cease
production by Peterson Toscano with assistance from Elise
Silvestri. Music for this episode comes from Epidemic Sound
and Elise Silvestri.
>> Peterson Toscano (25:36):
If you like this program and want to support the work we
do, share this episode with a friend and on social
media you can give a tax deductible donation
by visiting
citizensclimateducation.org
Together we're making a difference.
>> Katie (26:06):
For you, our listener. Email us with your thoughts.
Our email is infoeenteapartyradio
and thank you again for listening to Green Tea Party Radio
and a very special thank you to all of our patrons. We absolutely could
not do this without you. If you're interested in getting early
access to episodes as well as Green Tea Party Radio
merch, check us
out@greenteapartyradio.com if you have
(26:27):
feedback. Tell us what's on your mind and follow us on Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter and TikTok. And just so you
know, this is our passion project. We don't have any
organizational sponsor. This is just a reminder that
Green Tea Party Radio is not representative of the Diocese of
Little Rock Catholic Climate Covenant or any of our employers.
We're just a group of young people who are building a movement because we want the
world to know that conservatives, particularly young ones like
(26:50):
us, have important things to say about climate
change. And if you want to hear our show on your college radio
station, email us@info
greenteapartyradio.com and give us the details about your
campus and your radio station. That email again is
info greente
partyradio.com thank you so much for
listening and we'll see you next week.
>> Drew Ireley (27:14):
Hi, I'm Drew Irely. I am the Conservative Outreach
Director for Citizens Climate Lobby. My path
to being a conservative concerned, uh, about climate
action was definitely a long one.
Growing up it was a very rural area. You had to be
into the outdoors or you were going to be bored out of your mind. So I grew
up doing a lot of hunting, fishing. I was
(27:35):
the only the second person on my mom's side to
graduate high school. I uh, graduated
6-6-05 at like 7:30 at night
and by 8:00 the next morning I was on my way to
basic training. On my 17th birthday
I had deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, rotations
through Cuba. It was during this time that I
(27:55):
really became concerned with energy infrastructure.
But I wasn't ready to take action yet. It took the
birth of a 10 pound baby girl with cheeks so
big she couldn't open her eyes to really get me
to open mine. My life just went from the next 50
years to the next 75. What if
she's the veteran that follows in my footsteps and
(28:16):
she's in the VA suffering from exposure?
What if she's on a fossil fuel route and
subject to an ied? How will I be able to look at her in
the eye and say, I knew that this
could be an issue that you would have to face and I chose to do nothing about
it? It's why we fight wars. We fight them
now so our kids don't have to.
(28:37):
I am fighting climate change now so
my daughters don't have to. A lot of people, you know,
they say conservatives don't care about climate change and
it's not true at all. We just want
sensible policies that don't destroy the economy
in trying to find a solution. We have that here at Citizens
Climate Lobby.
(29:02):
There are a lot of leadership opportunities for
conservatives, especially in red states and
districts with Republican Congressional offices.
Conservatives can also join CCL's Conservative
caucus. It's a national group of Republicans
and other right of center individuals where conservatives can
get together and regularly meet online and have
strictly conservative based conversations.
(29:24):
Sharing our personal story is how we make a difference.
>> Chelsea Henderson (29:32):
Conservative and concerned about climate change.
You're not alone. My name is Chelsea Henderson
and I host Republic E um,
Ecorite Speaks, bringing you weekly guest
interviews and stories. John Kasich
Christine Todd Whitman Congresswoman Nancy Mace
Meteorologist Marshall Shepherd. Each week we have a
conversation with an EcoRight leader bringing you
(29:54):
information, opinions, personal stories and
much, much more. Download, listen,
subscribe and join us. Uh, each week on the
Ecorite.
Hello, and welcome to the Green Tea Party, where we
discuss conservative solutions to environmental
problems. My name is Katie Zachreski, and today I'm going
to guide you through complex issues and provide strategies to
address them, um, all while remaining faithful to my
conservative values. So it'll be a good
time. Grab your mugs and I'll pour the
tea.
>> Peterson Toscano (00:27):
Foreign.
>> Katie (00:33):
Welcome back to the show, everybody. I know for the last few weeks
we've been listening to different episodes of Hot Mess,
uh, made by the folks over at Citizens Climate
Radio. Well, guess what, we're doing more of the same this
week. Um, except I did want to let you know that we've got some big
changes on the horizon for Green Tea Party Radio as we get ready to move
into the new year. I promise you,
on my salary, however little that may
(00:55):
be, we are going to have a much bigger presence on social
media. Our website's going to be up to date. We're going to come out
with merch. We're kind of doing a little bit of a
rebranding. We'll have more contributors, we'll have
more rotating folks who come on, uh,
new interviews, all sorts of new stuff coming down the pike.
I think we've been out there long enough now it's time that we get in front
of the right people. I know we've got a ton of content. It's just
(01:18):
making sure that you can find it in as many places as possible and that you're
getting our thoughts even more than you already do.
I, uh, look forward to what the new year brings, and I
hope you guys will join us for the ride and then hopefully someday when we're,
like, on the same level as Joe Rogan, you can say, hey,
I remember when those guys had like, 10 followers or 10
listeners, and I was one of them. So you get the gold
(01:38):
star. But in the meantime, we're gonna do, uh, some more
episodes of Hot Mess. I hope you've been enjoy enjoying
the show, um, and getting to hear all about the history
of a lot of the climate politics here in the US and
it provides a really great backdrop for a lot of the stuff that we talk
about on this show. So sit back,
relax, grab a drink and
(01:58):
enjoy.
>> Peterson Toscano (02:03):
Welcome to Hot Mess. How Climate
Consensus Turned into Political Chaos.
We explore how the united concern about
global warming unraveled and
stalled climate change solutions.
This special series is brought to you by by
Citizens Climate Radio. I'm your host,
Peterson Centoscano. In
(02:26):
our first two episodes, we explored the early
bipartisan efforts to address climate change
and the emergence of the Citizens Climate
Volunteer movement. Today,
we pull back the curtain to reveal
pivotal moments, people and
institutions that initiated a terrible
shift away from climate concern
(02:48):
to skepticism and and inaction.
By the early 1990s, the momentum for climate
action was growing, but so was the
opposition. Fossil fuel interest, political
strategies and cultural influences
changed the tide.
(03:09):
One of the first significant setbacks came from
disinformation campaigns
funded by fossil fuel interests
and companies. These campaigns aim
to cast doubt on, um, the science of climate
change and slow down any potential
legislation. Joining us
(03:31):
once again is Chelsea Henderson. Chelsea is the
director of Editorial content at Republic
en, a conservative group focused on
climate solutions. With over 25
years in federal climate policy, Chelsea's
career spans roles on and off
Capitol Hill. She also hosts the EcoRight
Speaks podcast and shares climate news
(03:53):
in her Week in Review E
newsletter. Recently, Chelsea published
the Inside Story of Climate Politics. It's
a deep dive into the challenges of crafting climate
policy in Washington.
Chelsea, how did the shift away
from climate change consensus to political
(04:14):
contention happen?
>> Chelsea Henderson (04:16):
This is such an easy question. Basically, the, uh,
fossil fuel industry had one
very simple playbook that they've been employing since the
early 90s. Cast doubt on the science and
stoke fear that energy prices will increase. And
backed with the millions of dollars into ad
campaigns, focus on those two messages
(04:36):
they actually haven't really needed to evolve their
campaigns. Over time, they've stoked the fear,
the fear that we don't know exactly how
to solve climate change, or maybe that the science
isn't exactly right. They've had a very,
very effective playbook that they haven't had to
update.
>> Peterson Toscano (04:59):
The seeds of doubt were planted, and over the next few
decades, they flourished, creating a deeply
polarized political landscape.
Joining Chelsea is Katie
Zarkreski, one of the hosts of Green Tea Party
Radio. Katie is a
communications professional and environmental
advocate dedicated to integrating faith
(05:20):
and environmental stewardship. As
communications manager at the Catholic Climate Covenant,
she utilizes her background in advocacy and
communications to promote the organization's mission of caring
for creation. Her personal journey from
climate skepticism to environmental activism
underscores her commitment to addressing climate
change's impact on vulnerable communities.
(05:43):
Katie co hosts Green Tea Party Radio, a UH podcast
that approaches environmental issues from a conservative
perspective. Alongside co hosts Hannah Rogers and
Zach Torpy, Katie explores conservative
approaches to climate action, emphasizing that
environmental conservation, uh, aligns with with their
conservative values. Katie holds a bachelor's
(06:03):
degree in criminal justice and anthropology from the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock and a master's degree
in public service from the Clinton School of Public service.
Her diverse educational background and personal
experiences inform her work, enabling her
to engage effectively with various audiences
on the importance of environmental
stewardship. Katie, welcome to the
(06:25):
show.
Tell me, what were some of the most
effective tactics used by
disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about
climate science?
>> Katie (06:36):
So, Peterson, the fossil fuel industry has been
using really pivotal means of spreading
misinformation all the way back to the late
1950s. Um, you might remember here, a couple of years ago,
there was this groundbreaking story that came out,
um, about how Exxon oil
executives, and particularly their scientists,
knew about the devastating effects of climate change
(06:58):
decades before that science was ever really
made public. And they saw, okay, well, if we're the ones
doing this, if the fossil fuel industry is the one that's quite
literally putting the planet in a microwave,
um, we need to make sure for the sake of our
jobs and our business and our
business's success that this doesn't reach the general
(07:18):
public. And so, so many scientists at,
uh, Exxon ended up burying a lot of this
research. And a lot of other fossil fuel industries started to
follow suit as well. I mean, gm,
Ford motor companies, Total, uh, oil
company. These were just a few all the
way from the late 1950s, all the way through the 60s
and 70s that their scientists saw, uh,
(07:41):
okay, there's clearly a correlation between what
we're doing as fossil fuel industries and a heating
planet on a level that we've never seen before, ever.
And for the sake of being able to be profitable as a company, we
can't let it get out that we're quite literally destroying the
planet. So a lot of these different
fossil fuel companies, um,
ended up taking out ads and publications
(08:03):
and newspapers. It really subliminally promoted their
business. They buried all this information, and they
continued to double down on a lot of their efforts.
Soon, so many of these fossil fuel industries had
their slimy and oily little tentacles wrapped all
around the most pivotal parts of the, uh,
American economy and the global industry
that people were scared to defy them. I mean,
(08:26):
you've got Exxon investing over a million dollars
in tanker projects that are aimed at, uh,
you know, studying greenhouse gas effects and
things of that nature, getting the results that they get, and then
burying it. It's almost like they're double,
triple, and quadruple checking that what they're doing is having
the impact that they think it is they're seeing. Oh, my gosh, yes, it
(08:47):
is. Quickly, we have to bury it. And so when that
article broke here several years ago, a lot
of people were like, wow, we could have been doing something about
this for 50, 60, 70 years.
But these wealthy companies didn't want
to jeopardize their bottom line, and now the planet's on
fire.
>> Peterson Toscano (09:05):
As these disinformation campaigns took hold, the political
landscape began to shift. The mid-1990s saw a
dramatic change with the Republican revolution
and the rise of more conservative forces within the
party. This period marked the beginning of a
deeper partisan divide on environmental
issues.
>> Chelsea Henderson (09:24):
The partisan machinations of
Washington D.C. in the early 90s started to kick in,
especially after Clinton and Gore were elected
in 1992. And then, uh, by 1994, you had the
Republican revolution, where Republicans
took both chambers of Congress for the first time since the
1950s. There was a
(09:44):
very strong sentiment at that time that we needed to
priority needed to be on rolling back regulations, not
putting new regulations on the books. And that was when the partisanship
really started to take root.
>> Peterson Toscano (09:56):
As public trust in climate science waned,
political will to address the issue weakened. The
fossil fuel industry wasn't alone in this
effort. Other influential groups like the Koch
brothers and ALEC use their
resources to sway politicians and
shape policy.
>> Chelsea Henderson (10:14):
I mean, really, money talks, right? And with Koch
Industries, which is the second largest privately
held company in the country, uh, they own
a number of oil refineries and pipelines. So, uh,
they also market crude oil and coal and chemicals,
and they, uh, have annual revenues of
$115 billion.
(10:34):
They are also one of the top 25
US corporate water and carbon polluters.
So, uh, if you take their money
plus their level of pollution,
and then with those profits, they're spending
about $150 million a year funding a
network of 90 think tanks and advocacy
groups. That time period, from the
(10:57):
Kyoto protocol in 1997
through, um, the last reporting in 2018,
they've used that money to disparage climate science to
do what I, you know, to do that, um,
casting that doubt of climate science
and to block efforts to address climate change
a lot through political donations.
And in the process, they really conned millions of
(11:19):
people into believing that they themselves, the
polluters, should not be held accountable for their pollution.
When everyday Americans, as part of our local
taxes, we pay, right? We pay for our
garbage pickup, we pay if we have to take something to the dump.
The Koch brothers don't pay for the pollution that they
make. That has been a very effective
strategy with
(11:41):
an organization like alec, which works at the state
level and provides templates, legislative
templates, you know, and on a variety of issues, not just climate
change, it really becomes a one size fits
all. So you might have multiple states that are
taking a template from ALEC and
enacting it. Even if you're a state that is a
heavily fossil fuel state or a manufacturing state and you're not quite
(12:03):
there to enact something on climate
change, the idea that we're just going to take these cookie
cutter approaches doesn't really work for anyone
except for alec who is then flexing their
political strength.
You know, these are climate movements
that are really rooted in wanting to maintain
(12:25):
profits, not be held accountable for
pollution and controlling the
narrative. And they've been highly successful.
>> Peterson Toscano (12:35):
These campaigns were not just about
spreading misinformation. They were carefully
crafted to create a sense of economic fear
and uncertainty.
The Global Climate Coalition, funded by
some of the biggest, biggest names in the fossil fuel industry,
spearheaded these efforts.
>> Chelsea Henderson (12:54):
You know, they got the playbook from the
1993 or
1994 vote on
the BTU tax. This was
a carbon tax essentially. Al Gore really believed in a
carbon tax as a market mechanism.
You tax the behaviors that you don't want
people to do, right? So they tax cigarettes, you tax
(13:17):
alcohol, you tax it, the behaviors that you
want to disincentivize. And so
he convinced Clinton, who needed some
pay fors in his annual budget. So for
listeners that are not steeped in
legislative processes, every year
the White House administration sends to Congress their
dream budget. This is how they would fund everything
(13:39):
if they just had the power to do that. They don't have the power to do that.
Congress has the power to appropriate. So Congress
considers the president's budget,
makes some decisions. Sometimes they, you
know, uh, if all the powers are the same party, then there is a
little bit more of a rubber stamping. But of course Congress always has
to put their stamp on it. But in this case
1994, Al Gore
(14:02):
convinced, or uh, maybe it was 93, Al Gore convinced
Clinton that because we were running in a deficit,
that to help pay for some of the administration's
priorities, you could tax carbon and use the proceeds from that
tax, the revenue from that tax, to help
defray the deficit. And so the BTU
tax, BTU British thermal units was a
(14:22):
tax that was basically on the energy
that is used to create heat. It was going to be
assigned, um, what we say is upstream,
so processor level, not consumer level. So you weren't paying the
BTU tax if you flipped on your light. But the
pass through impact of charging the people that
were combusting at the highest level, consumers
(14:42):
would see um, an increase in their power bills.
So when this proposal came down
the pike. A bunch of industry leaders, under
the guise of an organization called the Global Climate
Coalition, which is very, uh,
misleadingly innocuous sounding,
came together. These are very heavy emitters, heavy
manufacturers, and decided that they needed
(15:05):
to stop it. They had three different priorities on
how, how they were going to stop
this BTU tax or any sort of, um,
carbon tax or carbon emissions cap. And that
was their number one, um, tactic was
to cast out on the science.
They have successfully done that. The other was
(15:25):
to prevent any international treaty from going forward.
They've, you know, we've had treaties, but
nothing that is binding.
>> Katie (15:33):
Right.
>> Chelsea Henderson (15:33):
Everything is voluntary. So
they started hitting
airwaves in vulnerable member states
that greatly exaggerated what the cost of
consumers was going to be of this BTU tax.
It worked so that the House actually took
a vote on this BTU tax. It
(15:54):
passed narrowly the Senate. In the
meantime, you know, all these ads are running,
people are getting constituent complaints, you're getting letters, you're getting
phone calls. Don't support this, don't support this, don't support this. And
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was chairman of
the Finance Committee, which in the Senate is the
tax writing committee, called Clinton and said, I, um, don't have the
(16:15):
votes for it here. But what had already happened
is the House had already taken that vote. So those members
were then vulnerable. And
in the 1994 election,
many Democrats lost their seat. Now, it is not
uncommon for a midterm election to see a big flip in
parties. And there was more than just the BTU tax.
(16:35):
You had the failed attempt to revamp health
care. Um, also another
issue that, you know, you look back and just times have
changed so much. But the don't ask, don't tell
policy was something that had come out around that
time that was also spun as something negative. So there was a lot of
negative spinning of the work that Clinton had done in those first two
years that contributed to the election in
(16:56):
1994. But that BTU tax, the way the House
voted and the Senate didn't, uh, people today are still,
they still call being BTU'd. This
phenomenon where one House is asked, one chamber
is asked to take a tough vote without assurance that the other chamber
is going to take it as well.
>> Peterson Toscano (17:13):
It wasn't just Republicans who contributed to
the growing climate skepticism. Democrats also played
a role in the shifting political landscape. The
failed BTU tax and other legislative
efforts showed that even with a, ah, Democratic
president and a Democratic majority,
passing meaningful climate legislation was a, ah,
(17:33):
formidable challenge.
Katie Zarkreski sheds light on how
both parties contributed to the growing climate
skepticism during this period.
>> Katie (17:44):
So after all of this information from the fossil fuel
industry percolates through society for the next couple of
decades, we really start to see Republicans
and Democrats both contribute to
this shift of climate skepticism. And a lot of people
like to blame Republicans. But it's important to
say that it goes both ways. One thing that I've always
(18:04):
been concerned about as a young conservative that catches flak from both
sides, not just from the opposing party, but within my own party as
well, is taking a step back and looking
at, okay, who's responsible for what, who played what
role. It's something that I've always done, not only as a young
conservative, but as a journalist. So I think it's important to get the facts
straight. And in the 90s, that's when we
(18:25):
really start to see the climate skepticism that we see
here in 2024 and in the 21st century
start to begin to form and take
shape. So a lot of Republicans at that time
began to, whether uh, they did it intentionally or not,
they began aligning themselves with fossil fuel industries. I think
the fossil fuel industry saw the writing on the wall
and figured, okay, you know, if the
(18:47):
news gets out about the damage that we do to the environment,
we're toast. We've got to find a way to align with
somebody who will keep us in power. And so a lot of
Republicans had started, um,
making I guess, relationships with the fossil fuel
industries. The fossil fuel industries ended up being significant
donors and influencers. It's almost like this never
(19:08):
ending cycle, this strange slippery slope. The fossil
fuel industry doesn't want it to get out that what they're doing
is destroying the planet so that they continue to benefit. They bury
the data and they grow exponentially economically. They
take these economic exponential benefits and they pour it
back into disinformation campaigns and, and
supporting, uh, politicians who are going to support them.
(19:28):
And so then they're even more likely to stay around because the truth is
getting buried. And so it's this, this back and forth cycle of almost
the chicken and the egg of you know, the
fossil fuel industry protecting their bottom line and hiding
the truth. So during the 90s, that's when a
lot of Republicans start to align themselves with fossil fuel
industries. And the fossil fuel industry pitched this
(19:48):
in a way that they knew would repeal to repo that would appeal to
Republicans by saying, hey, you guys like small
government? Hey, you guys like economic growth?
Hey, well guess what, we like small government. We
like economic Growth. We like tax incentives, we
like growing business interests, we like foreign dependence on
us for economic support, stability and uh,
fuel and things of that nature. And uh, they made it
(20:11):
really sexy to a lot of Republicans at that time.
But it's important to note that Republicans, uh,
weren't the only ones that were contributing to this problem at
the time. Even though Democrats
had been known for supporting the environment,
some of their policies were getting kind of iffy. There was
waffling back and forth. You got to keep in mind during the
(20:31):
90s, you know, coming off the Reagan era,
the Democrats are able to get Bill Clinton elected. And Bill Clinton
has his own cult of personality. I would almost say that he
was the Democrats response to Ronald Reagan. I mean
the guy was untouchable. And nobody really wanted to
go against Bill Clinton because you know, if Bill Clinton's in power,
that means stability for the party. So you
(20:52):
start seeing Bill Clinton maybe have some other priorities
that aren't explicitly environmental. That's when a lot
of the inconsistencies begin to emerge in the 90s.
So Democrats who had previously supported environmental
policy are kind of back and forth on it
now. They're not strictly pro environment. If they're able to
concede a point on environment in favor of a point of the economy,
(21:12):
that's what they're going to do. The, um, Clinton administration
was really big on promoting market based solutions at that
time. Um, and some of them were being criticized
by folks even further on the left for not
being effective enough when it came to addressing climate change. I think because
the fossil fuel industry really
amped up this image of
(21:33):
energy dependence on the US from other
countries and economic growth, a
booming market that Republicans were like, hey, we're the
party of economics. Just look at us and our friends, the fossil
fuel industry. And a lot of Democrats were like, well, we can't take that
land down. We've got to have an economic response as
well. For, uh, both parties,
they reached a point where it was, well, we're willing to concede on
(21:56):
climate in order to win big on
economics that appealed to voters. Like it or not,
when you look back in history that appealed to voters.
That's also when you start to see the rise of conservative
media that really starts to dunk on
things like environment as being, oh,
this is just a left wing excuse to, to be big
(22:16):
government and to tax you even more. That's where
our, our modern rabbit hole begins. I think we can
trace a lot of the division that we see
on climate politics today back to the early.
>> Peterson Toscano (22:27):
90S as we
continue to explore the forces behind climate
denial, it's clear that this issue
is deeply rooted in a complex web
of, uh, politics, culture, and
economics. Understanding these factors
is crucial in our fight for meaningful climate
action.
(22:50):
Thank you for joining us on this journey through the tangled
web of climate politics.
I'm Peterson Toscano and this is Hot Mess. How
Climate Consensus Turns Turned into Political
Chaos. In the next episode, we'll examine
the role of media and influential figures in
shaping how we see and respond to climate
change today.
>> Chelsea Henderson (23:15):
And the guy was like, what are you going to do about climate change?
McCain was like, you know, I don't know. I
honestly don't know. But I'm going to go learn about it and I'm going to come back
and give you an answer. If something needs
unanimous consent, it really just means one senator can
muck it up.
>> Katie (23:30):
Hey, what if this is a much bigger issue than
we're willing to admit that it is, and we've covered it up
for the sake of being able to say, yeah, well, we've got an incredible
economy, so who cares if the planet is about to explode? Who
cares if things are about to burn down?
>> Chelsea Henderson (23:44):
There are heroes on both sides of the
aisle. There are people that, I won't want to say
villains, but they're. There are some villains, and then there are some people that
just made dumb decisions on both sides of the aisle
too.
>> Peterson Toscano (23:57):
In this episode you heard from Chelsea Henderson, host
of Ecorite Speaks, the podcast by
Republic. Ian, you can listen to Ecorite
Speaks wherever you get your podcast.
Chelsea also recently authored
the Inside Story of Climate Politics, a
uh, compelling look into the complex
dynamics of, of climate policy in
(24:19):
Washington. If you're interested in learning how
principled solutions driven approaches can help shape
climate policy, visit
republicen.org
we also heard from Katie Zerkreski, one of the co hosts of
Green Tea Party Radio. Tune in to Green Tea Party
Radio wherever you get your podcast.
Katie Zarkreski is an independent climate advocate
(24:41):
and her words on this episode do not
reflect the views of the Diocese of Little
Rock Catholic Climate Covenant, or any of its
employees.
Chelsea and Katie will join us for the next
episode of Hot Mess, How Climate
Consensus Led to Political Chaos.
(25:01):
Learn how you can be part of a, uh, bipartisan
effort to pass meaningful legislation that
addresses climate pollution. Visit
cclusa.org
action that is
cclusa.org
action.
>> Katie (25:18):
Hot mess is made possible through Citizens Climate Education.
The show has been researched by Horace Moe, Lily Rushin and
Peterson Toscano, editorial assistants from FLANNERY
Winchester, Eli Silvestri and Brett Cease
production by Peterson Toscano with assistance from Elise
Silvestri. Music for this episode comes from Epidemic Sound
and Elise Silvestri.
>> Peterson Toscano (25:36):
If you like this program and want to support the work we
do, share this episode with a friend and on social
media you can give a tax deductible donation
by visiting
citizensclimateducation.org
Together we're making a difference.
>> Katie (26:06):
For you, our listener. Email us with your thoughts.
Our email is infoeenteapartyradio
and thank you again for listening to Green Tea Party Radio
and a very special thank you to all of our patrons. We absolutely could
not do this without you. If you're interested in getting early
access to episodes as well as Green Tea Party Radio
merch, check us
out@greenteapartyradio.com if you have
(26:27):
feedback. Tell us what's on your mind and follow us on Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter and TikTok. And just so you
know, this is our passion project. We don't have any
organizational sponsor. This is just a reminder that
Green Tea Party Radio is not representative of the Diocese of
Little Rock Catholic Climate Covenant or any of our employers.
We're just a group of young people who are building a movement because we want the
world to know that conservatives, particularly young ones like
(26:50):
us, have important things to say about climate
change. And if you want to hear our show on your college radio
station, email us@info
greenteapartyradio.com and give us the details about your
campus and your radio station. That email again is
info greente
partyradio.com thank you so much for
listening and we'll see you next week.
>> Drew Ireley (27:14):
Hi, I'm Drew Irely. I am the Conservative Outreach
Director for Citizens Climate Lobby. My path
to being a conservative concerned, uh, about climate
action was definitely a long one.
Growing up it was a very rural area. You had to be
into the outdoors or you were going to be bored out of your mind. So I grew
up doing a lot of hunting, fishing. I was
(27:35):
the only the second person on my mom's side to
graduate high school. I uh, graduated
6-6-05 at like 7:30 at night
and by 8:00 the next morning I was on my way to
basic training. On my 17th birthday
I had deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, rotations
through Cuba. It was during this time that I
(27:55):
really became concerned with energy infrastructure.
But I wasn't ready to take action yet. It took the
birth of a 10 pound baby girl with cheeks so
big she couldn't open her eyes to really get me
to open mine. My life just went from the next 50
years to the next 75. What if
she's the veteran that follows in my footsteps and
(28:16):
she's in the VA suffering from exposure?
What if she's on a fossil fuel route and
subject to an ied? How will I be able to look at her in
the eye and say, I knew that this
could be an issue that you would have to face and I chose to do nothing about
it? It's why we fight wars. We fight them
now so our kids don't have to.
(28:37):
I am fighting climate change now so
my daughters don't have to. A lot of people, you know,
they say conservatives don't care about climate change and
it's not true at all. We just want
sensible policies that don't destroy the economy
in trying to find a solution. We have that here at Citizens
Climate Lobby.
(29:02):
There are a lot of leadership opportunities for
conservatives, especially in red states and
districts with Republican Congressional offices.
Conservatives can also join CCL's Conservative
caucus. It's a national group of Republicans
and other right of center individuals where conservatives can
get together and regularly meet online and have
strictly conservative based conversations.
(29:24):
Sharing our personal story is how we make a difference.
>> Chelsea Henderson (29:32):
Conservative and concerned about climate change.
You're not alone. My name is Chelsea Henderson
and I host Republic E um,
Ecorite Speaks, bringing you weekly guest
interviews and stories. John Kasich
Christine Todd Whitman Congresswoman Nancy Mace
Meteorologist Marshall Shepherd. Each week we have a
conversation with an EcoRight leader bringing you
(29:54):
information, opinions, personal stories and
much, much more. Download, listen,
subscribe and join us. Uh, each week on the
Ecorite.
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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.