[Episode begins with audio bites from a climate change litigation case in Norway attended in person by co-host Izzie]

IZZIE (NARRATING HER ARRIVAL IN NORWAY)
So it's the morning of November 29th and I've just taken the train for 5 hrs to reach Oslo. I'm standing here outside the district court waiting to go sit in on a climate lawsuit that is taking place here today.

IZZIE
Late last year, I travelled from my home in Stockholm, Sweden, to Norwegian capital Oslo, to sit in on a court case that caught our eye. 

IZZIE (DESCRIBING THE SCENE IN NORWAY)
It's snowing, it's -3 my hands are cold from holding the mic, but I'm excited. 

IZZIE
Two environmental organisations were taking the Norwegian State to court - Nature and Youth, and Greenpeace Nordic. They were arguing that recent approvals of three new North Sea oil and gas fields violated the Norwegian Constitution, Norway’s international human rights commitments, AND European Economic Area law.

IZZIE (ENTERING THE COURTROOM)
Excuse me, is this the courtroom for the case against… etc''

IZZIE

The case against the Norwegian state is part of a growing trend – using litigation to push for accountability when it comes to climate change, and to apply pressure to deliver climate action.

[Climate Decoded theme music starts, sparse and slightly reverberant, anticipatory]

LARA

And that trend is what we’re talking about today, on this first episode of season 2 of Climate Decoded.

IZZIE

Yeahhh, season 2!

LARA

(laughs)

[Theme music opens up a bit and plays on]

LARA

On Climate Decoded, we decipher climate change communication. We untangle how different narratives illuminate or obscure pathways to climate justice. I’m Lara Davies-Jones –

IZZIE

And I’m Isabel Baudish.

LARA

In this episode, we’re gonna dig into the pretty dense topic of climate change litigation (also just known as climate litigation)

IZZIE

We’ll look at what it is, how it works, what’s proving difficult, and how it changes how we talk about and act on climate change. So if you’ve ever had the casual desire to take a government or megabucks corporation to court over woeful climate action, listen on.

LARA

And if you’ve never had that desire, even more reason to stay on and listen to the Welsh-Aussie double act of me and Izzie as we talk you through it. 

[Theme music fades out]

CHAPTER 1 

IZZIE

That visit to Oslo was just the tip of the iceberg in our learning journey. 

LARA

To flesh out the picture of the growing world of climate litigation, I took a short trip to the spacious, green suburbs of North London. I was there to meet with associate professor Joana Setzer.

[On-the-ground audio from Lara entering Joana Setzer house: knocking sound,  pause while waiting]

LARA

Hi Joana, good to meet you.

JOANA

Good to meet you too.  

LARA
Sorry I'm a bit late, I got held at a red signal at, is it, Willesden junction for a little while.

JOANA
These things happen but thank you so much for coming, how are you?

LARA  

I'm good, I'm a bit sweaty from the tube. How are you?

JOANA

I'm fine, you can keep your shoes on. I was going to offer you some tea and coffee. And I got a nice pastry…

[On-the-ground audio fades out and switches back to narration]

LARA

Joana, aside from plying me with excellent coffee and fresh pastries, works at the London School of Economics (LSE). Before this, she was an environmental lawyer in her home country of Brazil, but she’s now based at  LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Sat around the large wooden dining table in her front room, Joana told me about the institute’s work. 

JOANA

The Grantham Institute is a centre that is, tries to produce robust research, but also impactful research and research that can be applied, that speaks to real problems, and that we actually speak to people and practitioners who are out there working in the world.

LARA

To gather that research, she works with a range of people in the legal and climate spheres — from climate activists and NGOs to lawyers and judges. Since 2021, Joana and her team have created the annual Global Trends Report, which pretty much acts as a compass for anyone involved in today’s topic. A big part of that work is tracking climate litigation around the world.

JOANA

So the first part of what we do in our global trends report is to look at our big spreadsheets that we have, with all 1000s of cases that have been identified. And we do first an analysis of big trends, numbers.

LARA

The latest global trends report is from 2023. And in that report,

JOANA

There are 1000, sorry, 1500 around in the US, and another 1000 something outside of the US. So the majority of the cases are in the US, altogether we're talking about 2700 cases, approximately, that have been identified as climate litigation, so quite a narrow definition that means that these are cases that explicitly deal with issues of climate change science, or law.

IZZIE

So that's a cumulative total of 2700 documented cases, with over half of them in the US…

LARA

Yep, America has a fairly litigious culture.  And the rest of the cases are dotted around Australia, Europe, the UK, and then growing numbers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. That’s the very big picture.

IZZIE

As part of that big picture, Joana also gave us the beginning of a definition of climate litigation.

LARA

Right. Like she said — cases that explicitly deal with issues of climate change science, or law.

IZZIE

Climate litigation can be a bit harder to pin down than other forms of litigation. Other bodies of law are typically unified by a specific doctrine. E.g. contract law cases are unified by contract law, environmental planning cases are unified by planning laws. Climate change litigation is instead unified by the aim being pursued, catalytic action on climate change. So it's quite a departure from the way lawyers usually approach cases. 

LARA

At its core, climate litigation is a legal action to force governments and corporations to do more on climate action, and to hold them to account. It can use domestic, international or soft law — that’s non-legally binding things like recommendations or guidelines. 

IZZIE

And it can be utilised by both individuals, like you or like me, and by groups of individuals, say like a community or NGO.  So climate change litigation enables an individual or community to not only challenge a government or big corporation, but potentially win against them.

[long pause]

IZZIE

So. We’ve got this powerful legal tool which we can use to hold governments and large corporations to account when it comes to climate action – what's holding it back?

LARA

First and foremost, it’s a new-ish field. Climate litigation first emerged out of environmental litigation, cases which mainly drew on environmental planning laws to prevent pollution-loaded developments that posed harms to specific groups. But the more specific focus on climate, and expansion to using other legal frameworks, happened more recently 

ISABELLA

In about 2014/15, I started having a chat with lawyers, who were investigating the possibility of bringing cases, lawsuits against governments to try and prod them into acting concertedly on climate change.

LARA

That’s Isabella Kaminski. She’s a journalist specialising in climate change and was one of the first to cover and write about climate change litigation cases in the news, recognising it as an interesting new trend across the world. When she first started talking with lawyers about climate litigation in 2014…

ISABELLA

It was really a really kind of far-fetched idea. I remember one lawyer telling me to call back in 50 years time.

LARA

Fortunately she didn’t have to wait 50 years for climate litigation to kick off. 

IZZIE

In fact, there’s so much happening that Isabella now writes a newsletter called The Wave which focuses exclusively on climate litigation and climate justice; we’ll pop a link in the show notes. 

LARA

In fact, there have now been several successful cases.

IZZIE

Like the Urgenda case, in the Netherlands.

LARA

Yeah, it’s probably one of the best known climate change litigation cases. A Dutch environmental organisation called the Urgenda Foundation, along with 800+ Dutch citizens, successfully established that the Dutch government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change and must cut its emissions by 25%. That case was ruled in 2019.

IZZIE

Every successful case has a ripple effect. Cases beget cases beget cases, all pushing us towards change.

[Theme music starts again for a few seconds to signal transition to chapter two]

CHAPTER 2

IZZIE

Okay. So say you have a climate-related problem. How do you go from being an individual, or group of individuals, who want to take some form of legal action against a government or corporation, to actually getting inside a courtroom? And how do you get from there, through the actual meat of the case, to changing the broader climate story?

LARA

Well, the act of suing your government — or a corporation, etc. — can come about in a lot of different ways. Joana talked about this. 

JOANA

If you look at the whole body of climate litigation, the cases are very diverse. And this is partially because there are cases all around the world and the legal systems are different.

LARA

The premise of climate change litigation is to use the law as a method for forcing governments and corporations into bolder and better climate action and holding them to account. So the first step is to figure out the legal framework of a particular case, like on what legal grounds are you bringing a case to court?

JOANA

Even within one country, you can bring climate cases using very different areas of law. So you can have a climate case that is based on tort law, in criminal law, tax law, human rights law, planning law. And that's just a few examples. And each one of these cases will be completely different. 

IZZIE

So take the Urgenda case we talked about earlier, as an example — what were the legal grounds for that? 

LARA

Strictly speaking that was tort law – which focuses on civil wrongdoing primarily between private persons. But as the case progressed, it became more centred on human rights – specifically the violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) under the European Convention on Human Rights. The upshot was that it actually became one of the first major wins for a climate litigation case driven by human rights. 

IZZIE

And in fact the Oslo case I went to, against the Norwegian state, also drew on human rights legislation! So Urgenda was a bit of a watershed moment. 

LARA

In the global north, definitely. But there was a similar case taking place in Pakistan even before that, known as Leghari v. Pakistan which also centred on human rights. The case was brought by Asghar Leghari, who is a lawyer and a farmer. His family farm was suffering from the impacts of climate change. So he argued that the Pakistani government had failed to adequately implement its climate change policies, thereby violating his fundamental human rights. And he won on those grounds, making it the most prominent human rights-based case in the Global South. 

IZZIE

By centring on human rights, these cases marked a shift in the trajectory of climate litigation. Cases since have argued for action on the basis of the threat against specific groups – those with asthma, children, those with sacred lands threatened – and also on the basis of the distinct harms themselves, such as right to life and right to culture practice. 

LARA

Because if there is a hierarchy of cases, the protection of human rights is at the top. Especially the most precious valued human right, which is the right to life. That upgrades every case to a case of real importance, which the court has to say something about. And if successful, the court can then find a government or company negligent, and with a duty of care to act. 

IZZIE

So are there any other legal framings that are hot in climate litigation right now? 

LARA

Well, the other one which comes to mind is a wide body of cases based on financial accountability. Shareholders are starting to sue financial firms for not considering the risk of climate change in investment portfolios, thereby compelling commitments to divest from fossil fuels. 

[Pause and theme music starts playing gently in the background]

IZZIE

So would you say it’s possible to identify a kinda generalised criteria for what makes different climate litigation cases successful?

LARA

Honestly? Not really. Legislation varies from region to region, country to country, so generalising success factors is very difficult. So a local lawyer in South Korea for example will know what the South Korean legislation allows them to do. But this is likely to be different from a local lawyer in Germany working with german legislation. Different international coalitions still play an important role in bridging diverse legal systems, with the Climate Litigation Network an example of lawyers working to inspire, incubate and support other cases around the world.

[Theme music fades out]

IZZIE

So you’ve got the case you wanna bring against a government or corporation. You’ve figured out its legal grounding. Now what? 

LARA

Well unsurprisingly, there’s a load of work to be done. Lawyers spend hours, days and sometimes nights reading up on a whole range of materials. They look into the jurisprudence bits — that’s the science or philosophy of law — to identify other cases they could mention in support of their case. They also dig up info on previous cases, draw up any necessary documents, and crucially, enlist additional support and evidence for their case. 

IZZIE

And then the case gets called into court. 

LARA

Lawyers, judges, defendants, plaintiffs, the press and public assemble. Isabella has sat in on numerous courtrooms. 

ISABELLA

So it's not like, they're not sparks of fireworks. It's not, you know, an American TV, you know, court drama at all.

LARA

And you also sat in on the court case in Oslo, right Iz? How would you describe it?

IZZIE

So disclaimer, I don't speak Norwegian, and this case was...mostly in Norwegian.

[Mixture of English and Norwegian legal jargon audio bites from the Norway case plays for about 10 seconds]

IZZIE

Now, I only sat in on a few hours of proceedings, for a trial that ended up lasting a week. I can say it was a lot of talking, a lot of legal jargon. And yes, while it was a far cry from any 'You can't handle the truth' esque legal climax, there was definitely a slow burn tension in the air, and an energy of fierce determination particularly from the folks sat on the Greenpeace and Youth and Nature bench.

LARA

Yeah, I guess there is a huge amount of energy and time that’s gone in already, there’s a lot at stake. Isabella told me about one of the earliest cases she covered, which had an unusually young audience.

ISABELLA

During the hearing – so normally in a UK court, you're not allowed to have young people there, there are actually signs outside the court saying no under 14, presumably so it's not disruptive. But in that case, they allowed teachers to bring some children in. So there was one teacher with a whole class, and lots of young people.

LARA

The teacher wanted the kids there because one of the things the case touched on was how the UK was going to meet its net zero target for 2050. And she said you could just feel the imbalances of power and consequences.

ISABELLA

What struck me was that the judge was talking about 2050 in a sort of abstract way, in front of a whole group of children, some of whom could understand, some of them were very tiny, but who would experience it, who would be there in 2050 to see the consequences of that, and brutally, the judge wouldn't be.

[Longer pause for reflection, accompanied by musical chimes and soft percussion]

CHAPTER 3 

IZZIE

Building up a climate litigation case is resource-intensive. From determining the legal validity, doing all the prep work and then bringing all of the parts of the case together coherently - its a long process. 

LARA

To understand the scale of that, I talked with the strategic litigation director for the Open Society Justice Center.

WAIKWA

Waikwa Wanyoike — I've been with the Justice Initiative, in this role since 2018, October 2018. So just shy of six years now. My role primarily is to oversee litigation that Justice Initiative is bringing or  involved in. And that's strategic litigation, these litigations spans different subject areas, from international justice issues, to digital, to national security, to consumer protection, but also significantly, and especially lately, on climate change and environmental issues.

LARA

Strategic climate litigation essentially is a more calculated approach to undertaking legal action on climate change - cases filed with the goal of influencing the broader debate around climate change decision-making. So beyond winning a specific dispute, trying to win legal inroads that will support systemic change. 

IZZIE

And what did Waikwa see as the key resources needed when pulling together a case? 

LARA

Well, the first one is the legal experts themselves.

WAIKWA

So for me, the resources question always starts with the capacity question, the personnel capacity question.  Because when you are thinking about it in the context of litigation, ideas of litigation, they may not start with a lawyer, but very quickly needs to go to a lawyer, or for a lawyer to be able to say, is the issue you're raising amenable to litigation, because we know what is amenable to litigation, can be fairly limited.

IZZIE

So you need lawyers who can think creatively and clearly frame complex scientific issues in line with litigation.

LARA

And then you need judges who are also prepared to think outside the box. It’s the judge who does the assessment, ultimately, and decides whether they are convinced by those who have brought the case. 

IZZIE

So that covers the legal expertise – what else?

WAIKWA

And so you always have to think that this is not your regular litigation where lawyers and judges are much familiar with issues. In fact, solutions, information and solutions on climate change, that expertise lies outside the court.

LARA

Every case is informed by lots of technical information and community knowledge. You need to get that right if you want the case to have a good outcome.

IZZIE

Like if you have a case about coral reefs and marine life, you need to be talking with marine biologists and biodiversity experts.

LARA

Precisely. And to this end, there’s an emerging frontier within science communication to train scientists to be expert witnesses for courts, and to better communicate their research within legal settings.  

IZZIE

And then in addition to technical expertise, you have the often overlooked yet invaluable role of community expertise.

WAIKWA

Because we also forget the role of communities, both as experts in terms of their ability to bring expertise to court, but also in terms of the ability to build the infrastructure that you need to make litigation impactful - oral literature. Again, if you bring a case on biodiversity, the impact on climate change and the impact on biodiversity, who's your best starting expert? And you're talking about the impact to a community, who is your first best impact? It might be the oldest guy in the community, to be able to give the oral history in terms of what biodiversity looked like 70 years back, and how it's changed over time.

[Short pause]

IZZIE

So the key ingredients of a case are legal expertise, technical expertise, and community expertise.

LARA

Exactly that. And that’s how you create a direct line of communication between science, communities, and the law.

IZZIE

Okay. So you have to pull all those resources together…that's already a lot. 

LARA

Yup. And there are still a few hurdles to cross.

IZZIE

I feel like this is where money is going to come in.

LARA

Yup, it’s a biggie. Climate litigation can be expensive, so if you want to bring  a claim, you generally have to be well-funded. You’ve got the legal fees, fees for the lawyers themselves, and fees for the experts. And if you lose, sometimes you have to pay the other party’s fees too.

IZZIE

I guess being well-funded becomes even more important when you consider the fact that you’re challenging big companies, like fossil fuel giants, who are obscenely wealthy and will put a hefty budget in their books to fight the case.

LARA

Totally. And if you’re a small organisation, a small community or an individual, that’s a huge challenge. It also matters where the case is happening. Like in the U.S., which has that litigious culture, it’s cheaper to make a legal case than in the UK. When there are more trained lawyers and resources available, there is more capacity to take on cases – 

IZZIE

Hence why there have been more cases to date in the Global North. 

LARA

There are charitable organisations that put money into litigation, but more are working in the Global North than in the Global South. This disparity in funding is tied to investors and charities preferring to invest in cases with a perceived strong chance of success. When there is less expertise available to support a case, the odds of success reduce. And even if the expertises is available, Waikwa said the powers that be can sometimes interfere.

WAIKWA

So if you go to a country like my home country, Kenya, you're looking for marine biologists, maybe there are only so many marine biologist, unlike in the UK, where you have so many of them, but then what you find in a situation like that, is that most of those marine biologists actually rely significantly on income from government. And you're suing the government. Are they going to be your expert? Right? So so there’s also these sort of unique challenges that you face, even when you're thinking about experts, that it's not always that easy to be able to put experts in every case.

[Short pause]

IZZIE

Okay, so the key hurdles when moving a case forward are getting funding  and recruiting experts. What else?

LARA

Waikwa said the third big challenge is a communications issue – getting your case in the media headlines. Urgenda, the case we mentioned in the Netherlands, was particularly effective in generating media buzz. 

WAIKWA

Name me one of the leading climate change cases … I’m sure nearly everybody will mention Urgenda. I doubt how many people would mention Leghari, the case in Pakistan, which was decided way before Urgenda and actually made the same argument in the context of Pakistan.

LARA

So despite being earlier and making the same case, the Leghari case didn’t get nearly as much media coverage. Global North climate litigation cases are generally better profiled and better known. And that’s part of an issue that’s a whole lot bigger than just climate litigation cases.

WAIKWA

It's a problem that arises from other systemic problems. The media, what the media ordinarily thinks is useful, and how the media generally profiles, how many of the global north media profile issues of the global south? Yet, when you go to global south, global south media do tend to profile issues of global north, right? So so those kinds of deep rooted systemic issues are part of the problem that are seeping into the climate change.

[Longer pause  accompanied by slow, synthy, reverberating music]

CHAPTER 4  

IZZIE

Okay. So now we know what it takes to make climate litigation cases happen – and how hard it can be. How effective have they actually been in creating change?

LARA

Waikwa and Joana both talked about that.

WAIKWA

The good thing with litigation, unlike any other set of advocacy is the formality that it brings to the process, so that when a judge says, actually, your target doesn't comply with either international law, or even your own law, then the state has an obligation to do something and do something right away. If a judge says no, you can't explore anymore on fuels, fossil fuel, the state has to stop exploration.

JOANA

Governments and corporations are becoming increasingly aware. And if you want to use the term scared, I think that's a possible term to be used, of the risk of litigation. So either they have been directly involved, or they know that there is a risk that they will be. And that in itself could change behaviour before a case is filed. 

IZZIE

So there are two reasons driving governments and corporations to change: successful cases, and fears of future cases being brought. Do we know what proportion of cases are successful?

LARA

We have a rough idea – around 50-something percent of cases have been ruled in favour of climate action. Like the well-known Urgenda case, which brought about direct changes in the law and policy. Some types of cases are typically more successful than others. 

JOANA

The successful cases that we've been seeing a growth in these last few years have been the greenwashing cases, the climate washing, because it's pretty, I mean, I don't want to make it sound like it's easy, but it's pretty easy to win those cases. I usually give this example of my children and you know, that advertisement by BP saying BP is green, BP invests heavily on renewables, and then you get the balance sheets and you see BP invest 0.01%, my children would be able to decide that this is climate washing, greenwashing.

IZZIE

Ok so greenwashing cases have been successful in court and then presumably bad for those businesses?

LARA

Yes, definitely,  as such cases negatively impact a corporation’s reputation, which sometimes causes a drop in their share prices. 

IZZIE

What about cases that seek compensation, getting companies to pay for damages caused by their big volumes of emissions? 

LARA

Nope, there’s not been one single case successful on those grounds. Largely because it’s pretty difficult to prove that the emissions of a particular corporation have contributed to climate change events. It’s not impossible though, the science exists, it just takes time to bring it all together. 

IZZIE

Do you think we’ll ever see such a case?

LARA

Potentially. Many people equate it with tobacco litigation where there was eventually one big case that was successful and resulted in a large financial settlement. 

IZZIE

Okay, so we’re still waiting on that big one. With all these cases, just having them happening at all is pretty inspiring. 

LARA

Isabella, the journalist who covers climate litigation, is feeling pretty positive about the potential of climate litigation to inspire and drive change too.

ISABELLA

I know when I talk to people about it, it's... there's something appealing about a court drama, right? So it gives you a way of talking about people. And organisations kind of going against the big polluters and doing something tangible. So for me, the really, really big thing about it is that it's quite a sort of positive thing. It's people doing something practical and actionable with potentially tangible results.

IZZIE

Climate litigation -' A way of talking about people' - so it's a pretty useful climate comms tool too then.

LARA

Absolutely. Climate litigation has the innate ability to take climate change beyond the science and emphasise human stories, the more everyday stuff. 

IZZIE

Like the Leghari case, in Pakistan. We can put a name and face to it, along with Leghari’s lived experience of climate change impacts. 

LARA

Right — Individual people’s narratives underscore the legal arguments in climate litigation cases. And those narratives help journalists — like Isabella — tell the stories of climate litigation and climate change itself. And that means that if climate change feels far away, far removed, climate litigation stories bring it closer to home. Or if climate change is something you feel intimately acquainted with, the stories can show how people are pushing back to create a safer world.

IZZIE

Either way, it stimulates better engagement and ultimately more action. So that’s not necessarily the direct goal of climate litigation, but it’s a great indirect impact.

LARA

It also seems like taking the science into that judicial space makes it less of an esoteric subject trapped amongst scientists. And it makes the science more accessible — even for judges.

JOANA

Usually in terms of language, scientific language, the judge would have the same need, as most people out there. So the scientists had to go through all this effort of explaining and the lawyers have to then speak to the science and translate that so the judges understand and once that happens, it's accessible.

LARA

So its reach extends far beyond the courtroom, to non-scientists like you and me. And like Isabella has said, that’s where we’re trying to get this information – to everybody.

ISABELLA

So part of the point of these cases, sure people want to win, they want the judge to come out and say, yeah your arguments are correct, we want governments or companies to do something, but actually part of it is the winning hearts and minds. And that's that's where communication comes in, that telling these stories and saying that these people are willing to put their their time, their energy, their name on the line, to to bring this case shows how seriously they're taking it. And, and that's, that's part of the task to get the message out there. It's a tool for getting real stories about climate change into the public arena or into the press.

[Theme music comes back in for about 15 seconds]

OUTRO

IZZIE

So where do we go from here? What comes next for climate litigation? 

LARA

Well litigation is shaping up to be a key tool in the suite of actions fighting climate change. Here's Waikwa:

WAIKWA

The government is not doing enough. And it needs to do enough. And litigation becomes the battleground … because you're able to bring experts to explain why the government is not doing enough.

IZZIE

And this legal battleground is slowly but steadily collecting wins. In a story close to home, remember that court case in Oslo? Well, the news came through in January that organisation Youth and Nature, together with Greenpeace Nordic, had secured a historic victory. The verdict ruled that the three oil and gas fields in question had been unlawfully  approved and that production should be stopped immediately. That's mitigating a heck of a lot of carbon emissions right there. We’ll pop information about this case in the show notes if you want to learn more. 

[Short pause]

LARA

From a big picture perspective, climate litigation cases are increasing, and the legal arguments are diversifying. And hopefully the more successful cases, the more legal precedents to support new cases! 

ISABELLA

I just think it's going to become, what, climate change will come so broad, it'll be in everything. You know, it'll just be another part of business life, or homeowners life saying, oh, yeah, my house has been flooded, I'm going to try and get compensation for that. Is that really, it's it's caused by climate change, almost certainly. Is it going to be a climate change case, it'll just be part of life, right.

[Theme plays to signal end of episode]

CREDITS

LARA

You’ve been listening to Climate Decoded. Climated Decoded is produced by Chantal Cough-Schulze, Isabelle Baudish, Kim Kenny, Greg Davies-Jones, Jens Wendel-Hansen, Jamie Stark, Gracie Neher, Alex Teske and me, Lara Heledd Davies-Jones.

To read the transcript and see resources we mentioned in the episode, check out the link in the show notes. To keep up with the podcast, follow us on all the socials – we’re at climate_decoded on Instagram and X, and Climate Decoded Podcast on LinkedIn.

To support the show, hit that follow button on your podcast platform of choice and drop us a rating or review. You can also donate to the podcast – every little bit helps us bring you more climate content. You can find the link to donate in the show notes.

Thanks for helping us get more people thinking about, talking about, and acting on climate change.

Catch you soon. 

[Theme music plays for 25 seconds and then fades out]