It Could Happen Here - The Efficiency Paradox

Episode Date: November 18, 2021

We're told that increasing energy efficiency will make a big impact on decreasing our carbon emissions, but what if that isn't really the case? Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You should probably keep your lights on for Nocturnal Tales from the Shadowbride. Join me, Danny Trejo, and step into the flames of fright. An anthology podcast of modern-day horror stories inspired by the most terrifying legends and lore of Latin America. Listen to Nocturnal on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Curious about queer sexuality, cruising, and expanding your horizons?

Hit play on the sex-positive and deeply entertaining podcast Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Join hosts Gabe Gonzalez and Chris Patterson Rosso as they explore queer sex, cruising, relationships, and culture in the new iHeart podcast,

Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Sniffy's Cruising Confessions will broaden minds and help you pursue your true goals. You can listen to Sniffy's Cruising Confessions, sponsored by Gilead, now on the iHeartRadio app

or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday. Welcome to Gracias Come Again, a podcast by Honey German, where we get real and dive straight into todo lo actual y viral. We're talking music, los premios, el chisme, and all things trending in my cultura. I'm bringing you all the latest happening in our entertainment world and some fun and impactful interviews with your favorite Latin artists, comedians, actors, and

influencers. Each week, we get deep and raw life stories, combos on the issues that matter to us, and it's all packed with gems, fun, straight up comedia, and that's a song that only Nuestra Gente can sprinkle. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline Podcast, and we're kicking off our second season digging into tech's elite and how they've turned Silicon Valley into a playground for billionaires. From the chaotic world of generative AI to the destruction of Google search,

Better Offline is your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech brought to you by an industry veteran with nothing to lose. Listen to Better Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever else you get your podcasts from. Hey everybody, Robert Evans here. This is It Could Happen Here, the show about how things are falling apart and how maybe they could be made a bit better.

Right now, today, we're doing an episode that is based on a, I don't know, essay Garrison wrote and I edited that we think you'll find interesting. So here it goes. Green capitalism promises to deliver us all the same luxuries and commodities that we enjoy today, but without doing net harm to the biosphere. It's the message liberal elites try to hold on when they make their case for being better stewards of the environment than Republicans. This is not untrue, but it's also not true enough to stop your house from flooding or your town from being incinerated

in a hellstorm. When it comes to the methods green capitalism posits by which we might reverse course without changing the direction of the ship, one term you'll hear often is energy efficiency. I want to read a statement I found on whitehouse.gov, a fact sheet on the new U.S. government commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030. I should note that's 50 percent of the 2005 levels, which were like 15 percent higher, something like that. Anyway, here's the quote. The United States can create good-paying jobs and cut emissions and energy costs for families by supporting efficiency upgrades and electrification in buildings through support for job-creating retrofit programs in sustainable affordable housing, wider use of heat pumps and induction

stoves, adoption of modern energy codes for new buildings. The United States will also invest in new technologies to reduce emissions associated with construction, including for high-performance electrified buildings. Now, energy efficiency is in fact a fine goal, and trying to reduce emissions is broadly good. But the sad and kind of weird fact is that increasing efficiency can sometimes mean increasing pollution through what's known as the efficiency paradox, which is, of course, the title of the episode, because what you want, you want us to think of a second title of a separate title from that? Come on. So first off, what does energy efficiency mean? In general terms, energy efficiency refers to the amount of output that can be produced with a given input of energy,

output being stuff that energy is used to do, like light your house or wash your clothing or power your wall-mounted 20-volt vibrator that requires as much electricity as an arc welder in order to use. Energy savings are the reduction of energy use without the loss of output produced. Improved energy efficiency is expected to bring a number of benefits. First of all, reducing energy usage should result in lower energy bills. Ideally, reduced energy demand also means that energy imports can be decreased. The International Energy Agency has estimated that strict efficiency policies could allow the world to achieve more than 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions cuts needed to reach its climate goals,

even without new technology. So there is considerable wiggle room within the existing structures of global society to reduce emissions a lot without fancy space technology. But despite substantial energy efficiency gains in the past few decades and decreases in output from places like the United States, we as a species are using more energy than we have pretty much forever. And emissions wildly surpass our or the Earth's ability to handle them. Quoting from the Global Carbon Project, quote, global energy growth is

outpacing decarbonization. Despite positive progress in 20 countries whose economies have grown over the last decade and their emissions have declined, growth in energy use from fossil fuel sources is still outpacing the rise of low-carbon sources and activities. A robust global economy, insufficient emission reductions in developed countries, and a need for increased energy use in developing countries, where per capita emissions remain far below those of wealthier nations, will continue to put upward pressure on CO2 emissions. They use the term developing and developed. We don't prefer those. But obviously, population growth contributes to all that the growth and the

use of energy and the emissions of carbon, you know, more people, more cars in the road, whatever, but it's not really the primary factor that's adding on to the increase in energy use for the human race. We'll talk about that later, though. For now, it's important to note that the full potential energy savings, like in these kind of hypotheticals about how much could be saved by improving efficiency, are usually estimated by assuming that demand for energy services will remain unchanged after energy efficiency gains. So when they say that we can get 40% of the greenhouse emissions gas reductions we need by increasing efficiency. They're doing that assuming that nothing will change about our overall energy use when we

make things more efficient. But time and time again, we see that once products are made more energy efficient, people often end up consuming, producing, or even using more of the thing, which makes the potential savings less meaningful in a net result. Doesn't mean that it's not a net good, but it's not as much as is often calculated in these climate proposals. You can see this demonstrated on the job if you're in, say, food services. If you happen to figure out how to do a task faster, your boss probably isn't going to let you use that extra time to just chill out and do stuff on your phone. What is the phrase? If you can lean, you can clean. So if you do something faster, now you're just expected to do it faster all the time and output more total work for your boss. This is the paradox of efficiency, and it applies to energy as well

on a societal level. Increased energy efficiency is a double-edged sword, having the potential to help cut emissions by a significant factor and having the potential to help cut emissions by a significant factor, and having the potential to increase our total energy use, depending on what is made more efficient and how people react to it. The idea that energy efficiency improvements can actually lead to more overall energy use goes all the way back to the start of the Industrial Revolution. In 1865, economist William Stanley Jeevans published a book called The Coal Question, in which he argued that innovation and efficiency, particularly in the case of the coal-powered steam engine,

would actually increase the overall consumption of coal rather than reducing it as it had been intended to do. His prediction that efficiency improvements on steam engines would lead to massive economic expansion, accelerating coal consumption, was very much correct. This idea then, dubbed the Jevons Paradox, is still very much worth considering when we discuss efficiency gains and policies that are meant to reduce energy consumption and thereby fight climate change. In modern terms, we describe the process by which potential energy savings can be cut by greater use of the energy-efficient product as the rebound effect. There are two different kinds of rebound effects observed, the most obvious of which is dubbed the direct

rebound effect. Direct rebounds are observed when improvements in energy efficiency for a particular energy service reduces the effective price of that service and thus provides incentives to increase its demand. This leads to the overall increased efficiency not equaling to a reduction in energy use, as good as you might think. Direct rebounds are observed when improvements in energy efficiency for a particular energy service reduces the effective price of that enough that it provides incentives to increase its demand. You may upgrade to a more energy-efficient appliance, but because of the lower energy costs, you'll use the appliance more often and thus use more total energy.

Or in some cases, energy efficiency gains are cut by the fact that more efficient products allow people to use more of that product. For example, someone may get a more efficient fridge that's also much larger, and so even though it cools more efficiently, it's also consuming overall more energy. Transportation has a lot of direct rebounds. Despite massive fuel efficiency gains in recent

years, transportation is still responsible for 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation's contribution to global warming is quickly increasing, with travel producing greater and greater percentages of the planet's carbon footprint. Private automobile tailpipes will drive this phenomenon for the foreseeable future, as the number of active vehicles on the road is projected to grow from 700 million in the year 2000 to 2 billion by 2040. So even though cars are a lot more efficient, vastly more cars are being used. And of course, that's not entirely... It doesn't mean that more efficient cars cause people to buy more cars,

but it does make it more affordable for more people to own cars and to drive them further, which drives up, you know, fuel use and drives up emissions. And you see how the whole problem works. And it's not just cars. When planes became more fuel efficient, ticket prices decreased and more people started to travel by plane. As cost per mile dropped, more miles were flown. The fact that airplanes got more fuel efficient didn't reduce general pollution by the air travel industry. Quite to the contrary, in fact, the decreased emissions led to an increase in air travel, which shot a hell of a lot more poison out into the sky and also gave us eat, pray, love. So the other kinds of rebounds

are indirect rebound effects. This refers to when energy efficiency leads to monetary savings for a producer or consumer, who then can spend those extra savings on other carbon-emitting goods and services that otherwise they couldn't afford. For example, you buy a more fuel-efficient car, you save money on fuel, and you end up with extra funds in your bank account that you can use on a vacation, and maybe you take a flight on that vacation. So in the end, you emit more CO2, despite the fact that you're emitting less CO2 through your car. You've got 500 bucks extra in the bank

and you fly to Mexico on it, right? That's an indirect rebound effect. So even if a product is replaced by a more efficient one with similar specs, lower energy bills can mean that more consumers will have more money to spend on goods and services. This is generally seen as desirable from a social

and economic standpoint, and probably from an individual standpoint, having more money is always useful. But it involves additional energy consumption. It means that you're consuming more, you're emitting more. And so the savings and whatnot haven't actually led to a savings in terms of, you know, from an environmental perspective. An analysis of EU data shows that out of 29 EU countries, 11 experienced rebound effects of over 50%, which means more than half of the gains in energy efficiency were consumed by increases in energy use.

Six of those countries, including Denmark and Finland, reached over 100% rebound effects. This is called a backfire, and it means that in those six countries, extra energy spending overtook all of the efficiency gains achieved. Air conditioning and heating are large contributors to both direct and indirect rebounds. A rebound effect as large as 60% has been shown in increased improvements in efficiency in the residential heating sector, which is something that the White House specifically crowed about

in their paper. In China, long-term rebound effects ranging from 46% to 56% for residential electricity consumption in Beijing have been estimated. All of this data casts doubt on the wisdom of relying on energy efficiency policies to reduce energy demand. I'm going to quote here from a report by the Copenhagen School of Energy Infrastructure. In recent decades, large increases in demand for energy services have globally driven energy consumption. As a counterbalance, energy efficiency has become a key energy policy mechanism to tackle higher energy consumption and emissions, and countries and regions have adopted different targets and policies to achieve energy and environmental objectives. The main goals of these policies are to minimize the dependence on fossil fuels and

mitigate local air pollution and GHG emissions. This has been particularly relevant for the energy-intensive sectors. The development and deployment of more efficient technologies are, along with more technology management, the main channel to achieve these environmental and energy objectives. However, energy efficiency improvements can lead to changes in the demand for energy services, changes that offset some of the expected energy savings. Consequently, forecasts of energy consumption reductions may be overstated. As evidenced by the empirical literature, rebound effects can be a non-negligible issue. Therefore, ignoring them can imply an overestimation of the benefits coming from

energy efficiency improvements. This can in turn lead to decisions such as the over-allocation of public funds to ineffective environmental and energy policies. Policymakers need to take rebound effects into account for air quality, energy security, and climate change policy reasons. A rebound effect different from zero implies that the expected proportional reductions in emissions from fuel efficiency improvements might not be achieved. Therefore, the policy goals to reach specific levels of emissions through fuel efficiency enhancements may need to be adjusted accordingly. Welcome, I'm Danny Thrill. Won't you join me at the fire and dare enter? Nocturnum, Tales from the Shadows, presented by iHeart and Sonora. An anthology of modern-day horror stories inspired by the legends of Latin America.

From ghastly encounters with shapeshifters to bone-chilling brushes with supernatural creatures. I know you. to bone-chilling brushes with supernatural creatures. I know you. Take a trip and experience the horrors that have haunted Latin America since the beginning of time. Listen to Nocturnal Tales from the Shadows as part of My Cultura podcast network, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey, I'm Gianna Prandti. And I'm Jimei Jackson-Gadsden. We're the hosts of Let's Talk Offline, the early career podcast from LinkedIn News and iHeart Podcasts. One of the most exciting things about having your first real job is that first real paycheck. You're probably thinking, yay, I can finally buy a new phone. But you also have a lot of questions like, how should I be investing this money? I mean, how much do I save?

And what about my 401k? Well, we're talking with finance expert Vivian Tu, aka Your Rich BFF, to break it all down. I always get roasted on the internet when I say this out loud, but I'm like, every single year, you need to be asking for a raise of somewhere between 10 to 15%. I'm not saying you're going to get 15% every single year, but if you ask for 10 to 15 and you end up getting eight, that is actually a true raise. Listen to this week's episode of Let's Talk Offline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Jack Peace Thomas, the host of a brand new Black Effect original series, Black Lit, the podcast for diving deep into the rich world of Black literature. I'm Jack Peace Thomas, and I'm inviting you to join me in a vibrant community of literary enthusiasts dedicated to protecting and celebrating our stories.

Black Lit is for the page turners, for those who listen to audiobooks while commuting or running errands, for those who find themselves seeking solace, wisdom, and refuge between the chapters. From thought-provoking novels to powerful poetry, we'll explore the stories that shape our culture. Together, we'll dissect classics and contemporary works while uncovering the stories of the brilliant writers behind them. Blacklit is here to amplify the voices of Black writers and to bring their words to life. Listen to Black Lit on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Curious about queer sexuality, cruising, and expanding your horizons? Hit play on the sex-positive and deeply entertaining podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Join hosts Gabe Gonzalez and Chris Patterson Rosso as they explore queer sex, cruising, relationships, and culture in the new iHeart podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Sniffy's Cruising Confessions will broaden minds and help you pursue your true goals. You can listen to Sniffy's Cruising Confessions, sponsored by Gilead, now on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday. or wherever you get your podcasts.

New episodes every Thursday. Again, we have nothing against the idea of making more efficient devices. The point is that energy efficiency can't be pursued in a vacuum. It has to coincide with changes to a less extractive, cancerous mindset regarding the Earth's resources and carrying capacity. Just telling someone you can drive more for less money now,

or you can afford to keep your TV on all the time, doesn't really help anything. My fear is that governments and corporations, the neoliberal leviathan as we've come to call it on this show, will focus almost overwhelmingly on energy efficiency to maintain economic growth and obscure the overall lack of action on stopping carbon emissions. Think Joe Biden doing donuts in an electric Jeep. Through such a lens as the Biden administration, energy efficiency as a foil to climate change is a charade, being used to keep relentless economic growth viewed as a net good. It plays into the myth that we'll be able to mitigate, adapt, and survive the effects of

climate change with little to no change to our current lifestyles. What we need to do is decouple human well-being from energy consumption and consumption in general to effectively combat climate change. This needs to happen at such a scale that advocating for individual changes in lifestyle will never be enough, but that is still a significant part of the puzzle. The trick comes in getting people to accept the fact that their life will need to change without them telling them, and buying this product instead of that product is how you do it. That said, populations of people can and do change their behaviors in pretty profound ways. In 1950, abortion was not at all an issue for the religious right.

Resistance to abortion might make some Protestants distrust you, because that was seen as a Catholic concern. Now abortion is the defining political issue of the ascendant right. Their promise to destroy it is the rock upon which their titanic power is based. In a less calamitous sense, since 2007, we've gone from a time in which smartphones were expensive trash for rich people to buy, to today, when they're expensive trash that every human being who can afford to has to carry at all times because they're so utterly integrated to our daily life.

So yes, people can change. A bigger challenge, though, will be to change the mindset of industry, which is not entirely or even often driven by consumer demand. As we've seen with the release of papers proving Chevron and other oil and gas companies knew about and deliberately hid research on climate change for decades, big capital will put its thumb on the scale every step of the way. In other words, if you come at the behemoth that is the integrated industrial economy, you'd best come correct. How do we do that? Well, if anybody really knew, they would have, you know, done it by now. The human infrastructure of extractive capitalism is deep and vast and tightly woven into the structure of every government with any real power. So, with the full understanding and admission that we aren't claiming to have solutions to that problem,

let's talk about something that will at least be part of any real solution to the problem. Degrowth. This is a term we'll explain in more detail later, but we mean it simply as a holistic approach to encouraging reduction in energy consumption and global environmental justice. A paper on the Jevons paradox and the link between innovation, efficiency, and sustainability for the frontiers in energy research concluded, quote, the Jevons paradox entails that sustainability problems cannot be solved by technological innovations alone. They must be solved through institutional and behavioral changes. While there are still differences of opinion about the scale of rebound effects

and ongoing arguments about the macro and micro and longer and shorter term consequences of efficiency, our interest in this topic today is driven by the goal of improving how we use energy rather than totally overhauling or abandoning efficiency. One example would be the current fight in Europe over smartphone chargers. Most of the rest of the smartphone industry worldwide has jumped onto USB-C as the right kind of port for charging, etc. with your device. Before this point, those of you who've been using smartphones for a decade or more remember there were tons of different chargers and thus a ton of different waste. Every phone had to come with a new charger. A lot of them wound up in the trash.

That has been reduced by everyone jumping onto USB-C. But Apple continues to use their own special charger. And now the EU is promising to make a law to mandate USB-C for charging new phones in an attempt to reduce waste. This isn't, again, a bad thing. But if someone's really concerned with waste among the smartphone industry, planned obsolescence is the thing to go after. Now, targeting planned obsolescence, stopping it, includes a number of things. And for one thing, you have to fight for the right to repair devices, which is something that a number of corporations, not just in the smartphone industry,

have lobbied to, in some cases, make illegal. More than that, it's stopping somehow these companies from making the conscious decision to brick old technology to increase profits. And that aspect of it is the bigger enemy than even the right to repair. As electronic devices become common in more sectors of daily life via the internet of things, the overall share of global energy use that goes to making new versions of old products that could still be working but are designed to break, is really quite depressing. For one example of how large it must be, I haven't found any solid information on the total size of this industry, things that you have to repeatedly rebuy because they're meant to break.

But the mobile phone industry in 2019 alone was 4.6% of global GDP. So that's close to 5% of global GDP just from making phones that are designed to break so you have to buy a new phone. This is an example of an area in which people's perspectives have to be changed. And I think actually that digital fatigue, the fact that we're all so fucking exhausted with these devices these days, may provide somewhat of an inroad for convincing people that they need to buy new gadgets less often. But because these gadgets are so crucial to daily life, the industry actually also has to be forced to change. And again, right repair is one part of this, but that doesn't stop Apple from just deciding to throttle their old devices whenever they need to add a new layer to

the money pile. Our overall point with all this is that solutions to climate change have to be cultural and not just based in some version of we'll invent a better version and that will solve the problem. Hybrid gas burning cars and standardized charging cords are nibbling around the edges of the problem. Relying on technological advances pacifies us in the present, and it reinforces the need for certain types of human-material codependence, and that kind of codependence leads to increased dependency and more extraction. By no means am I trying to say that innovation is bad. I love gadgets as much as the next person. Innovation also has the capacity to heavily

decrease resource extraction. It just has to be tailored with something more than just, we'll make this device more efficient so we can use it more or sell more of them. The capitalist mode of mass resource extraction and grind for efficiency are intertwined, and if we are to limit the most catastrophic effects of climate change, we as a culture need to rethink how we view efficiency and energy use. For the past few hundred years, economic growth has been the road that has led to our current ecological dilemma. The fantasy of switching over to nuclear and renewable energy with a perfectly efficient electric grid to just sidestep climate collapse is, it's a fantasy. We missed our chance to do that. Even if we stop all carbon emissions right

now, all of them, the carbon already in the atmosphere would push us past two degrees Celsius of warming in about 50 years. So what, besides carbon capture, can we do about this? We as in both you, the regular listener and the ghouls with power and real influence. Well, the 2018 International Panel on Climate Change special report indicated that in the absence of speculative negative emissions technologies, the only feasible way to remain within safe carbon budgets was for high income nations to actively slow down the pace of material production and consumption. Degrowth is the planned reduction of energy use, corporate profits, overproduction, and excess consumption designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality while focusing

on human and ecological well-being. This isn't just some sort of utopian Marxist thinking, and in fact, a lot of Marxists have critiques of degrowth. And degrowth could be applied to a number of different economic and governmental systems. There are even some weirdo capitalist advocates of degrowth. Discussion about solving climate change can get into uncomfortable eugenics-y territory if you aren't careful. So I should emphasize here that degrowth is primarily about already wealthy countries limiting their economic growth. When aggregated in terms of income, the richest half of the world, high and upper middle income countries, emit 86% of global CO2 emissions. The bottom half, lower and middle income countries, emit only 14%. With very few exceptions,

the richer the nation is, the more it emits. It's all part of the resource extraction infinite growth lie we tell ourselves to keep growing. Wealth is so much more of a factor in emissions than population. North America is home to only 5% of the world population, but emits nearly 18% of CO2. Asia is home to 60% of the world's population, but emits just 49% of CO2. Africa has 16 percent of the population, but emits just 4 percent of its CO2. This is reflected in per capita emissions. The average North American emits 17 times more than the average African. This inequality in global emissions lies at the heart of why international agreement on climate change has and continues to be so contentious. The richest countries in the world are home to half the world population and emit 86% of CO2. We want global incomes and living standards, especially for those of the

poorest half of the world, to rise. The only way to do that while limiting climate change is to shrink the emissions of high-income countries. Even several billion additional people in low-income nations would leave global emissions almost unchanged. Three or four billion poor individuals would only account for a few percent of global CO2. At the other end of the distribution, however, adding only one billion high-income individuals to the wealthiest parts of the world would increase global emissions by almost a third. A programmer in the United States has a higher CO2 footprint than 50 farmers in Uganda. A decent chunk of this is just due to meat consumption. Meat consumption per capita in the richest 15 countries

is 750% higher than in the poorest 24 countries. Lowering the population of, say, Uruguay, won't do much for emissions. This is not the case when you talk about wealthy nations. In fact, if you live in, say, the United States, possibly the biggest thing you as an individual could do to reduce emissions is to have fewer, or no, children.

It's estimated that dedicated recycling curbs about.3 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, while having one fewer child is equivalent to preventing over 58 tons of CO2 emissions a year. Better sex ed and free access to contraceptives could also go a shockingly long way to curbing individual emission in wealthy countries. These numbers are averaged across a whole nation, and just like the case in less wealthy countries, the impact on emissions by having one fewer kid will be far lesser if your middle class are poor than it would be if your upper middle class are rich. But of course, none of that is going to be enough if industrial production keeps chugging along. And advising people not to have children, one of the singular driving motivations for human beings across history,

isn't exactly a vote-getter of a proposition. Degrowth is critical, but the question of how to get there is thorny as hell. There are a few easy answers. Abolishing planned obsolescence could be pretty easily pitched to the average person. Cutting down on the number of people who have to commute could have a significant impact on toxic car culture. and again, you can sell that to people. The obvious solutions are good places to start, but they should be seen as opening incisions, meant to clear the way to make deeper, more expansive cuts,

and eventually hew away at the cancer we've planted in the heart of our civilization. the heart of our civilization. It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It Could Happen Here updated monthly at coolzonemedia.com slash sources. Thanks for listening. You should probably keep your lights on for Nocturnal Tales from the Shadow. Join me, Danny Trails,

and step into the flames of rife. An anthology podcast of modernday horror stories inspired by the most terrifying legends and lore of Latin America. Listen to Nocturno on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Curious about queer sexuality, cruising, and expanding your horizons? Hit play on the sex-positive and deeply entertaining podcast Sniffy's Cruising Confessions.

Join hosts Gabe Gonzalez and Chris Patterson Rosso as they explore queer sex, cruising, relationships, and culture in the new iHeart podcast, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions. Sniffy's Cruising Confessions will broaden minds and help you pursue your true goals. You can listen to Sniffy's Cruising Confessions, sponsored by Gilead, now on the iHeartRadio app

or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday. Welcome to Gracias Come Again, a podcast by Honey German, where we get real and dive straight into todo lo actual y viral. We're talking musica, los premios, el chisme, and all things trending in my cultura. I'm bringing you all the latest happening in our entertainment world and some fun and impactful interviews with your favorite Latin artists, comedians, actors, and influencers.

Each week, we get deep and raw life stories, combos on the issues that matter to us. And it's all packed with gems, fun, straight up comedia, and that's a song that only Nuestra Gente can sprinkle. Listen to Gracias Come Again on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast. or wherever you get your podcasts. your unvarnished and at times unhinged look at the underbelly of tech brought to you by an industry veteran with nothing to lose listen to better offline on the iheart radio app apple podcasts wherever else you get your podcasts from