The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Bridge Encore Presentation - Climate Change -- Let's Talk About It

Episode Date: July 24, 2023

Today an encore presentation of an episode that originally aired on March 27th. Professor Katharine Hayhoe is a Canadian atmospheric scientist living in Texas who is one of North America's leading academics talking about climate change.  She's calm. reasonable but still passionate that we aren't doing enough. She's our guest today.  Plus a new answer on the old question of why do journalists only cover bad news -- you're the answer!

The following is an encore presentation of The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge, originally broadcast on March 27th. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Climate change. You wanted to talk about it. We're going to talk about it. Coming right up. And hello there, welcome to another new week.

Here we are, heading towards April. We'll be in April by the end of the week. We're going to talk about climate change today. Last week, that new report came down. It was pretty pessimistic. Final warning was the kind of headline coming out of that new report from the UN. I was frustrated by it all and sort of threw up my hands and said, I'm tired of talking about this. I'm a believer on climate change.

I've been for 20 years. And I don't have room for denialism on it. But I was frustrated. I've talked about it. I've done documentaries on it. I've written articles on it. I've done lots of different things on it. And that report just said to me,

let's talk about something else well you didn't like that idea you said no no no no we're going to talk about it and you wanted me to find somebody new to talk to about it so that's what i've done and in a couple of minutes time i will bring that person on board and have a good little conversation. But I want to talk about something else. In a way, it's kind of related, just as an opener for today, something to provoke some thought. I can tell you when I travel a country, either physically or virtually,

one of the most common questions I get in the talks that I give is, why is the news so negative? Why is negative news always news? Why are the bad things always the news stories? And that's a pretty common question. And a lot of journalists get that. And there's kind of two common answers. There's the one where you say, listen, most news is bad news.

That's why it's news. You know, things go go wrong our world has changed that's news and the other point of view is we don't just cover negative news we don't just cover bad news sure there's good news as well we do good news it. It's usually lower in the program, in a newscast, or in the back pages of a paper. But sometimes it's the story. It's the main story. You know, Canada wins at something.

You know, those stories happen too. But listen, let's be real. Most news is bad news because it is news. It's what's different. It's what's changed about the day. Well, the other thing is, is that what people actually want to hear? In spite of what is happening when I travel the country and the questions I get, do people actually want to be driven by negative news? Well, there's a new study out by the Nieman Lab.

Now, Nieman is a big word in journalism. They are associated with Harvard University in Massachusetts, and Neiman studies journalism and studies journalists, and journalists take courses with the Neiman School at Harvard. Well, they've got a great website, and I encourage you to look, if you're interested in the story, to look for the full details on it. But you can reach the Nieman Lab. That's N-I-E-M-A-N, lab.org, and travel through that site,

and you'll find this story headlined, Negative words in news headlines generate more clicks, but sad words are more effective than angry or scary ones. Okay. See where this is going? This is calling shifting the blame. It's not the journalist's fault. This is what you want.

Anyways, a couple of interesting points in this before I get to the main part. It starts off with a couple of sentences like this. Maybe it's because journalists are naturally drawn to aberrations, and those tend to be more bad than good. After all, a flight landing safely isn't a story, but one crashing into the ocean sure is. That's the old argument, right? There are lots of planes taking off and landing every day, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands around the world.

Just look at one of those apps. Planes Live is a good one. It'll show you all the planes in the air at any one time around the world. And you can zero in on individual planes, find out what they are. So when you're looking up in the sky, you see a plane go over and you wonder where that's going. You can find it. Easy. Anyway, there are thousands of planes in the sky, and 99.9999% of them take off and land without a vent. Anyway, the story goes on.

Maybe it's because reporters see themselves as watchdogs, tasked with identifying malfeasance, corruption, discrimination, and other social problems that need fixing. A government program working well isn't as exciting as a mayor taking money under the table. Heck, maybe it's because the world is just inherently a dark and depressing place, a theory that past decade or so seems to endorse. Anyway, this study actually gets to the numbers.

And I'm not going to read it all, obviously, because it's quite detailed, but I've pointed you in the direction if you want to. But here's what it kind of concludes. Add a negative word to your headline, words like harm, heartbroken, ugly, troubling, angry, and you get 2.3% more clicks on average. Okay? People clicking into your story. Adding a positive word, like benefit, laughed, pretty, favorite, kind,

does the opposite and keeps people from clicking. You buy into that? I think it's probably true. I'm sure it's true. Listen, they've got the data. They studied all kinds of stories thousands of stories and that's what they found so there's a new answer for me to go beyond just the hey bad news

is news or we also cover good news so now I also as I said I can shift Bad news is news. Or we also cover good news. So now I also, as I said, I can shift the blame a little bit. This is what you want. Say what you will, but you're attracted to those stories that have some kind of negative pitch to them. Okay. Okay. We're going to talk, we're going to talk climate change for a bit. I'm trying to understand kind of where we are, what we can do. Lots of you sent in all kinds

of ideas on how to pursue this. I'm looking for a general conversation, kind of a starter. I'm toying with the idea of doing some kind of regular thing every once in a while. I find it frustrating because progress is so slow. And that's inherent in an issue like this. It does take time, clearly. We're talking decades, if not centuries, to get us to this position. And it's going to take us decades and perhaps much longer

to get us out of this position. So I was looking for that kind of general discussion first of all and we're going to have it but first of all let's take a quick break and come back on climate change And welcome back.

You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. We're launching a new week of The Bridge this week and are really happy to have you with us. Okay, so the topic, climate change. The reason we're talking about it today is just last week there was a big UN-sponsored report, one of a regular series of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it was, well, it was depressing. from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And it was, well, it was depressing. You know, it had this kind of, it's your final warning. You better do something. You better do it now or we're all cooked, literally. Which after many, I think this was the seventh report over the last few years, after six of them that had been heading us, you know, telling us, hey, we've got to do something, and here are the targets, and let's apply them. Well, clearly, this report says we haven't.

And it may be too late. So I thought, okay, I've got to find somebody who can talk about this, who's recognized, you know, around the world in the kind of climate community as somebody who's reasonable, somebody who's thoughtful, somebody who isn't deep in the negative side of all this, but still has some optimism. And so I talked to a number of people. I came up with a name. And I had the world at my, you know, my beckon and call.

I could have called anybody. Doesn't mean they'd do it, but I could call anybody. But this is the person I could call anybody. But this is the person I was pointed towards. Her name is Catherine Hayhoe. She's a professor at Texas Tech University in, that's right, Texas. She's a Canadian. She was educated first at the University of Toronto, but then went on to other universities and courses in the United States. She's recognized literally around the world.

She's often talked to by, well, everybody, including the so-called power elite, about her thoughts on where we are and what needs to be done. She also has a successful newsletter. She appears on everything from Jimmy Kimmel to The Bridge. So she's working her way up. You know, she went from Kimmel to the bridge. So she's working her way up. You know, she went from Kimmel to the bridge. Anyway, I reached out to her the other day, and she immediately said,

you know, she'd absolutely love to do it. Watched you when I was a kid. You know that line? It always makes one feel old, but one feel grateful for the opportunity. So enough of a setup. Let's get to Professor Catherine Hayhoe and our discussion that's generated, first of all,

out of last week's report. So here we go. Professor Catherine Hayhoe. How surprised were you? I guess you probably weren't surprised. You must have known what was coming when the latest IPCC report came out. But nevertheless, were you surprised in a way that it sounded so frustrating that we're really not getting anywhere on climate change? I wasn't surprised by the content of the report because we scientists have known these facts for a very long time. And I wasn't surprised, but I definitely noticed the tone of the report because it reflected how all of us have been feeling the last few years.

We feel like we've just been tapping the microphone asking, is it on? Because no one has been listening to the warnings that we have been issuing for over 30 years. So when you say no one's listening, you're talking about every year, you're the kind of generic everyone, whether it's governments or individuals. Is that what you're saying? Well, that is changing. The way that we feel is not necessarily reflected in public opinion. So it turns out that the majority of people in Canada and the United States and most other countries in the world are indeed worried about climate change, but they also feel helpless and hopeless and don't know what to do in a world where our continued dependence on fossil fuels means our carbon emissions just continue to grow

thanks to the choices of folks who have just continue to grow, thanks to the choices of folks who have the ability to make that decision, and the fact that we have so many things competing for our attention, that even though most of us are worried about climate change, we're also worried about so many other things that just isn't getting the traction it needs to make the changes that we have to today. So how do we make it sound more immediate? Because what we do with these various reports that come out is it saying, you know, if we haven't fixed this by 2030 or by 2050 or by the end of the century, you know, all hell's going to break loose. How do we make that sound more immediate? Because that seems to be part of the problem, right? Generation after

generation sort of says, well, you know, it's, I really worried about this, and I don't want to hand this to my grandchildren, but quite frankly, it's not going to impact me that much. Exactly. And what you're describing is something known as psychological distance. And we humans are very prone to psychological distance in many different areas. We don't eat what we should. We don't say what we're told to. We don't stand up and walk around every 30 minutes like we know that we should. And with climate change, every aspect of psychological distance comes into play.

Polling shows that we view it as a future issue, not a present issue. We view it as something that affects people who live over there, not people who live here. We view it as an abstract issue, global average temperature, rather than what's happening where I live. And we don't even view it as a relevant issue. We think it's something that David Suzuki cares about and David Suzuki is going to fix with some help from Greta and maybe Al Gore, but it's not my issue. So how do we talk about it? We have to talk about it now. We have to talk about it here and we have to talk about it in a way that's relevant to people.

So that's a lot of what I do. I study climate change where we live. If I live in Toronto or if I live in Dallas, like I do now, or in Vancouver or Halifax or Yellowknife, what has already happened where I live? How is climate change making the heat waves or the wildfires or the heavy rainfall events that I have lived through worse? And what is something tangible that I can do with my family, with my school, with my place of work, with my city,

with my church? What's something tangible I could do to make a difference? That's how we start to catalyze change. But how do you convince people? I mean, we've all seen the awful kind of natural disasters that have happened on our continent just in the last couple of years, whether it's forest fires or tornadoes or storms or flooding, you name it, there's been lots of it. But how do you convince people that, hey, this is because, you know, you're putting gas in your car, whatever the, you know, the fossil fuel equivalent is of your own particular lifestyle. How do you convince them of that when they say, well, you know, there have always been floods? The way to convince people is to start with what they say. So whenever I talk about extreme events, I always start by saying, of course, we've always had floods, waves, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters.

You know, there was Hurricane Hazel that hit Toronto in the 1950s. We've always had these events before, but today they're getting worse. And climate change is making them worse. It's supersizing them like a baseball player on steroids. And often at this point today, I would stop and ask people, what have you noticed? How long have you lived in the place you've lived? Oh, not that long. Well, where did you live before? So what have you noticed in that place? How have things changed? And today, almost everyone has a story about how they have seen things changing. So what's the best story you've heard

on that particular front? Oh my goodness. So I live in Texas now, and Texas has the most climate and weather disasters of any US state. So when I ask my students or when I'm speaking to a group, you know, at the Rotary Club or Women's Club here in Texas, I typically ask them, what's your weather story? And I hear stories of dust storms so dark that you couldn't even see two feet in front of your face or hurricanes so severe that people were sitting on their roofs or droughts so terrible that they had to sell off their entire herd of cattle. And even though people have lived through this in the past, when I ask, do you feel like things are changing? Are they getting weirder? People often say, yes,

that's exactly what's happening. There's something different today. And that opens the door to talk about what's happening here and now, not over there, and talking about what we can do in terms of building resilience, as well as reducing our impact on the actual problem. Well, talk to me about what we can do as individuals. You know, I remember when you were on Jimmy Kimmel a year or two years ago and you said, talk about it. So that's been happening. And you just gave us an indication of how people talk about it when you speak with them. But beyond talking about it, what do we do? So this is something that I had to ask myself, because when I started to speak to people about climate change who were interested and curious, and when I started to explain how it change who were interested and curious, and when I started

to explain how it's affecting us here and now, then the next obvious question was, well, what should I do about it? So I thought, well, you know, obviously I've changed my light bulbs. You can too. I drive a plug-in car. You could consider that too. But I crunched the numbers and I realized that our individual choices aren't enough because so much of this power is in the hands of corporations. You know, 90 corporations are responsible for 70% of our cumulative carbon emissions since the dawn of the industrial era. This past year, all the major oil and gas companies from Aramco to BP to Shell made record profits. Fossil fuel subsidies increased from $11 million per minute in 2021 to $16 million per minute in 2022. And so our deciding even to put solar panels on our roof

and to drive a plug-in car and to eat more plants, that is not going to fix the problem. So then I thought, well, is there any way we can? And I started to look back in history and I realized our society has changed. It's changed in some very significant ways. When you look at what ended slavery, how women got the vote, civil rights in the US, the end of apartheid in South Africa, it was never because the wealthy, influential people, the presidents or prime ministers or CEOs just woke up one morning and decided that things had to be different. It was because very ordinary people did something very powerful. And that is that they painted a vision of a better future and they called for the action we need to achieve that future. And I'm convinced that we can do that again today. And that does truly begin with the conversation, not just about how bad it is or why it matters, but about what we together collectively can do. Okay, I've got a, I got a couple of questions on that. I mean, I hear what you're saying. But at the same time, I'm hearing you recite numbers that haven't changed. Right? Even though people are speaking the way you're saying they

need to speak and, you know, to demand change. They aren't, though. I don't think they are. You don't think they are? No. In fact, going further into the public opinion information, most people are worried about climate change, but polling they've done in the United States shows that most people are silent on the issue. They're worried, but they don't know what to do. And if we don't know what to do, why would you want to talk about something that just depresses you out of your mind? So nobody's talking about it. And when the media talks about it, the media is talking about the big global goals, which are abstract rather than concrete. They're talking about the polar bears over there. They is talking about the big global goals, which are abstract rather than concrete. They're talking about the polar bears over there. They're talking about the floods over there in

that other place. And they're not talking about what we can do to fix it. The vast majority of media coverage is all about the doom filled stories that make people worried and people are worried, mission accomplished. But there's not nearly as much connecting what I think of as our head to our heart, how it matters to me here and now. And there's almost nothing connecting our heart to our hands talking about, hey, these people over there, they're already doing this. Maybe we could do this too. What about that school or that business? They're already doing that. What about our family? What about our city? Really understanding what we can do. Those conversations are not happening, although they're just starting to.

I feel like this last year I have seen evidence they're starting, but we need them more and we need them everywhere. You know, a couple of my listeners have written to me suggesting that, you know, I should use my podcast for, you know, every week or every couple of weeks to do a sort of what can you do to affect change? And I think about that and I think, how long would that last? Like how many things are there that we could talk about that can affect change on the kind of scale that's going to be needed? I asked myself that question too. And last April, I started a newsletter. I've never done that before. That has three sections.

And of course, it's about climate change. The first section is good news. And I was worried I was going to run out of good news. The second section is not so good news because we do need to know what's happening. We can't hide our heads in the sand. And then the last section was what we as individuals can do. And I can tell you, I have good news piled up so high. I'm thinking of doubling and tripling up on it.

And in terms of what we can do, it's been every week since April, last April, and I haven't run out yet. That's impressive. You must have quite the global listening audience or reading audience to what it is you have to say. What do you say to those who think, you know, they believe, okay? They believe that we have a huge issue that has to be addressed and they're willing to do things,

and yet they see their governments who talk a good game failing year after year to meet their targets, in some cases come anywhere near their targets. And they say, well, if they aren't doing it, why should I do it? I'm just the small cog in the wheel. They're the big ones. So during the Trump years in the United States, as you know, he announced that he was going to be pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and he did so as soon as he could. Not that it mattered when he actually did it, because the government wasn't doing anything in the meantime. And during that time, a number of businesses, cities, states, tribal nations, universities got together, and

they said, we are still in on the Paris Agreement. And that included cities like Houston, which is the center of the oil and gas industry in the United States. And so they set their own goals and they reduced their own emissions. And by the end of the Trump administration, 60% of the U.S. emissions were controlled by or people were responsible for, 60% of those emissions were on track to be reduced to the Paris goals. So it is not only what happens at the national level. In fact, in my opinion, I think in many cases only what happens at the national level. In fact, in my opinion, I think in many cases, what happens at the national level is the last change. That change has to occur at every level. And how do we change a system? A system is made of people. Speaking of that, you know, I don't know whether it's true. You'd know whether it's true. But

let's talk about Alberta and Texas, right? Considered the big oil producing areas and surely they are. But they're also pretty big on alternative energy programs. Doesn't Texas have a huge wind farm area? Oh yes, Texas has double the wind and solar energy of any other state, including California. They've been number one in wind production for well over a decade. They weren't even on the top 10 list for solar 10 years ago, and now they're going to overtake California, I think, during this year, probably sometime this

summer. What's driving that? What's driving that? Is that people or is that state legislatures or legislators who feel they got to do something? No, it's not state legislators who want to address climate change who are driving wind in Texas. I can tell you that. So who is? But what it is, it's a combination of a couple of things. First of all, Texas has its own power grid and it will build out to your installation rather than forcing a new wind or solar farm to build into the grid. So that was already set up long ago. And then you have a lot of entrepreneurs who realize that this situation was ideal for bringing solar and wind onto the grid in a state that has a lot of sun and a lot of wind all the time. So there are certainly people, and I know quite a few of these people, who are deliberately investing in solar and wind because they know it's a clean energy source.

There are also people who are investing in it because they know it's the energy of the future. And there's nothing wrong with that. But no, the state is going to be the last to change, in my opinion, in Texas. In Alberta, you know, there are huge wind farms in Alberta, too, especially in the kind of southwest area. And they dominate in some areas of energy production in Alberta, which, you know, most Canadians go, are you kidding, really? But it is happening, or it has happened already. Talk to me about the corporations, because obviously you have a bee in your bonnet, as they say,

about what corporations have been doing on this front. And yet at the same time, they push out, or at least some of them push out, communications that suggest they're coming around. And in some cases, they've come around quite a bit on this. They understand what's at stake, and they're trying to make change. You buy that? There are some corporations that are definitely doing that. And why I mentioned companies is because much of the world runs today, our economy runs on money. And often government policies reflect what large corporations, not just in the energy sector, but in ag and manufacturing, what they lobby for. That's just the reality of the world we live in. So on the other end of the spectrum,

we do see companies who are taking this issue very seriously, who are setting what's called science-based targets, which is a science-based analysis of their emissions and what they need to do to reduce them in order to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. So it's not just companies like Patagonia, which famously gave their entire corporation to the planet, but companies like Netflix, companies like Unilever.

I've talked to companies like, and certainly these companies have a long way to go in terms of water usage and things like that. But companies like Nestle, for example, are taking this very seriously. They're hiring sustainability people at all kinds of different organizations and companies to really recognize that there's no profit on a dead planet. That penny is starting to drop. And so the societal change we need is starting. And the reason it's starting is because people have started to talk about not only why this matters, but what we can do about it. But we need those conversations to be happening everywhere.

What about companies like, you know, Shell or Exxon or, you know, the big energy, the big oil and gas companies? Are you seeing any movement there? They have been talking and they have been acknowledging the problem, but they're doing things like, you know, Shell and BP made record profits this past year. But, and Exxon and Aramco too, but they're slashing their biofuel and green energy programs. They are changing their 2030 carbon emission goals to make them, they're slashing them in half. They're saying this matters, but they're not actually taking the actions that would speak louder than words. And that is really the problem that we have. And ultimately, change has to happen and it has to happen at every level. And I don't know how else it's going to change other than

people putting that influence on the organizations that need to change. And that influence can be exerted in many ways. People who work for companies, people who hold shares in the companies, people who develop the policy for those companies, and even the general public. Things have changed before. And when we change ourselves, I feel like that's where often we just don't have a sense of efficacy. That's a word I've run into a lot, a sense that I don't think that what I do can make a difference. And I don't think that what we do can make a difference. And so when we talk about what we can do, I found that the best way

to talk about that is not to talk about what we could do in the future, but to talk about what somebody else is already doing. And in a relatable way, they're not like a major social media influencer with millions of followers. They're not the CEO of a huge major international corporation. They're just a person that we can relate to. And here's what they're doing. And if they're doing that, I could do that too. Here's one for you. I got a couple of letters last week after I talked about the frustrations of the IPCC report, where I admitted, you know, listen, I'm in Scotland right now as we talk, because one of the reasons I come here is I write my books.

I feel, you know, it's kind of a remote area where I am, and it's just easier for me. Plus, I have a connection to the British office. I was born here. But I didn't swim here. You know, I got on a plane and came here. I assume that when you go home to – is it Holmes, B.C.? Is that fair? No, Toronto.

Toronto? Yeah. Well, I assume if you go from Texas to Toronto, you're not walking, you're not driving, you're flying. Not hiking. So how do you feel about that? I mean, because that is one of the criticisms we get, right? When we're talking about climate change and say, well, you're still getting on a plane, you're still, you know, burning oil and it's, you know, and what have you, it's going into the atmosphere. You're an atmosphere scientist. How do you respond to that when somebody says that to you? Well, about 15 years ago, I stepped on the carbon scales because I figured I was starting to tell

people they should measure their carbon footprint, so I should too. And that was where I discovered that flying was the biggest part of my personal carbon footprint. And not flying to see family, but flying to scientific conferences, flying to events to talk about climate change. The irony was inescapable. So I decided back then, and this is long before COVID, that I was going to deliberately try to transition at least 80% of the events that I did to online events. And back then, you know, I figured out, okay, where do I find a microphone? What programs do I use? Like this was not COVID times. This was long before. Zoom didn't even exist in those days. It was Skype and maybe a couple of other programs. And people didn't do virtual talks back in those days. And so when I would get an invitation

to give a seminar at a university, and I'd say, I'm sorry, I cannot fly to give a single hour long presentation. And could I give it virtually? There'd be a lot of head scratching and a few no's, but a lot of people would say, well, we've never done it before. We'll give it a try once with the idea like,

I'm sure it's just gonna fall flat in its face and we're never gonna do this again, but we can say that we tried. So, and I would explain why too. I would say, you know, as a climate scientist, I cannot fly somewhere for a single hour. So I successfully started to do that. And I started to get great comments like, wow, I thought it was going to be horrible. And it was actually just fine. And I use tools like Poll Everywhere to poll my audience and incorporate their feedback into my presentation. So we felt like we were interacting with each other. And then when I do travel in person, I started to bundle. I did the math on

how much carbon I would burn if I drove about one or two hours from where I lived in my little hatchback, which is a hybrid at that time. And I figured, OK, if I'm going to fly to Washington, D.C., I need these many events to be the equivalent of just taking a day drive to go do that event. And bundling takes quite a lot of time. When I went to Alaska, it took about a year and a half to create the bundle to go to Alaska. And I ended up doing 29 events in six and a half days. But I'm telling you, every ounce of that carbon counted. And I even did the math. If only eight people that I spoke to on that trip, and I spoke to hundreds of people, probably thousands, because I spoke at every major university, I spoke to city councils,

community groups. If only eight people decided to personally cut their carbon emissions 10% as a result of hearing me, that would cover the carbon of my flight. So it isn't about living like a hermit, if I want to change the world, I have to interact with people. But I want to make everything count. So even when I go see family, which I do, I make sure that I make the most of that. And I've become increasingly convinced actually in the last few years that for those of us who spend most of our time focusing on the climate crisis, spending time with people we love in the places we love, doing the things that we love is absolutely essential because that's what we're fighting for.

Last question. You've been extremely generous with your time and I really appreciate it. But here's the last question. And it's sort of pointing towards or hoping for some kind of hope or optimism out of this conversation. Tell me about a country or an area in the world that we could look at and say, you know, if we did that, you know, if our governments or our city councils or what have you, and we as individuals were like that, it would make a difference. Is there somewhere that you can look at and say that? Yes, absolutely. And you're sitting

in one of those places. So Scotland is already and has been for a number of years, almost entirely powered by clean energy in terms of its electricity. Costa Rica hit that goal before Scotland did. The country of Bhutan is actually carbon negative because they planted so many trees that take up more carbon than the citizens produce. We've seen changes already happening that make big metro areas easier for people to navigate on foot or on bicycle instead of on car. We've seen changes in regenerative agriculture where farmers can grow the food and the crops that we need while putting carbon back in the ground instead of producing it. When we look around, there is actually hope everywhere when we take the time to go find it, track it down, collect it and share it. And when we realize the changes that are already happening in this world, the only question I have at this point is what are we waiting for? Well, you know, I was frustrated last week and I was frustrated up until the time we talked. I'm a little less frustrated now, especially with that last answer. It gives us something to shoot for.

So let's hope we can. Catherine Hale, it's really been great to talk to you. I appreciate your time and take care. I'm sure we'll talk again. Thank you so much, Peter. So there you go. There was our promised conversation. And I know for some of you, it won't be enough. For others, it'll be too much. But for me, it felt just right.

It's a nice starter if we're going to do more on climate change in the weeks and months ahead. One of the areas that some of you have suggested in the letters I got last week were throw open a question to the audience. You know, sort of name one thing that you are doing in the fight against climate change. One thing you are doing, you personally, you, your family, one thing, not a bunch of things, but one thing that may sound, you know, that may be different, may give other people ideas about what they could do. So I'm happy to try that out.

You know, if you want to write in to the MansbridgePodcast at gmail.com, the MansbridgePodcast at gmail.com, I'll collect these, and we'll perhaps give a little section of your turn each week to that idea. But it's dependent on you, right? I want to hear from you. A lot of you wrote last week saying, give me more on climate change. Okay, so this was a start, just a start. And I want to now see what you're willing to do.

Are you willing to do something like that? One thing that you're doing. One. Okay. Remember when you write to the bridge on whatever the discussion topic is, include your name and where you're writing from. The Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. That was Catherine Hayhoe, professor, Texas Tech University in Texas. She's a Canadian, went to U of T in Toronto. She likes those universities with Ts in them. She also went to do postgraduate work in the U.S. She's now called upon by lots of different organizations

to talk about this issue and about what can be done. And one of the things she's known for is she doesn't get overly dramatic or overly pessimistic. She tries to lay things out and let people come up with their ideas. All right, that's going to wrap it up for today. Oh, one thing I was going to mention. This is totally off topic.

It has nothing to do with anything else. It's kind of one of our end bits. But you know there's been a lot of talk in the last, well, year especially, about the, you know, the wait list for passports. And it's pretty bad. And it's become part of the old, you know, line about the country's broken. And how do we know it's broken? Well, you can't get a passport. Well, it's not a good thing. If you want to travel, you want to have a passport.

But like so many other things, we're not alone. See this headline in CNN? The State Department is working to deal with unprecedented demand for passports. U.S. Secretary of State Ant Anthony Blinken said Thursday the State Department is facing an unprecedented demand for passports and has increased staffing and resources to deal with it. Listen to this. The State Department is getting about 500,000 applications a week for passports, which is 30% to 40% more applicants this year than last year.

Nobody was traveling last year, right? Nobody's been traveling the last couple of years where you would need a passport. And so passports have expired and, you know, young people have grown up and they want passports 500 000 a week in applications so they're uh you know they're trying to deal with it just like we're trying to deal with it they're looking at doing renewals all renewals online obviously that would have an impact of some kind but i thought it was interesting to see that we're not alone. Other countries are broken too, at least on the passport front. All right.

That's going to wrap it up for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. you've been listening to an encore presentation of the bridge with peter mansbridge originally broadcast on march 27th