The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.17 Disgusting Bobbi Althoff Drake Scandal Fueled By Lies, Linus Tech Tips Update & Fix, & Todays News

Episode Date: August 17, 2023

Go to http://ridge.com/defranco and use code DEFRANCO to get 10% off site-wide AND 10 bonus entries at checkout! https://beautifulbastard.com Summer Restock! 15% OFF With Code “ShowMeYourFeet”  Catch up on our latest PDS: https://youtu.be/XH6zCNR0SZ4 Check out our daily newsletter! http://dailydip.co/pds  Follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/phillydefranco/?hl=en  –✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 0:00 - LTT Update 01:04 - Dave Portnoy Apologizes After Clip Suggests Bobbi Althoff Had Affair with Drake 04:54 - 19-Year-Old Convicted For Crashing Car to Kill Her Boyfriend & Friend 06:12 - Cop-Watchers Influence Policing After Going Viral on YouTube 10:41 - Sponsored by Ridge  11:33 - TX Senate Publishes New Abuse of Power Allegations Against AG Ken Paxton 14:35 - Fossil Fuel Companies Hire Influencers to Boost Brand Image 17:02 - Sponsored by Beautiful Bastard  17:38 - Hank Green Highlights Case Where Removing S02 Pollution Worsened Climate Change 22:13 - Report Says EPA Approved Cancer-Causing Boat Fuel Ingredient Previous coverage on Paxton impeachment :https://youtu.be/DqjHqaGF374?t=598  More resources: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/16/ken-paxton-impeachment-evidence-senate/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2023/08/16/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-texas-ag-uber-ride-fake-name-mistress-nate-paul/70604318007/  ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxx Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve  ———————————— #DeFranco #LinusTechTips #BobbiAlthoff ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we're talking about this disgusting, messy situation with Dave Portnoy, Drake, and Bobby Althoff. The fossil fuel industry paying your favorite influencers to clean up their reputation. YouTubers are changing the game on how police are being held accountable. EPA seems fine with you getting cancer. And we've got an important update and fix regarding the Linus Tech Tips situation. We're going to talk about all that and so much more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news, so buckle up, hit that like button to let me know you like these big shows, and let's just jump into it. Starting with, I want to issue a small correction regarding yesterday's show, specifically regarding the Linus Tech Tips story. While it

doesn't affect the facts of the story, the difference is what could happen moving forward. And as y'all know, I've been doing this show for 15 years. I strive to get all the information right, and when we turn out to be wrong on something, I try to fix it. What I'm talking about is that yesterday we said that British Columbia didn't actually have any laws that explicitly protected a worker's right to discuss their salary with coworkers. And it turns out that's actually no longer the case because of a recent law change just a few months ago. Because while that law is technically about gender discrimination in the workplace, as part of that sweeping package, there were provisions

that explicitly protected salary discussions. And so that actually poses another threat on top of the whole other situation that we covered yesterday, which if you didn't see, I'll link to the show down below. And then this Bobby Althoff situation, excuse my language, is completely fucked. And if you're unfamiliar with the current situation or even who she is, don't worry, because I've got to give you some background. So, Bobby's a social media personality and a podcast host, which actually just recently blew up. And in the past month, she's faced certain controversies,

like people saying that she was an industry plant, that she kind of came out of nowhere. The podcast is called The Really Good Podcast, and her whole shtick is kind of being fully deadpan and blunt during interviews, to the point where the guests are confused and maybe feel awkward. Even though the podcast is incredibly new, she's already had people on like Lil Yachty, Mark Cuban, and perhaps most notably, Drake. With her interviewing him while they were laying in bed together, that absolutely blowing up. And seemingly, this comedic bit was just continuing, with her posting a TikTok of her at a Drake concert, seemingly in character, looking totally blank. But then, earlier this week, people noticed that she had abruptly

taken down her podcast with Drake Drake and that the two were not following each other on Instagram. And all that absolutely igniting the rumor mill. Some thinking that Drake was upset about the TikTok where she looked unamused at his show. Others wondering if it was because while on Dave Portnoy's BFF's podcast, she poked a little fun at Lil Yachty, who's friends with Drake. And then you had others saying that she and Drake actually ended up sleeping together and that caused issues in her marriage. And while it's the internet and people were already saying things, one of the biggest spreaders of this rumor ended up being Dave Portnoy's BFF's podcast. Because in a clip posted to TikTok, he mentions the rumor and says he actually contacted Bobby about it.

I DM Bobby. What? You asked her, did you sleep with Drake and are you getting a divorce? Yeah. She's like, I'm not commenting on that publicly. Wait, so you just outed her? Oh. You just outed her, not public you just outed her not public comment. And that clip absolutely blows up. That looks like the smoking gun confirmation. They slept

together and not getting so big that Bobby had to fire back saying, hey, I didn't even want to go on the BFFs podcast. And now there's just so much negativity as a result. And so she decided to share the full exchange that she had with Dave and call it a day. What had actually happened and what was said was the exact opposite of what was alluded to in that viral post. Dave says he heard a rumor about the affair and divorce, but didn't believe it, to which she wrote, "'I am not commenting publicly, but off the record,

"'you're right, that is not true.'" Right, plain as day, I'm not talking about this publicly, but just so you know, no, it's not true. Which some people might say, well, if you're gonna deny it privately, why not do it publicly? Well, the answer to that is, have you ever been on the fucking internet?

When you deny something publicly, possibly two things happen. One, you set a precedent that every time someone just says some shit about you, claims a thing about you, that you're going to respond. Otherwise, oh, maybe it's true. And or two, a percentage of the people that see this are gonna go, The lady doth protest too much. Seems like she's trying to hide the truth. And so what we ended up seeing was the original clip, though there are still versions of it online, being deleted.

Dave Portnoy also apologizing to Bobby, trying to set the record straight. Writing on social media, I owe Bobby an apology. She's been in the news about her and Drake unfollowing each other after doing a pod together. All sorts of rumors about it. I asked her about it directly. She answered directly. Our social media team edited the clip to make it seem juicy, which is bullshit. I was just saying he freaked out when he saw the edited clip because it did her so dirty.

Then playing a back-to-back of the edited clip and what was actually said. I DM Bobby. What? You asked her, you sleep with drake and are you getting a divorce yeah she's like i'm not commenting on that publicly but that's not true wait so you just outed her oh you just outed her not public comment but i'm also posting a screenshot of him calling out the person who edited that clip as well as one where he apologized to and explained the situation to bobby even though she understandably was very frustrated. And in response to that, we've seen a number of people praising Dave for doing this and trying to set the record straight, though others saying he's the boss at the end of the day, and as much as he can talk about the social media team,

he is the one that makes everything possible. But yeah, ultimately, that's the completely fucked situation right now. And it'll be interesting to see what this whole situation looks like moving forward. One for Bobby, both as a creator and her personal life getting fucking thrown into the mix here, as well as the future of Portnoy's podcast there. Because maybe this creates an issue, but also maybe it doesn't. I just know as someone that says no to like 97% of podcasts, because I just, I don't like feeling out of control. I don't have trust with the person. Usually it's someone I don't know. There's now a record of someone doing your podcast and then someone at your company going, hey, in the pursuit of views, gonna completely misrepresent

the situation. Well, I don't think Portnoy did that on purpose because he's not fucking stupid. He knows the difference between, you know, short-term gain versus long-term loss. It's now something people have seen and may affect their decision-making. And then this McKenzie-Sherilla situation is wild. Which is this 19-year-old Ohio teen who last summer was driving in a Toyota Corolla with her boyfriend, Dominic Russo, and his friend, Davian Flanagan, with the three of them having allegedly smoked marijuana before getting behind the wheel. And Mackenzie, who was the driver, allegedly had THC in her system, exceeding the legal limit. And then when the car turned onto the road, it suddenly accelerated, jerking left and right until it barreled head-on into a brick

wall at 100 miles per hour. When first responders arrived, the two men were pronounced dead at the scene. Mackenzie was found unconscious and trapped inside the mangled car. But instead of getting hit with manslaughter charges, she got slapped with multiple counts of murder. That's because prosecutors alleged that this was no accident. Saying that she actually crashed the car on purpose because she was trying to kill her boyfriend with whom she had a tumultuous relationship and that his friend was just collateral damage. But then pointing to evidence like a computer analysis showing that she floored it without ever making an effort to slow down. Going so fast her fuzzy Prada slipper was found stuck to the gas pedal. Just a few days before the crash, Mackenzie took the same obscure route, apparently plotting her crime. It's all

that leading to this week, where she was found guilty on all counts, and the judge saying she had a mission and she executed it with precision. And you can see her sobbing uncontrollably as the judge reads her verdict. Her actions were controlled, methodical, deliberate, intentional, and purposeful. This was not reckless driving. This was murder. And notably, her conviction carries an automatic sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years. And then, you may not know this, but there's this growing segment of YouTube

that's been aiming to hold police accountable for their actions while also informing the public of their constitutional rights. And here's the thing. The crazy part is that they're actually making some headway, although at the cost of sometimes having lawmakers pass punitive laws that undermine their efforts. So who we're talking about here are so-called First Amendment auditors who claim that they're just trying to educate the public and police about people's constitutional rights, with many doing so by actually going out there into the field after feeling like police in America lack accountability and they're overzealous. Though notably, how they go about this work can vary wildly.

Some tackle the situations like Christopher Ruff does on his DirectD YouTube channel, and inevitably officers start interacting with him, and then things can go off the rails quickly. In one video, he questioned why officers were taking the ID of a passenger, something that isn't necessarily required by law. Eventually, their officers ask him to step away from the scene and escort him down the block. By the end of the video, Ruff is demanding that they arrest him, probably knowing that it would be an unlawful arrest, and screaming at the officers, Come on! F*** you, dude! Staring at me like you're gonna do something! F*** you! lawful arrest and screaming at the officers. However, not every auditor is so confrontational. In fact, most are usually calm with police and film either random places in public or areas that they know police will stop to question them. Places like in police station lobbies or their

parking lots. With one such channel being Sean Paul Ray's Long Island Audit. Take this video, for example, where he films a Larchmont Village Center from its parking lot with Reyes stating, We are here today to peacefully exercise our First Amendment right to film in public and publicly accessible areas and to ensure that our government officials and public servants respect that right. You see him quickly confronted by a detective asking what he's doing. And from there it turns into an argument about whether or not Reyes needs to identify himself, whether he can film in the parking lot, and many other niche aspects of the First Amendment. But for auditors, it's those specific issues that are fundamental rights that police should know about but don't. Things like they generally don't need

to identify themselves or show ID to police if they stop them without really being able to say what they did wrong, or demanding that they stop filming in public spaces that are generally accessible to the public, such as a police station lobby. Though, I really need to point out, there are a bunch of asterisks to those rules of thumb. While these activities are protected by the First Amendment, the specifics vary from state to state and even city to city. So if you're stopped by an officer while walking down the street for no reason and you're asked to identify yourself, don't say, hey, Philip DeFranco said I didn't have to. There are different places with different specific laws. But with this whole situation, there's the question of, well, how does confronting officers in this manner actually teach them

anything? Well, it creates a situation where either a more knowledgeable officer comes along and informs them, hey, they're actually allowed to do this, or the auditor often gets detained or arrested, leading to lawsuits. And then those cases eventually further cement these First Amendment protections. In fact, a recent example of this came out of Texas when Philip Turner was arrested for refusing to identify himself to officers while recording them, with his case eventually going to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor. And that case allowed the Fifth Circuit to follow the precedent established by other circuits. That there's a right to record police subject to only reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. And for the auditors, this is all about far more than just a theoretical right that's protected by the Constitution.

It has real-world impacts. I mean, a massive example of this are the changes we've seen to policing as a fallout of George Floyd's death. It's very likely that the only reason the officers in the case were actually held accountable is because of the clear, verifiable video that we had of the death. And it's not just Floyd. Many other police interactions have been caught on camera by the public, and many more would likely be if police knew that the public was allowed to be there to film. However, a very big thing is there's been pushback to the movement, both from people who support it and those against it. Right within the movement, there's a whole sub-genre of channels, some of which are very large, that critique these interactions.

Sometimes everyone gets a good grade for a perfectly fine interaction, such as when the police arrive and they let the person who called the police know that the guy filming outside is actually doing so in a perfectly legal way and go away. No issue, everyone's cordial. Though other times auditors can get a bad grade if they act like Ruff does on occasion and scream profanities at police to try and escalate the situation. So it becomes easy to see why videos where you have people like Ruff legally in the right still leaving people with a weird taste in their mouth about the movement and viewing auditors as people just trying to get a payout from police overstepping their authority. But the biggest key pushback usually comes from police officers and the lawmakers that support them. Officers claim that the videos are often selectively

edited, can spread misinformation about the extent of legal rights, escalate encounters with citizens and endanger everyone involved. And as for the lawmakers, at least six states have tried to pass laws that limit how much officers can be filmed in public. In Arizona, for example, an alliance of media companies and free press activists challenged a law that made it illegal to film police within an eight-foot buffer zone. And actually, laws like that usually get smacked down in federal court as they clearly violate the First Amendment. So what instead you see are other states taking a different approach. In Indiana, for example, they made it illegal to get within 25 feet of police if they're ordered not to approach, and Michigan's attempting to pass a similar law. Louisiana would have also been among them if the governor didn't veto the bill. And police have also taken novel approaches to limiting how much they interact with auditors at traffic stops by

putting up massive police tape zones around the stop, making it so that while the auditor can film, it'll be a good distance away. But with all that said, whether you're completely new to this situation or you're a consumer of that kind of content, I'd love to know your thoughts here. And then you are not going to want to miss out on this. Once again, the sponsor of today's show and our fantastic partner Ridge has partnered with Hennessy for their summer sweepstakes, which means that you have the opportunity to win a brand new upgraded Hennessy Ford Bronco or $75,000 if you prefer cash and get this without spending a dollar you can enter on their website for the chance to win. Although you do also get one bonus entry for $1 you spend on the site and custom Hennessy products come with up to 1,000 entries. And if you don't already

know, Ridge is the must-have wallet with RFID blocking, holding up to 12 cards, and having room for cash, and it comes in 30 colors and styles to choose from. I also don't just promote these suckers, I use them, because it's amazing and so handy. And if you're forgetful like me, they also have the option of air tags for those prone to misplace things. They also have their key case, which is

sleek, durable, holds up to 1 to 6 keys, and takes the jingle out of the key ring experience. So hey, head on over to ridge.com slash DeFranco to get 10% off site-wide and 10 bonus entries at checkout. If you've ever been considering getting a Ridge, now's the best time. And then, I'm not a Texas native, and so maybe I only see the crazy stories about this guy, but are there ever like normal stories about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton? Because some new abuse of power allegations just dropped, and they are juicy. Because as we've talked about before, Paxton has been suspended from office and is facing an impeachment trial in the state senate there. And that, after a majority of Republicans

in the GOP-controlled house voted to impeach him on 20 counts, including bribery, abuse of public trust, dereliction of duty, and more. Which actually, if you want to deep dive into those allegations, I made a video, I'll include a link in the description. But for what you need to know about this story today is that many of the allegations against Paxton center around his relationship with Nate Paul. With Paul being an Austin-based real estate developer and friend of Paxton's who was charged back in June with eight counts of making false claims to financial institutions.

And one of those counts was reportedly tied to Paxton's impeachment allegations. Many of the accusations against Paxton first came out in October of 2020 when seven of his top aides published a letter they had previously sent to his office's HR director, with them accusing him of abusing his office to benefit Paul among other crimes and calling on the FBI to investigate,

which it did. And that letter is super important because many of the impeachment articles against Paxton involve the claims the staffers made about the numerous ways the AG used his power to protect Paul from an FBI investigation that he was facing in 2020, as well as Paxton's alleged efforts to undermine the whistleblowers and conceal their letter. With the articles alleging that in return for all Paxton's assistance, Paul returned the favor by hiring a woman the AG was having an affair with and paying for expensive renovations to his home, which is where the bribery charge comes in. Paxton, for his part, has filed pre-trial motions

seeking to dismiss all 20 articles of impeachment, arguing that the claims are baseless and accusing the Texas State House of trying to overturn the will of the people. And that because most of the charges against him were actually known to the public before his most recent election year and they still chose to elect him anyway. But the House impeachment investigators have responded, oh yeah, cool. With him responding to his motions, a new filing was made public yesterday that provides tons of new evidence detailing the depth of Paxton's relationship with Paul and the

extreme lengths the two went to hide their relationship. According to the filings, that included Paxton and Paul creating a fake Uber account under the name Dave P. Not only did both men access that account to meet each other, but Paxton also used the account to visit the woman he was having an affair with. Beyond that, the investigators alleged that Paxton used burner phones and secret personal email accounts and frequently ditched his security details so he could meet up with Paul and others. The filing also revealed previously unknown allegations, including that Paxton and Paul met at least 20 times during the spring and summer of 2020, with them sometimes discussing the FBI investigation into Paul, as well as further accusations of how Paxton's staff repeatedly warned him about Paul

and consistently tried to, quote, save Paxton from his constant insistence on using the power of the Attorney General's office to help Paul, and continually beseeched Paxton to not let Paul use the AOG for his counterattack on innocent citizens and law enforcement. With the matting that Paxton took extensive steps to morph the office of the Attorney General into Paul's concierge law firm and, along the way, cover up his abuse of the office. And going on to claim that once Paxton learned that his staffers had written the letter reporting his behavior to the FBI, he acted quickly to conceal his relationship with Paul, including by wiring him $122,000 to a company connected to Paul to hide the home renovations the developer had paid for. And so those are kind of the main new allegations here.

Filing also providing more details about accusations that had already been public. Honestly, diving into all that would require a whole new show. So I'm going to link for more information in the description. So for now, we kind of just have to wait a little over two weeks because currently the trial is slotted to start on September 5th. So while of course, I'd love to know everyone's thoughts on this story. If you live or have lived in Texas, what are your thoughts here? And then y'all fossil fuel giants have hired an army of influencers to convince the youth that oil and gas are cool, hip and green, which should be, but I guess isn't shocking because everyone wants to pay for good PR. I mean, we've talked about things recently like how Shein

blew a bunch of TikTokers out on an all-expenses-paid trip to some of its factories in China, so they just gush about how happy the workers are to their audiences. And while this story is like that, but even more blatant. Because these fossil fuel companies are directly paying creators to run what are basically advertisements on their accounts. With the investigative outlet DeSmog finding more than 100 influencers who have been used to promote the industry since 2017, reaching billions of people. And these influencers include everyone from travel bloggers

and nail artists to lifestyle and tech channels, like the grandfluencer Nora Capistrano-Sengalang, also known as Mama Nora or Lola or our Filipino grandma. She's known for boasting about her grandson, dispelling stereotypes about aging, and of course, making sure her audience is well fed. But then, in September of last year, she posted an ad for Shell's Fuel Rewards program to her over 2 million followers on TikTok and Instagram. And captioning it, you can't spell loyalty without Lola.

But you'll save money on gas just for making everyday purchases at places like Dunkin'. Dunkin'? Yeah, and you'll even save money just for linking your T-Mobile account. Lookie, this program sounds good. Okay, how do I sign up? And that, provoking backlash from fans who commented stuff like, love your account, but why would you ever partner up with Shell, a company that has caused environmental disasters and is a major contributor to climate change?

But it's precisely that kind of reaction from young people that's motivating oil and gas companies to do these campaigns. Because that is the current mindset for a lot of the youth. But what if we just bombard them and bombard them and normalize the companies? Or there's a concerted effort to win the trust of millennials and Gen Z, and places like TikTok and Instagram are the best place to do it. I mean, you could just look at a BP strategy document that was leaked in 2020, for example, without showing the firm trying to reach influencers so it can become more relatable, passionate, and authentic, and admitting that it's seen as one of the bad guys. And one particular lie that the industry has been spreading through this network of influencers is

the idea that fossil fuel giants are leading the green transition, with numerous mouthpieces touting Shell's Drive Carbon Neutral program, in which it claimed to be purchasing carbon credits that offset your emissions to reinvest in nature-based solutions projects. Some say offsetting is greenwash,

which is a fair point, but research has shown that carbon offsets is actually a credible way to tackle climate change. But all that? It's total bullshit. We're with The Guardian this year, revealing that the carbon credits approved by the world's leading certifier are largely worthless and could even worsen the climate crisis. But as these companies have moved away

from a strategy of just denying climate signs, they're instead trying to persuade people that, hey, we are actually the ones solving climate change. And while I know most everyone watching these videos is smarter than that, I still think it's important to call it out. And then I want to thank a sponsor of today's show, my own damn self, specifically beautifulbastard.com. Because it's a win-win. You get some comfy, cool, amazing goodness in your life and it helps support the show. With a stocked back up with our brand new summer shorts, that amazing short sleeve button up, emotionally exhausted dad hat and tie-dye bucket hat, tie-dye socks, also the bandanas, which I got to say, I initially thought, why do we need those? Those have saved me from so much

sweat in my eyes on hikes. We've also got notepads, stickers, keychains, those amazing candles. And the last thing I gotta say about it is show me your feet. That is a coupon code valid for the next few days. I will get 15% off your order. So go to beautifulbastard.com and remember, show me your feet. And then, so you're gonna think I'm crazy, but it turns out pollution is kind of good for the climate and Hank Green may or may not be a madman. Let's start with the first of the two, air pollution. For decades, big ships used nasty-ass fuel that contained sulfur, and when burned, released sulfur dioxide into the air.

Then, that SO2 would get absorbed into clouds, making them fluffier, and even form their own nasty clouds called ship tracks, with even satellites spotting these long white things crossing the ocean. They can be horrible because they create acid rain, which in turn acidifies the oceans and leads to health problems in humans and animals, which is why in 2020, the UN's International Maritime Organization began enforcing a cap on how much sulfur ships can put in their fuel. That was a wild success, cutting those ships' sulfur pollution by more than 80% and improving air quality worldwide. But it turns out it also had the unintended effect of

making climate change worse, where those sulfuric clouds actually reflected some of the sun's rays back out, keeping the lower atmosphere and surface cooler than they would have been otherwise. So when we cleaned up our sulfur pollution, the earth got a lot hotter, and nowhere was that more true than the North Atlantic, where shipping traffic is incredibly dense. You know, we recently even talked about

how the North Atlantic Ocean this year heated up to record temperatures, with waters off the coast of Florida literally becoming a hot tub. And don't get it twisted. Climate change has been heating up the ocean for a long time already, but most of the spike in surface temperatures

we've seen recently comes from the reduction in sulfur pollution. Though also a few other factors like El Nino coming this year or less dust floating over the Sahara are also contributors. With Science.org saying in the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. Which is why so many people have reacted to several studies on this by screaming in terror, it's even worse than we thought. But this month, our friend and big brain super genius Hank Green pointed out that this provides actually a priceless natural experiment that we never would have been able to conduct otherwise. Think of it how like in the pandemic, we shut down so much economic activity, it actually allowed the environment to partially recover. Or perhaps more to this specific point, how in 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines

erupted, firing an ash plume into the stratosphere that dispersed a blanket of aerosol particles across the globe, and producing the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever recorded in human history. And just that single event, it cooled global temperatures by about a half degree Celsius over the next year. So Hank looks at the stuff and says, hey, maybe geoengineering can actually work, which if you're not familiar is the deliberate modification of our environment, usually the atmosphere, to counteract global warming. Some of the more obscure proposals there include building giant vacuums that literally suck carbon out of the air, also coating surfaces, buildings, even whole cities with a reflective paint so white that it looks like me in the winter.

Hell, even deploying reflective shields to outer space where they'd orbit the Earth. But the most popular idea is to spray our own aerosols. So hopefully something much safer than sulfur and get it into the stratosphere. In fact, the White House even recently released a report that lays the groundwork for a solar geoengineering research program. And as for Hank, he proposes spraying seawater into the air

to make a bunch of clouds shaped like little Hanks. It's truck month at GMC. Tackle the open road with added confidence in a 2025 Sierra 1500 Pro Graphite at 0% financing for up to 72 months. With an available 5.3 liter V8 engine, 20 inch high gloss black painted aluminum wheels, off-road suspension with available 2 inch factory installed lift kit, plus a towing capacity of up to 13,200 pounds, It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients.

Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added? Neutral. Refreshingly simple. Most of the water evaporates, leaving behind little crystals of salt that then can seed clouds and then it falls back down and the ocean's like, yeah, that was the salt that was here in the first place. Instead of saying, should humanity take this giant step forward and begin geoengineering the planet, what we're saying is, should we take a giant step forward and do it instead of

accidentally and haphazardly and in the most reckless manner possible, do it intentionally and carefully? But in spite of Hank's magnificent Einstein-sized cranium, the idea is extremely controversial. Though not so much because the scientists don't think that it'll cool the planet, in fact most agree that it could be effective, but rather because like any good wonder drug, they fear the side effects may outweigh the benefits. For example, some are concerned it could disrupt rainfall patterns across the globe, thus worsening some of the extreme weather we've already been suffering through because of climate change. Or there could be a temperature drop in one area that could correspond with an increase somewhere else. You also have experts warning that tweaking even

one element in a complex interdependent climate system could have effects that we aren't even imagining right now. And those harms could disproportionately fall on certain regions, like poor countries that rely on monsoon season for agriculture, which is one of the many reasons why on one hand, convincing the rest of the world to get on board with geoengineering could be difficult. And then on the other hand, doing it unilaterally as just one country

could piss off a lot of other people because you're changing the whole world. But a key thing here is while you have people arguing about this all in theory, you have some pointing to how little time we actually have left to fix the climate. And with that, arguing that radical crises call for radical solutions,

which to that, others counter that even if greenhouse gas emissions dropped to zero today, we'd still have to deal with all the accumulated carbon heating up our world. And solar geoengineering does nothing to address that side of the crisis. So they argue that it's not quite as radical as it seems. Plus, critics warn that fossil fuel companies

could promote geoengineering as an excuse to keep pumping out CO2. It worries that they'll take this and tell everyone, hey, we don't need to decarbonize anymore because we can just shield the earth from the sun. Which is part of the reason many experts are even scared to research this topic because they fear as soon as the technology

becomes possible, someone will use it. Or like we've seen with pretty much every technology that's ever existed, there's a good way to use stuff and then there's a bad way to use stuff. Although bad is subjective, so we'll say there's a good way and then there's alternative ways that have less than ideal outcomes, depending on the viewer. But the fact remains, we have gotten a lot of information that happened in the real world.

It's outside of the labs. It's outside of simulation. And so the question remains, what are we going to do with that information? And then EPA is just going to 100% let you get cancer. That is the takeaway from a shocking new report on the agency's Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Because this program was created back in the 2000s, and it was meant to streamline the approval process for new biofuels and waste-based fuels derived from plastics, and touting them as a green alternative to those made from oil and gas. And with this, to make sure these new fuels weren't hazardous, which for cancer usually means the lifetime risk

for an air pollutant is no higher than one in a million, the EPA studies their chemical composition and produces a consent order, a legally binding document that outlines risks to human health or the environment. And actually, earlier this year, we got a consent order for a Chevron refinery in Mississippi to produce a dozen plastic-based fuels that present serious health risks, with those including developmental problems in children, cancer and harm to the nervous system, reproductive system, liver, kidney, blood, and spleen. And the highest noted risk coming from a jet fuel that was expected to give cancer to one out of four people exposed to its air pollution over a lifetime, which, I mean, is already bad enough. But what was not included in the final report was an even scarier estimate from the underlying risk

assessment that ProPublica got through a Freedom of Information Act request. Using the EPA's figures, the outlet calculated the lifetime cancer risk from breathing air pollution that comes from a boat engine burning the fuel. And somehow the numbers came out to 1.3 in one, meaning every single person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime is expected to get cancer. That is literally a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking, which is why you have a scientist who worked at the EPA for 30 years saying when she first saw the 1 in 4 figure, she thought it was a typo. And then when she saw the 1.3 in 1 figure, she was left struggling for words, telling ProPublica, I had never seen a 1 in 4 risk before this, let alone a 1.3 in 1. This is ridiculously high. But that's not the only finding

that was conspicuously omitted from the consent order, right? Also, for every 100 people who just ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer. Despite all of this, the EPA mandated no protections except requiring workers to wear gloves, as opposed to, you know, requiring companies to reduce or monitor emissions or restrict the use of the fuel or just ban it altogether. When asked about the discrepancies between the risk assessment and the consent order, the agency chalked it up to a mistake, saying the consent order attributed the 1 in 4 number to air pollution from smokestacks, but it actually meant boats and planes using the fuel. But also, the agency never mentioned this to ProPublica or The Guardian in the several email exchanges that they had. And it also defended what it previously had called a mistake in saying that the risks were overstated because the assessment used conservative assumptions in

its modeling. Scientists assume, for instance, that every plane at an airport would be idling on a runway, burning an entire tank of fuel. The cancer-causing components would be present in the exhaust, and that residents nearby would breathe that exhaust every day over their lifetime. So the messiness of everything raises the question of, well, okay, what would the risks be under more realistic assumptions? And to that, the agency has not provided an answer. And so Mississippi residents, environmental groups, and politicians are now putting pressure on it to keep people safe. But all of this coming as the EPA inspector general is also investigating the new chemicals division for alleged corruption and industry influence. With four whistleblowers telling the Intercept that on several occasions, information about hazards was

deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them. With all of them describing a culture of fear inside the division where supervisors pressure scientists to downplay risks. One toxicologist recalling an argument he had with a science advisor trying to get him to remove hazards from a chemical assessment, saying at one point he was shouting at me to change it. He basically was siding with the company, shouting at me that the company went apeshit when they saw this document. That scientist refusing to budge, and then several months later, he was assigned to a different office. Then, in another example, rats exposed to a single dose of a chemical became lethargic, lost weight, had trouble moving, or even died. So a scientist flagged this in her assessment, but then, remembering the reaction from her supervisor explaining,

she kept asking me, look at the data, look at the data, look at it again, tell me what you see. I knew she wanted me to make the hazards go away, and she even said that, why don't you take a look at the actual study data again? And maybe the hazards will go away. You know, maybe hold the data up to the light. Maybe squint a little. Maybe that rat didn't die. And very notably, reports say that these issues have persisted even after Trump left office,

despite the Biden administration's pledge to clean up the agency. But that is where your big old dive into the news is going to end. And remember, beautifulbastard.com, show me your feet. But that is just a coupon code. I don't want to see your little piggies and two for more news you need to know i got you covered right here you can click or tap or i got you in the links in the description or if you're a maniac and you've already seen everything do not worry because my name's philip defranco you've just been filled in i love yo faces and i'll see you right back here next time