964: Is Climate Change Really Our Fault?

Unknown Speaker  0:00  
Music.

Brian Nichols  0:05  
Instead of focusing on winning arguments, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and marketing and how we can use them to win in the world of politics, teaching you how to meet people where they're at on the issues they care about. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show. Well, hey there, folks, Brian Nichols here on another fun filled episode. Guests of The Brian Nichols Show. I am, as always, your humble host joining you from our lovely cardio miracle Studios here in Saxony, Eastern Indiana. The Brian Nichols Show is powered by cardio miracle, the best heart health supplement in the world. So if you want to lower your resting heart rate, lower that blood pressure while improving your pump at the gym. Stick around. We're going to talk more about that later in today's episode, but first we're going to go ahead and discuss the topic of climate change. Climate change, I know climate change. What else has been called? Global warming, global cooling there, and we've seen the narratives change quite a bit over the past 3040, 50 years, and you know the politicization of climate change itself. But hey, climate change impacts all of us. It doesn't care about your politics, so we're going to discuss that. And I can't do that alone. So joining me today, from young voices, is Ethan. I'm sorry. Ethan Brown, there we go. Ethan, welcome to The Brian Nichols Show how you doing. I hit the wrong button. My bad. Ethan, all good. Thanks for having me. You know, you'd think after almost 1000 episodes here The Brian Nichols Show to have my intro down to a science. But alas, technology gets in the way. Ethan, I am so excited for today's conversation. I'm excited to dig into climate change. I was talking to you before we hit the magical record button that I candidly haven't had a conversation around climate change, and quite a hot second. So it's a topic that, you know, I definitely, I am aware of. I've talked quite a bit here on the show, but granted, it was probably a year plus or so since we had somebody in the show talking about this specific issue. So I'm really excited to get into the weeds today, climate change, global warming, global cooling. We've heard it all, but before we really dig into not just the science, but also Ethan the politicization of climate change, let's first do the audience a favor, and that is, introduce your yours, yours truly, yourself, whatever the terminology is there, let's introduce Ethan brown to The Brian Nichols Show. Audience, so Ethan, who are you? Why do you care so much about climate change, and why are you focused on the de politicization of climate change for just, not just today's conversation, but overarching across the across the theme here. Yeah,

Speaker 1  2:27  
so I am Ethan Brown. I'm 25 years old. I live in Connecticut, and I currently work as training program coordinator at the University of Rhode Island's Metcalf Institute, which works to connect journalists and climate scientists to have better climate communications with accuracy and accountability and make it more approachable. Prior to that, I was the founder and host of the sweaty Penguin, which was a award winning comedy climate podcast presented by PBS is Climate Initiative, where I worked to try to make climate change less overwhelming, less politicized and more fun. The show I interviewed over 150 climate scientists. Prior to that, I did a degree in environmental analysis and policy. And to answer your question, I think I when I first learned about climate change back in high school, it was really scary, really overwhelming, seeing all these doom and gloom headlines to the point that I didn't find it interesting. It wasn't something I wanted to go learn about, and it really took until going to college, I took some environmental courses and saw there's a lot more nuance to this than I realized. There are a lot more solutions out there, solutions that can actually help the economy as well as the environment, help health, justice, security, make our lives better. And that was when I started to try to take a different approach, where I would show pros and cons of different solutions, and try to send stuff to both liberals and conservatives. And I found everyone liked what I was saying. And that was kind of the impetus for the sweaty penguin. And then now my work today, it's good stuff,

Brian Nichols  4:02  
Ethan, and by the way, let's just kind of, you know, take a step back here, and we'll address why I think there is such a need to have this, this non politicized conversation around the the idea of climate change, right? Because, and you're right. I go back to when I was in school, we were required in biology class to watch An Inconvenient Truth read by Al Gore. Like, okay, whatever, if it feels like I'm being propaned, guys, yeah, whatever that word is, it was propaganda. That's what it felt like. And you know, you fast forward to where we are in 2025, I mean, five short years ago, Ethan, the world was ending, or so we thought. And you can see how, when the expert class, they jump in and they make their edicts, they make their proclamations, and it ended up, I mean, what? How many of the trust the science narratives that were put forth during COVID ended up being complete hogwash, right? And that right there. I. For a lot of folks who were looking at the Climate Change narrative, I think that was a moment where a lot of folks said, Oh, it's the same thing, or at least it feels like the same thing. Oh, you don't get your COVID jab. You want your grandma to die. Oh, you don't want to help reduce your carbon emissions. You want the polar bears to die. You want the penguins to be sweaty, right? That was the vibe. And I think what's happened Ethan is that over the past 1015, years, as the the left, I'm just gonna you know bucket ties the left in this conversation, for just generalization sake, the left has really been the group that has has coalesced around this climate change issue, namely, from it being some, you know, just, just world ending, you know, soon to be happening disaster. We saw folks like AOC leading back with the green New Deal, back in the end of the 2010s and it got, I think, rightfully, you know, rightfully excoriated in the public discourse. Because I think it was goofball in the way that it was trying to present some solutions, and yet it doesn't take away from the fact that our climate does change, right? And I think the main conversation, instead of talking about the politicization of climate change, should really come back to, what's our role in terms of impact in the climate? Do we have an impact on the climate, you know, from an anthropogenic climate change perspective. And this is where I think a lot of the dialog falls apart, not from a finding solution standpoint, which I think you're spot on. We need to talk about solutions. And you know, good friend, Caleb, excuse me, Caleb Frans was on here, on the show here his wife, Danielle, she leads the the, oh, I forget the name of the organization,

Speaker 1  6:39  
conservation coalition, hit again. What is it? American conservation coalition? Oh,

Brian Nichols  6:44  
it is ACC. Okay, in my head it was ACC, but I knew it stood for something more important. But like that right there, there is a conservative approach to climate change that is saying, hey, maybe not green New Deal, but maybe start investing in private, private solutions, or encouraging private entities to start building up some solutions, right? So you do see that it's not just a left, right, Red Team, Blue team dynamic. There is a overarching problem that we can talk about from a solutions based perspective. But let's just kind of go back to the green New Deal, the inconvenient truth of climate change, right? Because I would say Ethan, it is the the fact that a lot of folks on the left have taken climate change to be kind of like one of their, you know, one of the flags they carry into battle, that, in itself, has turned off a lot of folks on the right. But I would say to those folks in the right, that doesn't negate the problem that the folks in the left are pointing out. It might negate some of the solutions they're presenting. Because, you know, a lot of the solutions are going to be, you know, just big, inflated government bloat to try and, you know, slap a band aid onto a gunshot wound. So let's talk about this today. What is the truth about climate change? Specifically where we are today, in 2025 and let's talk about some of the solutions you've seen work that are non politicized, but actually helping move the needle some. Yeah,

Speaker 1  8:10  
I want to go back to the point you made about kind of the doom and gloom of it all, because it's actually a lot of miscommunications, even beyond some of the stuff you were sharing, an example I had talked about a few years ago on the podcast, and apologies for not remembering every number within this but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is basically a group of hundreds of scientists around the world that get together every Few years to look at all of the academic literature on climate change and synthesize conclusions. They put out their synthesis report a few years ago, which I think half of the report was on solutions and on a variety of different solutions that, again, like I was saying, don't just help the environment, but help the economy, help all these other things we care about, and it certainly showed climate change is real and here and a threat and scary, but also fixable. And it led to a whole bunch of new news stories that said, act now or it's too late. And I think I realized that has just been the pattern that happens over and over. But it's not necessarily what the scientists are saying. I think part of it is that we actually have been addressing climate change. The US is carbon emissions have fallen about 20% since 2005 in large part just because clean technologies have gotten so much cheaper over the last decade.

Brian Nichols  9:39  
At this market finds a way. How about that exactly? And

Speaker 1  9:43  
I think China's emissions peaked last year and are going to start coming down. The EU's have fallen considerably, so we're seeing progress, which is part of where you might say, act now or it's too late. But then we did act a bit, and then you say it again. But again, you see why that messaging is so flawed, and that's where, for folks like yourself, it can start to feel like just the boy who cried wolf in terms of and really quick

Brian Nichols  10:12  
you found me to interrupt, but it also turns into this outrage Olympics, right? I only have so much bandwidth to be outraged about things and like, listen, folks, they really will get more outraged towards things that they can actually control. And that goes to the see, touch, smell, taste here, like the things in my immediate purview, I'm gonna focus on those things versus the weather's changing. Yeah, it changes all the time. It climate change, isn't that what the climate does? It changes like that is the perspective that lots of folks have, and they're like, listen, dude, that's great. The polar bears are having trouble eating more food. Well, guess what? My family's having trouble eating more food because things have gotten so expensive. So you go worry about the polar bears. I'm gonna worry about my family, right? And that, I think, right there the outrage Olympics, I saw so many people just turn off from this conversation.

Speaker 1  11:03  
Yeah, and that's the exact insight that I really found in doing the work that I do, people who might be climate deniers on the far right, or climate skeptics and folks who are teenagers scared out of their mind that think the world is going to end on Thursday, I found they have the same fears and anxieties and distrust of the bigger systems that that fuel these beliefs. On the one hand, it might be I don't trust that this problem is real, or I don't trust that there's a solution out there that I can get behind so it's all going to be government control. On the other hand, it's just fear that my future is going up in smoke. But either way, it comes from a same feeling, and it causes people to disengage. And that's exactly the opposite of what we need. We need people to engage to find solutions that can work for everybody. I find the more voices that can be in that solutions conversation, the better the solutions will be. So that's why I've tried to approach it with a solutions first approach, a humor approach, an approach that tries to look at what solutions might appeal to both sides of the aisle and what the pros and cons are. And so far, I've found that to be very effective. So

Brian Nichols  12:18  
Eva, you tossed out a few terms there, and I want to just quickly go back to them, and just for the audience's sake, especially, better understand what you're referring to when you say climate deniers or climate skeptics. Can you can you just kind of give a more breakdown in terms of how you classify a climate denier versus a climate skeptic. And I guess the second part of my question is, do you see a role for folks who would be so, you know, I guess, called climate deniers or climate skeptics in this overarching conversation around climate change? Yeah,

Speaker 1  12:53  
I think there's a spectrum between, for lack of better work, there's no you're pushing me not

Brian Nichols  12:59  
to make a bad joke there. Ethan, there Ethan. There definitely is a spectrum in our world. But I digress, yeah, oh yeah,

Speaker 1  13:05  
climate let's say climate denier, climate Doomer or climate alarmist, yep. And the truth is somewhere in between. Climate change is real. It's human caused. It sounds about your life. Also, the world is not going to end on Thursday. So a climate denier, I think of as someone who denies that climate change is real, and then somewhere a little bit past that is denying that climate change is human caused. Neither of those positions are accurate. We know climate change is human caused in terms of their role in the conversation. Since climate change can be addressed through solutions that I'll say it again, help the economy, help our health, help justice, help security, help make our lives better, we can advocate for those solutions. By the way, we can also get into some ways that you can deregulate to address climate change. If you advocate for those solutions. It's not a sacrifice. You can advocate for them regardless of whether climate change is real or not. So if someone is truly unwilling to accept the scientific consensus around climate change, they can still advocate for climate solutions. And so that's where I try to get into that conversation. So

Brian Nichols  14:18  
Ethan, I don't want to make you my enemy today, but I might, I think I might actually kind of be in that climate skeptic bubble, um, not from a I don't think that humans have an impact, but rather, I guess in my brain, I am quantifying it based on, yes, humans have an impact, but then the question is, how much, right? And I go back to when the world was a big, you know, floating metal, or metal floating molten piece of rock, right? Like that was the climate. And that climate changed, and then we had ice ages, and we have, you know, areas that were once low. Lush, you know, beautiful Gardens of Eden turning into literal Sahara deserts. So we see that the climate changes without human impact, but it definitely does change with human impact. I think that the argument isn't so much that humans aren't causing it. The question is, how much? Now that's not to say, well, we should just go and, you know, pump out, you know, sludge into our rivers, or, you know, just, just leave the the diesel truck running, um, you know, idling for for days on end, like it's not, that's not it. It's saying we have to be able to walk and chew gum, right at the same time saying we are parts of the climate. We are. We are contributors both to the climate changing but also we are ones taking the benefits of the world that we live in. But that doesn't mean that we live in a bubble, I guess, like we can't put ourselves almost to the detriment of advancing human progress in the pursuit of trying to stop this thing that has happened for generate nine generations, for millennia, I guess is the better way to frame it. It's been happening for millennia that there's almost like a human arrogance to say we can stop that from happening. So I guess my question comes down to what, what are tangible things that humans can do today, not to stop the climate from changing. I think my position is that it's always going to change. But rather, how do we stop it from changing in very negative, realized ways, when it comes to, you know, a very direct act of putting pollution into your water systems, or, you know, like something in that kind of a world, does that make sense?

Speaker 1  16:39  
Yeah, and I'll address the first part a little bit, because you're absolutely correct that climate has changed for since the beginning of Earth. And by the way, it's the same scientists who have figured that out who are figuring out the changes in climate today, the reasons for the historical changes that go back millennia. Obviously, there's a variety. It can be due to changing solar activity, changing volcanic activity. Sometimes an asteroid hit the Earth and it threw a bunch of dust into the air, which caused a snowball Earth, because it was reflecting all the sunlight. You have all these different factors that can affect the climate on Earth. Another is the greenhouse effect, which is when you put out gasses like carbon dioxide or methane or nitrous oxide, they're structured in such a way where, when solar radiation hits it, it wobbles and absorbs that radiation and essentially retains heat and creates kind of a blanket over the earth. It's the same reason Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has all these greenhouse gasses. So in the last 70, 6070, years or so, scientists can look at all these different factors, and we can see solar radiation was actually stable, if not declining in that time. Volcanic activity has been stable in that time. And really it's that greenhouse effect of these carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses coming out of fossil fuels that are the primary factor in the change that we've seen in those decades. So it is very much quantified. Scientists are asking the same questions that you're asking, and it's I have a friend who's a paleoclimatologist, which means she goes and drills those ice cores and can look past millennia to see how the atmosphere changed during that time. So it's very interesting. We could probably nerd out about that for a half hour. But well,

Brian Nichols  18:37  
how about this? In pursuit of the the reducing of politicization of this conversation. I would like to show what I would dare say is one of the most perfect examples of a politicization of this issue. Now this is going back to, oh, when, when John, John Gary was in, in his role in the, I think, Obama administration, and we have our my favorite congressman, Thomas Massie, grilling him here on Capitol Hill. I just want to play this quick video, Ethan. I want to get your feedback here, because I do think that this speaks to one of the main issues where we do have the politicization of the climate change topic. So let's listen to this video. Give me some feedback as we wrap up here. It's like three minutes, just like go ahead and listen to this really quick.

Unknown Speaker  19:24  
This is a live reaction. I did not see this ahead of time.

Unknown Speaker  19:29  
Instead of convenient. Can you hear

Unknown Speaker  19:30  
this very softly? I want

Brian Nichols  19:32  
to talk. It's very soft. Okay, hold on. Let me This is the magic of editing, folks. Hold tight one sec. I'm going to share this on a different screen. Do, do? Do, yeah, stream yards, fun, hold tight.

Unknown Speaker  19:47  
Oh, good.

Brian Nichols  19:51  
See, this is the, this is the benefit of not bill o' right, Bill O'Reilly in it where we do it live, because I get to. Do this and I can edit this out. It's even funnier is when I don't edit it out on accident, and then people are like, wow, okay. All right, let's try this again. Let me share this screen. Share Screen. Include. All right, here we go. All right, so let's go ahead and take a listen here. Ethan, great. I Oh, helps if I unmute

Speaker 2  20:27  
it. Secretary Kerry, I want to read part back to you. Instead of convening a kangaroo court, the President might want to talk with the educated adults he wants trusted to fill his top national security positions. It sounds like you're questioning the credentials of the President's advisors currently, but I don't think we should question your credentials today. Isn't it true? You have a science degree from Yale.

Unknown Speaker  20:55  
What's that? Bachelor of Arts degree?

Speaker 2  20:57  
Is it a political science degree? Yes, political science. So how do you get a Bachelor of Arts in a science

Speaker 3  21:05  
Well, it's liberal arts education and degree. It's a bachelor.

Speaker 2  21:09  
Okay, so it's not really science. So I think it's somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudo science degree is here pushing Pseudoscience in front of our committee today. I want to ask you,

Speaker 3  21:21  
are you serious? I mean, this is really serious happening here.

Speaker 2  21:25  
You know what it is? It is serious. You're calling the President's Cabinet of kangaroo court. Is that serious? I'm not

Speaker 3  21:33  
calling this guy, but a kangaroo court. I'm calling this committee that he's putting together a kangaroo committee. What

Speaker 2  21:38  
are you saying that he doesn't have educated adults there. Now, I don't know who it

Speaker 3  21:42  
has yet, because it's secret. Well, you said it in your testimony. Why would he have to have a secret analysis of climate change? Let me ask. Let's

Speaker 2  21:50  
get back to the science of it. Let's get back to the science of it.

Unknown Speaker  21:54  
But it's not science. You're not quoting science and

Speaker 2  21:57  
well, you're the science expert. You got the political science degree. Look, let me ask you this, what's the consensus on parts per million of CO two in the atmosphere?

Unknown Speaker  22:10  
About 406 406 today.

Unknown Speaker  22:12  
Okay? 406 Are you aware 350

Speaker 3  22:15  
being level that scientists have said is dangerous. Okay? Are

Speaker 2  22:19  
you aware 350 is dangerous. Wow. Are you aware that since mammals have walked the planet, the average has been over 1000 parts per million? Yeah,

Speaker 3  22:29  
but we weren't walking the planet. It's, let me just share with you that we now know that definitively, at no point during the least the past 800,000 years has atmospheric CO tube, and as high as it is today,

Speaker 2  22:44  
the reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200 million years before that was greater than than it is today, and I'm going to serve it for the record.

Speaker 3  22:56  
Yeah, but there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have several billion people

Speaker 2  23:01  
how to get to 2000 parts per million if we humans weren't here,

Speaker 3  23:04  
because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on Earth which spewed

Speaker 2  23:09  
the geology stop when we got on the planet.

Speaker 3  23:12  
Mr. Chairman, I this is just not a serious conversation. Your

Unknown Speaker  23:16  
Your testimony is not serious.

Brian Nichols  23:20  
I agree so that that's, that's the end of it. Um, but that right there. Ethan like this, this kind of goes to, I think, where a lot of the folks in more of the skeptic camp land, because it is so easy to lie with numbers, right? And we saw that with John Kerry here. Now Thomas Massie is one of my favorite congressmen, because he just, he can set things up in such a such an elegant way and then just kind of, you know, knock somebody over the head with their own, their own argument. And this is where I think a lot of folks end up in my camp, saying, Okay, I see the issue, but I also see the lot of folks that are promoting these different solutions. In this case, namely, using Government Solutions. They end up presenting their case in, I'm not gonna say a fabricated way, but definitely misleading. Like, oh, that's why you picked the 800,000 year ago Mark versus the 2 million years before that, because the data would ruin your argument. And I think this is where so many folks are just like, well, you know what, if you're gonna lie about that or you're gonna mislead about that. What else are you misleading about? So I know that was the first time you saw that video. Ethan, what's your feedback to draw on? Curry and Thomas Massie going back and forth there?

Speaker 1  24:29  
Well, first I have a Bachelor's of Science in film and television and a Bachelor of Arts and environmental analysis and policy. So I

Brian Nichols  24:37  
got my Bachelor of Arts in political science too. So don't tell Thomas Massie, please. He'll

Speaker 1  24:41  
come after both of us in terms of that particular conversation. There are other ways that greenhouse gasses can and have gotten released into the atmosphere in far bigger numbers than today, actually, during some of those changes where there is increase. Be solar activity or changes in volcanic activity, you can see carbon respond to it and be released, because carbon is stored in our oceans and our forests. And I wish I could explain this better. It's been a little bit since I've explained it, but essentially, in as the planet warms more, sometimes you can have carbon get released because of that. As the planet cools, you can have carbon get sucked down because of it. It can also happen in reverse. There are scientists that can explain this a lot better than I can, but what I would say to that conversation is to the science point. It's not that John Kerry's numbers are inaccurate or misleading, as much as it's for stuff not the most productive conversation to have in terms of climate change today. And also, obviously, he's not as well versed on the science to answer Thomas Massey's specific scientific questions a scientist might be better suited for that. Yeah, Thomas Massie

Brian Nichols  26:05  
went to MIT, by the way, folks. So that's why Thomas Massie, he's just, you know, his brain, it moves at the speed of a supercomputer compared

Speaker 1  26:11  
to us. Yeah, but I would add the I've seen the reverse done too, for example. I know there was not to pick on anyone specific, but I remember seeing Ted Cruz saying that there was no change in climate from, I think, 1998 to 2012 or something. And there was a El Nino in 1998 and a La Nina in 2012 which offset the average temperatures in those specific years, even though the trend line is showing climate change going up. So we can all do that. I hope to just zoom out and acknowledge reality and then discuss solutions which, like we've been saying, don't have to be solutions from the left or government regulation. They can be

Brian Nichols  26:52  
Ethan you went right where my brain was already going. So let's talk about that. Let's do that. Yeah, dig into, like, what are some of these solutions, specifically from a private sector standpoint, that we can start to make today, or start to focus on today that will address the climate change conversation as you outlined. Yeah,

Speaker 1  27:11  
I can talk about some deregulations, first, that are just kind of fun to nerd out about, and also very useful permitting reform. Environmental permitting laws have actually gotten in the way of climate solutions, often to build new transmission lines to do forest management. Can take four years for a new forest management project to get approved, and in that time, a wildfire can happen. And as we've seen in California and here in Connecticut and everywhere in the country, we need to manage our forest better. So permitting reform, making it easier to get these projects done, is a deregulation that helps the climate. I don't know if you're familiar with the Jones Act. It's a maritime shipping law that basically restricts. You have to have a US built, flagged and crude vessel to be able to go between two US ports on the climate side, first off, it means you can't build offshore wind farms, because there are no Jones at compliant wind vessels to build an offshore wind farm. Today, China has 144 offshore wind farms. The US has like two or three. And if you take away the Jones Act, offshore wind immediately becomes competitive with the cheapest energy sources. What else? Zoning laws? You can build a lot more sustainable cities if you pull back some zoning laws and allow people to live closer to where they work, so they don't have to drive their cars as far, and that kind of thing also makes life more convenient for us and takes away some regulations, and then even regulations around nuclear energy can get in the way. So those are some examples around deregulation more broadly, though, we've seen the cost of solar come down 85% in the last decade. Onshore wind by 55% batteries for electric vehicles by 85% I'm not saying any one of them is the answer. They all have their flaws, but if you just let the market do its thing, you will see those technologies start to be competitive and even win out a lot of times. There was a study that found, I believe in 2020, 62% of renewables that came onto the grid were cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative. So if you kind of step back and let some of that happen and not necessarily pick winners and losers, that will address the issue. There are approaches from the left that, in theory, could work too, but that's where the debate needs to be had. It shouldn't be. Is this real or not? But which approach works better? Regulation or deregulation? There

Brian Nichols  29:55  
you go. Ethan. I love to hear it, because what we found today, what's what we call COVID. Common Ground, and I appreciate that. So how about this? Ethan, do us a favor. Bring us home. We do our little segment here called Final thoughts. Wrap up the episode a nice, neat bow for us. Your call to action to the audience, maybe the folks who are you know they're still sitting here. They're on the fence. Ethan, make your final pitch, and to the folks are saying, Ethan, no stop being so nice to Brian. He's a climate denier. Roast him. Walk them back from from their ledge as well. Sure.

Speaker 1  30:25  
I think that last little bit summed up a lot. I think the only other thing I would add is the more that we can, again with my work today, doing connecting journalists and scientists, the more that we can have those conversations and allow journalists to do a better job getting it right, not relying on these sensationalist headlines that can scare people and politicize people. This conversation gets a hell of a lot better. So that's where I would leave it. If you want to find out more about my work, you can go to the sweaty penguin.com the podcast itself ended about a year ago, but I'm still doing a lot of web content, and you can find everything else I'm up to there, and then check out Metcalf Institute. We have a lot of really cool stuff. You can just Google Metcalf, or believe uri.com/or uri.edu/metcalf might get you there. I'll have to folks who

Brian Nichols  31:19  
are like, wait, the sweaty penguin. Get it, because it's hot in the Antarctic, folks, that's why it's the sweaty penguin. Come on, stick up with us. No, no, even there's been a great conversation, I genuinely believe that there is room for solutions to your point, that are outside of government. Say bad, therefore do good like we can. We can walk and chew gum at the same time here, especially when we look at private sector solutions, and it gives us the chance to really figure out the right solutions, right? Instead of saying, to your point, government is going to pick a winner or a loser from a technology, technological standpoint, and this is the way we're going to stop climate change going forward, okay, until we realize that that option ended up causing, you know, even worse, climate change unintentionally, because we didn't allow it to actually compete in the marketplace, not just of ideas, but the actual marketplace where we buy and sell solutions that make the most sense. So I really appreciate you coming on the show today outlining that it doesn't have to be this black or white narrative or just this back and forth debate of climate alarmists to the climate deniers like, let's be able to find that yet dirty word common ground, and actually find some some ways to move forward together in a good solutions perspective. So with that being said, Ethan, thank you for joining the show, and thank you for bringing your insights here to the program. And with that being said, Folks, if you got some value from today's episode, please go ahead. Give it a share when you do tag yours truly at B Nichols, Liberty, we can go ahead and continue the conversation on your favorite platforms like X, Facebook or Instagram. As for The Brian Nichols Show, you can find it on your favorite video platforms like YouTube, Rumble, Twitter and Facebook, or if you like to take your shows on the go, like I do, head over to Apple podcast Spotify YouTube music, wherever it is you consume your podcast, hit that subscribe button, and of course, hit that little notification bells almost a single time we have a brand new episode go live, which, by the way, every Monday and Friday nights, 9pm Eastern, we have a brand new episode hitting your x feeds as well as rumble. So make sure you go ahead and check those out over there. Hit that subscribe button, and of course, continue the conversation down below. What are your thoughts? Is climate change? Man made? Are we completely out to lunch here is Ethan a goofball thinking that the world's going to end from climate change. Just kidding. Ethan like that. Those are the questions. I want you guys to go ahead and continue the conversation down below, but please, as always, do so respectfully. With that being said, we're gonna wrap things up. Brian Nichol, signing off here on The Brian Nichols Show for Ethan Brown, we'll see you next time you.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai