[00:00:09] Hey, Hotcakes. Welcome to Hot Take, the podcast where we examine the climate crisis and all the ways we're talking and not talking about it. I'm Mary Annaise Heglar.

[00:00:20] And I'm Amy Westervelt. Today, we're talking about something that's on everyone's mind. Political instability. And specifically how climate change intersects with and intensifies it.

[00:00:33] Exactly. And we're joined this episode by Justin Worland, who is the lead environmental and climate reporter at Time magazine, which is just like a magazine that my mother loves and adores as whereas if she reads Time magazine, she then reads everything in the world and knows everything that is happening ever. So we're very lucky to have him on this show.

[00:00:58] Yeah. Yeah, he's great. I think his reporting in general is really, really great. And he talked quite a bit about how these issues of political instability and climate intersect. And he explained for us what an Amy Cony Berrett confirmation might mean for climate policy.

[00:01:18] Yeah. And we dug in to a little bit more about how climate change increases and exacerbates police violence because, of course, it does exacerbates all violence, who is not more irritable when they're hot and bothered. So, yeah, it was a really great to dig into that with them. If you want the links to the articles we talk about in here, you should make sure that you subscribe to our newsletter. And if you want some extra amazing premium content, you can subscribe for just seven dollars a month.

[00:01:48] That's right. And we also have a free version. If seven dollars a month feels like a stretch right now, we get it. There will be more details in the show, notes on how to find that and special request.

[00:01:59] Please go leave us. A review in Apple podcasts. If you have not already done that or wherever you are listening, but the Apple podcast, once I don't know, seem to actually matter more. It's how people find us.

[00:02:10] Yeah, it's really easy. Just like go in there, give us a little five stars. We'll just like, say you love it. You don't really need to think about it that much. If you have a negative review, we have another system for that.

[00:02:22] And we'll talk about that at the end of the show.

[00:02:24] Yeah, it's time to talk about climate.

[00:02:36] Just a whirlwind welcome to the show. We're so happy to have you there. Thanks for having me.

[00:02:41] So first things first. How did you get into journalism and specifically into climate journalism?

[00:02:48] Yeah, so I got into journalism really like in college, I kind of fell in love with the school paper and was just like that. I always joke like the school paper was my second major or like my major. Did you go to school?

[00:03:03] I went to Harvard or rootworms in the school paper. Yeah. I mean, so I did that and I and then I so I knew I wanted to go into journalism, did some internships wound up at time doing my breaking news that was very sort of, you know, entry level stuff and abouts five years ago, a little more than five years ago. This opportunity came to do the climate beat. And [00:03:31]honestly, I was like, what's this all about? I don't really know. And sort of after, like, a little trial period realize like, wow, this is actually the most important issue and it's not being covered enough or or in some ways, you know. Right. [15.8s] And so I sort of felt like that. And that's.

[00:03:50] Yeah. I mean, it's been, I guess, five and a half years.

[00:03:53] Do you remember the moment where you were like, oh, wait a minute, there's a line here.

[00:03:57] I mean, I think it definitely was like an evolution, but like I don't know if there was like a like one exact moment. But I mean, I think it was just sort of.

[00:04:08] Delving off into rabbit holes and seeing the implications of climate change for these areas that certainly weren't what I had been accustomed to reading about. So I don't I mean, I don't know if there's like that's like there's like a definitive moment.

[00:04:25] Yeah, you mentioned there sometimes not being covered, right?

[00:04:28] If you could change one thing or if it's a, you know, two or three, that's fine, too, about the way that we talk about climate in the mainstream discourse or in the media. What would it be?

[00:04:38] Yeah, I mean, that's right. You're you're right to say like two or three or.

[00:04:42] Yeah, I like to. Yeah. R11 yeah. We have time.

[00:04:48] I mean I think I think so. There's like a few things. One is I'm increasingly impressed that I think people who cover climate and know it well like do a good job at doing that.

[00:05:00] I think the challenge of course, comes when you look at the presidential debates or any time when somebody who doesn't really know their stuff like starts or needs to talk about climate. And so I you know, you get you get the bigger challenges. I think the one, if I had to pick one, is the framing of climate change, addressing climate change as like, what do you have to give up?

[00:05:25] And I think this is like something that I see even from, you know, mainstream journalists who should know better, who will frame a question about, you know, well, how much will it cost? How much should we be willing to sacrifice at it? I mean, you like I think everybody who listens to this podcast knows what why that's like trouble on, like, so many levels. But it's still, I think, what a lot of people think and I think even like I think even some people who mean, well, Democratic politicians sometimes will slip into a sort of like, you know, we don't we don't want to give anything up, sort of like language about it.

[00:06:06] Yeah, that's my that's my one thing.

[00:06:08] Yeah. Like how they don't want to give up fracking.

[00:06:12] And fracking is a prime example where it's it's you know, I understand the sort of messaging like you don't want to talk about losing fracking jobs, OK, but like maybe talk about the opportunities that are created. You know, if we do move away from from fracking. Right. Like don't frame it about giving up fracking talking and talk about like, yeah, we'll have cleaner water. Right. There's opportunities for new industries in new jobs and. Right. Yeah. So I think that's that is a good example.

[00:06:39] My most recent rant on fracking has been like I just don't understand why politicians in particular, when they're asked about that, don't come back immediately and say fracking companies are laying people off right and left. What are you talking about? They're all going bankrupt. They've never made money.

[00:06:55] The thing I always want to know, like, why don't they come back with this? Like, we're talking about saving lives here. Yes.

[00:07:01] Seems like this isn't about what's to be gained in the GDP. We're talking about like human beings, like so like, well, how hard would it be to come back with like, this is killing people and it's going to kill a lot more people. Anyway, I could go on that rant forever.

[00:07:20] No, I mean, I think that's that's that's definitely right. But I also think, like, I wrote a story in the spring about cost benefit analysis, which is like a a thing that, you know, why do we conduct the cost of an analysis when it comes to saving lives? Like, that's a whole different thing. Like, even if you accept the premise that it's all about GDP, like we should still be doing a lot of the things that, you know, that that we're talking about purely on the basis of saving lives. No, I think it's important to make that argument on all levels.

[00:07:54] You know, what's crazy about that, too, is that there was a story I mean, like way back 20, 30 years. It was like a big scandal when GM was caught basically making this calculation in like a spreadsheet.

[00:08:07] They were calculating how much money they would lose from a massive recall for like a safety flaw that they knew existed versus how many people would die. And they made the call that it would cost them less to pay out insurance claims from people dying than to do this recall.

[00:08:27] What the fuck? That's kind of what we're doing at a massive scale. Yeah.

[00:08:32] See, this is what I love about doing a podcast with Amy. She does, like, knows that shit.

[00:08:45] Yeah. One of the things we've learned the most from doing take for about a year now is how quickly the climate story has changed in the past, like four years, really the past two years. So are there any interesting emerging things that you've noticed in the ways that we talk about climate change?

[00:09:01] Yeah, I mean, I think one like just this. I mean, when I took on this be like five and a half years ago is not that long ago. I mean, just the sort of the volume and attention like level of concern that I think it's gotten is, I think the first thing.

[00:09:17] But I think the other thing is just, you know, talking about it as intersexual issue. And I. That like in really every respect. I think there's a growing recognition that climate change, climate policy, climate activism is not just about like, you know, emissions and even like emissions and sea level rise, that it's actually about literally everything. I think that that's something that, you know, most people would not have understood five years ago. And I think I don't I mean, I don't know that most people understand it now, but but I think that people who pay attention definitely are are increasingly aware of that. So I think that's a huge thing. There's so many reasons from that for that. I obviously like the activism with green diesel etc as a big part of it. But I think there are a lot of a lot of reasons.

[00:10:10] OK. So, Justin, what are you reading these days and what. Is there anything that you read on a regular basis to kind of stay up on these things or that, you know, a particular writer that you like on climate?

[00:10:20] Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. I try so I think a few things I would say I have I don't know. I subscribe to, like, I don't know, 20 newsletters. It's your favorite. And there's a right answer. Yeah, of course. Of course. Yours is my my favorite. I should probably take a step back and say this is a good time to plug my own newsletter.

[00:10:43] Which is called one point five, and you can Google it and find at one point five times. So please subscribe.

[00:10:49] But I. But really, I don't know. I think one thing that I've focused my reading on or tried to focus my reading on is, you know, as I said, thinking about climate as an intersexual issue. And so, like, trying not and there are a lot of great people writing about climate, but trying not to just read about climate, but actually just trying to like read the news.

[00:11:10] You know, anything and everything and sort of trying to find those connections that maybe people aren't thinking about because, you know, climate.

[00:11:19] I mean, for a long time, like the climate reporter, like, you know, had a lot of work to do, writing about climate reports and all the different climate things that are happening. And like so one thing that I really. Yeah.

[00:11:31] Like I try to do is like, OK, let me just read the newspaper or me read the whole newspapers and see where the climate story is that people are totally missing that. Yeah.

[00:11:41] Yeah. So that's like a very broad answer. But like, I don't know, I think it's important.

[00:11:59] No reporter at Time magazine, which is like very, very, very dear in my family, is the only magazine that my mother subscribes to.

[00:12:09] So I have a lot of questions for you. OK. One wet dog always knows the time.

[00:12:17] I hope you can ask Amy for help. OK. Amy, can I get a hint?

[00:12:27] I feel like it's like it's funny that you can ask me for help too, because I'm also very bad at these.

[00:12:33] Yeah. No, it's not really reptiles. Not actually. Not politically. Which is why I have no idea. Let let a watch dog. Oh God. Come on. We share that.

[00:12:48] That was an easy one. You started using, didn't you?

[00:12:53] Well, I mean, there's plenty to go. Don't worry.

[00:12:55] They're all about time. So if you thought from that setup, I was actually going to ask you about Time magazine. Think a fucking again. Why did the man put a clock under his desk? Well, the whole.

[00:13:15] See, our. Went ahead. Yeah. What do you do on your day? You work, right?

[00:13:29] Clock under it to work overtime. There you go.

[00:13:40] OK. So there's hope for you. Death is what that says.

[00:14:05] OK. So, Justin, the main reason we want to have you on is to talk about climate change and political destabilization, which is something you've written a bit about in time. So we have an excerpt from an article you wrote called How Climate Change Beats Political Instability.

[00:14:22] And we'd love it if you could read us that quick. Two paragraphs.

[00:14:26] Well, OK. Change play in our current political instability.

[00:14:32] It's a controversial question. For years, many politicians and commentators shuddered when scientists or climate activists discussed climate change in relation to individual storms or wildfires, accusing them of politicizing disaster. And in those cases, the link to climate change was relatively straightforward. The evidence connecting climate change and political stability has been less obvious, but is becoming increasingly impossible to ignore. Warmer temperatures and extreme weather exacerbate social stress, worsening economic outcomes. These, in turn, affect political behavior. A landmark 2013 paper in the journal Science found that the change in temperature of one standard deviation was associated with a two point three percent increase in interpersonal conflict flight rates and a thirteen point two percent increase in the rate of intergroup conflict. By 2050, temperatures are expected to rise by two standard deviations in most places across the globe and by as much as four standard deviations in some places. And these tumultuous times, both politically and climatically. There are several key factors of human behavior to consider. Research has shown that warm temperatures increase the odds of violent interpersonal interactions. So do you see spikes in violent crime? And police are more likely to use extreme force and use force and extreme heat. Studies have also found that people dealing with extreme heat are more likely to distrust outsiders. And research has shown that challenging weather shapes political decisions. And this is a quote here when people are uncomfortable, weather explains some of that, says Cohen. Alexander Cohen. And to continue, the quote can explain how There, respond to public opinion surveys.

[00:16:16] We know that it affects how they vote or if they vote at all.

[00:16:20] The thing I found most interesting about it was kind of the first thing you said was that it's a controversial question. And [00:16:26]I've got understand that it is a controversial question to a lot of people. [3.9s]

[00:16:31] [00:16:31]But I just don't understand how you like if you take the whole world and make it unstable. Of course, every system that operates on top of it is going to become unstable, too, right. [10.9s]

[00:16:42] [00:16:42]It's like trying to write in your journal while the subway's moving like you can. You're not going to be able to do it. [6.5s]

[00:16:49] [00:16:49]I know it's super weird, too, because, like, nobody questions. [2.7s]

[00:16:53] [00:16:53]You know, the fact that daily life gets harder when there's an extreme weather event, for example, like that's uncontroversial. So I don't understand why the idea that, you know, more and more extreme heat or hurricanes or fires or storms or whatever is going to make things less stable is is not patently obvious. [19.5s]

[00:17:15] [00:17:15]Yeah, right. Like, of course it is. [1.6s] So just how did you come to write this piece?

[00:17:23] Yeah. I mean, I was just so this was for this originally was in my newsletter that I mentioned earlier where I tried to just write about the news of the week and find the climate hook. And this was, you know, I mean, there was one of the many weeks and the last several months where everything just felt totally insane.

[00:17:43] And so, you know, I just I was familiar with the literature on climate and political instability. And I just thought, you know, it's a good time to sort of just go through it and review it for any readers who aren't. And, you know, it's like one of those things, too, where you can sort of pick apart, like a lot of the literature is on the developing world places outside of the US. But I just felt also, you know, given the storms that were in the Gulf, given the wildfires, given some of the flooding in the Midwest, I just felt like, you know what?

[00:18:21] Maybe this is like a time when people will actually really get it. Like, you know, to the point earlier, like, why is this controversial? I mean, I don't know. Obviously, I think it shouldn't be controversial, but I feel like a lot of it is that people just like they don't they can't. It seems too abstract. And so I just felt like, well, this is a moment where you can literally see it, like you can literally see the flooding and the wildfires, et cetera. So it just seemed like the right moment to sort of elevate that literature.

[00:18:53] You know, I think it might be because people are a scarce people. It is terrifying. Right.

[00:18:58] And so people are like, it can't possibly be that bad like that cognitive dissonance kind of comes back. I don't know if y'all used to have this experience. No idea. Like before 2016, whenever I would try to talk about climate to people, like they would really shut down and get really defensive and be like, it can't possibly be that bad. If it is that bad, somebody is working on a solution. Nobody would ever let it get that bad. We get really mad at me about it. And I feel like that still happens. Now, when you try to make the social consequences of it clear to people.

[00:19:35] Yeah. That yeah, that's yeah. I mean, like in a way it threatens. I mean, just understanding that threatens the way that we understand and engage in our world. So that's I, I mean I can get why that's a reaction even though that's not a smart reaction. Yeah.

[00:19:53] In the same article you talk about how increased heat affects police violence. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

[00:20:00] Yeah, well, it's so I mean, I refer to a study in this in this piece. But I mean, basically, you know, I mean, you can take police out of it for a minute and you think about it when it's really hot and you're outside and you're kind of agitated like, you know, you or me or any like person is more likely to make a rash decision. And the same goes for police. And, you know, there's literature on this. It shows that now police are more likely to pull that trigger when they feel agitated and extreme heat. It's interesting, too. I just as a sort of aside, this isn't in the piece. But I want to this focus group and this year but before cohabited in February, sort of a mix of black voters in Philadelphia.

[00:20:51] And it was like they sort of were talked through like, you know, what different thought, different parts of the climate. And most people walked in without really having much thought about climate change.

[00:21:04] But it was so interesting to see, like, people come to the conclusion, like on their own that like, what do you anticipate if there are more hot days and there are tougher times with police, tougher times and streets. It is like a thing that people intuitively get, even though. And of course, there's this robust literature to support that. So from what I just I was it's amazing how, like, people experience this already.

[00:21:30] Right. Like, if you look up the temperatures of any major day of political upheaval, it was always hot as balls like Bastille Day was super fucking high like it was. Same thing with the L.A. riots. Like you'll notice that the L.A. riots and when I say L.A. riots, I am thinking of like I'm thinking of the Rodney King riots of the 90s. But they only happen in really hot places because that happened. And I think in late March or something like it wasn't a typically hot it wasn't the summer. And so it happened in places like Atlanta and L.A. and then like the the unrest that we saw this summer when people spilled out into the streets. It was really fucking hot this summer. The Watts riots in the 60s, all of the all of those things happened when it was extremely hot outside because people are more irritable and not even just like the people spilling out into the streets. But the police will are way more likely to show their ass. Right. I also think of Katrina where they just like bounce or if they stay, they got it.

[00:22:34] Got real biblical. Yeah. I also wanted to talk about how I think people they think of climate change as being like a quick thing often.

[00:22:41] Maybe people are getting away from that belief. But I think a lot of people still think it is. And it's like you'll wake up one day and like this is climate change and it's actually not like that at all. And so I wanted to read from a piece from two thousand eighteen that was in the Atlantic called Trump Climate Change and the Future of U.S. Democracy by Van Newkirk.

[00:23:00] The most immediate consequence of climate change won't be an abrupt entry into an alien Anthropocene Hill.

[00:23:06] It's more likely to be a slow descent. Racial wealth gaps will increase. Racial health disparities will be exacerbated. Sprawling metropolises and rural hamlets alike will face steeper and steeper budgetary constraints and could be forced to rely heavily on the fees and fines to keep the lights on, a move that some cash strapped local governments have already made and one that disproportionately affects poor or minority residents. Housing markets will continue to realign in favor of displacement and the creation of a migrant renter class. Marginalized neighborhoods will continue to shoulder a majority of the environmental burden. Trust in government will continue to decline as it proves unable to help people plan for or respond to climate effects. Elections will be disrupted by disasters. Fewer and fewer people will have real attachments to local civic life. And even the concept of local or national shared destiny will suffer as the haves are shielded from consequences and disasters can and will rapidly push. Each of these weaknesses to crisis points, even as the rolling disaster of environmental change makes crises incrementally more likely every day.

[00:24:16] This is something I think about a lot because they feel like this is true everywhere.

[00:24:20] But it's I think it has the potential to be slightly more catastrophic in the US because it's happening on top of a society that's never really been good at community.

[00:24:34] I also think about this this year in particular, because people are being pushed out of their homes by fire, them by floods. And how are they going to vote? Where are they going to vote?

[00:24:45] Well, and then the fact that they're being pushed out of their homes during a pandemic, too, it's just like, yeah, it's really remarkable how, like, as you said, this is like this describes our world now.

[00:24:59] And this was like a prescient article written like two years ago. It's just it's it's terrifying.

[00:25:07] And I think it's like it's terrifying when we, like people in the know have known and expected what we see now. And it's just happening so much faster.

[00:25:17] And it's I keep thinking that, too. It's happening so much faster than than even what like. Yeah. What I thought or most people, you know, I think I don't know. I don't know why I thought it like we had another 10, 20 years before it got like this, but yeah.

[00:25:36] Yeah. Now same thing. I kind of think about that too when I hear like, you know, there's this new segment of climate denial that's like, yeah, climate change is real, but it's not that bad. And it's just like, what level of denial?

Transcription

TIME magazine energy and environment reporter Justin Worland joins to discuss the many ways climate change and political instability feed and exacerbate each other.

S2, Ep12 | All the Lives in the Balance, with Rachel Ramirez

S2, Ep11 | Political Instability =/ Planetary Instability, with Justin Worland

Hot Take is a holistic, irreverent, honest look at the climate crisis and all the ways media and society are talking—and not talking—about it. Hosted by real-life friends Mary Annaïse Heglar and Amy Westervelt—an essayist and a journalist— Hot Take offers a unique perspective on the issue of climate change. With a breath of fresh humanity and humor, conversation moves swiftly from cackling about the bad week an oil company had, to speaking seriously and passionately about the unequal distribution of climate impacts and our own experiences of climate grief. And then washing it down with a round of dad jokes! Every week, we’ll connect you with the latest climate news and with the journalists and storytellers trying to make sense of this complex issue to help you see the world through climate-colored glasses. We ended production on Hot Take at the end of 2022, but you can still access episodes here, or 

A holistic, irreverent, honest look at the climate crisis and all the ways media and society are talking—and not talking—about it.

S2, Ep11 | Political Instability =/ Planetary Instability, with Justin Worland

About This Episode

Transcript

Next Up

S2, Ep12 | All the Lives in the Balance, with Rachel Ramirez