Amy Westervelt: 0:03

So I'm sitting in this courtroom in San Francisco. And there's this eccentric judge. And there's like the oil company lawyers who literally were cracking jokes about, like how the other lawyers were poor. You guys are like straight out of central casting. And then there were like the activists wearing their Exxon new T shirts, the scientists being kind of, you know, goofy and awkward and I thought, Oh, this is perfect. I can do a true crime style podcast about climate change.

Tom Raftery: 0:36

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening wherever you are in the world. This is the climate 21 podcast, the number one podcast showcasing best practices in climate emissions reductions. And I'm your host, global vice president for SAP. Tom Raftery. Climate 21 is the name of an initiative by SAP to allow our customers calculate, report and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In this climate 21 podcast, I will showcase best practices and thought leadership by SAP, by our customers by our partners on by our competitors if their game in climate emissions reductions. Don't forget to subscribe to this podcast in your podcast app of choice to be sure you don't miss any episodes. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the Climate 21 podcast. My name is Tom Raftery, with SAP and with me on the show today I have my special guest, Amy. Amy, would you like to introduce yourself?

Amy Westervelt: 1:31

Sure. My name is Amy Westervelt. And I'm a journalist and I run a podcast network and we make lots of climate.

Tom Raftery: 1:42

Fantastic, fantastic. So I came across you, Amy. First, I think through your drilled podcast series, although I think online, I'd seen your name mentioned with a couple of articles as well in the space. How did you get into climate in the first place? Because you know, you've been in a while now. And it's not really something that people have been paying attention to for that long.

Amy Westervelt: 2:05

Yeah, so I was a print journalist for a really long time before I got into podcasts. And I still do work in that realm too. And I started in climate because this is a very bizarre way in but I had quit my job at a magazine that was working at, like an arts and culture magazine in San Francisco. And I had a terrible boss, who was just awful, like one of those like epically bad bosses, and then I, you know, I was like, 23 or something and, and sort of had a shouting match my boss and stormed out, victorious, I quit. And then oh, no, how am I gonna pay my rent? So a friend of mine, who was working at an engineering firm, said, You know, actually, we need a copywriter, and it's on contract, and they'll pay you like, you know, as you write these case studies, so, you know, it's gonna be boring, it's gonna be boring as hell, but you can, you know, maybe, maybe you want to do it. And I was like, yes, yes, give it to me. So, I started doing that. And this firm had done a bunch of engineering for Shell to make its oil platforms, kind of resilient to sea level rise. And this was quite a while ago, more than 20 years ago,

Tom Raftery: 3:38

showed worried about sea level rise for what might be causing sea level rise.

Amy Westervelt: 3:42

Yeah. So this was at the at a at a time when, you know, they weren't in full on sort of climate denial mode. But they certainly were not telling anyone else to get ready for sea level rise. And the the particular case study that I was writing was about work that had happened, you know, probably 10 years earlier, when they when really, most of the oil companies were kind of saying, Don't worry, this isn't a problem. So that was very interesting to me. And I thought, Oh, this is kind of an interesting story. Maybe I can pitch it to an environmental magazine, which I did. I wrote it, I wrote it for a super tiny magazine that no longer exists. And it just kind of got me interested in the whole climate thing. So I ended up getting a job for that same little magazine, it was called sustainable industries. And then I got a job with solve climate, which today is inside climate news. When they first launched, I worked with them for a while and just sort of kept going. And I I kind of you know, I always wrote about various other things too, but But climate was kind of a through line for a long time. And I, I feel like I've kind of come back to this, you know, corporate malfeasance accountability up So. So. So yeah, that's that's where it started.

Tom Raftery: 5:19

But we talk about damages your new podcast which actually launches tomorrow. So congrats on that I've heard a couple of the teaser episodes. And it sounds really good. But before we and for people listening damages is, you know, as the name might imply, it's about, you know, law, legal cases are and climate, which is a fascinating topic, I think. But before that, let's let's talk about the one where I actually heard you first, which was drilled, which was an incredibly well produced podcast, I have to say it's kind of a Netflix level of production values. And it's, no, it really is, and it's done. It's so my podcast here. And my little effort by myself is, you know, it's very simple, very straightforward. It's just me, I'm the guest, but the the drilled series, and from what I've heard the damages series as well, it's you're going out, you're interviewing people, you've got a whole backstory to talk to me about drilled, how did that come about? And I mean, maybe talk a little bit as well about the story that drilled tells, because I had done Franta on the podcast before Christmas, Ben. Yeah, he we talked a little bit about that. In fact, we mentioned you on the podcast. And but yeah, talk a little bit about how drilled came about and the story of it.

Amy Westervelt: 6:40

Yeah, so I was covering climate cases for a couple of different outlets, I was writing about them for The Guardian, and a couple of websites and things. And so I heard about this trial in San Francisco. So San Francisco and Oakland were suing the 30 largest oil companies for their role in delaying climate action. I think these cases have been like mis interpreted a lot as like, you know, suing oil companies for causing climate change. No, that's not what they're doing. It's basically these cities with enormously high costs for climate adaptation. So for example, San Francisco is spending millions of dollars on sea walls, or having to move people away from coastlines that are, you know, disappearing, thanks to sea level rise and things like that. Right now, taxpayers bear those costs. And what these cases are arguing is that the companies that delayed action on climate, and therefore increase those costs, should pay some portion of those costs. So that's what was happening in the Bay Area in California. And the judge in that case, did something a bit unusual and requested a climate tutorial. So he, yeah, he asked, he was a very interesting guy. Judge also could San Francisco, he had previously done cases where he had, like, taught himself how to code in order to, to like, adjudicate complicated software case, and he had, like, learned everything about autonomous vehicles for a case, you know, related to that. So he's very into, you know, really getting into the backstory of these cases. And so he asked for both sides to give a presentation on really sort of the history of science and who knew what and when. And at that time, you know, I was, I was covering these cases for various print outlets, but I had started working in radio, and I had been trying to think of like, what could a narrative climate podcast be all of the climate podcasts that existed that at the time were interview shows or talk shows, and I thought, you know, there's so many stories in this room? Why, you know, why isn't there a narrative podcast? And I realized, oh, because it's really hard to figure out, you know, what story would work in that medium? And anyway, so I'm sitting in this courtroom in San Francisco. And there's this eccentric judge. And there's like the oil company lawyers who literally were cracking jokes about like, how the other lawyers were poor. I was like, because we're like, straight out of central casting. And then there were like, the activists wearing their Exxon new T shirts, the scientists being kind of, you know, goofy and awkward. And I thought, Oh, this is perfect. I can do a true crime style podcast about climate change. So that's what I set out to do and in the first season I wanted to get into really kind of the the story that a lot of these new cases are based on, which is what exactly the oil companies knew about climate change, and when and what they did with that information. And, of course, that story had been reported by InsideClimate News and The Los Angeles Times and Columbia Journalism School in 2015. And was, I mean, an incredible kind of, Expo say about, particularly Exxon Mobil, because there were so many documents available that really showed, okay, their scientists were warning them in the 70s, that, you know, this is coming, it's going to be a big problem, we need to do something. And you know, what happened with that, that kind of momentum. So I, but I felt like, not enough people had read that story, like it hadn't sunk in enough yet. And I thought, you know, this is a, this is like, a good example of where audio can actually help you to tell a story, because when you hear these old axon scientists telling this story, that like sinks in more, you know, you can kind of you can really hear them, you know, going through this whole history, so, so I found as many of them that were still my search, I got, like a whole list of, of scientists from all the documents and then write, or to check against obituaries. And of course, like, not that many. I found the ones that I could and, and when and talk to them and, and that was sort of the first season of job, which was only ever going to be that one season, but in the course of reporting that I learned about a case that some crab fishermen were bringing against the oil industry. And that seemed really interesting to me. So I went out on a bunch of crab fishing, talk to this guy's and then, and then I really got to thinking, you know, climate denial was very effective, but it's only one strategy. And it's kind of like, I really started thinking, I don't really understand why it was that as effective as it was, because it's not like a genius strategy, you know, sort of the oldest trick in the book to say, Nah, that's not true. So, why, why did it work? So well, and I started looking further and further back in history at and really like pro fossil fuel propaganda, and the ways that the oil industry, in particular had really shaped Americans ideas around the environment. And then, you know, subsequently all over the world people's ideas about what is the environment? What is nature? What is the relationship between the environment and the economy, and there were so many of these things set really rigidly like, decades before climate appeared on the scene, you know, so then you're kind of like, Oh, of course, like, you can almost predict that things were gonna go the way that they did. Because that path had already really been laid for quite some time. So. So that was season three of drilled, we looked at sort of this long history of propaganda. And I just like keep, I keep finding more story. So you keep doing more, more and more seasons. We're up to season six now. Amazing.

Tom Raftery: 13:43

Amazing. Yeah. And so that brings us nicely on to damages, because damages is the new one, as we mentioned launching tomorrow. For people who aren't listening to this on Wednesday, the 16th damages launches on Thursday, February 17. So if you're listening to it after February 17, go and check it out in iTunes, or your podcast app of choice to me, how did damages come about? And what is it?

Amy Westervelt: 14:11

Yeah, so actually, damages is the show that I thought I was starting to make with the first season of drills. I like had, I had intended to start to follow the stories behind these different cases, because at that time, in particular, this is now like, I guess 2017 The Climate cases really were not being covered. It was sort of like the first few of them, you know, got some coverage in the press and I don't I don't even fault. I don't fault like the media for ignoring them or anything like that. It's sort of just the way that media is set up to cover these cases that you know, you might get a story when something's filed. And then you might get another story if there's a ruling. But there's no, there's no place where you like really get the backstory of, you know, why this case has come about or anything like that. So I thought, Oh, this is there's hundreds of cases these are this is like an endless pool of story material. And it really like, there's this way to me that law is a huge reflection of kind of philosophy and religion and cultural ideas about things that kind of show up in courtrooms. So, I find that really interesting. And being able to look at cases all over the world is fascinating to me. And it's also this realm where there are a lot of things happening that actually really impact policy. And no one really even knows that they're going on every time I tell someone, there's hundreds of climate cases that are in courts all over the world right now. They're like, really? Like, you know, it was, it was a good time to do it. And also, up there, again, the podcast format is actually uniquely suited to, to kind of filling this gap that you, you know, that you can't really do in print. And also, I mean, it's very hard to make legal cases interesting in print.

Tom Raftery: 16:33

Yeah. I can see that. Yeah.

Amy Westervelt: 16:38

Whereas in audio, like even in, in season one have drilled with all of the axon documents, you know, like, reading those is one thing, but having them read to you, it just kind of like sinks in a little bit more,

Tom Raftery: 16:52

because it changes the dynamic enormously. And the impact enormously, I think,

Amy Westervelt: 18:07

yeah, so. So anyway, that's, that's the sort of genesis of damages. And in the first season, we're looking at rights of nature cases. So this idea that ecosystems can have rights in the same way that, you know, corporations have rights, for example, or, or other organizations. And, and then, you know, we're going to do some amount of explanatory episodes to kind of get people up to speed on the legal landscape. And then we have a narrative season planned to look at this major offshore drilling project in Guyana, and a suit that's been filed to try to stop it. That is extremely interesting. But the lawyer in that case, used to work for BP. And she's from Guyana, and she went home and started kind of fighting against the oil companies and filed like she, she, she filed this case against the government, in response to the government, like giving Exxon Mobil a ton of permits, and also just signing signing a contract that, you know, isn't even economically logical for. Like, it doesn't, it doesn't make them rich, it probably makes a couple of, you know, corrupt politicians, very wealthy, but, but that's about it. And she, I was talking to her about the case. And I asked her, you know, what had happened so far and what the reaction from Exxon had been, and she said, Well, the further first step was to try to say that, you know, I was misunderstanding the constitutional amendment in Guyana, that guarantees a right to a healthy environment. But that argument didn't last very long because I wrote that it was like, amazing.

Tom Raftery: 20:07

It is like some mansplaining Twitter comment, you'd see isn't it?

Amy Westervelt: 20:13

it really is. So anyway, it's that will be an interesting story to really dig into and then again, like there's been, you know, some articles about it. But it's so complicated, and I feel like there's a way that you can get into a story like that in you know, over the course of eight episodes of a podcast that you just can't you just don't have the room to do in even a long magazine article. Same with like we did a season have drilled on the chevron Ecuador case and Toya Onsager and that I mean it's it's a 30 year saga, you can tell that story in one magazine article. So anyway,

Tom Raftery: 20:53

and it continues I saw him post on Twitter the other day that he got the ankle bracelet off.

Amy Westervelt: 20:59

Yeah, he got the cloth. No, he I think his some his sentence is finally done in April. So that's good. But yeah, that whole Story was wild, really, really wild. And there again, like other people had written about it and covered it and all of that stuff. But there was there's just so much to it that you can't really get into unless you read 1000s of core documents. So, so yeah, those are those are the kinds of stories that we want to tell.

Tom Raftery: 21:36

And that's the cool thing, of course, because in a podcast, you are able to summarize it, and obviously break it out over a number of episodes, but summarize it get to the salient points and have it given in an audio format, which is far easier to consume than reading down through pages and pages pages, if someone is presented with, you know, a 15 page document telling the story, it's you, that's work, you know, you actually have to sit down, and you have to pay through it. And it's like, but consuming it in a podcast, on your way to work or walking the dogs. You know, it's a far, far easier way to get the information in.

Amy Westervelt: 22:17

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, they say that, um, there's a research study that I think I Heart Radio did that said that podcast like audio is the only form of meeting where people don't tend to do other tasks that like require the same part of the brain. So like, you, you might listen to a podcast while you're walking the dog, or when you're doing dishes or cooking or whatever, but you're not like taking in other types of content at the same time. And I was like, oh, yeah, that's true, actually. Because when I'm watching TV, I definitely like, you know, veer towards my phone more often than I would like to. And even when I'm reading like, if I'm especially if I'm reading something on online, I'm, you know, it's like all this is also embarrassing, but But yeah, like, I'll read a couple pages and then be like, what's happening over here? Guys, I just, I just listened to it. And that's it, you know?

Tom Raftery: 23:20

No, I'm very ADD as well. So you know, if I'm reading an article or writing an email or doing you know, Twitter's open on my left screen, LinkedIn is their notifications are coming up. And, you know, it can take me an hour to write a two sentence email. That's a slight exaggeration, but you know, because I'm Oh, yeah. Oh, that's Oh, they answered me. Oh, yeah. Yes, well, activity goes down.

Amy Westervelt: 23:44

I know. I know. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, I think it makes good use of the medium. And that's I, I tried to find stories where it makes the most sense for them to be told and audio like it's, it actually helps people understand it.

Tom Raftery: 24:04

Yeah. And just on the whole damages thing, are you Is there an uptick in the number of legal cases being taken recently? Or is that? Yes, good.

Amy Westervelt: 24:15

There is yes, there has been a pretty like, dramatic increase just in the last couple of years, it's really jumped from under 200 cases to, you know, several 100 At this point, and there's more and more and more coming all the time.

Tom Raftery: 24:34

And is it because they're getting publicity? Or is it something else?

Amy Westervelt: 24:39

I think it's because I honestly think it's because of inaction on the on the legislative side. And there's actually there's a few other drivers too. So there have been major advances in attribution science. So this is like, right, this new realm of climate science that enables people to say, you know, without climate change, like this percentage of the intensity of this storm, you know, might wouldn't have happened therefore, like, you know, they can calculate actual damages from that like, okay, so if you look at, you know, Superstorm Sandy, X percent of the storm surge was caused by climate change, therefore, you know, it's this percent of the damage that was caused, and there's a price tag that you can put on that. It also allows for things like the carbon majors report, which, you know, kind of is the thing that gets cited all the time. That's like 70 companies are responsible for X percent of emissions and, and that kind of thing. So that has evolved significantly, at the same time that investigative journalists have dug up more and more of these documents that show what kinds of strategies the oil companies were deploying along the way. So that has happened, and also on the government side to like looking at, you know, what governments have done and not done to address this issue. And there are hundreds of countries now that have these constitutional amendments that guarantee the right to a healthy environment. Right. So those are being invoked to kind of push governments to act. So yeah, it's kind of a confluence of things.

Tom Raftery: 26:24

Okay. And is, is there a pattern to the types of cases being taken because you, your first few, your your first season, you mentioned is about the rights of nature. But there's also then things like France, Germany in the Netherlands, that those three countries here in Europe, they've had their governments taken to court and their governments have lost with activists saying, you know, you're not doing enough to meet your emissions targets, which, which is a completely different kind of case than the rights of nature case. And then you've ones like you mentioned the Steven Donziger. One, for example. And the one in Guyana, which is a different type of case again, I don't know a Have you classified them in any way? B? Is there any pattern? Oh, good.

Amy Westervelt: 27:08

Yeah, yeah, I have, because, because, yeah, there are actually lots of different types of cases. And so that's kind of what we're doing in different seasons is, is looking at a different type of case each season. So So yeah, there's right nature. There's cases that are kind of invoking government's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and saying, you know, you made this commitment, but you're not sticking to it. There are cases that are invoking what's called the right to a healthy environment, which is a constitutional amendment that a lot of countries have adopted. And that's really interesting to me that the difference between rights of nature and right to a healthy environment is very interesting, because right to healthy environment is human centered. So it's a lot easier to integrate into existing legal systems, right? It's like, okay, well, this makes sense to our current systems. So I think that has had a lot more kind of uptake, then rights of nature. For that reason, it's a lot more straightforward. And oftentimes, those amendments will apply to both present and future generations. So that enables these suits to kind of say, look, you're, you're not protecting the rights of future generations, which is super interesting, then you have tort cases, which, you know, tort just means wrong. It's a wrong that's not covered explicitly by any particular law, you know. So these are your, like, negligence cases, your liability cases, like those, these damages related cases, where people are saying, This company's activities are costing me money in this way, then you have your fraud cases, there are starting to be more and more suits that are explicitly alleging fraud on behalf of the oil companies. And then you have the financial cases. So there's some really interesting, like fiduciary responsibility type cases where lawyers are arguing that you know, that a particular investment firm or bank is, is actually failing to meet, you know, commitment to its, yeah, exactly, to sort of protect people's money or to invest in a sensible way. There's a thing come up in the inch, it's really interesting, you're seeing it come up in like the insurance realm as well. Employee Retirement funds, that's another one where, where people are saying, hey, like, my retirement is totally dependent on your investment investment portfolio, and you're investing in all these fossil fuel companies. And that's not a smart investment. So, yeah, it's, it's, it's so interesting to me, because it's sort of, you know, all these different ways that these arguments can be made. And sometimes the target is the government. And sometimes the target is specific companies. So that's interesting, too, because there's just kind of a weird argument between the lawyers on these cases about, you know, kind of who's more responsible, and whether the cases that try to hold the government responsible, like undermine the cases that tried to hold the companies responsible, and it's like, well, you know, there's enough accountability. They go around here, guys.

Tom Raftery: 30:47

Fair, fair, fair. Tell me I mean, you mentioned the Guyana case, but you know, without giving away too much. Can you talk about one or two other really interesting ones that you've come across? Yes.

Amy Westervelt: 31:00

There's a case going on right now. That is fascinating to me, where a farmer in Peru has sued a fossil fuel company in Germany. For the impacts that this that melting glaciers have had on his farming enterprise, so no one thought that this case would move forward, everyone, you know, sort of suspected that it will get thrown out. But the German courts actually affirmed the case. So, in like May or June, a bunch of German judges are headed, headed to the end to meet this farmer and sort of see, you know, for themselves, what has been going on and all of that. So, yeah, that one, I think, is, is super interesting. I think the Youth Climate cases are all really interesting, too. So this is sort of another batch of cases where you have young people, you know, suing their governments for not just not acting on climate, but actually acting to spur climate change in a way by, you know, subsidizing fossil fuels, providing loads of incentives for fossil fuel development, all of that kind of stuff. One thing, one really interesting thing, that lawyer on those cases brought up to me recently was that, in the bulk of those cases, lawyers are going in with a demand for governments to meet Paris Climate Agreement goals and targets. And her argument was, those were a political compromise, is they're not actually what science says is necessary to, you know, really make everything safe. And as lawyers in the space, especially plaintiff's lawyers, we should be going in demanding, demanding, like the toughest possible thing, not like

Tom Raftery: 33:02

something aligned with the science based targets initiative, for example, right, exactly,

Amy Westervelt: 33:07

exactly. Like something like with that, versus going in arguing for a political compromise. She's like, you know, I can't think of any other realm where that has been the strategy for plaintiffs lawyers. Yeah. So yeah, I was like, Oh, that's really interesting. I hadn't even thought about it. But, and her concern is that, you know, though, as those cases get settled, then that starts to set a precedent. And then you can't argue, the much more aggressive target. So anyway, it's, it's really, again, like I find this stuff really fascinating, because it kind of gets into, you know, government and science and philosophy and cultural values, and, you know, economy, all of it.

Tom Raftery: 33:54

Yeah. Excellent. Excellent, excellent. And where to from here? I mean, you've mentioned you have several seasons of damages lined up and ready to roll, starting, as we said earlier, starting tomorrow, but what, what comes after that?

Amy Westervelt: 34:10

I have, let's see two more parts of season six have drilled coming out this year as well. So we're doing this three part season on the gas industry, and how that industry evolved, how the sort of bridge field narrative evolved, why it's so persistent. And then how fracking led to a plastics boom. So looking at kind of all of that stuff. And then I also, I want to do a season of drilled and I don't know if I'll get to it this year, if it'll be next year, but on the kind of origin story of the idea of corporate free speech, because it actually came from the oil industry. Imagine that. So like, yeah, exactly, exactly. So. So that story starts with Mobil Oil in the early 70s actually trying to to get its issue advertising, which had been so effective for it and print. So these advertorials that they came up with, they wanted to do TV commercials like that. And somehow a different time. The top three American network said, No, we're not going to do that. That's propaganda. Yeah, and mobile went ballistic about it. Anyway, so that there's a whole really interesting backstory there. And it connects up to these cases, because the number one argument that the oil companies are starting to coalesce around is a free speech argument that they can they have the right to say, whatever they want about climate change, and that anyone who says otherwise is infringing on their free speech rights. So there's a real straight line from those arguments in the early 70s to Today? Yeah, so So yeah, more, more of the same

Tom Raftery: 36:17

goodgoodgood. Slightly different question, Amy, given all this that's going on? Are you optimistic for the future?

Amy Westervelt: 36:27

Oh, that's a good question. I guess, let's see, how do I think about this, I kind of think about it as more of like, resilience than optimism, I think that I think that people are kind of figuring out a way to continue sort of fighting for what needs to be done, even as they sort of come up against loss after loss after loss. And like, so I kind of see the climate movement, like growing up a little bit and kind of, you know, well, developing some grit and like, and, and resilience, and that does give me a little bit of optimism, I also, I, I do find a bit of optimism in the, the youth movements, not because I'm like, Oh, the youth will save us or anything like that. But actually just real operational terms, the way that they function is very different from the way that sort of previous generations function like they're, they're genuinely committed to a sort of flattened hierarchy in a way that I think is, is really interesting, and is also very necessary for the sort of community resilience that we will need to live with, you know, climate impacts. So that is very interesting to see, I think I'm also seeing a lot more people really start to understand kind of systems thinking in a way that I haven't seen in the past. So that's promising to or people are starting to be like, oh, wait a minute. And the biggest example of that, I think, is the sort of slow realization that, you know, oh, electrification requires a lot of mining? Hmm, we have this, we have this thing coming up again, how are we you know, so I think people are starting to realize, oh, okay, if we just think about it as like replacing, you know, an oil well, with a battery, that's not going to get that's not going to get us to actually a solution. We need to sort of think about what systems will and like, Will will get us there and what kind of thinking we need to be applying. This is not at all to say that I'm against electrification. But I think that it's encouraging to me that even in these somewhat early phases, people are starting at least to grapple with that and like trying to sort of quickly adjust and, and figure out, you know, what can we do here to make this more sustainable? What can we do to not repeat the mistakes of the past? That's not something that I have seen in much of history. So that's

Tom Raftery: 39:36

good to know this. I see a lot of I mean, there was a podcast I heard recently talking about JB Straubel. He used to work for Tesla. And now he has a battery recycling company, for example, that he's starting up. So

Amy Westervelt: 39:50

right in my backyard, actually.

Tom Raftery: 39:52

There you go. There you go. So that's that's right. To your point. Me, we're coming towards the end of the podcast. Now. Is there any question I haven't asked that you wish I had, or any aspect of this? We haven't covered off that you think people should be aware of?

Amy Westervelt: 40:06

Oh, I don't think so. I feel like we covered all of the bases. Yeah,

Tom Raftery: 40:14

super, super well, in that case? No, no, thank you. In that case, if people want to know more about yourself, or about drilled or about damages, or any of the other publications that you're involved with, where would you have me direct them?

Amy Westervelt: 40:29

People can go to critical frequency.org. That's the name of the sort of small podcasts network that I run. And they can also follow me on Twitter at any Westervelt save her apologies in advance. For those who choose to.

Tom Raftery: 40:56

I'm sure there's no apologies necessary. Okay. I mean, that's been fantastic. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast today. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Okay, we've come to the end of the show. Thanks, everyone for listening. If you'd like to know more about climate 21 Feel free to drop me an email to Tom raftery@sap.com or connect with me on LinkedIn or Twitter. If you like the show, please don't forget to subscribe to it and your podcast application of choice to get new episodes as soon as they're published. Also, please don't forget to rate and review the podcast. It really does help new people to find the show. Thanks. Catch you all next time.