Kathleen Biggins: 0:03

A lot of these people live in the deep South or the Midwest. They are states that don't have huge budgets to build the new infrastructure and the adaption, states that are going to be extremely hot very, very soon, states that will feel a lot of this extra storm activity that's being fueled by climate change, and, and they're told, don't worry about it, when in fact, they are kind of the frogs at the bottom of the boiling pot

Tom Raftery: 0:31

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. This is the Climate Confident podcast, the number one podcast showcasing best practices in climate emission reductions and removals. And I'm your host, Tom Raftery. Don't forget to click follow on this podcast in your podcast app of choice to be sure you don't miss any episodes. Hi, everyone. Welcome to episode 175 of the climate confident podcast. My name is Tom Raftery, and, before we kick off today's show, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to all of this podcast's amazing supporters. Your support has been instrumental in keeping the podcast going, and I'm really grateful for each and every one of you. If you're not already a supporter, I'd like to encourage you to consider joining our community of like-minded individuals who are passionate about climate. Supporting the podcast is easy and affordable with options starting as low as just three euros or dollars. That's less than the cost of a cup of coffee and your support would make a huge difference in keeping the show going strong. To become a supporter you simply click on the support link in the show notes of this, or any episode or visit. Tiny url.com slash climate pod. In today's episode, I'm talking to Kathleen Biggins from C Change Conversations and in the coming weeks, I'll have episodes where I'm talking to Aquaria, Interfaith and H E D the architecture and design company. But. Back to today's show. And as I said with me on the show today, I have Kathleen Kathleen, welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself?

Kathleen Biggins: 2:10

Thank you for having me. My name is Kathleen Biggins, and I am the president and founder of C-Change Conversation. We are a nonpartisan group that travels around the United States helping groups understand the real scope and scale of the issue of climate change. And why we should come together to try to address it instead of being divided on the topic. We've been to 33 states at this point, talked to over 20, 000 people. We have a real reputation for being nonpartisan and for providing scientific evidence of why we need to move. And in enabling people to understand why they individually have skin in the game and should care.

Tom Raftery: 2:57

Okay. Now, there's something a little bit different about your organization though, right? It's not, it's not the typical organization that talks climate change and your audiences are not the typical audiences. Am I right?

Kathleen Biggins: 3:15

I think you're right. In part because the people that have historically been talking about climate change have tended to be scientists or environmentalists. And we are neither. We view the issue more as one that will impact our jobs and economy, our personal health and security, and even our geopolitical stability. And by presenting the issue within that realm, instead of allowing it to be labeled just in something that many parts of America have kind of rejected as not for them, it enables us to reach a broader audience. The other thing that I think makes us a bit special is that we tend to go through associations. People who have heard our nonpartisan message have liked what they've heard and invited us into their communities and their associations, whether it's a Rotary Club, a Chamber of Commerce, a Garden Club, an Investment Club, even churches and schools. And by going through associations, we are able to get to people who wouldn't necessarily raise their hand and say, Hey, I want to go hear a climate talk. But instead, we bring it to them in a place where they're very comfortable with their peers. And when they see their peers reacting with interest and respect, they are more likely to do so as well. So it's, it's given us an opportunity to really get in front of those who are kind of outside of the climate choir, if you will.

Tom Raftery: 4:34

Okay, and would it be fair to say that a lot of your audiences lean more conservative?

Kathleen Biggins: 4:42

I would say our audience are moderate to conservative. Again, there are others that I think can talk to those on the liberal side. That's not who we are. We are much more about helping people who may think this risk is over hyped or over alarmist or doesn't really have applicability to their lives and where they are. We are going after that group because quite honestly, we believe we all need to come together to get to common ground to be safe. And and we need to bring that group into understanding it, into caring so that we can get there.

Tom Raftery: 5:22

Yeah, I mean, there is no point bringing this message to a group of environmentalists because they're already bought into the idea. It's when you're bringing it to people who may be more skeptical or maybe haven't heard it in a more balanced way, I guess, that's where you can start to make the bigger change. If you're preaching to the choir, you're not having any real impact. But if you're telling people who are not familiar with the message, then you have a greater chance of making an impact. Is that a fair way to put it?

Kathleen Biggins: 5:57

I think it is. And quite honestly, even those who care about the topic may not care enough about it. I mean, if you look at at the polls, people that put it in the top three things that they care about when they go to vote really is a very slim group and as we share in many of our presentations, climate change impacts so many things that we do indeed care about when we vote. As I mentioned in the beginning, our jobs and economy, our health and security, and also geopolitical stability. Those tend to be the things that people concentrate on when they choose how to vote. And climate change will have profound impacts on them, and yet people don't know it. And people haven't yet translated into their decision making. And, and we are not a proponent for either party. We believe that both parties in the United States can come up with really good solutions. There are different approaches to skin this cat. But what we are proponents of is that everybody starts bringing solutions. We can't ignore the problem or just pretend it's not going to have real repercussions for us going forward.

Tom Raftery: 6:59

And why? Why are you doing this? Why is this important to you? How did you get involved in this? Mm hmm. I

Kathleen Biggins: 7:08

do this as a volunteer. I've done it now for 10 years and I've done it because I have children and because I was so stunned by the disconnect of the size of the risk and changes that were coming and society's ability to prepare and begin to adapt and mitigate because we just didn't understand it was a communications problem. And I come from a profession of communications. But what really was driving me was the fact that I have two young sons who are now in their 20s that are setting off on their lives. They want to get married. They want to have kids. They want to have a similar life to what I experienced and what I had hoped and planned for for them. And I could see that climate change would indeed have many negative ramifications for their ability to do that. And I'm not the only one. I mean, we are really fueled primarily by volunteers. We have 26 around the country, and once we're on the ground, it's volunteers that really help set up the presentations and, and the introductions to press. And so we are primarily driven by people who care about the future of the next generation.

Tom Raftery: 8:26

Okay. And As we've alluded to you're based in the U. S. and the U. S. is uniquely divided, I think, on climate change, more so than any other country that I'm aware of. Why, why has it become such a divisive topic in the U. S.? I mean, I'm based here in Spain and there's no one, I think, maybe this is a far right perspective. Vox party who may be anti climate, but, you know, they're a fringe group out in the far right. There's no serious politicians advocating against climate and it would be the same in most of Europe and most of Asia. What's, what's gone wrong in the US?

Kathleen Biggins: 9:12

Well, a couple of things. Really, we had a good shot at getting some strong climate policy back when George W. Bush was president. There were multiple bipartisan bills introduced every single year. In 2007, the Republican leader, very conservative Republican leader, Newt Gingrich, sat on the sofa right next to the very progressive Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and did a commercial together suggesting cap and trade as a way to solve this issue. And it was on the presidential platforms of both parties in 2008, different ways of addressing it, but agreeing it needed to be addressed. But as that policy was wending through there was a lot of pushback brewing and some of it is really quite understandable. I mean, at that time, green energy would have been much more expensive than it is now today. In fact, it is cheaper in most parts of the world, which is one of the advantages we have now in pivoting to address this issue. But at that time, it was significantly more expensive. And so if American companies had pivoted towards using that more expensive form of energy, it would have made them less competitive on the global market. And that was a time when China was using coal, still using coal, but using coal hand over fist to grow their economy. And it, it, it seemed unfair. Our companies in America were like, Hey, don't saddle us with that additional cost and make us less competitive. Consumers were also saying we don't want to spend more for tomato sauce and toothpaste and everything we buy. So, so that was one concern. The other was that the science wasn't as clear as it is now. And we weren't seeing the consequences. It felt like climate change was something that would happen in far off places to far off generations. And it made more sense to strengthen our economy today and let those generations handle it if and when it came. And then there was also the growth of the Tea Party in our country, which is a group that very much believes that government is usually the problem and not the solution. And on an issue like climate change, you really do need broad policy to set the rules of the road so that states know what to do and companies know what to do and individuals know what to do. And for them having more government intervention was in some ways worse than the potential problem. And on top of that, there's this idea that let the boys play, let the markets be markets and keep regulation out of it. And things will always end up in a better place. And I think many Americans, and even I could agree with that in many cases, but in the arena of energy, it's never been a pure market. In fact, we've always. subsidized it, helped grow new forms of it because it's just so critically important to our economies and our geopolitical stability and our own safety. Fracking came about in large part because it was heavily incentivized and subsidized. So we have always done that. So it's a little naive to think that the, the energy markets can do what's right. When there is already so many things that are making it act in a non totally marketing rational way. And I think if you look back during the Ukrainian crisis year, I think globally we had subsidies of about 7 trillion dollars to subsidize fossil fuels. So it's, it's not an insignificant amount and it's something that countries do in order to keep stability, to keep political unrest at bay when these spikes happen and it, and, and it's totally understandable. With the Tea Party's messaging and, and those other fear factors, I think there was a growth in the pushback, a sense that you are harming me economically, you may be taking away things that I really love and care about, when I don't even see the problem. And then on top of that, in our country, which was a bit unique, we had the fact that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which is all about climate change. And while many love him, there are others who do not. And as soon as he won that and the left was just so joyous and celebratory there was a definite pushback on the right and climate change became a new litmus test for what makes a good conservative or makes a good liberal. And it became something, a scientific issue that divided us more than blue lives matter, black lives matter, abortion, immigration, any of those things, which is kind of hard to understand because it's a scientific issue versus one of those emotional ones.

Tom Raftery: 15:05

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So in your audience, when you go to address an audience, you must get people who are skeptical. How do you deal with them if they are either very skeptical or outright deniers?

Kathleen Biggins: 15:24

Well, it depends on how theyhey approach us and what they are asking. So, I remember in one instance, I was in Warrington, Virginia, fairly conservative market, and we had a very big audience. On a weekend, and we were in a big auditorium. And as I was walking up to begin my presentation, someone stopped me and he said, you know, I'm a friend of the group that's sponsoring you. And I totally do not believe in climate change. And I want a chance to address the crowd as well. And I was like, Hmm, okay. Let's think about how to handle this one. He was known to the audience. He was one of their friends, one of their set. He asked in a respectful way. He seemed very like a very reasonable person. So I said, Okay, I said, Okay, I'm going to give you 10 minutes. You take the first 10 minutes and then I'll start my presentation. And if you want to stick around for the Q&A people can ask your questions as well. And so we did it that way. I did have to tap him on the shoulder at 10 minutes and say your 10 minutes is up. But it was really good because he had a lot of papers and a lot of facts, but they weren't sewn together. And I had confidence in our presentation, which shows data from NASA and NOAA. I mean, the graphics almost speak for themselves. And I felt that our message was compelling enough that we would be able to countervail the messaging that he was leading with. And so. Is countervail the right word there?

Tom Raftery: 16:53

works.

Kathleen Biggins: 16:53

Is that work? Okay, countervail against what he was saying. And it worked really well because it kind of made the audience like us and respect us more because we had given him respect and had given him a platform in a controlled way. That we weren't afraid of being challenged. And I think that was a real lesson for me is that oftentimes around this topic, because it is so partisan, people kind of come in really angry and built up and ready to, to, to fight. And if we can diffuse that and say, woah, woah, woah, we're all in this together.

Tom Raftery: 17:36

Yeah.

Kathleen Biggins: 17:37

We have this common fate together. Let's just look at the facts. Let's look at some of the things that are proposed on the conservative side. Let's look at some of the things that have been said by the conservative side. Like one of the things we point out in conservative places is that Ronald Reagan took some of the biggest climate action of any president ever up until modern times. And that is when he worked to protect the ozone layer. But in doing so, he was also lowering the amount of greenhouse gases that were going up there that are really, really potent and would have had us on a trajectory to be much hotter. So what he did kind of saved the world for us in a way by keeping temperatures more manageable today than they would have been and keeping us off a really more dangerous trajectory than we were on. And I think that's stunning to people, but when they hear that Ronald Reagan actually did that, it's like, Oh, great, we did some something really good too. And that's important for people to know.

Tom Raftery: 18:38

So. Talk to me a little bit about the presentation that you give. You know, what, what kind of points do you make in that presentation and how would it differ do you think from a presentation that someone who's more climate hawkish like myself might give?

Kathleen Biggins: 18:56

Good question. So we tried to tailor it for our audiences and we tried to obviously tailor it for our regions. So we focus in on the issues that would be most pertinent to both of those parameters. But in our more general primer, we set it up as a risk assessment. So we kind of come in and say, all right, You know, some people say this is super scary, that we need to pivot immediately to address it, or we will harm our economy and harm future generations. Other people say this is way overblown, a tempest in a teapot, and if we pivot too quickly to, quote, address it, it will harm our children and harm our economy. And, and we're kind of, most of us in the middle, trying to figure it out, trying to do the right thing for ourselves and for our kids, and not wanting to get sucked into something that is often portrayed as being overhyped. So how would we evaluate this risk, or how could we evaluate this risk? And then we would suggest that we would do it the way social scientists divide that risk assessment, which is to divide into three parts. How likely is it to happen? What are the potential consequences? Are they ones that we can live with, or ones that we really want to try to avoid? And then how difficult or expensive is it to avoid those risks? And then we use that framework again, this is our general primer, that framework to build out each part. And hopefully at the end, we've laid it out pretty clearly that it makes a lot of sense to give a lot of credence to this risk and to take action to lessen it. And we've been told we almost lay it out like someone would to a jury, where you're laying out the facts, but you're not telling them what to think, but enabling them to build the logic that at the end hopefully they get to the place where you hope they will when you begin the presentation and we've had tremendous success with this. It's totally nonpartisan. It's totally, I won't say dispassionate, but it is passionate in a friendly way and in a way that makes the science real and accessible and connected to real life. And our survey data confirms it everywhere we go, even in the most conservative markets.

Tom Raftery: 21:13

Yeah, that was going to be my next question actually seeing as you brought up success. How do you measure success?

Kathleen Biggins: 21:21

Well, a lot of it is through survey data, but then if you think about the fact that we began traveling the country in 2017, and we've now been pulled to 33 states and 20, 000 people, many of them in smaller groups and some big groups, simply by word of mouth, simply by people seeing us and calling their daughters, calling their friends, calling their clubs and saying, Hey, we got to get this group in to talk. They really have a special presentation. It really changed how people were viewing it within this audience. And when you think that, that we've grown that way as volunteers, right? It has to be a testament to how powerful this presentation really is. And I, we've talked to a lot of very sophisticated groups. We've done international presentations to banks. We've done presentations to the World Presidents Organization. I don't know if you have that group over there, but it's

Tom Raftery: 22:17

Not that I'm aware of

Kathleen Biggins: 22:18

Rotary International, Chamber of Commerce other businesses. So we've had some sophisticated players see our presentation and the survey data from that group to the survey data from a land trust. They all very consistently say, definitely learned a lot, definitely would recommend to a friend, definitely nonpartisan. Definitely, it's making me think of how I could act differently.

Tom Raftery: 22:47

And What do you account for that success?

Kathleen Biggins: 22:52

How credible the messaging is, and how credible our messengers are, and how we meet people where they are and, and help them, or, or acknowledge, for example, that the climate's always been changing due to natural causes. And but this is why we're concerned that it's different. Acknowledge that fossil fuels have been incredibly good friends to us. It built vibrant economies and high quality of life. But this is why we're worried if we continue, you know, acknowledge why it got so partisan and how we got so divided and remind them that we weren't always so, and what led us to become there, including talking a bit about the media, because at that time when Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, The media on the left wasn't really helpful. They were saying, you know, in order to address climate change, we have to suffer. We have to be anti cow, anti car, anti capitalist, live in caves, eat, I don't know, seeds. It was, it was very extreme. And quite honestly, it wasn't embraced that widely on the left at that point. It tended still to be a bit of a more sliver group that was truly concerned. And then on the right, they really began to cover it as a social war issue. Especially Fox News, which in the beginning had about half and half of its coverage saying that climate change was real and by 2009 had really gone the opposite away and saying most mostly that it was a hoax. And so all those things kind of interacted together. But by by highlighting that and again, highlighting the economics or highlighting the politics or helping people understand that we understand where they've been. But this is why we think we need to move from there and have a fresh perspective because some things have changed and a lot of the stuff, especially with the new innovations and our ability to continue to have a high quality of life and a vibrant GDP. People don't know because there's still a lot of solutions bashing out there. There are a lot of people like, Oh God, way too expensive. Oh God, way too unstable. And in fact, that's not the reality. And if you kind of lay it out for them and show them that there's a way to get there without that huge sacrifice that they've been so told about it opens up an avenue where they have license to care, license to open their mind. Does that make sense?

Tom Raftery: 25:18

Yeah, yeah, no, no, completely, completely, absolutely does. I guess that the next question I would have is, given that, and, and given the successes that you're having, what do you think, well, do you, do you think that we have a chance to meet our Paris climate commitments. Do you think we'll get there? We'll reach net zero by 2050. Do you think we'll keep the temperatures below 1. 5 or 2 degrees C? You know, are you optimistic about our chances?

Kathleen Biggins: 25:53

I'm going to answer that question differently. I am optimistic that we can do quite a lot to mitigate the risks and adapt to the changes that we've baked in. I'm not optimistic that we're going to meet the Paris goals. I think that we were late to the party. And while there are tools that would get us there, it would be, so fast that it would be very difficult for, for economies and societies to accept that rate of change. And what, so in other words, if we totally all said yes, we, we agree, we ran as hard as we could, we did everything right. Is there a sliver? At least they said so at COP 28. But that doesn't mean we should give up, because even if we get to 1. 7 or 1. 8 or 1. 9 or 2. 1, the lower we keep it, the safer we'll be and the less pain and disruption we and our future generations will feel. So there are many things that we can do, again, to mitigate and to adapt. The thing that has me frightened, to be honest, is, that especially in our country, because of the partisanship, many of the people who are most at risk don't know it and aren't acting like it. And, and quite honestly, that makes me mad. That makes me really mad. It makes me angry at the conservative pundits who are feeding them a siren song. The don't worry, be happy, keep on going because a lot of these people live in the deep South or the Midwest. They are states that don't have huge budgets to build the new infrastructure and the adaption, states that are going to be extremely hot very, very soon, states that will feel a lot of this extra storm activity that's being fueled by climate change, and, and they're told, don't worry about it, when in fact, they are kind of the frogs at the bottom of the boiling pot. They're the ones that are going to feel it first. And that makes me so angry, but I try to keep that out of our presentations because people are in harm's way and there's smart things we can do to be safer. But the sooner we act and the more there's consensus to act, there are different ways of acting. I'm not saying there's one way, but the consensus to act needs to be made as quickly as possible. And, and the political nature that of our parties right now and, and our campaign right now is just really frightening.

Tom Raftery: 28:35

And do you see that changing anytime soon, the whole divisiveness around the topic in the US?

Kathleen Biggins: 28:41

I do, but I don't see it changing fast enough. Quite honestly, this year, younger voters, 45 and under, or kind of even Steven with the older voters, and younger voters care much more about this issue than older voters. And by 2026, the 45 and under will be a bigger voting cohort. And then you can ask, well, are they going to vote as much as the older groups who actually get to the polls? And that's another issue. But our policymakers that are and our politicians are taking note. And they are also taking note now that there are constituents within their areas that are being harmed already by climate change, whether it's farmers, whether it's timber, whether it's recreation and tourism. It, it. It's their cities that are getting too hot or there's, or there's shorelines that are being damaged and they can't keep the sand replenishment coming fast enough, which means houses are losing value. No, it's just is building and they're seeing it in their own areas. Whereas before, really, what they were focused on is protecting the fossil fuel jobs or the other industries that were heavily fossil fuel intensive to protect the revenues and the jobs and the tax bases. Now they have a countervailing pressure. So I think the fact that also with the IRA, which is really a climate bill, bringing in a lot of economic activity and jobs into a lot of very conservative places, there's no longer just one pressure. It's multiple pressures. It's getting to be stormy in there, and it's hard to know who to listen to. And you can't move too quickly if you are a conservative leader, because you would alienate perhaps your base, but you can't move too slowly, because then you alienate the voters of the future. So they are bridging it. And we're seeing that in how big the conservative climate caucuses in the house. It's, I think the second largest caucus. I mean, so people are trying to find a way to talk about it, a way to learn about it, maybe even a way to move on it slightly, but not in a way that would be politically perilous. But those pressures are only going to continue as climate pressures continue to escalate.

Tom Raftery: 30:55

Yeah, I read an article recently about how insurance companies are leaving some of the states in the U. S. places like Miami, Louisiana, Texas, and like places like that, just because the the risk is too great. And of course, if they are leaving, there are still other insurers there. But of course, if there's less competition, then the prices and the risk is increasing, then the prices for insuring a house or piece of property or land or buildings or whatever, it's going to go up and up and up.

Kathleen Biggins: 31:28

Well, it is going up and up, and up and even perhaps as is concerningly, in many cases, they're going to kind of the insurer of last resort, which is really the state taxpayers. So in fact, it's not even insurance companies per se, it's really the taxpayer that is backstopping that risk. And part of it has been predicated on the fact that insurers have been limited in how they could assess their risk in many parts of the country. You couldn't look forward. You could only look past. And so they might be making their risk assessments on storm activity in the last century, which is just irrelevant today. And it's only in a few states in New Jersey, which is where we're based being one of them that have been really proactive in trying to use the models of what's coming so we can build and prepare for what's tomorrow's reality, versus what was yesterday's. I think the insurance is a canary in the coal mine in that it's the way we're seeing it hit us financially first, but there are other shoes to drop. There's a lot of concern about mortgages being overvalued because there's so many properties that are in that mix that are really not worth that amount because of the fact they may be under the high tide mark in the next two decades, you know, within the period of their mortgage. There's concern even about things like municipal bonds, because if a city is going to be forced to lose some of its most premium properties on the shoreline as the oceans rise, or forced to build all sorts of more infrastructure to try to keep everybody safe. That hasn't yet been translated into the pricing. So there's, there are a lot of systems out there that people are talking about. That were built on the reality of the past as we were talking about and not what we know is coming and it's going to be disruptive and painful to figure out how to recreate these systems to protect us and work for us in the future.

Tom Raftery: 33:33

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're coming towards the end of the podcast now, Kathleen. Is there any question I did not ask you that you wish I did or any aspect of this we haven't touched on that you think it's important for people to think about?

Kathleen Biggins: 33:49

One thing that I wish more people understood is that taking action to prevent the worst of climate change, to slow it, to reverse it where we can it's really about saving the things we care about most, and we get all caught up in the shiny objects of, Oh, my God, they're taking my gas stove away, or they're taking my combustion engine away, or, and I, I think that's a misrepresentation. I think those are things that we need to move off of as we have better solutions, and I have an EV, and quite honestly, I think an EV is a better solution than a combustion engine car. It's cleaner. It doesn't pollute my neighborhood. It's much more responsive and man, is it fun to drive. Fueling it is much less expensive. So it's coming. Battery prices are dropping so quickly that EVs actually will be the financially smart thing to do soon. But they're not quite there yet in this country, though they are in some others. But when we get caught up in, oh, they're taking something away, we lose the big picture of saving our ability to be outside during the heat of the summer. In, in, in Arizona, that was not possible last year, in many parts. As a matter of fact, last summer, four billion people were in areas that had extreme heat or high heat that was made three times more likely due to climate change. Or being able to drive to the church picnic and have a rainstorm and not be worried that I'm going to be swept away, which happened to a young family that was right near me. Across in Pennsylvania, where they were headed to that picnic and the rains were so extreme that it just washed them away

Tom Raftery: 35:42

Wow.

Kathleen Biggins: 35:43

or our financial systems or our insurance, not just our insurance, but our investments. I mean, there's so many things that we really care about that we don't recognize yet as being in peril due to climate change, but truly are. So climate action it's about saving the things we love and the things we need. And taking smart action is not about the government causing us to lose things. It's about being smart and actually protecting things. Does that make sense?

Tom Raftery: 36:16

Yeah, yeah, no, completely. I mean, I, I remember again reading last year during the summer stories of places in the US where it, it became so hot that some people that, that hospitals, in fact, were seeing people being admitted with second and third degree burns from having fallen in the street and the sidewalks were hot.

Kathleen Biggins: 36:40

Or touching a doorknob.

Tom Raftery: 36:42

Yeah,

Kathleen Biggins: 36:43

It's that hot. It's that hot. And that kind of heat, we're hitting temperatures that are hotter than even the healthiest humans can handle. And that's happening even in America, but obviously much more in other parts of the world. And that is truly, truly frightening. And the other thing I should remember to mention is Climate change has also coming for our favorite food. So if you love your coffee, if you love your chocolate, you love your olive oil, if you love your parmesan cheese even things like corn and wheat and soybeans, all of them have heat thresholds over which they no longer flourish and that means that they'll have to move and be grown in other areas or have less of them. So the things that make life sweet, like chocolate, those are going to get much harder to have and much more expensive if we don't figure out a way to really ramp things down.

Tom Raftery: 37:30

yeah, I have a very practical example of that because where I live here in Spain, in Andalusia, it's the prime area for the production of olive oil. And when, I'd say it was three years ago, the price of olive oil here was about five euros per litre. Now, Because for the last few years we've had hot dry summers, it's over 10 euros per litre. So it's gone twice as much. And last summer was so extreme that we only had about 60 percent of our typical harvest. And so the price next year as a result will be 12 to 15 euros per litre. So two to three times the price in three, four years, just because of climate. It's pretty crazy. Yeah, it's it's scary.

Kathleen Biggins: 38:19

It's scary right, when you start seeing it in your grocery bills. I don't know if you know that there was also a blueberry shortage last year because it was so warm in Peru, which was the number one exporter during that time of year globally that they didn't have any blueberries in that time period where they normally would have been exporting it. I could not find a blueberry. I was making blueberry pie for the summer you know, barbecue. Could not find a blueberry. And then I got online and it was like, Oh, because Peru got too hot. And I was like, Oh,

Tom Raftery: 38:49

Wow.

Kathleen Biggins: 38:49

it kind of slaps you in the face. You know, wow. I'm feeling those repercussions now.

Tom Raftery: 38:55

Kathleen, if people would like to know more about yourself or any of the things we discussed in the podcast today, where would you have me direct them?

Kathleen Biggins: 39:03

On our website, which is the letter C dash change conversations with an S dot org. C change conversations dot org.

Tom Raftery: 39:14

Fantastic.

Kathleen Biggins: 39:14

love to hear from them.

Tom Raftery: 39:15

I'll put that in the show notes, Kathleen, and that way everyone will have access to it. Kathleen, that's been fascinating. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today.

Kathleen Biggins: 39:23

Thank you.

Tom Raftery: 39:26

Okay, we've come to the end of the show. Thanks everyone for listening. If you'd like to know more about the Climate Confident podcast, feel free to drop me an email to tomraftery at outlook. com or message me on LinkedIn or Twitter. If you like the show, please don't forget to click follow on it in 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.