Leave a rating and / or review in the Apple Podcast app or on the Spotify app.
This free, 30-second action on your part lets us know you value all the time & energy that goes into producing & publishing the Blister Podcast, and it ensures that we can keep the show going.
How to Leave a Rating / Review on Apple Podcasts
- Open the Apple Podcast App
- (if you’re on your phone, simply click this link)
- Go to the icons at the bottom of the screen and choose “search”
- Search for “Blister Podcast”
- Click on the SHOW — *not* the specific episode
- Scroll down to “Ratings and Reviews”
- Click on “Tap to Rate” and leave us a 5-Star Rating!
- Below that, you can click Write a Review if you’d like to share a few words
How to Leave a Rating on Spotify
- Currently, you can only rate a podcast in the Spotify mobile app
- (if you’re on your phone, simply click this link)
- Navigate to the Blister Podcast show on Spotify (not to a specific episode)
- Tap the star icon underneath the podcast description and if you like the show, leave a 5-star rating
- On Spotify, you need to listen to at least one episode before you can rate a podcast.
So how are things actually going when it comes to climate change, carbon emissions, stuff like that? Are we making any real progress? And what do climate scientists — you know, the experts that are doing the research and studying the results — what are they finding? These are some of the things I’ve been wondering about, and I suspect that some of you have, too.
So today, our guest is one of those experts, and she has a lot of insights to share. Dr. Elizabeth Burakowski is on the Research Faculty at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire; she is a member of the Protect Our Winters Science Alliance; and she started snowboarding in 1994, and these days, you’ll find her in the backcountry on her splitboard.
RELATED LINKS:
Learn More: Protect Our Winters
BLISTER+ Get Yourself Covered
TOPICS & TIMES:
Dr. Burakowski’s current work (3:21)
What led you into this field of study? (8:18)
The various costs of climate change (14:49)
The current state of the union (17:25)
Surprises in our climate system (20:52)
Are we in a better or worse position than expected? (28:49)
Where has progress been made? (33:02)
Current biggest challenges? (34:38)
Next best / necessary steps? (41:51)
CHECK OUT OUR OTHER PODCASTS (click each to learn more):
This podcast did a poor job discussing the current state of emissions and possible solutions to climate change. The guest took what is essentially an economic issue- how to replace fossil fuels in a way that doesn’t make people poorer- and recast it as a moral issue.
I believe climate change is occurring due to manmade emissions and that without drastic intervention it will severely damage the environment and our ability to do outdoor recreation. I also love the outdoors, skiing and hiking are my favorite pastimes. Yet there is still an economic question of what I’m willing to do in order to fight climate change. Will I give up meat? Flying on airplanes? Am I willing to pay 2x the price for a car that only can drive half as far before having to refuel? Each of the questions is a cost benefit analysis.
Likewise for society- people are generally unwilling to make themselves poorer to fight climate change, particularly when other countries are unwilling to take the same steps. So the question becomes: what policies to fight climate change are working? And what policies and/or technology are needed to make a bigger impact.
The biggest reduction in carbon emissions in the US in the last 20 years occurred because the US energy grid largely switched from coal to natural gas because the latter became cheaper than the former. Renewables are now increasingly gaining a foothold but there are some sizable technological and cost challenges holding them back from supplanting gas the same way gas supplanted coal. What policies have helped spur the adoption of renewables?
None of this was discussed. Rather the guest chose to focus on “consensus” and “climate justice.” The Paris climate accord isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Virtually every country, particularly the large emitters, have consistently disregarded the pledges they made. Likewise people can argue the merits of redistributionist policies as a matter of fairness, but you can’t simply subsidize cost inefficient technology at a countrywide, or global scale without ending up in economic ruin.
TLDR: the guest’s focus on belief and fairness, rather than the cost benefit analysis of climate change vs policies to fight climate change, is counterproductive to actually making progress on this very important issue.
Hi, Max – thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think a conversation focused on cost / benefit analyses would be a very good conversation. But as the host who was posing the questions here to Dr. Burakowski, what you’re proposing would, I think, be a different conversation (as opposed to being an objectively better one), that would ideally and appropriately push further with respect to solutions.
But in this particular conversation, I wanted to get a better sense of where we were really at with respect to climate issues, and that took a significant portion of our time. So what you’re proposing would certainly be interesting and likely quite informative … I think it’s just a different conversation.
And while I think cost / benefit analyses are important, I also think that moral considerations are, too. (And I suspect you’d agree with me on this.)