induce really profound changes of mind and mood. you know i think that to me is you know, very clear self-evident in my experience. and what i watched in others i'm not a true believer in the idea that these inherently benign orherapeutic. i think it all depends on the context, the but i think i approached my work in this space with a lot of curious city, but also a lot of humility about the things i didn't understand. i was clear that i didn't to shy away from any inconvenient things i found about the space and, i don't consider myself as sort of a champion at war, you know an advocate in the psychedelicce? you know, i think i think the role of carve out for myself is somebody who an observer who was you know, brings, i think, a healthy dose of skeictoing that's happening. well, thank you so much. this is is all the time we have. we are we are wrapping here. i just want to congratulate you again, the book. read. a real pleasure to talk with you today. thank you so much. i re appreciate really smart

questions. and i've readers first foray into storytelling was his own journey with opioids after a motorcycle accident in 2015. his first book, in pain, explores the ethical and policy raised by pain. pain, opioids, addiction and north america's drug overdose crisis talk titled the agony of opioidy similar viewing to this presentation in about 2.8 million views, catastrophe ethics begins the inevitable destruction of the earth from climate change presents hypotheticals using, both incestuous and non incestuous

sex as the v throwing one person off a bridge to save many more shames people for tes the big lebowski. so you could really tied the room what talking about by the book is bioethicist and moral philosopher thins berman berman institute of bioethics. he' father, an avid rock climber. so without further delay, plwelcome travisyeah. so do you know how. to dig into this? all right. looks like i'm doing this t that was, in fact, the most

groan worthy introduction that i've ever had. thank you very much, sir. thank you all fo today to a very uplifting sounding ta ethics. i assure you, it will be exactly as uplo be. so i, a moral philoshee are my day jobs. i also like to write for the seems strange to think that you're talking and thinking about something important and then never say it to basically anyone other than trgraduates who are forced to sign up for your class. so i going to ask you, but if stuck back here, i can't see my slide deck. this is going to be awkward. ll go so i'm going to i'm going to givy high level introduction into a few thoughts in my book. for as long as you want to talk about it. so let's goes the talk. oh i can see you on the computer. this is serious. okay good. talk like the book begins with milk, obviously we write several. years ago i had switched from

milk to almond for myreakfast and i did this because i'm virtuous. obviously, i had learned that cow milk was very environmentally expensiv because you're getting it from cows. they are very environmentally expensive. and so i switched to welth and didn't agree with me very much and i tried almond milk and all the milk is fantastic i absolutely loved it. and then i started doing a food nutrition policy project, my colleagues at hopkins and i learned something very, very hit a single almond nut requireso grow and the vast grown in california, which famously has lots of water. so then i felt pretty about my k n. i traded high carbon footprint for a high water footprint, and so i trik, i thought was disgusting. i'm not going to be sponsored them anytime soon. i'm good thanks. so i talked toodel or friends who are working on this nutrition project and kind of said, look all based milks are better than dairy milk along various metrics and none of them are perfect.

you're going to fail aot. like just pick and go with it. that's the invariance satisfying, but ' been my practice. so going back to electric car like. scott and so i drive an electric car. this felt really good as a decision to do because we cannot bring about the world that we have to to fight climate change without almost universal abandonment of internal combustion engines. we have to entirely transfer electric vehicles and transport. they're going to be things that and so the private industry is going to have to be electric. so i buy an electric car felt really good about buying into that industry, but home and my electricity pulled from the grid which my home maryland is largely pulling from natural gas. this free right so i started thinking why obviously betterfor solar panels on my home that i can charge my car with the sun and it sounded really good. and so lly serious about this and i got a

of quotes and it turns out the charge that my partner and i both electric cars we have a really high electric usage in our house so they charge all of our electric needs for a year we needed to spend about $65,000 on solar panels. now, if you hear a lot about the revolution going at mark speedit's like the technological green revolution is mind blowingly fast us who have been studying this for a long time, if you asked us years ago if we would be anywhere would have said absolutely not. we were very pessimistic. amazing. but $65,000 is not within reach of most people. right. this not something that can be solved by individual. and i think about food all the time because we eat all the all the time. and so i have lots of thoughts about food over my life. i've been vegetarian. been vegan, but boy have i tried. i've been flex italian, i've been always the same whether it's for environmental reasons o reasons, it feels like i could be contributing to lots bad things and and so i should do less right. but that's really demanding because i eat a lot and you have to make this cho time and i also very often give this

by flying somewhere now i'm from hopkins up the road so i got to drive today my ele but very often i'm this talk at a city that i have flown to talk about climate change and this is one of the very worst things that we can do for the environment it's just incredibly energy expensive. and my family and i overseas every year. my in-laws all live cyprus. and so that's atake per seat on airplane every year each way. it's really expensive. but, you know that's actually done environmentally it's my i'm just curious do any of you have a guess like what my worst environmental sin is like what's the est, highest carbon footprint thing i've done? yeah. you have children. i have a baby. i did the. i made this. yeah. i mean, i helped make this my quite small, but i have an adorable daug and she's worth very expensive. like environmentally very expensive. she's expensive the other way to. but when you think about having

a kid like yes you you buy lots of diapers and you do all of the things you a bigger car and you buy a bigger house and, all of that. so one time orh8 shorter term increases in your carbon, but that's the beginning, right? because she's a person she's to have her own carbon footprint it and then she might have have their own carbon footprints and so i think about this to sort of standing on top of an iceberg of future emissions as long as we are net positive emitters, i am continuing to contribute from the grave right. so this starts to feel like the answer can't be to emitting the food is hard enough. it happens all the time. $65,000 is a lot for solar but surely we're not going to tell people to stop kids right now? some peoplebut that is going to be the argument that i here today. and so what this starts to

indicate is that when we try withdraw, when we face these various catastrophes, massivethink our solution must be to withdraw from those problems we're endorsing that i call a purity ethic. the idea is if you act, if you drive a gas guzzler, if you this sort of thing, you are part dissipating in some massive structural collective harm and you could choose not to you could withdraw and so you can keep your hands clean, right? that's the purity ethic. but it so quickly becom overwhelming, especially with my undergrads. i about this and iw sho it and we're going to keep talking about where it leads because is uplifting. keep about this and very quickly my 18 year old studentsthrow up their hands and say i don't know, man, this isn't on me. this is not my problem. an dragons because that takes us towards constantly implicating ourselves in of these massive structural problems. and so if you think that just because your pall it can't be on you because policymakers are the ones you

really ought to be doi i or the top 100 companies are responsible for like 80 or 90% of emissio them, not me. if you really. it's not my, then a whole bunch of. what we do in our lives just doesn'tmoral. there's nothing better worse about doing one thing over the other. so this is the puzzle. the that led me to start thinking about this many many years ago the puzzle that led to me writing this book is i think it's the most reasonable thing in the world for a morally sensiteson to feel themselves implicated in massive harms and say, i of this. and yet aeldy and i'm going to suggest to actually withdraw yourself and so we're stuck in this situation wherere just too small to matter, but it engage in them anyway. and that's the puzzle puzzleou ever thought of this before? has this ever occurred to you? you're at thisokay. so i'm us b like, guy. no, he's not really. he's over there. this handsome fellow, his name

name's walter sanford armstrong. he is a philosopher at unc-chapel hill. and 20 years agolished quite a famous paper like philosophy. youfault. and the argumentt seems many people including to we are morally bad, like drive a gas guzzler. so here's the example i came up with said, think of the worst car you can imagine, the least efficient car you can imagine. now think of this hobby of just driving it around to no in particular it's probably talking about that that activity he calls joy gosling and on his a joy guzzle emits something like 14 kilograms of co2 now doesn't really hard to understand like what that means we're going to come back to that but he's like look that's feels like 14 kilograms of co2 you did not need to emit so you shouldn't it like duty not to joy guzzle. but here's thecycle is incredibly

complex in our atmosphere is absolutely massive so we can talk about this more because some people really want to like down on the mathematical weeds here but the basic idea i mean this is a slight update to his argument 20 years ago. but the basic idea is the all anthropogenicbo amount of carbon that we can put out intth a not he number of people are using for a long time is not warm the planet by two degrees celsius typically. ah that's terrible. like that's, that's a line we never should have thought about crossing. but if we want to limit it to two degrees warming, we can burn a trillion metric tons of carbon which is 3.7 trillion mi metric tons co2. so the joy guzzle is 14 kilograms. this is not bucket. this is a drop in an ocean in ocean incredibly and it's moving around. look at the picture of the carbon cycle you're emitting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. it is getting up into the ocean sink

or swamplands or peat moss or whatever and the little bit of it stays in the atmosphere and some of it's there for a few years and some of us there for 10,000 years. and then that's not what causes the harm, right? the harm ofis the heat waves and the drought and the hurricanes and the d the famine and the wars that we fight. diminishedstraightforward way, to the molecules that incredibly complex chain of events that takes us to eventually. 8 billion people emitting causes through things like resource wars and m fires i forgot fires, fire seasons coming agai that's system is so big and so complex. in sensitive to individual choice. so walter sa aying says years ago it feels like obligated not to j because you hurt people in change hurts people, but you don't hurt people when you join us alleknd he says it's not my fault. now he's not happy about this right? he's not joy goes all the way. his point is that this is kind of a how could

justify how we are matter. what i'm going to argue next is that the puzzle isn't actually just about climate change. so that's where it got famous. e hings i wanted to do in my book is to say, if you're sort of worried about this do something, but your actions are so tiny, you don't whatd n so much more trouble than just thinking about climate change, right? because this is ethics. any vegetarian is vegans, any any restricted choice. people in the audience. if you mean an ethics and an ethics talks, i've always got to get a few of them here. lot of people who are vegetarians, idea i don't want to i don't want to hurt environmentally expensive. it's not hard to see why, right? because we could just eat plants, but instead we grow plants to feed them to a really inefficient machine as they grow. and then we eat the machine. so it's like a really inefficient source of calories. so people like, i don't want to hurt animals and don't want to hurt the planet, but walter said it. armstrong was right. the scale of these choic

us, insensitive to individual choice the animal agriculture system is a lot like the climate system. it's not the same but and complex and tyson chi choose not to buy a chicken breast big this also this is a snippet from the new york times on how to be a conscious consumer. even if you're on a budget and. i just lov because it's making clear that a whole bunch people are worri me that. i don't support bad companies i get this because i was raised to with my dollar right? when you buy something you're rewarding a company your business and so if you find their terrible stock doing that right and the example that i was used to this just so precise is if you find out if you're a chocolate lover and you find out th your chocolate brand utilizes slave labor somewhere in the supply chain, kind of feels like you should stop buying that chocolate bar it's like you don't need it and you could justoose not to support that. but now you're on hook for not

supporting a lot of things. right? so we're going to come back to that. here's the way in which i want to make it clear that you really t some people in the audience who are like everything you've said so far, i can opt out. i can opt out of inhumane farming pri go off the grid, i can minimize my energy really out here's here's the show you that it's borderline impossible today. so the graph here is about projected use of projected use for lithium ion batteries. so one of the main lithium have requires cobalt. so if you look at the names of all these different batteries more than half of them have cobalt in the name. right. so a book bunch of burke book nerds here write a book that i highly recommend. thatis book cobalt read by siddharth kara, who took this picture and. he took this picture because this is where cobalt. from 80% or so of theob mine in the

democratic republic of congo. ry ve situations like this. so this picture here is of an open mine. it's incredibly dangerous yes there are caverns all the time, morbidity, high mortality. and so what kara argues over the course of this book is that the situation in this in these places is so dire that this form of mining that's called artisanal mining is like the worst euphemism evere pennies per pound or a kilo o pickax in this rock,nd dollar two a day. and these really dangerous and so carter says this modern day slavery and i trubecause siddharth kara is literally an expert on modern day slavery. that's what all h on. and what this means is t rechargeable in our life. the laptops, the battery in our electric cars. that's a big battery, right? it's stuffed full of cobalt. and it probably came from the congo, which means all of us in thisparticipate in a system of

modern day slavery. i told you, this is going be a really uplifting talk. all right. would tell us how to out of this. and one of the things he makes clear,to tell you to stop buying your phones and computers, that's note does the thing that so many people does when we're change and these other problems as they like. it has to be a policy. we have to address t sorts mining regulations and, the way we get our cobalt out of the ground because you not updating your iphone soon next time isn't going to save anyone from these mining conditions. all right. okay. so i have to go really fast to nything like an indication of what i do in going to give you just what's like it's like a sp version of book. and then we can we can chat about it. and so here's my diagnosis of the puzzle. remember, the puzzle is this this problem that walter sand armstrong gave us that it feels like we're to withdraw from these bad practices.

but when you withdraw, you're not actually making a difference. if you're not making a difference, why do. and then you add to that to the fact that now i've told you, this puzzle isthere's so many things that you would have to do to be a decent person if you required to withdraw from all l+these bad practices. so here's my diagnosis, it's not a treatment agnosis for problem, i thin duty, obligation. and so this is a li philosopher sorry you were warned,y things all the time and. i was keyed into this because i read the philosophy or is working on this and they're all like walter stuart armstrong. they're all like,ve duty not to joy gosal and then they can't prove it because it doesn't cau't have any meaningful. but then i started talking to non philosophers too, like normal people, right? and everybody wants to say like no, you're like if you, you know, if you update your you need one and you're participating in cobalt mining practice when you absolutely don't need to because your phone is fine and like that's wrong

you're doing the wrong thing you're violating your duty. i had a student who, like totally called me alex offered to buy her starbucks befor because buy one, get one free and there's a starbucks right across from'm like, hey, i'm picking my orders. buy one, get free. is there anything you and like veryort union busters. i would we were going over so i could teach her ethics. right. thatthe context here. and sharp right. e y is union busting and union busting is real ben support, but maybe you than the judgment i felt, which is doing the wrong thing here buddy so duty and oour favorites because if i can show that you're violating you i, i'm like standing in authority over like moral authorit you. and you think about our polarized society and the we talk about each other. think the other side on every issue is it's not that like maybe they should consider not doing that thing.

they're wrong. so i think we're obsessed with duty and, obligation and. i think maybe we should cool it a little bit because we have more tools available. so here's my spectrum of. should ines and i that language to my dear friend kell here, who is a philosopher who left academia because she's smarter than me. and she read a manuscript my book and was trying help me think through like yeah there's softer concepts duty right so of courre's a spectrum of shooting is there spectrum of ordinallt worse. so i want the spectrum of re's duty and obligation. these are the heavy of morality. they let you stand in authority over someone. if someone violates their duty, you get to blame and shame them. you get to call them out. you make them feel it's righteous, man. it feels great, but it's not the only tool that we have in our toolbox. so all the way on the other end, i want to go. someone else i know my reasons

not like duty and oblilike reasons. you've got reasons to do stuff too. so my favorite example of how i think about the difference between y. i was driving home with my daughter and she said, off a very busy road and there mature, very, very slow, still turtle crossing this busy road. and my daughter's like dddy, you have to save the turtle. it's not going to make. i was like, oh god, i'm definitely a to out into traffic to save a turtle. ani. and here's the thing so i'm thinking about i pull over in our neighborhood, look back and that turtle is going to die. people go like 55 on this road.so like, okay, stay here and i get out and i'm like flagging e making myself as big as possible, like pointing like hold on, i'm walking in traffic, just chill. and i grabbed the turtle and i wa like 100 yards into the weeds and pointed in the opposite direction. and, you know, it probably went back in the road next day

went back to my car and i was here. and for me and we save the turtle. here's here's the reason i told you that story. i mean because virtuous, but i don'tnyone has a duty to rescue wilde do we are in serious trouble. there are a trillion in wild animals made that number up, but there are a trillion wild animals now. and it's worse than that. right. because whenhe lions hunting the gazelle do, we rescued the gazelle from the lion or do we rescuehe lion from hunger? so we have obligations to, reue we're in serious trouble. i don't think we have them. i do think there aooreasons to rescue the turtle. here's a good reason. i would have been smashed in suffering, died, and a living creature that sucks. it isvely bad making for a living creature to suffer and die. so that's a reas watching as she loves tur so good moral reason feel like it's good to model for my daughter. less moral, but still a reason i my daughter and be her hero.

right? so wed what these reasons are is they're just considerations that count in favor of doing lightweight too, believe it or not, that's actually like philosophy, jargon reasons are considerations that count in favor of something. now, you know what philosophers do all day. so a consideration that counts in favor of something is just like the response should have to value in the world. the turtle valuable. it's pain and suffering is just valuable. i have a reason to rescue s not to blow the situation with the turtle out of proportion. but he'believe duty and obligation are actually kind rare in lives. it doesn't mean they don't happen regularly, but like you have to restrain yourselves from in the nose. i don't think very often right. the reasons everywhere. and so your to value in the wo softer moral situations they tell us a lot about you the'compassionate if you're the kind of person you go out of their way to rescue a consci being right and so they actually important in our moral lives and

they're much much more common. but here's the thing we must so many reasons because you have a reason to do something time there's a consideration that co favor. and so any time there's an animal risk, right, you have reasons to do it. you can make someone happy, you have reasons to do it. think about all the donatike you can be donating various charitable organizations right and you'd be promoting goodness. we have reasons to do that, but also. now we're getting back toethics. think about all of the ways you can participate in goodness and ays in which you can participate in justice and, injustice. of that stuff gives us reasons. so here's the diagnosis. the diagnosis is walters and armstrong. ot don't have a duty to do something if it doesn't have an a meaningful impact. and true. you don't have a duty not to join us all. you got a really good reason not tous all because joy goes like where you're just spewing emissions for no showing a lack of

concern, disrespect for the environment for the people have to live in it. it's not standing in solidarity lose their homes, to rising tides right. it's not exhibiting all of thes, but we have many reasons. there's still a mess. so here's the big question. in the last third or so of the world we organize these reasons? i can't give you the full mean one my publisher probably wouldn't like it. two yeah it a while. right? so what i'm going to do is i'm going to give you likesnapshot of the way i've tried to start thinking about the. i think we need rules and oftentimes when we think a the context morality, we're just thinking about duty or thinking about thou shalt not kill. that's a good rule. follow that one. i endorse that. right but we need non duty rules. we need rules are heuristics, right? these are rules of thumb. they help us organize ize this ry messy moral world that we live in. and so you're deali change and you're dealing with cobalt mining and you're dealing with all ofhese companies that have slave labor somewhere in their supply chain. we're dealing with all of these things constantly. we need a way start organizing

our moral response. so i don't think rules are like super new to us. we go back to our dietary right. i think rian is, not because, you know, if you if you eat meat, you're actually hurting animals. if the puzzle's right, if understanding armstrong's right and if the animal agriculture system is as complex as i think is you actua are hurting animals when you eat meat? it's insensitive to choice, but we still have good reason to become vegetarian becaus's rule, a rule that respects the value of trying to minimizen the environment, on animal welfare systems and rules have this great benefit youver have to think it. but because it's not aoo strict. you can be fletaxiso like you know when you have good vegetarian options and good meat options. choose vegetarian mor flexitarian. put yourself down on the pyramid a little bit pta think it's because they don't think fish are animals but like. right. they're more less environmentally harmful. ind of eating low on the food chain. all right.

so is like one way to show the offshore of my book i want is to start thinking a few tools for dealing with them. this is this looks complicated. m going to talk through it. so here's my matrix. we actually have different kinds of reasons when it comes to catastrophes. so just sticking with climate change. so here's a set of rules to help us respond to climate change. now, i'm not going to tell you that should i mean, precisely are going to tell you o. u can't. right. so hang on. but the purity, social and structural going down alonic axis, right. this is calling us calling our attention different kinds of rules. and what this is that the purity response to withdraw yourself from catastrophe is only one way to address a problem like climate change. so sure you could try to not be o also try to be a positive part in the solution. ld then follow what i think of as reasons instead of negative ones. so social and reasons try to be a voice, try to be an advocate try to change policy.

you're still just doing a tiny part like us politics is probably insensitive to most of our individual choices, but you part of the group that to make a change and that gives us reasons, too. all right. so those are the different kinds. and then going right you can organize reasons based on sort of how they are or organize rules based on how demanding uable is because it can show us rules are really easy to follow. so in the left column these are rules that face competing considerations right don't be wasteful. so my favorite because i say it to my daughter about 19 times a wasteful. this is the easiest one to follow because it's actually good for everyone. and if you don't waste but eat low on the food chain. that's my personal sort of like food heuristic. it's actually hard because we eat a lot and. you're in different situations and etiquette cau travel and etc. etc. etc. so it's not easy re the people who want to minimize their carbon footprint. so here's what i want to draw attention to, if spend your entire life trying to do it. it's going to take all your

time, all your energy, all your moral reses's not to say you shouldn't do it. it means that it's making a choice and it's giving us. it's taking opportunities to do things that are good moral responses. right? so people who try to minimize theioo are, not paying as much attention to cobalt. they're also much to charity because takes a lot of resources to do this. they're also probably not thinking as much about animal agriculture, aside from the - environmental impacts, right? so there are a lot of different ways that we can let any of these rules take over our lives. all right. so wha the finger rather than you. so here's matrix. and what i've done is i've a gray scale to show how well or how i live up to thee gray, the better live up to the rule. here's my goal. my goal is whenever i find adopt, it there's no reason not wdhen if we're morally out the world.t whil do everything because it always comeht so notice the middle column is darkly out for me. that's the social column'aking to other people engaging with other an i'm a publicthis i don't think

i suck at i's privilege. gaithersburg book festival which is amazing right? so you get tosponse in way that is particular toice th like least grayed out one is volunteer for the down in the right corner. i would love to volunteer mor movement, but i have a demanding job in cards right now.know, security. hang in there. and if i do, then my life will shift. i may have more time than money. right. volunteering is the sort of thing that makes a lot of sense. so this is about tailoring moralsp to contexts here. some conclud know, i didn't give you like a loctite argument. sorry. as a moral phiso deeply that i didn't give you a knock down argument. but here's what wetes. there is no one thing that you must do in response to catastrophe i think we should do something. we have overwhelming reason to do lots ofhing. and so when someone you must do x, i think they're probably wrong. but you could always more and it would be great if you did this is this is the tradeoff you

don't have duties so you kind of get of obligation. but that means you can't just satisfy the obligation and be done for the day. you could rightward on that matrix. so that means the workve can be really overwhelming. people crushing. but here's my positive uplifting remember it's a rebuttal to al you to matter. isn't that awesome? that's like, way better than not mattering, right? we get to think about what we is meaningful. so moral life in the 21st century, i say, is a constant and a creative, because we constantly have to be deciding for ourselves ho to make our responses fit our lifestyle our contexts are gifts.ur abilities etc. thank you very much. that is my time. happy to take questions questions. i think a mic is coming around. they shout at your party.

the tv people would love it if you didn't. bringing it to you. much. so this is appealing more to your professorhip, but here's just a societal note that this all speaks to as a you're seeing what i'm saying. wed. let me start that way. we're in a postmodern and odernity is sometimes seen as a there is capital t truth anymore. that kind of argument that can quickly devolve into nihilism. and so i'mspeaking to the audience that you have of well as in expanding on this how do you combat nih world and culture while still keepisoul? thank you. yeah that'

in that last part feels important so i actually have a chapter the book on relativism for exactly this reason because i teach i, i sort of have 20 years of where the temperature is what the temperature is where they're feeling yeah, i think right now the i hear most is sort of well, i mean that would be right me. it's, it's, you know, not necessarily right for you. so who am i say so i have a chapter and it's very short chapter to be honest. and i say, look, i think i can disprove relativism to you it's not quite this short, but it's close. so i think can disprove relativism tois it wrong to light babies on fire for fun? is it wrong by babies? fire for fun? defeated. webjective moral truth in this room right. ye it's a cheat because i onl true because i found one, right a chapter is to say to students, ind cosmopolitanism but

cosmopolitanism only doesn't imply relativism. they're incomuse cosmopolitan students that i have say things like, you know, who am i right people elsewhere do it differently. and so they want be tolerant. tolerance universal value, because if it is is false, right? so cosmopolitan zionism, it undermines the draw to like respect other people's beliefs. so hert not all beliefs should be respected if your view is that we should light babies on fire for fun. i do respect that view. ithe same page with that one, right? we all got that one right. to disarm people early say architecture should be ethics are going to tailor a bitnds like relativism but it is not because all of the moral considerations are real. it's just that the way in which we should respond to them differ. because, look, som of us in this room can put solar panels on our house, some of us, and then we probably h that cannot be a requirement for

everyonereasonable, not in the realm of whom different of engaging totally accessible and other people who 't. and that's what we have to make room for. thank you for that. that's a great question. yeah. you mentioned that you think cy is a big thing, which it is. but i in my own life that woatal level really makes a difference do you address that in your book that while volunteering and advocating but really at the local level vote can make a huge difference that is absolutely true so this is a great point. i probably don't actually do as much in the book as i should. h distinction between, a high level policy very often. so te change right. and so what is the policy level that would it's not only national, it's international. ght agreements across countries, but we can startright is cities and states can have an actual make an actual difference. so like we should talk about maryland, but california is so easy because california, a state can make

decisions is one of the biggest economies in the world as a states. right it c genuine influence. and so they're sorts of levels. less than that when we make decisions. but way impactful than when i so there are steps all along the way. greatyeah. give him one second. i know. i know. the c-span guys would love it. love that. i'm really looking forward to reading your book. you quite a lot of dilemmas thought about and i a name that i didn't hear fromod thunberg and to me 'hayou she's really challenging country why don't we act now and why don't we have action that has result quicker results. yeah this is great so a quick about why editors are so portant. my first draft of the book did not talk about thunberg. my editor was likere now and and wheanywhere. but where she shows up is on thatone second. strengths weaknesses. so here's the differenc's the difference

between me and greta. there are so young and so she time in a way that i'm going to say a lot of us don't, she probably i don't know her. so but i wouldn't say she doesn't have money the way some people do. soto expect her and the, you know, melinda gate to contribute to this conversation in the same way. but also because she's young she has this ability to inspire which i can i think can actually be a offensive. i think young people are kind of like hey, else stop telling us to save the world that you screwed up but it can really shame right? when i look at my daughter and i'm like, this is what we're leaving you during season right? when i can't breathe the air. and i'm like, we did this to you. the youth not only have and energy, etc. they had this specific place in our population that can be inspiring because it's really important to call us out right in different so her as a youth feels really important and then i'll just mention there'su also talk about bill. bill as a retired climate activism, but he he launched a site called the third act. and it's for what calls mature

adults in the third act of life, who have a different set of opportunities,gths and