This episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom addresses the recent news in oil and gas including a court order for Royal Dutch Shell to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions from all of its global operations, and a vote from Chevron’s shareholders telling the company to reduce its own emissions and the emissions produced by customers who burn its oil and gasoline. Our panelists also discuss how nature-based solutions can help bridge the gap between political parties, and reflect on the film Kiss the Ground while looking at how soil can heal the earth and mend political divisions. We are joined by special guest panelist Quill Robinson, Vice President of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition, alongside returning panelist Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and host Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori’s Head of Supply and Methodology.
Full Transcript
Announcer: You’re listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom, a weekly show about current events in the world of carbon removal, from technology and innovation to policymaking and job growth. Brought to you by Nori, the carbon removal marketplace.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Welcome to the Thursday, June 3rd edition of Carbon Removal Newsroom. This afternoon, I have with me, as always, Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo in New York. Hi, Holly. How are you doing?
Holly Jean Buck: Doing great. How are you?
Radhika Moolgavkar: I’m hanging in there. The weather’s been amazing in Seattle, so can’t complain. I also have a fellow University of Washington alumni, though not current Washington State resident, Quill Robinson, Vice President of Government Affairs for the American Conservation Coalition. Hey, Quill, thanks for joining us today.
Quill Robinson: Hi there. Good to be here. And of course, go Dawgs.
Radhika Moolgavkar: That’s right. Let’s hope we have a good football season this year. We will see what this year brings. And then finally, I’m Radhika Moolgavkar, Head of Supply and Methodology here at NORI. So today we have two main topics. First off, we’re going to start off with the gas and oil industry, because as one environmentalist said, Was this the day of reckoning for big oil and gas? There was lots of news out there about different litigation strategies and sharehold activism, but seems like other things are going in the direction of oil and gas.
So maybe there’s some tension with those. Also, we’re going to follow up with a question about whether nature-based solutions help bridge the gap, not only in the carbon removal space, but between political parties. So can soil do more than just heal the earth, but also heal the political divide? Not sure, but we’ll see what we’ve come up with. With that, Polly, big, big news coming out of the oil and gas industry this past week. We have three new activist board members for Exxon. We have Chevron losing a shale holder vote and having to take into account not only their own emissions, but scope three or customer emissions and legal action in Australia and the Netherlands that are having impacts.
So what was your thinking?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, This is all cool. I mean, it’s good signals, but, you know, what’s the next step beyond making these signals, right? It’s no substitute for actually actively managing the decline of fossil fuels, because for that you need two things. You need to actually decrease demand, which requires all kinds of policies across multiple sectors. And as one of the articles you shared pointed out, Radhika, you know, demand is rebounding. I mean, people anticipated that it would rebound after COVID, so it’s not like a shock, but you have to decrease demand.
Otherwise, you wind up in this situation where you might have cut production, but what’s going to make up the difference, right? So Jason Bordoff has a good piece this week in Foreign Policy about that, where higher gas prices would then embolden New attacks on Biden’s policy choices and, you know, there could be actually a political setback. So that’s one thing. The other thing is that you need to have an exit strategy for all countries, otherwise production that closes down in one area just shifts to some other jurisdiction. So I think this is all good, but I don’t think we should be too caught up in, you know, this idea of a social tipping point quite yet.
Radhika Moolgavkar: You know, I was not as excited about the legal action that came out of the Netherlands because, for one, it’s a different jurisdiction, but for two, I think history has taught us that legislating from the bench, at least in this country, can lead to some unforeseen or unwanted consequences. What I did find interesting, and I would love to get both your opinions on this, is the switch in the board at Exxon. That, to me, seems like maybe a longer-lasting strategy to the Quill, what you thought of that strategy?
Quill Robinson: Yeah, I mean, it was definitely interesting to see the, you know, the two different significant events that happened in Europe and, you know, in the US. I, you know, I’m a little skeptical, like you said, legislating the bench, I don’t think is a good idea and it’s not really a sustainable direction in terms of governance. I mean, I think the case in the US was, I mean, I’ve read some things that have said it’s a bit overstated and the impact of these new board members will be somewhat limited, but I’m for it.
I mean, this is the private sector. This is, you know, shareholder accountability. The folks who own this company are saying, we want you to incorporate these considerations in terms of climate. I’m enthusiastic about that. I mean, it’s better than the government coming in and trying to dictate what private companies should be doing. And I think that It’s really evidence of the fact that the activism and the grassroots work of millions of young people around the world is having an impact on the private sector. I mean, something I always say to young people is, look, we vote for president every four years, but every single day when you spend your money on one company or another, that’s a much more rapid form of accountability.
And so I love to see that sort of movement forward accountability action and the increasing incorporation of climate considerations In the private sector, not just happening from top down government dictates.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, any thoughts?
Holly Jean Buck: Well, I think a lot of people online were just entranced by Andy Karzner’s title as space cowboy at X. And this kind of narrative appeal of there being something new and different than your standard image of like a oil and gas major board member. I honestly don’t know. I mean, as a sociologist, I’m entranced by, you know, this idea of how these signals translate into material effects. So I guess I’ll keep an open mind about what will happen.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I’m most interested in the third board member who just won, I think, yesterday from Google, because I am interested in seeing how there’s going to be this more tightly, hopefully, niche between the technologies that Google is I also was a bit intrigued by the actions of the Chevron shareholder voters that wanted them to take into account Scope 3 emissions, which for our listeners who may not be As familiar are sort of emissions not directly related to the company, but their users’ emissions, so customer emissions. And unclear to me how they would go about doing it, but I thought it was an interesting statement by the shareholders.
Holly, did you think anything of that or just happy to see it?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I was just happy to see that.
Radhika Moolgavkar: What about you, Quill? Is that like exactly where you want them to be, the shareholder accountability instead of government accountability? Yeah.
Quill Robinson: Yeah, I mean, broadly, but I think as we probably all agree here, time will tell in terms of the actual effectiveness here. I mean, the exciting thing for me is that I think this is probably counter to a lot of the narrative that we hear in the environmental movement, but I actually think that oil and gas majors are our biggest potential allies in the fight against climate change. I know, hot take. But they have the capital. They have the knowledge about the energy energy industry, and increasingly they have the incentive, you know, because in 100 years they still want to be energy companies and being exclusively an oil and gas company is not going to result in being a company in 100 years, they have the incentive to make this And so I think that, you know, we should, of course, be skeptical with, you know, the history of some of these companies on this issue of climate change.
But if we’re looking at this from a pragmatic, realistic perspective and we want to see greenhouse gas emissions go down, we should encourage this and, you know, do this sort of positive accountability and figure out more ways that these companies can actually lead in the response to climate change.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, anything to say in response?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I think that people who are against fossil fuel production sometimes take this approach that there’s some kind of evil magic inherent in the commodity. And I don’t agree with that. I think the problem with the fossil fuel companies is the social relations that they’ve produced and the oppression they’ve enjoyed up to this point. And I don’t really see that. Signals of that changing drastically because what a company like Shell will do is just spin off their worst polluting assets to some other company, right? So it would be far more progressive to have some mechanism to force them to clean up old wells and that kind of thing.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, which brings up that fairly interesting, maybe shocking sort of report that the New York Times did this week talking about the methane emissions from the smallest emitters. Really, what they found, the EPA has found, is that often the emissions just get moved to a smaller company that buys the asset from another company, from a big oil and gas company. So not sure, Holly, what you thought of that. I assume... You and I are on the same page where that doesn’t seem right. But how do you solve that problem? Do you have any ideas?
Are you too, Quill? How do you solve that? They’re allowed to sell their assets. The free market is somebody wants to purchase them. What do you do about something like that?
Quill Robinson: Well, I mean, I think that there’s an interesting opportunity here. And from my little perch in DC, I’ve actually heard a lot of discussion, both from Republicans and Democrats about, you know, plugging abandoned oil and gas wells and that sort of thing. And actually, I mean, that ties really well into President Biden’s You know, sort of just transition framework here. I mean, a lot of these communities in former traditional energy communities, you know, that’s a good way we can put people to work. So, I mean, even as a conservative here I think that’s a good way that the government could spend money.
And hopefully get the private sector actors involved as well in plugging these old wells and addressing that. I mean, in terms of the question of whether they should be able to sell those assets, of course they should, just as they should be able to buy up renewable assets and that sort of thing. But there’s a great opportunity for us to come in, put people to work who are being hurt by the energy transition, doing something that will help reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I mean, I get concerned about the accounting, though. What I’m struggling with, and I don’t think we have an answer for, is you see big companies taking credit for it, but really it hasn’t, of reducing their emissions, I should say. But in reality, we haven’t lowered any emissions. So how, maybe it’s more about a tracking issue for the EPA, I’m not sure, but It was a little disheartening to read that the 20% that one of these companies claimed was really just moved over to another company. Holly, anything else you want to say about that?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, I think there’s a role for federal policy and just regulating these leaks. I think there’s a role for the tech sector in terms of some of the cool stuff that’s coming online with satellite detection of methane leaks in real time and that kind of thing. My concern is, What happens on the global scale when companies under pressure in the US or Europe pull out of investments in countries in the global south and those assets get bought up by somebody who has even less incentive to run them well.
So even though, I mean, there’s a federal thing here, but there’s also a global dimension we need to be thinking about.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, really good point. Speaking of global, I’ve got to ask, well, I’m going to put you a little on the hot seat, but I was hearing this report this week about the Nord Stream pipeline that runs from Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany, and it made me wonder, why are so many Republicans so against, or it feels like they’re against decarbonizing our When from a geopolitical strategic perspective, it seems to align perfectly, like we don’t want Russia to have more power to have the ability to pipe gas straight to Germany, to bypass Poland, whatever the long term ramifications, but you would think supporting a new free market enterprise would be in their interest.
So what’s your hot take on that?
Quill Robinson: Well, you actually hit a topic I’m really interested in. I lived in Germany for a year on a fellowship and so I worked in German politics too and got to talk a lot about Nord Stream too. I mean, The fact is that geopolitically, North Stream 2 is bad for the United States and our allies, for Ukraine and many other of our NATO allies. And it’s a pipeline of money going the other direction into the pocket of a pretty awful person in Vladimir Putin and a corrupt government. And then you look at the reason that Germany is so for this is because they’ve really pursued an unscientific climate agenda.
They axed nuclear energy in Germany, which just goes completely against the science. Luckily, we haven’t done that here in the United States. And hopefully we don’t go in that direction. But you look at their neighbors, they have much cheaper energy in France because of nuclear energy. And so Germany has pursued this unscientific climate energy agenda. Now they’re forced to put in this weird position where they have to buy dirty Russian natural gas. And I think that’s really a model of how not to go about climate action. And I mean, the fact is, is that Russian natural gas has a, I believe it’s around 40% higher lifecycle carbon impact as opposed to American natural gas.
So I think all the stars aligned here for us to oppose Nord Stream 2, you know, geopolitically, climatically. Climate wise, just in terms of our place in the world. And actually, you know, there was just a hearing last week where a Republican member of Congress was talking to Secretary Granholm, and was saying, you know, this is bad for the climate, and it’s bad for our geopolitical interests. We hear a lot of Republicans making the case that this is both bad for the climate and bad for our geopolitical interests. So, I mean, and the other fact is that we should be exporting American natural gas because it is much cleaner in many cases around the world.
It will lower, you know, create a much lower carbon impact than the sources of energy that they currently use. So, I mean, I’m hearing Republicans oppose this. I think it’s for a good reason. And I think it’s good policy for a lot of reasons for us to oppose Nord Stream 2.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I was more curious about just the broader Republican resistance to decarbonizing. Like, it seems like overall it should be something they want to do. It’s new jobs. It lowers our dependency on actors we don’t want to be dependent on, even within our own energy system. Even if we have things like shale and all that, we still are dependent. So why, in a sentence, can you tell me why they are so anti- Decarbonization, or it feels like they are.
Quill Robinson: They’re not. That’s my answer, but I’ll elaborate on that a little bit. In 2017, when my organization was founded, it was hard for us to get a meeting with a Republican to talk about climate change. That’s a fact. President Trump, not very interested in climate change. Not going to argue over that. The fact is, is that just in the last couple of months, Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, unveiled a comprehensive climate package. You know, this weekend ACC is holding a conservative climate rally in Miami, Florida with multiple Republican members of Congress and the Republican mayor of Miami.
You know, there are certainly some folks, I mean, there’s the guy who held up the snowball on the, on the, you know, Congress floor Lori, he’s still there. But I’m telling you, in the last year in particular, we’ve seen a shift from climate denial to climate action. And maybe I’m a little biased, but I actually think that the conservative solutions that Republicans in Congress are pushing are really effective solutions that are actually going to help us decarbonize. But the difference is that we’re not anti-fossil fuel or anti-greenhouse gas emissions. And so I think there’s a little bit of a perspective difference there.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Fair enough. Holly, anything you want to say in response?
Unknown speaker: I’m looking forward to seeing it.
Quill Robinson: All right, let me get in there with one nugget then, okay? Energy Act of 2020, biggest climate bill that we’ve passed in over 10 years. Republicans were at the table, battery storage, carbon capture, advanced nuclear. That was Republicans who were hand in hand with Democrats getting one of the most significant pieces of climate legislation across the finish line in December. So that’s my nugget. A lot more to do, but I think the trajectory is good right now.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It’s a nice way to leave this topic and actually segue into our next topic, which is whether these nature-based solutions in carbon capture are a way to kind of bridge the political divide. We are kind of talking about it in relationship to Kiss the Ground, which was a documentary released in 2020. It’s available on Netflix. And the premise of it is essentially that soil can solve a lot of the issues we have around climate change. Well, tell me what you were thinking when you mentioned it healing the divide between Republicans and Democrats.
Quill Robinson: Yeah, definitely. So I guess I think back to when I was 11 years old and I went and saw an Inconvenient Truth with my mom’s side of my family in Seattle and saw that movie and it scared the crap out of me. I think that was my first exposure to the idea of climate change and global warming. You know, fast forward to 2020 when I saw this movie, Kiss the Ground, I was like, wow, this is different. You know, it’s like acknowledges that there’s a problem. But actually talks about like lots of real solutions.
And I’m just like, I’m obsessed with this movie because it’s so positive and it’s so empowering. And I think that one of the challenges around climate change, I think this is whether you’re a progressive who feels like this the number one issue Or even a conservative is a little bit more skeptical is that climate change is so intangible. I mean, obviously, I know that there’s rising sea levels and effects that many people are seeing, but I think for most people, climate change is a bit intangible. I mean, it’s kind of interesting in the environmental movement how like polar bears and ice caps have been the symbols, whereas, you know, that doesn’t most people don’t have those in their communities.
So anyways, I mean, I think what’s exciting about this movie and the idea of natural carbon Sequestration is that this brings climate policy back home into our own backyards and it makes it a lot more tangible. And so I know that nature-based solutions are not going to solve the issue, but it’s a lot less politically charged and actually has the opportunity to empower many of the Americans who felt like they’re on the wrong end of climate policy. Who will be the victims of climate policy to actually be the champions of climate solutions.
And I just think that’s such a cool idea. And I’ve been in D. C. for almost two years now, kind of working on the Hill, trying to convince more Republicans to think about climate change. And I just see so much potential in this approach and this positive message of empowering America’s farmers and foresters and folks in the ag industry to sequester carbon. So I’m just so excited about it. It gets me really pumped up.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Not to mention you’re a lover of the North Cascades and a lover of the outdoors. So, of course.
Quill Robinson: I mean, how can you grow up in a place like Seattle and not be?
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, exactly. I’m curious, though, how you think we can reach bipartisan sort of consensus around this when it’s also battling sort of current entrenched interest on both sides of the aisle, particularly kind of certain areas of the agricultural supply chain that might be a little bit less Yeah, I mean, there’s certainly some, you know, nuts and bolts things that need to be worked out in terms of how you structure carbon markets and, you know, which industries will benefit or which areas of the agricultural sector would benefit more and which would benefit less.
Quill Robinson: You know, sure, there’s all those elements to it, but I mean, just kind of to what we were talking about earlier, like, Fossil fuels is a really contentious issue right and that’s something that we’re going to argue over the role of that and that’s a, you know, the energy sector is difficult when it comes to climate change. There’s not that same political charge around natural solutions in my view. In fact, there’s a lot of legislation that ACC is working on right now and supporting that has massive bipartisan support that would move the ball forward on natural climate solutions.
Just an example of that, Growing Climate Solutions Act makes it a little easier for folks in the ag sector to participate in carbon markets, puts money in the pockets of those folks to sequester more carbon and adopt more of those practices. I mean, last I checked, it’s probably higher than now, but 47 co-sponsors in the Senate Republican and Democrat. I mean, that’s happening in Washington, D. C. right now, which is kind of surprising and amazing and I think is indicative of the potential of natural solutions in this space.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, anything you want to add?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I’m wearing my Kiss the Ground t-shirt for this occasion. It says, soil is our curling ground and it’s purple. So I think that there is a lot of potential. Supported very well on both sides of the aisle. If you do public polling, like I’ve done a bit of everybody loves soil carbon. I think my only reservation is that there could be a sort of moral hazard effect in which people think that like soil will save us or soil can do it all. There’s a little bit of that sometimes in the community.
But I do think that there’s a lot of people reality checking that too. So I’m not super concerned about it. And what I would hope is that some of the relationships and networks that can be built can be transferred to more ambitious things because soil can help a bit, but we’ve got a lot more to do.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, that’s actually a really good question and a really something I think about is how do you translate soil to other, which hard not to support farmers. It’s hard not to, I mean, It’s a great story and it’s a good story because there are wins on all sides, right? The farmers, the environment, and their financial needs. But how do you translate that to other parts of the carbon marketplaces and other types of carbon drawdowns?
Quill Robinson: I mean, I think that it’s, so our approach at ACC, we talk a lot about, you know, the unsexy term of incrementalism, but we actually think incrementalism is really important. I, you know, I came from Washington State where we have the loudest, boldest activists in the country, right? And yet emissions have gone up, what, like seven, 8% under Governor Inslee, like, come on. And so I’m a really big proponent of you got to start somewhere. And, you know, we’re sort of seeing that right now with the infrastructure package, you know, in Congress is that, you know, President Biden’s gone big and bold.
And what if we, you know, maybe that’ll pass a reconciliation, but it’s like, big and bold is not enough, it actually has to result in something. So I really think that’s Important that we get some legislation across the finish line that says climate as Republicans and Democrats on board and actually reduces greenhouse gas carbon emissions. I think it’s a really important place to start. I mean, in terms of translating that to other areas, I think it’s important to build that trust because there’s a lot of mistrust when it comes to climate policy.
And I think that the significance of enacting climate policy that’s actually going to benefit the people who are often most suspicious of big government climate policy is going to be really significant. And then just also getting Republicans and Democrats in Congress kind of like used to working with each other on this rather than throwing snowballs at each other.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I’ve had a few interesting experiences in my time at Nori. We had one farmer who just dropped out of the marketplace because he said, I don’t believe in climate change, therefore I don’t want to participate. That’s our understanding. I didn’t talk to him directly. We have had others who have said, don’t talk about climate change with the farmers, talk about the benefits. And to me, that is fine because their benefits are enormous, but it also concerns me because I don’t want to hide the importance of what they’re doing. And it is important.
So do you ever get that kind of feedback quill from conservatives who are like, okay, we can support this because it’s Agriculture, it’s helping farmers, but we’re not going to call it a climate solution.
Quill Robinson: I’ve heard that before, yeah. And I think that there are some people, you know, going back to the most basic sort of like politics around climate change, there’s a generational divide, right? You know, for some people, it’s better to talk about clean air, clean water and Christian stewardship, right? That’s, you know, that’s talking about it in different ways to different people is really important. And, you know, being from Seattle, a very progressive place and a progressive family, I am, you know, I’m aware of our tendency being from that place to kind of Have our own self-righteousness about, you know, getting those people to understand that climate change and global warming is really serious.
And I think it’s important for us to check that and, you know, cast a wide net, build a broad coalition. And maybe we don’t all use the same terms, but I think if we’re moving in a similar direction, the broader our coalition is the better. So, I mean, I think that it’s important to be For forgiving and understanding in that regard and really focusing on the shared goal rather than the sort of the headlines and the language around it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I can agree with you more. Holly, anything?
Holly Jean Buck: I also think the way into this is probably not around counting carbon. I think there’s a path that goes through adaptation. And I’m just remembering, you know, in the summer of 2019, there were terrible floods in the middle of the country and I was Staying at a regenerative farm in Nebraska and every other farm, their corn was just standing in water. Just the soil did not take up the water, but this guy’s corn was like normal. And I think you can see that from the road, it’s very tangible. And unfortunately, as these climate impacts mount, people are going to be thinking more about how to cope with them.
That could be one area that I think maybe we don’t discuss enough.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It’s about the resiliency that regenerative agriculture actually brings and the important, yeah, that’s one of the most important, I think, points that often gets lost to what you were saying, Holly. We forget to mention that actually you’ll weather these climate changes probably better when you implement these regenerative agriculture practices. Do you know if any of the other farmers changed after that flooding and they saw that neighbor? Did it have an impact?
Holly Jean Buck: I’m not sure, but it’s interesting. I’ve heard a lot of stories of people, you know, there’s these learning networks among farmers and they learn a lot by YouTube and watching the other YouTubes. It’s really interesting.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. Well, I’m hoping that they’re teaching one another. Will, anything else you kind of want to add to this being so passionate?
Quill Robinson: Yeah. I mean, I guess I, you know, and this has been one of my battles and, you know, one of the reasons that I come at this from One of the reasons that I think it’s really important for conservatives to be at the table here is I think that there is a tendency among those of us the environmental community to put, to make, there’s been a tendency in the environmental movement to sometimes make the perfect the enemy of the good. And I know that well from being from Washington State and our policies there.
And I just, I think that it’s so important to meet people where they’re at Not in spite of the crisis and serious challenges that we’re facing, but because of them. Because I think that’s really the most important way to take this issue seriously is to do the work of meeting people where they’re at and pursuing policies that do not necessarily solve the whole issue, but move the ball forward. And that’s, you know, that’s been a lot of my work. And just, you know, to the earlier point too, I think that I’ve heard a lot of people, you know, whether they’re in agriculture or in, you know, some other industry in very conservative areas of the country saying, You know, to drought or to flooding, you know, this is not normal.
I think a lot of people are coming around to that. And we’re not going to, you know, get them on our team by saying, you stupid idiot, you didn’t get it all this time. But like, With open arms saying, let’s work together on this and let’s address it. And also the fact that in many places like Miami, where we’re holding our conservative climate rally, that adaptation is the solution that’s most badly needed right now because climate change is already there. I think that’s an important point too.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, thanks, Quill. I appreciate your insights, and I actually agree with pretty much everything you just said because, yeah, you can’t force people. You’ve got to meet them where they’re at. With that, I’m going to turn it over to Holly to maybe give us a good news story of the week for climate activists or people interested in the space.
Holly Jean Buck: Well, one thing I’m watching is this International Maritime Organization meeting next week. They were kind of slammed in the New York Times today, but there was one story that’s good related to this, which is that Maersk is calling for a carbon tax on shipping fuel of $150 a tonne. So kind of following this thread of, you know, big corporate action. I thought it was a bold call and a pretty high number, pretty, you know, if that happened, it would get us somewhere.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It would be a great signal to the market. That’s for sure, I think. With that, thank you so much for joining us, Quill. You are as articulate as your co-worker Chris is, and we really enjoyed having you on. And Holly, as always, so great to have you. And to all our listeners, we will see you next week. So thanks for tuning in.
Announcer: Thanks so much for listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom. If you like the show, the best way you can help us is by giving us a great rating and review an Apple podcast, following the show on Spotify, and by sharing the show on social media. Tell your friends and help us spread the word about what’s happening in the world of carbon revolution.
