Discover the unsettling truth about PFAS, known as 'forever chemicals,' and their impact on health and the environment. Explore the origins of Teflon and its dual use during wartime and in everyday life. Personal stories reveal the harsh realities faced by those affected by PFAS contamination. This deep dive highlights both historical context and contemporary relevance, emphasizing the urgent public health challenges these chemicals present.

Jasper Tulling, a strategic advisor at the Climate Litigation Network, and Noah Walker Crawford, a research fellow focused on climate change at the London School of Economics, delve into a significant Dutch court ruling about Shell's emissions. They discuss how the decision affirmed Shell's legal obligation to reduce global emissions, despite media portrayals of a win. The conversation highlights the complexities of corporate accountability and critiques reliance on unproven climate technologies, advocating for immediate action over future solutions.

David Sirota, a former speechwriter for Bernie Sanders and Oscar-nominated co-writer of Don't Look Up, dives into America's political corruption. He reveals how a 50-year plot turned democracy into kleptocracy, enabling the elite to influence policies that serve their interests. Sirota connects historical events like Watergate and Nixon's manipulations with modern Supreme Court scandals. From campaign finance scandals to the surprising connection between milk and political funding, he highlights the alarming intersection of wealth and power in shaping policies.

Anna Lappé, an expert on food systems and climate change, and Matthew Kessler, a science communicator at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, delve into the hidden ties between the oil and gas industry and our food. They discuss the impact of petrochemical fertilizers on emissions and the complexities of fossil fuel dependency in food supply chains. The conversation highlights the environmental consequences of synthetic farming practices and advocates for sustainable agriculture as a vital solution to climate challenges.

Today we're sharing an episode of the podcast Reclaimed. It centers on a group of Americans who’ve been denied a basic human right: water. I’m talking about the Navajo people. More than one-third of households in the Navajo Nation do not have access to clean water. Right now, there’s a landmark bill in front of Congress that could change this — but it took more than 150 years to get here. “Reclaimed” takes you back to the very beginning when the Navajo reservation was first created. And it reveals the history of oppression and exclusion that led the Navajo to this point — and why their future is still uncertain. You can listen to more episodes of Reclaimed at https://abcaudio.com/podcasts/reclaimed-navajo-nation/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Genevieve Guenther is an author specializing in the rhetoric of climate action. In this discussion, she explores six key rhetorical devices used to undermine climate initiatives, provoking strong reactions online. Guenther critiques the language surrounding fossil fuel narratives, revealing how terms like 'economic growth' distort the urgency of climate change. She also discusses the failures of carbon capture technologies and the need for genuine decarbonization. Ultimately, she emphasizes emotional connections to place as vital for galvanizing public support for climate advocacy.

We first released our "Mad Men of Big Oil" season on all the pro-fossil fuel propaganda that came before climate denial, and the role the PR industry has played in helping various polluting industries shape our ideas around the economy, the environment, and the relationship between the two back in January 2020. It inspired various campaigns to clean up the industry and in 2024, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres specifically referenced the need to hold these "Mad Men fueling climate disaster" to account. At this year's Climate Week we did a special live version of this season, and figured it was a good time to re-up it. It's evergreen, and people are talking about it more and more these days. Check your feeds for Season 3 to listen to the rest!Ad Note: The first 150 of you will receive the first month of a Planet Wild membership from me for free. Click on this link https://planetwild.com/drilled, or use the code DRILLED9 later. Not satisfied anymore? You can cancel at any time. If you want to see how Planet Wild works first, check out their latest YouTube video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPbCjH45uwI&t=2s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Molly Taft, a dedicated reporter on fossil fuels, is joined by Geoffrey Supran, a climate disinformation researcher, and Craig Callender, a philosopher of science at UCSD. They dive into the concerning influence of fossil fuel funding on academic research, revealing a shocking lack of transparency and a staggering $37 million in undisclosed donations at Columbia University. The trio discusses the ethical dilemmas this funding creates, the urgent need for clearer disclosure practices, and parallels to historical funding controversies in academia.

Mary Annaise Heglar, an advocate for climate rethinking, and journalist Amy Westervelt dive deep into Project 2025 and its implications for climate policy. They share frustrations about the disconnection in current climate advocacy, critique the historical ties of environmental movements to social justice, and discuss the risks associated with privatizing weather data. They also tackle the ethical dilemmas in climate journalism and the shifting dynamics of political engagement as they humorously examine voter sentiments leading into the election.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA that when the U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate science was “in its infancy,” implying that government officials could never have intended for the legislation to cover the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2022, SCOTUS doubled down on that idea, ruling in West Virginia v EPA that since the Clean Air Act didn't explicitly talk about climate change, the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Now, new historical evidence unearthed by a team of Harvard University researchers led by Naomi Oreskes calls the court's understanding of the history of climate science into question, which could have major implications for the government's ability to regulate climate-changing emissions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices