Dane Wigington

We've had Marjorie Taylor Greene just address this.

That was publicized well.

We tried to reach Mrs. Greene before this to try to give some compass heading, because if you fly into this blind, you can do more harm than good.

And one thing we encourage, unfortunately, Marjorie didn't get this message.

We hope she does at some point.

Don't open the entire climate...

scenario and mix it with this issue and that's that's what she did we want to keep the focus on climate engineering and when there's a denial of the other sources of damage to the planet that tends to immediately alienate half the people we need in this battle so what we would try to encourage and encourage other legislators to do is if the subject of the climate comes up

That how can we have any legitimate discussion of climate, anything, from any perspective, without first and foremost addressing this elephant in the equation?

And that narrative is much more productive at building bridges instead of burning it, burning them.

With both.

I want to stress again, we're not denying it's usually Washington, Oregon.

Again, statistically, we are putting about...

100 million tons of carbon into the air a day, 26 million tons of coal, 100 million barrels of hydrocarbon.

We're cutting down the forest.

We're paving the planet.

We're poisoning the oceans.

All of these things happen in effect.

We're acknowledging that.

But we're saying when we have intentional intervention, which has prevented the planet from responding to the damage done, if it weren't for toxic rain, Tucker, the forest may have tried to uptake more of that carbon and to keep things more in balance, but they can't.

The trees can't.