Terry Gross

I'm not going to play that.

That just like went on and on and on and wasn't terribly clarifying.

But I will play a clip from a podcast that you mentioned in your article in The New Yorker.

The podcast is called Ruthless.

You describe it basically as a conservative bro kind of podcast.

So this is from last July, and they're talking about the endangerment finding.

And so here's Lee Zeldin explaining why it's so important to cancel the endangerment finding.

So that was Lee Zeldin speaking last July on the podcast Ruthless.

I found it interesting that he said this has been referred to as a dagger in the heart of the climate change religion.

So the first thing I want to ask you about is referring to climate change activism as a religion as opposed to actions to protect the health of people, animals, and the earth itself.

So another thing that he's saying in the answer that we just heard from the podcast is that basically people who are activists for climate change, they're willing to bankrupt the country and choose instead like the most pessimistic worst case scenario.

I've heard him talk about that this is like the most pessimistic worst case scenario.

He chooses to be more optimistic, but he refuses also to bankrupt the country.

If we acted more vigorously to protect the earth from climate change, would that bankrupt the country?

And is what he is doing saving the amount of money that he says it will save?

Well, even just as a consumer, if the price of cars goes down, the price of insurance for your home in so many places in the country now is going up between wildfires and floods.

In places in Florida, insurance is really high if you can get it at all.

And certainly, like after the West Coast fires, insurance is really unaffordable for so many people.

It's time for another break, so let me reintroduce you.

My guest is Pulitzer Prize-winning environmental journalist Elizabeth Colbert.