[00:00:18] Speaker A: Welcome to Uptown Chats, a podcast where we share stories about environmental justice by and for everyday people. I'm your co host, Jaronous.
[00:00:25] Speaker B: And I'm your other co host, Lonnie.
[00:00:27] Speaker A: And today we're continuing our wrong direction miniseries and talking about carbon capture and storage with a very special guest, Doctor Anna Baptista, associate director of the Tishman Environment and Design center at the new school here in New York City. But before we get to that, Loni, can you share WEAC's mission?
[00:00:44] Speaker B: Absolutely. WEAC's mission is to build healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection practices and policies.
[00:00:56] Speaker A: Awesome. Well, I'm super excited for this episode because this is something that's been on our radar, carbon capture and storage, for quite a long time. I feel like it has emerged as one of these false solutions, and we'll get into that a little bit more. But there's a couple things that it's inherently a little bit of a technical topic. And so to really help listeners understand and get the most out of our interview with Ana, we're going to cover a couple of quick concepts, just high level overview, so how carbon capture and storage works and a couple of key terms, and then we'll jump right into the interview. Sound good?
[00:01:29] Speaker B: Sounds great.
[00:01:31] Speaker A: All right, so, first of all, what is carbon capture and storage at its core? You know, you can think of carbon capture and storage in a three step process. First is capturing CO2 or carbon dioxide emissions at the source, like a power plant, et cetera, before it enters the atmosphere. And then you can think about it being transported, transporting that captured carbon dioxide, usually via pipelines, and then lastly, securely storing it in geological formations deep underground or using it in other ways. There's a term that will get thrown around in this interview that I think is a little confusing. So that term is supercritical fluid, and it sounds super cool.
[00:02:13] Speaker B: It does sound awful.
[00:02:13] Speaker A: What is that? What does that even mean, supercritical fluid? I'm like, that's probably the most science y word I can think of. That's, like, up there with flux capacitor, right?
[00:02:22] Speaker B: It's also giving. Like, it's giving also superhero vibes, too.
[00:02:26] Speaker A: Absolutely. That's how you get your superpowers. You have to find the super critical.
[00:02:30] Speaker B: Fluid, and you'll learn to fly.
[00:02:32] Speaker A: Unfortunately, no. So what a supercritical fluid is, it's just a state of matter that occurs when a substance is subject to certain temperature and pressure above what's called its critical point, where, you know, distinction between a liquid and a gas kind of goes away. So in this state, the fluid has properties of both liquids and gases. And some examples are, you know, it can dissolve materials in it like a liquid. You know, you think of like putting salt in water. You know, salt can dissolve in there. So has properties like that, but it also can flow through materials like a gas. So you think about, you know, flowing through things, you know, for example, like air moving through your mass, materials like that. So in the context of carbon capture and storage, supercritical CO2 plays a specific role in the transportation and storage parts. So after CO2 gets captured from industrial sources, it's compressed usually into this supercritical fluid state for more efficient transportation, essentially. But again, that's just in a nutshell what supercritical fluids are. Before we get into our interview with Ana Loni, do you wanna tell us a little bit more about what direct air capture is and how that is really briefly different from carbon capture and storage?
[00:03:48] Speaker B: Yeah. So sometimes you'll often hear those two terms together. So both you'll hear carbon capture and storage, and sometimes you might hear direct air capture. And direct air capture is a little bit different. So it's the technology that removes CO2 directly from the atmosphere, unlike carbon capture and storage, which captures CO2 from industrial sources before it actually reaches the atmosphere. So large machines with special filters or chemical solutions pull the CO2 from the air, and the captured CO2 then is stored underground or used in products like fuels or building materials. So that's direct air capture. So the main difference being direct air capture, capture CO2 already dispersed to the atmosphere. So it's already there where carbon capture and storage capture CO2 from concentrated sources like power plants or factories before it's actually released.
[00:04:40] Speaker A: So, yeah, the other thing that comes to mind, if you're thinking about maybe water, for example, like you have pollution in water, you can think of carbon capture and storage. Like, we're diverting the pollution from the water source altogether. We don't let even get in the water versus direct air capture is like we're going to go in there with a big net and we're going to scoop out all the pollution that made it into the water because it got in there.
[00:05:04] Speaker B: Okay, that's a good metaphor. And when we were talking to Ana, one of the things that come up often, just like we talked about with hydrogen, is kind of the lack of transparency and understanding where these projects are coming from. Where are they in our neighborhoods or our communities are people being, is there a lot of community outreach that's going on? And where can we find out where any of these technologies are being used? And I feel like that's like, one thing that's a struggle here is really kind of having this knowledge, not just understanding what the technology is, but where is it, and how does it show up in your life?
[00:05:40] Speaker A: And one example of this community engagement or this sort of attempt at community engagement around carbon capture and storages, this DoE Department of Energy carbon management projects, or connect toolkit, is essentially an online exploratory visualization tool and database developed by the Department of Energy and a handful of other relevant agencies across the federal government. And essentially, it provides a single point of access on research, development, and demonstration projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies like carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal, transport, all those things. So it's really a place to share information about these projects that are coming out, and we'll actually share a link in the show notes for folks that want to take a look at that. But, you know, this is a place to get a sense of where some of these announced projects are supposed to be taking place. In case you're curious about if this is happening in your community.
[00:06:40] Speaker B: Absolutely. It's great to stay informed and to be able to know. It's like a visual map that shows where these projects are. And guess what? You know what? You may not quite understand exactly how all of this works, but if you know where these projects are happening and you do have questions, you can get all the information you need to reach out to an elected official, reach out to someone who may know what's going on so you can ask those questions.
[00:07:00] Speaker A: Great. So with that, I say let's go ahead and jump into our interview with Anand because we've got lots of great stuff there.
[00:07:06] Speaker B: Let's get into it.
[00:07:14] Speaker A: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Ana. Before we get too far into our episode, can you give us a brief introduction of yourself and what you're currently working on?
[00:07:24] Speaker C: Sure. Yeah. My name is Ana Baptista, and I am an associate professor at the new school university here in New York City. And I also run a center called the Tishman Environment and Design center at the new school, where myself, along with many of my colleagues, we do research alongside with community based and environmental justice organizations around the country on a variety of topics. We work on things from climate mitigation and policies for environmental justice, zero waste. So we work on a range of topics, and usually we're doing it with partners in the grassroots EJ movement.
[00:08:09] Speaker A: In other words, you're the perfect guest for us on this episode. Right now, I feel like you really coming at us with a kind of nice balance of experience. You know, you have that research experience. It seems like you really have a lot of that technical knowledge about some of the technologies we'll be discussing, but also some of that real work experience of working with, you know, environmental justice communities and organizations. So, again, what a perfect person to have to talk about this topic, which is, you know, carbon capture and storage. So can you just give us kind of a high level overview of what carbon capture and storage is? In a perfect world, what is this supposed to do? What is carbon capture in storage?
[00:08:47] Speaker C: Yeah, no, I will do my best to give you just a broad overview of what it is.
I think in a perfect world, we wouldn't have or need carbon capture and storage, to be honest with you. But the technology that is often referred to as carbon capture and storage, sometimes it's referred to as carbon capture, storage and utilization. So ccs or ccus.
And this technology is supposed to capture carbon at usually at point sources. So that could mean a power plant, an industrial plant, like, you know, a plant that makes cement or chemicals. And the point of capture is usually at what we call post combustion. In other words, there's some industrial process or fuel being combusted at a power plant, and there's a stack. And post combustion capture means that they're using lots of different technologies. There's the most common way that carbon gets captured is actually using a chemical called an amine chemical. And so they shoot this chemical into the flue gas, it mixes with the flue gas, and what it's trying to do is strip out the carbon molecules from that flue gas. Not an easy feat. Right? So I think most people think, like, they put a bonnet or something on top of the stack, and it sucks just the carbon out like a vacuum. But in fact, what's happening is they have to have a chemical reaction in the flue gas, in the post combustion version of capture, to break apart those carbon molecules, which is highly energy intensive. It's not easy to pull carbon out of a mixed gas stream. Right. You can imagine it can be quite complicated. And there are other versions of how you can capture pre combustion, oxy combustion. There's lots of different ways you can, but you have to strip out the carbon molecules. That's the key to do that capture process. Usually there is what we call an energy penalty. In other words, you have to burn fuel to capture carbon. In the other end. So that means that, for example, at a power plant, you might be expending an additional 15% to 40% additional fuel and energy to just do the capture process in addition to whatever the power plant's already producing. So it's not free. The carbon doesn't get captured for free. There's a penalty there, right? And that gets added to the balance of emissions that get emitted by this whole process. Right. So once the carbon is captured, usually they get mixed and turned into a supercritical fluid so that it's easier to transport. And then where are we transporting it? Well, that's the storage part or the utilization part. Typically that carbon, those carbon molecules now as a liquid in a liquid form, gets transported by pipeline. And this is a big topic of controversy is, you know, all the pipelines that we're going to need, new pipelines that we're going to need just for moving CO2 molecules in this liquid state. And they're moving them usually to underground storage locations. In other words, they're injecting them from the pipeline into underground formations, either rock formations or other geological formations deep underground.
Sometimes they're injecting them or they're building pipelines off of the coast, deep into the ocean, underground under the ocean's seabed floor. And the idea is that this carbon is now permanently stored for eternity, and that there are no leaks and there are no accidents or explosions or seepage that happens underground, and that it just lingers there forever. In most cases, CCS is actually utilized. It's not just permanently stored, because a permanent storage is the idea that a lot of proponents say, oh, this is a solution to climate change, right? We can permanently lock away this carbon so it doesn't affect our climate change. But about 70% to 80% of carbon capture is actually used for something called enhanced oil recovery. And what that means is that when they push that CO2 underground, they're pushing it into existing oil and gas reserves, these spaces underground, so that they can push out more oil and gas to burn more oil and gas to create more pollution and climate change. So it's a vicious, it's been a vicious cycle, actually, with CCS, there's not been very much permanent storage of carbon. Most of it is getting utilized. And why is it getting utilized? Because it's quite profitable, actually to use the CCS technology for pushing out more oil and gas and saying, you know, the proponents will say, well, we're putting it to good use instead of going straight into the atmosphere. We're now able to utilize it underground. So that is the sad, sad story of CCs. And CCUs is also, there's also many other uses of carbon in industrial processes where they're not just pushing it underground, but actually putting it into an industrial process to manufacture things like steel and cement.
[00:14:30] Speaker B: Yeah, I really appreciate that explanation because I think sometimes when you go through channels like YouTube videos or things like that, where you try to find this explanation, I think it's often misrepresented as, like, air purifying. It's like, basically what it seems simplified, it's overly simplified as like, you know, we're just, we're taking the carbon out of the air and we're moving it to the ground. Right. It's very simplified. Like makes it seems like it compares it to something like an air purifier, but it doesn't seem like that. It is not the case at all. It's a lot more intricate, and it doesn't seem like something that's doing exactly what it's promising to do to folks who are kind of like listening and watching those kind of videos. So I definitely appreciate that overview. Can you give a little bit of a short timeline? When did this technology come about, or when did it start to become a little bit more, I guess you could say, mainstream or in the conversation of climate change.
[00:15:22] Speaker C: Yeah. And just to note that some people confuse ccs with direct air capture, and direct air capture is sort of like a cousin to CCS, in that the idea is pretty much similar. But instead of capturing the carbon at a point source, you're sucking the air into an industrial process that then separates carbon molecules out from the atmosphere. Right. So. But yes, it's so direct air capture has a lot of similar problems and issues that CCS does, only it's capturing CO2 out from the atmosphere. But in ccs in particular has been around for quite a long time, since the seventies and eighties, because it was used by the oil and gas industry to do enhanced oil recovery. So it's been around quite a while as a mechanism, really, for squeezing those last bits of oil and gas from those reserve areas that are difficult to get at any other way.
But the part of it that's really new, or fairly new, is this idea of permanent sequestration and pouring lots of funding into this technology to claim very high rates of capture at industrial point sources and then secured permanent storage forever. And that, as a climate mitigation strategy, is fairly new. In the last five, six years, we've started to hear more and more of this turn towards this umbrella of carbon management or carbon dioxide removal CDR introduced into climate mitigation conversations at the global scale, at the IPCC in the last six, the 6th report, the 6th assessment, there's quite a bit about it, and there's been contention around this topic for the last decade, with some proponents actually saying it's going to be feasible. And as we've missed a lot of our climate mitigation benchmarks, the call from oil and gas firms and pro fossil fuel firms has been, well, we need these technologies now more than ever because we were overshooting. And I would say it's been quite a shock for me personally to see how rapidly ccs entered the conversation on national climate mitigation in the US.
We, I say we, a lot of folks in the environmental justice movement had been really tracking conversations around carbon pricing in carbon markets and looking very carefully and thoughtfully at, well, what are the equity implications of using carbon pricing and markets to, to reduce CO2 and address climate change and environmental justice. But in the last few years, when the federal government turned from carbon pricing and really started to look more at investment related climate mitigation strategies, where no longer are we talking about a clean energy standard or carbon trading or the clean power plan, right? Clean power plan was a lot about carbon trading. Now the conversation pivoted rapidly to investments like how are we going to pour money through the IRA, the Inflation Reduction act that Biden passed, and the Infrastructure act and tax credits. How are we going to use those investments to really drive climate mitigation strategies? And there's several reasons for that.
And it just became more and more difficult it seemingly, to pass climate regulations any other way. But what happened, unfortunately, is that carbon management found its way to a premier spot in climate mitigation conversations. It now became sort of a dominant paradigm in which when we were sitting with a wide array of regulators and NGO's, they were actually taking ccs and all sorts of carbon management strategies like hydrogen and others, as essential parts of achieving net zero or climate targets. And for some people, they see it as a very small part of a larger climate mitigation strategy to transition to renewables. And for others, they see it as a really important foothold. And so this is a really important distinction, is that there are folks out there who would like to see carbon management beverage one of the primary ways that, quote unquote, climate mitigation happens. And that's because it allows the polluting industries and the fossil fuel industries to continue largely unabated.
By claiming that they are capturing and storing carbon permanently, which even if you believed, and I will say even if, because there are a lot of really serious problems with carbon capture as a climate mitigation strategy. And the evidence has borne this out. And in addition to that, even if it did all the things it promised to do, 90%, 100% capture of carbon and permanent life storage for thousands of years, even if all of those claims were proven to be empirically true, there would still be very deep and serious environmental justice concerns and risks for the communities that are already bearing the brunt of climate change and legacy pollution. So there are a lot of unfortunate turns that have been taken on our road to climate mitigation in the last few decades, and in particular in the last few years, I think it caught many folks in the environmental justice movement off guard to see this rapid ascendancy of carbon management as it's been promoted by fossil fuel industries and the federal government.
[00:21:51] Speaker A: Thank you for that. I could not have asked for a better segue into this is the whole focus of this podcast is to really understand, and this needs to specifically understand how some of these, quote, unquote, climate strategies are negatively impacting environmental justice communities. And I feel like you really beautifully brought us to that point, but to the point you're raising about the rise of these tcs, hydrogen and other things framed as solutions, I feel like it's both like a benefit and trade off of raising of climate change as an issue and seeing it as such an urgent, and, you know, something that needs to happen, we need to take action immediately. It has raised that narrative for people. People understand, like, oh, this is for some people, not all people. I'll just say that a lot of people understand, like, now we need to be doing things. We need to, like, actually be moving much, much, much more quickly. That also has raised that sense of, like, desperation, like, everything's on the table now. We have to do everything. It's like, well, no, we need to still be cautious about some of these things that are being framed as solution to your point of transition, to talking a little bit more about some of those negative impacts of ccs on environmental justice communities. Can you help us maybe unpack those a little bit more and talk about some of those negative impacts for environmental justice communities and why we consider ccs a false solution for climate, environmental justice.
[00:23:10] Speaker C: Yeah, and I'll just mention that this dynamic that you described, this sense of urgency and desperation, like, we need to pivot quickly or, you know, it's going to spell disaster for the whole world. And that's very true and increasingly true. And during those times of desperation, what is so disappointing to see is that people are more than willing to continue to trample on and sacrifice the same communities that have already borne the brunt and are already living under climate change crisis and the legacy of those desperate pivots. So throughout history, we can look at all the different points in which well meaning people who said, we must pivot quickly, and the pivot usually required sacrifices, and the sacrifices are always borne by the same groups of people. And unfortunately, many of those pivots actually are driven by industries that stand to benefit from those moments of urgency and desperation in which the certain type of calculus is made where equity goes right out the door. And the truth is that you can never achieve climate mitigation truly if you don't have at the heart of that attention to and deeply structured ways to address environmental justice and climate justice as well. All you're doing is doing band Aids along the way and continuing those same patterns. But that desperation and that urgency drives people to look for magical solutions in techno utopianism. This idea that technology will always come and save us, and that mindset has been deeply harmful to communities of color and low income and indigenous communities around the world who've been on the receiving end of the aftermath of those schemes. And we can look at all sorts of examples from history, and that carbon management is on track to continue that legacy.
I talk about the natural gas pivot. In the mid two thousands, natural gas was going to be the bridge fuel that helped us transition and help save jobs and lives. And it's cleaner than coal. And then natural gas became deeply entrenched in our fossil fuel industry, in our landscape. And now the transition where we're like, oh, no, we can't have natural gas or coal. That transition is again pivoting to, how can we keep natural gas forever just using ccs? So there are many dangers and pitfalls in this. And so whenever you and I really say this to my students, often it's like whenever you hear something that sounds too good to be true, follow the money. Who is benefiting from proposing these technologies?
The flow of benefits and burdens usually tells you what the equation is really set up to do. And so it's really important that we ask critical questions, one about the actual feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration as a climate mitigation strategy. And the first part of that is it not been answered. There are many, many uncertainties, risks, and the evidence base shows us that actually CCS has been an failure, which is why it has not taken off. Not only has it not been profitable, but it also has not failed to capture the rates of carbon that it claims. It's failed to store it permanently. And there are many, many pitfalls along the way to even getting it close to the kind of scale of deployment that proponents are suggesting. So there's a whole body of work that's happening right now to really dig into CCS as a climate mitigation strategy. But let's put that aside for a minute, because, as I said, even if it worked perfectly, which it does not, there are attendant risks to community, environmental justice, fence line and frontline communities. Why is that? Well, where are industries and fossil fuels where this carbon is being captured? Where are they?
They don't hang in space, and they're not equally distributed around the world in the US. They are in black and brown, indigenous, low wealth communities around this country. Those are the communities that live next to industries, next to power plants, next to all the infrastructures that are now claiming they're going to capture carbon and store it. And so there are a whole family of risks that come when you start to introduce ccs, and it starts at the point of capture. So right at the moment where you start introducing amine based solvents that are very toxic. These are chemical solvents that have to be stored. If they leak, if they get into underground water systems, they can cause serious damage to public health and water supplies. That's one part. Then you talk about running a CCS plant. If you build a whole plant to capture this carbon, and it now has its own energy source, you now have additional co pollutants. What are co pollutants?
This technology is only interested in CO2 molecules. That's what it's trying to pull out of the flu stream. It doesn't care about particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, all the nasty chemicals and air pollutants that come out of stacks when you burn a fuel. And so ccs not only does not nothing to reduce those, it's actually adding, with the energy penalty, an additional fuel source to capture carbon. Now you're adding co pollutants. And those co pollutants, unlike carbon dioxide, are harming communities right where the location of the plant is. So these are not simply greenhouse gases that will affect you later during climate change, they affect you now. They are killing people now. And they are most often contributing to and exacerbating underlying disproportionate burdens and cumulative burdens that these communities already face. They're already sitting in a toxic soup of air pollution from many sources. And now you're added to that toxic soup with CCS. So that's another part of the problem is air pollution, just good old fashioned air pollution that CCS doesn't care about. And I'll just make a note that the new thing now, and when environmental justice advocates started saying, hey, you guys are going to contribute to air pollution from CCS, what they started to claim is, don't worry, when we install ccs, we're going to upgrade this plant, add all these great new technology to capture and improve the efficiency of the plant and make it cleaner.
Even though the law doesn't require us to do that now and probably won't require us to do that later with CCS, we'll do it voluntarily because it helps us capture the CO2 better. And so they make promises and their model, they run models to show, oh, ccs can actually improve the co pollutant emissions because we'll install all these different pieces of equipment to improve the outcome. But there's no guarantee that any of that will actually happen. And so communities are sort of left to, you know, have these false promises.
And then I'll say that the other parts of the riskscape that CCS brings are in the transport via pipeline. Now you've got a supercritical fluid and CO2 molecules running through pipelines. These types of pipelines lines can rupture easily.
If they rupture, they can asphyxiate everything around it because it's very harmful. It's not just a spill that happens and you have to clean up the spill. It releases these gases into the air, into the atmosphere. And there have been two such explosions in Mississippi and Louisiana in the last few years. There's very little regulation of these new CO2 pipelines. In fact, the Department of Transportation is just now starting to create rules to regulate these pipelines. Now, can you imagine hundreds and thousands of miles of new CO2 pipelines and there's no rules regulating these pipelines. It's all left to state and local authorities to figure it out. Piecemeal patchwork. So explosions are a big problem, right, with these pipelines, and then you have the storage risks. Imagine you live in a community, and now you're sitting, your home is sitting on top of a carbon storage area. There's all these risks from seismic activity, right? Like all of a sudden you're going to have to start increasing the rates of seismic activity and earthquakes.
There's dangers to contaminate your underground water systems, your aquifers right. And there's, of course, lots of dangers that folks fear, basically that it's not permanently stored. You know, somebody in Louisiana famously was saying it's like injecting air into swiss cheese because the types of rock formations that they have in that part of the country makes it very difficult to stop gases from migrating. So there are multiple places along this entire supply chain that pose risks, and those risks disproportionately accrue to the communities that are already facing a tremendous amount of burden from those industries. And at the end of the day, to add insult to injury, the companies that are profiting generously from federal subsidies and tax credits for these technologies are the same companies that have been polluting environmental justice communities for decades, for generations. They're the same companies that are driving climate change. You know, Occidental and Chevron are some of the number one group benefiting, profiting from billions of dollars in tax credits and federal subsidies. Now, if that doesn't send some red flags up, then I don't know what will, because it's basically leaving the fox in the henhouse, right? So, you know, giving climate mitigation subsidies, supposedly to the same companies who have an entrenched, entrenched interest to keep their industries alive for however much longer they can, seems ludicrous, but that is exactly what is happening right now.
[00:34:07] Speaker B: Wow, I'm speechless. And I do this work every single day, and I still, it just, it's extremely frustrating when you mix kind of, Jaron's talking about desperation and kind of like this in the climate crisis that we have, and then talking about you, you mentioned following the money, and you would think after all that kind of explanation that you just gave, that if you were to give that same exact explanation to lawmakers and rulemakers, they would say, we shouldn't be putting money into this. It doesn't make any sense to put money into these kind of technologies because they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing. And on top of that, they're not proven technologies, right? We have proven things and solutions that we should be investing in so we can create this opportunity cost where we were putting money mostly for private profits for their benefit, as opposed to anyone else getting any benefit.
[00:34:52] Speaker C: Yeah, it's very true. And I think we don't give communities enough credit it to know actually and intuitively really understand, you know, what's at stake. You know, communities are very, very smart and they can read a room, you know, who's benefiting, who's not benefiting, who's included and who's not. And so these are important cues that we should take from frontline communities. And, you know, there's just so much unknown about these, all the full suite of risks that we're taking on right now by investing in these technologies.
For me, it's a no brainer. Like, we should be asking a million questions and waiting and pushing back so that also we have time to invest in the things that are real solutions. And I don't even like to call CCS and hydrogens false solutions because it hints that there's some kind of a solution there. There's actually, these are what I call technologies, approaches, proposals. They're not solutions, actually. And that's the other thing is the narrative around.
When I started doing the work on CCS, it was almost like a done deal also, like, oh, this is a part of the climate mitigation landscape that we're going to have to accept. And when you start to dig into it, you're like, well, why is this proposition something we have to accept on face value?
There's no scientific evidence for this. So I think the more questions we can ask, the better position we will be to fight the good fight wherever we find ourselves in the landscape that's coming. So I want to remind people that there are friends out there. If you are facing a CCS project or challenge or proposal in your community, you should seek out folks like we act. And if you're in New Jersey, the New Jersey EJ alliance and the Climate Justice alliance, and there's, there's so many groups that are fighting these things and that are gathering good information that you can use. And the Tishman center is one of them. So you can go to thetishmancenter.org, and we're trying to arm people with as much knowledge and information so that they can speak for themselves and they can show up in those spaces the way that, you know, feels right for their community.
[00:37:19] Speaker B: Thank you so much. I love that plug at the end there. For folks to be able to get involved, get the information that they.
[00:37:25] Speaker C: It's important. I know it's like, it's not easy to, like, figure what all these technologies are. So, you know, I think you all are doing a great service bringing more of this information out into the public.
[00:37:40] Speaker A: No one can do it alone. So that's why we're all here. So thank you so much for joining us. I can't thank you enough, honestly, for covering that, because I know for a fact, even if Lanya and I had done all the research in the world covered all the different points that you covered. I'm so grateful for your expertise in this space and your experience in doing the work. So thank you again. And I can't wait for the chance to have you back on the show. At some point. It has to happen. I know it by popular I'd love to. We'll have to have you on again at some point.
[00:38:09] Speaker C: We're going to have a show about how we're winning. We're winning. We're doing, we're doing the follow up episode. We're doing the battery storage. We're doing all the good stuff.
[00:38:17] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, that's our next mini series. Like the real, the reality, the victories that we have and what's going on.
[00:38:25] Speaker A: Yeah, that'll be so fun. I can't wait for that. Let's do that.
[00:38:28] Speaker B: Thanks for listening. Don't forget to check out our next episode about liquified natural gas or Lng, coming out on July 29. If you liked this episode, make sure to rate and review the show on whatever platform you listen on. If you have any thoughts about the show, we encourage you to reach out to us with your thoughts and
[email protected].
[00:38:46] Speaker A: Dot and check out weact on Facebook at that's w E A C T F o R E J, Instagram X and YouTube at React Four EJ that's we a C t number four, Ej. And check out our website, react.org, for more information about environmental justice.
Until next time.
