[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Apologies for some technical difficulties we were having for a minute there. I think they're resolved. We begin today with our climate story of the week. Have you seen any of those ads recently that promise that with each purchase, you will somehow be doing something good to prevent climate change? For example, there's the one for a credit card that says, "Spend daily with "insert credit card brand name here" to neutralize your footprint and earn up to 1% cashback. Use your rewards to plant more trees or receive a statement credit."

Spend daily with a credit card is a way to save the earth. That was the language there, right? "Spend daily with our credit card to neutralize your footprint." Let's see. Buying more things that need to be manufactured and shipped can be offset by planting trees? Maybe, maybe not. If that's not counterintuitive enough with a credit card, how about this? At least one major airline, KLM, has been running ads that say flying can become carbon neutral. They started using the tagline, "Be a hero, fly CO2 zero," and they started running video ads like this one. Here's the last 30 seconds.

KLM's 1st advertisement speaker: A beautiful planet we long to explore, but need to protect. Fortunately, the way we travel here on earth is changing and together we can pioneer a sustainable future for aviation and our planet because that is our greatest adventure yet.

Brian Lehrer: That from KLM. The company is really KLM- [crosstalk]

?Speaker 3: The Dutch Airline and the French Airline merged a while back. We'll sample from another KLM spot coming up, in which they ask people to fly less, even as they imply that they should use KLM more, but here's the thing, back in April, the Dutch government through their Advertising Code Committee ruled that the carbon zero tagline that I mentioned before, be a hero, fly CO2, is misleading, and now environmentalists have filed a lawsuit against KLM accusing it of greenwashing, making false claims of sustainability to push their product. The suit centers largely around this ad, which asks its customers to fly responsibly. They use those words, fly responsibly. We pick it up after the commercial acknowledges the climate change threat to the earth.

[music]

KLM's 2nd advertisement speaker: That's why we want to ask you something, to fly more responsibly, do you always have to meet face-to-face? Could you take the train instead? Could you contribute by compensating your CO2 emissions or packing light? We, the first commercial airline in the world today kindly invite you all travelers in the aviation industry to join forces, to join us in making the world aware of our shared responsibility. We all have to fly every now and then, but next time think about flying responsibly.

Brian Lehrer: KLM's fly responsibly ads. Is that just greenwashing or part of a larger effort that KLM says it's making to reduce emissions in conjunction with the Paris Climate Accords? What about this whole trend of companies trying to attract customers by promoting carbon offsets? With us now, Sara Kiley Watson, an editor at Popular Science. She leads the magazine sustainability coverage and has an article called Greenwash Lawsuit Against Dutch Airline is the First of its Kind. Sara, great to have you on for our climate story of the week. Welcome to WNYC.

Sara Kiley Watson: Thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here.

Brian Lehrer: For some context to start out, your article says airline emissions alone account for over 2% of all human carbon dioxide emissions and have doubled since the 1980s. Do you know if they've doubled because there are just that many more flights compared to 40 years ago?

Sara Kiley Watson: I think so. I think that's a big part of it. You think of how much flying just happens in our day-to-day life. You can get anywhere. Also because companies in this time period have become so much more international, you may have to fly more just to catch up with your co-workers or go to things like that. I think it largely is quantity.

Brian Lehrer: As far as the people behind the airlines' big carbon footprint, and listeners pay attention to this, these are shocking stats if you don't know them, you write that only 1% of the world's population makes up half of those emissions from flying, or put another way, one flight alone often measures up to as much carbon dioxide as some people use in the Global South over an entire year. Sara, I guess we can also see climate pollution from airplane flights as a marker of global inequality?

Sara Kiley Watson: Oh, 100%. This study came out, I think it was last year, basically showing that 1% of flyers used half of flying emissions and also only 11% of the world's population took a flight in 2018 and only 4% flew abroad. Really, there's not a ton of people using airlines, but the people that use them are really making a big climate impact.

Brian Lehrer: Just to complete that thought before we get back to airlines specifically, do you have any science on the relative impact of climate change on the Global South compared to the Global North? Because we have to acknowledge that we in the North are doing something to them in the South through the lifestyles we often take for granted, flying and other things, right?

Sara Kiley Watson: Yes. I think you can definitely see parts of the Global South being more affected, even if you've listened to weather reports, you see more dramatic, things like monsooning in the Southeast Asia and things like that, where it's like, "Okay, this is really affecting the people that really didn't make this problem." You see islands in the Global South that are going to be underwater within a couple of decades or a century. These are not the big emitters. The big emitters are the US, Europe, et cetera.

Brian Lehrer: That's some context about airlines and the people who use them and carbon emissions. Now let's talk about the greenwashing lawsuit that's new here by several European environmental groups against KLM. You call it the first of its kind, in what way?

Sara Kiley Watson: This is the first big lawsuit against an airline for greenwashing. There's obviously been some greenwashing with airlines and their advertisements before, but this is the first lawsuit, like, "We're taking you to court about it." That makes it a little bit different. That's what makes this different, but it's pretty exciting.

Brian Lehrer: Your article highlights the fact that that second ad we played from, the fly sustainably ad, puts the onus on consumers to buy carbon credits to offset the footprints of their flights, also to pack lightly or avoid flying at all. Can you explain the buying carbon credits part of that? How does that work at KLM?

Sara Kiley Watson: KLM is, of course, not the only company that has carbon credits or carbon offsets. I've seen it with other airlines, I've even seen it with consumer products, but basically, KLM specifically works with reforestation efforts in Panama, which there's basically two types of carbon credits that I see. I will tell you a little bit about them. I call them the keep and then-- What? Excuse me, one sec. Oh, the keep and then the pull. Basically, the first type would be keep other people from polluting.

Let's think about it in this way. These are the preventing deforestation kinds of offsets. Let's say if you're flying with an airline and you pay a little bit of extra money so that X, Y, and Z forest does not get deforested. That's a type of offset that's out there. Obviously, that's a little bit misleading because it's not actually taking any of the carbon from your flight out of the atmosphere, it's just preventing other types of pollution.

Then there's the other kind that's the pull carbon offset, which would be planting trees or investing in carbon capture technologies, et cetera, which is what KLM does with their Panama project. Basically, it's investing in these trees that are supposedly going to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, which is what they do, of course, but how much? We don't know, and for how long? We don't know.

We know when you get on a plane that you're going to emit carbon from that plane, but when we plant a tree, we don't know how long it's going to be there, we don't know how healthy the tree is going to be, we don't know if climate change impacts like wildfires are going to knock out that tree and make this entire equation not make sense anymore. Those are the kinds of carbon credits. Either way, it's still we are emitting and we might be taking it out. You're making a hopeful investment instead of a guaranteed give and take.

Brian Lehrer: I wonder, if the science can be known, how many trees it would take planting to offset my flight from here to Amsterdam, just to pick a random city, on KLM or any other airline. I mentioned that back in April, the Dutch government through its Advertising Code Committee ruled that another KLM ads tagline, "Be A Hero, fly CO2 zero," was misleading. Do you happen to know how KLM even made the claim that flying could be CO2 zero as opposed to just CO2 less?

Sara Kiley Watson: Again, I guess, theoretically you can estimate how much X, Y, and Z amount of trees can pull carbon. If you just think about it basically like that instead of taking it to account that a tree is a living thing and that is affected by its environment, you can be like, "Okay, X, Y, and Z flight means X, Y, and Z trees," but it's just not simple in real life. That's the problem with carbon credits. Basically, I think you can say like, "If I plant trees, then it might help, but it's just not guaranteed," and that's the problem.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, for our climate story of the week this week, we can take your calls about any of the threads here. Number one, have you bought carbon offsets with any products or services that you've purchased recently or bought something because the company was promising carbon offsets? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer, or when you call, you can ask Sara Kiley Watson, sustainability editor for Popular Science about carbon offsets generally, or you can call out examples of greenwashing you think you've seen in any kind of advertising or ask Sara about this greenwashing lawsuit against KLM, which she describes as the first of its kind.

Folks, do you fly less and pack lightly these days for the sake of the planet? Demand for flying generally is reported to be back to pre-pandemic levels. Does the climate enter your decision-making at all about whether to fly or anything related? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer on our climate story of the week. Sara, does the greenwashing lawsuit just ask the airline to stop running those ads or does it ask for damages or anything else?

Sara Kiley Watson: I think the big goal here is to basically make a statement that companies like airlines and fossil fuel companies should not be able to advertise at all. There's one of the groups that's involved with this lawsuit. Let me see what the name is again, make sure I can get it right. Advertising Fossil Free is a campaign group that is trying to get a legal ban on fossil advertising in the Netherlands.

Basically, they're not asking for compensation or anything, they're just saying, "Maybe we shouldn't be able to advertise these climate herding industries in the same way that you would other things." It's taking it after the tobacco industry cases, when we stopped advertising those as much. That's one big goal, I think, that's coming from this.

Brian Lehrer: That's a really big goal. That's beyond, "Stop making these false claims or murky claims," to "Your industry isn't allowed to advertise at all."

Sara Kiley Watson: I think this is obviously just a little piece of the puzzle. That's the big goal, it seems like, but getting such a big airline- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: That connects, I guess, with the divestment movement. We're seeing I think the New York City Pension Funds and other places not investing in fossil fuel companies anymore, obviously in the name of saving the planet from disastrous climate change. These are some of the big sweeps that are going on in the movement, no more investment, divestment, no more advertising if a suit like this was to be successful.

Sara Kiley Watson: I think what's particularly important about the airlines versus other kinds of advertising from the fossil fuel industry is that when you buy a flight, you're really buying it for yourself. Those ads are directed at just normal people. If they're being misled to think that, "Hey, actually, this isn't as big of a climate deal as I thought it was," that is misinformation and misleading. It's more than just taking money out of it, it's allowing people to know the truth about the things that they are purchasing.

Brian Lehrer: Are the environmental groups in this lawsuit singling out KLM because KLM is somehow worse than other airlines or just to make an example?

Sara Kiley Watson: KLM actually isn't necessarily the worst. They have a couple of really important climate goals. They're working on building a plane with a University in Delft to make it more efficient. They have a net zero goal by 2050. They do have some commitments, but I think it's mostly an example of just we aren't there yet with sustainable aviation technology. Advertising that you can fly sustainable is jumping the gun a little bit. There's obviously technologies out there in development that could be helpful down the way, but they are not here yet.

KLM saying, "We're trying to use sustainable aviation fuel," or things like that, it's just we're not at that step where that's the majority of flights that are making these sustainable changes. We still have probably at least a decade until a lot of these technologies are ready. We don't have a lot of time to make big climate change moves to protect the planet. That's what's misleading about KLM.

Brian Lehrer: I was reading on another site, sorry to not have only read your articles to prepare for this conversation, I'm kidding, but an article on simpleflying.com notes that KLM has set its targets in line with the Paris Accords aiming to reach net zero by 2050, and that to reach that goal, the airline is investing in new technologies like you were just referring to.

One of them that this article points out or names is synthetic kerosene, described as a synthetic aviation fuel that can slash emissions up to 85% compared to the current fossil fuels, but as you were just saying, it's not ready for widespread use yet partly because it's very expensive so far. It also says KLM's current use of sustainable fuel is less than 1% of its fuel, according to this article. That's all tantalizing at least, the fact that there could be synthetic fuels that might be affordable enough on the horizon, but I guess they'll take some more development at very least.

Sara Kiley Watson: Right. Sustainable aviation fuels, there's really two types. There's that kind which is the synthetic and then there's also the kind that's made from biofuels. Both have pros and cons, but realistically making it cost affordable is one part of the problem, but also having the starting basically ingredients for those fuels is also important to consider because biofuels aren't carbon neutral in a lot of ways. Sometimes they lead to deforestation. Also, we aren't capturing enough carbon for synthetic aviation fuel right now.

What basically that e-fuel goes is, it's carbon dioxide that's been captured plus water and then they use renewable energy to turn it into fuel. We're just not there yet with capturing carbon using the renewable energy to be able to do something like that on scale. It's all very interesting stuff, but it's future stuff. It's stuff that's not happening right now in a way that makes a huge difference or a way that we can really say, "Oh, this is what sustainable flying is," because it's still we're working on it.

Brian Lehrer: Nicole in [unintelligible 00:18:28] New Jersey, you're on WNYC on our climate story of the week on The Brian Lehrer Show with Sara Kiley Watson from Popular Science. Hi, Nicole.

Nicole: Hi, good afternoon. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: Doing all right. What you got for us?

Nicole: I just want to just completely agree with everything that's being said. I work in travel. I am the senior global travel manager for John Wiley & Sons, a publisher in Hoboken. Sustainability and getting towards carbon neutral is a big effort, not just at my company, but I know many companies when you're talking about corporate travel, our road warriors and people who have to get out there to do their job.

I just wanted to say this whole thing with KLM is just really disappointing. We all know that the technology to get there, as you just mentioned, is not in the near future. When I say near future, the next 5 to 10 years, it's 10 to 15 years away. What we need to be doing on our end is creating best practices, not just as a traveler myself doing personal travel, but for our corporate travelers also.

How can we bring information to our travelers to make better buying decisions? Does that business meeting have to be in-person? Do you have to fly to it or can we do it virtually? We've been doing a virtual world for the last two and a half years. Most companies have been doing pretty well in that. I think it's about being honest with the traveler, not greenwashing it, not sugar coating it. I also just feel that carbon credits at the end are useless and pointless.

Brian Lehrer: It sounds like you in your role, booking travel for people at Wiley, are doing one of the things that KLM asked for in that fly responsibly ad. You're taking stock of how you can fly less for business purposes at your company and taking that as a personal responsibility while waiting for or advocating for industry to do its part. Yes?

Nicole: Absolutely. One very small change that we're looking to make, which in terms of the amount of luggage that you bring on a trip, for instance, changing a teeny policy simply to allow laundry as a reimbursable expense. You don't have to pack as much because if there's a laundry facility, you can wash your clothes and stuff like that so you can lessen the amount of weight. It can get as granular as that, but it's all about being up front with our travelers in what this carbon offset project would look like and not sugar coating it as some of the airlines are doing.

Brian Lehrer: Nicole, thank you so much for chiming in. That's really informative. That's great context. That's great story from on the ground, if we can use that cliché in context of a story of flying. Sara with-- Here's a quick sustainability trivia question. I don't necessarily expect you to know the answer, which takes more carbon, packing a second week of clothes for a trip on an airplane or doing a laundry while you're over where you've flown to?

Sara Kiley Watson: I would guess it's probably packing. Making an airplane heavier is probably going to make it harder to move from point A to point B, especially if everybody's doing it, but laundry, you can wash your clothes.

Brian Lehrer: I guess, you've got to do the laundry one time or another. If you pack the two weeks of clothes and you bring them home, you're going to have to wash those clothes anyway. Lata in Chatham, New Jersey, I think wants to follow-up on the last call and this whole idea of putting it on the consumer. Is that right, Lata?

Lata: Yes. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Hi, there. I can hear you. You're on WNYC. Go ahead.

Lata: Yes. I think this is an example of an industry trying to push down on the consumer rather than them taking ownership themselves to make the changes. We're doing what we can in terms of recycling, but a lot of these companies aren't creating reusable products or doing other things on their own that they can make systemwide changes on a whole scale level and leaving it up to consumers.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Lata. Your article takes this on, Sara, too, right, with a skeptical eye toward putting it on the consumer at all?

Sara Kiley Watson: Right. I think something that I found that was really frustrating was, so KLM is asking in their ads, "Hey, fly us less." Then recently as of last month, Schiphol Airport, which is Amsterdam airport, obviously, in the Netherlands where KLM is, basically said, "We're going to drop air travel 11% from 2019 levels." KLM was against this. It was just strange you're telling people to fly less, but when that is actually something that happens in addition to you just saying it in an advertisement, there's some controversy. Yes, putting the onus completely on customers it's not a perfect system.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute with Sara Kiley Watson from Popular Science as we talk about on our climate story of the week this first of its kind greenwashing lawsuit, it's against KLM airlines. We have some other really good-looking calls lined up on the topic. Before we go, Sara, we're going to invite you to sample from one of the other articles that you wrote recently called Four New Myths About Climate Change and How to Debunk Them. I'm going to pick two of those myths in our remaining time and invite you to debunk them. We'll also, as I say, take some more calls on the greenwashing lawsuit and greenwashing generally and carbon offsets generally, stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Sara Kiley Watson, who leads sustainability coverage for Popular Science on our climate story of the week. We're talking about, as the news hook, the first of its kind greenwash lawsuit filed by environmentalists in Europe against the airline KLM for some ads that they're running, that we sampled from earlier, in which they say people can fly sustainably. They've already been slapped on the wrist by the Dutch government for using a slogan, "Be a hero, fly CO2 zero." There is no such thing as flying CO2 zero yet. Let's take a call. Here's Boris in Brooklyn on the topic of carbon offset credits. Boris, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Boris: Hey, Brian. Thanks for taking the call. Long time listener, first time caller. Real quick, I just want to mention an alignment with what was just being said that I think putting this on individual responsibility is, yes, missing the thread. Of course, it's good to hold corporations to account when they're misleading the public in general, especially when it comes to the climate, but I think the larger conversations that's not being had which needs to be had is that we have large-scale systemic mechanisms that we know exist to solve what is a systemic problem.

Talking about individual corporations and especially individual people changing their habits is not going to cut it. What we should be talking about is putting a price on carbon, which is an existing mechanism that other countries have. The US is one of the last developed countries to enact something like that. We know by putting in, essentially, a fee on using carbon, we can drive down carbon usage throughout the economy and accelerate the transition away from carbon-based fuels, but we're just not doing it. We're not talking about it.

Congress is talking about it. Occasionally it comes and goes, but it's not really even in the public mindset, but it's the best solution we have available to us and it really needs to be talked about more.

Brian Lehrer: It's so politically difficult. If you remember, Boris and Sara, back in 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain, who was the Republican nominee, ran for a carbon tax. Of course, Obama got elected and then Congress did not have the appetite for it. It is-

Boris: Absolutely.

Brian Lehrer: -definitely important to talk about, but it's also not a realistic solution politically at the moment. Right?

Boris: I think that may have changed recently. The American Petroleum Institute has come out in support of a carbon price, [unintelligible 00:27:50] people, the most representative of the production of fossil fuels support it, Mitt Romney, various other Republicans and Congress and the Senate have indicated some support for it. It's true. It's still difficult, but it's meaningfully different than it was just those few years ago.

Brian Lehrer: Then there are the cars that like to gun their engines while somebody's talking on the radio nearby. Boris, thank you very much. Please call us again. Sara, anything on that, the politics of a carbon tax, the most overarching policy approach to this and what Boris brings up about other countries having it, but not the US? I don't know if you've reported on that specifically.

Sara Kiley Watson: Yes. I think, obviously, when you have to pay for the carbon that you're using instead of just ignoring it, that really could possibly drive down demand for carbon-intensive activities. That's important, really paying for what is happening out there. Whether that's in the form of a carbon tax or making things more expensive because of, "This needs to be recycled, so it's going to cost a little bit more," all of those are ways for us to really consider how much our purchases impact the climate. It's less of a back thought of our mind. It's like, "Okay, well, I'm paying for the harm that's being done here."

Brian Lehrer: The system that Obama and McCain both endorsed way back then was generally known as cap and trade. The government would set a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the country would emit and not exceed if it was enforced, and then within that, companies could buy and sell the right to pollute, carbon credits, and there would be a market for those carbon credits, but the bottom line was supposed to be that the total carbon emissions or total greenhouse gas emissions would not exceed X. Has that cap and trade idea been discredited or has it been tried anywhere and effectively or not?

Sara Kiley Watson: A cap and trade system is what was used with the acid rain problem a few decades ago. It can be useful for things. We talk about industries that are big emitters, that's going to be very hard to bring down those emissions. Airlines, for example. With the cap and trade, it opens up, if different industries are able to bring down their emissions a lot, then there's opportunity for flying to remain a little bit more business as usual while we're still developing these technologies. That's an interesting part of it.

It requires certain industries to bring it down in order for larger emitters to keep things going normally, but it has been used, not necessarily for carbon in the US. I think it worked [laughs] when it comes to acid rain.

Brian Lehrer: That's my understanding, is that it was a success with respect to acid rain, where I think the main pollutant was chlorohydrocarbons. Did I get that backward? Hydro-

Sara Kiley Watson: [unintelligible 00:31:01]

Brian Lehrer: Better look it up. I thought I knew that by heart, hydrochlorocarbon, I think. Hydro chlorophylls, no, chlorophyll is in plants. I don't know. I'm going to look that up, but it's something like that. It's from refrigeration and other technologies. We don't talk about acid rain very much anymore largely because that system worked. All right. One more call. Paul in Brooklyn-- Oh, hydro-- Thank you, producers. Hydrofluorocarbons. Of course. Hydrofluoro. Floral not chloro. That's where I got tripped up.

Sara Kiley Watson: There we go.

Brian Lehrer: Hydrofluorocarbons in those refrigerators and things. Paul in Brooklyn. You're on WNYC. Hi, Paul.

Paul: Hi. How are you doing, Brian? Listen, I have a very quick question for your guest. If I take an hour and a half flight to Maine as opposed to getting on a bus and staying on that bus for 12 hours, which of the two is having more of a negative impact on the environment?

Brian Lehrer: Is there an easy A or B answer to that question, Sara?

Sara Kiley Watson: I think we'd have to get into the nitty-gritty of what kind of bus we're talking about, what kind of plane? I think a lot of it has to do with that bus would probably be running with or without you. I'm not an expert on how weight distribution affects [chuckles] carbon emissions when it comes to transportation. I think thinking about it like that, if the plane's going to go and there's only you and a couple of other people, then that's obviously going to have a bigger impact than going on a bus with 30 people.

It's one of those things where the bus, it might be running without you and the carbon emissions from that bus might be more or less the same with or without you. If you're on it, then you're taking it versus flying, and a heavy flight, that's going to affect emissions quite a bit, if that makes sense.

Brian Lehrer: Paul, thank you. That's an interesting variable that you bring up, if the bus or the plane is going anyway. That would mean that you could make a case for a relatively local flight like that, that it's more climate-friendly to fly on a scheduled airline flight from New York to Maine than it would be to drive.

Sara Kiley Watson: It would definitely take some calculating to figure it out. Ideally, in a perfect world, we would have a train set up to make that happen. Since that's not a possibility right now, it really-- Again, with the onus on normal people to figure it out, that's a lot to try to figure out on your own.

Brian Lehrer: They've got that seven-hour Amtrak trip from New York to Burlington running again. Of course, that doesn't take you to Maine. All right, before you go, I'll touch on one of your other recent stories for Popular Science, Four New Myths About Climate Change and How to Debunk Them. Myth number one is, "Clean energy will hurt working-class people." The argument there, I guess, is that clean energy sources tend to be more expensive than fossil fuels, especially when they're government mandated. Why would you call that a myth?

Sara Kiley Watson: I think you have to think about both sides of the fuel equation here. Fossil fuels are hurting working-class, poor people more on average than richer counterparts. Also, the government can support renewable energy in the same way that it has supported fossil fuels in the past. Solar and wind have come down and priced a lot. It's just thinking about all aspects. Again, like paying for the carbon that you use with the carbon tax or whatever.

The end result of fossil fuels affects poor people much more than wealthier people. If you think about it on that time scale, fossil fuels are already really hurting working-class people. More fossil fuels, it's going to continue to hurt working-class people. It doesn't make any sense to say clean energy is the bad guy necessarily right there.

Brian Lehrer: I'll take one more from that article. Myth number four, "We're doomed." We're not doomed?

Sara Kiley Watson: [laughs] We are not doomed. We're in a place where we really have a timeline. There's been studies that have come out that say 2030 is really the last time point before the tipping point. There's just so much that can be done. Thinking positively but not too positively is really important. You need to be out there and say, "Okay, this is the hard thing that needs to change. It needs to change for the future of life on this planet." There's stuff that can be done. It's not going to be easy, but it's certainly not impossible.

Brian Lehrer: That, folks, is our climate story of the week for this week. We thank Sara Kiley Watson, editor who leads sustainability coverage at Popular Science. Sara, thank you so much. This is great.

Sara Kiley Watson: Thank you so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.