Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Green and Bold: Conversations from the CSU Spur Climate Hub podcast series will arm listeners with reliable climate knowledge and inspiration by featuring some of the most innovative climate champions in the U.S. Mountain West, from academia, industry and the public sector – all actively moving the needle in climate. Our conversations are science-based, non-partisan, hopeful, and timely. We focus on positive change in the region, and the people behind the change. Through punchy, bi-weekly conversations, we explore climate change through the lens of solutions and meaningful action.
0:00:03 - Veera Mitzner
Hello and welcome to the Green and Bold podcast. I'm Veera Mitzner, the director of Colorado State University's Climate Hub. Many people have never heard about solar radiation modification, SRM, and even fewer people know what stratospheric aerosol injection, SAI, is. Well, SAI is a type of SRM, and it implies distributing reflective particles into the atmosphere to make the planet more reflective. SAI is one of the most studied solar radiation modification technologies, and even though still theoretical, we have an idea of how it might work from what happens during volcanic eruptions.
Large volcanic eruptions release small reflective particles and contribute to cooling the planet for a time. But as it will become clear from my conversation with Dr. Lisa Dilling, SAI is not an easy fix to climate change. We are speaking about complex systemic interventions and major risks that need to be well understood. In particular, we don't have a good understanding of what the local implications of applying this technology could be. Lisa Dilling is the Associate Chief Scientist of Environmental Defense Fund, which is one of the pioneering organizations studying the possible local implications of SAI using historical parallels to broaden our understanding. So it was great to have Lisa as our podcast guest.
Lisa also has a unique perspective on this issue. She has worked in the intersection of science and policy and has had a long interdisciplinary academic career.
Besides seeing the urgency of finding evidence-informed solutions to climate change, she advocates for a better understanding of the complexity of the challenge. With Lisa, we discussed, among other things, some of the most important research gaps and unknowns of SAI and why the time to generate public and political discussion about climate intervention is now. Lisa Dilling leads teams of scientists working on emerging science for climate actions to address greenhouse gases and build societal resilience, including decarbonizing the energy system, adaptation, carbon dioxide removal, and solar radiation modification.
Prior to EDF, she was professor of environmental studies at University of Colorado Boulder, studying the intersection of science and decision-making for climate adaptation, carbon management, and urban water management.
She has published numerous peer-reviewed articles, national reports, and a co-edited book entitled Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Lisa serves as editor for three journals and is or was a member of several boards and advisory committees, including the now-dissolved National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Board on Environmental Change and Society. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. Lisa Dilling.
0:03:23 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
And, you know, somebody acting already or some kind of an emergency that's perceived as like, okay, we just got to decide. It's like, no, actually, we have the time. I know we're living through climate change right now, but we have the time to look at something as consequential as this technology.
0:03:44 - Veera Mitzner
Good morning, Lisa, and welcome to the Green and Bold podcast. Lisa, you are the Associate Chief Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. What does an Associate Chief Scientist do?
0:03:56 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Thank you so much. Thanks for having me, Veera. It's great to be on the show. So I am at the Environmental Defense Fund. I am one of two Associate Chief Scientists there. And one of the things about the Environmental Defense Fund, for those who might not know - we have been around over 58 years now, I think - we really focus on protecting the environment and protecting people and focusing on solutions. One of our taglines is finding the ways that work. But one of the fundamental foundations of how we work is to have science at the core of all the solutions and all the impact that we try to make. And that's been true from the beginning of the organization, and it's really true now. And so my job is to, I manage a team of excellent, amazing scientists who are working on basic research about these different solutions that we might be looking at.
A big focus at EDF is to think about climate and to be working towards addressing climate change and also building climate resilience - so trying to adapt and respond to climate change as it's happening. So we want to make sure that the solutions and the impact we're trying to have are grounded in strong, solid science. That's just one of the fundamentals at EDF. And so my job is really working with these amazing, talented scientists to do the science needed to underpin those kinds of solutions and looking at the benefits, looking at the risks, making sure we have good evidence for whatever we are advocating for in society.
0:05:29 - Veera Mitzner
That's great. Thank you. So EDF is beginning policy-relevant research on solar radiation modification and its impacts, with stratospheric aerosol injection as a priority. You're supporting studies that focus on the impacts of SAI on ecosystems, agriculture, and the availability of water using historical parallels like volcanic eruptions and wildfires. Can you tell us more about this work and its objectives?
0:06:00 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Sure. Yeah, thanks for that question. So for people who might not know, stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, is one particular idea under this whole category of solar radiation modification. And the idea of SAI is to be putting small little particles, basically aerosols, into the stratosphere, which is one of the very high up levels of the atmosphere. And that act of putting these particles up there acts to reflect a little bit of sunlight back into space. So the idea that this came from was when a really large volcano erupts, it tends to release some particles. And they found after really large volcano eruptions that the temperature of the Earth actually cools for a little bit, up to a year actually.
So scientists looked at this and they thought, hmm, I wonder if we could mimic that process by putting little aerosols up into the stratosphere through the use of an airplane, you know, a fleet of airplanes, really. So that's what this idea is about. It doesn't exist in reality. It's just an idea on paper and in people's heads and in computer models. But I was on a committee a few years back called National Academy of Sciences Committee on Reflecting Sunlight. And we looked at the literature and the research that's around on this idea already and found that there was very little information available on what this idea, this technique would do on the ground to things like crops, agriculture, water supply, the monsoon, you know, when you look at monsoon as a pattern of rainfall in many places in the world.
And so when EDF looked at this problem and noticed this was getting discussed more and more, we said, this is an area where we don't have enough information to anticipate what the impacts are going to be on things we care about very much, you know, agriculture, water supply, disruptions in precipitation, etc. So we launched a research program to really look at that. And as you mentioned, and I was talking about volcanoes, a lot of the research so far on SAI has been using computer models, so simulations of the Earth system to anticipate what these impacts might be.
But these computer models, they're good for some things, but they're not great at predicting more localized impacts and more regional impacts. They disagree a lot. They're not really built for that purpose. They're not even that great, honestly, at simulating the stratosphere at this point. So, you know, we took a look at the field, we took a look at the research that's been done, and there has been quite a bit of modeling done, and we said, we think there's an opening to learn more from looking at analogs for SAI. So as I mentioned, the volcano, these volcanoes have gone off in history, have erupted in history, and we have data from that time, from when these volcanoes have erupted. And we can look back and say, well, what happened to agriculture after that volcanic eruption? What happened to water? What happened to precipitation? There have been a few studies like that that have happened so far, but we really want to focus on this in our program.
So we are funding research on this area called analogs, historical analogs, where we look at the data after volcanic eruptions. We look at things like wildfire smoke. So you might know wildfire smoke also releases little particles into the atmosphere and reflects some sunlight. And so can we use those kinds of big smoke events to look at what happens on the ground to these impacts that we care about? So that's really been where we've been focusing. And we chose that focus again because it's a gap in our knowledge. We think it's really important for us to know as a society before we even think about implementing any kind of a technology like this.
0:10:08 - Veera Mitzner
I know this research is quite new, but what are researchers finding? Do you already know? Can you already share some early insights?
0:10:17 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Well, I can talk about a study that was done, not in our program, but that really sparked our interest in this. It got us to think in this direction. So there was a research project that got published about 2018, last name Proctor, that basically took a look at agriculture and tried to tease out the impact after a big eruption of temperature change, which is what, you know, we would be trying to do is lower temperatures, you know, from this method, the volcanoes are lowering temperatures, but also was able to tease out the impact of light.
Because of course, the whole thing is to reflect sunlight, but plants need light to grow, and they take in light, you know, light comes in a certain amount, a certain spectrum. And this study showed that when you actually look at both effects, both light and temperature, they tended to cancel each other out in terms of the impact on the plant yield.
So this was a surprise in a way because people had always thought, well, plants tend to do better. If you've got a heat-stressed plant and you bring that temperature down, that's better for the plant, right? And that's intuitive there. But how does light affect the plant at the same time? So he was able to look at the data and really tease this out and see that this was actually counteracting effects that happened. So it was kind of like a light bulb moment to say, okay, wow, there might be other unexpected results or unanticipated consequences from changing the light profile, for example, in the atmosphere, which this would do. And so that's one of the results I think to look at.
Our program's fairly new. So our researchers have just gotten started in the last six months. So it's a little bit early to say exactly what their findings have been.
0:12:08 - Veera Mitzner
Yeah, I thought that. I knew it's a relatively new, actually very new program. You already mentioned a couple of knowledge gaps related to local impacts on agriculture and water supply and so on. Are there any other significant knowledge gaps that we should be paying attention to?
0:12:26 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Yes. We've been looking into this more because again, we've been trying to focus on impacts, but then we work our way back up the chain of how you anticipate impacts and what tools you use. And again, lots of these studies now are using models. And typically the way they do the work is they look at a large climate model or system model. They couple that to a sectoral model, say a water model or a regional model, like some kind of intermediate model, and then they look at what the impacts might be on the ground.
As you work your way through that chain of connection, the uncertainties tend to grow. So I think one of the areas of unknown science is to really understand where are the uncertainties in what we are thinking is happening already, that we really haven't delved into.
I just want to also mention a huge area of unknowns that really, we've hardly tackled it all, which is the impact of this potential technology on ecology and ecological processes. EDF just had a workshop in February of this year. We pulled in a bunch of ecologists to really take a look and say, hmm, you know, how might this affect predator-prey interactions, species interactions? How does this affect the timing of, if light cues are important, how does this affect ecological processes on land or in the ocean?
This is an area where there's been hardly any research in ecology. And so that is something, again, we feel is a very important topic to lift up, to draw attention to, to get more people to study.
And I'll just mention another topic that is known in the field, but it needs more attention, which is things like stratospheric chemistry, stratospheric dynamics. There's a lot of amazing, I say amazing because science is cool, right? I mean, you know, amazing chemistry that's happening, not only in the stratosphere, all the way through the atmosphere, but especially in the stratosphere. Stratosphere is a kind of a calm, quiet place. But there's a lot of chemical species there that are interacting and they do different things. And if you start perturbing that atmosphere, you know, there's surprises that come out all the time.
They just did a big study where they took aircraft and actually sampled the stratosphere and they started to find, they found things they were not expecting at all. And these papers have been just groundbreaking new research because we hardly ever go up to the stratosphere and sample the stratosphere with an airplane. Imagine doing that. You know, it's way high. You need a special kind of airplane. So these gaps are they're really important because in the end, this is what we're proposing to do is to introduce aerosols into the stratosphere, but we don't really know some of the basics of the chemistry of the stratosphere and the basics of the dynamics of the stratosphere and how it interacts with the troposphere, which is closer to where we live as people and ecosystems.
So I think those are some areas that really need more attention and, you know, I think need to be focused on.
0:15:38 - Veera Mitzner
And that also truly underlines the importance of interdisciplinary work. You already mentioned a couple of different disciplines and fields that need to be involved. Your background is quite interdisciplinary as well, or even transdisciplinary. Would you mind sharing with us and with our listeners how you came to work on climate intervention and how your broad background informs your approach to this work?
0:16:07 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Sure. Yeah, it's kind of, I always say I've had kind of a weird career because I've done so many different things in my scientific career. I started off in biology. I have to say, though, even in graduate school, one of my strong motivations was to focus on how science was used in decision-making. How does our science make a difference for people in the real world? I think science is cool, and I love science. And it's also more than just doing science for me. It's actually like using that knowledge to make a difference and make better decisions.
So that's always been a motivator for me. So I actually went to, after grad school, I went to NOAA and I did an internship in DC and got introduced to the whole world of climate and global change. And I was working on carbon cycle science, but I learned how the carbon cycle interacts with all these other components.
At that time also, we got very interested in the carbon cycle in a political sense because of the Kyoto Protocol, which had just started to recognize that, boy, it was interesting to know about how the Earth was taking up carbon. But this theme of then getting involved in climate and decision making, we also had learned recently in the decade before about El Nino, which maybe your listeners don't know, but El Nino is this big pattern in the Pacific, that you can actually use a lot of times to predict droughts and flooding in particular parts of the world, depending on what phase of that El Niño it's in.
And we were just learning, like, how do we use that knowledge? Turned out to be super complicated, actually. You don't just give people a forecast and say, here you go, or write a scientific paper and say, here you go. There's a whole raft of knowledge you have to have about how people use information to what kinds of decisions they're making, how that information fits in.
Is it in the right format? Is it even the right kind of information? What might be the unintended consequences for all kinds of different... People use information in different ways. So this has been a theme for a long time. And when this topic came on the scene, for me, it came on the scene... Well, I'll just say it came on the scene in a big way in 2006 when Paul Crutzen wrote this op-ed, an editorial about we maybe should look at this. And he was the head of the National Academy of Sciences at the time, Nobel Prize winner, I believe, and drew attention to it.
And within three or four years, you know, the community was starting to go, wow, is this something we should be looking at? So I became fascinated with it because as somebody who's interested in science informing decisions, I thought this is about probably one of the biggest decisions we could ever make is to think about intervening in the planetary system reflectivity, you know, deliberately.
And so I started following this issue. I started writing. I wouldn't say this has been my main area of work, but I started to get involved really on this interface of how science can be useful. How do we think about the science becoming useful in this topic? What kinds of questions should we be asking, etc.? So I got involved at that time around 2010 and then was invited to join this National Academy Committee that we released our report in 2021, where we put out a research agenda and really called for national government, for the US government to launch a coordinated program on this topic to really understand what we were talking about here, because there was just a real need for that research.
And so that program hasn't yet happened, unfortunately. But I still believe that that is the best place to be having programs is in the national level at like publicly-funded, programs in science so that everyone can see the results and that we can really have a big dialogue about this.
But that's how I got involved. It was really this focus on, you know, I think this is really important that we think about how this science will be used in decision-making.
0:20:06 - Veera Mitzner
That's great. And you've worked in academia, but also in the nonprofit sector, like now working for EDF. How do you see the role of nonprofit organizations such as EDF in this space?
0:20:20 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Yeah, that's a great question. So yeah, I was a professor for 15 years before I joined EDF. And I think that nonprofits have a really important role here. I mean, first of all, because by definition, they're nonprofit. They're not motivated to make money off of what they're doing. They're really sitting at the interface of civil society and policy, trying to make changes, trying to promote impact and advocate for particular changes. And as I mentioned earlier, EDF is really grounded in science. So for me, this was a really perfect place to be, you know, a place where it's having impact, having policy, making policy change in the world grounded in science.
So I think it's really important, especially in this type of technology, to have a nonprofit view.
And I would say governments also need to be engaged in this because governments are also, you know, democratic governments are looking out for all the people, like looking out for how does this affect everyone? And you can imagine there might be profit-seeking companies that get involved. There have been some already in this space. And it's a bit, you know, challenging to think about, you know, how are profit-seeking companies going to be operating? I think we need, obviously we need governments involved, but I think the nonprofit sector is also trying to be this neutral, honest broker type of a role where we're able to look at the technology, assess it, say, okay, what are the benefits? What might be the risks? Try to provide knowledge, bring some light to the question and look at this in a neutral way.
So that's kind of the role I see for nonprofits. We don't have a motive here in picking a winner or, you know, seeking a profit. So that's and environment, of course, is our mission too. Like in the end, we're really trying to, you know, reduce climate change, to impact climate change. We're trying to help people and the planet.
0:22:19 - Veera Mitzner
This all makes sense. And there are many risks, as you mentioned already, associated with this work. Would you like to reflect on them a little bit?
0:22:30 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Well, yeah. So I think there's risks, but there also could be benefits. I mean, that's kind of why people are even researching this in the first place. Paul Crutzen a long time ago wrote, hey, if we're really getting into a climate situation where we're seriously getting above pre-industrial climate by a lot, that we might need to be thinking about this kind of technology. For me, I think there are some risks here that, and I'll put them into sort of two buckets of risk just for now to kind of simplify.
The one I've already talked about a little bit, which is there's a lot of unknowns here. There's a lot of uncertainties here. I think there's a big risk that we will somehow think this is a, you know, this is a well-known, well-described technology. We just have to implement it and go forward.
That is actually not the case. This is fraught with a lot of uncertainties on the technical side. On the Earth system side. Again, this is an open system where you would add particles to the stratosphere and we have not done that before on a long-term basis. Volcanoes do this, obviously, without our control. But this is a different thing we're talking about here. So I think that these, some of the risks are these unintended consequences that we just don't know about. We don't know if they're going to happen. We don't know exactly.
I think one of the things we need to be working on is actually characterizing what we do know well and what we don't know so well. I think it's impossible to know everything. But for decision-making, you want to be able to be pretty confident in what you think you do know about a technology and then the areas that you're just not confident in. So that's one of the risks right now is that some people might kind of take an eye towards this technology and think, oh my gosh, this is something really well characterized and we should just go do it. And that's a big risk in my mind.
The second bucket of risk really has to do with more of a social and political and governance risk. We have no system right now globally to make decisions about this technology. We have no system, I would say. There is no body, no international body, the UN, there's nobody out there who is taking responsibility for assessing this technology, for trying to come up with a system for how we would make decisions to even embark on a global research program about it, really.
But not even a research program deciding to implement this. There is no system to do that. It's not clear how you would make these decisions about this equitably and justly. There's just not a way to... There is no plan to do that right now. So I think that's one of the big risks for me as well, is that this technology could be done perhaps by like one country or one single actor. Or it could be done even by a group of countries, but without anyone else involved. And to me, that is a risk because actually there are going to be winners and losers with this type of technology. And I believe in a democratic, equitable decision-making process and an informed process.
People should know what is being decided either by them directly or on their behalf. And so without any kind of a governance system in place, it's really a free-for-all. And to me, that's a dangerous situation because, again, combining with the fact we don't know a lot about the impacts for the local people, for the local level, and we don't have a system to assess those impacts, and then we don't have a system to make decisions that's going to be transparent and open and really let people take a good look at the benefits and the risks and compare those things in the open.
So, you know, to me that's a risk socially and politically that we might go down a road that's not actually, that's going to result in a pretty negative situation for some people without even really knowing that we're getting there.
0:26:58 - Veera Mitzner
We actually had a discussion about the challenges of global governance of geoengineering or climate intervention with our colleague, Professor Jim Hurrell, who was here in the studio with me. And I'm just wondering, like, we all know this is a major challenge for all of this work. What would it take to set up this global governance structure? This is a hard question. You probably don’t have an answer.
0:27:23 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
It's a totally hard question. And honestly, I'm probably not the best person because we have all these amazing experts in governance and political science, you know, and people working in State Department and so forth that know what it takes to set up these systems. I guess I'll just say the first thing you need is you need to be able to talk about it. You need to be able to talk about it openly. Right now in society, we have forces that are basically dismissing it out of hand up front, saying, you know, nobody should even talk about this.
And I think that's a bad, I think that's a bad decision. Because the fact is, people are talking about this. But if our governments are not openly having a place to have dialogue about this technology, pros and cons, you know, we're not going to be able to proceed along any sort of path to either reject the technology or say it's something we want to explore further.
So I think, so you asked me what, what is the, what governance, what you could do, right?
0:28:25 - Veera Mitzner
Or what would it take?
0:28:27 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
What would it take? You know, so I think the first step is to bring it into the open to say, hey, people are talking about this, get the dialogue going. There are organizations starting to do this, you know, really good organizations having deliberative processes on the ground globally. I think you need to have that openness to dialogue.
I do think it's important to have representatives from governments in a dialogue about this. So, you know, having a place for them to talk and to get on the table, what do we know? What do we not know? What do we think about this? I just don't know where that's happening right now. I do think this is something that should be happening with an eye towards transparency, with an eye towards citizens understanding that their governments are starting to talk about this and having a role in that.
So for me, just having some kind of place, some kind of venue for this conversation to be happening, where it can be happening in a reasoned way, without any sort of a push with an emergency, oh my gosh, we have to accelerate our decision-making super fast because X, Y, Z is happening. I don't think that's helpful.
I think we actually need to take time to actually look at this, convene groups together to say, what do we know? What do we need to know more about? What are the research questions that are important, honestly? And then proceed along a logical path. I know that sounds like old-fashioned these days, but that is like the way I would see us getting to a better place with this topic is to actually have a spot with for-reason dialogue across governments.
I mean, again, public research programs on this that produce information without any sort of agenda. Just, hey, what do we know? What do we not know? What are the risks? What are the benefits? And then see where we stand in a certain number of years.
0:30:23 - Veera Mitzner
Yeah, and now it's the time to have those conversations.
0:30:25 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Now is the time, exactly. Before we have somebody acting already or some kind of an emergency that's perceived as like, okay, we just got to decide. It's like, no, actually, we have the time. I know we're living through climate change right now, but we have the time to look at something as consequential as this technology and take a good look at it.
0:30:47 - Veera Mitzner
Yeah, that's great. Well, what are you watching closely that you think will matter in the next five years?
0:30:54 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Well, I think, you know, as I was just saying, I think that this is the time to really invest in research. We have had some researchers, some have been working on this for 30 years. I mean, we do have some researchers out there that have been really plugging away on this topic, but we need a lot more. We need to be engaging communities who haven't been engaged so far. I just mentioned like the ecology community, for example. I would love to see the stratospheric chemistry, the, you know, stratospheric dynamics, atmospheric dynamics, the impacts community, you know, I'm watching, I guess right now I'm watching sort of like, I think there is a surge in interest, you know, at least it seems like. But I would like to, I would like to know how the public is coming in on this topic because I still feel like this is not a topic most people have ever heard of.
Hopefully your podcast, you know, we'll change that. But I would like to see how this topic evolves in the public square, in the public discussion and dialogue. I would like to see if more governments decide to come in and actually fund this as a research topic. There is one program in the UK that is a publicly funded program, ARIA, about $60 million, I think, on looking at this topic, and they have very good research protocols and a very good attitude towards transparency, public engagement, et cetera, for their research.
So we have models out there for how to launch national programs and do them in a responsible way. So I would like to see, I'm going to be watching for that, I'm going to be speaking about that, and hopefully we can move the needle on programs launching to do more research on this.
I'm going to be watching on the caution side to make sure we're not rushing to judgment on this topic. I think that there's always a tendency to look for the quick solution or the easy solution. This is not one of those things. This is a very complicated, big, consequential type of technology. I don't actually call it a solution. I know your other guests have probably said this, but this doesn't do anything for greenhouse gases. This is something that is a temporary technology at best to try to reflect some of the sunlight.
And it would have to be launched for quite a long time if it were to be matching up with greenhouse gases increasing. So anyway, this is not a quick and easy solution. And we need to be clear-headed and clear-eyed about what we're getting into here and look at it, a long, hard look at it, and not just look away or think, oh, we'll deal with that if there's an emergency in the future.
That's not the time to look at it. The time to look at it is now.
0:33:44 - Veera Mitzner
Yeah and awareness raising is so important. We're trying to do our part with this podcast. Hopefully more and more people start speaking about this and looking into these questions. What gives you hope?
0:33:56 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Oh, I always get hope talking to other scientists and the next generation. I mean, everyone says that. My own daughter gives me hope. I think that there's some super smart and ethical principled people looking at this topic, but looking at climate change in general. I get hope, this is like beyond the climate intervention space, but I get hope from just looking at transformations of our energy options right now. The fact that, you know, when I used to teach as a professor 15 years ago, we would talk about solar energy, but we would say, oh, it's so expensive and like, it's not going to do much.
Now it's like, so inexpensive and actually is being adopted at really fast rates. Battery prices have gone down. There's just so many opportunities now that weren't available even 15 years ago or 10 years ago.
So that gives me a lot of hope for addressing the main event, which is bringing down greenhouse gas emissions. We have lots of ways to do that now, and I think we need to be doubling down on those ways. And I think, too, that there's a lot of, I think it gives me hope as well that scientists are starting to, they have been for a long time, but they need to even more be looking at the system as a connected whole.
When you look at sort of interventions like this, they don't exist in a vacuum. You don't just do one thing and then it's only affecting that one thing. Everything is connected to something else. And the great thing is our researchers, our young scientists now, they have been raised with that awareness in mind of thinking about systems and systems thinking, and that people are part of that system too.
This is not just the earth system out there by itself. We are part of that earth system too. So to me, this is a very hopeful time. We need to apply our knowledge and we need to keep going with our knowledge. I mean, I am a scientist. I hope our country recognizes the amazing science capacity that we have here and keeps investing in that in the future. Because there's a few scary signs out there, I would just say, but it's a very big strength of ours. And we need to be deploying that towards these really consequential questions.
0:36:19 - Veera Mitzner
Hopeful time. I like that. I'll use that.
Well, I bet our listeners would love to learn more about your work. Where can they find more information? And is there a way for them to be involved?
0:36:36 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Sure. Yeah. So I am with the 21st Century here. I'm on LinkedIn. We do post about our program quite frequently on LinkedIn and my colleagues at EDF. We're always posting about conferences we are going to or research coming out of our program. So look for me there. And we also have a webpage, our EDF program. Definitely search me out there. We've got links to all the projects we've been funding. We've got links to what's coming up.
Also, you know, places like AGU, this is going to be for the scientists in your audience, American Geophysical Union.You know, if you go to conferences like that, like we're there and love to talk to you. I think, you know, LinkedIn is a great place. You can put comments in there. You can reach out to me through the EDF website. I think that's, we'd love to hear your comments and hear what you think about this.
0:37:28 - Veera Mitzner
Thank you so much, Lisa. It was a great conversation. Thank you.
0:36:30 - Dr. Lisa Dilling
Thanks so much for having me.
0:37:36 - Veera Mitzner
Thanks so much for listening to Green and Bold. I'm Veera Mitzner, Director of the CSU Climate Hub at Spur. You can learn more about Dr. Lisa Dilling and her work through the links in the show notes. This show is produced by me, Kevin Samuelson and Allison Sylte with audio engineering and editing by Kevin.