Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:00]
Sarah Gibson Tuttle
Raise your hand if you want your nails to look perfect all the time. Me too. I'm Sarah Gibson Tuttle from Olive and June and this is exactly why we created the Mani system. We wanted to make it possible for everyone everywhere to give themselves a beautiful manicure at home with our tools and our long lasting polish. Each manicure with our Mani system comes out to just $2. That's right, $2, no more. 30, 40, $50 manis that you get at a salon and they take hours. Now you can paint your nails on your time and love them more than ever. And by the way, when people ask who did your nails? Where did you get them done? You're gonna proudly say I did them myself. Get 20% off your first mani system with code perfectmanny20@oliveandjeune.com perfectmanny20 that's code perfectmanny20 for 20% off@oliveandjune.com perfectmanny20 business software is expensive.
- [00:57]
Isaac Saul
And when you buy software from a lot of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge and everything from websites and sales to inventory and accounting all linked in talking to each other. Check out odoo@o d o o.com that's o d o o.com Psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be unpredictable.
- [01:37]
John Law
I had joint pain and I couldn't move like I used to.
- [01:41]
Isaac Saul
I needed relief.
- [01:43]
Unknown
I got Cosentyx.
- [01:45]
John Law
It helped me move better.
- [01:47]
Unknown
Cosentyx Secukenumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthri. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. Had a vaccine or planned to or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1-844-cosentyx or cosentyx.
- [02:29]
Isaac Saul
Ask your rheumatologist about Cosentyx.
- [02:39]
Unknown
From Executive producer Isaac Saul.
- [02:42]
Sarah Gibson Tuttle
This is Tangle.
- [02:53]
Isaac Saul
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the latest announcement from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who said that the EPA is rolling back some emissions standards, I guess you could say mostly a major rule called the endangerment finding that helps regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It's a little complicated. We're going to explain everything that you need to know and then share some views from the left and the right who have some very strong disagreements about this issue. And then I'm going to share my take, which I think conveniently today cuts a little bit down the middle. I mean, I have some feelings, for sure, that are a little bit more aligned with the concern around climate change, but I also am just not totally sure what the Trump administration can really do or if it can do what it's saying it's going to do without being stopped by the court. So I'm going to explain why I feel that way. And I think this will be a really good roundup of this issue, which, by the way, after reading and consuming so much punditry and commentary on it, I think is being really convoluted in the press. So today's a day where I very much feel the need for Tangle and feel like our work can add some value, and I hope it does. With that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main pod, and I'll be back for my take.
- [04:30]
John Law
Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, four European countries, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, agreed to buy US military equipment valued at roughly $1 billion, which will then be transferred to Ukraine. Number two, President Donald Trump suggested that he may move to federalize Washington, D.C. in response to purported crime problems in the Capitol, specifically referencing the assault of a former Department of Government efficiency staffer on Sunday. Number three, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will halt roughly $500 million in funding for 22 projects to develop vaccines using MRNA technology. Number four, Vice President J.D. vance is reportedly planning to meet with top Trump administration officials on Wednesday to determine a strategy for handling documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The group may discuss whether to release the transcript from the recent Department of Justice interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime associate and Number five, Senator Marsha Blackburn, the Republican from Tennessee, announced her candidacy for governor of Tennessee Environmental Protection Agency has relied on what's known as the Endangerment finding, a legal determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health, the foundation for the EPA's climate regulations. The finding has influenced pollution limits on cars and power plants. Today, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced he is revoking that finding. On Tuesday, July 29, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency's proposal to rescind a determination that previous administrations had used to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Both the Obama and Biden administrations used this determination, called the Endangerment Finding, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, particularly from vehicle emissions. The EPA cited curtailing regulatory overreach as the primary motivation for rescinding the rule, saying that the repeal would save the auto industry and expected $54 billion through deregulations. The EPA undergirded its decision with a study that questioned the adverse effects of carbon dioxide on on human health and planetary warming. For context, In Massachusetts v. EPA 2007, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant and required the EPA to regulate these emissions if the agency found that they endangered human health. The EPA instituted the endangerment finding after President Barack Obama took office in 2009, basing its authority to regulate airborne pollutants that become well mixed into the atmosphere on section 202 of the Clean Air Act. At the time, the administration was having difficulty passing climate change legislation through Congress in 2010, and in 2022, the EPA denied petitions to reconsider the endangerment finding, and in 2012 the U.S. court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the EPA on the legal challenge against it. The Endangerment Finding states that the current and projected concentrations of six gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexide in the atmosphere threaten public health and welfare of current and future generations. Although it does not itself impose regulations, the finding provided the legal basis for agency standards on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency in the auto industry, as well as the 2015 Clean Power Plan to reduce power plant emissions and strict tailpipe emission standards put in place by President Joe Biden's administration. In 2024. Before it can be finalized, the decision to repeal the rule moves to a 45 day public comment period, after which it will likely face significant legal challenges. If the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding. It would strip the legal basis for existing emission standards, making them vulnerable to legal challenge or nullification. Administrator Zeldin touted the projected financial savings that would come from deregulation. With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers, Zeldin said. If finalized, rescinding the endangerment finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families. Many critics of the move say the EPA is making its decision on cherry picked and indefensible studies. Administrator Zeldin's decision to axe this finding isn't based on science, representative Zoe Lofgren said. It's based on the Trump administration delivering concession after concession to big polluters and giving them permission to freely trash our air and water. Separately, an EPA analysis of the move found that repealing the finding could cause gas prices to increase. Today we'll get into what the left and the right are saying about the rule and then Isaac's take.
- [09:40]
Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [09:43]
Why drop a fortune on basics when you don't have to? Quince has the good stuff. High quality fabrics, classic fits and lightweight layers for warm weather. All at prices that make sense. Everything I've ordered from Quince has been nothing but solid. I've been telling all my friends this summer that I am a linen guy. Now this is the summer of linen for Isaac. Because I have been absolutely raiding the Quince wardrobe buying linen shirts, linen pants, linen shorts. And it's not just the linens. Casual T shirts, fun jackets, long pants. Everything on their website that I've snagged has really been an awesome addition to my wardrobe and I've gotten compliments on basically all of it. Even from my wife who never really thinks I'm dressing myself well. So if you want to keep it classy and cool, I highly recommend the long lasting staples from quince. Go to quince.comtangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Quince Q-U-I-N-C-E.comtangle and get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comtangle this episode of Tangle is brought to you by Wildgrain. Wildgrain is the first baked from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Wild Grain's boxes are fully customizable to your taste and dietary restrictions. In addition to their classic variety box, they recently launched a new gluten free box and a plant based box that is 100% vegan. Best of all, they take the hassle out of baking since all items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or less with no mess or cleanup. I recently got a box of Wild Grain products and included in it was their six pack of the Parmesan Herb Biscuits. These things were unbelievably delicious. They actually tasted like freshly baked bread after just throwing them in the oven for 25 minutes straight from frozen. So I can personally attest to how good some of this stuff really is. So if you are ready to bring all your favorite carbs right to your doorstep, be sure to check out Wild Grain so you can begin building your own box of artisanal breads, pastas and pastries. For a limited time only, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off their first BO plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.comtangle to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissants in every box and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.comtangle that's wildgrain.comtangle and you can use promo code TANGLE at checkout.
- [11:54]
John Law
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left opposes Zeldin's proposal, arguing that it will have disastrous consequences. Some question the legal foundations of the rollback. Others say repealing the rule will be damaging but not necessarily permanent. In the Los Angeles Times, Jody Freeman wrote, trump's EPA proposes to end the US Fight against climate change. This isn't just another regulatory rollback. It's an assault on the foundation of all federal climate policy. The endangerment finding originally applied to vehicle emissions, but it also underpins every major federal climate rule in America car and truck emission standards, power plant regulations, and LIM oil and gas facilities. By removing this cornerstone, Trump's EPA is repudiating federal authority to limit greenhouse gases, our most powerful tool for fighting climate change, freeman said. Companies may stay quiet to avoid crossing a vengeful administration, but they know climate change is real and that some federal regulation makes business sense. This administration's assault on climate action won't change the evidence or reality of climate change. As scientists have predicted, storms are growing more intense, heat waves more deadly, wildfires more destructive. We spend billions annually on disaster response while other countries surge ahead in clean energy, innovation and manufacturing, freeman wrote. The question isn't whether we'll eventually return to responsible climate policy. We will because we must. The question is how much time we'll lose and how much damage we'll suffer while politics masquerades as good policy. In the Regulatory Review, Lisa Heintzerling called the proposal climate denialism dressed up as law. In 2007 in Massachusetts vs EPA, the US Supreme Court roundly rejected EPA's decision to do nothing. It held that the Clean Air act clearly included greenhouse gases within the category of air pollutants regulable under the act. It scolded EPA for refusing even to form a judgment about the dangerousness of greenhouse gases based on policy concerns extraneous to the relevant provisions of the Clean Air act. Heinzingler said EPA's legal theory for its deregulatory binge bears a strong resemblance to its failed arguments in Massachusetts versus epa. Once again, EPA is smuggling myriad policy preferences into a provision that focuses on the scientific question of endangerment. Once again, EPA is doing so despite the fact that adjacent statutory provisions specifically instruct EPA to consider some of the concerns it mentions. And once again, EPA is trying to avoid engagement with scientific evidence by throwing legal spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks, Heinzingler said. This is not to suggest that EPA's proposed approach to gutting rules on climate change is doomed. No member of the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA still sits on the Supreme Court. Much more conservative and assertive justices have joined the court, and the court has become notably hostile to ambitious regulatory actions. In Bloomberg, Mark Gongloff asks, how much damage can the new unprotective EPA do? The good news is that this dangerous state of affairs doesn't have to be permanent. If a reality based president ever returns to the White House, he or she can tell the EPA chief to reboot the endangerment finding and restart the regulation engine, Gaunglov said. That process might be slow. It will take Trump and Zeldin several months to formally repeal the finding, including public comment and rulemaking periods. And that's before the inevitable lawsuits, which could delay the action even more. With one huge exception, which I'll Discuss soon, the EPA's endangerment finding has long shielded oil and gas companies from environmentalist lawsuits. You don't have the right to make us pay for our climate damage, they'll say, because that's the EPA's job. The EPA getting out of that business could be a dinner bell for plaintiffs lawyers. Again, a conservative Supreme Court might find a way to build fossil fuels a new shield, but that's several steps down the road, gaungloff wrote. Alternatively, our theoretical, rational future president could work with a theoretical, rational future Congress to simply pass a law properly bulletproofed against a conservative Supreme Court with the necessary spells and incantations ordering the EPA to regulate greenhouse gaming. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports the rural rescission and praises the administration for challenging Massachusetts versus epa. Some say the rollback will correct years of regulatory overreach. Others support Zeldin's push but question his tactics, National Review's editors wrote. Lee Zeldin's EPA liberates American industry the Supreme Court, in a dubious 54 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, ruled that Congress in 1970 meant to classify carbon dioxide as an air pollutant, notwithstanding the fact that it is naturally present in the atmosphere and is exhaled by humans and animals. The court required the EPA to provide a reasoned explanation for why it was not regulating greenhouse gases. The Obama and Biden administrations each rush to pile such regulations on the carmakers. The editor said. The EPA administrator can rescind the 2007 ruling on one or both of two grounds that he does not consider such emissions to endanger public health or welfare, or that he believes that the court read the statute wrong. The former step is well within the discretion of the EPA administrator, but its basis could be challenged in court. The latter would require the EPA to argue for overturning Massachusetts v. EPA a harder task. But core challenges are inevitable, so there will be ample opportunity for the administration to make that case. The EPA is pursuing both, the editors wrote. The court may be more hesitant today to reverse that decision, given the weight of precedent in cases of statutory interpretation, but it should do so in the interim. We applaud Zeldin and the EPA for the boldness to liberate American industry to compete in world markets. In RealClear Energy, Bret Bennett and Cullen Neely said the EPA makes the right Call Even if the EPA could eliminate all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions within this decade, the action would reduce global temperatures in 2050 by roughly 0.05 degrees Celsius, less than the margin of error in global temperature measurements, Bennett and Neely wrote. The Obama and Biden administrations used this finding to justify dozens of regulations, including mandating 70% of cars and 45% of trucks be by 2032, restructuring the electricity sector and imposing methane regulations on oil and gas. Repealing the finding will take an axe to all those regulations. The EPA's proposed rescission wisely recognizes that Congress has repeatedly considered and rejected GHG legislation from cap and trade to carbon taxes. When lawmakers addressed GHG emissions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction act, they chose tax incentives and a methane tax rather than broad regulatory authority. Now the EPA needs to take the next steps to prove that CO2 is not air pollution and that Massachusetts versus EPA is fundamentally flawed, bennett and Neely said. It will be an epochal restoration of constitutional governance and American businesses and families will benefit enormously in reason, Jeff Luce argued the Trump administration risks perpetuating the regulatory ping pong that has plagued Washington, D.C. the EPA's draft rule does not appear to call into question the climate impacts of GHG emissions, which some suspected it would. Instead, it argues that the EPA overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare, luce wrote. Reconsidering the rule on procedural grounds rather than scientific ones may be a wiser strategy for the epa, but it would still have to pass strict legal scrutiny, especially since the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference last year. Now federal agencies have less leeway to interpret broad regulations, including the Clean Air Act. The Trump administration has taken effective steps to reduce regulations that hurt American energy security and affordability for minimal environmental benefits, Luce said. Despite these successes, the Trump administration is taking the wrong approach to fixing the endangerment finding by repealing it through executive rulemaking. The effort is sure to be held up in courts and rescinded by a future presidential administration perpetuating the regulatory ping pong that has plagued Washington, D.C. for decades. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
- [20:51]
Isaac Saul
All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. I'm not going to bury the lead. I don't think the endangerment finding is all that endangered. In order to really understand this issue and what might happen next, you have to comb through a lot of puffery in the punditry predictions that this decision will unleash a new golden age or set climate regulation back decades. I don't think Zeldin's announcement will actually have any significant impact because the Trump administration is on very shaky legal ground and like the Obama administration, won't be able to affect lasting change without Congress passing a meaningful amendment to the Clean Air act, which a brief analysis of the vote counts, constituent concerns and Congress's reliable ineptitude tell me isn't going to happen anytime soon. Consider the following first, trying to undo the endangerment finding is a fool's errand. The only question relevant to the statutory language is whether greenhouse gas emissions may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. That's the very low bar that needs to be cleared for the Clean Air act to allow the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gases quite clearly meet this threshold. They did when The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that they did in 2007. They do now, and they will in the future. As Jonathan Adler notes in Reason, judging whether the endangerment finding can legally be rescinded is not a question of whether climate change is going to catastrophically impact the planet, or whether regulating consumer products is a better method than promoting innovation for addressing climate change, or whether the scientific theory of climate change is settled. It is, but that's actually not relevant here. Instead, the only question is whether the EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate that greenhouse gas emissions can pose a risk to public health, which they can. This is not ambiguous. Second, the push from conservatives to undo the Chevron doctrine is now coming back to bite them. Before the Supreme Court's ruling in 2024, agencies like the EPA had broad latitude to interpret statutory language that might be ambiguous. Today, they do not. The Trump administration is trying to repeal the endangerment finding by claiming that climate change regulation harms industry and the threat of climate change is overstated. But again, the only relevant legal question is whether the Clean Air act created statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court's previous 54 ruling and all the court interpretations since have not been ambiguous. One could reasonably argue that carbon dioxide is not properly classified as a pollutant, but one cannot argue that it isn't classified as a pollutant. If you want that to change, the law needs to change. No executive or agency action can do that. Even with the current composition of the Supreme Court. I think the Trump administration would lose a legal challenge to this rule if it were implemented. Third, and finally, the endangerment finding needs to be updated. A few weeks ago, Tango managing editor Ari Weitzman published a piece on all the ways climate change models and their findings have changed in the last 20 years. Many of the scientific projections argued in the initial Massachusetts v. EPA cases are now different in meaningful ways. The statutory language should reflect these changes. It would actually be a good thing if Congress couldn't panel an independent group of scientists appointed on a bipartisan basis to review the latest models, update the law, and offer new recommendations. Do I think this administration or this EPA will do that? No. But it would make a nice surprise if, rather than creating regulatory chaos, flexing executive power, and fighting this battle in the courts. Trump and Zeldin just asked Congress to do its job and then updated the Clean Air act or wrote new greenhouse gas legislation as a companion to it in order to address the areas where it felt these regulations were holding us back. On a more solutions oriented note, I think there are a few other things about this saga worth considering. For one, Zeldin's draft rule argues that the EPA overstepped its legal authority, but it does not argue that greenhouse gas emissions don't have climate impacts as some people thought it would. This is a quiet concession on the basic fact that climate change is happening, which Ari has also written about. All the while, the abundance movement, which demands climate action but acknowledges that burdensome regulations have stifled innovation, progress and abundance of all things, including energy, is gaining traction on the left in between these two sides. On this particular front of the partisan firefight is a no man's land of possible consensus where we can appreciate Zeldin, whose nomination I said Democrats should be happy about tacitly acknowledging climate change and also criticized the way in which emissions regulations may impose undue costs. Ultimately, I think there are good arguments for reevaluating some dated climate change regulation that is built around older models. I think conservatives inclination to embrace innovation and deregulation to address climate change has merit. I think liberals understanding of the risks of climate change has spurred emissions regulations that have quite obviously had positive impacts for all of us. And I sincerely wish this administration and this Congress would show itself capable of doing more than just trying to put old laws through the shredder and figuring it out in court battles. Wouldn't it be nice if someone could get these people in the same room to find consensus on a more comprehensive solution? I doubt that would happen, but the opening is hard to ignore, making it all the more tragic. We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [26:42]
Sarah Gibson Tuttle
Hi. Who here loves when their nails are perfectly done?
- [26:46]
Isaac Saul
Me.
- [26:46]
Sarah Gibson Tuttle
I'm Sarah Gibson Tuttle and I started Olive in June because let's be real, we all deserve to have gorgeous nails. But who wants to spend a fortune or half their day at the salon? And that's why I created the Mani system. So you can have that salon perfect manicure right at home. And guess what? The best part? Each mani only costs $2. Yep, you heard me. $2. No more 30, 40, $50 salon trips that eat up your day. Now you can paint your nails whenever you want, wherever you want. And trust me, you're going to be obsessed with your nails and everyone is going to ask you where did you get your nails done and here's a little something extra. Head over to oliveandjune.com and get 20% off your first mani system with code perfectmani20@olivendjune.com perfectmanny20. That's code perfectmanny20 for 20% off@oliveandjeune.com perfectmanny 20. You're all set for a nail glow up. Let's get those nails looking fabulous, shall we?
- [27:42]
Unknown
Psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be unpredictable.
- [27:45]
John Law
I had joint pain and I couldn't move like I used to.
- [27:49]
Isaac Saul
I needed relief.
- [27:51]
Unknown
I got Kosentyx.
- [27:53]
John Law
It helped me move better.
- [27:55]
Unknown
Cosentyx Secukenumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx. Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough, had a vaccine or planned to, or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1-844-cosentyx or cosentyx.com.
- [28:37]
Isaac Saul
Ask.
- [28:37]
Your dermatologist about Cosentyx all right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Alicia in West Virginia. She said, what is Tangle's opinion on the fighting that broke in Cambodia and Thailand? Okay, so first of all, obviously we're not experts on Cambodia and Thailand and their relations, but we do have an editorial team that is extremely good at researching topics like this and distilling the things that you need to know. So we did that. Over the last few days, we're going to break down our response to this question into two parts over two separate podcasts. Today we're going to describe what led to the recent exchange of firing along the border between Cambodia and Thailand. And tomorrow we'll give a little take on an interesting storyline on one side of the disputed border, a story that most people in the United States are probably not aware of. In a much more familiar and common story, Thailand and Cambodia have shared a tense, contested border with one another since the partition of the French colony of Siam in 1907, along a ridgeline boundary with several culturally significant ancient structures along the border providing focal points of disagreement that should sound familiar. One of these locations is the Temple of Prevahir. In 2008, the Thai government supported Cambodia's nomination of the temple as a UNESCO heritage site, prompting populist backlash in Thailand that led to a political crisis. The temple was also the focus of fighting along the border in 2011. Recently, tensions came to a head around another significant site called Prasad Tamuin Tham by the Cambodians and Prasata Mun Tham by the Thais. The following a series of escalating events. In May, Thai troops shot and killed a Cambodian soldier along the border. On July 23, a landmine explosion in a disputed area injured five Thai soldiers, causing one to lose his leg. It was the second such incident in a week's time. Then conflict broke out into heavier fighting on July 24th around the temple. The armed conflict was mirrored by a war of words in the press. Cambodia said Thai soldiers deliberately attacked Cambodians first in an attempt to claim territory around the holy site, prompting them to return fire. Thailand said that Cambodia had fired rockets into civilian areas in four Thai provinces, prompting Thailand to send F16 fighter jets to strike targets in Cambodia. After days of fighting that claimed at least 43 lives and displaced over 300,000 people on both sides of the border, the two sides reached a ceasefire deal on July 28. President Donald Trump was active in the process that led to the ceasefire agreement threatening an elevated tariff of over 36% on each country. To us, the most interesting aspect of the story isn't that this strategy seems to have worked, that Trump announced a 19% tariff on Cambodia and Thailand, or that Cambodia's deputy prime minister has floated nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, it's teased out from a detail in the peace talks that Thailand's head of state at the time was also its acting prime minister. We'll get into the interesting implications of that detail tomorrow, explaining why Thailand's prime minister had been suspended when peace talks were finalized and what that tells us about the relationship between Cambodia and Thailand as well as the unique relationship between Thailand's government and its military. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of today's story, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.
- [32:21]
John Law
Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. A July 2025 report from AARP and the National alliance for Caregiving found that roughly 63 million U.S. adults, nearly 1 in 4, provide care to an adult with health or functional needs or to a child with a serious mental condition or disability. The figure is a record high, up from 53 million in 2020 and 43.5 million a decade ago. The responsibility that caregivers assume often comes with financial challenges, as they may be forced to leave their jobs or turn down career advancement opportunities, often while shouldering some of the cost of the care. Consequently, the report found that approximately 2 in 10 caregivers have taken on more debt, 3 in 10 have used up short term savings, 3 in 10 have stopped saving, and 2 in 10 are leaving bills unpaid or paying them. Lately, the cost, complexity and emotional weight of care has only grown, with employees navigating longer lifespans for loved ones, rise in care expenses and increasingly intense responsibilities. Lindsay Jurist Rosner, CEO of a caregiving support company, said. Yahoo Finance has this story and there's a link in today's episode Description alright, next up is Our numbers section 387.6 in parts per million that was the global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in December of 2009, according to the national oceanic and Atmospheric administration. As of June 2025, the global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is 429.6 in parts per million. In December 2009, global methane concentration in the atmosphere was 1,796.7 in parts per billion. Global methane concentration in the atmosphere in January 2025 was 1935.3 in parts per billion. In December 2009, global nitrous oxide concentration in the atmosphere was 322.8 in parts per billion. In April 2025, global nitrous oxide concentration in THE atmosphere was 338.7 in parts per billion, according to a 2023-2024 Pew Research survey. The percentage of U.S. adults who say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost is 60%, while 38% of US adults say it would cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. 39% of Republicans say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, while 59% say they are not worth the cost. The cost and 82% of Democrats say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, while 17% say they are not worth the cost. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have previously identified a sugar molecule that cancer cells use on their surfaces to hide from the immune system. But the team recently discovered that the same molecule may help treat type 1 diabetes, whereas cancer cells use the molecule known as sialic acid for harmful purposes. The mechanism may have positive applications by distinguishing pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin and are attacked by the immune system. When a person has diabetes, a goal would be to provide transplantable cells without the need for immunosuppression. Dr. Virginia Shapiro, who led the study, said, though we're still in the early stages, this study may be one step toward improving care. The Mayo Clinic has this story and there's a link in today's episode description all right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to retangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'.
- [36:18]
Isaac Saul
All.
- [36:19]
John Law
Peace.
- [36:20]
Isaac Saul
Our Executive editor and founder is me.
- [36:22]
Isaac Sowell and our Executive producer is John Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach and Associate Editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead Bailey, Saul, Lindsey Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to.
- [36:44]
Sign up for a membership, please pick.
- [36:45]
Visit our website@retangle.com.
- [36:59]
Unknown
Psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be unpredictable.
- [37:03]
John Law
I had joint pain and I couldn't move like I used to.
- [37:06]
Isaac Saul
I needed relief.
- [37:08]
Unknown
I got Cosentyx.
- [37:10]
John Law
It helped me move better.
- [37:13]
Unknown
Cosentyx Secukinumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx. Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough had a vaccine or plan to or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1-844-COSENTIX or cosentix.com.
- [37:54]
Isaac Saul
Ask.
- [37:54]
Your dermatologist about Cosentix.
- [37:59]
Unknown
If your dog could talk, they'd beg for Ollie. The full body tail wag, the excited little hops, the big goofy grin. That's the Ollie effect. Ollie delivers clean, fresh nutrition in five drool worthy FL flavors, even for the pickiest eaters. Made in US kitchens with high quality human grade ingredients, Ollie's food contains no fillers, no preservatives, just real food. Just fill out Ollie's 30 second quiz and they'll create a customized meal plan based on your pup's weight, activity level and other health info. Dogs deserve the best and that means fresh, healthy food. Head to ollie.com healthypup Tell them about your dog and use code HEALTHYPUP to get 60% off your welcome kit when you subscribe today. Plus they offer a happiness guarantee box so if you're not completely satisfied, you'll get your money back. That's O L L I e.com HealthyPup and enter code HealthyPup to get 60% off your first box.
- [38:53]
John Law
Hey, it's Mark Marin from WTF here to let you know that this podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. And I'm sure the reason you're listening to this podcast right now is because you chose it well. Choose Progressives name your price tool and you could find insurance options that fit your. Budget it so you can pick the best one for your situation. Who doesn't like choice? Try it@progressive.com and now some legal info. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states.