When the transcript becomes available, we will include it here. -Thank you!

The Energy Question Episode 89_  Energy Analyst Dr. Tammy Nemeth.mp4

David Blackmon [00:00:00] And. Before we go into our interview today, I wanted to let everyone know we have a new sponsor for our Energy Question podcast. The US Oil and Gas Association, or USOGA for short. First established in 1970, USOGA has been an effective and creative voice for the industry for more than a century now. USOGA is dedicated to educating the public, policymakers and legislators at the federal, state and local levels about the value of the domestic oil and natural gas industry. If you’re in the industry and not currently a USOGA member, please consider joining the association as a way of helping it tell your story to the policymakers whose actions impact everything you do each and every day. You can start that process by contacting you, so get it through its website USOGA.org. Thanks so much to USOGA for sponsoring the Energy Question podcast. And now on with our show.

David Blackmon [00:01:06] Hey, welcome to the Energy Question with David Blackmon. I’m your host, David Blackmon, and my guest today is Doctor Tammy Nemeth, my podcasting partner at the Energy Realities Podcast, a tremendous energy analyst based in both Canada and the United Kingdom. Brilliant mind, brilliant analyst of energy issues and commentator on them. Tammy, how you doing today?

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:01:29] I’m doing well, thank you. How are you today?

David Blackmon [00:01:32] Fine. I appreciate you coming back on again. I need to do these occasionally just for a sanity check for myself, because sometimes I think I’m wandering off into conspiracy land on some of this stuff. There’s just so much going on, I, you know, for those, you know, obviously, none of our viewers are aware, but the Tammy and I are in our group in the Energy Realities podcast, which includes Irina Slav or Armando Cavanha. Stuart Turley, there’s five of us now. We call it the Gang of Five. Yeah. We we have these regular email exchanges in which we, you know, share ideas with each other and articles, and, and it’s, it’s just become so overwhelming, hasn’t it, to try to keep up with everything going on in the energy space. It’s just crazy.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:02:24] Oh for sure. And with the proliferation of various news organizations and lots of independent media, that’s that’s pulling stories from all over the place, it’s it’s really helpful to have others who are sifting through that noise to come up with, the different trends and the ideas and the implications of a lot of the stuff that’s going on these days. And I just want to say thank you so much for having me on your podcast. It’s always such an honor to speak with you.

David Blackmon [00:02:50] Oh, gosh. That’s crazy. No, it’s it’s my honor is entirely mine. Trust me. I, and of course, you know, we’re going to talk about some of the things we’ve shared in that email group, this week. It’s just, some huge stories that that aren’t, I think, getting enough attention. One is this, Bloomberg story an investigative piece that’s really excellent. And, on the, wind industry in the UK. So sorry I’m stammering so much here. That that, there’s this really kind of a systemic grift that’s happening within the web industry at the UK. And I wanted to give you a chance to, to talk about what’s happening there and why it’s important.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:03:39] Well, I mean, I saw that story today. I really was sharing it, I think. And and. Oh my gosh, the UK system is so bizarre. It’s this Byzantine structure where it was deregulated but not deregulated. And the the way that the government subsidizes curtailments and curtailments. I’m sure your listeners know what those are. You know, when the wind industry is producing energy, when it’s not needed, they get paid to kind of not put it to the grid because it would spike the grid and do all kinds of terrible things, as described in the, in the, in the Bloomberg article. But what was shocking is that in order to pay for those curtailments, the government gets information from, from the suppliers to the predict. Right, right. The wind suppliers to predict what they think their output is going to be, and then they get paid for before, I guess, like it seems to me that they would get paid before to curtail when, with these predictions and or based on the predictions rather than the reality. That seemed very strange to me. To be completely honest, I don’t understand a whole lot of that regulatory stuff. Catherine daughter Catherine Porter from the UK is the go to person. She really understands not only that regulatory aspect, but the financial side of it. And I think she would be really, important to talk to you. I’ve talked to her on my podcast, and even with that, she really helped me understand just the beginnings of how this works. But, I think what’s so. Interesting about this case that the the Bloomberg investigators did was it showed that taxpayer money is going towards these wind companies in a manner that is inappropriate, I guess, is how I would word it. But it seems to me the reason maybe for rolling this out now is that it’s predicted that the Labor Party will likely win, the national election that will take place this year. And the Labor Party has indicated it would prefer to nationalize the the grid in the UK. Oh, what.

David Blackmon [00:06:03] A great idea.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:06:04] Right. You know, so it’s like.

David Blackmon [00:06:06] What could go wrong with that.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:06:07] What could go wrong with that. But so this seems to be a way to persuade the public that maybe it would be a good idea if there was just one entity that, controls it all to prevent this type of waste. Of course, whatever. There’s it’s it depending on the nation state. Right. We have, state owned entities that actually are more corrupt in whatever than than others. I’m not saying that that’s how it would turn out. It just the trend seems to be in that direction. So, yeah, that seems to be my sense of why Bloomberg, of all places, would do this investigation into wind and emphasize that it’s intermittent and unreliable. I thought that was interesting.

David Blackmon [00:06:56] You know what’s so interesting to me about it, too, in listening to you describe how the system works, this is exactly how our system in Texas, etc.. Exactly. With the wind in her tail, my payments and everything. Paying. We’re paying the wind farms folks not to produce, just like the federal government has for decades. Hey, corn farmers and rice farmers and cotton farmers to idle some of their fields in order to prop up prices. It’s exactly the same thing that’s happening now in grids all over the world. Okay, yeah. You constantly hear Republicans in Texas brag about the fact that our grid is deregulated. Deregulated. That’s the word they issue. Yeah.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:07:43] Deregulated.

David Blackmon [00:07:44] It’s not deregulated. Okay. There’s there’s a vast array of regulations that govern how our grid in Texas works. And so if you if you wonder why, the state that produces more energy than any other state in the United States by far has a completely unreliable grid that, fails so often. Now, you understand in this, it’s a terrible, ridiculous system with all sorts of horrible incentives for everyone involved in it. And so you, you end up with an unreliable product. So the electric vehicle industry. You shared a story. About, a study that was conducted in Nebraska. It was reported. Naturally, we had to read about this in a Canadian news news operation. Not in the United States, but there. It was a collision test that was conducted by a university in Nebraska that finds that now the guard rails, all the guard rails on our highways are substandard and can’t handle the heavier electric vehicles. Talk about that.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:08:58] Oh my gosh. When I read that, I was just laughing. I thought, you mean they didn’t do these tests before they allowed these vehicles to be on the road? You think that would be a fairly important safety precaution to take that? What guardrails that are would be able to assist in an accident? I guess if if a car hits them or whatever or bounces off and whatnot. But given the weight of the electric vehicles, it seems that that’s a problem. And they just, you know, go through the guardrails like a knife through butter. So it’s it’s interesting that that, that that’s the case. And then as you and I were exchanging, it’s kind of like, well, what about all the other aspects of infrastructure that aren’t prepared for EVs? And you pointed out the excellent one. And we’ve had cases of this in the UK and in the United States of parkade collapsing because of too much weight, from the electric vehicles and bridges. You know, bridges are an issue. And when I drive through, our village in, in England here, it’s a really old Victorian bridge and it’s kind of one way and sometimes there’s a lot of traffic snarls and there’s busses sitting on that bridge and electric vehicles sitting on that bridge, and I’m thinking, oh my gosh, I know the Victorians were really brilliant engineers, but how much weight can this bridge take with vehicles just sitting there? And so of course bridges are an issue. And the roads that we’re out there, the particulate matter that increases from the wear from the tires. And so there’s all these problems with electric vehicles, which engineers had warned about. And the policymakers just pursued this course anyway.

David Blackmon [00:10:50] Now they just ignore it. And, you know, and we’ve had these estimates, McKinsey and company put out a study last year, about a year ago now, estimating that the total cost of the global cost of the energy transition would be about $275 trillion, which is two and a half times the the GDP of every country on Earth combined. Between now and 20, 50, 275 trillion. It just it’s it’s a it’s a number so enormous people can’t even envision it in their minds. But, when you look at the McKinsey study, it didn’t even factor in any of these higher costs. I mean, the cost of, reinforcing, all the bridges, all the guardrails, all the roads, it not just the United States and Canada, but all over the world, would be hundreds of trillions of dollars. So, I mean, there’s just it’s it’s hard to even imagine how much it would all cost over time. And none of that’s being factored into these cost estimates. And so I just I mean, how is any of this possibly sustainable? We already have been through this period of high inflation just because of a handful of trillions of dollars being spent. I mean, is any of this sustainable over time?

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:12:10] You know, it’s interesting that you mentioned estimates, because if you think about the estimates that are done for various government funded projects, I was reading a study, I forget where it was, who wrote it, but they were talking about how every time a government funds an infrastructure project, the cost overruns are always quite large, like almost double. So you’ll start out with, oh, this project will be $10 million or whatever. By the end of it it’s up to 25, you know, or something like that. And, and those cost overruns, a lot of it, I think, has to do with poorly worded contracts, and various other elements. But it’s also not anticipating all of the other unintended consequences that go along with whatever policy program, even within an infrastructure project, that that comes into play. And, you know, the McKinsey study, I just kind of rolled my eyes when I read it. I’m like, are you kidding? You’re missing this and this and this and this and. And and I’m like and policymakers use that then as justification for, oh it’s not going to cost so much. But it’s kind of like the energy transition in Germany where they said, oh, it’ll only cost you an extra scoop of ice cream a month, you know, €90 cents. Well, really not not the the reality was that it’s like a tremendously expensive way more than they said it was going to be. And at what point do citizens get to say, you know what, I don’t want to have to pay for that. I’m mortgaging my children’s future for something that will be of negligible impact. For what you say. It’s the problem it’s supposed to solve. So it it it defies reason, I guess, is one way to say, where they, where they’re using these estimates and they’re always rosy estimates. Right. And, you know, I bet if you went back five years, let’s say. Yeah, five years and looked at what estimates they were giving, then I think they would be much lower than the estimates that they’re giving now.

David Blackmon [00:14:17] So question about.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:14:18] You know, people get promised to let’s go on this trajectory. It’ll only cost this much. And then as they become more and more committed, I feel like it’s almost, it’s a deception to people because they’ve been deceived into embarking on this path. And then once you go down that path a certain way, it’s like you’ve committed so much, they they don’t want to stop this. It’s like, oh, well, if we it’ll just be a little bit more. And but that, that cost never seems to end.

David Blackmon [00:14:46] It’s the old boiling the frog strategy, right? We’re all the frog. We’re the frog and they’re the boilers. And they boil us to a certain level, and then they let us stew for a little bit and until we’re paralyzed, and then they turn up the heat and boil us a little more, with with heart. I mean, we have the chairman of Siemens AG Siemens Energy AG in this article in the Telegraph last week, complaining, I’m actually complaining that his company and others in the wind industry, big company, huge companies like Orsted and BP in Ecuador just aren’t getting enough money from the government and raising costs of energy on ratepayers enough to make his company sustainable. Right and profit, right? I mean, and it’s just I mean, he’s telling the truth, but he does it in a way in which we’re the bad guys, right? We’re the bad guys for not being willing to double or triple. The incredibly ridiculous bills are already paying. And that’s just kind of illustrative of the attitude. And and particularly in the wind industry more than any other, as I said.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:15:59] Well, I thought there was an article this morning. I just saw the headline. I haven’t read it yet where the solar producers are making the same case as the Siemens guy.

David Blackmon [00:16:09] I haven’t seen that yet. You need to send me email.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:16:12] You know, complaining that, you know, we need more government subsidy and ratepayers need to pay more and so on and so forth. It’s like, well, wait a second, I thought they were cheaper. I thought it was cheaper then, then gas and coal and and everything. So now it’s not cheaper. So but.

David Blackmon [00:16:29] It’s just, it’s just around the corner. The cheapness is just around the corner. It’s always just around the corner.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:16:35] Except the, the the activist and their, their government supporters. They throw that out all the time. Wind and solar is cheaper than gas and coal on a whatever levelized cost basis, which is garbage. And even using the level, if the levelized cost basis was cheaper, then why do they need more government subsidy? Why do they need any government subsidy at all? And then to try and compare normal tax write offs in the oil and gas industry and the coal industry as being a government subsidy, I find that just so offensive. I think we had a rant about that on the other podcast. We did go.

David Blackmon [00:17:13] I did I yeah, rant about that a lot. That was probably me that I it just makes me so angry to see that because, you know, they’re talking about, you know, standard tax treatments that are available to every industry.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:17:26] Every company,

David Blackmon [00:17:27] Free country, you know, and it kind of brings me to the point and, and, I don’t know, I probably make this point too often, but I think all of this is really when you in particular, you looked at the comments made by the Siemens guy. It’s talking about we need long term plans. We need to have long term plans. And the point I always make about this is what China, China’s really good at making and executing long term plans, because it’s a communist country that doesn’t have free and fair elections. But in the countries in Europe, even in Germany, where he lives, which, you know, God knows, their government has tried its best to go back to some some form of fascism or authoritarianism over time. And in the United States, in Canada, in the UK, we have these troublesome things that interfere with long term plans, call elections. And there’s a post supposedly free and fair elections. We hope there. But isn’t that kind of incompatible with the long term plans that these these grifting, rent seeking companies and industries want? I mean, how how is that sustainable? Again, it goes back to the whole sustainability question about this whole transition.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:18:44] Well, one of the interesting things was it was back in, I think 2020. Yeah, it was the fall of 2020. And Mark Carney, Janet Yellen and a couple of other banking type people put together a report and they were outlining how they could make the energy transition happen through finance. And Mark Carney’s argument was we need to work with people on both sides of the aisle so that no matter what parties in power, the course will stay the same. And then then the other thing that he was they were promoting in that in that report was to have, what did he call it? It was like a committee that would make the policy decisions that would be at arm’s length from government. Right. And I think from.

David Blackmon [00:19:34] The remember.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:19:35] It from the politicians. Yeah, right. Remove it from the democratic process. And I thought, well, that’s a bad idea. And then you’re gonna have some unelected appointed people appointed based on what, affiliation and alignment with the trajectory that they, that they wish to take at all. And then they’re completely unaccountable. I mean, the good thing about elections, whether you like them or not, is that they can, in some circumstances, hold politicians to account for decisions they’ve made. Of course, there’s lots of this sort of, manipulation during elections in terms of narrative and whatnot that convinces people to vote for one side or another, and they sometimes have a lot of regret after they vote. But I do, you know, I was swayed in this moment of passion or whatever. And then, you know, ended up I didn’t want that, you know, voters remorse or whatever, but to then to try and codify this, to create this standalone committee that will be making these decisions is incredibly dangerous and sounds an awful lot like more like China or some sort of corporatist system. And I use the term corporatism, and most people have no idea what that means. But if you look it up, it’s it’s kind of I use corporatism because fascism has such a bad reputation. It’s been overused. But that is the the how the fascist system operated where you had whoever was in leadership would talk to a few, leaders of industry and say, these are the goals we want. You must execute them. You must carry them out or else. And I my sense is that this is the sort of direction we’re going and that is fundamentally anti-democratic. Even if you’re voting for somebody, it’s still anti-democratic.

David Blackmon [00:21:28] Yeah. I mean, you can actually see a prime example of that reality at the WEF conference every year in Davos because we were the attendees. Well, they’re their government apparatchiks, like Mark Carney, like John Kerry, like, you know, and and they’re, they’re, grifter grifting, activists like al Gore. And and they are corporate leaders like Bill gates, and like the CEOs of Apple. And, I mean, you just go down the list, that’s who is at Davos making all these decisions and commitments, not just on the part of their companies, but on the part of their countries. And, so it’s you know, I had an uncle who was a really smart guy who who referred to it all as corporate socialism, you know, and he’s long since dead, but, he was pretty visionary. This was back in the 80s and 90s. He said that that was the direction our society is going, where a handful of powerful corporations, work with bureaucrats and some elected officials to determine the direction of the country. And, I think that’s frankly what we’re seeing playing out right now in real time, don’t you?

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:22:48] Yes. You know, it’s funny. It’s it’s how they the the the the lingo is changed. The lexicon is changed always. So whenever it starts, like ESG, when it starts to have, a negative connotation, then it gets switched to something else, and I suspect it’ll be something like corporate social responsibility again, because CSR was really big in the 70s, and 80s that Milt Friedman really pushed against. And then you’ve got, you know, maybe they’ll talk about, corporate sustainability. So I see sustainability coming in, more than the then the ESG. And what I, what I think is so fascinating and terrifying at the same time is that while there’s these political discussions going on and there’s the energy realities that are going on, there are certain instruments being put in place on a foundational level. And this is where the ESG comes in, which is the sustainability and climate related financial disclosures. And the EU, they they’ve come into force this year. So some of the changes and protests that are going on in Europe, I wouldn’t be surprised if somehow it’s related to these new disclosures because even though they they they’re meant for really large corporations, it’s meant to flow down the entire supply chain. So let’s say a group like Nestle or a large food producer, or a corporation that uses a lot of, agricultural goods in their supply chain, they would be asking for all this information from their suppliers. Is this one of the reasons why the Dutch and the. Well, I know why the Dutch are protesting, but the German and the French in particular are like, oh my gosh, there’s all this new paperwork we have to do. I have to hire somebody to do my paperwork. But you’re taking away the amount of land I can farm, so I have less yield, but I can’t, and I also can’t use as much fertilizer and pest control and herbicides. You keep saying, I can’t do this and I can’t do that. So my yields are even smaller. And yet I’m asked to to fill out all these new forms to explain, you know, whatever. And I can’t make, make, make a living. So, you know, I, I see the way the narrative went and I’m sorry to segway into the, into the farmer protest here. No, this.

David Blackmon [00:25:20] Is actually this was coming to my mind at the same time you were doing that. Yeah.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:25:24] So yeah. So I saw the way the narrative was being constructed around the protests in France, and they were going on about how it’s about, foreign agricultural goods coming into the EU who aren’t as environmentally responsible and so on and so forth. But the reality was they the farmers have to pay more input costs for their diesel fuel. They’re being told they’re going to have to go electric. Not sure how, all of their electrical costs and everything else have gone through the roof, what little subsidy they got on the fuel, because they probably got exempt from various fuel taxes and whatnot. They want to remove they want to rip it off like a Band-Aid. And so the compromise is that, oh, well, phase it in over three years, you can get used to not having as much revenue. And then all of these other net zero policies and, and the farmers are like, no, this is enough. There’s not going to be enough food. People are going to starve. You’re going to put us out of business. What are you doing? And so because there’s the EU elections coming up in May, June or whatever. Yeah. They said, oh yeah, yeah, we’ll do we’ll take care of it will reduce your red tape burden. You know, we’ll phase this in and whatever. And it what are the farmers to do? Do they, do they call the bluff and say, you’re not going to do this. You’re just, you know, delaying it’s a delay tactic. Or if they say it’s a delay tactic, what do they do that do they continue to siege, lay siege to Brussels? Yeah I don’t I don’t see that. I think that would be I don’t think they would do that because they have seating that’s coming up. So yeah.

David Blackmon [00:27:05] How do we how do we explain that? Speaking of the UK, so we see this, trend now in, in the Western democracies, liberal governments being replaced by more conservative governments in Italy and all, all kinds of other countries, even in candidate, it looks like next year’s elections, the liberals are in really bad spot right now. But in the UK it’s the Tories who have controlled the government, I think for 12 years now who are about to be replaced by the Labor Party, which, you know, might as well be a Communist party. So how do we explain that that happening in the UK, while while most of the Western world is moving in the other direction?

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:27:49] That’s a good question. With respect to the UK. It’s when I would put forward and I know this will be a bit controversial. I would put forward that when David Cameron took over the party, you know, he came in whenever he made it more progressive, he made it a Progressive Conservative party. And when he moved further, left, there were the older, more conservative Tories who thought, well, at least, you know, will will be in power and maybe we can make some changes within as we go forward. And when they were first elected, it was with, it was a minority government and they had a coalition with the Liberal Democrats which made that made it even more left wing. So I feel like there’s a lot of traditional conservatives, and I don’t think there’s that many of them in the Conservative Party that have been elected, who are bristling at all this and see that, you know, this isn’t the right course of action. And so there’s a new party called reform, which, I think Nigel Farage helped set up, but it’s being run by Richard Tice. And, you know, aside from JB news and maybe the Telegraph once in a while, they don’t get very much coverage. So people are they even aware, although they’ve been increasing in the polls, I think they’re up to 14% support in the what they call the red wall area, which is more working class. It’s pretty substantial. And there’s a couple of, former conservative MPs who have switched and said that they will run for reform. So I don’t know. But I think even if reform does manage to secure a bunch of votes, will they get any seats? I don’t know. Will they take away votes from the Tories and allow for a runaway labor government? Probably. So it’s you know, it would be up to the Tories to do what reform did in the last election. Reform said we won’t contest in these ridings. We’ll leave it because we, we don’t want to get stuck with a hung parliament. And so the Tories ended up with a majority and they’ve squandered it, to be honest. And you know, it would.

David Blackmon [00:30:06] Like.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:30:06] See. Yeah. Right. And and as long as you keep they ended up codifying the net zero plan. And they didn’t disband the climate change committee which is a disaster. And and so as long as they were that those things were still there and then they passed this new energy bill that is not conservative at all. I mean, labor money as well.

David Blackmon [00:30:31] Such a disaster. Yeah,

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:30:32]  It’s a disaster. So, I mean, I think. Because they went so progressive, they were happy to be part loosely affiliated with the with the progressive movement. And what’s interesting is Ursula von der Linde is actually, a representative from the more supposedly center right.

David Blackmon [00:30:52] I know.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:30:53] You know, but but what I’ve always argued to people in Canada and the United States is that Europe and the UK have gone so far, left that what’s considered a conservative in Europe or the UK is the equivalent of like a semi socialist lite party. You know, Ralph Nader, right, is really representative of what they are. So yeah,

David Blackmon [00:31:20] Same thing, same things happen in America. You know, if you go back and look at John F Kennedy. You know, who for for many decades was a hero of the Democratic Party. But when you go back and look at the policies John F Kennedy govern, they would, reject him as a far right lunatic today.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:31:40] Yeah. I mean.

David Blackmon [00:31:41] Really, truly. And. It’s so it’s just it’s the current Democratic Party is just unrecognizable from what it was just 20 years ago. And, and the Republicans have moved so far to the left to it’s, it’s just we don’t get a really huge contrast when the Republicans, get control of things. So, it’s and it’s the same.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:32:04] Thing in Canada. It’s the same thing in Canada, where the exact party used to be the sort of party of business and really, really center and the party sort of a Bay Street. But then the conservatives kind of became more the party of Bay Street, which is like Wall Street, I guess in Canada,.

David Blackmon [00:32:21] Wall Street.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:32:23] Right. And so when Trudeau came in, he pushed the party really far left. And so, one of the, the groups behind, Trudeau’s rise is Canada 2020, which is part of the Global Progress initiative that was set up by John Podesta and the center for American Progress. And they work quite, quite a lot together. At least, you know, they they sometimes participate in conferences together and so on. And I think it was last year, the year before, Trudeau’s former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, who now works for the Eurasia Group. And was quite involved with Canada 2020, did a joint conference with John Podesta in Washington about Canada-U.S. relations. Actually, it was after it was in 2021, after Biden, took power. So, I mean, there’s those those connections where even Canada has gone so far left that the Liberal Party, which used to be center, sounds more like the NDP, which is why the New Democrat Party, which is basically our Socialist Party. And in Canada, yeah, it’s happy to support the liberals because they’re getting everything they want anyway, because they’re are both in alignment with the same thing. So.

David Blackmon [00:33:34] Well, now you all know why John Podesta is taking John Kerry’s place as Joe Biden’s climate czar. You know, just look into his background a little bit, folks. You’ll be shocked. Anyway, we’re we are running up against time. These half hours go so fast. Before we go, let everyone know where they can find you and, read your stuff and keep up with you.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:34:00] You can, check out my website, the Nemeth report.com. That’s where I’ve got links to the Energy Realities podcast that we do. My own independent podcast that I do called The Nemeth Report. I do post quite a lot on LinkedIn rather than X because I haven’t paid the subscription for X, and so I’m limited to what I can say. So, you know, LinkedIn is where I do most of my writing spontaneously, and then sometimes I’m unpublished in, in other places, like the Financial Post in Canada. So yeah, that’s where people can check it out. The Nemeth report.com.

David Blackmon [00:34:36] She’s brilliant, folks. Keep up with her. She. You know, you’ll learn an awful lot. I learn things from her every day. And why I’m always so happy when she agrees to come out on the podcast. Thank you Tammy, really appreciate it.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:34:48] Thanks, David. Thank you so much.

David Blackmon [00:34:50] And thanks to Stuart Turley in the sandstorm Group for hosting the podcast, our extraordinary producer Eric Parel. I’m David Blackmon. That is all for today. And cut. Okay. There we go. Thank you. Awesome.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:35:04] Thank you.

David Blackmon [00:35:05] That was easy. I was easy.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:35:07] That was easy. So, did you know that John Podesta was known as Obama’s climate fixer? And when. Think. Yeah. So when things were looking bad with the cap and trade, he was supposed to shepherd it through Congress, which actually didn’t work very good.

David Blackmon [00:35:22] And quite frankly.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:35:23] Didn’t quite work out. Yeah. So yeah.

David Blackmon [00:35:26] And he had a big, climate role in the Clinton administration. You know, every time a Democrat gets elected, John Podesta shows up somewhere. Yeah. You know, he’s a. Well, we’re still recording. Cyborg won’t be too blunt about what he actually is, but he’s a pretty bad human being. But. So it’s not surprising he shows up in the white House every time there’s a Democrat there. It’s really, really. We’re being governed by some really awful human beings at this point. And, really a scary situation. But anyway, I hope you have a good, good weekend and we’ll talk to you Monday morning.

Dr. Tammy Nemeth [00:36:07] See you on Monday. Thanks so much for having me on the show. All right. Bye. And.