'Severance' Vs 'The Pitt' -- It's Emmy Nominations Time
Nominees will be announced in a live-streamed ceremony starting at 8:30 am (1530 GMT), after which final-round voting begins for the 77th Emmy Awards, set for September 14.
Here are five things to look out for:
After last year's record-breaking 18 Emmys for Japan-set historical epic "Shogun," this year's competition looks to be more nuanced.
Apple TV+'s "Severance," in which employees of biotech company Lumon have their memories surgically separated between their "innie" work lives and their "outie" personal lives, looks to be atop most predictions.
"It's a really great show that is going to get... a ton of nominations," Deadline awards expert Pete Hammond told AFP.
"It'll be stronger than it was" in its first season, added Hammond, who sees star Adam Scott as a sure bet for a best drama actor nod.
"The Pitt" -- HBO Max's take on the travails of a Pittsburgh emergency room team during one 15-hour shift, covered effectively in real time -- has won over critics and audiences alike. It stars "ER" veteran Noah Wyle.
"It's ER on steroids!" Hammond quipped.
But Wyle's chances to win for best actor are crimped by Scott and a shortlist of other performers including Oscar winner Gary Oldman in Apple's dysfunctional spy drama "Slow Horses" or Pedro Pascal in HBO's apocalyptic video game adaptation "The Last of Us."
In the supporting acting categories, the many stars of "The White Lotus" are expected to earn nominations.
In the comedy categories, perennial favorites "Hacks" and "The Bear" are expected to do battle once again.
HBO Max's "Hacks" -- starring Jean Smart as a stand-up comedian who locks horns with her dysfunctional millennial assistant -- won for best comedy and best actress in September last year.
"The Bear," a dark satire set in the Chicago restaurant world, took the top prize at the previous ceremony (held in January 2024 due to Hollywood strikes), and star Jeremy Allen White has two trophies for best actor.
"The Bear" is eligible this time for its lackluster third season, but the recent launch of its fourth season -- which has received excellent reviews -- could work in its favor, Hammond says.
"That may be what Academy members will be looking at when they're actually voting for the season that wasn't well reviewed," he said.
The comedy juggernauts are also facing a newcomer -- Apple's "The Studio," a satire that eviscerates the film industry starring Seth Rogen, who also wrote and produced the show. There is nothing Hollywood loves more than a show about... Hollywood.
In the limited series categories, Netflix's "Adolescence" -- which follows the case of a 13-year-old British boy accused of murdering a female classmate -- is the wide favorite.
"It's close to a sure thing in terms of getting nominations across the board," Hammond said, adding: "I don't see what's going to come up and beat it in the limited series category."
Breakout young star Owen Cooper is widely expected to earn a nomination for limited series supporting actor, and series creator Stephen Graham is a shoo-in for best actor.
The four-part series was lauded for its production values, with each episode shot in one take.
Another Netflix contender in these categories is "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story," a true-crime saga about a pair of California brothers in prison for killing their parents, after what they say was years of sexual and physical abuse.
Alfonso Cuaron's "Disclaimer," starring Cate Blanchett and Kevin Kline, and "The Penguin," with Colin Farrell as the comic book villain, are expected to win acting nominations.
In recent years, streaming services have led the charge for Emmy nominations, with traditional networks relegated to a handful of nods.
With "Severance," "The Studio," "Disclaimer" and "Slow Horses," Apple TV+ could have its best year yet.
"Normally we see HBO and Netflix leading the thing," Hammond said, but he predicted: "Apple is going to have the best year they've ever had in terms of nominations."
Harvey Guillen ("What We Do in the Shadows") and Brenda Song ("Running Point") will unveil the nominations on Tuesday.
Voting members of the US-based Television Academy will then have a month to catch up on their viewing before final-round voting begins in mid-August.
The September 14 gala will be hosted by comedian Nate Bargatze. Noah Wyle is the star of the acclaimed medical drama 'The Pitt' AFP Pedro Pascal is expected to earn an Emmy nomination for season two of 'The Last of Us' AFP Jean Smart won the best comedy actress Emmy in 2024 for 'Hacks' -- can she do it again? AFP 'The Bear' star Jeremy Allen White will also be looking for an Emmy repeat AFP British co-creator, writer, executive producer and actor Stephen Graham (R) and British actor Owen Cooper wowed critics in Netflix's 'Adolescence' AFP Seth Rogen could help Apple TV+ secure more Emmy nominations with 'The Studio' AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
15-07-2025
- Int'l Business Times
'Severance' Leads Emmy Nominations With 27
Apple TV+'s dark sci-fi office drama "Severance" on Tuesday led the contenders for the Emmy Awards, television's version of the Oscars, with a whopping 27 nominations. "The Penguin," HBO Max's Batman villain spinoff series, came in second with 24. Two satires -- HBO Max's skewering of the rich, "The White Lotus," and Apple's new Hollywood cringe fest, "The Studio" -- tied for third with 23 nominations each. In the comedy categories, behind "The Studio" were two past winners: "Hacks" at 14 and "The Bear" at 13. The announcement from the Television Academy marks the official start of the race to the 77th Emmy Awards, set for September 14 in Los Angeles. After last year's record-breaking 18 Emmy Awards for Japan-set historical epic "Shogun," this year's drama competition looks to be more nuanced. "Severance," in which employees of biotech company Lumon have their memories surgically separated between their "innie" work lives and their "outie" personal lives, is clearly the early favorite, with star Adam Scott a nominee for best actor. But he will compete with "ER" veteran Noah Wyle, who leads "The Pitt" -- HBO Max's take on the travails of a Pittsburgh emergency room team during one 15-hour shift, effectively filmed in real time. "It's ER on steroids!" Deadline awards expert Pete Hammond told AFP of the show, which earned 13 nods. Also competing for best drama honors are Disney+'s "Star Wars" offshoot "Andor," Netflix's "The Diplomat," HBO's apocalyptic video game adaptation "The Last of Us," Hulu political thriller "Paradise," Apple's spy drama "Slow Horses," and "The White Lotus." Scott and Wyle have stiff competition for best actor: Oscar winner Gary Oldman in "Slow Horses," Pedro Pascal ("The Last of Us") and Sterling K. Brown ("Paradise"). Scott's co-star Britt Lower is a nominee for best drama actress, alongside Bella Ramsey ("The Last of Us") and Keri Russell ("The Diplomat"). "The White Lotus" earned a slew of acting nominations in the supporting categories. "The Penguin" is competing for best limited series honors against "Dying for Sex" (FX) and three Netflix efforts: buzzy teen murder saga "Adolescence," "Black Mirror," and true-crime saga "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story." "Adolescence" breakout star Owen Cooper, who plays a 13-year-old British boy accused of murdering a female classmate, earned a nomination for supporting actor. "Monsters," the story of a pair of California brothers in prison for killing their parents after what they say was years of sexual and physical abuse, earned acting nods for Cooper Koch, Javier Bardem and Chloe Sevigny. In the comedy categories, new series "The Studio," a satire starring Seth Rogen that eviscerates the film industry, emerged as a clear favorite. Rogen also wrote and produced the show, which earned acting nominations for Ike Barinholtz, Kathryn Hahn, Catherine O'Hara and six guest performers. "Hacks" -- starring Jean Smart as a stand-up comedian who locks horns with her dysfunctional millennial assistant -- won for best comedy and best actress in September last year, and is nominated again in those categories. "The Bear," a dark satire set in the Chicago restaurant world, took the top prize at the previous ceremony (held in January 2024 due to Hollywood strikes), and its star Jeremy Allen White has two trophies for best actor. Beyond those three, other nominees for best comedy series are ABC's mockumentary-style sitcom "Abbott Elementary," rom-com "Nobody Wants This" (Netflix), Hulu's "Only Murders in the Building," Apple's "Shrinking," and FX's vampire laugh riot "What We Do in the Shadows." Harvey Guillen ("What We Do in the Shadows") and Brenda Song ("Running Point") unveiled the key nominations in a livestreamed ceremony. Voting members of the US-based Television Academy will then have a month to catch up on their viewing before final-round voting begins in mid-August. The September 14 gala will be hosted by comedian Nate Bargatze. Noah Wyle is the star of the acclaimed medical drama 'The Pitt,' which earned 13 Emmy nominations AFP Seth Rogen's 'The Studio' led the way among the comedy contenders for the Emmys AFP British co-creator, writer, executive producer and actor Stephen Graham (R) and British actor Owen Cooper wowed critics in Netflix's 'Adolescence' -- both earned Emmy nominations AFP Jean Smart won the best comedy actress Emmy in 2024 for 'Hacks' -- can she do it again? AFP
Int'l Business Times
14-07-2025
- Int'l Business Times
'Severance' Vs 'The Pitt' -- It's Emmy Nominations Time
Dark sci-fi office drama "Severance," gritty hospital series "The Pitt" and buzzy teen murder saga "Adolescence" are expected to pile up nominations for this year's Emmys when the contenders for television's Oscars are revealed Tuesday. Nominees will be announced in a live-streamed ceremony starting at 8:30 am (1530 GMT), after which final-round voting begins for the 77th Emmy Awards, set for September 14. Here are five things to look out for: After last year's record-breaking 18 Emmys for Japan-set historical epic "Shogun," this year's competition looks to be more nuanced. Apple TV+'s "Severance," in which employees of biotech company Lumon have their memories surgically separated between their "innie" work lives and their "outie" personal lives, looks to be atop most predictions. "It's a really great show that is going to get... a ton of nominations," Deadline awards expert Pete Hammond told AFP. "It'll be stronger than it was" in its first season, added Hammond, who sees star Adam Scott as a sure bet for a best drama actor nod. "The Pitt" -- HBO Max's take on the travails of a Pittsburgh emergency room team during one 15-hour shift, covered effectively in real time -- has won over critics and audiences alike. It stars "ER" veteran Noah Wyle. "It's ER on steroids!" Hammond quipped. But Wyle's chances to win for best actor are crimped by Scott and a shortlist of other performers including Oscar winner Gary Oldman in Apple's dysfunctional spy drama "Slow Horses" or Pedro Pascal in HBO's apocalyptic video game adaptation "The Last of Us." In the supporting acting categories, the many stars of "The White Lotus" are expected to earn nominations. In the comedy categories, perennial favorites "Hacks" and "The Bear" are expected to do battle once again. HBO Max's "Hacks" -- starring Jean Smart as a stand-up comedian who locks horns with her dysfunctional millennial assistant -- won for best comedy and best actress in September last year. "The Bear," a dark satire set in the Chicago restaurant world, took the top prize at the previous ceremony (held in January 2024 due to Hollywood strikes), and star Jeremy Allen White has two trophies for best actor. "The Bear" is eligible this time for its lackluster third season, but the recent launch of its fourth season -- which has received excellent reviews -- could work in its favor, Hammond says. "That may be what Academy members will be looking at when they're actually voting for the season that wasn't well reviewed," he said. The comedy juggernauts are also facing a newcomer -- Apple's "The Studio," a satire that eviscerates the film industry starring Seth Rogen, who also wrote and produced the show. There is nothing Hollywood loves more than a show about... Hollywood. In the limited series categories, Netflix's "Adolescence" -- which follows the case of a 13-year-old British boy accused of murdering a female classmate -- is the wide favorite. "It's close to a sure thing in terms of getting nominations across the board," Hammond said, adding: "I don't see what's going to come up and beat it in the limited series category." Breakout young star Owen Cooper is widely expected to earn a nomination for limited series supporting actor, and series creator Stephen Graham is a shoo-in for best actor. The four-part series was lauded for its production values, with each episode shot in one take. Another Netflix contender in these categories is "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story," a true-crime saga about a pair of California brothers in prison for killing their parents, after what they say was years of sexual and physical abuse. Alfonso Cuaron's "Disclaimer," starring Cate Blanchett and Kevin Kline, and "The Penguin," with Colin Farrell as the comic book villain, are expected to win acting nominations. In recent years, streaming services have led the charge for Emmy nominations, with traditional networks relegated to a handful of nods. With "Severance," "The Studio," "Disclaimer" and "Slow Horses," Apple TV+ could have its best year yet. "Normally we see HBO and Netflix leading the thing," Hammond said, but he predicted: "Apple is going to have the best year they've ever had in terms of nominations." Harvey Guillen ("What We Do in the Shadows") and Brenda Song ("Running Point") will unveil the nominations on Tuesday. Voting members of the US-based Television Academy will then have a month to catch up on their viewing before final-round voting begins in mid-August. The September 14 gala will be hosted by comedian Nate Bargatze. Noah Wyle is the star of the acclaimed medical drama 'The Pitt' AFP Pedro Pascal is expected to earn an Emmy nomination for season two of 'The Last of Us' AFP Jean Smart won the best comedy actress Emmy in 2024 for 'Hacks' -- can she do it again? AFP 'The Bear' star Jeremy Allen White will also be looking for an Emmy repeat AFP British co-creator, writer, executive producer and actor Stephen Graham (R) and British actor Owen Cooper wowed critics in Netflix's 'Adolescence' AFP Seth Rogen could help Apple TV+ secure more Emmy nominations with 'The Studio' AFP
DW
04-07-2025
- DW
Epilogue: The true cost of climate change – DW – 07/04/2025
Even in five episodes, we couldn't cover everything. So in this bonus epilogue, Neil and Kathleen sit down with reporters Sam Baker and Charli Shield to unpack some questions we left on the cutting room floor – from the messy consequences of outdated US flood maps to why helping poorer countries leapfrog fossil fuels matters to us all – plus your comments, a few laughs, and final reflections. Transcript: Kathleen: Hey, this is Kathleen. Before we get started, the Living Planet team has some exciting news. Starting in September, we'll be devoting a regular episode to answering your questions. Questions you have about the environment and climate change, questions about an episode you've heard, or even questions about us you can write to us in the comment section on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or your favorite podcast app. Or you can send us a good old fashioned e-mail at livingplanet@ That's living as in 'not dead' and planet as in 'the place we all live' at Thanks and we can't wait to hear from you. Now let's start the show there. Sam: There we go. Kathleen: Now I can hear you. Can I hear me? Charli: Hello. Hello. Hello, hello. Neil: Oh wow, that's loud. So do you need any more talking, Michael? Sam: From me, ok, what else can I talk about? I am so brain dead. Kathleen: Do you bring the right script this time? Neil: Yeah, this time I think I've got notes. Charli: I think we should say who we are. Sam: Yeah, I think you should include that. Neil: Right, well, in that case, I think we can just start right from the top. I'm Neil King. Kathleen: I'm Kathleen Schuster. Neil: And for this episode of Living Planet, we sat down with producers Charli Shield and Sam Baker to talk about their eye-opening series, 'The true cost of climate change,' which came out in April. Kathleen: If you haven't heard it yet, you can find all five episodes in our podcast feed. Neil: And if you're new to the series don't worry you can still listen to this episode. Kathleen: We talk about what listeners have been saying. Sam: And I was like, OK, an economist signed off on it. I think we did OK. Neil: What didn't make it in. Charli: I definitely have mixed feelings at the end of it, but doing the series, it's clear we're not out of ideas for solutions. Kathleen: And more. Charli: And I did say to Brent at the end of our interview, I said, 'Has anyone ever told you that you're made for radio your voice?' And he was like, 'It's been mentioned a few times.' Neil: Cost of climate change brand new series, done and dusted. Charli, Sam, how do you feel now? It was quite a long process. You traveled for this series you reported from Australia, from the US, from Europe, Germany. And you packed a hell of a lot in. And today we'll also be talking about some of the stuff that didn't make it in. Not because it wasn't good enough, but because you just found so much good stuff, right? But how does it feel now in general now that the series is done? Charli: Sam's looking at me. I feel good. I'm glad it's over. I think it was super interesting to work on. It was really engrossing and it required a lot of research, but I loved working on it and I'm glad it's out in the world, yeah. Sam: I feel like we just scratched the surface, to be honest. I feel like I could make a whole podcast about this. Maybe not that much, but yeah, I think there's so much more to explore in the intersection of economics and, you know, just our, like, daily money quandaries and climate change. It had before been kind of a area I hadn't looked into very much. But the problem is only going to grow and become more clear in our economies, so I'm sure there will be more reporting on that. Neil: Yeah, I mean the also the figures that you packed in there, I think in every episode I learned something new and some of the figures it was really eye-opening. It was like, oh wow, I did not know that that is a huge figure and you put it into context as well and just highlighted just how precious the environment really is and what it contributes to our economies as well, because I think a lot of people still try to separate those two, but you can't really, or at least that's my main take away from this series that you really shouldn't separate the two. But yeah, Kathleen, what about you? What stuck with you the most from this series? Kathleen: Well, it wasn't actually any of the numbers, though. Those were always really eye opening. And there was so much good information. But the thing that I find myself thinking about the most, strangely enough is, Sam, your interview with Catherine McKenna, because there was something I just really appreciated about the fact that she was just openly saying, 'We kept getting the name wrong for the carbon tax. And just by the way, don't call it a carbon tax.' And there was something very like a little bit like 'Veep' about that. Like, you know, just kind of like we're not getting this right and it just felt very human and it's not usually how we hear about environmental politics of yeah, we're also trying to figure out how to do this the best way and we keep messing up, but we keep trying. Yeah, there was just something really humorous about that, but also a serious message in there too, of it's a tough, tough job and there are a lot of people who care very much, but they're not immune to accidentally, not picking the right word like in terms of PR. But yeah, I'm sure I could go on there were there are just so many things. But what about you, Neil? Neil: I mean, one thing I really do remember thinking, wow and sitting back was the final episode with the kelp forests. There were quite a few stats in there. I mean, I didn't know much about kelp forests to begin with. I first thought, well, kelp forest, what did they even look like? I didn't know. And then that the fact that they can grow 30 centimeters a day. I was like, wow, I want that in my garden. Mick Baron: Diving through the kelp forest is a unique experience, but effectively flying through a tall tree forest 3 dimensional not just looking up, but looking down looking down these massive great plants and then looking up because it has a canopy as well so it spreads out on the surface. So when it's really thick, you're down in 20 meters of water and you're looking up these massive great trunks effectively. And the and the sunlight dappling through the canopy on the surface. It's it is a very unique experience, no question about that. Neil: And then the other fact was also the value that they were valued at like $500 billion per year. These six major kelp forests that exist in the world or the the six biggest and one of them that you you went to in Tasmania Charlie, right, the one of the kelp forests and and that $500 billion, the reason that resonated with me so much, because that is pretty much exactly the German federal budget. It's a bit short of that, but that's the German federal budget for 2025. And as a German taxpayer, I was just sitting there thinking, wait a minute... kelp forests? You know just that connection that that really brought it home to me. But yeah, also, I mean the protagonists. You have so many charismatic people in there. And yeah, I think we'll we'll talk a bit more about those later. Kathleen: There is one other thing that I meant to say that I found really interesting. And that was in the very first episode when you were talking about hurricanes, somebody who has been through a number of tropical storms and tropical depressions and hurricanes, I was absolutely shocked at the description of the storm surge coming so far in and that they saw fish like going down the street. And I thought, that was something I had never thought about. Number one, I thought maybe the fish were still way far out at sea. Maybe somehow they were spared from the the surge, which doesn't make any sense, but also because the kind of community where they were living, that's really uncommon for the storm surge to reach that far. And that I found eye opening having yeah, been through those experiences where if you're in a safe area, it's a really serious storm. It's a bad storm, but it's not like. Like that sort of description that actually it reminded me of something I read in a novel once about, like what, Like a hurricane in the early 20th century and how it swept through an entire town and I thought that is really alarming. Really, really alarming. Sam: Yeah, I got a new appreciation for hurricanes, for sure. Working on that episode. I mean, I've lived through tornadoes in the Midwest. But it's like a thunderstorm and a tornado and a flood. Basically they it's, you know, multiple disasters, all kind of wrapped up into one terrible storm. Maria Blancett: We looked out our front window to the lake, across the street from our house and the lake and the road were one. And the road was a raging river was like the ocean. There were white caps going down the street. There were fish in the road. It was pretty scary, but it never came up to our house. It came within 10 feet of our front door. And that's when we realized maybe this isn't are forever home. Neil: I was also wondering, you know, because you've also been doing environment stories for such a long time and you've also worked on other podcasts as well. What sort of feedback have you been getting from the people who usually listen to your work on this series? Has it been different? Charli: Yeah, I mean, it's always a little bit of a risk with this series. You hope people will stay and they'll keep listening to each episode. But yeah, we had some really nice feedback about the stories taking people in to these issues and then just talking about some more fundamental stuff that I think often you kind of forget about when you're reading environmental news day-to-day. Sam: I think the best, most relieving piece of feedback was from one of the economists we interviewed who said he not only like shared this with his network, but also with his students, he's a professor and I was like, OK, an economist signed off on it, I think we did OK yeah. Neil: Very cool. Yeah, I mean, that also deals with what listeners wrote in most of the listeners. I think the common theme there was eye opening, brilliantly produced. That was sort of a recurring theme. And there's one listener e-mail I'd like to just read out. It's from Australia, from a man called Peter Croft in Adelaide. And yeah, I shortened it just a little bit, but I'm going to read it out. So this is Peter Croft. 'I listened to your latest podcast on who's paying for the next hurricane on ABC Radio in Australia a couple of hours ago. Terrific story. Well done. I am an older Australian who is part of a climate change group at Council of the Aging South Australia. The cost of house insurance is a real issue for older people. The issue is that as extreme weather events occur, those who are affordability stressed may choose not to insure or to under insure their houses. This means that their next storm or flood can render them potentially homeless. We are trying to raise awareness of the issue. New Zealand has an excellent scheme to cover earthquakes and their approach may be useful elsewhere. Thank you for the work that you do. Sam: Hmm, that's nice. We'll have to check out what New Zealand is doing. I'm curious now about the specifics, but yeah, I think that's something that a lot of it's it's good, he points out older homeowners are thinking about people who thought, OK, I've paid my house off, you know, 10-15 years ago. I'm good to go for retirement, but you still have to pay your insurance every year, and if that becomes astronomical, you know that can take over your budget and either you, pay it and don't have much leftover or you let it go, which can really hurt you in the next disaster. Neil: Just to balance things out, of course there was also some critique. Not much, but there was one listener who actually had a suggestion or a bit of critique. Kathleen: Yeah, there was one listener who wrote in from the US who said, 'I really enjoyed the cost of climate change series. However, I'm always frustrated that these conversations never touch on animal agriculture. It's a huge contributor to greenhouse gases, and it's the leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. Also, it's one thing that most individuals can actually do to make significant difference. Please, please talk about this because people can and should reduce consumption of animal products!! Two exclamation points. So what do you all have to say about that? Charli: Yeah, we didn't dig too much into animal agriculture in there. So, agriculture, especially animal agriculture, is a huge contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. It's not the top one, but it definitely as this listener points out, is a is a major contributor. So the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions are electricity and heat production. That's followed by transport, manufacturing, construction and agriculture. So that's the global overview. But it does differ from country to country. So in the US, for example, the transport sector contributes a lot to emissions overall, US emissions, much more so than the global average. And in Brazil the top sources of emissions are agriculture and land use change, and I'm getting my data here from our world in data and that's a data tracking and analysis hub project from the University of Oxford in the UK and the global Change Data Lab. Sam: And we should say this listener is totally right, it's one of best things you can personally do in your own life because so many of the things you just listed, Charli, are, you know, national or global, and they take much bigger systemic change to change them and to, you know, bring in a new system. Whereas, yes, you can make decisions about your diet in your own life that are pretty simple to implement so. Charli: But just to that point also it's not just about veganism for everybody tomorrow. It really is just about less. Consuming, less, so any reduction helps. Neil: And also again the price, right cause meat is too cheap where we live. I think that again the money comes back in right, the price tag. Kathleen: So that was one big topic that didn't make it in. And there were a lot of really interesting details and even interviewees who didn't make the cut just because we had to keep things to time. And we only had so many episodes. So tell us a little bit about. Yeah, the things that you unfortunately had to leave out. Sam: Well, like I said before there was just kind of so much to explore and this always happens. You have to leave a few things on the cutting room floor, but one of the things I had wanted to look at in the first episode about climate disasters and the cost of those particularly hurricanes, is how much taxpayers end up footing that bill. I've always kind of wondered about this, and it was something we just enough time to get into. We looked at how much insurance companies are are shelling out or withdrawing from certain states. And we looked at how this affects homeowners and the cost that they incur. But this does kind of hit all Americans, at least in this example. I would imagine it is the case in other countries, too, in that there is some part of disasters that we foot the bill for. So, I spoke to one economist who has worked in mortgage finance on Wall Street for large investors and also, importantly, for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are large government sponsored companies that guarantee mortgages in the US for home buyers and he's actually testified to the US Senate before about how some of these programs that the government has to cover homes in particularly flood zones are kind of a looming financial crisis waiting to happen because the flood maps are outdated and that the data is kind of not up to par with what it should be telling homeowners and the government. So you have these homes that are kind of overvalued and really dangerous zones. So maybe we can hear him explain that a little bit more. Sean Becketti: I worked for a large mortgage originator that did a lot of business in subprime that turned out very, very badly and led to the largest bank failure in U.S. history. So, when we look at a lot of the climate risk issues, there's steady evidence of an increase in very expensive natural disasters and there seems to be a lot of reluctance to make rapid changes now that are gonna be expensive and painful if the day of reckoning has not quite arrived yet. Sam: So he was specifically speaking to me about one program, the National Flood Insurance program, again, that is these homes and and flood zones. But unlike the financial crisis that we saw back in 2007, 2008, where home prices did eventually kind of come back up, if you're in a really dangerous climate zone, whether that's from flooding or a hurricane, the value of your home is just going to go down and down and down over time. So there's kind of no recovery if that crisis comes to pass. Which, as someone who has to file my US taxes every every year, concerns me quite a bit. I don't knowa about you, Kathleen, but... Kathleen: I think it's first thing that comes to mind and is kind of making my heart stop a bit is that I'm from the Southeast and people have seen the value of their homes just explode and are completely ecstatic about all the money they could make from their homes. You know, just growing a lot in value over the past years because so many people are moving to the Southeast as a result of climate change, for example, from the West Coast. As a result, also like post pandemic, though, I think that trend is starting to reverse, like leaving the bigger cities and just wanting more space. And also because the Southeast tends to be a part of the country where there are very low taxes. So it's very attractive place to live. And so I know a lot of people who are like, 'Oh great, my house used to be worth this much now it's like doubled in value within like 3 years.' And when I hear that, you know it, it makes me worry that people are getting their hopes up and something bad can happen. And then all of a sudden their plans that are now centered around how much money they might get out of their houses could. Yeah, just evaporate. Sam: So, yeah, in that part of the country last year, we saw a bit of that, North Carolina, Tennessee Hurricane Helene came into areas that thought they weren't in flood zones. But again because. Kathleen: Yeah, Asheville, North Carolina, which is up in the mountains, flooded. Sam: Yeah. Exactly. So yeah, I think that's something people need to look into a bit more and also all of us who pay taxes, you know, thinking about the fact that we are paying for people to rebuild again and again in these places that are getting more dangerous and at what point do we look to our elected officials and say, OK, enough is enough? We have to think about kind of managed retreat from some of these areas. Kathleen: Yeah, it's a. It's a huge question. I can only imagine what that would mean. If you're really trying to understand the global view, because from country to country, the tax system is going to be different. The social safety net is completely different and emergency services are completely different. And we're also watching that slowly be dismantled in the what else didn't make of it? Neil: Well, I was wondering about the relocation thing more. There are precedents for that, aren't there, where people have been relocated, I think in the Mississippi or on the Mississippi, where they were paid to actually up and leave. And they were offered new housing. I do wonder whether such programs, you know, how much incentive there is there for people to actually give up their homes if they've lived in a place for generations? Sam: Actually, Sean actually told me about a couple of these examples. I think it was in Louisiana in that part of the country that gets hurricanes and and they have offered people money to move. But he said, you know, a lot of people don't take it. Even though in the long term it's kind of the smarter financial choice, not yet. Neil: Because what you do then right, then you can't evict them. There's no legislation for that, is there? Sam: Not yet. Neil: We'll be right back. TRAILER 'Threshold' Sam: Yeah, so you had mentioned before, Kathleen, Catherine McKenna, who is a former Environment Minister of Canada. And yeah, one of the most interesting interviews I think I've ever done, just incredibly candid. And I also appreciated her kind of, I guess it's Midwestern Canada. I don't know what they call that part of the country, but it reminded me of the part of the US I'm from, too, just kind of straight talking. So she talked about just how difficult it is to decarbonize Canada. And we looked at some other examples in that episode, too. But one thing I would have liked to get into more, and we just kind of ran out of time for, with how countries in the Global South are dealing with this transition countries that just have less money available to them to make this transition. And I think they also have a unique, very different opportunity, whereas places like Canada are trying to kind of, you know, pull their energy system over to a new energy system. Countries in the Global South, they're often building their energy system. So it also looks a bit different. But yeah, I think this is one area that there's a lot of conversation about the economics of it going on. So I did speak to an expert Sangeeth Selvaraju, a policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics. He looks at climate finance and emerging markets like India, so he's all over this topic. And he told me this figure that, overall for the Global South, these countries need $2.5 trillion per year in order to transition to clean energy. So $2.5 trillion every year. But let me break that number down a little bit. So basically, $1.5 trillion of that, they're already funding themselves. Another half a trillion is going to come from private finance from companies that want to invest in solar or wind or whatever in these countries. But there's a final half, a trillion that's still kind of unaccounted for. And this is where some of these big global discussions about climate finance really get heated: Who exactly should pay for it? And yeah, maybe we can just hear from him. What kind of explaining that? And the complications of that a little bit. Sangeeth Selvaraju: Where does the rest of the money come from going forward? And what are the avenues for that in the world that we live in today? So as we all know and as we are seeing around the world, development aid budgets are being cut. In a landscape of competing local priorities for different countries, particularly in the developed world. Of course, US aid is one of the key examples, but budgets are being cut in the UK, budgets are being cut in other European countries as well. Sam: I mean, we're seeing this as well here in Germany. Yeah, the US is a big one, obviously in the news lately. But how we meet this gap for, for transitioning the energy of countries in the Global South is a big question. And you know, there's a lot of argument about these countries should be able to develop in the same way that wealthier countries have in the past and also that wealthier countries like the US have huge historic emissions and are kind of, should pay up for that. Should should make up for what they've consumed before. But as we heard, you know, throughout the series, politics usually gets in the way of this. And that seems just kind of unlikely. So, I I also wanted to know from Sangeeth, like, what's the economic argument behind this? And I thought he had a pretty good answer to that. Sangeeth Selvaraju: So if we were to, for a brief moment, set aside. The historic responsibilities climate impacts don't know borders. Climate impacts don't care whether you were born in some part of the world or the other. Climate impacts hit everybody. I mean, just in the second-half of last year, we saw flooding in Valencia, you know, causing hundreds of billions of euros of damage, taking lives. We saw Hurricane Helene in South Carolina and North Carolina, you know, damaging and causing billions of damages. So these impacts will only intensify as we are already beginning to see the wildfires in California and others, there's many others we can go on if we don't think about this as a global problem, we simply will not be. It will be a challenge to solve it. So from an entirely economic point of view, if you want to mitigate the frequency of these these events of climate impacts, which are clearly already increasing but will only intensify if we don't think about what to do, the costs will be astronomical. Kathleen: And it really gets to the heart of your whole miniseries. Sam: Yeah, I think as we're all becoming more aware of maybe recently, like the economy is so globally connected, we don't exist. Just as individuals are in a vacuum, and it's kind of like climate change in a way. Yeah, there's always kind of push and pull factors and you can't kind of just extricate yourself from that. Kathleen: Yeah. And also I loved what he had to say about borders because I can't tell you the number of times I've heard somebody made make a comment to the effect of, well, you know, 'Who cares if this one country in Europe lowers their emissions? It won't make a difference.' And you know, I mean, yeah, on a global scale, we have a huge problem. But it does make a difference if every country is trying to do something, yeah, so. Charli: On that point, I did ask ecological economist, Sophus zu Ermgassen, and who we heard from in episode five, what he thought the most urgent economic reforms we need right now to protect nature at scale for the benefit of all of us, the global population. And he said that that would be funding a clean energy transition, clean economic growth in the Global South. And I have a clip from him about that. Sophus zu Ermgassen: The majority of the world's remaining biodiversity tends to be in the Global South and in tropical areas, and that's partly because a big chunk of the Global North extracted all of its resources from its nature, from its biodiversity as a way of fuelling its economic expansion and industrialization. A big chunk of the widely perceived economic success of the Global North has come from the destruction of its natural resources. So I would strongly advocate for economic policy reforms that lead to the Global North paying their fair share to emerging Global South economies to skip the dirty economic model that we used and try and find a better way. I mean I genuinely believe the Global North owes a massive climate and nature debt to the Global South and I would really emphasize economic policy reforms that put this, this kind of climate and nature justice at the heart of them. Kathleen: When we talk about things getting left out, I think that's such a strong statement. But everything and the episodes were strong statements, so. Neil: But the I mean one of the things that also came through in the series, you know that the polluters should be paying, they should be paying more. They're not doing it. And that's where also one, you know, with the economic system, it's all geared towards growth. Profits are rewarded, financial profits. It's all about generating that and where I do wonder whether if we could change that mindset and rather have a scenario where companies are rewarded, who actually are clean. And that you change the taxation system in that regard and reward that rather than somebody who has huge returns for their investors. But yeah, obviously we're not there yet. Sam: I think some countries are trying to do that essentially that's, I mean the flip side of carbon tax. Neil: Yeah, but beyond carbon tax, obviously, carbon is definitely very important. But I mean, there's other forms of pollution, you know, in terms of, I don't know, plastics or whatever. Sam: And I think it is happening any anyway, I mean like with episode two. I was thinking about that. Te clean energy companies are making money like, that's why they're doing what they're doing ultimately. And you're seeing fossil fuel companies kind of start to freak out a little bit. So yeah, it's probably not going as fast as it needs to, but I think those economic pressures are starting to show up in certain parts of the transition. Neil: The risks are probably growing for that kind of business model. Sam: I mean, and this is an issue that's like getting pushed, pushed on in a non- economic way in the US of like not letting investment companies have ESG funds, environment, social governance funds because they're against these like green funds, but actually they make a lot of sense for investment companies because they don't want stranded assets. But yeah, that's probably a whole new thing. Charli: Yeah, I think self is alluded to some different motivations for a different kind of economic model in episode five. But I think that's another episode as well. Neil: OK, there's one thing that kind of came up in a team meeting yesterday I thought was interesting because we're talking about the protagonists in your series, and particularly the protagonists that you found Charli, right? Very charismatic men called Brent and Mick. Kathleen: From Australia. Neil: From Australia. And I don't know the the reaction from the female colleagues was kind of interesting. Kathleen: Thought the the female contingent got a bit swoony and... Charli: Oh really? What happened? Kathleen: Well, I'm going to take myself out of that one, actually, because I think no offense. No, Bt I I had a moment in the meeting where I zoned out for a second, then all of a sudden there were two female colleagues who were kind of swooning about these men, and I was like, what is going on? Do you have any insights into what was going on? Charli: Well, you heard that voices. Sam: Some rugged Australian. Charli: Rugged Auzzie blokes as I described them. Yeah, I don't know what to say about that. Neil: How was it meeting these guys? Kathleen: I must say I was enormously pleased when I first heard their voices on the phone and I thought, yeah, this is going to work out very well. And I did say to Brent, at the end of our interview, I said, 'Has anyone ever told you that you're made for radio your voice?' And he was like, 'It's been mentioned a few times.' Neil: Well, he had this very deep voice, which was really, really, I mean, it was. It was quite amazing listening to it. I do remember listening to it was really, really nice. Everybody is to go back into the podcast feed, wherever you get your podcast and check this out. Mick and Brent, my two favorite voices on, you know the whole series. Kathleen: Even Neil was swooning. Charli: Not just the women were swooning. Kathleen: It's Pedro Pascal level swooning. No, but I have a question for you, Sam, actually, I don't know how to phrase this in a polite way, but going back to Florida, what really struck me was these people are living in a very dangerous place. I, too, have lived in Florida. What the heck is going on with Floridians that they're so happy despite all these hurricanes? Sam: That's a good question. I mean, I am someone who doesn't mind winter, but I will say that like people who live there, have a real aversion to what they call, I guess, bad weather, although I think they have some bad weather in certain parts of the year, but anything cold, anything like under certain temperature? Yeah, they want to be able to not have to turn their heat on. So I guess it's yeah, just a certain part of the population is looking for that sunny beach lifestyle, which I kind of get but yeah. Kathleen: Yeah, I don't know. It just it really struck me. I mean, in a way it's nice, but at the same time, I just thought, what is it with Floridians? Sorry, I feel like I can say that because I used to live there. Neil: You used to live there. You didn't like it there then? Kathleen: Well, I have, like Northern European skin and very frizzy hair. It was a nightmare going through puberty in Florida. Charli: So you have to move over the other side of the world. Kathleen: There's a longer story to happen. No, at that age it was not my decision when and where to move. Charli: This is a good time to ask for follow up questions episode. Kathleen's puberty journey. Neil: So, you know, having done this series now and just on a final note with with hindsight, with all the facts you've accumulated, all the knowledge you've gained and also all the things that we just talked about that didn't make it into the series, I mean, what would you say, is the main element that gives you hope that we can actually turn this all around because a lot of the indicators suggest we're still going in the wrong direction. Charli: Yeah. I definitely have mixed feelings at the end of it, because I think as we explore, there's a lot of devastation that's already occurred and that's underway and a lot more of it is locked in because of the climate change that's locked in because of the emissions that we've already released. But doing the series as well highlighted that it's clear we're not out of ideas for solutions. There are plenty of solutions out there, a lot of the the main ones we need we already have and I'm pretty confident we'll come up with more and I'm also, always, hopeful speaking to people who are devoting their lives to, to working on this, to working on change. Sam: I think you might be more hopeful than I am, but I will say this series and why I find reporting on climate so interesting is because it's such a multi-faceted, super complex topic. I mean, it's just got so many elements going on and for me this added kind of a whole new world of the economic elements to it. But from that perspective, it's just a giant puzzle that we have to figure out, but I also I guess what gives me hope is, you know, we are to our knowledge kind of the most intelligent creature that's ever been on this planet. And we made this problem. So, we should be smart enough to figure it out. Again, I don't know that I'm totally hopeful that we'll do so, but. Charli: I didn't say we I didn't say we would, but we could. Sam: Yeah, but I think one take away from me was also just thinking about those different possible futures, the heat episode and thinking about, you know, my own life down the road and being an older person dealing with heat and where do I want to live and do I need to think about that and how will our cities be built in the future, yeah, is something that definitely stayed with me after the series. Charli: Did anything give you two hope? Kathleen: Well actually I I tend to agree with you. I mean, I think hearing from people who are working on solutions who have a great deal of expertise and a lot of passion that goes into that work, it does make me feel more hopeful because it's a huge reminder that there are people out there who they do know what they're doing. They're creative, they're innovative and it is very much a matter of political will [mispronounces]. Will , sorry from the South. It is very much a matter of political will and, I think also talking about it, it's something I feel like comes up a lot in our reporting, the more you talk to people and also take the time to talk with basically anybody you can about these subjects, it's noticeable that most people aren't completely apathetic it could just be a situation where they don't think that it affects their lives, but I think once you start engaging in these topics more and more comes out and to me, that's what makes me feel more optimistic. And yeah, and hearing from these people who do have solutions. Sam: Actually coming off of that political will is something I've also been thinking a lot about after this and, unfortunately, I think that's what makes me not so hopeful is, at least in most countries, that political will is still not there. But actually reporting on this series and talking about economics, just to kind of bring it back to the core of the series is something people do really think about and do vote on and I think, if we can frame these issues not as, you should make this change in your life or you should you know, support this government, yeah, position just to sacrifice, like. No, you should do this because it's in your economic interest and it's in like your long term economic interest and your short-term depending on you know your situation and where you live so I think, that needs to be integrated actually into more climate reporting. Kathleen: Yeah, but I think it's, it's already getting that way for some voters because, you know, when you experience these disasters repeatedly, you can't explain away every single thing. And in terms of political will, I would disagree in terms of the voter base, because you could talk about national level politics in many countries and there's seeming to be a lack of political will. But I think what we saw happen over just the course of a short period of time with Friday for Future actually a lot of people care a lot and you can change people's minds. I think much faster than than we sometimes admit, but, but then the question is holding people's attention and also when they're having to deal with so many problems at the same time, I think we're all dealing with a certain level of overwhelm and and being aware of that, but yeah, the political will is tricky also because like Green Party, politics can become messy if the party itself doesn't work. But the concept is something that the voters want. But I see that a little more optimistically that I know what you mean, but. Neil: The one thing I find really comforting about the whole thing, and I totally get it with the political issue being the main problem, and something that is really worrying, but I find a lot of comfort in maths. And the figures that you have there, you know, if the maths were stacked against us, then I would be depressed. Then I would really think, OK, but we haven't got a chance in hell to sort this out. But I think we do. And you had some really good examples there where, for instance, if we were to shift on the subsidies, what are we subsidizing? Take the things that are harmful, that are being subsidized and use that for a clean energy transition. I just have to look at my notes because you had a very striking figure here and it was based on the International Monetary Fund reports. And it found that $7 trillion of fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 alone were paid. And that is more than enough to cover the roughly 2 to 4 trillion per year that we would need to transition our energy system. That's huge. That's fantastic news. Yeah. The only thing that's missing is the political will to make that happen. But the maths I find, that's what I took away. I drew hope from that. Sam: Yeah. And people just realizing that, you know, the political will is only going to come if people are aware of that in the first place. Charli: Yeah. And I think that's part of what we wanted to do with this series and want to continue to do is to draw this link between climate change and the cost of living. Why are things expensive? Why does this cost me more? Kathleen: Well, great job and yeah, we look forward to more of this in the future. Neil: Well, I would just say whoever hasn't listened to the series yet. Go back episode one in our podcast Feed, Apple Podcast, Spotify wherever you get them and yeah, go through the whole series. Listen to it back to back. Charli: No skipping an episode.
